See Preface of XV:

http://www.irr.org/mit/boc/1833boc-p34.html

Compare with Preface of the XLIII

http://www.irr.org/mit/d&c/1835dc-p172.html

I think you are inferring a false dichotomy between Matthias and Paul. To be honest I do not see it as a real issue. To my mind there callings came through different mechanisms and they were in their place at different times. I do not fully know which twelve will judge who but it does not appear to me to be a central issue to the question at hand.

The phrase HP is not used after Christ came to the Church in the BoM, but I have no reason to believe that the HP was removed from leading the Church after Christ. Moreover, Christ is often referred to as a HP in the NT in the epistles. Sometimes in a way that is synonymous with being an apostle. Suggesting to me that, it is at least possible, that Apostles are HP. Paul refers to HP called from among men in Heb 5.

But to be honest this is all moving away from anything constructive and very far from what I am interested in, but thanks anyway for your comments.

When Jesus said the “twelve apostles” would judge the twelve tribes of Israel AND the Nephite twelve disciples, which, pray tell “twelve” will that be? With Paul called “by Jesus,” or Matthias called “by men?”

Regarding HP, did they exist after Jesus, in either the NT or the Holy BoM?

#26 – There are many times Jesus did not answer prayers in the flesh in the NT and BoM. I always see the process of casting lots as random (like voting) but that does not mean that they did not ask first and get an answer. You are inferring things about the text that aren’t there. Moreover, they clearly discussed the issue together.

Elders are used (see Al 4:7; 6:1; Moro 3-6) But so are HP (see Msh 23:16; 26:7; Al 4:4; Al 13)

The act of “casting lots” is akin to playing “rock, paper, scissors” and was random.

Jesus PERSONALLY answered prayers IN THE FLESH to his disciples in the NT and the BoM, why couldn’t the apostles receive an answer the same way?

Btw, HP do not occur in either the New Covenant church of the NT or the BoM.

#21 – This whole issue needs to be used more. It is not used in this way in our ward/stake. But that is because I resist all titles anyway.

#22 – I think they did ask, that is the process described in acts 1. the current leadership certainly ask. Maybe I am wrong but I do not remeber elder being used in BoM but HP certainly is, and regularly.

#23 – Thanks. Nepotism to an extent. but what about Alvin R. Dyer. Moreover, Slyvester Cannon was caleld after his father had died and his influenced diminished. I wonder whether blessings were a factor. For example, Joseph F. was promised that he would be an apostle. BY probably knew about this and therefore fulfilled the prophecy. I wonder whether the same is true for others. I agree that the FP, and its relation to the is not clear and is certainly a modern Church idea. I think it grew out of Joseph’s desire to sit above the High Council and the Twelve when they were competing and he was unsure how it would play out. Perhaps it is not necessary, but it is certainly scriptural now.

Had they ASKED Jesus would have REPLIED.

The title “Elder” is not a cultural left over, but maybe a doctrinal left over. “Elder” was the highest church office in the NT church, BoM church, and early LDS church.

In our ward we refer to the female leadership as President…, I must admit that due to my awkwardness I struggle with it, in ward council our clerk asked for President Jones to read something, without thinking I started to say I didn’t think Mark was… I stopped myself mid sentence ouch.. I felt like such a plum.

I think many of the titles we use are cultural and not a title. The General Authorities generally aren’t “Elders” but High Priests or Apostles as you mentioned. We also call the president of the YM organization “President” but the president of the YW organization “Sister”. Yet another cultural left-over.

I think Alvin yer was a HP, because the First Quorum of Seventy was not formed and he was admitted into it when it was created. but he may well have been one of the Presidency of the seventy before his ordination to the apostleship.

#17 – I think you raise interesting point, which is why i find the different types of apostolic calling interesting. From an organizational point of view I can certainly see why it is dangerous to wait for God to call someone to be an apostle, like Paul. Because you could get all types saying they are called. However, I think there is something to be said about that process. The problem for a Church (if it wants to maintain stability and a fixed number in the quorum) is how do we control these experiences. Now that is of course problematic but I can see the motivation.

I think the Elders thing is a culture rather than an actual title.

“Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages”

Kinda like the misunderstanding on how the Book of Mormon was translated “you must study it out in your heart and mind…”

First off, we know apostles WERE called who DID NOT experience what Joseph said.

Second, those who did have that experience, were never called “apostles” by God or Jesus, let alone a church.

In other words, they’re not synonymous, as you have stated.

————-

The first error that crept into the NT church was man-called apostles. We may recall that the original twelve apostles have a special calling that goes beyond their public ministry and includes judging.

