Sunday, November 20, 2016

On The High Road To Apostasy

The Church's flashy new high-rise in Philadelphia.
Previously: I Decide To Become A Prophet

Latter-day saints in the Salt Lake City area are finding it difficult to share the gospel with their non-member friends, when at the same time their leaders are boasting in the press about the Church's impressive real estate developments.

It isn't easy trying to convert your neighbor when your salient message -that Jesus Christ personally directs the leaders of your Church- is contradicted by the actions of those self-same leaders. Anyone can see there's a serious disconnect.

Efforts by members to invite prospective converts to join our ranks invariably invite uncomfortable questions such as these:

"You're telling me that Jesus Christ himself instructed your leaders to build a three billion dollar shopping mall that caters to only the wealthiest clientele?"

"Well yes, he must have, because our prophet is guided by personal revelation from Christ."

"How about those high-rise office buildings? Were those Jesus' idea too?"

"I'm sure they were."

"And the luxury condominiums downtown?  And those expensive apartments in Philadelphia? Why would Jesus direct your Church to build a deluxe apartment high-rise?"

"Maybe the Church is building those apartments to house the poor."

"Your Church spokesman said they are being built 'because it is a very attractive investment opportunity' and that the units will be be rented out at market rates. Do you think all this was Jesus' idea?"

"Well, we believe we are led by a living prophet who guides this church under the direction of Jesus Christ, so I guess the Lord has his reasons. Maybe people will see how successful the Church has become and these investments will make good missionary tools."

"Okay, here's the problem.  You want to convert me to a religion that claims to have the true gospel of Jesus Christ, but every time I turn around I see your prideful Church leaders showing off how they are spending billions of dollars on impressive architecture that has nothing to do with the gospel of Christ, and which actually appears to us outsiders to contradict His teachings.  Your Church even donated millions toward the building of a theater in downtown Salt Lake City that will be the venue where The Book of Mormon Musical is booked to perform. I thought you people considered that show the height of blasphemy. But you're telling me your Church leaders believe that helping to provide that venue would make a good missionary tool?"

"Well, I don't know all the answers, but I can tell you God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform."

"Okay, let's cut to the chase. Tell me why I should join your church."

"Because Jesus Christ directs this Church through his living prophet."

At this point the prospective convert gives up, buys a gun, goes home, and shoots himself in the head.

An Eternal Principle?
If the average members of the church today bothered to think things through, they would recognize there is something a bit off-kilter about the way their Church's leaders are currently managing the funds supposedly entrusted to them by the members.  But most won't allow themselves to let critical thoughts enter their heads, because they have been conditioned to believe that challenging the actions of their leaders borders on sacrilege.  You aren't allowed to find fault with the leaders, because to do so would make you an apostate.

Exhibit A: This statement attributed to Joseph Smith:
"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is on the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."
There's only one thing wrong with that statement from Joseph Smith.

He never said it.

Adrian Larsen has documented an entire litany of myths and false teachings that continue to circulate in the church, even making their way into our modern Sunday School manuals, as did the phony warning from Joseph Smith above. Larsen has gathered them all into a fascinating six part series titled History, Hearsay, and Heresy.

It is admittedly not hard to appear smarter than everyone else in your ward (all you really have to do is chuck the manuals and read the scriptures instead.) But I'm prepared to make you a promise: if you become familiar with Brother Larsen's blog, you're guaranteed to be elevated to genius status in the minds of your fellow ward members. They'll think you're the next Hugh Nibley.

Adrian proves that the "apostasy" quote above is an obvious fake in Part 3 of the series on hearsay. I'll quote just an excerpt from his careful analysis:
This particular quote is cited [in the manual] as follows: 
History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards. 
Therefore, this quote is cited from three sources: 
History of the Church by B.H. Roberts;
Wilford Woodruff
Willard Richards 
The quote does indeed appear in Source 1, History of the Church, but that's not the original source. History of the Church simply lifted the quote from the other two sources, as follows: 
First is Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, where we find the lengthy notes Woodruff took during the meeting in question. Trouble is, Woodruff's Journal completely omits this quote, though it directly (and without interruption) supplies the rest of the sermon used in History of the Church. 
The other source is Willard Richards' Pocket Companion, which does contain this quote. 
OK, so got that so far? Woodruff omits this paragraph from the sermon. Richards has this paragraph in the middle of the sermon. Woodruff, no. Richards, yes. 
Woodruff, who was present at the meeting in question, is considered the most reliable source because he recorded the notes of the meeting while in attendance. But this quote does not appear in that record. The sermon before and after this quote appears there uninterrupted, but the quoted paragraph is completely absent. 
Richards' Pocket Companion is actually a collection of material Willard Richards copied from other sources. Therefore, though this material appears there, Richards was not actually present when Joseph gave this sermon, and Richards copied the material from elsewhere, most likely Wilford Woodruff’s journal. As to how the quote in question got into Richards' Pocket Companion while NOT appearing in the original record is a mystery. Nobody knows where it came from. It is therefore hearsay and not a historical record. 
We are left to wonder where Richards obtained the quote and why he stuck it in the middle of a sermon he didn’t hear Joseph give. There is no original source that contains this quotation, and Richards was on a mission in England when Joseph was supposed to have said it. 
The quote's dubious provenance is not helped by its doctrinal difficulties. For example, scripture is replete with true prophets, called of God, who did indeed "rise up to condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying they are out of the way." Some obvious examples are as follows: 
Alma the Younger
Samuel the Lamanite
John the Baptist
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith 
In fact, you can pretty much summarize the mission of any true prophet as calling people to repentance. (D&C 11:9) How is this not "condemn[ing] others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way?" 
Therefore, since Joseph Smith himself was "on the high road to apostasy" if this quote were true, it is utterly preposterous that Joseph Smith ever said this. Nobody quite knows where this quote came from, but it wasn't Joseph Smith.
Willard Richards, You Mischievous Imp!
It isn't hard to figure out how that fake entry made it into Joseph Smith's official Church History. Years after the prophet's death, Brigham Young directed his cousin, Willard Richards, to finish compiling Joseph Smith's history, which Richards proceeded to do, doctoring much of the record under instructions from Brigham. The result is that today our official record contains statements Joseph Smith never said, and it left out important things Joseph did say that no longer fit Brigham Young's preferred narrative. Charged to assist Willard in this chicanery was one Charles Wesley Wandell, who, once he realized he was expected to participate in a fraud, up and quit that job, then left Utah entirely.

Wandell is said to have left the church in disgust, but he only quit Brigham's branch of the Church. He went back to the states and rejoined those known as "the prairie saints," numerous quietly thriving branches that remained scattered throughout Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Wyoming, Ohio, and the Great Lakes region. Our Utah version of Church history treats these saints as if they had abandoned the faith, but some 10,000 devoted believers (including Joseph Smith's own family) simply elected to remain closer to where Joseph said Zion would be built rather than follow Brigham Young all the way to the Rockies.

It should be noted that by the time the History of the Church was published, years after Joseph's death, some 60 percent of it was not written by the prophet, although the six volumes are given Joseph Smith's byline and the reader is expected to believe the narrative is all his. After quitting the job where he was expected to bowdlerize the history, Charles Wandell remained stalwart in the faith, serving a mission in California and as mission president in both Australia and New York. After the revised church history was published in 1855, he recorded these words in his journal:
"I notice the interpolations because having been employed (myself) in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was 'doctored' to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards." (See Marjorie Newton, Hero or Traitor: A Biographical Study of Charles Wesley WandellJohn Whitmer Historical Association).
 This wasn't the first time Willard Richards was involved in some dubious chirography. In April of 1842 he delivered what amounted to a love letter to Nancy Rigdon, the pretty 19-year-old daughter of Joseph Smith's counselor, Sidney.

Richards claimed the letter was from Joseph Smith, even though it was in the handwriting of Willard Richards. Both Nancy and her father scoffed at the idea that Joseph sent the letter and refused to believe the prophet had anything to do with it. They had a pretty good idea who was behind it, and they knew it wasn't Joseph.

When Joseph Smith heard about the letter (it was unsigned), he made affidavit denying any knowledge of it, and a few days later the prophet preached to thousands in the Grove near the Temple and condemned "all adulterers, and fornicators, and unvirtuous persons, and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs."

Soon, wouldn't you know it, Joseph Smith's meanest adversary, John C. Bennett, claimed to have gotten ahold of the letter himself (I wonder who he could have gotten it from?) and published it in the Sagamo Journal with the design of raising a scandal. After Joseph's death, Richards simply inserted that debunked counterfeit into the official history of Joseph Smith. No authority in the Utah Church ever questioned the provenance of that letter, and it remains in the record today as "proof" that Joseph Smith taught "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." (See Price & Price, Bennett's Sixth Letter or The Letter on Happiness.)

But I digress.

What If Joseph Really Did Say It?
Every now and then some faithful member of the church will read something on this blog that upsets him and throw that phony quote at me to tell me I'm apostatizing. (Believe me, I've already been told that.)

No matter how much I try to persuade such people that the Lord would have us rely on our scriptures rather than on dubious "faith promoting" fabrications, some people simply will not allow historical truth to deter them. They insist that if that story is in the Church manual, then the Brethren approved it, and if the Brethren approved it, blah blah blah magic.

Okay, fine. Let's suppose Joseph Smith actually did say that those finding fault with the church are on the high road to apostasy. It still wouldn't mean what they seem to think it does. Because when Joseph Smith spoke of  "the Church" he didn't refer to it in the way we modern Mormons constantly do.

In the modern LDS vernacular, "the Church" has come to mean the organizational structure at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City; in other words, the institutional, corporate Church, and primarily its leaders. But when Joseph referenced "the church" he meant just the opposite. He was talking about the rank and file members.  Joseph's definition of the church was the same as the definition given by the Lord in D&C 10:67: all who repent and come unto Christ, "the same is my church."

Naturally that would include the leaders of the church as well as every other penitent within the body of Christ, but any member foolish enough to assume "the church" referred to Joseph Smith and his inner circle would find himself on the outs with Jesus, who warned in verse 68 of that chapter that anyone declaring contrary to the words he just spoke was not of him and not of His church.

Over the past decades I've read a lot of Joseph Smith's speeches, writings, and journal entries. He spoke of the church many times, but I have never once seen him use that term to refer to himself or others in positions of authority within the church. In every single instance when he used those words, he was referring to the community of saints in general. (For a fuller analysis of the meaning of the word "church," as our scriptures teach it, see "My Testimony of the Church.")

Joseph Smith's definition of the church was right in line with the definition given by the Lord. "The church is a compact body composed of different members," the prophet explained on one occasion, after which he extrapolated from the apostle Paul's comparison of the church to a body where no member is more important in rank or more exalted than another. (HC 5:28-29)

So let's look at this controversial talk Joseph Smith gave that day in 1839, and look at it in context. This was not a general meeting of the Saints. The prophet was not addressing the rank and file at this time, because none of them were present.  This was a meeting of the hierarchy, for lack of a better term. Joseph had come to address the quorum of Twelve Apostles and a few Seventies prior to their departing on their missions to Great Britain. He spoke to them for some time, repeatedly admonishing them to "be humble, and not be exalted, and beware of pride, and not seek to excel one above the other."

Now why do you suppose the prophet so emphatically warned these men about being careful not to exalt themselves? It was because just prior to calling these men to their offices, the church had been rocked by apostasy as one apostle after another either left the church or was excommunicated. This new quorum had been called to replace those who had left, because invariably the old guard had assumed, because they had been promoted to high office, that they were in a class separate and above the other members of the church. They had been captured by "pride and vain ambition" and as soon as they got a little authority as they supposed, they had begun to exercise "control, dominion, and compulsion upon the souls of the children of men." (D&C 121)

And now that bunch was gone. Apostatized.

