I did not write this, though I agree with its sentiments. It is also more of my personal thoughts than I have ever made public before. This was long, so I have split it into two parts. Again, conclusions are yours to make but please do yourself the favor of reading it to the end.
PART 1
“’Follow the Living Prophet’ …and Excommunicate Joseph Smith”
Author Unknown
For scores of years, controversy raged over everything Mormon. Through the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Mormons sought a better way to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world. They met with resistance and persecution. Their doctrines were peculiar to a world steeped in the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture. Approximately sixty years after its organization, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began its several concessions to governmental and internal pressures. Currently, the Church can no longer claim the distinction of standing firmly by the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It has gradually adopted whatever changes were necessary to become friends with the world. Such a position has brought the Church to the predictable point where controversy has become internalized. Many Latter-day Saints today are alarmed because of changes in principles and ordinances, and, more recently, because teachings from Church leaders that are in conflict with those of former leaders, and with scripture.
Some of the present teachings of the Church are contrary to the words of ancient and modern prophets. The Church seems to be finding fault with itself by declaring some of the essential teachings of its former prophets to be invalid, thus raising doubts and causing contention in the Mormon community. Informed Latter-day Saints know that the fall of churches has rarely occurred because of outside forces as such. Degeneration from within has been the primal cause. Church leaders themselves throughout the dispensations have often begun the retrogression by proscribing eternal laws as nonessential, or of singular application to particular times and interests.
The design of the Church to alleviate potential Mormon unrest and ensure unquestioning loyalty despite changes in doctrine and ordinance, has taken the form of an oft-repeated admonition – “Follow the living prophet.” The concept is urged upon the Saints in nearly every sermon from Church leaders, and in nearly every manual for Church auxiliaries. It could very well become the 14th Article of Faith. But pressing the Saints to follow the living prophet, is tantamount to assuring them that some teachings of the living prophets are likely to differ from those of the dead. And more and more Mormons are questioning. Those Saints who are excommunicated for their uncertainties, merely become a part of the “weeding out”.
A blow that dealt the most recent misery originated with a talk delivered by a Church leader on February, 26 1980, at Brigham Young University, in which “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” were outlined. We are in harmony with some of the teachings, but are at variance with several others. Let us examine those issues that are relevant to our concerns, the first four “Fundamentals.” In doing so, we hold to the lines drawn by scripture and former prophets of God. Therefore, it is to those teachings that we must turn for our guidelines. There is much information available, but we will extract only portions of scripture and writings, and invite the reader to study entire chapters and speeches. We also invite the reader not to weary of quotations, since we want to know what the past prophets have taught as a result of revelations from the Lord.
First “The Prophet is the Only Man Who Speaks For the Lord in Everything”
A study of keys of Priesthood, Church, and Kingdom is recommended to the reader. It will not be undertaken here. Suffice it to say, the president of the Church is limited by common consent. Church members may exercise the right to withhold consent. The president of priesthood is not restricted by that rule. Brigham Young made this clear when he invited the Saints to vote for Ann Lee as their president, if they chose, after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith (HC 7:230). Whichever way the Church elected to go, he knew who presided over the priesthood. Priesthood existed prior to the Church and was the power behind its organization. The Church did not create priesthood. The lesser cannot create the greater.
