Showing posts sorted by date for query the twelve are never to govern within the church. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query the twelve are never to govern within the church. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, August 6, 2023

A Fountain Of Filthy Water



         Previously: This May Herald The Beginning Of The End For The Vaccine Scam

Almost everything you will find on this platform has been written by me; I like to keep things in my own voice so no one else gets blamed for the things I write. 

However, I have made a few rare exceptions in past years when I have come across something someone else wrote that expresses views or provides information that I felt deserved a wider audience; usually these are things I would have written myself if I had only been a lot smarter and a much better writer.  In other words, stuff that would fall into the category of "I wish I'd said that."

So today, with his permission, I present the transcript of a talk Denver Snuffer presented last month at the Sunstone Symposium because what he said echoes my own views precisely -he has just done a better job of articulating them than I could have.  The folks at Sunstone have not yet posted the audio of the talk online, but Denver did post the printed transcript on his website.  The advantage of the transcript resides in the many footnotes which not only provide sources, but also further elucidate the points brought out in the talk, which is why, even if you have already heard the talk itself, you don't want to miss having access to the footnotes.  Some of them are very revealing.

Now, I'll be honest here: I had a heck of a time properly transcribing the footnotes, but they are all included below, except instead of the footnote numbers being properly raised, I had to put them in bold print.  So at least you won't miss them.  You may find a "cleaner" copy at DenverSnuffer.com, since over there you'll find actual page numbers (just over 19 pages, if you're counting).  But not to fret; everything Denver said is here as well, so you won't miss anything. Comes down to your taste in font styles, I guess.

So, if it was so difficult for me to transfer Denver's talk from his platform onto my own, why did I go to the trouble?

First, Denver is not in the habit of widely advertising his work.  You'll find it if you look for it, but he won't hammer you with reminders on Facebook like I tend to do.  Second, I think this piece is too important -not to mention incredibly interesting- not to get widely disseminated.  And there's a third reason I bothered to put this here: Simply stated, there are some people who regularly check out what's new on my blog but who, for some unfathomable reason, are not interested in anything Denver Snuffer might have to say.  By providing a copy of this particular talk on my platform, perhaps I can have a hand in disabusing those people of their unwarranted prejudices.  This one, I venture to say, will be of interest even to those who consider themselves "Never Snuffers."

So, to begin:

A “Fountain of Filthy Water”
-Presented at the Sunstone Symposium by Denver Snuffer on July 29th, 2023

I am pleased to return to Sunstone and to see it again exists in the form we took for granted before Covid-19. I feel more welcomed here among you intellectuals, doubters, apostates, and seekers than I do now among the active Latter-day Saints. Like many of you, I see gaps, contradictions and falsehoods in the claims made by the LDS church. But I also see many gaps, contradictions and falsehoods in the critics of the LDS church. I’m a believer in Mormonism as Joseph Smith defined it: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” When it comes to Mormonism, renegade apostates are often that because they have discovered some new, unpleasant truth about the LDS church. These disappointed former saints are not evil and do not deserve being branded as ‘apostate’—but are in reality practicing a more correct form of Mormonism by accepting more truth.

The theme discussed by this year’s Symposium presenters is “(Main)Streaming Mormonism”—an effort by the LDS church to accomplish that objective is certainly underway. But if you define “Mormonism” as Joseph Smith did; that is: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Well, then all of you who welcome the truth are Mormons. Even if that search has alienated you from the LDS church, or (in my case) alienated the LDS church from you. If you seek for truth then you are companions with Joseph Smith and “Mormons” as he defined it. [More on that later.] 

As for the LDS church, the hope to mainstream their organization has resulted in two things happening simultaneously: First, the original form of Mormonism is being abandoned. Second, political, social, economic and moral trends of modernity are replacing it. Considering many of the titles chosen by presenters at this Symposium, it should be apparent to us all that the present-day LDS church is both threadbare and foolishly attempting to put patches of new cloth on an old garment.1  The ‘traditional’ believer’s voices no longer dominate LDS meetings, conferences and lessons. 

____________________________________

[1] Compare KJV Luke 3:36 (NC Luke 4:14).

But this is getting ahead of the matter. I should start with another part of this story that requires me to clarify some matters about which many of you will hold very contrary views. I am not going to defend my position on foundational matters. I’ve already done that in some 38 volumes currently in print. This is an hour-long talk, so here is a list of things I believe, but won’t be defending here:

 -First, that Joseph Smith was in contact with God and used by Them to accomplish a Divine work. 

-Second, that Joseph Smith was a devoted monogamist, faithful to his only wife, Emma. Emma had the stronger personality and better formal education of the two.

 -Third, that Joseph Smith opposed plural wivery, did what he could to discover it and eradicate it from Nauvoo, and believed that these secret adulterous crimes would lead to the destruction of the church. 

-Fourth, that it is wise, noble and virtuous to follow Joseph Smith’s example and counsel, and foolish to hold him in derision and attribute wickedness (including adulterous plural wivery) to him. Ultimately, those who believe and trust lies regarding him will have reason to mourn.2 

-Fifth, while Joseph Smith was at the head Mormonism, it was optimistic, utopian, revolutionary and innovative. It was intent on reshaping the world into a better, more egalitarian place.3 

-Finally, Joseph Smith was not understood by the majority of those living in Nauvoo during his lifetime.4  Once Brigham Young ascended to control over the LDS faithful, he implemented a different (although arguably still utopian) form of Mormonism than what Joseph Smith and God intended to accomplish with the restoration. 

_______________________________________ 

2 “The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor. And but for a small moment, and your voice shall be more terrible in the midst of your enemies than the fierce lion, because of your righteousness, and your God shall stand by you for ever and ever.” (Letter from Liberty Jail, found in D&C 122:1-4; and T&C 139:7.) 

3 As part of his presidential platform Joseph Smith proposed selling public lands to raise the money to purchase slaves and free them from slavery. Had this been the course followed by the United States the Civil War would have likely been averted, and the south would not have been bankrupt from the emancipation of slaves. Capital would have allowed former slaves to be employed and paid, making ‘share-cropping’ and the ensuing impoverishment of freed black manual laborers a chapter of our history that never happened. The Civil War legacy led to carpetbaggers from the North exploiting the impoverished South. Query whether the “War on Poverty” in the 1960s would have been needed if freed African slaves could have been gainfully employed following their emancipation. The Bureau of Land Management might not exist now, or would control far less Federal land. We just do not know how great a price the United States has paid for rejecting Joseph Smith. 

4 As Joseph said to the Nauvoo crowd during the King Follett Sermon on April 7, 1844: “You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history  If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.”

Joseph was constantly adding to the breadth, depth and width of a religion he understood to have been both ancient and lost. He claimed to be a restorer, not an innovator. When the text of Genesis says that man was formed “in the image of God, male and female…” it only hinted at the truth Joseph would add about mankind: “You have to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one: from grace to grace from exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead.”5  Joseph taught we have not only God’s “image” but also Their potential. Joseph held a much more elevated view of mankind than did Christianity of the 1800s.

I prefer the optimistic, self-confident, revolutionary Mormonism of Joseph Smith over the devolving form it has since assumed. The deformities have multiplied and it now is lurching forward toward an unrecognizably abominable form.6

LDS Mormonism has not seen such radical changes as Russell Nelson’s since Brigham Young’s reign. At one point Brigham Young’s agenda brought Utah’s Mormonism into a violent, downward spiral that the US Army was sent to dethrone him as governor. President Young hoped to employ Native Americans as the “battle axe of the Lord,” but that came to nothing. A few years later the Blackhawk War from 1865 to 1872 proved that ‘battle axe’ was the Lord’s, and He wielded it against the Mormons rather than the gentiles. Brigham Young did not take the hint when removed as Governor, and he ignored the slap when the Natives made war against the Mormons. Likewise, Nelson is ignoring the tremendous outflow of disaffected LDS now underway. Instead of radically adopting bad ideas, the LDS church should just be truthful. 

Truth need not destroy faith in God, in Joseph Smith, or in Mormonism. Once the varnish is removed, keep digging and remove the veneer also. What you will find is that the LDS church has warped even Joseph Smith as part of their false narrative. There is sturdy lumber lying beneath the marketing veneer of corporate LDS-ism. 

_______________________________________

5 King Follett Sermon, April 7, 1844. 

6 The term “abomination” is defined in the Glossary of the Restoration Scriptures edition as:  “The use of religion to suppress truth or impose a false form of truth. It involves the religious justification of wrongdoing. That is, something becomes abominable when it is motivated out of a false form of religious observance or is justified because of religious error.” I use it in that sense.

There is a vast library supporting institutional LDS historical claims. The LDS church has always been prolific-propagandists, whose effort to claim historical support for themselves has been enthusiastic and overeager. It was, after all, the saints who threatened to “exterminate” the Missourians first, but church apologists have preserved that memory only in the form of a cruel order by Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs. He was only a reactionary. 

There were LDS apostles who strayed into bigamy and ‘spiritual wifeism’ in England years before it became something they attributed to Joseph Smith.7  The LDS reliance on William Clayton’s Journal is misplaced.8

The Church History Library withholds many original resource materials, including contemporary journals, diaries and letters from the public. Interesting materials are becoming increasingly available that provide a valuable peek inside censored, authentic LDS history.9

Woodruff’s Official Declaration 1 was a lie, and the “Manifesto” was only to mislead the ‘gentiles’ long enough to get statehood for Utah. The document remains part of the LDS scripture canon as if it were an authentic renunciation of plural marriage.