So in light of the context we now have, let's look again at those words Joseph is supposed to have spoken to the new guys:
"That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is on the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

You can see why I have no problem with the claim that Joseph Smith made this statement. In fact, I wish he had said it, because read in its proper context, with a proper understanding of what Joseph would have meant when referring to "the church," this statement utterly condemns most of the Church hierarchy today. Many within the leadership today rise up to condemn many of the members, finding fault with them, saying that they are out of the way while they themselves are righteous. The late Boyd K. Packer was notorious for this attitude toward those below him in status, as was Bruce McConkie. Dallin Oaks has come right out and declared that "it's wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true." If that isn't an elitist attitude, I don't know what is.

There are plenty of disaffected Mormons who will tell you they have been shunted out of the church by leaders who felt they (the leaders) were righteous, while the lowly member was out of the way and in need of correcting.  These modern leaders have turned the definition of apostasy on its head. In the past, an apostate was understood to be someone who had turned against his religious beliefs and principles. Now it refers to someone who fails to show proper deference to Church authority.

(I use the word "disaffected" not to refer to unbelief, but by its actual definition of "dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them." Thousands of disaffected Mormons remain completely devoted to the faith.)

Whatever it was that possessed Willard Richards to slip that paragraph into the official record, it seems to me he tipped his hand in the introductory sentences where he has Joseph saying "I will give you one of the keys of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all eternity."

One of the keys of the kingdom? An eternal principle? One that has existed with God from all eternity?!

Seems to me old Willard took it a step too far.  Couldn't resist crossing the line into hyperbole. That's what I see as the first clue that he made it all up.

Finding fault with others is a serious sin, don't get me wrong. And when committed by a person who holds authority over others, that becomes the very definition of iniquity -to Lord it over others in an unequal manner. Iniquity was King Noah's great sin, and has been the sin of men in authority for all recorded history.

But "eternal principles that have existed with God through all eternity" denotes the operation of the laws of the universe; things that supercede time, space, and the cosmos. I think Brother Willard tried too hard with this one.

The worst part of it all is that Joseph Smith's warning -whether real or fake- was eventually distorted to completely erase whatever it might have meant. Here is Heber Kimball years later repeating what he thought he had read from Willard's account of Joseph's words that day in 1839. Notice how Kimball turns it all inside out:
"I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this Church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit, you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy."
So there you have it. losing confidence in the leaders is the one sure sign of apostasy. Not turning your back on Christ, not abandoning religious faith, not denouncing the gospel. "Losing confidence in the leaders" is the one sure thing that will get you kicked out of the church and branded a filthy apostate. Believe me, I know.

It's no wonder thousands of faithful, gospel-loving members are being called in by their bishops after letting it get out that they are striving to become more Christ-centered in their lives. Members today are instructed to center their focus on the leaders. "You keep your eyes riveted on the prophet and the Twelve apostles," counseled one of our modern apostles, "We will not lead you astray. We cannot. So keep your eyes riveted on the leadership of the Church." (Russell Ballard speaking at BYU, 1996)

Never mind having an eye single to the Glory of God. That advice comes from scripture, and scripture is passe' in the era of "follow the prophet." You may manage to find your way to God eventually, but first things first: keep that wandering eye fixed on Russell Ballard and his merry band if you really want to be saved.

You say you're striving to become more Christ-centered? Church headquarters has sent out notices to bishops and stake presidents to be on the lookout for statements like that because they are the warning signs of apostasy.

I kid you not. I hear from people nearly every week with horror stories of being called up for discipline because they bore "overly fervent" testimonies of Christ.

It's no surprise why Church headquarters tried to destroy all traces of Elder Poelman's original conference talk from 1984. He taught that our goal as members of Christ's church was to become so Christ-centered that we would no longer need hand-holding from the institutional Church. That kind of talk is anathema to the suits in the boardroom at 50 East South Temple. Why, just imagine! If the members got to the point where they no longer needed the leaders, where would they get the money for their fancy shopping malls and condominiums?

Joseph Knew Best
Back in the pioneer era, others picked up on Kimball's distorted version of what Joseph reportedly said and embellished it further, until even the original falsehood has been all but lost in a crazy game of Chinese Whispers. *
*Yes, I'm aware that's racist. Everybody knows Chinese people don't whisper.

False teachings are par for the course in the LDS Church today. True teachings have been replaced with a narrative of false traditions that lull the members into the comfortable security of knowing all is well; our leaders have everything under control. "And thus," Nephi warns, "the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell."

Even the program of scripture mastery has been replaced in our seminaries and institutes with a program called "Doctrinal Mastery." In a Church where very few bother to read scripture anymore, preferring instead to wait for their leaders to disseminate instructions, those leaders can shape the doctrine into any form they want.

If by some fluke of history we don't know about, Joseph Smith really did say those words about what it is that puts a man on the high road to apostasy, we know from the rest of his speech that day that he would not have been issuing that warning to the average, everyday member of the church. In Joseph Smith's day, it was rarely the faithful believer at the bottom who apostatized from the true path. It was the leaders.

It has always been the leaders.


1 – 200 of 215   Newer›   Newest»
SmithFamily said...

Thanks for writing this out. It was a beautiful awakening to have Christ first teach us the non-LDS correlated understanding of Jacob chapter 2 (aka polygamy excuse) and then the pants on fire quote of never leading us astray you also helped us understand, to now this.

It is amazing to us, even as resigned how hard it has been for us to undue our brain washing, and now, almost 3 years later we are finally starting to recover from what we thought was the truth - only to actually do as the scriptures state, to follow the voice of Christ over all others, which voice lead us, shockingly to ourselves, right out of the "true" church which we now know was never the true church since Brigham, but the monopolizer of the "true gospel".

I didn't understand this when it came to us, but now I do greatly...

Unknown said...

Well written as always. Thank you for your insights on that supposed Joseph Smith quote. Crazy the distortions that come from misinterpreting and misrepresenting it.

Sandy said...

Wow.. good job. I wish everyone everywhere could read this.

Joshua Tolley said...

"At this point the prospective convert gives up, buys a gun, goes home, and shoots himself in the head." Nah, in Salt Lake City, if they didn't already own a gun, the Mormons wouldn't want them anyway.

Unknown said...

Well done Rock, How about everyone donate a little Christmas money for Blog Writer. Rock has opened my eyes and that's priceless.

Unknown said...

You can do that through PayPall

WHITE OWL Sydna said...

I met the only male descendant of Joseph Smith. When he was running the Joseph Smith Family Center a DNA test was given to members that believed they were descendants of Joseph through polygamy. None of them were related to Joseph.
Did he really practice polygamy? If he did he didn't have any children with other women.
Bro. Kennedy was the direct descendant and he was an adopted child that didn't know is relationship to Joseph Smith. Most of Joseph and Emma's children relocated to Australia after the death of Emma.
I've stopped attending church. I live in Utah and don't believe LDS values are represented by most of the local leaders. My personal opinion from over 30 years in the area.
The Authority figures in the church have forgotten we are all equal.

R. Metz said...

There is so much nonsense going on in this church, like the saying that "the prophet will never lead the church astray". Well he can, and he does, according to the level of unrighteousness of the people; it is all in the scripture.
From the moment I oriented myself in the LDS church, I felt it was a totalitarian organisation, even 50 years ago, and the church culture has only deteriorated since in the wrong direction. I was lucky to have independent thinking, critical parents, but what if you are born and raised in a LDS environment; how easy to become brainwashed, but we only have to blame ourselves for it; we cannot put the blame on the church or its leadership.
Though the church is quite out of order these days, there are still some pearls to be found in the sand, but we have to search. This web blog is one of these pearls, and I learned a lot from some of your essays. So we have to do our own research, and use our gift of discernment, that we all have, and pray to the Lord that the gift of the Holy Ghost may lead us in the right direction. I wish you all well.

Steak Presedent said...

Thanks for this post, Rock. I've heard that (supposed) quote by Joseph Smith used a few times to condemn regular folk who are critical of bad things that leaders do. The trouble is, a member in my former ward gave a talk about not criticising others, and he didn't just mean members, so I thought the quote was fine because we shouldn't be critical of other people, leader or otherwise.

I also like what you put at the end that it was the leaders who are in danger of apostasy. It's constantly implied that it's the regular riff raff who need to repent and obey their leaders, because it is they who are receiving revelation for us. Nobody seems to realise that regular members an receive revelation too and yet can still make wrong choices. Why are leaders always assumed to be a) receiving constant revelation about every decision to do with ministering the gospel and administering the church and b) always acting in harmony with the revelation they receive.

I don't remember Joseph Smith excommunicating a regular member, it was always a leader, but I, admittedly, don't know much about church history. So thanks for including that there.

I'm a little confused though, you said prophets rise up and condemn others and then later on say it is always a sin to do so?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Now I'm the one who's confused, Miguel. I know that Adrian Larsen made that point that it's the prophet's job to call people to repentance by often reminding them when they are sinning (he is usually charged with condemning them as a group rather than individually, or so it seems to me). But I don't think either of us said it's a sin for a true prophet to do so. It's kind of his job.

I don't know if it was clear to everyone, but you can tell where the lengthy excerpt from Adrian Larsen begins and ends because the margins are inverted. Where I resume is where the inverted margin stops and returns to the normal space.

But I would be interested if you would furnish the quote where I said or implied it's always a sin to condemn others, so I can clarify my meaning.

Steak Presedent said...

Alright, to take the beam out of my own eye first, I was wrong about you saying it was always wrong to condemn others.

So the quote from Adrian:

"In fact, you can pretty much summarize the mission of any true prophet as calling people to repentance. (D&C 11:9) How is this not "condemn[ing] others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way?"

"Therefore, since Joseph Smith himself was "on the high road to apostasy" if this quote were true, it is utterly preposterous that Joseph Smith ever said this. Nobody quite knows where this quote came from, but it wasn't Joseph Smith."

Seems to me to be at odds with this thing you said:

"Finding fault with others is a serious sin, don't get me wrong. And when committed by a person who holds authority over others, that becomes the very definition of iniquity -to Lord it over others in an unequal manner. That was King Noah's great sin, and has been the sin of men in authority for all recorded history."

I didn't think you would include Adrian's excerpt if you didn't agree with it. It just seems a contradiction. However, reading it again, I took note of where you said "Lord it over others in an unequal manner". So when you say finding fault, you don't mean like prophets do when calling others to repentance, but to put others down instead of building them up? In other words, true prophets point out others' faults in order to help them, while some may do so in order to make themselves look better than them.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm still struggling with the concept of criticising and judging people and I see individuals in message boards point out faults and then others condemn them for doing so, saying they're un-Christlike. Sometimes when I think I've found an answer to it, I hear something or read something in the scriptures and it seems to contradict what I think works for me.

Dave P. said...

Is it just me or are many of the warnings of eternal burning and damnation directed towards the leaders who would lead the church astray?

As you mentioned, the attributed quote was given to the new Apostles to keep them from becoming prideful, and there are plenty of passages of scripture often taken out of context for the sole reason to use as threats against the membership.

The "will a man rob God?" question from Malachi 3? That whole sphiel was given only to the presiding priests at the time and when Christ quoted it in the Book of Mormon He was speaking only to His 12 Disciples there.

Jacob was also quite clear when denouncing polygamy when he said, "If I do not warn you as I have been directed, then all of your sins will be on my head!"

As I learned while growing up, anyone who aspires to a leadership position will quickly regret it. To lead is to set an example and serve those who you have stewardship over. The moment you become a de facto ruler, "Amen to the priesthood power of that man."

Robin Hood said...

Rock, dropped a bit of a clanger methinks.
Bro. Ballard is not the "modern President of the Quorum", it's Bro. Nelson.

Lester said...

"But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils." —D&C 46:7

Actual apostasy of church leaders can be inspired and fostered through the doctrines of devils or the commandments of men. Either course will get the job done. Thank God our prayers and our thanksgiving, however, will invite the powers of heaven to strengthen us against the seduction of evil spirits, the doctrines of devils and the commandments of men. All of us who have been true believing Latter-day Saints at some point know the intoxicating sense of well-being and self-congratulation when church leaders tell us that we're extraordinary and God is on our side—because we're following them!