At one time, the Prophet Joseph Smith desired to resign as president of the Church, preferring his brother, Hyrum, to preside over it, while he, Joseph, presided over Hyrum, Church, and Kingdom, as president of priesthood. Church members, exercising their right to withhold consent within the organizational structure, would not have it so. Joseph continued functioning in both positions. (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pages 317-318.) Had Hyrum held the position as president of the Church, he would have been prophet to the Church while Joseph was president of the priesthood and prophet over all. Both prophets would have been authorized to “speak for the Lord” in their callings. Further the Church was organized in 1830, and the Kingdom of God (a separate organization) was not organized until the spring of 1844. The Prophet, then, introduced another structure under the priesthood in need of a president. (See HC 7:382) Most Church members are not familiar with the total structure of the House of the Lord as Joseph Smith established it. The Prophet Joseph could well say today, as he expressed his feelings then, “It is strange, brethren, that you have been in the Church so long, and not yet understood the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (TPJS 317)
The BYU speaker, in placing emphasis on his premise that the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything, referred to Section 21 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 4-6. We suggest that the scripture was misused. The revelation was given at the organization of the Church in 1830, and referred to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The intent of the scripture is plain. “wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his [Joseph Smith’s] words and commandments which he shall give you as he receiveth them, [without change] ….” (D&C 21:4)
When it is stated that the prophet speaks for God in everthing, such an assertion must be qualified. Additionally, a man is a prophet of God only if he truly speaks for God. We will extend our remarks on this issue later.
Second: “The Living Prophet is More Vital to us Than the Standard Works”
We agree with this premise upon one condition and one condition only. It is that the world was in gross darkness, and gross darkness covered the earth and the minds of the people, until God again revealed his scriptures through Joseph Smith, a prophet of God. He, like Moses, spoke to the people because he had seen God face to face. And such a prophet, revealing the proper interpretation of the law and the testimony to the children of men, knew what he was talking about. His word and his testimony were of more value than the scriptures, because he was God’s mouthpiece to our generation. He did not contradict former prophets and scripture. Joseph Smith was the Moses of this dispensation. We are told through his successors that if we do not obey that gospel which he taught, God will peradventure give to us a law of commandments that will not give us eternal life, just as he gave it to ancient Israel through Moses. For God will judge us by the manner in which we follow our Moses, as he judged ancient Israel by the manner in which they followed their Moses.
Brigham Young did make the statement that the living oracles were more important than the scriptures, but he also said that this was true providing the living oracles sustained what the dead prophets had written. He sustained the gospel unchanged and unvarying as it had been declared from the Lord through Joseph Smith. Sand we will be judged by those precepts and commandments.
It seems to be a tendency since the beginning of the world that satan, the master architect of affections from God, and to focus them upon human forms; he leads them to remember the gift and not the Giver, and to ignore the Lord in whose hands we are. We hear much more today about what the living prophet says, and very little about what Joseph Smith has said.
The issue with us is not whether the living prophet is to be esteemed above the scriptures, or the scriptures above the living prophet. There is no question about the value of both. We are troubled only when the two conflict. Scripture represents the revealed word of God in the past, and if the living oracle receives the present word of God, why does the Church feel it is necessary to raise an issue? It would seem necessary only upon introducing contradiction between scripture and the teachings of the living prophet.
We believe that “No prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:20-21, JST). If the living oracle receives modern revelation from God, harmony with scripture is inevitable, since we have an unchanging God. It needn’t concern the Latter-day Saint to wonder which is greater. The issue of choice need not be raised. But Church leaders today are unusually exercised about it.
Joseph Smith himself casts doubt upon the notion that the scriptures should take a backseat. Said he, “If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter” (Times and Seasons, April 1, 1844). This better view was supported by th elate Church President, Joseph Fielding Smith: “If I ever say anything which is contrary to the scriptures, then the scriptures prevail” (Church News Aug 23, 1975). And he was a living prophet at the time. We view this as a conflict with the present Church representative.
However, if we have neither oracle nor scripture, then of course the oracle would prevail in importance. It is obvious that the writer must precede that which is written. The oracles are greater than the written word in the sense that they precede the written word. It was the business of the prophets to write those portions of their revelations designed for man generally. The scriptures are necessarily fragmentary, an abbreviation from the prophets of their dialogue with the Lord through the ages. They are a condensation.
