The 6th Article of Faith can be interpreted along a continuum. On one extreme you might have a super strict interpretation that holds that Jesus had deacons, teachers, priests, and elders quorums, the whole bit, and on the other side, which I’m more partial to, is that Article of Faith 6 is true in a general sense, with a lot of room for variation for the particulars. There are fundamental offices, like the Quorum of the 12, but beyond those basics there’s a lot of flexibility.
One one hand, given that these offices and what they mean have changed quite a bit even within this dispensation (eg. the Presiding Patriarch, Stake Seventies, etc.), I’m open to a lot of variation across dispensations, so in looking for connections between the early Christians and the restored Church I don’t feel a strong obligation to try to force a square peg into a round hole if that’s what the situation is.
On the other hand, I’m also fine with a particular scholarly opinion on this or that not being drawn in concrete either given that the reliable primary source data that we have on immediate post-resurrection/Pauline Christianity is so incredibly sparse by any standard. Like the myriad creative constellations you can draw from the same few points in the sky, so too can you use these few reliable data points to tell a billion different stories. It’s true that some are more plausible than others given valid criteria and the evidence, but there are still a vast number of options, so the possibility space remains huge.
For example, I know some scholars hold that the lineal transmission of priesthood and office authorities was a later development, and that’s a reasonable academic position to take; however, there are enough allusions to such a thing in the New Testament and ambiguous things like “the laying on of hands,” that I’m putting it in the category of objectively plausible in some context or another even if Paul’s early letters don’t rely on a line of ordination authority for justifying his authority. Of course, even assuming some ordination, which offices and titles in particular were priesthood offices or entailed some transmission of authority is fuzzy, especially during the time period right after Christ but before The Great Apostasy that we Latter-day Saints are most interested in.
So with that, below is my attempt to systematically compare priesthood offices with their analogues in the early Church. One of the benefits of teaching a class at a university is having access to their library, so I’ve been looking into the literature on early Christian Church offices and structure. Obvious caveat, this is not my area of expertise, but I haven’t seen a good systematic take, so this is my attempt. If anybody with more training has any direct, contradictory evidence that any of the below is wrong let me know.
As another caveat, I’m not invoking some kind of appeal to scripture here. The restored Church’s claims are not based on sola scriptura about the early Church community, so while this is a fun exercise I don’t want to make the New Testament, early Church connections out to be more important than they are.
President of the Church
There isn’t much to say here that Catholics haven’t already said. A very reasonable reading of the gospels and Acts places Peter in a position of authority over the apostles, making him the preeminent non-God authority figure on earth, so it’s reasonable to believe in some kind of Peter-like figure over the whole Church; here the analog is the President of the Church.
First Presidency
I can’t chapter and verse the genesis of this idea, but the connection between Peter, James, and John as a trio that were especially set apart from the 12 (e.g. the Mount of Transfiguration) as the “First Presidency” has been made in Church rhetoric before.
Apostle
The Quorum of the 12 was clearly a thing in the early Church, as evidenced by the fact that Judas was replaced to restore the group to its original size. However, later Paul refers to himself as an apostle, and some argue that the title apostle was being used more generically at that point. For example, if Paul had been called and ordained as a member of the 12 to replace one who had died, it seems like he would have mentioned that, but he never does. To get a little edgy and speculative for a minute, maybe Paul’s later life was actually post-Apostasy and by then the formal apostleship and complete Q12 had already been taken from the earth or was in the process thereof, so the term had begun to mean different things (again, edgy, but I’m not dismissing the possibility).
Romans 16 famously (if not somewhat arguably) uses the term “apostle” when referring to Junia (probably a woman’s name) and several other individuals. Maybe these were the replacements for the other members of the 12 who died, who knows, but the general consensus is that he was using the term apostle as distinct from a member of the 12 apostles.
We have experience with this in the Latter-day Saint context, as the office of apostle is technically distinct from membership in the Quorum of the 12, and there are cases in our history when people have been apostles without having been in the Quorum of the 12.