There is another library, not quite so prolific, written by LDS naysayers. They, too, have been enthusiastic if not overeager. After reading both libraries, I’ve reached the conclusion that both overstate their cases and wind up distorting who and what Joseph Smith was. As a result, I do not fit into the LDS church and they properly excommunicated me. As they define “apostasy” I did that. I apostasied. They have every right to define the terms for continuing membership in their religious club, and I violated their terms. However, I do not hold a virulent view of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or whether God was up to something beginning in the early 1820s. I believe that something resulted in an inspired renewal of God’s commitment to help mankind. For that reason many of you also have strong disagreement with me.

_________________________________________

7.  Brigham Young, Williard Richards and Wilford Woodruff said they got a “testimony” of plural wives while missionaries in England. The origin of polygamy is far more likely from the Cochranites of Saco, Main. Jacob Cochran thought “seven women shall take hold of one man” authorized sexual license, and he disregarded traditional marriage as unnecessary. Nine of the twelve LDS apostles served missions among these people. This, however, is beyond the scope of this talk.

8. For example, one critical passage originally read: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; no man shall have but one wife at a time.” But was edited to instead read: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” The edited version has been used by the LDS church without disclosing these edited insertions, until the Joseph Smith Papers project disclosed a facsimile of the original.

9. See, e.g., A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, Salt Lake City 1993; Candid Insights of a Mormon Apostle: The Diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, 1889-1895, Signature Books in association with Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City 2010; In the President’s Office: The Diaries of L. John Nuttall, 1879-1892, Signature Books in association with Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City 2007, among others.

I doubt anything I have to say will be welcome on either side of the ‘pro vs. con’ LDS divide. But at least my voice is heard and even welcomed here. Sunstone is still a valuable meeting ground for Mormons of every stripe.

As LDS Mormonism undergoes another metamorphosis, one question I think should be asked is, ‘what is the role of religion’ any religion, in any society, at any time in history—what role does it serve? To me the answer is to preserve proven or traditional values, to stabilize society against rapid and often disruptive change. Religion impedes new ideas from diverting society into a potentially unwise detour from traditions that have provided stability. Correspondingly, the greatest criticism of religion is that it interferes with adopting fashionable, new ideas. It is inevitable that when “old flattop” comes “grooving up slowly” with “hair down to his knees”10 he challenges the status quo, and provokes a chorus of churchgoing criticism.

 “Changes” require you to “turn and face the strange,”11 often leading to an uncertain, unpredictable outcome. The voices urging change offend the religions, all religions, because they oppose social stasis. A good lyricist has put the matter both clearly and persuasively:

 Come mothers and fathers throughout all the land

 And don’t criticize what you can’t understand

 Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command

 Your old road is rapidly aging

 Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand

 For the times, they are a-changin’ 12

__________________________________________

10. Come Together by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. 

11. Changes by David Bowie. 

12. The Times They are a-Changin' by Bob Dylan.

Because LDS Mormonism is teetering on this brink, the Sunstone Symposium this year is timely. It comes when most of you are cheering on this current metamorphosis of LDS Mormonism. LDS leaders have made more changes since Russell M. Nelson ascended to the top than at any other time, excepting only Brigham Young. Nelson embraces change, even advising his followers to “eat their vitamins”13 so they can keep up with his aggressive agenda. His wife, Wendy Nelson, said his elevation would now “unleash” the changes he always aspired to adopt.14

All the recent LDS policy changes tell us where the leadership’s hearts lie: The church longs to be far more “woke”15 and popular, urging its adherents to prize a “living prophet” and neglect the dead ones. Dead ones said things unsuitable (or at least very uncomfortable) in the Brave New World where LDS Mormonism awakens. And so we have Elder Haynie of the first quorum of the seventy, telling the LDS faithful in General Conference, “unlike vintage comic books and classic cars, prophetic teachings do not become more valuable with age.” Elder Haynie added, “we should not seek to use the words of past prophets to dismiss the teachings of the living prophets.”16  That turns things onto its head but will be necessary because LDS “living prophets” contradict and ignore past prophets and even scripture.

Even the vocabulary of “living prophets” was an innovation during the presidency of David O. McKay. Before then, the LDS leader was called “President” and not “Prophet.” Opinion polling showed that LDS members responded more readily when the word “Prophet” was used, and therefore it got adopted in February 1955 by the LDS Deseret News and has continued in use ever since.17  Query whether now an ‘LDS Prophet’ could implement female ordination by fiat—or if past teachings would prohibit such a change? It probably comes down to when Baby Boomer tithepayers will poll in favor of making the change.18

________________________________________

13. “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.” LDS Newsroom, 2018, How Did the Church Change This Year?

14. “I have seen him changing in the last ten months,” said Sister Nelson. “It is as though he's been unleashed. He's free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.” LDS Newsroom, 30 October 2018, Latter-day Saint Prophet, Wife and Apostle Share Insights of Global Ministry.

15. The term originated in the US black population and was adopted in general use following the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014. The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary now defines it as a slang word meaning: “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”

16.  A Living Prophet for the Latter Days, Elder Allen D. Haynie, LDS General Conference talk, April 2023 General Conference talk.

17. See D. Michel Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1997, p. 363. For an extended discussion of the matter see my book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, Salt Lake City, Mill Creek Press, 2011, chapter 13, Correlation: Controlling and Curtailing, pp. 347-375.

18. See, e.g., Jeffrey Holland’s October 2006 LDS General Conference talk, Prophets in the Land Again in which he refers to their focus group testing and opinion polling with these words: “I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth.”

The Community of Christ has ordained women since 1984, and today five of their twelve apostles are women. The LDS organization appears, from the symptoms of recent behavior, to look with envy on that achievement. The overtures are there: Russell Ballard’s May 1, 2015 talk at BYU (The Essential Role of Women) mentioning how women have been allowed to weigh in on church councils, from wards to the highest levels of church administration. Then rewriting the temple endowment to put Eve into direct rather, than indirect, contact with Elohim. The LDS patriarchy glacier clearly wants to melt and run rapidly downhill, freed from the icy prison of its past. Homosexuality is no longer grounds for excommunication.19  Some homosexuals serve in local leadership positions.20

In a gesture that was likely intended to keep more traditional Baby Boomer believers to ‘hold fast’, Dallin H. Oaks spoke to the LDS youth in May 2023. His talk was reported by Peggy Fletcher Stack on May 21, 2023. She reported his talk included this advice: 

“Marriage is central to the purpose of mortal life and what follows,” said Oaks. “We are children of a loving Heavenly Father who created us with the capacity to follow his commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.”

The power of creation is “one of the most precious gifts we have in mortal life,” he said, but “central to that gift is the law of chastity, the commandment that our powers of procreation be expressed only within marriage between a man and a woman.”

 Delaying childbearing, he said, “means fewer children born to grow up with the blessings of the gospel.”21

_______________________________________ 

19. See, e.g., Russell Ballard’s talk, The Lord Needs You Now! “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction]’” (Ensign, Sept. 2015, 29), quoted on the LDS website (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/individuals?lang=eng) in the answer to the question “Is feeling same-sex attraction a sin?”

 20. See, e.g., https://religiondispatches.org/openly-gay-mormon-appointed-to-lds-church-leadershipposition/ which discusses the call of a gay man to serve as ward executive secretary in a San Francisco congregation.

 21. Stop delaying marriage and start having kids, Dallin Oaks urges Latter-day Saints, report of Peggy Fletcher Stack in Salt Lake Tibune on the youth fireside talk by Dallin H. Oaks.

There’s more than a little common sense to that advice. Catholicism has lasted for two millennia in part because, although its clergy is celibate, its members are traditionally quite fecund. Catholic teachings oppose abortion and birth control, and emphasize having large families. The result is that over the generations, Catholic membership numbers exceed 1 billion.

The one thing that almost all varieties of homosexuality fail to produce is children. Homosexuality does not result in pregnancy and/or children. Transsexuals do not reproduce. It will take only one generation of such sexual non-productivity to “leave them neither root nor branch.”22 Those Biblical words are genealogical terms, and in context mean without descendants or posterity. It is not a matter of ‘go woke, go broke’ but instead a matter of ‘empty wombs leaves only tombs.’ Any church, including the LDS, which wants to survive the next century, will need a birth-rate well above the mortality rate.

The theme that worldly popularity is antithetical to godliness appears early in the Book of Mormon. Lehi saw but failed to notice, and Nephi both noticed and described the meaning of filthy water:

 And the angel spake unto me, saying, Behold the fountain of filthy water which thy father saw, yea, even the river of which he spake; and the depths thereof are the depths of hell. And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the Devil which blindeth the eyes and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost. And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God and Messiah who is the Lamb of God. (1 Ne. 3:17.)

Broad roads and large, spacious buildings are symbols of worldly success, acceptance, popularity and vanity. Pretty much what we get in the values advocated by mass media, entertainment, current fashion and now well represented in opinion polling among those aged 18-35.

