The Coming Apostasy of Latter-day Conservatives: The Presentation

Here is my presentation given Thursday January 30^th 2014 in Lehi, Utah

Most of our Facebook subscribers aren’t getting notices of our posts.  If you would like to make sure you are getting Facebook notifications, go to our Facebook page and click on “get notifications” as you see in the graphic below.

Some people do a really good job of going into every possible detail, that’s not me.  It is important, but we don’t have the time and I am the kind that likes to get people interested enough to go and study on their own, and perhaps even prove me wrong.  I hope tonight will peak your in the over all point to go out and study in more detail for yourself.

Most of you have probably already read “The Coming Apostasy of Latter-day Conservatives”, (If you haven’t, click here BEFORE reading any further) for a refresher, let’s go over a few main points from the article:

At the time I wrote the article, I was hearing from people that the Prophets never speak on freedom and so it means that it either 1) doesn’t matter or 2) it’s too late to do anything about it.  I knew that these things had still been mentioned, though admittedly less often, but why?

I pointed out that, “Throughout time the Lord has caused Gospel principles to be discontinued when the general body of the Church rejects these teachings.  A similar fate may soon occur to the principles of agency and freedom…

This complaint is not new, has been around for at least 43 years, and our Church leaders have dismissed it as a lie from Satan.

‘We really haven’t received much instruction about freedom,’ the devil says. This is a lie, for we have been warned time and again…’  (Ezra Taft Benson, “Not Commanded in All Things“, General Conference, April 1965)”

I then gave several recent examples, of which even more could be added to that show there is still a warning voice on these matters.

President Benson is right, it is a lie from Lucifer himself to say that we have not received much instruction about freedom.

The Lord lays out the principles, then expects us to act.  If we don’t, the Lord will at times lay out in more detail with greater warnings of the consequences, then if we still reject it, He will drop the matter entirely. It follows what is called, “the Samuel principle”.

“In the Old Testament,” I said, “we read the account of how the majority of God’s chosen people rejected the Lord’s council en mass.

‘Then the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.’(1 Samuel 8:4–7)”

 These are some details on what Church leaders have said about welfare principles; “You must remember that back and behind this whole propaganda of ‘pensions’, gratuities, and doles to which we are now being subjected, is the idea of setting up in America, a socialistic or communistic state, in which the family would disappear, religion would be prescribed and controlled by the state, and we should all become mere creatures of the state, ruled over by ambitious and designing men.” (General Conference April 1976)

In a General Conference talk given by then Elder Howard W. Hunter, linking the dangers to our agency to the dole, he said “We are to be free from dependence upon a dole or any program that might endanger our free agency.” (General Conference October 1975)

He gave an explanation of this by saying, “If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” Both have lost their freedom.”  (“The Law of the Harvest“, Elder Howard W. Hunter. BYU Devotional. March 8, 1966.)

In addition to the above statements condemning government welfare, Social Security was also specifically condemned by at least one Prophet in General Conference:

“I have had some of the most insulting letters that ever came to me, condemning me for not being in favor of the Townsend Plan (original name of Social Security), and that I must be ignorant of the plan. I am not ignorant of the plan… it is in direct opposition to everything I have quoted from Brigham Young and from the revelations of the Lord.” (Heber J. Grant, General Conference, Oct 1936) 

We can see that President Grant was receiving complaints from members about his speaking on principles received from the Lord.

The fact that this is a principle (something that is unchangeable) and not a program (something that is changeable) is laid out here by Ezra Taft Benson when he said,

“Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government.” (Elder Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, April 1977)

And finally, this last General Conference (Oct 2008), Bishop Keith B. McMullin quoting President Monson said, “Welfare principles . . . do not change. They will not change. They are revealed truths.”

It seems pretty clear right?  It is a principle that government welfare takes away the agency of the giver and the receiver, destroys the family unit, and leads to the government controlling the Church. For that reason we are not to receive welfare assistance from the government, and these welfare principles do not change… or do they?

As we saw from President Grants statement, he was getting flack from members on his opposition to Social Security, and then we have prominent members like Harry Reid saying that Church leaders that promoted these ideas specifically were wrong.

Members were regularly murmuring as we see from many talks, and our own personal experiences about these topics, that today we see a much different attitude portrayed in the Church. 