Thank you, Rock and Adrian Larsen, for being willing to speak the truth as you understand it, regardless of how mean-spirited, irrational and apostate you may sound to those who have been seduced.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Right you are, Robin Hood. Someone emailed me about that very thing yesterday and I forgot to make the correction.

I always get those two Russells mixed up. I Gotta remember: Russell Nelson is the devil, and Russell Ballard is merely a demon from the hoary depths.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

It seems to me that the Old Testament and Book of Mormon prophets were charged with what we might call two classes or types of "calling to repentance."

The first was in calling out specific leaders or authority figures, whether kings, priests, or rulers. Abinadi singled out King Noah, for instance, and Nathan singled out David. Malachi chewed out the priests of Israel for keeping the tithes and offerings for their own use when they should have been disbursing them to the poor. (He was talking to the priests specifically when he asked "Will a man rob God? Yet he HAVE robbed me, even this whole nation." Their embezzlement represented not only robbing God, but robbing the people of the nation.)

There are plenty of other examples, but if I recall my scriptures correctly, rulers were invariably rebuked for iniquity, which is the sin of oppressing those they should be serving. As I pointed out in my piece, "When Tithing Settlement Goes Horribly Wrong," iniquity appears to be a sin that can only be committed by those in high places. Iniquity is defined as "lacking equity" or "inequitable due to injustice."

(When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal, he was addressing this type of injustice. He didn't mean that all men have equal abilities, but that all men are equal "under the law." That is, a king has no more privilege than a commoner. Kings, presidents, and magistrates are just as likely to be tried for their crimes as anyone else. Iniquity turns "equality under the law" on its head, and claims, as did President Nixon, "when the president does it, it's not illegal.")

(Continued Below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Miguel, (Continued)

The other type of calling to repentance is when a prophet calls the whole people to repentance, such as did Samuel the Lamanite. Note that the prophet doesn't single out individuals by name to find fault and point out personal foibles. This type of calling out appears to involve the way the people are treating or mistreating others. It seems to me that God charges his prophets with preaching fire and brimstone not because of personal failings, but because of their lack of compassion and love for one another. Apparently God takes this sort of thing seriously because he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were violently abusive to strangers and their own poor.

By contrast, when I mentioned "finding fault" I was referring to just that: fault finding. Nit picking. Singling someone out for criticism when it's not your place to do so.

A long time ago I came across a website that was kind of a dumping ground of stories from people who had had some kind of run-in with certain general authorities. (Sorry I can't cite it; I probably could if I had sufficient time.)

A good number of these people with horror stories about GA behavior were waiters and waitresses who told, for example, how demanding Thomas Monson was, and how he would tear into them if something was not to his liking, such as milk served to him that wasn't chilled the way he liked it. (with ice crystals around the inner edge.) Monson had been employed by the Church his entire adult life, and apparently came to believe he was special and should be treated as such.

Stories of Bruce McConkie abounded. One I recall was he was lecturing a group of missionaries at the chalkboard when he noticed one missionary dozing off in the back. It so infuriated McConkie that he hauled off and threw an eraser and hit the poor elder in the head, waking him up. How dare someone not pay attention when the Great and Powerful Bruce R. McConkie had the floor!

You didn't want to get on Boyd Packer's bad side for the same reasons. He was in charge, he was the authority figure, and if you crossed him (or, heaven forbid, called him to repentance as Paul Toscano did) expect to feel his ire.) General authorities have nothing to repent of, you see. It's the little people who need to fall in line. That entails recognizing who's boss.

I hasten to say not ALL GA's behavior has been found reprehensible. I have a good friend of over 30 years who worked closely with several apostles. He told me L. Tom Perry was extremely kind to all, while others thought they were rock stars and should be treated with deference.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Couldn't agree with you more, Dave P. (Say, where you been the past few years, anyway? Haven't heard from you in forever.)

Yesterday Mark Lichtenwalter posted this list of scriptures that condemn modern prophets on his Facebook Group, "LDS Last Days Prophecy and Gospel Discussions":

“For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” (Ecc. 8:20; Prov. 20:9; 1 John 1:8)

“And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophecy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.” (Ezek. 13:1-4)

“Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him. Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God.” (Micah 3:5-7)

“And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matt. 24:3,4,5,11)

“And they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known. And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.” (D. & C. 64:39-40; see also D. & C. 85:7-11; 101:44-54)

Today ….

The Saints are now told that they “. . . should follow the men whom they sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, for they will lead no one astray.” (Church News, Mar. 17, 1973)

Jared Livesey said...

On a related, yet tangential subject, if one acknowledges the Lectures on Faith as inspired scripture, it can be directly proven that the Church-renumerated GAs, unless they came into the presence of God before they accepted their call, cannot have seen the face of God, cannot have faith, and are not saved.

If one does not acknowledge the Lectures on Faith, it may still be established, just not as directly.

Dave P. said...


The Lectures on Faith were originally considered the "Doctrine" portion of the Doctrine and Covenants until removed by presidential fiat by Heber J. Grant, who claimed that the membership never sustained them as scripture. Ironic as he didn't give the membership a chance to do so right then and there (then again, he also incorporated the church to put the president as the sole corporate head so he didn't need things like common consent).

The other thing about the Lectures on Faith is the 5th Lecture entirely, that describes the Father as a personage of spirit, the Son as a personage of flesh, and the Holy Ghost as the soul that connects them. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones" statement that came later contradicts that and, if members bothered to read their scriptures, they'd have easily seen that if the Lectures remained canon. But, like the original Section 101, which condemned the practice of plural marriage and set the church's stance as marriage defined as one man and wife, it was quietly flushed down the memory hole to satisfy the carnal lusts and desires of the leadership: plural marriage and the false doctrine of men becoming Gods.

Never have I seen the scriptures twisted more and more in an attempt to justify those two "unique" doctrines of the corporation. The only reason they can't twist more to shove "eternal families" down our throats is simply because it's not mentioned anywhere outside of the suspect Section 132 (a violation of the Law of Witnesses, of course, but you won't hear that anywhere else).

Robin Hood said...

I don't really like correcting you all the time, but you make it so inviting.
Your piece states that Church headquarters have written to Bishops and Stake Presidents warning them to be on the look-out for apostates.

I never got such the letter. Neither have any of my fellow bishops nor any of the Stake Presidents I know. It's a bit of a mystery.

Should I:
a) Contact SLC and ask them why I'm not on their mailing list (even though I seem to be for everything else)?
b) Assume your statement is inaccurate?

Jared Livesey said...

@Dave P,

Per D&C 43, "original" D&C 101 ought not have been canonized, neither D&C 132.

Exaltation and godhood remain orthodox, even on solely Biblical grounds, but even more so if one acknowledges the Lectures on Faith to be inspired scripture. That is, after all, the point of being assimilated into the likeness of God - for if we know all things, even as they know all things, and if we have charity, which is pure love, even as they have charity, then we will know the same things they do and feel the same way about everything as they do; we will be the same except, possibly, in appearance and sound.

Jared Livesey said...

And also, @Dave P,

The Lectures on Faith make it crystal clear that the only thing that matters is keeping the commandments of God, or else none of the things described come to a person. This means doing exactly what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount.

Yet, in looking around the LDS, post-LDS, and so-called "Remnant" blogs and comment sections, with only rare exceptions, nothing is less interesting to them than keeping the commandments of God. If then they do not believe in Christ - for if they believed in Christ, they would obey his word; they do not obey his word, therefore they do not believe in him - then why do they squawk so much about religious topics?

(Rock is one of the rare exceptions. Occasionally, he talks, in detail, about keeping the commandments.)

The answer is sobering - because, like the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers of old, religion, to the squawkers, is simply a scam for social status and money. And that's why it's religion they ask for - formal rites, creeds, and priestly hierarchy - and it is religion they get. That's why they aren't interested in the faith of Christ, which may be summarized in one sentence: "keep the commandments of God." To paraphrase the Instapundit, the keeping of Christ's commandments doesn't afford sufficient opportunities for graft. That's what Churches are, and are for - institutionalized religious graft. The parallels between the behavior of Churches, and politicians, is not an accident.

iterry said...

Great article!

I guess I'm on that high road to apostasy because I won't sustain the boys downtown. So I was thinking about this the other day. If there were three people sitting on the bench in Church - and the middle person is a follow the brethren fellow, has a temple recommend, and a calling. On the other side of him is a homosexual. The homo has a calling, sustains the boys downtown and has a temple recommend. I'm sitting on the other side and I won't sustain them because of the homo on the other side and therefore I can't have a temple recommend nor a calling. I'm the apostate and the homo is okay in the eyes of the Church. How ironic! So who really is on the high road to apostasy? The 12 apostles and the 1st presidency - that's who.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Robin Hood,
From what I've heard, the alerts have not been church-wide. But I have heard from two bishops that confirm that Salt Lake finds certain behaviors and code words a concernt. A region-wide meeting (I don't right off recall where) notified bishops to be on the watch for signs such as intentions to be rebaptized (once a very common event in the church) and some bishops have taken it upon themselves to be overzealous, considering it a sign of apostasy for couples to have the sacrament at home sans supervision.

From what I hear from my contacts in the Netherlands, you folks in Europe aren't feeling the same kind of heat members feel along the Mormon Corridor.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I'm sure there are those following this thread who would be more than happy to share their stories of ecclesiastical persecution with Robin Hood.

Robin Hood said...

Are you playing games with me?
When challenged it appears that your original assertion has been modified from bishops and stake presidents to SOME bishops and stake presidents. Then you further modify that by limiting it to the "Mormon Corridor", whatever that is. And then it turns out that the "letter" has morphed into a regional meeting, though you don't know where it was.
Forgive me Rock, but this is sloppy by any standards.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Read again what I wrote, Robin Hood: "Church headquarters has sent out notices to bishops and stake presidents to be on the lookout for statements like that because they are the warning signs of apostasy."

I did not say they have so notified ALL bishops and stake presidents; I only know what I have been told by some members who have reported they (the leaders) were counseled and/or notified by higher-ups (likely Area Seventies) to be on the lookout for what they considered to be warning signs of apostasy.

As one reader recently wrote, " The fact is that some local leaders are on the lookout for unorthodox beliefs. In some cases, these leaders may have received training from a visiting Seventy who instructed them accordingly. Or they may have read something in the Church Handbook of Instructions, or whatever. And some of these local leaders tend to take statements from higher leaders and blow them out of proportion. Or they put policies over principles."

I have received reports from members who have told me they are following directives from Salt Lake. You will recall that I myself was notified by my bishop that his stake president told him an Area Seventy had instructed them to issue me an ultimatum: stop blogging, resign from the Church, or face excommunication. My bishop later backpedaled away from that very clear statement, telling me to my face that he had never said it.

Has Salt Lake sent one of their official letters "To All Bishops and Stake Presidents" as they often do? I have not heard of that. But warnings have been disseminated through the chain, and these issues have been discussed at regional leadership meetings. This information I have received from two bishops, one current and one recently released.

As a result MANY members have been called in and experienced "corrections" that have run the gamut of Church discipline: warnings, having temple recommends taken, put on probation and told they cannot partake of the sacrament for a period of time, disfellowshipped, or even excommunicated.

It may be different where you are, Robin Hood, but here in the states, and depending upon the ward or stake, there is a top-down corporate culture in the Church. It is not uncommon for bishops to take their marching orders from stake presidents, who take their marching orders from Area Seventies. Above that level, it's anybody's guess.

But I can tell you one thing: Those who abandon the faith and resign from the Church are left alone. Those who continue to believe in the gospel of the restoration, continue to attend church meetings but choose to live their lives in accordance with scripture often find themselves in a position where they are expected to apologize and conform to the status quo, or face consequences.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Here in Sandpoint where I live, a believing, devoted couple were excommunicated last year for the sin of taking the sacrament as instructed by the Lord in 3rd Nephi. I had a lengthy conversation with the husband, grilling him for details as to the whys and wherefores. He informed me that his conversations with the stake president made it clear the SP received his instructions from on high.