____________________________________

22. OC-Malachi 1:10; NC-3 Ne. 11:4; T&C 58:8.

In contrast, as Joseph Smith taught, there is a narrow pathway that runs contrariwise and is to be preferred:

 [I]f one man cannot understand these things but by the spirit of God, ten thousand men cannot. It is alike out of the reach of the wisdom of the learned, the tongue of the eloquent, the power of the mighty. And we shall at last have to come to this conclusion, whatever we may think of revelation, that without it we can neither know nor understand anything of God, or the Devil; and however unwilling the world may be to acknowledge this principle, it is evident from the multifarious creeds and notions concerning this matter that they understand nothing of this principle, and it is equally as plain that without a divine communication they must remain in ignorance. The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished, and imprisoned the true prophets, and they had to hide themselves in deserts, and dens, and caves of the earth, and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, while they cherished, honored, and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men. (T&C 147:6, italics in original.)

 Joseph Smith was killed by the conspiracy of adulterous insiders, jealous politicians, and mobs motivated by lies. They did not understand him or know what he stood for. The LDS church today has essentially adopted those same slanderous lies as their version of his biography. And many of you think him to have been a pedophile and a liar. I disagree. In 1829 God predicted there would be these opposing views:

The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor. (D&C 122:1-3; T&C 139:7.)

I hold Joseph in high regard, believing he was a much greater spiritual presence than what he claimed publicly—meaning he understated his visionary calling and mission. He was a friend of heaven, and that alone vouches for his character. I think I understand what heaven requires of a prophet. The caricature believed to be Joseph Smith by the LDS church and many of those attending this Symposium is not a fair representation of what is required to have the heavens opened.23  God does not entrust salvation of the souls of men to the self-indulgent and sexually promiscuous.

Mormonism today seems to agree with one of the anti-Christ characters of the Book of Mormon. It was Nehor whose message was:

“preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church, declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular and they ought not to labor with their own hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people. And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice, for the Lord had created all men and had also redeemed all men; and in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:1.)

The religion of Nehor is not only practiced by the LDS church, but also by many of that church’s opponents. The many podcasts, websites and ministries that are anti-LDS hope to be popular and supported financially by their audience. In a sense they are part of broadening mainstream Mormonism by the practice of anti-Mormonism. They contribute by advocating either the futility of salvation in the afterlife, or that salvation is generally available without any need to accept or acknowledge Joseph Smith’s contribution to God’s work of saving us. “Mormonism” has therefore become an inadvertent broad tent, being practiced even by everyone attending this Symposium. 

________________________________________

23. The established criteria is set out in scripture: “Verily thus says the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsakes their sins, and comes unto me, and calls on my name, and obeys my voice, and keeps all my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am, and that I am the true light that lights every man who comes into the world, and that I am in the Father and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one — the Father because he gave me of his fullness, and the Son because I was in the world, and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.” D&C 93:1-4; T&C 93:1.

Sincere Nehorists are preaching, teaching and crying “Lo here! And Lo there!” inside these turbulent LDS competitors’ competition for consideration.

 Any attempt to be part of a mainstream of thought is denounced in the Book of Mormon. If there is a “truth” to be valued, then whether it is popular or not the Book of Mormon prefers we follow that truth without regard to the opinion of others:

For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world and to do all manner of iniquity — yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the Devil — are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake. They are those who must be brought low in the dust, they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet. (1 Ne. 7:5.)

Following truth in a lifelong quest to discover more light and truth rewards the seeker. Popularity invariably pulls away from enlightenment and toward decadence. “The truth is not always beautiful, nor beautiful words the truth.”24 

_____________________________________

24. Attributed to Laozi (Lao Tzu), who was an ancient Chinese Taoist philosopher believed to have lived in the 6th Century BC.

Then there is this:

Behold, the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots are the desires of this great and abominable church. And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God and bring them down into captivity. (1 Ne. 3:19.)

There is a lot of money in religion. The charitable impulse produces a great deal. Gold, silver, silk and harlots are often where tithes and offerings wind up among successful religious organizations. That is why today we have been taught by the Lord to not gather tithes, but to distribute them locally and immediately within fellowships to those with needs. Those needs include food, clothing, housing, transportation, education and medical needs. This precludes the need for any Ensign Peak Advisors.25

___________________________________________________

25. This non-profit organization controls over $38 billion in an investment portfolio for the LDS church and has been fined $1 million for dishonesty about its affairs. See the SEC release dated February 21, 2023 titled: SEC Charges The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Its Investment Management Company for Disclosure Failures and Misstated Filings, available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35

What about those “harlots” that creep in at the end of that list? How far does that word extend? Are drag-queens contemplated as part of the harlotry? Transvestites? Is the effort to popularize sexual dysphoria through such institutionalized events as “Pride Month” included as “harlotry?” Can we accept and welcome such conduct while adding “sin no more” tolerance, or something else? If there were to be homosexuals in the final, actual City called by the Lord ‘Zion,’ would they ignite in flames when the Lord appears in His glory? What thoughts expand as we contemplate the “harlots” that are the desires of this great and abominable church? Can we ever discuss the matter without fear and loathing? Or are we doomed to damning one another because we are too immature and foolish to talk honestly and candidly with one another?

Frequently sexual dysphoria has an underlying traumatic cause.26  Many personality disorders are likewise the result of unresolved trauma.27  Certainly the Bible and Book of Mormon have many triggering words. Religion can also be the source of well-intentioned abuse. And good intentions alone cannot repair the scars inflicted.

_______________________________________

26. See, e.g., Colizzi M, Costa R, Todarello O. Dissociative symptoms in individuals with gender dysphoria: is the elevated prevalence real? Psychiatry Res. 2015 Mar 30;226(1):173-80. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.12.045. Epub 2015 Jan 23. PMID: 25656174; also sources cited there. 

27. See, e.g., Lisa Firestone, PhD, Dealing with Unresolved Trauma, Psychology Today, March 2018, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/compassion-matters/201803/dealing-unresolvedtrauma

The anti-Mormons are often as abusive in their approach as the LDS church they oppose. Benjamin Franklin said: “Half a truth is often a great lie.” When the search extends only far enough to discover a justified criticism, the search ought not end. Whatever your conclusion is about Mormonism, you are probably wrong. Even the claim you are thinking for yourself is vain, as Kathryn Schulz explained in her landmark book, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error:

Thinking for oneself is, beyond a doubt, a laudable goal. But there are three problems with the idea that it is a good way to ward off error. The first is that the glorification of independent thought can easily become a refuge for holders of utterly oddball beliefs. You can dismiss any quantity of informed and intelligent adversaries if you chose to regard them as victims of a collective, crowd-driven madness, while casting yourself as the lone voice of truth. The second problem is (as we have seen), our own direct observations and experiences are not necessarily more trustworthy than secondhand knowledge. … The last and most significant problem with the idea that we should always think for ourselves is that, bluntly put, we can’t. Every one of us is profoundly dependent on other people’s minds—so profoundly that if we took seriously the charge to think for ourselves, we would have to relinquish our faith in the vast majority of the things we think we know. In his Confessions, Augustine wrote that,

I began to realize that I believed countless things which I had never seen or which had taken place when I was not there to see—so many events in the history of the world, so many facts about places and towns which I had never seen, and so much that I believed on the word of friends or doctors or various other people. Unless we took these things on trust, we should accomplish absolutely nothing in this life.28

___________________________________________ 

28. Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error, New York City, Harper Collins, 2010, pp. 139-140

This explanation of the problem of proof, knowledge, and thinking for yourself reminds me of the Second Lecture on Faith. But that is beyond the scope of this talk.

Today the Lord has provided a way to practice Mormonism without the risk of being subjugated to an insecure, insular hierarchy. Hierarchies eventually succumb to the temptation to make the institution itself “God.” Today we are asked to fellowship independently, joining together in our homes without brick and mortar facilities. It is one small precaution against priestcrafts, which always replace priesthood in hierarchical religions. They are described in the Book of Mormon:

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world, but they seek not the welfare of Zion. Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; (2 Ne. 11:17.)

It may be forbidden by God, but priestcraft is the inexorable result of a stratified body of believers where power and influence are concentrated in an office. The LDS church was doomed to apostasy as soon as Joseph and Hyrum were killed because offices of “President” and “Patriarch” could be occupied by anyone. There was no need to wait for God to choose a suitable occupant. A vote by common consent was considered enough to put a person in the office. Over time the ill-defined concept of “keys” took center stage. Now, even common consent is irrelevant because the “keys” (whatever you conceive them to be) are held by the leader. Therefore the hierarchy feels comfortable teaching that there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men. If you want salvation, hearken ye unto my precept. The bloated, distended, swollen, but altogether ill-defined idol of “keys” has replaced the unknowable God described in the Athanasian Creed.29

Mormonism is no longer interested in gathering together believers to establish a city of peace. Instead it is gathering together funds for a ‘rainy day’ and for the payroll needs of far-flung interests of the institution. 

And behold, instead of gathering you, except ye will repent, behold, he shall scatter you forth that ye shall become meat for dogs and wild beasts. Oh how could you have forgotten your God in the very day that he has delivered you? But behold, it is to get gain, to be praised of men, yea, and that ye might get gold and silver. And ye have set your hearts upon the riches and the vain things of this world, for the which ye do murder, and plunder, and steal, and bear false witness against your neighbor, and do all manner of iniquity; and for this cause, woe shall come unto you except ye shall repent. (Hel. 3:4.)  

_______________________________________________________ 

29. The Creed was attributed to Athanasius (298-373 A.D.), Archbishop of Alexandria, however was likely not written by him. The Creed includes the words, “Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.” Similarly, the term “keys” used by the LDS church has vague, but prolific, lip-service given in General Conference talks. In the end, it comes down to the right to exercise control and dominion over the church membership.

