 |
| So this picture is a little misleading for the content of my article... |
"An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons, etc." (June 27, 1839) [5 years to the day of Joseph's martyrdom]
From November 1838 to April 1839, Joseph Smith was held captive in jail. Charged with crimes of which he was innocent. Suffering in this capacity largely as a result of the Latter-Day Saints inability to get along, (See D&C 101:4-7) Joseph gained resolve to do what had alluded him before. To teach -not according to what men would pick and choose, but rather according to what God wanted done in the restoration that He had originally planned for the Latter-Day Saints. (see Moses 6:3-7)
3 months after absconding from the Missouri law that had improperly held him prisoner, Joseph began teaching boldly. In a council meeting with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph taught about Faith, and how one can only receive it by hearing the message given to a messenger sent by God!
He taught that repentance was not something that should be practiced daily as are our daily transgressions. He taught that Baptism was the channel by which the Holy Ghost would be given. He taught that one must be COMPLETELY (wholly/entirely/without exception, etc.) righteous in order to have the ability to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
He taught that the Gift of Tongues was not necessary to preach or practice to the church, because whosoever has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, can speak in his own language and accomplish the same thing as what is done by preaching with the Gift of Tongues! (This would have been especially hard to stomach for many of the Christians they were preaching to, who accepted the gift of tongues as THE ONLY means by which one could know they had been Born Again.)
He taught that repentance was not something that should be practiced daily as are our daily transgressions. He taught that Baptism was the channel by which the Holy Ghost would be given. He taught that one must be COMPLETELY (wholly/entirely/without exception, etc.) righteous in order to have the ability to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.
He taught that the Gift of Tongues was not necessary to preach or practice to the church, because whosoever has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, can speak in his own language and accomplish the same thing as what is done by preaching with the Gift of Tongues! (This would have been especially hard to stomach for many of the Christians they were preaching to, who accepted the gift of tongues as THE ONLY means by which one could know they had been Born Again.)
He taught that Resurrection and Eternal Judgement were of the first PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL that should be preached when missionaries go out to exhort people.
Then he started teaching things about which he had previously touched on but never had been very bold. He taught of having ones calling and election made sure. That not only was such a possibility but that after it occurred you then could have the opportunity if not only the obligation to have Christ come to you (Himself, in the flesh!) and minister to you. That Christ would bring you to the Father and vouch for you there just as He said He would. (See Matt 10:32; also Luke 9:26)
Joseph taught that the influence of the Holy Ghost, was not feeling felt through your emotions, but rather strokes of ideas that come to each and every one of us. That by being obedient to these ideas, one would grow in light until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.
Joseph taught that the influence of the Holy Ghost, was not feeling felt through your emotions, but rather strokes of ideas that come to each and every one of us. That by being obedient to these ideas, one would grow in light until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.
Focal Point
All of that leading to his final point: Evangelists...?
This may surprise you, as it did me. However, there is a wise reason that I had never noticed to this, and in order to understand it, you must take in the topic in its entirety.
In order to do just that, you must first understand that our best interpretations of the word Evangelist simply means a preacher. Which is no doubt important. But Joseph didn't emphasize that point AT ALL!! He instead seems to create his own definition for that word, by changing it to mean a Patriarch...bold teaching, indeed?
Furthermore this is not the first time that the idea came up. I won't pretend that I know when it first arrived in the teachings of Joseph, but I do know it landed before June 1839. In fact my first finding of the teaching is nearly 4 years earlier! However, when revealing it Joseph didn't overtly point out what was being taught at all.
As a result of this indirect teaching, I have always glossed over the teaching as if it was just some random thought that had nothing to do with the context that followed. So as to give you a more clear understanding to what I refer, I will quote some of the revelation (see D&C 107:39-57) that came to Joseph about the matter.
It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam...
What follows is a relation of what that order of priesthood (evangelical) looks like in a practical, real world application. It starts with Adam. He ordains his son (Seth) to this order of priesthood, (when Seth is 69 years old) and later blesses him just three years before his [Adam's] death.
Which should cause us to wonder: what does the blessing of Seth by Adam 3 years before Adam's death have to do with the ordination by Adam of Seth, when Seth is 69?