Jared Livesey said...

I wonder if Robin Hood's flock is that mythical pure branch of Zion, where the members, free from the influence of the internet apostates, read the commandments of Christ one to another from the Book of Mormon (you know, 3 Nephi 11 - 15) and exhort one another in their observance, commiserating one with another about their trials in keeping his sayings while in the world, having all things common, being visited of angels, having open visions, and working miracles?

Oh gosh, to see such a branch of the Church...

Sandy said...

I am going to share an experience. It was a Testimony Meeting and as I sat listening to the many telamonies, and prideful boasts, and loving statements of "I know that President Hinckley is a prophet of God." etc... I was drawn to look up into the eaves of the chapel. There standing in the corner in the air was Jesus Christ. I questioned in my mind what it was He wanted. He said to me that He was waiting to hear someone testify of Him. The meeting continued on for another 30 minutes with no one mentioning Jesus Christ. Finally with 5 minutes left in the meeting, I got up and testified of Jesus Christ and told the people of Him waiting to hear someone mention Him. After the meeting, a few people came up to me and said they appreciated my testimony. The leadership,from that time forward, started to spread the word in bishopric meeting and leadership meeting, that I was an apostate and to not associate with me and my family. We were disfellowshipped in a private meeting where we were never told. Only everyone in leadership was told. We found out from someone who knew the lies were lies ... he was in the bishopric at the time and soon after he stood up for us, he was released.

I have to add one more thing... my husband was approached by a new executive sectretary who had been his friend up to that time. First words out of his mouth was "Wow you really have some problems." My husband, taken back by this greeting, asked, "What problems are those?" The brother came back with a shocking statement that we have yet to comprehend. He said, "Oh I can't tell you that, it's confidential." No kidding.

Unknown said...

Whether a formal letter from Salt Lake was sent to bishops is maybe not so important. The fact is that some local leaders are on the lookout for unorthodox beliefs. In some cases, these leaders may have received training from a visiting Seventy who instructed them accordingly. Or they may have read something in the Church Handbook of Instructions, or whatever. And some of these local leaders tend to take statements from higher leaders and blow them out of proportion. Or they put policies over principles.

Robin Hood said...

"....MAY have received training from a visiting Seventy" or "MAY have read something....."
Suddenly sounds a bit vague to me Rock.
I have followed your advice and re-read your post, but I stand by my observations.
It seems pretty clear you don't really have a clue about what's going on, if anything, but want to appear as if you do. So you make it up.

It's a shame because you often write interesting stuff which is in and of itself worthy of consideration. But then you spoil it, for me at least, by this kind of sloppiness. For me, it just devalues the message to the point where I can't take it at face value.
Oh well....

iterry said...

Robin Hood, Why nip around the edges at this. You strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. The Church is in apostasy and you don't bother to address any of these glaring examples of it. All you can do is nitpick at a few little mistakes in writing. Here, let me give you a few more to ponder and maybe you can address them for me. How about when the Church let the blacks into the priesthood. Abraham 1:21-27, Moses 7:8 says very clearly blacks can't hold the priesthood. There was no revelation given to Kimball and Eldred Gee Smith opposed them and told them there was no revelation. It was a lie and a fraud. How about abortion in the Church - you can have one for rape, incest and life and health of the mother which means for any reason. This is murder. How about the 2nd commandment violations. The Christus is an idol and forbidden by the 2nd commandment. There is no common consent and most here recognize that fact and have been cast out because of it. I've talked to my bishops and stake president about these things and all they do is threaten. No changing anything and the Church is now in complete apostasy and is dead. There is no salvation in the Church now. I can't vote against them for this apostasy. So my conclusion therefore is you are the apostate and are going to hell as it says in 2 Nephi 28:21.

Robin Hood said...

I don't agree that the church is in apostasy. It will be somewhere on the spectrum of course. Even in Joseph's day there were elements of apostasy in the church.

With regard to nipping around the edges or nitpicking, you may have a point. When I read my posts back they do seem a little caustic sometimes - which is never the intent. That's the problem with the written word.

And I suppose I should cut Rock some slack because of this. But in my defence I would say that Rock's material and approach has deteriorated considerably in recent times. He used to write, and research so well. His article on Tithing, for example, is an absolute masterpiece.
I can only assume he is running out of material and is now reduced to using hearsay and rumour to augment his position, and that is always a bad sign. He used to rely on bone-fide evidence.

But you're doing the same thing. "Eldred Gee Smith opposed them and told them there was no revelation" is a good example. Pure hearsay/speculation/rumour.
Maybe that is what this blog has now become.

I think it's a shame because I used to really look forward to Rock's articles. I used to check every couple of days to see if he had written anything new. Now, it is hardly worth taking the time to read unfortunately.
It seems, somewhat perversely, that Rock has apostasized from his original standards.
It's all very disappointing.

Robin Hood said...

Your comment regarding the couple from Sandpoint is a case in point (Sand or otherwise :) ).
You clearly state they were "excommunicated last year for the sin of....". Now that is really sloppy Rock. All you really know is that is what they told you. You could have said that a couple CLAIM they were excommunicated.... etc, and that would have been accurate. You leave us to make the judgment.
And then it gets worse as you quote one of them (the husband) quoting someone else (the Stake President).
Come on Rock, do you really expect me or anyone else to take this seriously?
For goodness sake please get back to facts and reliable evidence.

Either that or you could get a job with CNN I suppose.

Robin Hood said...

Dave P,
Very interesting.
I remember reading the Lectures on Faith a few years ago. Must read them again.

iterry said...

Robin, You've ignored something about the blacks in the priesthood and that is Abraham 1. I know two people who interview EG Smith about this. This is not a myth and the evidence for you that it is not a myth is the fact that he was released from a position that was to last forever proves it. The High priesthood was removed at that time when the blacks were given the priesthood and the gifts of the spirit were taken. Forexample there is no more healing in the Church and the rest of the gifts are completely missing. That is very evident in the Church today. I held the priesthood before 1978 and can tell you that I know I had it before that date and I knew when it was taken.

My good friend Robert Smith interviewed EG Smith about the blacks in the priesthood. EG told Robert Smith that when he heard that Kimball had received a revelation he said to himself that this isn't right. So he said he went to the Lord about this and was told that there was no revelation. So he went to the weekly meeting with the boys downtown and told them that he knew there was no revelation and that they would pay in eternity if they made this change. With that - that son-of-perdition Hinckley jumped up, grabbed him by the arm and ushered him out of the room. Hinckely that son-of-perdition told him that he was not invited to return. A few days later the counselors of Kimball came and told him he was released from his calling.

Robert Smith had a friend in the Church office building at the time. In fact, his friend was a body guard of Kimball. Kimball told him that he had received a letter from Jimmy Carter threatening him and the Church with the power of the Federal government would come against the Church if they didn't make the change. Kimball talk with his body guard for a number of days about this before he announced the fraudulent revelation. He was able to get a copy of the letter for which he handed it to my friend Robert Smith.

So this isn't rumor. The lies that are coming from the Church are all myths and lies about what happened. In fact, you go to Youtube and look at a death bed confession by McConkie by Kevin Kraut and you'll find that Bruce was crying his eyes out before he died because he said that he was afraid to die and meet the Savior. He said because the leaders of the Church had not been honest with the people. Well, he certainly did need to be crying about it because he is in hell now for making this change.

Yes the Church is in apostasy and it's very clear today that it is. This Church isn't anything like the Church that Joseph restored. I am not nitpicking around the edges as your are. I've mentioned now some real issues that constitute apostasy of the Lord's Church. These issues have resulted in my own censure by the Stake president which is fine. I don't care because the Church is dead now anyway.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Robin Hood,
I thought I was clear enough about my sources. Right now I could quote you from scores of emails from good members relating their various stages of unwarranted discipline for the reasons I gave. But that would require me to wade through all of my email messages just to prove to one person a phenomenon that is well known among most of us here in the states; that the Church is clamping down on members who don't feel the words of Church leaders trump scripture.

People write to me to report these things likely because they know I'll understand. I have long since ceased being surprised. In addition to the reports I get personally, there are several Facebook groups and other forums where victims of this persecution relate their stories, stories that would be shocking if they weren't now so commonplace. These groups are often of "closed" or "secret" status for the reason that most don't want their names known outside of these confidential forums.

Are these reports hearsay? Technically, I suppose you could call them that. I would call them personal witnesses. I tend to believe these many reports for the simple reason that I have experienced the same thing from my local leaders. First I was told the command came from Church headquarters, then later when I published what I had been told, I was told I misheard.

If you are looking for a smoking gun in the form of a letter from Church headquarters instructing local Church leaders to clamp down on members for placing Christ first, you will be a long time waiting. They sent their press spokesmen out last year to reassure the public that members will not be harassed for expressing personal opinions, but privately the word has come down that "dissent" will not be tolerated. Everyone on this side of the pond is well aware of these tactics and we are no longer surprised. Because you have not seen evidence of Church hypocrisy in your area does not mean it doesn't exist over here.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I don't aim to get involved in a discussion on blacks and the priesthood, other than to agree with iterry on one point: Kimball received no revelation. If he had, he would have been under obligation to publish it.

In my opinion (and where I seem to differ with iterry) is that no revelation was necessary, since there had been no revelation from the Lord instructing his people to withhold the priesthood from any race of men. Evidence of this is that in the days of our founding prophet, black men held the priesthood as well as whites.

It is only because Brigham Young promoted a policy contrary to Joseph Smith's that eventually that policy had to be changed. Because by the 20th century the leaders had backed themselves into a corner by insisting everything done in this church was done by revelation, they had to fudge the facts a bit and CLAIM a revelation had been received. You can see this claim published in our modern Doctrine and Covenants, where mention is made that president Kimball had received a revelation on the subject, but revelation itself is nowhere to be seen.

Robin Hood said...

I'm sorry mate, but I can't take you seriously.

How do you explain the fact that Bro. Smith was a regular attendee at weekly GA meetings in the temple up until shortly before he died?

And where is Jimmy Carter's letter now? I mean this is evidence right? Such a claim is easily demonstrated by producing the letter. Wait, don't tell me..... Moroni has it!
And if I could have a £1 or even $1 for every "I have a friend who works in the COB" story, or that old "prophet's body guard" favourite, I would be able to dine in a very exclusive restaurant this evening.

And frankly, the claim that healings don't occur in the church today is just ridiculous.

Oh and by the way. Neither of the scriptures you quote say that African negroes can't hold the priesthood.

iterry said...

Rock, I enjoy your articles very much. They are right on target. I want to tell you just a little bit more about this blacks and the priesthood thing then I'll drop it. It is one of the major signs of the great apostasy of the last days and so it really ought to be explored.

The revelation is given in Abraham 1:21-27 and in Moses 7:8. Here is quite clearly states that the blacks cannot hold the priesthood. I agree that no further revelation is needed and based on these scriptures the blacks are not to hold the priesthood. I won't go into the reasons why unless this gets into a big discussion which I doubt. I found a great book published at the time of the phony revelation in 1978. The author put in a little article written by William E. Berrett a former Church Historian. He had researched the question about the blacks and the priesthood. What he found was interesting. Unfortunately the Church is purging all of this information now and by doing so many members have a mistaken view of the priesthood and the blacks.

There is some question if Joseph did or did not ordain Elijah Abel. He was 1/8 black and very light skinned. But later Joseph removed him from the quorum. Also when asked about ordaining blacks to the priesthood he said they cannot. I'll post exactly what he said and the information about it so that you have it. Hopefully so that you don't buy into the lies of the Church. This is from the book Mormonism and the Negro 1978.

Brother Coltin: “The spring that we went up in Zion’s Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J.P. Green and me out south to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson Country, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the priesthood, and I took up the side he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that we said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. ‘All Right’, Said I, I hope you will.’ And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph’s office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’ He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don’t recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say IN PUBLIC that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.