It becomes apparent that the Book of Mormon unequivocally denounces the LDS church and her daughters. Despite what those who attend Sunstone or post on the exMormon Reddit forum, to listen to Mormon Stories or Radio Free Mormon, watch Shawn McCraney think of themselves, they are all daughters of the LDS church every bit as much as the FLDS and Apostolic United Brethren. Mormonism controls their content. It makes little difference they are pro or con, they are still part of today’s Mormonism. They are all comfortably situated in a ‘broad mainstream’ into which the LDS church’s gradualism has been, and is, proceeding. 

Joseph Smith hoped to welcome all into a friendly brotherhood of mixed faiths peacefully co-existing. “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, &c., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons.'”30  It was truth, not sectarianism that mattered to him: “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” In that same spirit, would Joseph Smith been willing to likewise acknowledge, “Has John Dehlin any truth?” and answer, “Yes.” And would Joseph ask, “have RFM, exMormon Reddit, or Shawn McCraney any truth?” and admit likewise, “Yes.”

______________________________________________________

30. History of the Church, 5:517 (23 July 1843).    

Brigham Young twisted big-idea, broadminded Mormonism. He instituted an integrated patriarchal and polygamous society that employed threats, intimidation and murder to reign with blood and horror31 in his Telestial  Kingdom. I spoke about that in a previous Sunstone Symposium32 and will not address that again here. Young’s leadership viewed outsiders or non-Mormons with disdain as though they threatened his kingship. His fiery rhetoric helped inspire the Mountain Meadows Massacre. While employed as LDS Church Historian, Richard Turley acknowledged, “tough talk about blood atonement and dissenters must have helped create a climate of violence in the territory, especially among those who chose to take license from it.”33  That would be the apologist’s view, but more candor would admit that Stake President Isaac C. Haight and other LDS leadership organized and executed the slaughter at Mountain Meadows, even holding a prayer circle prior to the killing.34

______________________________________

30. History of the Church, 5:517 (23 July 1843). 

31. As part of the Mormon Reformation, the “Home Missionary Program” was instituted to intimidate the isolated saints. They were subjected to an inquisition to determine whether they were guilty of sins worthy of shedding their own blood under Young’s doctrine of “blood atonement.” The first four questions posed to church members were: “Have you committed murder, by shedding innocent blood, or consenting thereto? Have you betrayed your brethren or sisters in anything? Have you committed adultery, by having any connection with a woman that was not your wife or a man that was not your husband? Have you taken and made use of property not your own, without the consent of the owner?” For a complete list see Paul H. Peterson, The Mormon Reformation of 1856- 1857: The Rhetoric and the Reality, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 15, 1989, p. 59, p. 70. Brigham Young’s Reformation included a twenty-seven question interrogation put to all the saints by inquisitorial Home Missionaries. These questions asked about issues such as “betraying your brothers or sisters,” committing adultery or shedding innocent blood. These three sins were grounds for blood atonement. The questions were designed to bring into the homes of every resident of the kingdom the reality that their unfaithfulness may not be tolerated by the kingdom.

32. In the 2012 Sunstone Symposium I read an abridged paper titled Brigham Young’s Telestial Kingdom, which was subsequently published with two other papers in the book Essays: Three Degrees. That paper is available on my website denversnuffer.com to download. 

33. Ronald Walker, Richard Turley Jr., and Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American Tragedy. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), p. 25-27.

34. Before executing their plan, “The men sat in a circle off by themselves and began by praying for ‘Divine guidance,’ a sacrilege that only the passions of the time could explain.” Id., pp. 187, 189.  

Wilford Woodruff wanted to keep the polygamous practices in place but tried to hide it from public view to get statehood. Congress, the President and the US Supreme Court would not be placated, and when the Edmunds-Tucker Act passed in 1887 both the church and its Perpetual Emigrating Fund were disincorporated. Woodruff yielded and by September 24, 1890, President Woodruff knew the U.S. Supreme Court had found the federal campaign against Mormonism to be constitutional. The church’s property was forfeited, trustees had acquired title, and criminal prosecution for bigamy was lawful. In the face of that pressure, the “Manifesto” was issued pretending the practice of plural marriage was over.35  It was a lie. The Manifesto was written by church lawyers in response to the Utah Commission’s finding that plural marriages were continuing in Utah even after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Woodruff’s Manifesto denies the report. Later in 1890, when the abandonment of polygamy made statehood at last possible, Mormonism reached a point of “abandonment of its violent culture and the beginning of its selective memory of a turbulent past.”36  Polygamy continued, but went underground.

________________________________________

35. It constitutes Official Declaration 1 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. 

36.  D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, (Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997), pp. 260-61.   

From 1903 to 1907 the US Senate debated whether to seat Reed Smoot as a member of the Senate. This was before Senators were popularly elected, and he had been appointed by the LDS church-dominated legislature. During the Reed Smoot Senate Confirmation Hearings, LDS President Joseph F. Smith testified under oath that the practice of polygamy had ended. Apparently, shortly after that testimony, he took the step to officially end it and submit to US rule. That change of direction was not merely submission to the government, but Mormons changed culturally as well. The ambition to create an independent kingdom turned to dust, and uber-Americanism became the new order of things. Baseball, apple pie, Boy Scouts, pledges of allegiance, and hopeful conformity into the American ideal was progressively how Mormonism projected itself into the Twentieth-century. It worked. 

Gordon B. Hinckley helped accelerate this assimilation using public relations tools. Opinion polling and focus group testing informed LDS programs, messages and even temple changes. Social science tools became the new form of ‘revelation’ as the institution adopted social studies and marketing tools in the quest for popular acceptance.

The unsteady course that the LDS church has followed over their history resulted in a compromised, untenable message now that alienates everyone on one issue or another. The message is as frayed and discordant as this:

-Homosexuality is evil and God destroyed Sodom because of its wickedness 

-BUT, children are innocent before God 

-HOWEVER, children raised by homosexual parents cannot be baptized because of the malevolent influence of the parents until after they leave home at 18 

-EXCEPT, we’ve changed our mind now that we think about the unaccountability of children for the sins of their parents 

-AND, now that we think about it, everyone has sexual fantasies, so if you're queer and only fantasize then you’re not unlike the typical Elders Quorum President who fantasizes about women he can add to his harem in the afterlife because of D&C 132  37 

-SO, we’re tolerant and accepting of everyone, and love queers, but don’t approve of their behavior; ‘cuz God destroyed Sodom after all… OR, as discordant as: 

-We teach that Joseph Smith lied about multiple wives 

-We lied when we said publicly that we abandoned the practice

 -SO, we are just like Joseph Smith when we lie about multiple wives 

-AND, we’ve added it to our scriptures (even though it was a lie) 

-BUT, we really now do want to stop that excess wivery thing so Joseph F. will mail out a letter (and it’s not scripture), 

-AND SO, now ‘all we have to do is take these lies and make them true’ 38 

-THEREFORE, D&C 132 authorizing plural wives, and OD1 ending it will both remain LDS scriptures… -BECAUSE we are just like Joseph Smith when we lie about stuff; and that is how ‘modern prophets’ always act…

_____________________________________ 

     37. The tragic legacy of polygamy lingers in LDS minds. See Carol Lynn Pearson’s The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men, Pivot Point Books (July 12, 2016).                                

   38.  38 See, George Michael, Freedom (lyrics) Columbia Records, October 1990.   

I’m trying to understand their position and I think that represents a fair retelling of it. Maybe not, but I’ve tried to pay attention and I’m not deliberately mischaracterizing their message(s). It is an on-again/off-again attempt to be traditional and untraditional, not too hot, but not too cold, firm, but yielding when needed. If the LDS church is ashamed of its history, it would be better for the institution and its members for the leaders to confess and drain the infection than to deny and lie. I’m not suggesting that as an attack or as an enemy. I’m sincerely trying to be helpful. I hate to witness the LDS church failure now underway. If it is to be reversed, it can only come through institutional confession and acknowledging errors—or what the scriptures term “repentance.” 

Wouldn’t we all be better off if there was one, consistent, unchangeable message that was reliably stated across the centuries? You can disagree with it, argue against it, reject or accept it but it should be knowable and unchangeable if religion is serving its purpose.

If there was a broad mainstream of popular opinion in the 1920s, supported by popular opinion, journalism and entertainment, (and there was) did the LDS church fit in then? How about the broad mainstream in the 1950s? How well did the LDS church adapt to the cultural changes of the 1960s? What about the morass of today’s broad mainstream? Can today’s mainstream even be defined? Can the same church attract membership from the ranks of Democrats and Republicans, Green New Deal advocates, Black Lives Matter, NRA members, Bill Maher, and Tucker Carlson fans? Probably not. If the organization is trying to be all things to all people.

Probably so, if the message is a timeless statement of moral values that advises people and lets them govern themselves. A religion needs to stand for something solid, reliable and knowable.

Churches must understand that drifting along with the stream, choices need to be made. It is impossible to float along rudderless without getting grounded on one bank or the other. 