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we have grown accustomed to receiving what we call 'blessings.' These blessings can and are given for any number of reasons. Sickness, preparation, callings, insight, strength, etc. However in the modern church they are only given by one who has been set apart, (by another who has been duly authorized to do so) to hold priesthood.
So if you interpret Adam's blessing of Seth as what is practiced in the LDS church, you may not get how it relates to [the evangelical] order of the priesthood. So going out on a little bit of a ledge I am going to borrow what I believe are the ideas contained in that blessing to demonstrate that what actually happened was something different than what is generally practiced today.
Just after relating the fact that Adam blessed Seth just three years prior to Adam's death, the account we receive from Joseph says, "[Seth] received: the promise of God, (by his father.) That his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth"
The night that Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, to relate to him the location and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he gave to him a reworded prophesy originally found in the Book of Malachi. That prophesy states that because there is some group that is coming; when they come they shall burn up everyone on the earth. That is however, if there is not a group who has the hearts of the fathers turned to them and they to their fathers. (See Joseph Smith History 1:37-39)
What is worse, however than being burned up when this group comes, is that as a result of the burning; those who are burned shall have neither root nor branch left to them!
For many this may seem as if it is a scare tactic to get what few who will believe to fall in line. However, what we find here is that it is an integral part of the Lord's promises that He invariably gives to those whom He blesses. This is what we find in the account of Adam's blessing to his son Seth, regarding his posterity being found on the earth, at its end. He shall not be one left without root nor branch.
Such a promise is not made by some hope that Adam has that such should be the case. It is a prophecy made by Adam, while under the administered comfort of the Lord which was given to him at that time (three years previous to Adam's death.)
As an aside I have heard that that comfort, administered by the Lord to Adam, was that he was made young instantly so as to be able to prophesy all that should befall his posterity even until the very end. The account doesn't state that. As I understand that comfort it is not youthfulness, but rather the comfort that comes from gaining a promise from the Lord regarding ones own salvation and the salvation of those whom you love (i.e. Adam's posterity.)
So returning to the order of priesthood that Joseph described as evangelical, what we find is that this order of priesthood consisted in Adam's ability to ordain and then bless his son with promises given to him by God regarding his son's posterity.
What follows from there is a relation of how there was at least one in each succeeding generation from Adam down to Methuselah, that also were ordained, and then blessed. What is unique about this, is that each generational head from Adam, was blessed and ordained by Adam instead of by his natural (biological) father. That is down to Lamech.
Lamech received his ordination from Seth. That is probably because Adam had already died when Lamech was thirty-two years old and was ready to be ordained. That made Seth the next in line to perform the ordinations. Despite the presence of 7 other priests, -one of which was Lamech's very own father- who had been ordained, blessed and given the promise of God, Seth was the one to whom this duty fell. ( See D&C 132:7, also re-read the quote at the top of this post.)
Law Of Witnesses
So we find once that Joseph testifies of this order of priesthood in the which he associates it with Evangelists. Then we find the Lord testifying of it in another revelation given through Joseph. But what about the origin of the word? Evangelists were discussed by both Luke and Paul in the New Testament, but in our best translations we don't find either author giving that word anything relating to something touching patriarchy.
Or do we? Let's look at the examples.
2 Timothy 4:2-6 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."
Here we find Paul first exhorting Timothy to Preach the word; and to exhort with...doctrine. Later giving the commendation to do the work of an evangelist, Paul seems to correlate more with our interpretations of evangelism than what is contained in D&C 107.
I am going to show how Paul's use of the word evangelist and Joseph's really isn't different. It will be through the process of examining each use of that word and the context around it, but before we get to that point I want to show how the qualities of an evangelist exhorted by Paul here is of one who possesses already sound doctrine. Which is opposite to those who heap to themselves teachers who satisfy their itching ears. Which teachers, turn away their ears from the truth and unto fables instead.
It is for this reason that Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. This because Paul's time is at hand. He seems to be saying that because he is no longer going to be able to do this work, Timothy needs to step up. What is extra interesting to consider is the exhortation to Timothy to make FULL PROOF of thy ministry. How is it that one can make FULL proof of their ministry as a preacher, if that is all that is meant by the term evangelist?