Speaking to an Area Authority that will remain anonymous, I was made aware that a member of the Twelve Apostles (which I will not name)



was in charge of and approved the following text from official manuals of the Church:

“In some instances, individual members may decide to receive assistance from other sources, including government.” (Handbook of Instructions & the booklet, Providing in the Lord’s Way)

“Government welfare agencies should be contacted only if the Church is unable to help us in the ways we need help.” (Lesson 12: The Father’s Responsibilities for the Welfare of His Family, Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A)

“Members may choose to use services in the community to meet their basic needs. Such services include hospitals, physicians, or other sources of medical care” (Handbook of Instructions & the booklet, Providing in the Lord’s way)

My last example, the “Managing Household Finances Wisely” course on the Church’s website, ProvidentLiving.org, encourages the use of the government welfare program/Ponzi scheme called Social Security.

Under the direction of this same unnamed Apostle, in leadership training meetings, these statements are to be interpreted by local authorities as a recommendation to tell members to seek government welfare assistance.  Additionally, much more bold language in favor of government welfare is used by local authorities all over the world.

Here are a few of the consequences that past leaders said would result in this action:

1. Either past and current Prophets were wrong in regards to what happens when people use government welfare or our current leaders are telling us do something that will, at the absolute minimum, take away the agency of all involved, destroy the family unit, and lead to the government controlling the Church.

2.  If “Latter-day conservatives” promote or share the position of supporting agency, they are in opposition to the official position of the Church as found in its manuals and General Handbook of Instructions.

3.  The admonitions of Elder Ballard to “sustain the Constitution” and President John Taylor (among scores of others) to, “Perpetuate… the free agency of man” are now invalid since Federal welfare is a violation of the US Constitution and violates the agency of man and we are now advised to take part in those programs.

In my original article I said,

“I believe and submit to you, without exception (to my knowledge), that all principles of the Gospel revealed since the restoration that have been discontinued, abandoned, rejected, postponed, suspended, etc,  is the result of what is commonly referred to as “The Samuel Principle”. In the Old Testament, we read the account of how the majority of God’s chosen people rejected the Lord’s council en mass.”

So what are some more specific examples of the “Samuel principle”?

Now, not all changes are automatically a result of pressure, inside or outside the Church, but merely adaptations to circumstances.  Examples of this could be the changing of Primary from the middle of the week to being a part of the 3 hour block, having young men on a Wednesday night instead of a Tuesday or starting Sacrament meeting at a different time this year than last. The examples I am going to bring out are ones that have been told that the change was because of a rejection by the members, or the evidence is substantial enough not to be a stretch to make the claim, and the example was one that was told either in revelation or in multiple official capacities to be a principle that shouldn’t be violated.

Here are 2 basic non controversial examples of people getting what they wanted based on their actions

116 pages of the Book of Mormon

Joseph asked 2 times with a “no” answer, the 3^rd time he was told ok.

Consecration

D&C 101:6-7

Now for some controversial examples:

Plural Marriage:

First I will show that it was stated as a principle:

“When this commandment (Plural Marriage) was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them and given to others.” –John Taylor JD 11:221-222

“Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn with its gifts and powers and there would be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another people of greater valor and stability, for his work must, according to his unalterable decrees, go forward; for the time of the second coming of the Savior is near, even at the doors.” –John Taylor, Deseret

News 4/23/1885

“And then saith the Lord unto mine Apostles and mine Elders when you do these things with purity of heart and the Lord will hear your prayers and am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles…

And I say again wo unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial glory which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph. For whosoever doeth those things shall be damned saith the Lord of Hosts and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth and shall not return unto me void.” Jesus Christ in a revelation to Wilford Woodruff in Sunset Arizona, 26 January 1880

As I said, this is just a surface treatment of the subject, there are many more quotes that say the same thing, but here we have a prophet as well as the Lord Himself saying that Plural Marriage is something that should not be given up and that there were even consequences attached for rejecting said principle.

There were also many examples of members rejecting Celestial Plural Marriage, but this example will suffice,

“There is a general murmur, a feeling of uncertainty that has not been

manifested since the days of Nauvoo….

You will do nothing for us, how in the name of God can you still claim to be a leader

when you have ceased to be a leader, but instead become a divider. Why do you

not do something for the people? What hope have you? You proclaim to the world

that there are 2 per cent polygamists and 98 per cent monogamists, now with half

of those in polygamy going back on it, and the other half hiding away, what do you

expect to accomplish? In a word why do you not advise the people to obey the law

of the land you live in?” ANONYMOUS LETTER TO JOHN TAYLOR 1/11/1886

Agreed, one letter does not mean mass rejection, but the fact is, as stated in the letter, most members refused to live the law, and those that did were looking for a way out.  This is made even clearer by statements made by Church leaders backing up this theory;

“[The principle of plural marriage was abandoned in 1890] because the saints rejected it.” Joseph F. Smith, Salt Lake Temple dedication, John Mills Whitaker Journal John Mills Whitaker Journal, box 123 : Topical Files, Va-Wh (1825-2002), University of Utah, Special Collections; See also W. H. Smart Diary, 1901-1902 book, (7/28/1901), 94

98 percent of the Mormon people are against polygamy. It is inevitable that it must cease to exist. For several years the sentiment of the younger members of the church has been against polygamy and since the manifesto it has been rapidly dying out.