Still, here he may have been using it even more generically, and in later Christianity the term apostle was undoubtedly used in this more general sense. Given that there is some evidence that a woman was referred to as an apostle, “conservative” Latter-day Saints that want to hold that everybody Paul referred to as apostles were set apart to that priesthood office face a catch-22, since that argument would imply that women were not only given the priesthood, but also the apostleship, but ironically this implication would be obviated with “apostle” was used as a more general term given to people who were sent out, which is what I believe the consensus is.
Seventy
This is a group that is mentioned clearly in the New Testament but kind of disappears with the early Church. As far as I can tell Seventies weren’t really much of a thing during the Pauline-era or Clement-era Church, but they were originally assigned to undergo proselytizing duties.
I wonder if the seven assistants to the 12 called in the NT have some kind of connection–historical, theological, whatever, to the seven presidents of the 70 that are the next-highest position after apostle, but I haven’t seen anything explicitly making that connection.
High Priest
This title has its roots in Judaism more than the early Christian Church, although early Christians would respectfully refer to the title “high priest” in homilies even if it wasn’t, as far as we can tell, a thing in the early Christian community.
Elder
My understanding is that in the very, very early Church “elder” (presbuteros) was interchangeable with bishop, but eventually the bishop title began to be used by the top leader, with a committee of elders, patterned after the organization of Jewish synagogues, under him. In that sense “Elder” in the Latter-day Saint context is apropos as assistants to the bishops that still hold leadership roles.
Patriarch
Given the function of patriarchs in the Church the Latter-day Saint connection here is clearly to the Hebrew patriarchs who gave their children blessings more than to the later Christian use of the term to refer to high-ranking bishops.
Bishop
Bart Ehrman makes the point that when Paul appealed to local churches he typically appealed directly to the church members, not to their leaders, suggesting that during the Pauline-era at least the very high Church leaders such as Paul and the 12 often spoke directly to the “laity,” that were largely based out of homes and at this point the multiple layers of administration had not developed.
Still, there are multiple cases in the New Testament of individuals being placed in charge of local congregations, so here the use of “bishop” as being in charge of a congregation is actually closer to the Latter-day Saint office than the Catholic one, where over time the bishop came to be set over multiple congregations and priests.
Priest
I suspect that the Latter-day Saint priest is tied more to the Jewish priest than the early Christian/Catholic one. For one, the early Christian priest, as distinct from a bishop, was a much later development, although in all three contexts the priest is the one who performs the periodic ritual; for us the sacrament, for Catholics the Eucharist, and for Jews the sacrifices.
There is a Catholic structural parallel in that the priest is immediately under the bishop in our sense like it is in the Catholic sense, but given that the Catholic sense developed hundreds of years after Christ, and that “bishop” in an LDS context is very different functionally than a bishop in a Catholic context, I think I’m safe chalking up this parallel to happenstance.
Teacher
This is a Latter-day development. I don’t believe there’s a reference to a “teacher” in terms of an discrete office in the Old or New Testaments, although a teacher as a general role is clearly a thing.
Deacon
In addition to apostle, bishop, and elder, this another position that is well documented in early Christianity. However, “conservatives” face a similar problem with the apostleship above, since there is a case in the New Testament of Paul (somewhat arguably, but my understanding is that the consensus is stronger on this one than it is for Junia above) referring to a woman as a deacon (Phoebe in Romans 16), and 1 Timothy arguably also refers to women deacons. While later and possibly post-Great Apostasy, there is also Roman correspondence (Pliny) at the turn of the century that makes reference to female women deacons.
There has been a lot of ink spilled on whether these deacons were “ordained” or whether the term was also being used in a more general sense. Even if there was some kind of setting apart by the laying on of hands, was it in a priesthood office context or as, say, a non-priesthood helper, like ordaining a Sunday school teacher?