Next citation:
Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This can be a fast examination. Paul is demonstrating that evangelists are an important part of the church. That they are given in addition to the other officers, for the perfecting of the saints.
In other words, that perfecting of the saints can not be had without anyone of the body parts listed.
Otherwise we are still as children(?) tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. By the sleight of men and cunning craftiness. Whereby the enemy to our souls lies in wait to deceive...
Next citation:
Acts 21:8
And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
This seeming small verse contains a fairly difficult to understand teaching. Is Philip an evangelist as a result of being one of 'The Seven?' Or is he an evangelist and also one of 'The Seven?'
To gain some clarity I will demonstrate what is being referenced by this group of Seven
Acts 6:1-7
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
So what we find is that there was a murmuring among the disciples. The poor among them were being neglected. In this their conundrum, they believed that the God appointed method they should follow was appointing seven among them, by the voice of the people, who were full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom to this business. Now beyond their being dedicated to this caring for the poor and needy, something else happened. The word of God increased. The number of disciples multiplied.
A GREAT company of priests were obedient to the faith.
Why seven? How does God's Word increase? Why were the numbers of disciples multiplied? Why did those who were priests suddenly decide to be obedient? These milestones may certainly have been accomplished by the unburdening of the Apostles of the Lord to go out teaching instead of 'waiting on tables.' But to me the text denotes a direct corollary with the laying on of hands on the Seven, and the increasing of the word of God, the multiplying of the disciples and the priests being obedient to the faith.
So why did they choose seven of these ministers to their poor and needy? This is where I want to make the connection with Joseph's revelation of the Seven High Priests who are associated with being Evangelists or evangelical ministers (See D&C 107: 39, 53) Certainly the ancient scriptures which were at most 4,000 years removed from their time, were more plentiful to the New Testament Church than they are to us, being 6,000 years removed. Were they attempting to duplicate the same thing which they saw in scripture? Did they understand what Joseph understood?
If you interpret that Philip was such a great preacher that he was known as an evangelist and just happen to also be one of this group called The Seven, then I would like to ask you why, when the Apostles recognized the need for preaching among the people, did they remove one who was known as such a great preacher, to instead go, 'wait on tables?'
Were the apostles acting out of jealousy? Seeking to put up their own authority so as to keep people from hearing the word of God, from one who was known to preach it so plainly, so boldly that he had a title affixed to his name of PREACHER?
Or as common sense lies in the low, green valley, should we let the text inform us that these seven were now called to a position that in and of itself was what they understood to be evangelical? That would mean that #1 they could preach the word of God, because as Paul stated to the Romans, they had been sent by God (see Romans 10:14-16); and #2 an evangelist is one who has an assigned duty to care for the poor among the people of God.
A father of many nations. Why that is a very similar expression to the one promised by Adam to Seth that we read earlier. If Seth is promised that his seed shall last to the end of the earth, then certainly that will encompass many nations. Yet, beyond the confines of this mortal realm, I get the feeling that the many nations being expressed here has more celestial boundaries.
Abraham wanted to be one of these fathers that he read about, but which are not available to him for some reason. So he saw that he had to find a new residence so as to make that connection with the fathers possible.
Which is what he did next. He set out, following the voice of God that the Lord would fulfill to him this desire to be a greater follower of righteousness. On his journey he seeks out a man known to us as Melchizedek.
The bible doesn't contain much of the proceedings of that meeting, only that we know Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. Joseph though, after the experience with Liberty Jail felt it necessary to reveal a portion of the rest of the story:
Shem/Melchizedek having this connection from the fathers through his father Noah, (the son of Lamech discussed above, see D&C 84:14) was the last remaining of the group, known as the father's, on the earth. This is why Abraham can state that he received the rights conferred to the fathers -by God- from the fathers.
He was not posing. He was not feigning. He was not claiming something about which he had no knowledge. He sought out the fathers and received his rightful appointment to that order of the priesthood.
What I find indicative is that Melchizedek, being one of the fathers, was in charge of the storehouse of God, in behalf of the poor. Because of this, Abraham saw it proper to pay tithes to him. Furthermore he was called the king of heaven, BY HIS PEOPLE. You would think that such a title would need to come from God. Yet it his people that we find laying on him this title.