There you have it Rock. The revelations are clear and this is apostasy. The result has been the removal of the Melchizedek Priesthood and the gifts of the spirit in 1978. That is painfully obvious. Thanks

Robin Hood said...

We're going to have to agree to differ.
The problem is that the 15 men in a stake disciplinary council will never speak of what occured. They will never divulge anything as all proceedings are confidential. This works to the advantage of the disaffected member because we will only ever hear their side.

I knew a man who claimed he had been unfairly treated and innocently disfellowshipped for his beliefs etc. He made sure everybody knew how the HC and the SP were out of order etc. Made a great big fuss about it. However, I was in the disciplinary council and knew he had been disciplined for serious sexual misconduct. I couldn't say a thing and neither did anyone else.
He, on the other hand, had a field day.

Now, I'm not accusing you or anyone you know of anything approaching that. But I think it is unwise to accept a story without question, when only one side is available.

That is why I think you need to modify your claims regarding others. You don't know for sure that everything they tell is correct (even if they think it is), so reporting it as such is bordering on dishonest in my view.
You used to be quite careful to make sure you presented things in the right way, but in recent times I fear your previously excellent standards have slipped somewhat.
This is a great shame.

iterry said...

While writing the last letter I noticed your letter Robin. Robert Smith asked him the question about why EG Smith didn't say anything about it. He said that he would not steady the ark. He was removed and that is a fact so whether you take it serious or not is of no consequence. You are an apostate anyway and sustain the apostates that are running the Church.

I didn't write out all the scriptures but you apparently aren't able to read them. Just a product of the dumbing down of the saints by the 1st presidency I suspect. Go to Moses 7:8 which says:For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a BLACKNESS came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all the people.

Now Robin go over to Abraham 1 and read it again about the curse and the Canaanite people and you'll find that it is talking about the blacks. This was common knowledge before the phony revelation. Why have you changed you apostate?

I can't take you seriously when you can't even argue intelligently about scripture. You call yourself a bishop and don't understand these things? Wow!

Oh yes healings - ahhh there are no priesthood healings today. The gifts do not follow the 1st presidency nor the 12. They don't heal anybody either because they don't have any priesthood. That is obvious. People ask them all the time for blessings and it is obvious they don't have any priesthood. In fact, a while back Bidnar while giving a blessing said "Do you have the faith NOT to be healed". What a ridiculous statement to make. He knows he can't heal anybody and that is why he said it. Hopefully you recall that one.

You haven't answered any of the other pillars of apostasy either such as Abortion, Idolatry, No common consent. And you claim the Church isn't in apostasy? There is no resemblance between this Church now and the restoration. It resembles the Catholic Church more than the restored Church. The apostasy always follows the same pattern and it's no different today.

Robin Hood said...

Not only did Joseph ordain Bro. Abel, but Brigham Young permitted his sons to be ordained in Utah, and to serve as missionaries.

Rock's right though, the general priesthood ban was Brigham's doing. There was no revelation banning blacks from the priesthood, so there was none to give them the priesthood either.

We have to get away from this idea that Joseph or Brigham were always right. Brigham was wrong about blood atonement, blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, Adam-God, and more.

Robin Hood said...

So my friend, how many wives do you have?

iterry said...

Good grief Robin, Why it you can't read. The scriptures are clear that the blacks can't hold the priesthood. You simply are an apostate. I don't believe and there is plenty of question that Joseph even ordained Abel. Abel according to the Church historian was 1/8 blacks. If Joseph did which I do not know then perhaps he was mistaken. He certainly did correct the mistake later and I quoted a statement about that. Can you show me the phony revelation of Kimball? I never seen it.

No I'm not a polygamist either. The principle is true unless you've ripped out D&C 132 out of your D&C along with Abraham 1 and the book of Moses. Those condemn you as an apostate.

Joseph had his opinions but the blacks in the priesthood is very clear from the scriptures. He never ordained anybody after the Abel incident. That's nonsense and a lie.

Blood atonement is not scriptural but opinion. You have to get away from the idea that everything the GA's say is revelation. That's what you do today is accept everything that false prophet Monson says as revelation. Brigham also said that when the blacks receive the priesthood you can be assured that priesthood has been taken from the earth. I know you accept Brigham as a prophet so what he wrong?

Adam-God has been misunderstood in the Church and it's quite simple. Adam's body was cloned by God and the taking of Eve's rib shows that he was a clone of the Father. So that doctrine is quite true and Brigham got it from Joseph. Joseph and Brigham did not understand cloning as we do today.

No I'm not a fundy but they are far closer to the truth than you are and that is clear. I stand by watching the Church descend deeper into apostasy at a rapid pace.
The building of the Mall, and the refugees are another sign of the deepening apostasy. I can quote you a few more scriptures on that one too. You ol apostate.

Robin Hood said...

I love you your tboroughly scriptural account of of the creation of Adam. It so..... um what's the word..... um..... that's it! ..... apostate!

iterry said...

Robin, You an apostate that's right!

Robin Hood said...

Yeah..... whatever.

iterry said...

Robin, I laid out for you the apostasy of the Church. You've done nothing to show that this isn't the case. I've laid out scripture for you and you reject it in favor of some phony statement by the leaders. I haven't just pointed out the blacks and the priesthood but many other things as well. The black problem is old news and it won't be reversed. The same is true of all the other examples of the apostasy that I told you. So until you can come up with something then you are an apostate. My Stake president and bishop are apostates. They as well as you will go to hell (2 Nephi 28:21) and finally perhaps make it as far as the Telestial kingdom because you reject the revelations given to Joseph Smith such as Abraham 1. You reject Isaiah and the D&C that tell us the Church is in apostasy. This is very clear.

So when you get around to it tell me how I'm wrong about Abortion, Accepting homosexuals, refugees who do not worship the God of this land, Changed temple ordinances, Idolatry - The Christus is a big seller these days and is a great idol, no common consent, thief of members property by the leaders. The list goes on and on. Instead of nitpicking on the good job that Rock has laid out, how about doing a little study on your own and finding out what God has to say about these things instead of a bunch of rotten, miserable, apostates like Monson and the 12.

Jared Livesey said...


You say you had the priesthood one day, and then the next, you no longer did. What is this priesthood of which you speak? Was it the power to enter into the presence of God, the Father, and that of his son, Jesus Christ, and that of the angels - the sons of God, the divine council, the Church of the Firstborn? If it was not that power which you held and was revoked, which is the power of the priesthood of Melchizedek (D&C 107:19), then of what power do you speak? Do not females also have the power, by faith, to heal, to prophesy, and to do all things which are expedient in God (Moroni 10:23)?

If all are alike unto God, and he denieth none that cometh to him, black, white, male, female, Jew, Gentile, &c. (2 Nephi 26:33), then by denying blacks the priesthood, did not the LDS Church publicly demonstrate - conclusively - that her priesthood was not God's priesthood?

Does it matter if you close the barn doors after the horses have escaped?

iterry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
iterry said...


Your questions are not typical of LDS doctrine and quite frankly I haven't got a clue what the heck you are talking about. I quoted to RobinH the doctrine in Abraham 1. That was the doctrine before the phony priesthood revelation.

You've really made a stretch on 2 Nephi 26 because at the time when this written it was obviously referring to black Lamanites because they are the ones that had a skin of blackness that came upon them. Yes they are of the house of Israel and in the last days they will be gathered. The black Canaanites have always been excluded since the beginning. Abraham 1 and Moses 7 tell us that they are the cursed race. This is something we’ve always known until the apostasy in 1978.

Before 1978 we had the priesthood and after we raised our hands it was taken away. It is clear that the Church members no-longer have that priesthood as evidenced by the lack of gifts of the spirit. Not sure where you get the idea that the priesthood is still present. It would be like saying to me that the Catholic Church bishops still have priesthood too. The Catholics at one time was the Lord’s Church too but long ago it went into apostasy just as this Church has done.
As far as females holding the priesthood again that is not LDS doctrine and no they never nor ever will hold the priesthood. I don't get what you are referring to there either. The idea that women will or can hold the priesthood is nothing short of apostasy in and of itself. I know there are women that claim this right but it's not scriptural by any means.

That's about all I can do with what you've written. Like I said - this isn't LDS doctrine that you've mentioned even though you quoted the D&C. Yes indeed that priesthood as mentioned in D&C 107 was taken away in 1978 as evidenced by the lack of gifts of the spirit in the Church today. The Lord in Isaiah says that there is no revelation given to the Church now (Isaiah 29:10) and so I don’t know where you get the notion that everything is still working. Other Churches claim it of course such as the fundamentalists, but I don't believe they have anything.

Jared Livesey said...


I see no evidence the LDS Church had the priesthood mentioned in D&C 107:19 between Joseph and Hyrum's martyrdom and 1978, either, and evidence against the claim that it did.

After all, if any man has this priesthood, then he has come into the literal physical presence of God, as did Joseph, and received the covenant of the Father; that is the power of this priesthood. And if that priesthood is revoked, then he shall not have remission of sins in this world or the next (D&C 84:33-41).

If therefore you have had this priesthood revoked after having received it, then you are in quite a bad way indeed.

iterry said...

Log, So then you must be one of the fringe LDS break-off groups then. So I now get where you are coming from. We had the priesthood before 1978. I personally saw the gifts at that time. There were many that had the gifts and power of the priesthood. I do not see that the gifts were gone until 1978. Now revelation was certainly cut off early. I grant you that because D&C 101:43-62 tells us that it was cut off because the 1st presidency and 12 became business men. But the Church did not die until much later. That's my opinion of course and I get that from the scriptures.

So what you are likely telling me that some other group got the priesthood and gifts after the death of Joseph and Hyrum. There is no prophecy in any of the scriptures that that would happen. There are several places that it says that revelation was cut off however and a quick check of the D&C tells us that fact that after 1847 there was none. Not even for these other groups is the point. There is nothing that says it will be given to some other group.

Thanks for the clarification though because I was at a loss as to what you were talking about. Now I get it that you are not typical LDS.

Jared Livesey said...


Miracles are worked by faith, says the scripture.

From what it looks like to me, nobody other than Joseph, Sidney, and perhaps Hyrum, demonstrated they held the Melchizedek priesthood. Nobody else passed through the veil into the physical presence of God while in the flesh, whether in or out of the LDS Church, it seems - at least, I'm not seeing anybody make the claim. Therefore, it seems no other group got the priesthood and gifts after the death of Joseph and Hyrum. But to even speak of priesthood and gifts like this is to conflate priesthood with gifts, which gifts come by faith, says the scripture; the scripture never conflates the gifts, which come by faith, with priesthood.

After all, the power of the Melchizedek priesthood is to pass through the veil while yet in the flesh, and to obtain the covenant of the Father, says the scripture.

Jared almond said...

Defending what we believe doesn't allow us to learn nor does it point anyone to learn something new.

Pointing out error doesn't neccessarily change anyones understanding. Learning truth exposes the error and allows you to seek and find new truth. 

What has shown me any errors in the Traditions of my father(s)is learning truth about God from God.  My eyes weren't opened up to errors until i learned truth for myself and found that teachings taught by those with "keys" didn't match up.

I guess i should thank them, because it has allowed me to find the keys or knowledge for myself. Without them I wouldnt have seen the contridiction

You could say I have taken from the Rich and given to the Poor.

Robin Hood said...

I think iterry is confusing the gifts of the Spirit with priesthood authority.
The gifts of the Spirit can be seen in and out of the church. They are by definition spiritual gifts. Disernment, prophecy, tongues etc are examples of the gifts of the Spirit.
Priesthood authority is something else entirely.