The living oracle gives life to the scriptures. This is why the sectarian world is paralyzed. The Prophet Joseph Smith was old in the sacred grove that the sectarian world has a form of godliness, but that they deny the power thereof. The power comes from the living oracle. All the Bibles in the world cannot perform a single ordinance in behalf of the Saints. But neither is the living oracle privileged to teach a doctrine of his won. He cannot conflict with principles and ordinances formerly revealed they are eternal in nature. They are eternal by definition. A measure of the prophet is whether his words square with the scriptures. It is not enough for us just to be thrilled with what they teach. Their words must conform or “hew to the line and to the plummet.” If the living oracle does not measure up to the scriptures, something is wrong. The Saints have been admonished unceasingly to study and search the scriptures and know for themselves whether they are led of God or of man It seems elementary to emphasize that this is crucial. It is not spiritually safe to fall asleep on the arm of flesh.
Martin Luther was surely inspired to say, “When we have God’s word pure and clear, then we think ourselves all right; we become negligent, and repose in a vain security; we no longer pay due heed, thinking it will always so remain; we do not watch and pray against the devil, who is ready to tear the divine word out of our hearts. No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people, than to have God’s word taken from them, or falsified so that they no longer have it pure and clear. God grants we and our descendants be not witnesses or such a calamity.”
Similarly stated, Watch and pray always.
While we are indebted to those who preceded us, the need for revelation to us in our day is imperative. The scriptures help guide us toward the light of the Lrod, and the living priesthood is here to bring us to Christ. It is certain that without revelation today, we are not the people of God. The scriptures are clear on that. But it cannot be revelation that is contradictory to that which preceded it. Mormonism offers more stable standards in the revelations than in changeable “living oracles.”
We note, then, the foolishness of a quarrel. In this last dispensation, we a re blessed with both the revealed word and the living oracles. We ought to have great respect for both, for it is hazardous to the soul to disregard either. Of course in the final analysis, what really matters is the state of our hearts and our standing before the Lord. When we come to stand before him yearning for his approval, this debate of scripture versus the living prophet will sink into the obscurity it deserves. This issue, having been made an issue, is as if to apologize for past digression and to set the stage for more.
Third: “The Living Prophet is More Important to Us Than a Dead Prophet”
This declaration falls into the same category as the preceding issue. If it is difficult to receive ordinances from between the lids of the Bible, it is equally difficult, at the present time, to receive them from a dead prophet. We need a living prophet. But both dead and living prophets are vital. And if they are true prophets of God they will be in harmony with one another. The living cannot have precedence over the dead, simply because he happens to be alive.
For that matter, who is “dead”, and who is “alive”? There are those in mortality who are very spiritually dead indeed, and many among the dead who are wholly alive. Jesus is dead as to mortality. So are Joseph Smith, Abraham, Brigham Young, John Taylor. But from whom, after all, does the living prophet receive revelation? Who is more important? Is the current Church president more correct in doctrine and ordinance than they? While we hope we understand the intent of the speaker, this sweeping statement also needs modification.
As the speaker illustrated, “God’s revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark.” That is true. Nor did God’s revelations to Noah instruct the Brother of Jared on how to build barges. And today it is not necessary to send the seagulls after the crickets. Our concern is not with weights and measures, or whether corn grows better than squash, but with sacred principles and ordinances which must remain unchanged throughout this last dispensation if we would at last sup with the prophets.
Those who insist that God will change his instructions at any time and upon any issue, usually refer to the scripture found in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 124, verse 49, which says: “…When I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”
Charles W. Penrose, in a less than tranquil approach, offered the proper view of that particular scripture. He said it is similar to other “quotations sometimes referred to by the weak backed who need a ramrod fastened parallel with their spinal column. It is a little singular that some people will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation as the building of a house when prevented by enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not apply even remotely…” (Des Eve News June 5, 1885). This is our view.