But why king? A king is one who governs. But if Melchizedek and his people were taken into heaven, then shouldn't their king be The King of Heaven? Why are they not condemned for the same idolatry later exhibited by the Israelites in the time of Samuel?
What is peace? What makes peace? Is it that they were able to have no poor among them? Does this only mean poor in the sense of temporal things or does this mean poor in righteousness as well?
I am persuaded to believe that Melchizedek's being called the King of Heaven has more to do with those things than an idea that he is some ruler to whom his people bowed and gave obeisance by rule of a monarch.
In other words it was by the voice of the people in the days of Melchizedek that he was called king and this because he was able to justly have no poor among them. This because of the way in which he administered the storehouse of God, the tithes for the poor, It just so happens that this is the same pattern we find being emulated by the New Testament church in Acts chapter 6.
I have demonstrated that Philip became an evangelist to the church, when he became part of 'The Seven' chosen by the people. Let each find it as persuasive as she chooses. I have demonstrated that the duty of an evangelist is to take care of the poor by assignment. Let each find it as persuasive as he chooses.
What I have not yet done is demonstrate why they chose a name for that office that has as its root definition: preaching. For this let us go back to what I had quoted from Joseph when he was in council with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
Why seven? How does God's Word increase? Why were the numbers of disciples multiplied? Why did those who were priests suddenly decide to be obedient? These milestones may certainly have been accomplished by the unburdening of the Apostles of the Lord to go out teaching instead of 'waiting on tables.' But to me the text denotes a direct corollary with the laying on of hands on the Seven, and the increasing of the word of God, the multiplying of the disciples and the priests being obedient to the faith.
So why did they choose seven of these ministers to their poor and needy? This is where I want to make the connection with Joseph's revelation of the Seven High Priests who are associated with being Evangelists or evangelical ministers (See D&C 107: 39, 53) Certainly the ancient scriptures which were at most 4,000 years removed from their time, were more plentiful to the New Testament Church than they are to us, being 6,000 years removed. Were they attempting to duplicate the same thing which they saw in scripture? Did they understand what Joseph understood?
If you interpret that Philip was such a great preacher that he was known as an evangelist and just happen to also be one of this group called The Seven, then I would like to ask you why, when the Apostles recognized the need for preaching among the people, did they remove one who was known as such a great preacher, to instead go, 'wait on tables?'
Were the apostles acting out of jealousy? Seeking to put up their own authority so as to keep people from hearing the word of God, from one who was known to preach it so plainly, so boldly that he had a title affixed to his name of PREACHER?
Or as common sense lies in the low, green valley, should we let the text inform us that these seven were now called to a position that in and of itself was what they understood to be evangelical? That would mean that #1 they could preach the word of God, because as Paul stated to the Romans, they had been sent by God (see Romans 10:14-16); and #2 an evangelist is one who has an assigned duty to care for the poor among the people of God.
Connecting The Dots
Rightly, you may like to see some more evidence to support this line of thinking. If the 7 High Priests that were called together by Adam, three years prior to his death, were the original priests after this (evangelical/patriarchal) priesthood, then we begin to get a glimpse of what Abraham was after when reading his account in the Book of Abraham.
Abraham living on the other side of the flood from these original priestly fathers, and as a result he grew up in a world of apostasy. He desired to reach back to the rights of that generation so that he, -like them- could continue this same priesthood lineage that had been promised by God to Adam, through his posterity. This is what we find in the revelation that Joseph gave regarding The Book of Abraham, that has been so widely rejected as of late, by many.
Abraham said, "finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right where unto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the first born, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.
 |
| As many as the sand on the seashore? |
Abraham wanted to be one of these fathers that he read about, but which are not available to him for some reason. So he saw that he had to find a new residence so as to make that connection with the fathers possible.
Which is what he did next. He set out, following the voice of God that the Lord would fulfill to him this desire to be a greater follower of righteousness. On his journey he seeks out a man known to us as Melchizedek.
The bible doesn't contain much of the proceedings of that meeting, only that we know Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek. Joseph though, after the experience with Liberty Jail felt it necessary to reveal a portion of the rest of the story:
JST Genesis 14: 36-38 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace. And he lifted up his voice, and he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, (being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God; him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.)