Hiram E. Booth 1/13/1905,  Reed Smoot Hearings 2:714

My understanding is this: That the manifesto came after passage of certain laws and the final decision thereon by the Supreme Court, and not only that, I believe it came from pressure within the church as well.

Reed Smoot 1/20/1905 Reed Smoot Hearings 3:212

Government Schools

I discuss this in great detail in my article “Government schools = No Celestial Kingdom”, but essentially members stopped attending or stopped paying for Church schools, followed by the Edmonds Tucker act, Church schools completely ceased, in the United States, by the 1890’s

Priesthood Garment

Again, we will start with the principle as laid out by Prophets;

"It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my mother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the Angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist in cutting out the garments.” - Diary of James T.S. Allred; Letter to Col. Williams; [Microfilm d.1021/f.92, end of roll #2 (July 10, 1844)] LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City

“To return to the subject of the garments of the Holy Priesthood, I will say that the one which Jesus had on when he appeared to the Prophet Joseph was neat and clean, and Peter had on the same kind” -Heber C Kimball JD 9:376

“He (Joseph Smith) said it was the pattern of the garment given to Adam and Eve In the Garden of Eden, and it all had sacred meaning…  This pattern was given to Joseph Smith by two heavenly beings” –John Taylor, Record Book of SB Roundy, page 27

“The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern.  They must not be altered…. The Saints should  know that the pattern of the endowment garments was revealed from Heaven..” –Joseph F. Smith, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110

And now we show the rejection of this by the people;

“(T)he young and gentler sex complained that to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave  the limbs a knotty appearance.  It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt….Young men of the Church, especially those who take exercise or play games at gymnasiums, favor the shorter garment.  The permission granted is hailed by them as a most acceptable and progressive one. “-“Temple Garments Greatly Modified, Church Presidency Gives Permission, Style Change Optional With Wearer” SLTrib, 4 June 1923

This change was once optional is now mandatory.  More recent changes have made women garments closer to tank top style.

We find that even with all of the changes over the years to accommodate modern fashions, there are even more recent examples of demands for even more changes:

This blog makes the case for garment changes for many of the reasons people sited in the Tribune article above

Even high profile members, like Ann Romney, either modify or forego the wearing of the garment as seen here on the Jay Leno show:

 
We also see that this isn’t just for TV, but in this more casual setting:

Here are some additional calls from members to change the garment:

What was once the Priesthood Garment has been modified many times and continues to be modified, in spite of the fact that its original pattern was revealed from Heaven.

Ordinances

Things were taken out of the various Temple ordinances in the early 1900’s, then again in the 1920’s, and then the next major deletion was in 1990, then minor changes/deletions in 2005 and 2009, none of which will be specifically referred here due to their sacred nature. 

Though I wouldn’t personally (feel free to disagree) consider the film changes to be in the same category, there was an interesting face replacement in 2011 then last year and this year, 3 new films have come out.

In 1988 for example, after a severe decline in attendance, a poll was given to 3,400 members asking questions about the member’s feelings, if they felt it was unpleasant, confusing, etc.  Lawsuits, polls (again in reference to declining participation) regarding other portions are said to have lead to other changes.  

Priesthood restrictions

The principle:

“I say the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good.” Joseph Smith, Messenger & Advocate 2:290; History of the Church 2:438.

“When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity” –Brigham Young, JD 2:142-143

“Let the Presidency, Twelve, Seventies, High Priests, Bishops, and all the Authorities say, now we will all go and mingle with the seed of Cain and they may have all the privileges they want. We lift our hands to heaven in support of this – that moment we lose the Priesthood and all blessings, and we would not be redeemed until Cain was.” –Brigham Young, Addresses 2:81, 5 January 1852

In reference to members desiring a removal of these restrictions, Ezra Taft Benson stated, “Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the revealed word of God. The more we follow the word of God the less we are deceived while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most. Increasingly, the Latter-day Saints must choose the reasoning of men [or] the revelations of God.  This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of the members astray.  President J. Reuben Clark warned that, ‘The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and the, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood… We should be careful of them’” –“Civil Rights, Tool of Communist Deception”, Conference report, April 1949, p. 163

The above talk was on the subject of how the so called “civil rights movement” was not inline with Gospel principles, but many members rejected this principle as, then Elder, Benson states was being rejected by some members. Some of these members were very prominent, like Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney as seen in the below picture of him marching in a “civil rights” rally.