As the Book of Mormon reminds us, popularity may be profitable, but it can be morally hollow:

O ye wicked, and perverse, and stiffnecked people, why have you built up churches unto yourselves to get gain? Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God that ye might bring damnation upon your souls? Behold, look ye unto the revelations of God, for behold, the time cometh at that day when all these things must be fulfilled. Behold, the Lord hath shewn unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come at that day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shewn you unto me, and I know your doing, and I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts. And there are none, save a few only, who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquity. And your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts. For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies? Because of the praise of the world? Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick, and the afflicted to pass by you and notice them not? Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain? And cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground for vengeance upon your heads? Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you, and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer. (Mormon 4:5.)

The mainstream now more closely resembles the fountain of filthy waters described in Nephi’s vision than a pure and healthy stream. The voice of gladness Joseph wrote about in 1842 39 has lost its vigor, and is not likely to be heard again from the conference center pulpit. Thankfully, Mormonism does not belong to a single franchise. 

If Mormonism welcomes all truth from whatever source provides it, then instead of debating fashion, politics and social causes, why not teach the brotherhood of man, man’s eternal nature, doing good unto others? All this by focusing on the crucified and risen Lord. 

___________________________

39. Letter of Joseph Smith written on September 6, 1842, in relevant part found in D&C 128:19-21; T&C 151:15.

                                                                                The End   

                                                                                   *****

Notes And Asides:

I am informed that even though the folks at Sunstone have not yet posted Denver's talk online, there is a bootleg copy floating around, which you can find HERE. There is a brief Q&A following the talk which I found quite revealing. 

For those readers curious to see the works I've included of other "guest bloggers" on this platform, probably the first would have been the series by J.J. Dewey titled Infallible Authority.  

Growing up in the LDS Church I was taught that God had declared the LDS church to be "the only true and living church on the face of the earth."  That turned out to be a lie; God never said any such thing. McKay Platt sets the record straight in Misquoting God. 

The proprietor of the podcast Radio Free Mormon, presented an excellent overview of precisely how, following the death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Twelve executed an illegal coup d'etat which gave them complete control over the Church.  I published the transcription of that expose in two parts which I titled How Jesus Christ Was Ousted From The Church Of Jesus Christ and Brigham Young's Hostile Takeover.

There was also this short but astute essay, Uncomfortable God.  In order to protect the writer's identity, I listed her only as "Cate." (just as an aside, the second commenter in the comment section at the end of that essay was from Denver Snuffer, who tells us the first thing he would do if he were president of the corporation that currently owns the Church.)

In Speaking Truth To Power, guest writer Ron Madsen shows us how much different things would have been if we had only followed Christ's admonition in the weeks following 9/11.

Finally, in my piece titled What Is The Church? I link to the work of Zo-Ma-Rah, who succinctly provides the definition few active members are even aware of. 

Sunday, December 18, 2022

Here's An Oldie But Goodie: Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint 'The Lord's Anointed'?

Previously: Don't Call Me A Right-Winger

Connie and I had some new friends visit us last week who are relatively new readers of this blog and they told me they check in every day to see if there is anything new here. My intent is to post something new every month, but the last entry was posted in October and I'm currently recovering from cataract surgery in both eyes and probably won't be able to see well enough to write something before December ends, either.  So I thought for now I would share one of my more important pieces in the event anyone else is stopping by searching for new content.  This isn't new, of course, and I hate to come off as a one-note Johnny, but given the direction the current leaders are taking the Church lately, it might be a good idea to take a closer look at how they measure up to our founding prophet.  


This piece was written when Thomas Monson was president of the Church, but everything here still applies. So, to begin:

Did The Lord Choose Not To Anoint "The Lord's Anointed"?

Previously: On The High Road To Apostasy

I have a wonderful cousin who I love like the dickens, but she recently rebuked me online by writing "You are so deceived. I'd rather follow a prophet than someone who is disgruntled, leading others astray. I feel sorry for you."

Well, I get that now and then. But when it comes from someone who hasn't seen me in more than a decade, I feel a correction is in order. So I would like to put my dear cousin's mind at ease and reassure her that I do follow a prophet; a prophet I believe to have been divinely appointed by Jesus Christ to be not only a prophet, but a seer and a revelator as well.  This is a prophet I presume my cousin also looks to as divinely anointed: Joseph Smith, Junior.

On a blog so boldly titled as "Pure Mormonism" you would think readers would be aware of my testimony of Joseph Smith and my devotion to the gospel of Christ he was instrumental in restoring. But it turns out that a good number of active members of the Church -some of whom know me personally- haven't actually read much of my words here, choosing instead to assume I have devolved into a nasty, unrepentant nonbeliever. So I guess a reminder that I remain devoted to the faith, and to the prophet who founded it, may be in order now and then.

This prophet, Joseph Smith, is the only man our pioneer ancestors thought of as the prophet to the church, and he had that sole distinction among the membership throughout the entire lifetimes of the generation who knew him. Even though Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and others attained the office of president of the Church, Joseph Smith was the only one the 19th century Saints ever recognized as the prophet of the Most High.

You can find numerous references to "the prophet" in the journals and writings of the Utah Saints, and even repeatedly in the Deseret News up through the turn of the century. And every time that term was used, it almost never referred to the current Church president, whoever that might have been. When "the prophet" was spoken of, it was in reference to Joseph Smith the martyr, and him alone.

I think where I part ways with my cousin is that although I believe Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, seer, and revelator, I am no longer convinced the same can be said of the men who currently manage the affairs of the LDS Church.  And I think my reasoning on this is sound.

If the Lord intends for us to revere these men the way we revere our founding prophet, shouldn't we be able to arrive at a testimony of them the same way we came to know of Joseph Smith's divine calling? Should we not, for instance, be able to fairly demonstrate that Thomas Monson has been anointed prophet, seer, and revelator by utilizing the same means and criteria that brought us to the knowledge that Joseph Smith was?

Solving The Prophet Puzzle
Every missionary in my day was familiar with a talk by apostle Hugh B. Brown, "Profile of a Prophet." In this recorded talk, Elder Brown outlines the historic and scriptural criteria by which any of us should be able to recognize the appearance of a true prophet of God. It is a powerful and convincing talk, and at only 25 minutes long, well worth your time. You can listen to it here.

For the sake of brevity, I'll list the following characteristics Elder Brown outlines that should be evident in any man who purports to be a prophet of God:
1. He will boldly claim that God had spoken to him. 
2. Any man so claiming would be a dignified man with a dignified message—no table jumping, no whisperings from the dead, no clairvoyance, but an intelligent statement of truth. 
3. Any man claiming to be a prophet of God would declare his message without any fear and without making any weak concessions to public opinion. 
4. If he were speaking for God he could not make concessions, although what he taught would be new and contrary to the accepted teachings of the day. A prophet bears witness to what he has seen and heard and seldom tries to make a case by argument. His message and not himself is important. 
5. Such a man would speak in the name of the Lord, saying, “Thus said the Lord,” as did Moses, Joshua, and others. 
6. Such a man would predict future events in the name of the Lord, and they would come to pass, as did those predicted by Isaiah and Ezekiel. 
7. He would have not only an important message for his time but often a message for all future time, such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and others had. 
8. He would have courage and faith enough to endure persecution and to give his life, if need be, for the cause he espoused, such as Peter, James, Paul, and others did. 
9. Such a man would denounce wickedness fearlessly. He would generally be rejected or persecuted by the people of his time, but later generations and descendants of his persecutors would build monuments in his honor. 
10. He would be able to do superhuman things—things that no man could do without God’s help. The consequence or result of his message and work would be convincing evidence of his prophetic calling: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). 
11. His teachings would be in strict conformity with scripture, and his words and his writings would become scripture. “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 1:21).
Elder Brown's impressive outline had a great deal to do with my acquiring a testimony of Joseph Smith's divine calling. But that was not the only way I arrived at my testimony. I found ample evidence that Joseph Smith was called of God, because God himself acknowledged it. Here's one of the first revelations from the Lord signifying He had selected Joseph Smith to accomplish His purposes:
"Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord." (D&C 3:9)
Now, a cynic might conclude that since it was Joseph Smith himself  who wrote those words, Joseph Smith could have been the one making the claim. Only a fool, it might be said, would accept that statement at face value.

Well, I may be a cynic and a fool, but I also like to think I'm a seeker of truth. So I did what we are all commanded to do, and took that statement and others like it directly to the Lord for confirmation. What I received in answer to my prayers was a witness of the spirit that those words indeed came from the mouth of the Lord. Joseph Smith, I was assured, was indeed called of God to do God's work.

We are charged in scripture not to take any man's statement at face value, no matter his rank or title. We are instructed to examine every single utterance that claims to have come from the Lord, then take that utterance to the Lord in prayer to get a witness through the Holy Ghost that the message did indeed come from Him.

We rarely do that. We have gotten lazy, preferring to believe that our leaders somehow are incapable of leading us astray, even though the Lord has never given us that assurance, but has constantly warned us otherwise. Believing without question what management tells us is just so much easier than actually inquiring of the Lord.

Our great failure as a people is that more often than not, once we receive divine confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true, we tend to accept everything else that is preached from the pulpit without thinking, even things that are taught that are contrary to what the Book of Mormon itself is trying to tell us.

The apostle Paul directs us to "prove all things," then "hold fast to that which is good." The word "prove" means to test a thing, to evince by examination. The LDS Church in the 21st century seems to have formally abandoned that instruction. Indeed, the very act of testing, examining, or questioning certain teachings or practices within the Church in our day is deemed grounds for Church discipline, and even expulsion, according to the Church Handbook of Instruction. (Vol 1, pg 57; see also Jensen, Modern Apostasy, 2014.)