Now, most of Historic Christianity either has no idea who Melchizedek was, or they accept that Melchizedek was Shem. Among Latter-Day Saints, there is dispute. I believe Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah. Having lived 98 years on the other side of the flood, Shem would have been acquainted with these fathers that Abraham wanted to be associated with. Which is why Abraham looks him up. Shem/Melchizedek having this connection from the fathers through his father Noah, (the son of Lamech discussed above, see D&C 84:14) was the last remaining of the group, known as the father's, on the earth. This is why Abraham can state that he received the rights conferred to the fathers -by God- from the fathers.
He was not posing. He was not feigning. He was not claiming something about which he had no knowledge. He sought out the fathers and received his rightful appointment to that order of the priesthood.
What I find indicative is that Melchizedek, being one of the fathers, was in charge of the storehouse of God, in behalf of the poor. Because of this, Abraham saw it proper to pay tithes to him. Furthermore he was called the king of heaven, BY HIS PEOPLE. You would think that such a title would need to come from God. Yet it his people that we find laying on him this title.
But why king? A king is one who governs. But if Melchizedek and his people were taken into heaven, then shouldn't their king be The King of Heaven? Why are they not condemned for the same idolatry later exhibited by the Israelites in the time of Samuel?
What is peace? What makes peace? Is it that they were able to have no poor among them? Does this only mean poor in the sense of temporal things or does this mean poor in righteousness as well?
I am persuaded to believe that Melchizedek's being called the King of Heaven has more to do with those things than an idea that he is some ruler to whom his people bowed and gave obeisance by rule of a monarch.
In other words it was by the voice of the people in the days of Melchizedek that he was called king and this because he was able to justly have no poor among them. This because of the way in which he administered the storehouse of God, the tithes for the poor, It just so happens that this is the same pattern we find being emulated by the New Testament church in Acts chapter 6.
 |
| I was going to use a picture of Joel Osteen ™ but figured I'd probably get sued...so here's this 'evangelical' ministry. |
Evangelical Ministry
What I have not yet done is demonstrate why they chose a name for that office that has as its root definition: preaching. For this let us go back to what I had quoted from Joseph when he was in council with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
Remember that in that discourse Joseph had brought up election. In that he declared that it was possible to elicit from God a promise, "son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazard. then the man will find his calling & Election made sure..."
Among Latter-Day Saints, it has been assumed by many that this would be the end-all, be-all. Rather, from Joseph it seems to be far from the end. After hearing this promise from God, "then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the saints as is recorded in the testimony of St John in the 14th chapter from the 12th to the 27 verses :
Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses.
(16.vs) ...I will pray the father & he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
(17) Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you & shall be in you.
(18) I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you
(21) He that hath my commandments & keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. & he that loveth me shall be loved of my father & I will love him & will manifest myself to him
(23) If a man Love me he will keep my words. & my Father will love him. & we will come unto him, & make our abode with him.
¶ Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more or less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself & this is the sum & substance of the whole matter, that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time."
"even [Jesus, our Lord] will manifest the Father unto him & they will take up their abode with him, & the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him & the Lord will teach him face to face & he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, & this is the state & place the Ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious vision Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St Paul in the third heavens, & all the Saints who held communion with the general Assembly &Church of the First Born &c."
Lets look at something related to that first and then come back to that. Paul said, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"
In the same discourse we have been discussing, Joseph stated, "Faith comes by hearing the word of God through the testimony of the Servants of God, that Testimony is always attended by the Spirit of prophecy & Revelation."
Can a man call upon himself to be sent? Can a group of people confer upon a man that he will always be attended by prophecy and revelation? Do you think that being taught by the Lord face-to-face and having a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God would be at all involved with this? Would this make a person full of the Holy Ghost and of Wisdom? How can we know that one is full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom? Does prophecy and revelation have anything to do with that?
Modern Application
Before The Church of Christ (the original name of the Church) was organized, there were already missionaries going out and preaching the gospel. Hyrum Smith, -Joseph's brother- wanted to know if this is what the Lord would have him do. Instead of the preaching, the Lord exhorts Hyrum to first obtain His Word. He was told that after that, he would then have his tongue loosed, then he could have the Lord's Spirit, even the Power of God unto the convincing of men.