R. Metz said...

How interesting, in this context, are the excerpts attributed to Pres. Wilford Woodruff regarding the 1890 Manifesto on polygamy, that we find at the end of our Doctrine and Covenants, where we read (page 293; 1981 edition):"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation what would take place if we did not stop did practice".
This has been puzzling me for a long time, as it contradicts a score of revelations given to this same Wilford and to John Taylor on the matter during previous years, revelations that the average church member knows nothing about, as these are never mentioned in our Sunday School manuals.
Just yesterday, after re-reading "Zion's Redemption" (1933) by Francis Michael Darter, I read on page 81: "In connection with this reported divine vision and revelation, it is also interesting to know that President Woodruff, years later, made a statement that he did not receive a divine revelation authorizing his signing and issuing the 1890 Manifesto".
Unfortunately Darter does not mention his source; a serious omission on such an important matter, but considering the revelations mentioned above received by Pres. Woodruff and John Taylor, I believe that statement to be true.
We share a wonderful religion: it requires our diligence in personal investigation; which religion does?

iterry said...

Robinhood, No I'm not confusing anything at all. Let me give you an example. There is something called the prayer of faith. A Christian group gets together and even Church members and they pray for someone who is sick. The person gets better.

Now the priesthood authority which you don't have anymore is different. People are healed immediately with a blessing that includes anointing. I saw this in the mission field before the priesthood was taken. It was rare indeed that it didn't actually work. I saw great miracles this way. The members at the time testified of these miracles. Along with that the other gifts were present. But slowly because of the apostasy they were lost. Healing really was the last gift to be taken away. It isn't in the Church today.

So what happens today? A couple of so-called Elders gives a person a blessing and they are not healed immediately. They slowly get better and that is called a great miracle. This happened recently to a member of my family. The reason they don't know this wasn't a miracle of the priesthood is because they are too young to know the difference.

But there is more about the priesthood. Before it was taken a person could actually feel the weight of the priesthood when giving a blessing. It's hard to describe to someone like yourself because I know you've never felt it. You are likely much younger than around age 50. The priesthood was taken away 38 years ago. So you wouldn't know anything about it.

When the priesthood was taken I noticed something. The members began making excuses for the priesthood. They would say during the prayer that they were inspired by God that the person would not be healed. I found this rather strange because my experience was quite different. Another thing I noticed was the gift of the Holy Ghost had been withdrawn. No longer were prayers answered as they were before the priesthood was taken. So even though you think you are inspired dear Robin you aren't and I know you are not.

The apostasy is quite deep and I understand the doctrines far better than you do which is obvious. We can get into the scriptures about this too and it looks like we will have to do that. I know you will reject everything I say however because you reject the true prophets of God in favor of the phony pretenders at 50-east north Temple.

iterry said...

Log, Those things are gifts that not everyone receives. Joseph and Sydney had those great events happen to them because they were restoring the fullness of the gospel. I know of others who indeed have had experiences that were great before the priesthood was taken away. I must say however that I know I had the priesthood many years ago and I know others had it too because we saw the gifts. But to say that all the members has to have this or that is not accurate nor true. Not everyone has their calling and election made sure during mortality. It is non-existent now because of the apostasy.

Even the original 12 apostles such as Brigham Young was privilege to see Christ. They had to see Him and they did in the Kirtland Temple. That is what makes an apostle is seeing Christ and testifying that of His resurrection. But not everyone is an apostle. The proof of that is the explanation of the gifts. Go read them in section 46. There are those who have faith on those things that others have seen. That doesn't mean that all the members receive all the gifts. In fact, it says to one is given a gift and to some else another. So we don't get all of them. Now they are all gone. But they weren't gone in 1847.

The only gift that was taken when we got here to the valley was revelation to the president of the Church as it says in D&C 101:43-62 the parable of the Nobleman. The tower in this parable is revelation. A prophet climbs into the tower and is able to see far off into the future. The tower was never built. Joseph however was in the tower but not these later servants. The gift was taken during a time of peace. When we came here to the valley it was a time of peace. Not back east but when we got here. It says they servants gave their money to the exchanges for building the tower. This is why it was cutoff is because the servants/leaders became business men and left off the work of the Lord. Brigham died in today's dollars a millionaire. Yet the Church was deeply in debt when he died. How is that possible when he was working for the Church? The 12 would borrow money from the Church then at the end of the year or two get together and forgive each other their debts. This was the beginning of the apostasy and revelation was cutoff to the Church at that time. It's very apparent today, but the members like to pretend that every word this apostates breath is revelation. A quick check of the D&C confirms that there was no revelation after 1847.

The apostasy was not complete until the priesthood was taken in 1978. After that no gifts, no revelation. The apostasy now has accelerated and the leaders are accomplishes to murder by allowing abortion. This is recorded in Isaiah 1:21. So that is my take on things. Take it for what it's worth.

iterry said...

MrHF, That is correct. W Woodruff said that it wasn't revelation to end polygamy. In the beginning he said it was but he retracted it. As I mentioned in the above letter revelation was cutoff to the Church when they got here to the valley (D&C 101:43-62). There are other prophecies about this in the Old Testament particularly about this happening in our day. Hosea chapter 2 and 3 are about the cutoff of revelation too.

John Taylor wrote out many revelations and you can find them at your local library along the Wasatch Front. When you read them you notice that they don't sound right. Something is missing and indeed something is. Other that the very first part that says verily thus saith the Lord there is nothing in them that sounds like revelation.

After the death of Joseph Smith the 12 and the 1st presidency were in constant battles with each other. You can see that in the long period of 3 or 4 years between the selection of the president upon the death. So what happened was when John Taylor wanted his way he would sit down an write out a phony revelation. The 12 had to acknowledge that it was a revelation but in their journals at the time they would write that they knew they were phony. The evidence that they were phony is the fact that none of them were put into the D&C. Another way to tell they aren't true is look for the metaphorical language of the Lord. True revelations have that metaphorical language because this is His language. Go look for example of D&C 133 where the gathering of the tribes is given. you'll see metaphors everywhere. Nobody understands those metaphors and they are kept secret. I believe the reason for that is so that we are able to detect these phonies. I've read John Taylor's unpublished revelations and I'm telling you every single one of them are phony.

Jared Livesey said...


Brigham saw Christ? When and where did Brigham, or any of the 12 in his day, see Christ? I require 2 or 3 contemporaneous witnesses' accounts for each claim you make along these lines. To my knowledge, Brigham denied seeing Christ, even shortly before his death. And also I require 2 or 3 contemporaneous witnesses' accounts that God laid hands on them or else they weren't apostles at all, any more than a MD who never completes his final year in med school and never gets his authorized license is a real doctor. If one's ordination is not complete, one is not ordained.

You see, what I said above - that the Lectures on Faith, if admitted as inspired scripture, proves none of them saw God face-to-face, much less had hands laid upon them, after they voted themselves a living stipend - happens to be true.

iterry said...

Log, this happened in the Kirtland temple in 1834 as I recall. It was recorded in a number of journals at the time. This is a requirement for being an apostle as it says in Acts 1:22. I don't know of any denial of Brigham that he did not see Christ. He said he was NOT a prophet but not that he had not seen Christ. It is true that revelation was cut off to him. The only true prophet was Joseph Smith. All the others since then were simply presidents of the Church.

The Lord even calls them apostles in the D&C. The original 12 saw Christ and were witness therefore to His resurrection. That does not mean they had their calling and election made sure however. To say that they had not seen Christ would deny what the Lord said about them that they were His apostles. It would also invalidate Acts 1:22 and so whether you had witnesses that testified or not doesn't matter. God called them apostles and that is good enough for me.

Jared Livesey said...

The essential meaning of the word "apostle" is "diplomat." It's very hard to be a diplomat for a kingdom one has never been to, speaking for a ruler one has never met, teaching laws one necessarily doesn't keep and aren't written upon one's heart.

Even today, where we have equivocated - lied, essentially - that an apostle is merely a (special) witness - currently meaning, apparently, chief declaimer - and not anything necessarily more than that, it is difficult to act as a witness of a person(age) one has never seen, or of a name one hasn't taken upon oneself.

Jared Livesey said...


I asked for evidence, not assertions. At this point, it is polite to either put up, or shut up - that is, provide the contemporaneous records which establish your claim - meaning official records, mind, not journals doctored by later usurpers, or admit you don't have it. Any other course is an attempt at deception on your part.

As for me, here is my proof Brigham never in his life (as of the date of this statement) had spoken with any heavenly being. Search for the word "eighty".

iterry said...

Log, I agree the definition of an apostle has been changed today to a special witness. But it's even worse then that. Their witness isn't special at all. I remember a talk about Faust where he said and I'm paraphrasing of course: I believe I know that perhaps God knows that I believe that I know that he lives." This is a little humorous but that is essentially what he said. In that statement he is telling us that he had NOT seen him but only believed that God knew that he knew that God lived. Well by golly I have that same special witness too is my point. So these guys downtown are phonies and don't have a special anything.

As I said, revelation was cutoff to the Church in 1847. I should mention that in D&C 101:43-62 it also says that they don't keep the commandments of God and became slothful. This is the apostasy. At some point however God is going to expose them and kill them all as it says in Ezekiel 13 where it talks about the false prophets of Israel. That day is very close now when he will expose them. Isaiah 66:6 says the samething - Hark, a tumult from the city, a noise from the temple! It is the voice of the Lord paying his enemies what is due them.

Here the Lord calls them His enemies. Quite a contrast to what he called Joseph Smith in the D&C.

iterry said...

Log, That's fine. I would have to research it all again and I don't have it in front of me. For me and I'll say it again the scriptures are the proof and that is good enough for me. If you that isn't good enough for you then you go and research it. I know that Brigham Young lost all the gift of revelation and so I don't need to look any further about that either. Again I know that from the scriptures. So that is where I'm at. If you want to go and verify it then go ahead. What the scriptures say about this is good enough for me. We are a long ways from the 1830's and 40's now and so it is difficult to confirm things because as you say things can be doctored. That is why I accept scripture on this and what the Lord says instead of trying to find actual statements.

Jared Livesey said...

"Thus we behold the keys of this Priesthood consisted in obtaining the voice of Jehovah that He talked with him [Noah] in a familiar and friendly manner[.]" - TPJS 171

Put it together.

Jared Livesey said...


The scriptures don't say what you're saying, and what you're saying is contradicted by those about whom you are saying it.

iterry said...

Well then rather than have me go through all the scriptures you'll have to look at them yourself because Christ the 12 apostles. And Acts 1 says they have to witness his resurrection. So go ahead and take a look yourself. Good luck!

Jared Livesey said...


You seem to be shifting away from what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were saying that Brigham, et al, had the Melchizedek priesthood, the power of which is to come into the presence of God, and (according to Joseph) speak with him in a free and familiar way.

Brigham didn't have it. Neither, apparently, did his associates in the 12. So what did 1978 change? You can't lose something you never had, and what you describe losing is what the scriptures attribute to faith.

Robin Hood said...

I'm nearly 56 mate, and I am old enough to know waffle when I see it.

Jared Livesey said...

D&C 107: 18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—

19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

Power and authority. No power, no authority.

iterry said...

Robin, Not old enough. You didn't hold the Melchizedek priesthood before it was taken. So I can understand why you don't know very much about it. Not waffling on anything. You are an apostate and don't understand many things. As a bishop have you sanctioned abortion? If you have you might not even make the Telestial kingdom. I know a bishop who told a girl that got pregnant out of wedlock to have an abortion or face excommunication.

Did you read earlier what I said about sitting in Church next to a homosexual? The can go to the temple, hold callings like a bishop just as long as they kiss the ring of pope Monson downtown. I can't have any of that because homosexuality is a sin as Kimball said and won't sustain those false prophets.

So stick to the issues buddy. Lets see now - 56-38=18. Nope - you aren't old enough to know anything. I'm about 10 years older than you and held the priesthood on my mission.

iterry said...

Log, here is the thing, The Lord calls the 12 his apostles in D&C 84. There calling is given in section 124. Either you believe the revelations and the restoration or you don't believe it. If you don't believe it then these sections are all worthless to you and there was no restoration. Acts 1:22 says they have to see Christ and witness His resurrection. That is good enough for me. If it's not for you then it's up to you to figure it out for yourself. No matter what I say to you will not convince you. You have to search it out for yourself. I accept the restoration and the fact that the Lord calls the original 12 His apostles. That's good enough for me. They saw Christ and that is that.

