I think that evangelist is not another word for patriarch.
This idea that evangelist = patriarch comes from something reputed to have been said by Joseph Smith with is recorded in History of the Church, volume 3, page 381.
That is:
AN EVENGELIST (sic) 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.
In other words,
1.
A patriarch is, as noted, the oldest father in a family and in ancient times we can see that pattern in the Old Testament in the families of Joseph and Abraham (as well as in the family of Adam in the earlier sections of the Book of Genesis)
2.
In the Old Testament, if he was doing his job, he not only taught his children, but also pronounced blessings upon them, as did Joseph and Abraham and Jacob
3.
Where the church is established, there should be a patriarch, who could similarly bless the “posterity of the Saints”.
4.
An evangelist is a patriarch.
Or is a patriarch an evangelist? I think that that is actually far more likely. Here’s why.
In Doctrine and Covenants 107: 39-41 we read:
“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, and came down by lineage in the following manner:”
(What follows is an accounting of Adam ordaining various of his posterity to priesthood)
In other words, in an ideal world, a father is a godly man, exercising priesthood responsibilities wisely, including the responsibility to be an evangelist, teaching of the gospel to his posterity (and others) along with helping to maintain the blessing of gospel teaching and and heavenly priesthood power in his family by preparing and ordaining the future fathers therein. This responsibility to teach is part and parcel of a father’s (patriarch’s) calling to being an evangelist within his own family.
This passage from Doctrine and Covenants 107, above, is cross-referenced in footnotes with Doctrine and Covenants 124:91 which reads:
“And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;”
It looks to me like the reference maker decided that Hyrum, who was being released as a counselor in order for him to take up the office of “patriarch” was, in other words, being released in order for him to take up the office of “evangelist” and that these two words mean the same thing.
I think, rather, that the second word (evangelist) describes one of the major duties of the first (patriarch). The Lord calls many people to be evangelists (preachers of the word or messengers of good tidings) and evangelical work within his own family is a major component of the work of a godly patriarch. Abraham, Jacob and Joseph all understood that.
So, why a separate priesthood office called “patriarch”. Actually, the calling title is actually “Patriarch to the Church” in Hyrum’s case, or “stake patriarch” in the case of thousands of subsequent callings. The vast majority of the adult members of the early modern church did not have fathers who felt prepared or ordained to be “evangelists” to their posterity ie: teach them the gospel and lay their hands upon their children as had Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, and with priesthood power, pronounce blessings upon them. Ordaining Joseph Smith, Sr., and later, his son, Hyrum, to the priesthood office of Patriarch to the Church gave the “posterity of the Saints” the opportunity to receive those blessings that their own fathers were not in a position to give them. i
In the early days of the modern church, blessings, that are remarkably similar in style to the ones given by Joseph Smith Sr. and Hyrum Smith, were, in that same era, being given by some faithful priesthood fathers and grandfathers to their adult posterity. These blessings were also titled “patriarchal blessings”, were a one-time occasion, and were written down in order to be referred to in the years that followed. Two of my husband’s ancestors, a husband and wife who had lived through the Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo eras of the church, treasured the “patriarchal blessings” they received in that latter era from their father and father-in-law respectively, who, as the oldest living father in the family, was their family’s patriarch. Though they lived not far from Hyrum Smith, loved him, and were his cousins, there is no indication or record of them having ever requested or received a patriarchal blessing from him. It seems that they felt that they were blessed to have a patriarch in their own family, as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph’s children had, who could give them their patriarchal blessings without them having to request them from the Patriarch to the Church, leaving Hyrum with more time available to respond to requests from saints who did not have patriarchs in their families who could do that for them.
In the ensuing decades stake patriarchs continued to give such blessings, and, because they were specially called men, gradually the unique, once in a lifetime blessings they gave came to not only be a gift to those who did not have family patriarchs to teach and bless them, but also came to be regarded by members of the church as even more special than a faithful father’s blessing, just because a stake patriarch’s blessings were only available, usually, once.
But I digress. Back to the topic at hand.
So, why go to all the trouble of teasing out this relationship between “patriarchs” and “evangelists”.
Because it is pretty clear that the term “evangelist” in the New Testament, is a term that refers to a person who preaches the gospel. All four writers of the Gospels are called “evangelists”. Paul urges Timothy to be prepared to continue to preach the word of God as an evangelist as Paul realizes that his own missionary travels and ministry are drawing to a close. And Philip, “one of the seven”, who preached the gospel in Samaria and is the one who taught the Ethiopian in Gaza, is called “an evangelist”. The Greek word used means “messenger of good tidings” and all of the above mentioned men were people who traveled, preaching the gospel.
When latter-day saints who have read that opening sentence in that one unusual History of the Church statement, jump immediately to the conclusion that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4:12 means “patriarchs” and try to show that because our church has “patriarchs” that is evidence that our church has elements of the primitive church, they are, very unnecessarily, standing on pretty thin ice.
Does our church have evangelists? Of course. We call these messengers of good tidings “missionaries”. We have tons of them.
If the only reason we are insisting that “evangelists” in Ephesians 4 are “patriarchs” is because of that one non-primary sourced statement attributed Joseph Smith (much of this section of the book is taken from peoples memories or notes, not actual texts), and we have absolutely nothing to lose by deciding that all the other evidence points to the notion that “evangelist” means “messenger of good tidings” (of which we have many among our membership), then I think we should re-think this.
In our faith, a godly patriarch, the godly father of his family, teaches his family the gospel and blesses them with priesthood blessings. A godly patriarch is many things, and one of the things he is is an evangelist; a messenger of good tidings.