Ten years later, George Q. Cannon took occasion to restate the point. “There are revelations in that book (D&C) concerning counsel and the management of affairs that are not binding upon us only so far as they are applicable to us. When, however, it comes to the revelations concerning principle, then those revelations are unalterable, and they will stand as long as heaven and earth will endure, because they are true.” (Des Eve News Sept 21, 1895)
That the living prophet is important to us is not disputed, provided he does not conflict with dead prophets. This is our position. We must offer principled resistance against such conflicts. We uphold the gospel as restored by Joseh Smith. We are actuated by that single motive in obeying and perpetuating all of the restored gospel. Said Joseph Smith, “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood for the salvation of men are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 308)
The speaker warned against “those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets.” This again alerts us to expect further contradiction, like the ringing of a buoy in heavy seas. But pitting the prophets against one another is precisely our point. Those taking that course are our leaders. We would not have it so. Our unrest is in consequence of our leaders taking issue with the former prophets. Our leaders are introducing division between the living and the dead, while warning us not to pit them against one another. They tell us in their sermons to “forget” vital principles for which our former prophets shed their blood. IF we raise questions on these important issues, we are then summarily dismissed as malcontents who try to pit prophet against prophet. But the issue began at the “head office”. Perhaps the living prophet must beware of pitting himself against the issue. Our position is that no man, whoever his is or however great his office, can change God’s laws; he can only administer them. An outline of certain changes and contradictions will follow.
An article recently written by a historian outlined the actions of the United States government since World War I. He spoke of our nation’s policy of appeasement after appeasement, the consequence of which has been the loss of face and trust with most of the world. This fall from grace has been because of our unwillingness to honor our word as a nation. We have become a “paper tiger”. Since “the horn made war with the Saints and prevailed”, which made history in the 1880s, the policy of the Church has been the same as that of our nation, to yield again and again in order to harmonize with the persuasions of the world.
There was a finer day when the LDS leaders were those who were warning the nations of the coming crises and judgments facing this nations and all the world because of disobedience to the teachings of Christ. We now hear those cries of warning from the other churches, who realize that prophecy is being fulfilled. The Mormons seem to be walking in darkness at noonday peacefully going about their way with the assumption that the true Church is impregnable. Warnings and prophecies seem not to pertain to us because the Church members have a special immunity. But the overflowing scourge will not pass us by, and all is not well in Zion.
The trend of the Church since its concession to the world in 1890, has been to apologize and to yield on one point after another, thus implying that the early Church leaders were either in error or were only temporarily correct. Let anyone stand firm for former principles and ordinances, and it isn’t long before they receive their separation papers. But is it possible that some of those whom the Church is wont to call apostate because they adhere to original principles, are actually those who refuse to apostatize? Apostasy means to turn away from truth. If our earlier leaders were limited in knowledge and of shallow understanding doctrinally, how in the world have we managed to inherit a true church from inept prophets? When do doctrinal reversals cease? We’ve read that Joseph Smith explicitly names a curse upon those who teach any other doctrine that what he (and his predecessors) taught. Will the Church continue to do this?
Bishop Heber Bennion, who was a brother-in-law to President Heber J. Grant said: “We are told that the living oracles take precedence over all other authority living or dead. We agree that the living oracles take precedence, provided they do not conflict with the dead oracles. ‘To the law and the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ If it is true that the living oracles take precedence over all others regardless of their disagreements with the dead prophets then the Saints must necessarily change their faith every time there is a change in the presidency to conform to the views of the new president.” (Gospel Problems p 6)
This is our position
Fourth: “The Prophet Will Never Lead the Church Astray”
Or, put our trust in the arm of flesh. This is a doctrine of infallibility. The people insisted upon following the living prophet after the days of Christ. They now follow the living Pope. If the living prophet will never lead others astray, we Mormons had better transfer our 3 X 5 membership cards to Rome. “Follow the living prophet!” was the cry of those who departed from the truth. It was the cry of the Roman Catholics at the time of the Inquisition and the Diet of Worms. It was the cry of the Protestants when they settled New England and drowned or burned the “heretics”. It is now the cry of the Mormons, and we shall see where it will lead.