Taking It To The Source
Some years ago I came to the realization that not everything I was taught growing up about my religion was entirely reliable. Some of it was error mixed in with truth.

So in an effort to separate truth from falsehood, I realized I would have to set aside my entire system of fixed beliefs, and start over from scratch. So over time, as I re-read the revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants given to us through Joseph Smith, I made certain that each and every one of them was accurate. And I did so by asking God directly, "did you say this?"

And each time I asked I got a clear witness. Yes, those words were the very oracles of God.

Here are a few more verses affirming Joseph's role as God's mouthpiece in these last days. I asked about each one, and got the same affirmation:
"I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments." (D&C 1:17) 
"Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ." (D&C 21:1) 
"Thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon, and to my ministry...And thou shalt continue in calling upon God in my name, and writing the things which shall be given thee by the Comforter, and expounding all scriptures unto the church." (D&C 24:1,5) 
"No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses." (D&C 28:2)
Then there was this revelation given to the members of the church in 1830, which I found most instructive:
"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth..." (D&C 21:4&5)
I noted that members of the church back then were not told to follow or obey the counsel of the prophet, as I was being taught to do in regards to the president of the Church in my day. This revelation says we shall "give heed to all his words." To "heed" means to give consideration to, give careful attention, to examine and ponder.

Quite a far cry from unquestioning obedience.

Something else I noticed in that revelation: we are not instructed to accept everything Joseph Smith ever said as if it were gospel. Only those words he speaks as he receives them from The Lord. It is only those words that come "as if from mine own mouth" that we are commanded to give heed to. While it is true that Joseph Smith, having seen and conversed with Jesus Christ and the Father, doubtless came away from that experience brimming with wisdom and insight; and while Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet personally ordained by God, not every utterance that ever came out of his mouth is to be accepted ex cathedra. Only those words he delivers as coming from the mouth of God are considered doctrinal. Which brings us to...

The Grand Daddy Of All Scriptures
All of us have our favorite scriptures. For most of us it's a direct quote from Jesus Christ, as well it should be.  But there is one chapter in the Book of Mormon that we ought to take as our guide before we consider any other teaching of the Church, and that is 1st Nephi Chapter 8.

This is the chapter that teaches us that the only sure path to God is by holding to the rod of iron, the symbolic guardrail that represents the word of God.  Therefore, nothing we read in our Sunday School manuals, nothing we're taught in Church, nothing we hear in general conference, is allowed to trump the actual word of God. Only our Lord's actual words as revealed through His prophets are the words we should be clinging to; anything not measuring up to the word of God fails the iron rod test.

When we're trying to figure out whether some man's word is to be taken as God's will, it's not enough to simply rely upon what we were taught growing up in the church. We have to go to the source, and that source is the revealed word of God. Harold B. Lee, himself a former president of the church, delineated what he thought was the biggest danger facing the LDS church in modern times:
"I say we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false -it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think therein is one of our biggest dangers of today." 
"The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed His word: 'Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church.' " D&C 42:59 (First Presidency Message, Ensign, December 1972. Emphasis mine.)
So, are we to simply allow men in leadership positions to govern the church of Christ according to the policies and procedures they institute on their own? Or are they required to govern the church only in accordance with the instructions promulgated by God?  We latter-day Saints have a sacred duty to make an important determination, and this determination should be made carefully and prayerfully: whether the men who succeeded Joseph Smith actually are his successors as authorized by God, or if they are there only because our vain traditions call for them to be.

The way to get to the nub of it all is to seek God's word in the matter. It is not enough to simply accept the next guy in line as though he were appointed by God. We should insist on seeing evidence of that appointment.

I had just begun to question my faith in church succession some years back, when Gordon B. Hinckley was president.  In March of 2003, the president of the United States launched an invasion of a foreign country that had done us no harm, in violation not only of the constitution's separation of powers, but also in direct violation of the words of Jesus Christ, who declared in D&C 98:33 that his people "should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them."

So I was looking forward to general conference three weeks later. We were finally going to hear an actual prophet of God lay into the civil authorities for an act of aggression every bit as unwarranted as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or the German Blitzkrieg on Poland. This should be worth tuning in to!

But when conference arrived and president Hinckley finally got around to addressing this topic at the final session, it was clear he wasn't going to act anything like a true Old Testament prophet speaking old fashioned truth to power. In fact, he admitted he didn't know what to think about this current war, but he was sure the whole thing would be over in a few short weeks. It was the most wishy-washy, non-committal, unprincipled, and uninformed pile of nothing I had ever heard come out of the mouth of a reputed prophet of God in my life. Caught me completely by surprise.

Hinckley did offer one pertinent quote from Jesus,where the Lord commanded his people to "renounce war and proclaim peace." Then he spent the rest of his talk with a metaphoric shrug as if to say, "But hey, whatcha gonna do?"

Thus began my first crisis of faith in modern Church leadership. So I went to the Lord to ask the question it had never occurred to me to ask before: is Gordon B. Hinckley your appointed mouthpiece on the earth?

I don't want to put words in God's mouth, because he didn't answer me with an audible voice. But if I were to reconstruct the conversation in English, it might have gone something like this:

"Is Gordon B. Hinckley your anointed prophet, seer, and revelator?"

Show me some of Gordon's prophecies and revelations and I'll give you my answer.

"But he has never issued any prophecies or revelations."

Well then, there's your answer.

Follow the Whosit?
A while back, when re-reading 1st Nephi 8, I noticed something I had only glossed over in previous readings, then instantly forgotten. The prophet Lehi was describing a dream in which he found himself in a dark and dreary wilderness. Suddenly a well-dressed, important looking man appeared and bade him follow. Lehi would be rescued from the darkness, for surely this impressive figure -a man of God if ever there was one- would lead Lehi back into the light.

But Lehi soon discovered it had been a mistake to follow this man, for he was only led further into the dark and dreary wasteland. Lehi found himself lost "for the space of many hours," until it occurred to him to call on God directly. Only then was Lehi brought into the light. Now he could see many things clearly, among them that rod of iron along the straight pathway to God's pure love. Lehi realized that the only sure path to God was not by putting his trust in any man, but instead to cling tenaciously to the word of God.

As a devout believer in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I can think of no more pertinent question in our day than to assess whether we are doing the Lord's will in following certain men, or if we are being misled. Even Joseph Smith himself lamented that the people were depending so much on him that they were becoming "darkened in their minds." (Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, pg 51). If the prophet would issue such a warning to the people in his day to back off, why are so many Mormons so anxious to ignore that advice when it comes to Church leaders today?

Brigham Young said something interesting:
"Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question—Does a man’s being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the president of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the president of the Church, as long as he lived: the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice.” (Journal of Discourses 1:133 Emphasis added.)
Joseph Smith was appointed by the Lord to be the Lord's mouthpiece.  It so happened that Joseph was also elected by the people to preside over the fledgling church. Each of those positions is not the same as the other. Joseph just happened to have worn both hats back in the day; at various times acting as either prophet and/or president.

But it could have easily been the case that while Joseph acted as the mouthpiece of the Lord, some other person -Hyrum Smith, for example, or Sidney Rigdon- could have been elected by the members and sustained as president of the church at the same time Joseph Smith was their prophet.

So the thing we deserve to come to an understanding of in our day is this: how can we know if the president of the church also happens to be a prophet?

How About We Ask The Same Questions?
Obviously, to get an answer to our question we would use the same criteria we used when we came to a knowledge that Joseph Smith was ordained to be God's mouthpiece.  We might first compare the current president to the list of qualifications apostle Brown taught would be recognizable in a prophet. Secondly, we would look for instances where the Lord has declared the modern president to be his mouthpiece, as he did numerous times in regard to Joseph Smith.

Trouble is, we can find no instance where Thomas S. Monson has boldly made the claim that God has spoken to him. Neither has he declared he has received any messages "in the name of the Lord." Neither has president Monson predicted future events, or endured persecution, or met any number of the qualifications recognizable in a true prophet outlined by Apostle Hugh B. Brown above.

Where do we find God's endorsement of Thomas Monson similar to the one given regarding Joseph Smith?  We have no statement from the Lord telling us to "give heed unto all Monson's words and commandments which he shall give unto you, for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth."

I looked for such an endorsement of President Hinckley, and those who came before him. And then when I got to Heber J. Grant, I read this bombshell from a letter President Grant had written to a Mrs. Claud Peery in 1926:
"I know of no instance where the Lord has appeared to an individual since His appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith."
Wait...WHAT?! I was always taught that the living prophet met with Jesus face to face on a regular basis in the upper room of the temple. And now here's one of those prophets admitting that not only has he never met or spoken to Jesus, but nobody he knows ever has either!

I felt maybe the thing to do was track this all the way back to Brigham Young. Seeing as how Brigham was Joseph Smith's BFF, surely he had the authority to speak for God, and maybe at least I would learn that authority was somehow handed off to those who came after.

The Trail Dead Ends
It turns out, though, that Brigham Young wasn't really all that close to Joseph Smith, for the simple reason they didn't spent much time together.  Joseph lived in Nauvoo, while Brigham was constantly off laboring in the Eastern States and Great Britain.

We have this idea that Brigham Young was Joseph's second in command, but the records don't support that. He wasn't a member of the First Presidency. The minutes of the Nauvoo High Council don't show him in attendance because he was not a member of that body. His association to Joseph Smith, to the extent it was significant at all, was in company with others, not the two of them alone. There were plenty of other men who had a closer association to Joseph Smith than Brigham Young did. Plenty of others.