Hyrum didn't go out on a mission. He faithfully served the Lord by attending to the needs of the church, those of his younger brother and applied himself to learn the Lord's will. In January of 1841, the office of priesthood AND PATRIARCH was given to Hyrum. Even the Sealing Power about which the Lord had stated only one could hold on the earth at a time, was given to Hyrum. (see D&C 124:91-96) He was to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, as Joseph was!
After his decease, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continued the practice as commanded by revelation, of conferring this priesthood from son to son, in each subsequent generation down from Hyrum; that is until 2013, when the final descendant to hold that office (Eldred G. Smith) from Joseph Smith Sr. (the original holder of that office) passed away, and those who had been commissioned to fill the office, refused to do so.
The Lord declared that after having 'obtained' His word, then a person would be duly enabled and authorized to declare His word. Whatever you might interpret to be contained in this word 'obtained' used by the Lord, you have to concede that this is what Paul had reference to when he said that in order for people to believe, they needed to hear the word of God from a preacher who was 'sent.'
These evangelists, were precisely what was being described by both Paul and Joseph. Having obtained the Word of God, they could preach to others about how to do so for themselves. And following the truth ascribed to have fallen from the mouth of St. Francis of Assisi: they preached the Gospel at all times, and sometimes they even used their words.
 |
| The widow throwing her two mites into the storehouse of God |
Conclusion
I have attempted to teach -according to my understanding- what an Evangelist is. This is according to the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the Holy Scriptures. Being that I am not sent by God to preach to you as were those who have obtained the Word of God for themselves, I can only leave you with what I believe and you get to choose how persuasive you find it to be. I do not have the power to convince men, other than by that persuasion. Sometimes persuasion is enough.
To all the world, I ask: Where are your Evangelists? Where are your Patriarchs? Where is your priesthood passed down from The Fathers to the Children after the Order of the Son of God?
To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I ask: Where are our Patriarchs possessing the Priesthood of the Patriarchs, passed down from Father to Son? Lets read D&C 107:40, and then kindly teach me where that order that God established exists among us.
It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.
For a time we maintained this. It was had in the form of the descendants of Joseph Sr., through Hyrum. Whenever there was one not able to fill the responsibility the next closest kin would fill in, but it was always maintained.
This has now been discontinued in the fourth descendant from Hyrum. (John Smith, Hyrum F. Smith, Hyrum G. Smith, Eldred G. Smith)
An Evangelist is a Patriarch... Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints...
We have maintained the office of Patriarch, but we have not maintained it from father to son as it was confirmed to be so.
That priesthood was given to Hyrum. Hyrum and Joseph were to share the gifts accepted by the church of prophesy, seership, and revelation. However no such mention of sharing is made, and indeed per the conditions set forth in D&C 132:7 such a mention can not be made regarding the office of priesthood that Hyrum received, because only one could posses that office at a time on the earth anyway.
It could be claimed that D&C 132:7 flat out states that Joseph is the one that possesses this power, and being that D&C 132 wasn't transcribed until 1843 it seems to show that this power was still being held by Joseph as of 1843, which is after the revelation in 1841 that confers that same power on Hyrum.
A few things that I would point out:
#1- despite being transcribed in 1843, there is no dispute now that Section 132 was actually received long before 1841. (see the heading to Section 132)
#2- If you want to argue that the revelation states that only Joseph was the one to hold this power in the LAST DAYS, then you must ask yourself if that is the case, how would we have it now?
#3- If you want to claim that Joseph still holds the power, but that it is perpetuated by some mystical virtue of his office in the church, then we must ask, why wasn't that the case with Adam after he died? Remember after he died it was no longer held by him but rather was held by the oldest living descendant of Adam from the chosen line: Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph.
Is there a way to reconcile this? Only if you allow for the fact that Joseph originally held this power, and then in 1841 it was transferred to Hyrum, by the will of God and the desire of Joseph. Remember that the Lord had stated to Joseph that he would have power to appoint another in his stead (See D&C 43:3-4). He did that. It was Hyrum.
Does this have anything to do with The Fathers, mentioned in the prophecy of Malachi, reiterated by Moroni? Perhaps the purpose of an Evangelist/Patriarch in the church is to secure the heart of The Father's to be turned to us. Without that, we are going to be burned; left without root, nor branch.