The same is true of the apostles at the time of Christ. They are all called His apostles. Were does it say that they did all those things in section 107 to all of the apostles at the time of Christ. Paul certainly did because he talked about it. The others don't say that had that happen and yet they are all called apostles. An apostle is simply one who witnesses the resurrection of Christ. That's all they have to do is witness that and they are an apostle and that is what Acts 1:22 says.

Jared Livesey said...


You can believe Brigham's testimony of himself, or you can shoehorn him, somehow, into a revelation given in 1832 and was directed at those who were physically present to hear it given (v. 42 and 60) and which did not include him (he was ordained 1835) (and which of his associates in the 12 who voted themselves a salary were, in fact present for D&C 84? If they weren't there, then the Lord wasn't talking about or to them.).

Remember, "many are called, but few are chosen."

That is, many are called apostle, prophet, president, priest, and so on - but few, or perhaps none, are actually those things. The Lord calls them prophets who prophesy lies (Jeremiah 14:14), for example.

Jared Livesey said...

Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy lies. The priests exercise power by their own authority. And my people love to have it this way. But they will not be able to help you when the time of judgment comes!

iterry said...

Well said Log, That is the situation we are in right now.

Jared Livesey said...

And a curious thing about D&C 124.

144 And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference[.]

Does the Church's approval mean they are chosen? Well, yes - necessarily, the Church's approval means they are chosen by the Church, and not necessarily the Lord.

After all...

Mosiah 23:14
14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

It is for failing to do things like this that the Church has been condemned since 1831.

D&C 84 (given in 1831)
54 [Y]our minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written[.]

iterry said...

Log - this is my favorite chapter about the meanness and cruelty of the leaders of the Church. The entire chapter is very good. It talks about how they shove the saints around. You might ask that apostate RobinHood about that. I'm sure he does this to his little flock.

I had to laugh because a while back this lesson was in the gospel doctrine and it referred to the shepherds as the members and not the leaders The rotten apostate leaders can't even acknowledge that they are the shepherds when it has something derogatory to say about them. Anyway, good stuff!

Ezekiel 34
1. The word of the Lord came to me saying,
2. Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to them, This is what the sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves. Should not the shepherds take care of the flock?
3. You eat the cream and clothe yourselves in the wool. You slaughter the choice animals but you do not take care of the flock.
4. You have not strengthened the weak, nor healed the sick, nor bound up the injured, nor brought back the one who has strayed, nor searched for the one who is lost, but you have driven them with harshness and brutality.
5. So they were scattered because there was no shepherd and when they were scattered, they became food for the wild animals of the field.
6. My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill, and my flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth and no one searched or looked for them.
7. Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord!
8. As surely as I live, declares the sovereign Lord, because my flock has become plunder, and my flock has become food for all the wild animals of the field because there was no shepherd and because my shepherds did not search for my flock, but rather the shepherds took care of themselves and did not care for my flock,
9. Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord!
10. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and I will require an account of my flock from their hand and I will remove them from being shepherds and taking care of themselves, and I will rescue my sheep from their mouths and they will not be food for them.

21. Because with flank and shoulder you shove and with your horns you butt all the weak ones until you drive them away from the land.

iterry said...

Log, Those are revelations from the Lord. They aren't pronouncements like what is happening in general conference. The D&C is far different in that regard because those are revelation. These come directly from the Lord and that is why I accept what he says that the apostles are apostles. That's all there is to it.

You are correct that the Church is under condemnation. So I can understand where you are coming from. If the Church was able to keep all the commandments I'm sure we would all be sitting and talking about this stuff at Jackson County Missouri right now. But they didn't. The Church members and many of the leaders even at the time of Joseph were not all that great. After Joseph left the 12 and 1st presidency lost the spirit of revelation. But that still doesn't mean that the 12 weren't apostles. They were and the Lord called them that. If they are true apostles then they have to witness his resurrection.

Many groups splintered off the Church after the death of Joseph Smith. Even today there are groups breaking off all the time. The Church now is failing quite rapidly because of the apostasy. The rotten leaders have changed all the doctrines now to appeal to the non-Israelite people of the world. They make great advances in areas of the world where the people are particularly poor and looking for a handout. Africa comes to mind and other places.

Jared Livesey said...


Judas was an apostle, too, and a prophet in the most literal sense of the word. I suspect, however, that he taught incorrectly if he taught at all, blasphemed the Lord, did not obey the commandments of the Lord, and had no power.

Unfortunately, what we have got here is a disagreement on first principles. I don't care if a man is called an apostle, even by the Lord. I care if a man is chosen to be an apostle. The Lord, per D&C 124:144, expects us to discern between those who are apostles in name only, and those who are apostles in word and deed - that is, those whose ordinations were complete - and to reject the former (Mosiah 23:14; D&C 84:57). All others, and this number includes Brigham Young, by his own admission, are apostles or whatever in name only.

Your mileage may vary. But it doesn't sound like it has varied.

iterry said...

Log, A few corrections are necessary. Judas was not an apostle. He did not witness the resurrection. He was not called an apostle nor a prophet. He was called a disciple of Christ and that was all he was. All of the 12 were called disciples before the resurrection. After the resurrection is when they became apostles because they all witnessed His resurrection. So that is the difference in this case. Judas will be a son-of-perdition however because he did have a witness that Christ is the Son of God. But that witness did not make him an apostle. It's the witness of the resurrection that makes a person a true apostle as it says in Acts 1:22.

Not true of the early apostles of this restoration. These were all apostles and saw Christ. They were called disciples but also apostles and that is clear in the revelations to Joseph Smith. Of course that is not true of the apostates today. They are not called of God as apostles. They are called by Monson but first have to be proved to follow Monson perfectly or they are not chosen by him.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...


Luke 6
13 ¶And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphæus, and Simon called Zelotes,

16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

You are likewise apparently without support in your assertion that the early apostles (Which? Were they the ones who presided with Brigham after Joseph's martyrdom? If not, why bring them up?) saw Christ. I've asked you to provide the required 2 or 3 witnesses for this, which request you've not honored. It is insufficient for the Lord to refer to them as apostles, for many are called - that is, named - while few are chosen. Brigham was quite clear he himself was an apostle in name only, that is, called and not chosen.

That ought to give you pause, and also give you reason to look more carefully at your assertion that the others in the Q12 were not apostles in name only. Of course, if they weren't apostles just as Brigham admits he was not, then this undermines your personal claim to the Melchizedek priesthood prior to 1978, as you must be operating on the LDS dogma that divine cooties - the mere imposition of mortal hands by one who likewise had mortal hands imposed upon him - suffices as a claim to valid priesthood, when the scriptures are clear that the power and authority of the Melchizedek priesthood consists not in healing and whatnot, but in entering the actual presence of God, to commune with him and the Church of the Firstborn, and to obtain the Father's covenant.

iterry said...

Log, Like I said from Acts 1:22 they have to be a witness of the resurrection. They were not a witness of the resurrection before they became apostles. So yes there were called apostles but only after they were disciples. The gospels were not written until much later and so it is easy to see why they would put that statement in Luke.

Brigham was an apostle because he saw Christ as well as all of the 12. Again, and this is getting repetitious. The Lord called them apostles because they saw him. This is given in the D&C. If you don't want to believe then that's fine. They you don't accept the restoration. I accept the restoration and know that there were true apostles at that time because the Lord said they were. You want witnesses then go out and find them for yourself. I have the scriptures that tell me all I need to know and that is good enough for me.

So tell me - what happened to the priesthood after 1847-ish. Who has the priesthood in your opinion. Oliver said the priesthood went into the valley with Brigham Young. He was an apostle and a prophet. But what do you believe happened at that time. Do you believe there was any priesthood at all between 1844 and now?

Jared Livesey said...


You are correct; this is getting repetitious.

I leave it to the audience to compare your present position with your previously stated positions on what qualifies one to be an apostle.

Brigham explicitly denied what you affirm about him. Between you and him, who's more likely to be right? And if you affirm what he denies based on your reading of the scriptures, then might that contradiction be good grounds for an observer - if he knew nothing else about you - to reject your interpretation of the scriptures?

They only have the power and authority of the Melchizedek priesthood who enter into the presence of God, having kept the commandments of Jesus, and having sacrificed all earthly things in obedience thereto; this is what the leadership of the Church, having voted themselves a lifetime salary, could not and cannot do and remain the leadership of the Church.

Priesthood is the society, or the body, of the priests. The Aaronic priesthood is an association with angels, the Melchizedek priesthood is an association with Gods. Those who do not socialize with the angels do not have the Aaronic priesthood - that is to say, they aren't members of the Aaronic priesthood; those who do not socialize with the Gods have not the Melchizedek priesthood - that is to say, they aren't members of the Melchizedek priesthood. But that's not how you use the word "priesthood." You use the word in its dogmatic LDS formulation - what I pejoratively refer to as "the divine cooties model of priesthood," whereby power and authority are, like diseases, traditions, creeds, and bad ideas, transmitted from man to man. Therefore, your question admits of no actual answer - it assumes too much.

iterry said...

Log, I've never seen that Brigham denied that he was an apostle. But be that as it may I know that I had the priesthood before 1978. I've told you that a number of times. And yes it is in LDS terms or formulation. It was real - I saw it and I felt it's power. So that is why I know we had the priesthood then. I don't need a bunch of witnesses to tell me anything about it.

I'm still not sure what you are getting at about what happened to it in your opinion. It has been an interesting discussion however and I appreciate your time in discussing these things. There are many things associated with the apostasy of the last days. The Church started a long slide into apostasy upon the death of Joseph. That is now clear. It wasn't complete until 1978 however because that is when the Elders of Israel rebelled against God and gave the blacks the priesthood. Instead all the succeeded in doing is removing the priesthood completely.

Good discussion. Thanks and have a good day

Jared Livesey said...

In other words, the notion that salvation consists of following the right men, choosing the right sides, is, and always has been, false.

Salvation consists solely in keeping the commandments of God.

Robin Hood said...

I do like the City Creek video in your essay.
Thanks for sharing.

Jared Livesey said...

Actually, that puts me in mind of an alternate hypothesis.

Let's say something changed in '78 to take power away from the Church. What if it wasn't ordaining blacks? What if that kind of reasoning is an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

What if it was the unauthorized elimination of the position of the presiding Patriarch, instead?

And what if, with the death of the presiding Patriarch emeritus, the severance of the Church from the heavens was completed?

Food for thought.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

Yes, I acknowledge that if it happened, it could have been by some other third thing, but gee, this puts me in mind of when William Earle fired Lucius Fox for asking too many questions in the movie Batman Begins - "I'm merging your department with Archives, and I am firing you. Didn't you get the memo?"

I mean, D&C 124:91-96 lends a somewhat ironic touch to this.

91 And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;

92 That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,

93 That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

94 And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph;

95 That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery;

96 That my servant Hyrum may bear record of the things which I shall show unto him, that his name may be had in honorable remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever.

So it would appear that in eliminating the presiding Patriarch, who were the descendants of Hyrum, the Church literally cut off its own Priesthood in '78, via D&C 124:91, 96. How very droll.

And thus, the priesthood being cut off from the Church, it goes on to bigger and better things - like when Lucius Fox fires William Earle in the movie, Batman Begins.

Bruce Wayne: [answers the phone] Bruce Wayne.
Earle: What makes you think *you* can decide who's running Wayne Enterprises?
Bruce Wayne: Well, the fact that I'm the owner.
Earle: What are you talking about? The company went public a week ago.
Bruce Wayne: And I bought most of the shares. Through various charitable foundations, trusts, and so forth - look, it's all a bit technical, but the important thing is that *my* company's future is secure.
[speaks up]
Bruce Wayne: Right, Mister Fox?
Lucius Fox: Right you are, Mister Wayne.
[Fox hangs up the phone, turns to Earle and takes off his glasses]
Lucius Fox: [with relish] Didn't you get the memo?
[Earle is speechless]

3 Nephi 16:10
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

Jared Livesey said...