The notion that the living prophet cannot lea anyone astray very likely has its basis in early Church history. The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith to test Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. We are all aware that Heber’s test involved Vilate. Brigham Young records a promise given to him and others at a later date. It was given not long before the Prophet Joseph’s death. “Before Joseph’s death he had a revelation concerning myself and others, which signified that we had passed the ordeal, and that we should never apostatize from the faith of the holy gospel; ‘and’ said Joseph, ‘if there is any danger of your doing this, the Lord will take you to Himself forthwith, for you cannot stray from the truth.’” (JOD 12:103) But that was a promise intended for the faithful Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and a few others. We have no indication of that promise being perpetuated to automatically embrace all Church presidents. Let us examine another point of view.
Could Joseph Smith himself have fallen? We read that he was given several stern warnings, one of which told him to beware lest he fall (D&C 3:9). It was very likely, then, that he could. The scriptures also make provision for the President of the High Priesthood of the LDS Church: “And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church… thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God….” (D&C 107:81-84). Section 43 of the same book, verse 4, states that a prophet can fall and would have no other power save to appoint another in his stead. Section 20, verse 34, warns even the sanctified to take heed. Clearly, mortal man, regardless of his position or calling, is not infallible.
Brigham Young knew this was true and frequently challenged the Saints to fill their own heads with knowledge, their souls with righteousness, and to stay close to the Lord. He said, “You say you wish to do right, and please the Lord in all your actions; but were I to adopt an evil practice, the greater portion of this community would follow it!” (JOD 2:125)
He had a trained eye and keen discernment. He did not welcome any focus upon himself as the living prophet; he discouraged it. He pointed to the Lord and Joseph Smith. And he urged the Saints to look to their own responsibility. His position on being led astray reflects our own. “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and He will not suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty.” He gave us the key.
The Lord said that he suffered some of the persecutions to fall upon the Saints in Missouri because they deserved it. Did the Saints also deserve the diverting of a holy law in 1890? Recorded history verifies the fact that man has often imposed limitations upon the prophets by their acts of disobedience. Given enough time, mortal tendencies toward certain weaknesses repeat themselves over and over. In earlier years, John W. Taylor expressed similar concern. “We are getting into such a condition that if we were to meet the Lord, we could not look him in the face, and the way we are going it will soon be impossible to tell what we do believe” (Des News Mar 9, 1889)
Our point is that if the Mormons are led out of the way, it is often because many Saints insist upon it. In respecting the free agency of man, God does allow the prophets to give the people the ends of their demands. Samuel of the Old Testament appealed to the Lord because the people rejected him in favor of a king over them. The Lord let them have their desires, and disaster followed. But did Samuel lead them astray? The Majority of modern Israel in 1890 wanted out from under an unpopular program. Plural marriage was unpopular both inside and outside the Church. The Lord let the Mormons make their choice. Approximately 97% of them voted their way to greater comfort, and the Lord made provision for the rest under priesthood authority. But did Wilford Woodruff lead the people astray? It still remains a worthy observation that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Our hindsight ought to be at least 20/20.
We read that if the people go astray or are at some time led astray, it will be because they ought to be. Brigham Young said, “And if He should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray: (JOD 4:297-298) It would appear, then, that the burden of the strait and narrow is not entirely upon the shoulders of the prophet. Moses struggled and plead with the peple to bring them up to the Lord. But they did not want the burden of the fullness of the gospel. The Lord gave them their desires and required only the lesser law of them. Did Moses lead them astray? It is always wiser that people are granted a lesser law and are permitted to partially digress, than that they became a total loss.
Further, the Lord has promised delusions to those who would impose limitations upon the full gospel. A vacuum does ot remain when we turn away from truth. Delusions are always lurking nearby to fill the void. Paul said “…Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause god shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thess 2:10) Is this promise applicable to everyone but modern Mormons?