The myth that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were best buds was fostered by Brigham in the decades following Joseph's death, and developed over time into the official Church narrative.

"Say Joseph, do you mind if we get a selfie so I can prove I met you once?"
More surprising, when one looks at the record, is that now and then Brigham Young would pop off with some astonishing admissions denying any role as God's anointed:
"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel." (Journal of Discourses 5:77)
Like all Latter-day Saints at the time, Brigham expected that one day Joseph Smith's eldest son would take the reins of church leadership. Until then, Brigham would act as a sort of placeholder:
"What of Joseph Smith's family? What of his boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, “God will take care of my children when I am taken.” They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say—“Amen! We are ready to receive you."
Brigham Young had been president of the church for 13 years when he made the following statement in 1860:
"The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal successor. You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I do not care a groat who rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor." (Journal of Discourses 8:69). 
Someone "to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock" is exactly what Brigham proposed to be when he went before the assembly that day in August just weeks after Joseph and his brother were murdered. He indicated there would be no prophet to replace the one who had fallen.
"Heretofore you have had a prophet as the mouthpiece of the Lord to speak to you. But he has sealed his testimony with his blood, and now, for the first time, are you called to walk by faith, and not by sight." (Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, (1844, pg 20)
That doesn't sound like a man who believed the mantle of the prophet had fallen on him. And sure enough, he goes on to propose something else entirely:
"I ask the latter-day Saints: do you, as individuals, at this time, want to choose a prophet or a guardian? Inasmuch as our Prophet and our Patriarch are taken from our midst, do you want someone to guard, to guide and lead you through this world into the kingdom of God or not?"
Brigham was attempting to persuade the crowd to reject Sidney Rigdon, the only member of the First Presidency left alive. But if he was hoping to be elected to the top position himself, he was talking them out of choosing him, too.
"All that want some person to be a guardian or a prophet, a spokesman or something else, signify it by raising the right hand."
They must have been confused by the way he worded the question, because the record states no hands were raised.

Brigham ended up suggesting that the best choice for governing the church would be to turn it over to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, acting together as a body. Not one man in particular, mind you, but the whole Twelve would make all the governing decisions as a group. So that's the plan the congregation voted to accept.

Three years later, Brigham persuaded the saints assembled at Winter Quarters to elect him as president of the Church, which they did. Mind you, they did not anoint him their prophet, seer, and revelator. Brigham himself had told them, "You cannot fill the office of a prophet, seer, or revelator. God must do this."

The people never did consider Brigham Young to be prophet, seer, and revelator for the church as was Joseph Smith. They sustained him as their president, the guy whose job it was to preside over the church, not receive revelations for it.

Fast forward thirty years to Brigham Young's death, and now the Twelve are convened to decide what to do next. Brigham had ruled the church with such an iron hand, that once he was gone John Taylor convened the Twelve and said (I'm paraphrasing), "Let's not do that again. From now on, let's all twelve of us be the governing body as originally proposed so as not to risk having another dictator."

And that's what they did. For three years, the Church was run by a twelve-man board of directors, with no president at its head. And then John Taylor decided maybe he would like to try his hand at presiding after all, so he got the Twelve to go along with him and at conference the people were asked to sustain him as their president. Not their prophet, just church president.

In the Spring 2014 issue of the Journal of Mormon History, historian Edward Leo Lyman has documented the slap-dash, make-it-up-as-they-went methods by which the Quorum tried to figure out who should be the next in charge every time one of them shuffled off his mortal coil. (See Succession By Seniority: The Development of Procedural Precedents in the LDS Church).

The way the apostles struggled to work things out over each series of "crises" makes for some fascinating reading. There was still no one in the church hierarchy operating as Joseph Smith had, receiving revelations from God, so they didn't know how they were supposed to handle things. The minutes of the meetings of the Quorum in those days show a lot of debate, infighting, alliances, and jockeying for position. About the only thing the Brethren were ever united on was their agreement that none of them wanted to see George Q. Cannon become president. He was almost universally disliked by his fellow apostles.

By the 20th century, a popular narrative had taken hold in the church to the effect that ever since the death of Joseph Smith, there has always been "a living prophet" at the head of the church to guide us and instruct us in God's will.  Nothing could be further from the truth. None of these supposed "prophets" ever conveyed a direct revelation to the members from which the saints could ascertain the will of God. Check your Doctrine & Covenants and you'll see. The oracles simply peter out once Brother Joseph exits the scene.

There is one more loose thread to this story.  The "preferred narrative" most of us were taught growing up in the church states that before he died, Joseph Smith anointed the Twelve apostles to succeed him, and that he turned over to them all the keys and authority to act in the name of God. That part of our history isn't true either. But it makes an interesting tale.

So sit back and get comfy; we're not done yet.

Who Needs Checks And Balances In The Lord's True Church?
LDS Church tradition claims the “Twelve” were given all the “keys” (whatever that is) by Joseph Smith to control everything. This is said to have taken place in a meeting that was held on March 26, 1844. This claim is contrary to scripture, but has not stopped LDS leaders from insisting it is how the Twelve Apostles came to be in charge of everything “Mormon.”

I say it is contrary to scripture because the great revelation on priesthood (D&C 107) expressly limits the jurisdiction of the Twelve.  Jesus Christ Himself, through revelation to his prophet, directed that the governing bodies of the church are to be co-equal in authority, in order that no single entity encroaches on the responsibilities and commissions of another.

If you were to list them in order of importance of governing authority (and we shouldn't, because the Lord set them up to be co-equal branches), the list might look like this:

 The First Presidency
 The High Council
 The Quorum of the Seventy
 The Quorum of Twelve Apostles

The apostles would probably be last, because they had no governing authority within the church. Most of the time they weren't anywhere near Church headquarters, because the common name for the Twelve Apostles was the "Traveling Elders."  These were the missionaries sent out to all the world to spread the gospel. They were only home occasionally before going back out again. The High Council, headquartered at Nauvoo, did most of the governing within the church, handling the day-to-day administrative affairs of the church.

You may have noticed there is no High Council operating at Church headquarters anymore. That office simply disappeared once Brigham Young took charge of things. Like it never existed.

Under the Lord's plan, the Twelve have no authority within any organized stake. They are co-equal with the other bodies, but with very limited jurisdiction. Yet the Twelve today claim they get to own, control, operate and dictate to all other bodies and to every part of the church, both inside and outside organized stakes. All this because of a meeting that took place on March 26, 1844.

The meeting was held by a group known as The Council of Fifty, or more expansively “The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgement in the Hands of His Servants.” (See Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 45.)

 The thing is, this council was not a part of the church. It operated outside the church; independent of it. And that's because it included both members of the church and non-members.

It is important to recognize that the kingdom of God was not the church, and the Council of Fifty was not part of the church. It was separate. It was not a religious society like the church, but a civil organization newly organized in 1844 as a first step toward Joseph Smith's vision of an eventual civil and political “kingdom” belonging to God.  Its intended purpose was to ensure that the rights of all people were protected, regardless of one's beliefs or religious affiliation. (I go into greater detail on the purposes of the Kingdom of God in a previous post.)

Although the Council of Fifty kept minutes, the March 26, 1844 minutes make no mention of the Twelve getting to control everything, or getting any “keys” from Joseph Smith that day. In fact, there is nothing in the minutes to support the claims of the LDS Church that the Twelve were superior to every other church body, and in possession of all the “keys” (whatever that means).

Because the minutes do not support the claims, the LDS Church Historian’s Office wrote an introduction and provided footnotes for the minutes of the 26 March 1844 meeting. The Historian’s Office thinks that is most likely the probable meeting when the “keys” were passed along.

Their introduction begins on page 62, and the minutes run through page 72 of the volume titled Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records. If it were not for the Historian’s Office interjecting the claim into their introduction and footnotes, there would be nothing in the minutes of the meeting to support the claim that the Twelve got all the “keys” from Joseph Smith to run everything on that day.

Essentially the Historian’s Office explains that missing proof does not prove it didn’t happen.

If it did happen as the LDS Church claims, it is a pretty significant omission.  But the omission from March 1844 is not the only proof that this important event did not happen. The story about “keys” got mentioned the following year, in minutes that should lay the LDS Church's claims to rest.

