There are additions made to revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, which expound and grant specific rights and privileges to Aaron’s lineage. I refer to these as Aaronic Expansions.
These expansions are not found in the original transcripts of the revelations. They only arise at later dates, and without stated justification. Examples include D&C 68:15-21, and D&C 107:68-71, 73, 76-77. The Joseph Smith Papers project has not published any copies of the first portion of D&C 107 predating the 1835 D&C, therefore I have no basis of comparison yet for verses 1-58, verses 13-17 specifically being of interest.
I have yet to uncover any concrete information concerning who was actually responsible for these expansions being published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. He was busy focusing his efforts on preparing the Lectures on Faith for publication as the "Doctrine" portion of that volume. He left the "Covenants" portion--which constitutes our present "Doctrine and Covenants"--in the hands of other men to prepare for publication, having provided the original revelations themselves.
Many writings discussing the preparation and editing of the revelations and doctrines are pulled from the 1902 History of the Church (HoC), a problematic series. It was originally written largely by Joseph’s various scribes (some of which had a flare for embellishment), and much of it was written in the 12 years after his death, during Brigham’s reign (a tumultuous time for doctrine). Decades later, after doctrines and their understanding had endured extensive alteration, B.H. Roberts was commissioned to compile the HoC into a published series. Preparation for publication included “corrections” to the material (through the 1902 doctrinal lens) and other efforts to “improve” the narrative. I have not found a copy of the original HoC to compare to the 1902 version, and current belief is that no copy has survived.
I note the Aaronic Expansions because they are relevant if in fact excommunication carries with it the eternal ramifications as now taught by the LDS church. If we have incorrectly defined excommunication (as I believe), and it is in fact only the temporal expulsion from the temporal body of the church, then these Expansions lose their relevance to the specific topic of church discipline, though are certainly worthy of investigation nonetheless.
The Aaronic Expansions as presently constituted also have conflicts I cannot reconcile with other scripture, whether excommunication is correctly understood or not. Even if we accept that the LDS understanding of excommunication is incorrect, which resolves conflicts with D&C 58:18 and 107:72 concerning their right and ability to judge, we still have D&C 84:29-30 to hurdle:
"29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.
30 And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons."
The Aaronic expansions claim that the rights of the bishopric belong to Aaron and his lineage, by virtue of the priesthood granted to them. The bishopric not only presides over the Aaronic priesthood, it belongs to it. But D&C 84:29 notes that the office of bishop belongs to the high priesthood, alongside the office of elder.
This cannot be reconciled by noting that the lesser priesthood belongs to the higher priesthood and therefore the office of bishop can belong to both, because the very next verse (v. 30) speaks separately of the lesser priesthood which was given to Aaron, and lists offices belonging to that priesthood. If the Aaronic expansions and D&C 84 were both legitimate, then the office of bishop would have been named as belonging to Aaron’s priesthood in verse 30, not the high priesthood in v. 29, which priesthood was removed from the Israelites when they were given the lesser Aaronic portion.
Therefore it seems either D&C 84 or the Aaronic expansions concerning bishops are incorrect. D&C 84 is widely accepted and documented as having witnesses present at the time of the revelation. We have no written justification or explanation for the Aaronic Expansions, that I have yet found.
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
Purely for the sake of argument, we can consider the content of the Expansions from an assumption that they are legitimate, and we find that bishops have no right to judge in spiritual matters, and that an Aaronic bishop would be considered to have special privileges concerning judging.
While bishops may be called from among the high priesthood (D&C 107:17), and the high priesthood is capable of administering the spiritual things (D&C 107:8, 10, 12, 71), the office of a bishop is able only to administer in the lesser, Aaronic things, as evidenced below:
- Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to this office, meaning non-Aaronic descendants shouldn’t be filling it if a literal descendant is found.
"No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron…But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently…" -- D&C 107:16, 76
- A literal descendant of Aaron is NOT required to have the high priesthood to function in the office of bishop.
"Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron;" -- D&C 107:69
Therefore, if the office can be filled by one who does not hold the high priesthood, then this office cannot claim power or authority in any matters pertaining to the duties of the high priesthood, necessarily including the spiritual matters of the church (D&C 107:8, 10, 12). Any judging in a bishop’s court is done through the office of bishop and wearing the bishop’s hat, not the high priest’s office or hat. It is the office that performs the function. Which means the high priest serving in the bishop’s office and holding the bishop’s court can only judge the temporal matters within the scope of the bishop’s office, regardless of maintaining a high priest's rights and privileges outside the bishop’s office.
As the church courts no longer judge in any temporal matters, and bishops are restricted from judging in spiritual matters due to the temporal nature of the office, bishops are therefore effectively incapable of acting as judges within the church in any capacity whatsoever.
A literal descendant of Aaron is also authorized to perform as bishop and judge without counselors, except when the accused is a President of the High Priesthood.
"But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel." -- D&C 107:76
However, the literal Aaronic bishop can judge the President of the High Priesthood if aided by counselors (D&C 107:82), the “common” council being the bishop’s council, as he is a “common” judge (D&C 107:74).
It seems we wouldn’t want this approach to accountability in the modern hierarchal church model, as this potentially allows a man with only Aaronic level priesthood to judge the one who not only holds but presides over the high priesthood. So we restructure things to protect those at the top from accusation or judgment coming from any too close to the bottom.
If the Aaronic expansions are freelance additions coming from men rather than God, and if excommunication were properly understood as a temporal matter only, that would resolve some consistency issues in the D&C. Bishops would be recognized as belonging to the Melchizedek priesthood, rather than the Aaronic (though still presiding over the Aaronic). All bishops would always have to judge with the aid of counselors. And bishops would be authorized to judge and execute punishment, even excommunication, without even being prevented from judging Melchizedek priesthood holders. The nature of the crime, not the rank or status of the accused, would determine judicial jurisdiction. Appeals would then go to the high council (D&C 102:2), and up from there to the high council of the seat of the First Presidency (D&C 102:27), as dictated in scripture.