The Book of Mormon also makes a point of this same issue. “…For God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it, God hath done it, that they may stumble” (Jacob 4:14)
As part of the grand delusion for being negligent of God’s revelations, Brigham Young “told the people that if they would not believe the revelations that God had given, he would suffer the devil to give revelations that they – priests and people – would follow after. Have I seen this fulfilled? I have. I told the people that as true as God lived, if they would not have truth they would have error sent unto them, and they would believe it.” (Des News June 18, 1873) This is where we are today.
When we say we cannot be led astray by a prophet, we are foolish. Most of us have capacitated ourselves to receive only so much of the full gospel, and we leave the rest up to the living prophet. We study very little, strain even less to sanctify our lives, and then lean upon every word of the prophet to give us hope. If the scriptures say that we stumble because of the foolish traditions of our fathers, it must necessarily include the Mormons. As a result, “Few there be that find it.” The Latter-day Saint Church is the Lord’s true Church upon the earth. But many Mormons have abdicated their responsibility toward it.
The author of the “Fundamentals” referred to a remark attributed to one of our late Church presidents, in which he counseled one of the brethren to keep his eye on the president to the Church. And if he received instructions by the president to do anything that was wrong, to do it and the Lord would bless him for it. (See Conf Report, Oct 1960 p 78) We thought the scriptures said that the Lord does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. We have thought that one’s position does not determine the value of principle. We think this is leaning upon the frail arm of flesh. We think this is one having a little authority (as the suppose) and exercising unrighteous dominion.
George Q. Cannon advised us to know truth for ourselves. “If we hear any principle taught from the stand that we do not understand, let us seek to comprehend it by the Spirit of God. If it be ot of God, we have the privilege of knowing it. We are not required to receive for doctrine everything that we hear. We may say, ‘I do not know whether this is true or not, I will not fight it, neither will I endorse it, but I will seek knowledge from God. For that is my privilege, and I will never rest satisfied until I have obtained the light I require’” (JOD 12:46)
It is spiritually unsafe for Latter-day Saints to neglect their responsibility to know the truth for themselves. The issue, then is to follow the living principles, and the living prophet if he administers principles and ordinances according to the pattern esstalished by Joseph Smith. If the living prophet operates within the confines of those guidelines, he will not conflict with the dead prophets. Can we not reasonably expect no change in the plan of salvation as long as a man remains to be saved?
It is interesting to note in passing, that the BYU speaker insists that the living prophet is more vital than the dead prophets, but quotes liberally from the dead prophets to give life to the living prophet.
That the people of God would be led astray in the latter days was prophesied by Isaiah. “The ancient and honorable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed” (Isaiah 9:15-16)
“…But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment” (Isaiah 28:7) Wine and strong drink are symbolic of pride and power.
A perfect description of modern Israel: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths” (Isaiah 3:12)
The submission of Ephraim to the world was predicted in these words: “Because ye have said, we have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us, for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves” (Isaiah 28:15)
It is far from unthinkable that some of the leaders of modern Israel have strayed from a more perfect path. Former leaders thought to change principles and ordinances. Their followers were certain that their living prophet would never lead them astray. Today, most Mormons are also certain that no living prophet could lead anyone into error, even if they deserve it. It is a peculiarity that the living of all ages claim infallibility for the living, but readily admit to the errors of the dead.
End part one. Please come back tomorrow for part two.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The Coming Apostasy of Latter-day Conservatives: The Presentation
Here is my presentation given Thursday January 30th
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)”
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 3rd
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
We'd Better Figure Out Who The Canaanites Are!
Recently a new page was put up at LDS.org that has caused a
lot of stir in a lot of circles. In the off chance Race
and the Priesthood” and can be found by clicking on the title.
One new statement made in the document reads, “Today, the
Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of
divine disfavor or curse”
Alright, black skin is not a sign of a curse that would
prevent someone from having the priesthood.