The minutes of 25 March 1845 of the Council of Fifty meeting has an introduction written by the LDS Historian’s Office that attempts to support the traditional story thus:
"Orson Hyde read to the council a two-page statement that he hoped to publish as part of his pamphlet on a 'farewell to Rigdonism.'  The document concerned JS’s 'appointing the Twelve to take the responsibility of leading the church,'  an event that likely occurred at a Council of Fifty meeting on 26 March 1844, and Hyde asked how many council members had been present on that occasion and could sign the document as witnesses. Rather than taking up Hyde’s question, the council briefly considered the content of Hyde’s account. After discussion, Young denied Hyde’s request to publish the document and instead instructed him to focus on Rigdonism in his pamphlet 'and let the Twelve alone.' " (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 371.) 
This introduction is not really a fair account of what happened in the meeting or what was in the minutes. Here is what the minutes of that meeting say when it is mentioned the first time early in the meeting:
     Coun. O. Hyde wanted information as to who were here to day who were present Joseph Smith laid the responsibility of leading the church on the Twelve. 
     The chairman said E[lde]r Hyde would have to lay that matter over a little.                        (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 375.)
The reference to “The chairman” is to Brigham Young. There follows three pages of notes before the discussion returns to Hyde’s topic. Here is what the minutes say when Hyde’s topic is discussed later in the same meeting:
     Coun. Hyde read a certificate which he had wrote for publication concerning prest Joseph Smith appointing the Twelve to take the responsibility of leading the church. 
     Coun. J. Young moved that the last expression in the article, “so help us God” be left out.
     Coun. Hyde said he had wrote this article and submitted it to this council to find out how many of those here were present at the time it was done, and who can sign it as witnesses. 
     Coun. O. Pratt was present when observations similar to those in the document were made by prest Smith; but would it not be carrying an idea abroad that this was the commencement of the authority of the Twelve. They had the same authority before the time referred to in the document. He should have no objections to the article going forth if the proper date of the authority and appointment was stated. 
     Coun. Hyde gave further reasons why he had wrote the article and requested its publication. 
     The chairman said he should not want the article to go into the history of [Sidney] Rigdon at all. He wants Er Hyde to write his farewell to Rigdonism and let the Twelve alone. He dont [care] whether the world know the authority and power of the Twelve or not, when the time comes they shall feel our power and we shall not try to prove it to them. In regard to Joseph’s remarks, he did not mention anything about the anointing; he said it was this council of fifty which had to bear the responsibility of establishing the kingdom in all the world." (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, pp. 378- 380.)
 The last remark by Brigham Young (“The chairman”) puts the matter to rest. There was no “anointing” and the “keys of the kingdom” were not given to the Twelve in any earlier meeting. Instead it was “this council of fifty which had to bear the responsibility.” Meaning that there was nothing uniquely given by Joseph Smith to the Twelve, but instead it was given to the “council of fifty.” The council’s members included both Mormons and non-Mormons. The LDS Historian’s Office adds a footnote to explain the troubling remark from Brigham Young that Joseph Smith “did not mention anything about the anointing” by explaining: 
In his statement Young apparently was not affirming that no anointing occurred but clarifying that JS did not perform such an anointing in the late March 1844 meeting of the Council of Fifty. There is no evidence that any ordinance, ordination, or anointing occurred in any meeting of the Council of Fifty; (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 380, footnote 598.) 
I want to make sure you caught that: There is no evidence that any ordinance, ordination, or anointing occurred in any meeting of the Council of Fifty!

According to the LDS Historian’s Office, there was no ordinance passing the “keys of the kingdom” to the Twelve in the Council of Fifty! Nor was there an ordination passing the “keys of the kingdom” to the Twelve in the Council of Fifty! Nor any sort of anointing passing the “keys” to the Twelve!

But the official tradition in the church today remains. The Twelve somehow got the “keys” in a meeting of the Council of Fifty sans ordinance, sans ordination, and sans anointing.

You may ask yourself, “How did that work?” 

And the tradition has an answer. Here is the official way that the Twelve got their power in the March 26, 1844 meeting, according to the LDS Historian’s Office. I've highlighted the weasel words for you:
"A significant event likely occurred in this meeting, probably in the morning session, about which the minutes are silent but which council members discussed a year later in connection with a written summary prepared by Orson Hyde. Clayton’s brief note that JS spoke “on heavenly things, and many other important subjects” likely marks what was later referred to as JS’s “last charge.” This may have been an extension of the charge relating the history, purpose, and rules of the council that was typically given to new members and that JS may have delivered in this meeting. (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, pp. 62-63. Emphasis mine.) 
That's a generous passel of "likely"s, "probably"s, and "may have"s in a paragraph ostensibly written by professional historians.

I'm accustomed to reading raw historical data just as it stands.  And when a historian deigns to describe a document to me, I expect him to stick to what is actually in the document he's describing, without speculating and forcing the data to conform to what he wants it to say.

But because traditions of men now dictate that Joseph Smith must have turned over his authority to the traveling elders at some point in history; and because these particular court historians depend upon the corporate Church for their salaries and their pensions, they have apparently decided that this is the moment the invisible transfer of power must have taken place. They chose this moment in history to put words in the mouth of a true prophet of God, so that future "prophets" would have some officially sanctioned event to hang their hats on when declaring their authority to act in God's name. In the opinion of these company men, that meeting in 1844 simply had to be the time and place where Joseph Smith turned over all his authority to the Twelve. It just had to be!

Yet there is absolutely no indication in the record that anything of the sort ever took place.

Would you like to see what Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on this most momentous occasion, when the prophet of the Restoration reportedly rolled off all his authority onto the shoulders of Woodruff and his pals in the Quorum? The usually loquacious Woodruff apparently hadn't seen anything notable take place that day:
"26th A rainey day. I met in council with the brethren."
     (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 2, pg. 371, see also The Council of Fifty: A Documentary History, pg 34)
The Lord's Version 
We do have a record of the Lord appointing someone other than Joseph Smith to be a prophet, seer, and revelator to the church, and that was Joseph's brother, Hyrum. Hear the words of the Lord in this instance:
"And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph." D&C 124:94)
In that same revelation, Jesus appointed Brigham Young to his place in the church:
"I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council."
And that's it. That is the only calling Brigham Young ever received by the voice of the Lord: director of the missionary program.

This convoluted megillah showing how Joseph is imagined to have given the Twelve full authority to run the whole shebang is more than a bit of a stretch. Note the historian's obscure reference to Joseph Smith's "last charge" to the Twelve, a "charge" that no one has seen in writing, and that is now imagined to maybe be the "charge" Joseph "may have delivered in this particular meeting."

So now “keys” are given by a “charge” to someone? In scripture, normally a “charge” is either an accusation or a warning. For example, as an accusation: I charge you with murder. (See, e.g., Numbers 5:21; Acts 23:29; 1 Tim. 5:16; D&C 121:11.)

As a warning: I charge you to stay away from Sodom or be killed. (See, e.g., Gen. 28:1; Exo. 19:21; Mark 7:36; Acts 16:23; Alma 35:16.)

If the LDS Historian’s office admits Joseph “charged” the Twelve, but did not give an “ordinance, ordination, or anointing” then how was he charging them? Was he warning them? Or was Joseph accusing them? Either of these would not empower the Twelve, but would caution/accuse them against wrecking the “kingdom”—something which has happened.

If you want to read a good example of Joseph Smith giving Church leaders a "charge," turn to section four in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This is the section discussed in my last post on this forum. There the prophet goes on for eight pages charging members of the Twelve not to exalt themselves as had the fallen leaders these men were now replacing. He charged them to be humble; to not betray God, to not betray the church, to not betray their brethren; he charged them to be careful. That is the kind of thing we are used to reading whenever Joseph Smith issued a "charge" to the brethren.

This is how Denver Snuffer explained the death of the Council of Fifty and the “kingdom of God” in a post on October 18, 2016:
"The “kingdom of God” is not the LDS Church and the LDS Church is not the “kingdom of God.” They are separate. 
'Joseph Smith stated that the 'literal kingdom of God [that is, the Council of Fifty], and the church of God are two distinct things' as 'the laws of the kingdom are not designed to affect our salvation hereafter.' (Joseph Smith Papers Administrative Records, p. xxiii.)
"So if Joseph rolled the 'kingdom of God' off his shoulders and onto the Twelve, it has nothing to do with giving the Twelve jurisdiction to assume complete autocratic control over the church. There was already a revelation in place (D&C 107) that confirmed the role of the Twelve in the church to co-equality with the seventy, stake high councils, and gave them no jurisdiction within an organized stake. The assertion that the charge allowed them expanded jurisdiction contrary to, and in violation of Section 107 is not justified when the 'kingdom of God' and the church are two separate things. The 'kingdom of God' is 'not designed to affect our salvation' and therefore did not, indeed cannot, subjugate the church.

"Further, even if you accept the charge given to the Twelve, rolled to them the 'kingdom of God,' they abandoned it:  
'The final meetings of the council were held in the mid-1880s. Thereafter the council’s records appear to have remained in the custody of the Office of the First Presidency. In 1922 church president Heber J. Grant reportedly entrusted Joseph Anderson, who served as secretary to Grant and the First Presidency, to safeguard the records. In 1932 Grant and Franklin S. Richards–the last two living members of the council–met together and read through some of the Council of Fifty records. The minutes were also accessed in the late twentieth century. In 2010 the First Presidency transferred the Nauvoo-era record to the Church History Library.' (Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, p. 6.)
"Thus died the 'kingdom of God' which Joseph Smith probably may have charged the Twelve to possess. They neglected the 'kingdom of God' because they were preoccupied with acquiring complete, unfettered control to dictate over the church and hold at defiance any who dared to challenge them. They reign over the Seventies and stake high councils with impunity. Their autocratic control holds the approximate 30% of those who remain nominally active in the church in complete submission.
"They have the 'keys of the kingdom'–which kingdom has lapsed into complete oblivion. But they’ve parlayed that into dictatorship over the other organization, the Church."
The foundational claims of our religion can be tested by inquiring of the Lord. But the more closely the authority claims of the LDS Church are examined, the more groundless they become.

The Restoration happened. Joseph Smith spoke with God and accomplished things only a prophet could accomplish. But that has nothing whatever to do with supporting the anti-scriptural claims by the Twelve that they have the right to complete ownership and control of a church that was founded through an actual prophet of God.

                                                                            *****