(The Vatican actually commissioned a study on this since their deacons are not priesthood-ordained, so some have suggested that the Catholics could split the baby on female ordination by allowing female deacons but not ordain them to the priesthood). It is very clear that later on in Christianity female deaconesses were a thing, but for our purposes only the earliest, pre-Great Apostasy records are the most relevant, but in general the function of the deacon as an assistant for priests and other hierarchs has well-established precedent in early Christianity.
You have accounted for all the offices in the modern church, but not for the pastors and evangelists in the ancient church.
I know we’re used to it but how we got from „church in…“ to Wards, Branches, and Stakes is interesting. I see the use of Stakes connecting to scripture but Wards makes me think of New Orleans, political bosses, or hospitals. I like the term Branches because it means still growing and alive in my mind.
It’s interesting to me that the English word “priest” was derived from Latin and Greek words for “elder.” Somewhat similarly, the Spanish word for “priest” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is presbítero, and the Spanish word for “elder” is “élder.” In Spanish as well as English, we basically use two separate words for “elder” to refer to two different offices in the priesthood. In Italian, we currently also use “élder” as the translation of “elder” in modern scriptures, but we use “sacerdote,” (also a normal Spanish word) as the translation for “priest.” As a title meaning “elder” in Italian, we use “l’anziano” (the elder) in more-or-less the same way as we use the title “el élder” (the elder) in Spanish.
I liked your thoughts here. For what they are worth, here are a few of mine to toss into the mix. The President of the Church, from the beginning it seems, was always considered to be a Prophet. Jesus said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” When we consider the Aramaic word for Peter (instead of the Greek petros), it is Cephas (some similarity to the High Priest Caiaphas during Jesus’ ministry), also meaning stone, Joseph Smith further defines it for us as a “Seer” (obviously related to our understanding of a “seer-stone”: Joseph Smith Translation, John 1:42. Compare KJV John 1:42. Cephas means “seer” or “stone.” 42 “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas, WHICH IS, BY INTERPRETATION, A SEER, or a stone.”) This only makes sense. The head of the Church on Earth must be spokesman for God on Earth. Like Moses, “And the LORD said unto the Prophet Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh…” (Exodus 7:1) So, to our understanding the Chief Apostle would always be the Prophet and Revelator to the Church. After Peter was martyred it is difficult to say who was next in line of succession, but by the time they were all martyred except for the last one, it is easy to discern who would be the Prophet then: the sole remaining Apostle John! And isn’t that exactly who the Lord sent his message to the Church through at that time, as reflected in the messages to the seven Churches listed in the Revelation of St. John the Divine. John was there speaking as the President of the Church.
Further, since John never has died (yet) it seems logical that he would continue to have the Priesthood authority to pass on. Maybe he withdrew from the world and wasn’t ordaining anyone for thousands of years (the Apostasy), but when he appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (in company with Peter and James) this resumption of Priesthood Ordination would constitute the Restoration and getting things started going again. Joseph and Oliver were ordained as First Elder and Second Elder, after all. And, in the beginning of the restoration they were told that an Apostle is an Elder. They were equivalent. The organization of the Quorum of 12 Apostles again in our time didn’t come about until after the Church had been organized for almost five years. Meanwhile the Elders or Apostles (“messengers” of the Lord) were being sent out on missions all over the place. When the Quorum of 12 were first reestablished in our time, it was more an organization than an ordination, establishing order of governing in the Church. Who laid hands on the 12 and set them apart? The three witnesses, who all had been ordained (with most of the other brethren in the Church) as Elders (Apostles). How could the Witnesses give something to the 12 that the Witnesses didn’t already have? For that matter, the 12 all had been previously ordained Elders (Apostles) but were now simply being set apart for a special function as members of the Quorum of the 12. In the early days, there wasn’t always that great of distinction made between “ordination” and “setting apart.” That was clarified as a policy later on. In other words they had the authority already, but Joseph Smith turned the keys so they could function in this new order.