The apostles at Jerusalem took it upon themselves to fill the vacancy when they should have ASKED FIRST. Notice how Jesus did fill the vacancy by calling Paul HIMSELF!

————–

We have the Book of Mormon as our pattern for churches outside of the time and place of Israel, in which Jesus did NOT call apostles, but he did call disciples.

[On a similar note, why are Mormon GA's called "Elders" when they are not?]

When I get home tonight I will get the list together and send it.

Rico and Don,

The article about John Willard is in Dialogue by Todd Compton. Young ordained four sons. John Willard first in 1855(?) at the age of 11, Brigie Jr. and Joseph A. in 1864 and reaffirmed John W., and Brigham Heber at a later date.

On your #10 question. This is more a question about authority. This is the difficult part that I was alluding to. Authority in the first ten years makes little to no sense to me. Apostles were Elders without a High Priesthood or High Priest. The BofM is at best confusing about the subject. I recall someone suggesting their were three types of Apostles but I cannot find the source for the life of me. What I recall was 1. witness, like the three and eight witnesses. If you add Joseph Smith you have twelve. 2. calling of Elder, Orson Pratt is the example for this, and 3. Charismatic, an angel or God himself giving an ordination, vision or calling. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are the examples of this calling.

Since Smith’s death I know of no callings in the LDS church outside of ordination. I believe since John Taylor all Apostles have been High Priest; but Alvin Dyer may have been a Seventy. Even the members of the First Quorum of Seventy is a High Priest first before the setting apart. Mike Quinn told me he knew of one exception, unfortunately he would not name the person.

#12 – Jacob Hamblin is an interesting case, and one I had not considered. I thought I had included John W. Young. I am not sure why now, but thanks for bringing that up. If members of the first presidency are not apostles they are not considered to be apostles but are set-apart as prophets seers and revelators.

#13 – John W. Young, Joseph Angell Young and brigham Young Jr. are the three you are refering to but I am not sure about there respective ages. I will check.

I wouldn’t assume from the examples you give, like Ammon, that people were not ordained. Alma the elder did ordain teachers (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/25/19#19). These teachers also could have included the sons of Mosiah and his son Alma.

Also, ordaining someone to an office of the Priesthood has never, in the church, put someone in a quorum. For example, there are perspective elders who are in my ward’s elder’s quorum. They currently do not even hold the Melchizedek Priesthood or any office therein. They are in the quorum though and it is even listed as such in MLS (The records of the church). This is also true for adults who have never received the Melchizedek Priesthood. My brother, for example, is less active in the church but is around 40 years old. He is on the records of the church as both a teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood and a member of the elder’s quorum. He is not a member of the teacher’s quorum even though his office in the Aaronic Priesthood is that of a teacher.

Also, Jacob Hamblin was ordain “apostle to the indians” and never sat in the Council of the 12. Many claim this title was not a preisthood office, although BY gave it to him in a priesthood blessing.

Both Pres. McKay and Kimball had more than 2 counselors in the 1st presidency (4 and 3, repectively) so as recently as the 1980′s the church had more than 15 apostles.

But were they also called as seers and revelators? and were they sustained in General Conference?

Joe, I’d be interested in your reading list clark[at]icfmag[dot]com

#9 – I am pretty sure that he merely visits with that quoum for the sake of convenience now that the seventies have been moved out of stake jurisdiction. Moreover, although I understand what your saying about the first presidncy, they by default return to it when the presidency is dissolved, unless they are not an apostle in which case they return to what quorum they previously met with and so the example is not exactly similar.

I am surprised that no one has countered my point about priesthood power being separate from ordination, even to the point that it can precede it. It that you can be an apostl without being ordained.

Authors from Quinn, Reed Durham, Todd Compton, Greg Prince, Gary Bergera, Ron Walker and many more, have grappled with this subject. The histories of the Apostles, Quorum of Twelve and Succession are intertwined. Much of what I write is by memory, so forgive me if I make a mistake.

Greg Prince lists twelve Apostles before the 1835 ordination. These include Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt and David Whitmer. Gary Bergera, Reed Durham and Mike Quinn deal with the realignment of the Twelve in 1877 with John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff moving ahead of Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde. Some authors have dealt with the realignment of the twelve with Brgham Young Jr. being placed after Joseph F. Smith, even though Young was ordained an Apostle before Smith and Young had always been ahead of him in Quorum meetings. Ron Walker and others have dealt with Heber Grant wanting Joseph F. Smith moved ahead of Wilford Woodruff in the Twelve. Prince has worked on the Apostle callings during David O. McKay’s tenure. I believe McKay ordain a few more Apostles that just Alvin Dyer.

If anyone one is interested in reading about this subject, I would be more than happy to send a list of reading material.