This was so concerning to at least one member of the First Presidency that he wrote George Romney a letter, which I include relevant portions of a scan of said letter below:

George Romney remained supportive of this movement despite this letter, as well as Church doctrine as taught in contemporary official addresses in general, missionary and other conferences.

Enter Darius Gray

In a Washington Post article by Jason Horowitz, entitled, “The Genesis of a church’s stand on race”, Horowitz interviews Darius Gray about the changes in the priesthood restrictions.  Who is Darius Gray?  Horowitz calls Gray “the black Mormon pioneer”, Gray calls himself a lobbyist of the Church on race issues. In the article Gray says the restrictions were a product “of the racial attitudes of this nation.” And that though the change had to come from Church leadership, “We could advocate for it, lobby.”

Remember this statement by Joseph Smith? “And the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good.” Joseph Smith, Messenger & Advocate 2:290; History of the Church 2:438.

The above Washington Post articles goes on to report, “Gray and two other black Mormons in Salt Lake expressed their frustrations to the Church hierarchy… In acknowledgement of their travails (lobbying), the church established the Genesis Group…”

Next the Post article goes into what was going on behind the scenes to facilitate the Church’s stance on the priesthood restrictions, “A debate raged in Mormon intellectual circles between those who accepted the ban as doctrine and those considered it a temporal policy….In 1973, Lester E. Bush, an amateur Mormon historian, made a strong case that no church president had ever received a revelation instituting the band and thus no revelation was required to lift it.  The next year, in the face of a potential NAACP lawsuit, the hierarchy quietly reversed another policy against performing baptisms of the dead and allowed other sacred rites ‘for people who had any Negro blood in their veins.’”

This was later followed up with severe pressure from the Carter administration threatening the Church’s 501c3 tax status and the eventual release of Official Declaration 2, and the “condemning” of the scriptures and Church leaders who taught and enforced the priesthood restrictions.

Sodomites:

Since writing the article this talk is based on, over 6 years ago (well before I was as radical as I am now), certain developments have taken place that have changed my view on “what’s next”, but not the principles that I laid out in the article.

This leads to the topic of sodomites:

"The person who teaches or condones the crimes for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed—we have coined a softer name for them than came from old; we now speak of homosexuality, which it is tragic to say, is found among both sexes." –J. Reuben Clark Jr., 1952 General Relief Society Conference

“We know the infamies which exist there, the licentiousness, the corruption, the social evil, adulteries, fornication, sodomy, child murder, and every kind of infamy.” -John Taylor, JD 23:269

“ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights
associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First
Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of
rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed
itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If
you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights
traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label
on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s
given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage.” –“Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction”” LDS Newsroom, 12 December 2012

Leaders have explained it is what lead to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is equated with child murder, and have come out against not only marriage but civil unions, now we see the attitude of members as seen in blogs, activities and polls:

Here, like in the days of John Taylor, we see members writing letters to Church leaders opposed to the Church’s stance on it’s doctrine:

Elder Oaks response shows that this was not just some random person, but a “active” member of the Church:

Other obsession with getting the Church to change its stance is evidence in conferences like this one:

Even “Conservative” members are jumping on the band wagon as seen on this blog:

It is clear that the attitudes of the members is changing.  Polls have been done to validate that these aren’t just the “vocal minority”, but the mainstream.  See graphics below showing the attitudes of Mormons, especially in light of the Church’s opposition to so called “civil unions”:

This is having a clear impact on the stance the Church is taking on the issue as we see from the perception of those in the media:







Church members are writing about these changes as well:

This is manifest in the Church’s new website for sodomite members:

As you can see from the screen shot, Elder Oaks is now saying that we haven’t had much revealed on the subject, but as Mormon Chronicle author D Rolling Kearney points out here, we can see that there is much revealed.

Time and again we see that when we reject the council of the Lord, He will allow us our agency to choose, but will not take the consequences of those actions away.  We will suffer for rejecting eternal principles.  Let us take this knowledge so that we may be more diligent in the cause of the Lord from this moment on.