As another aside on this theme, here’s another fun fact: Egyptologist John Gardner Wilkinson declares, “the various orders of priests [in ancient Egypt] ranked according to their peculiar office. The chief or high priests held the first and most honourable station; but the one who offered sacrifice and libation in the temple had the highest post. HE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CALLED ‘THE PROPHET,’ and his title in the hieroglyphic legends is ‘Sem.’” [SEM is the equivalent name known to us as SHEM, THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST] “The duty of the prophet,” Wilkinson continued, “was to be fully versed in all matters relating to religion, the laws, the worship of the gods, and the discipline of the whole priesthood; HE PRESIDED OVER THE TEMPLE AND THE SACRED RITES… The mysteries were also distinguished into the greater and the less.” [KIND OF LIKE A LOWER AND HIGHER PRIESTHOOD AND LEVEL OF ORDINANCES] (for more on the Egyptian connections feel free to consult the author’s work at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vIveJ_ARSddweTFyWImhE-7lReozQpZP/view?pli=1) or, see a simplified version of this PDF in video form at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FwGtDVXJMo
Now, Seventies: Of course we know that 70 Elders of Israel went up with Moses and saw God. That body continued down to the time of Christ as the Sanhedrin. The Catholics must have recognized that because finally by 1587 “Sixtus V set the maximum number of cardinals at 70 in imitation of the 70 chosen by Moses (Exodus 24:1) and by Jesus (Luke 10:1).” The Roman Catholics may have lost the tradition of retaining a Quorum of 12 Apostles, and some of the details of the tradition of the original 70 Elders (shall we say Apostles?) called by Jesus, but the Orthodox Catholic Church certainly retained greater knowledge of them, including for the most part, many of their names. In Wikipedia, under the heading “SEVENTY APOSTLES” we find several variant lists of who they were, including such notables as the Gospel writers Mark and Luke and Barnabas and Joseph Barsabas called Justus (who was the other disciple nominated to fill Judas Iscariot’s vacant position which was filled by Matthias).
It appears that the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, in the ordination to the office of an Elder, was the complete Priesthood. The First Elder, thereafter can organize the rest however he chooses, including the calling of High Priest, Ward Seventy, Stake Missionaries, Teacher, Deacon, or whatever, and can change at as he feels inspired. Upon this Rock (a living Prophet) I will build my Church.
@ Last Lemming: Good point, I seem to recall somebody making the connection between “Evangelist” and our current position of patriarch, but I’m not sure where I go that, but there’s a footnote to the Topical Guide entry on “Patriarch” over the word “evangelist” in the A of F. Similarly, “pastor” has a footnote leading to the topical guide entry on “bishop,” which makes sense.
@RL: I might be wrong, but I get the sense that “wards,” “stakes,” “branches,” and “areas” kind of grew organically out of organizational needs, with a few vague references in the D&C, which is fine. How exactly different levels of organization are nested into others is something that I could see being flexible as the Church grows and develops as an institution. For example, I believe the difference between “bishop” and “presiding bishop” became more salient as the Church grew and there were more bishops.
@Kamschron: I vaguely remember wondering why, on my mission in Spain, presbitero is used for “priest,” but “high priest” is “sumo sacerdote,” when by extension you would think we’d just use “sacerdote” for priest. I was told it was to avoid confusion with Catholic priests but I assume there’s a deeper linguistic rationale given that Italian uses “sacerdote.”
Tom McKnight: Thanks for the insight; I didn’t know about the JST of that passage in John. And I completely forgot about the 70 Elders of Moses and the Sanhedrin. That, obviously, has some parallel with the NT and current 70s.
Good stuff Stephen.
To make explicit what you’ve referred to, the original Greek words for some of the priesthood offices had everyday meanings just like “teacher” in English today. The original Greek word for “deacon” just means “servant” and the original Greek word for “apostle” just means “one who is sent.” Someone who concluded Latter-Day Saints ordain women to priesthood offices because they found instances of us referring to women as teachers would be making a mistake. Paul called Phoebe a “deacon” of the church, but it’s unclear whether he was referring to a priesthood office or her service.