Black people of African descent are not, according to this statement, Canaanites.
If they aren’t, then (as we will see from the scriptures) we had better figure
out who is.
The prophets Ezra and Nehemiah both said that there was a
lineage that was prohibited from holding the priesthood:
Ezra 2: 61 ¶And of the children of the priests: the
children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took
a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their
name:
62 These sought their register among those
that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they,
as polluted, put from the priesthood.
Nehemiah 7: 63 ¶And of the priests: the children of
Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of
the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their
name.
64 These sought their register among those
that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as
polluted, put from the priesthood.
Which lineage then prevented men from holding the
Priesthood in mortality?
Abraham 1:21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the
loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the
blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom
and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to
imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the
days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of
Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the
blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not
have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it
from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Is it ok to mix with the seed of Cain?
Moses 5:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people
which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam
save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not
place among them.
And peaking of the time when the Lord returns, the Prophet Zechariah
said, “and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of
hosts.” Zechariah 14:21
It seems the scriptures are clear that:
- There is a lineage prevented from having the priesthood
- The “ban” will be in place at the 2nd coming of the Lord
If it isn’t black people of African descent, perhaps we should
identify who this restricted lineage is and take the appropriate steps to
prevent their ordination and entrance into the Temple .
Another point of interest is the statement that “Church
leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and
present, in any form”. (Emphasis added) “Condemn”? What does that mean? Condemn the statements? The individuals? What does that mean to “condemn all racism,
past and present, in any form”? When is it alright to condemn Church leaders,
past OR present? Is it only alright
after their death? If they are alive, is condemning them “speaking ill”? For example, if I were to condemn President
Monson for this statement, would I be speaking ill of him?
To be clear, I am not fault finding, steadying the ark, or
anything of the sort. As a believer, I
think it’s important to make observations of facts and ask questions to better
understand the word and will of the Lord.
The article has several inaccuracies that bring up questions
I’d like to have answered if I ever had the opportunity. Inaccuracy
#1 "There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood
during Joseph Smith’s lifetime." Depends on what you call
"evidence". First hand testimony of Apostles and later Prophets say
that the ban began with Joseph Smith., including the First Presidency which
said the ban came through revelation. The current church policy is that
statements by the FP are official doctrine. #2 "In 1852, President Brigham
Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be
ordained to the priesthood" in January and February 1852, Brigham Young
announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood
ordination." implies that this is when the "ban" began,
insinuating again that Brigham Young and others were liars. #3 "At the
same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members
would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members."
Perhaps not an outright falsehood, but clearly misconstruing and contradicting
the stated intent (and further explanation) of what Brigham said. #4 "The
justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial
inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black
“servitude” in the Territory of Utah" The justification was modern
revelation and modern scripture, not sectarian views of possibly mistranslated
scripture.
All throughout the article, it tries to make the case that all of the changes happened within the culture of the times, as if Prophets of God are subject to the culture, and leaving open the logic that the removal of the ban was simply because of the culture. In addition to the inaccuracies, it presents many troubling questions and speaks evil of and condemns the Lords anointed. It's logic also opens up the way for ordaining women and same-sex couples. According to an unnamed GA source of mine, this is exactly what is being prepared for as we speak. What group of people does these inaccurate statements help and why make them 35 years after the matter was effectively settled as far as the Church is concerned?
All throughout the article, it tries to make the case that all of the changes happened within the culture of the times, as if Prophets of God are subject to the culture, and leaving open the logic that the removal of the ban was simply because of the culture. In addition to the inaccuracies, it presents many troubling questions and speaks evil of and condemns the Lords anointed. It's logic also opens up the way for ordaining women and same-sex couples. According to an unnamed GA source of mine, this is exactly what is being prepared for as we speak. What group of people does these inaccurate statements help and why make them 35 years after the matter was effectively settled as far as the Church is concerned?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)