I’m no Greek scholar, but I’m told the Greek description of Junia is as ambiguous as the KJV translation: it’s consistent with both “Junia is an apostle who is well known [presumably to church members in general]” and “Junia is not an apostle but is well-known to the apostles.”
If the Church received a revelation tomorrow authorizing women to be ordained to priesthood offices, I presume they would direct that all worthy women be ordained immediately (just like Black men in 1978). I don’t know that they’d release half the bishops, stake presidents, etc. so women could be called in their places, but over a period of decades (and the New Testament covers decades) I’d expect to see large numbers of women leaders. This would leave an unambiguous paper trail. If the New Testament Church was allowed to ordain women to priesthood offices, I’d expect to see more than two extremely ambiguous references to women in those offices–especially given the prominent roles women did play in the New Testament Church (just as they do in the Church today).
I’m all in favor of scratching beneath the surface in the scriptures and rediscovering what women did in them, but I think the preponderance of the evidence is against women holding priesthood offices in the New Testament.
@ RLD: Those are all good points, but to steelman their argument a bit I think the counterargument would be that the early female leadership in the earliest Church was repressed by the time we started getting a more solid paper trail. Of course the patriarchy swooping down and destroying a primordial Edenic, egalitarian church is a little pat and convenient for the ideological predispositions of those of the largely liberal protestant bent making such arguments, but just because it’s pat doesn’t mean it might not be true. Although of course anybody can shoehorn any narrative they want into the vacuum that is left once we’ve accounted for all the solid data points…
That’s fair and, as Stephen Fleming is reminding us, our theology has room for things to have been removed from the scriptures for malicious reasons. But it shifts the argument from “The New Testament shows the early Church was ordaining women” to “The early Church could have been ordaining women even though there isn’t evidence for it in the New Testament.” That raises the question of what positive evidence exists that women were being ordained.
Compare with the hypothesis that advocates of strict monotheism removed references from the Old Testament to God having a wife and a son. Yes, there are intriguing ambiguous passages. (Is the latter half of Proverbs 8 really Heavenly Mother speaking? Why is the central figure in Lehi’s dream the symbol of Asherah?). But there’s also clear evidence that such a conflict actually happened–we’re basically being asked to switch sides, at least partially. I don’t see much indication of a fight to remove women from leadership in the New Testament unless you count 1 Corinthians 14:34, but that’s in a chapter on conducting meetings, not leadership.
It also suggests a lot of corruption in the New Testament. Presumably the primordial egalitarianism started with Jesus himself, including ordaining women as apostles. So, many of the names and characteristics of the apostles, the division between “the apostles” and “the women” used in describing his followers, etc. must be fabrications.
It’s possible. But like you said, if you’re willing to assume that level of corruption, you can claim just about anything you want.
The whole point of having a church where there is continuing revelation is that you don’t have to assume the Bible contains every relevant detail on how the church should be governed or how people should be treated. Women were dehumanized throughout all scripture, with the exception of Jesus’ behavior. If anything the church should pay more attention to Jesus’ rejection of gendered norms and corrupt religious rules. It’s ridiculous to conclude women shouldn’t be ordained because there is no explicit record of it in the Bible. There is no explicit record of black men being ordained either, and look how well that went for the church. Women are human and children of God, which means Jesus sacrificed himself for them and has promised them they will inherit all that the Father has. It’s pretty hard to attain godhood and the power to govern universes without inheriting God’s priesthood.
If you don’t believe there is corruption in the Bible and wicked men would explicitly alter text to keep women in subjugation, you haven’t been paying attention to secular history. The stakes were even greater for corrupt men to stay in power from a religious standpoint. After all, who can argue with a man in authority who claims he delivers God’s final word? To argue with God is to be damned to hell. Pretty high stakes and a situation ripe for abuse and the dehumanization of any group considered “other.”