The presiding Patriarch was made emeritus on 4 October 1979, sez Wikipedia, and he died 4 April 2013. Thus ended the Church's Priesthood (D&C 124:91).

iterry said...

Robinh (i have to post my remarks in two posts since they are too long)
Sigh… I’m amazed at the ignorance of the members of the Church. I’ll go through this in detail for you Robinh so that when you come to judgment and are thrust down to hell you will know that you are the one who is rebellion against the Lord not Joseph. Joseph understood the doctrines of the black race because he was a great prophet of God. You are the apostate and in rebellion.

First thing you need to know is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all return to the land of their forefathers to take suitable wives from among the people there in Chaldea. These were Shemites and their cousins. This is the area where Shem lived and settled after the flood.

Joseph was not an apostate and he did not marry a black. He married the daughter of the Priest of On who was a white woman. Ephraim and Manasseh were not half black and half white. That is the most disgusting and absurd idea I’ve heard in a long time. I do know where you got that idea however and it comes from the lies of the Church because they changed the doctrine. I won’t go into that however.

Joseph was brought into Egypt and perhaps you know the story. Not sure about that either but I’ll assume you do. Have you ever heard of the White Pharaohs of Egypt? I didn’t think so. Many years ago a large stone was found in Egypt that detailed the conquering of the land of Egypt by the Hyksos. The Hyksos were Shemites that conqueror Egypt before Joseph arrived. They were of the same tribe where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob got their wives. The stone reported the conquering of the land and how the blacks were driven up the Nile river and into the heart of Africa. For hundreds of years the Hyksos occupied Egypt. The LORD brought them there so that there would be suitable wives for the House of Israel. The Lord’s people certainly would never ever marry into to cursed race except when they fall into apostasy which is the case now with you and your members. It is you who don’t understand this doctrine and it is you who are in rebellion against the prophets of God as it says in D&C 1:14.

iterry said...

Robinh - continued from last post

I’m assuming you’ve read Abraham 1 and Moses 7 – the prophets who you reject and will be judged for. The doctrine is given to you by revelation to Joseph Smith in those chapters. So what happened, why are the blacks black. This is something that you do not know and I’ll explain it to you. You may have heard of the war in heaven. In that war there were two sides. One fought on the side of Lucifer and the other on the Lord’s side. There is lots of detail there that I won’t go into but will concentrate only on one aspect of it. Near the end of the war there was a large group of people who fought on the side of Lucifer who realized that they were wrong and so they repented. They begged God the Father to forgive them and not cast them out. They were told that their probation was over and that they could not be exalted. They would be able to come to earth and gain a body but that was all. They could not be exalted but would be prohibited from holding the priesthood. They would be put into a cursed race so that those who are here can recognize who they are. The black skin is a sign of Lucifer and is not something that is desirable.

What is the evidence for this? I won’t go into all my sources on this but I will quote some scripture other than the doctrine in Abraham 1. In Matthew 15:21-31 a Canaanite woman (black) came to beg Christ to heal her daughter. First Christ ignored her but she persisted and Christ called her a DOG. Now why would he do that? In Hebrew which is the language of the Lord there is something called gematria. Gematria is a Hebrew way of encoding the scriptures. I do know a bit of Hebrew and so I can explain it to you. Words in Hebrew have a certain numerical value. In the scriptures and I could give you some examples words with the same numerical value can be exchanged with other words with the same value. Dog in Hebrew has a value that is equal to a word that means “Plan that is Evil”. So what Christ was telling her is that she supported the evil plan of Lucifer in the pre-existence. She rejected Christ at that time and had no right as it says to the Children (of the kingdom’s) bread.

There is one other verse you need to be aware of. The blacks getting the priesthood is prophesied in Zechariah 14:21. “in that day there shall be no more the CANAANITE (black) in the house of the Lord of hosts. Robinh you gotta get them in the temple before you can throw them out. This is a prophecy about this.

I could go into more detail but you are in such a state of apostasy and it would be a waste of my time to explain more to you. This is the true doctrine. NO the House of Israel has NONE of the blood of Cain. If so then the God of heaven would have long ago rejected us. He has rejected the Church now because of this great sin that has come upon the Church of the mixing of the cursed race with Ephraim which is the elite tribe of Israel. The good news is there are many thousands who see through you apostates and know the doctrine very clearly and aren’t fooled by you rebellious apostates. Now you know and this doctrine will condemn you at your judgment.

iterry said...

RobinH, Well, I'm in good company since Christ called the black women a DOG. Abraham who you reject called the blacks THE CURSED RACE. Again, it is you who are in rebellion against God. Lucifer has won a great victory with you through the apostate Church. I'll keep my company with the Holy ones of Israel. You can make your bed with the cursed race. We'll see who comes out better in the end.

Folkhard said...

According to the Book "Roots of the Bible

An ancient view for a new outlook" written by Friedeich Weireb, the Canaan people never were black.

iterry said...


One more thing, The Lord only cursed the blacks against holding the priesthood. Why are you so rebellious? I work with them, talk with them etc etc. I've quoted you many scriptures now condemning your doctrine. You still haven't shown me the revelation given to Kimball. Your ignorance of the gospel is profound. You don't understand for example that the Church was to gather Ephraim in the last days not the non-Israelites. It is Ephraim that hears the drum beat of the gospel and comes into the Church. This was true until the doctrines were changed to accommodate the world. This is apostasy and you are one of them. The gathering of Ephraim is over now and soon the next phase will begin. You will be excluded from that. It says in Isaiah that the Lord is going to expose and destroy the leaders of this Church. Many regular members will die as a result. You will be among them. The Lord will not be mocked by you nor the leaders of this Church who are in rebellion against Him and His gospel.

iterry said...

Folkhard, interesting but of course incorrect. It quite clearly says in the Pearl of Great Price that the Canaanites are black Moses 7:8. This is doctrine that was understood before the phony revelation of 1978. It amazing to me the propaganda put out by the Church and the ability of the members to be fooled by it. Amazing!

Jared Livesey said...

Do the scriptures mention who settled the land of Canaan after the flood?

Unknown said...

Beautiful post Rock. Well done!

Jared Livesey said...

I wonder if the scriptures ever define what it means to have "the right of priesthood" or "right to the priesthood." Because I'm not seeing any scriptural explanation, and if it means they cannot be members of the priesthood of God, then that seems to contradict the Book of Mormon, the verse of which I have cited before - he denies none that come unto him, and all are alike unto him.

Robin Hood said...

You are correct. None are denied.
And, of course, Joseph described the Book of Mormon as the most correct book!

iterry is seriously mistaken.
While there are many apostates, and many that are labelled as apostates, I believe the only true apostates are those that condenm their fellow brothers and sisters, children of God no less, because they have a different coloured skin. When God himself clearly states that he is no respector of persons.
That is apostasy of the highest order.

iterry said...

Robinh. You're last post was quite telling. You lost the argument because you desended into name calling. You've got nothing to offer to debate the question. You've lost because you can't argue against scripture. The Scriptures condemn you as a person that is in apostasy and rebellion against God. So if you've got nothing to offer lets move on then and discuss your other areas of apostasy.

Take abortion for example in the Church. You accept that because you sustain the apostates downtown. There are 3,000 abortions a year in Utah. The Church accepts abortion for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother which means anything. Isaiah calls you murderers. There might be other areas where you commit murder but this one is clear. So lets talk about how you are a murderer. Have you ever told anybody in your ward that it is okay to have an abortion? This would be a fun topic.

Another one would be the Christus as an idol. Idols are condemned in the 2nd commandment. The Lord hit the Christus with a tornado in August 1999 breaking the glass front. So why to you have this rotten image of Christ plastered everywhere in your chapels and temples? This is another topic we can discuss.

How about no common consent in the Church. How you force down their throat every act the boys downtown do as well as your own.

There are other areas we can discuss but it is clear you've lost the debate on Blacks in the priesthood because you've descended into name calling and really have nothing to offer.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cherryann said...

In January 2015 my husband and I were turned into our stake president by our bishop (after being blackmailed by a family member) because we were rebaptized and refused to obey his orders to stop taking the sacrament at home. Our stake president excommunicated us after a 4.5 hour council because "all 15 men in this room have a strong, abiding testimony that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet, seer, and revelator, and you don't." That was the "reason" given at the verdict. We live in the Boise area and were excommunicated only months after the Larsen's. There have been others in surrounding stakes excommunicated for similar reasons, all prior to the "Boise Rescue". As for the Boise area, the bishops and stake presidents here are on high alert for "apostate language".

iterry said...

Cherryann, Very interesting. I have a question though. In your court did 6 members of the high counsel speak in your behalf and offer a defense as mandated in the D&C? Also did all the court vote to ex? The Jews taught that if the vote is unanimous then you know that it is a sham and a farce. Just curious. I no longer attend myself because the Church is so far into apostasy now that I consider the Church as a dead and has no ordinance nor power to save anybody. Thanks

Robin Hood said...

Thanks for sharing.
A question:
What did you expect?
Seriously, do you really expect your bishop and SP to ignore the fact that you had been rebaptised and all that that implies (Snuffer, belief in the apostasy of the brethren etc)?
They have a duty to deal with such matters and they discharged that duty. Clearly you didn't believe in the claims of the church, so why so miffed that they kicked you out?
You're better off out of the church, the church is better off without you; everyone's happy.

Cherryann said...

No one on the high council entered a defense in our presence. We were asked a few questions, however. And at one point, one councilmember asked us to "dumb it down" because he is a "simple man" and couldn't understand the Scriptures I was quoting. No joke. I have no idea if the voting was unanimous or not, since we were not present during the vote. However the high council vote is just a façade anyway. The stake president can excommunicate us without a single vote from the high Council. His decision was already made before we entered the room. He essentially told us our fate before the council began.

Robin Hood said...

Like I said, why do you care?

Cherryann said...

Who said I was miffed? We expected excommunication and walked into the council knowing that was the verdict. It was a sacrifice the Lord required of me and my husband, which we freely gave, and we have been free to worship Him as he dictates ever since. When we walked out of that council, the darkness and burden left in that room was heavy and palpable. Yet we felt as if we were butterflies emerging from our restrictive cocoons as we crossed the doorway threshold. It was as if the generational chains of unbelief were literally shaken off (we come from Pioneer heritage, are returned missionaries, and have a large family. Up until that point we were very active and well respected church members.) Never have I experienced anything like it!

Was it pleasant? Absolutely not! In fact, it's the worst experience I have ever had. (And I have had major brain surgery!) But it was absolutely necessary for our eternal progression, and the Lord's hand was in it from the beginning. He brought us into the church for a reason, and brought us out of the church for a reason. We will forever be grateful for a membership because it has brought us to where we are today.

iterry said...

Cherryann and Robinh. Thanks for telling me these things. You're description is not a surprise at all. This is abuse of the members of the Church. Even in the Mormon Talmud handbook of instruction it says you can belong to another Church, but that doesn't apply when they say it doesn't apply. These people like Robinh are very abusive in their approach to the members. Oh they talk a good talk to their congregations, but it's all different in the courts of abuse behind closed doors where there regular members can't peek in. But this is all prophesied in the scriptures that the leaders of this Church would be abusive and mean. Ezekiel 34 is all about these so-called shepherds of Israel. I'll quote a few verses - you should read the entire chapter - it is very good and the Lord condemns leaders like Robinh who is a bishop so he says. They don't even follow what the Lord laid out in the D&C for holding a court and that is why I asked you. Rest assured though - these leaders are all going to hell because of their abuse of the members. They are apostates and in rebellion against God. You proved that and what you did in that court will stand as a testimony against these vile apostates at the judgment. Thanks again for sharing - I know it was tough for you and a rotten lousy experience. But this is Lucifer's work now and not the Lords.

Ezekiel 34:
2. Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to them, This is what the sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves. Should not the shepherds take care of the flock?
3. You eat the cream and clothe yourselves in the wool. You slaughter the choice animals but you do not take care of the flock.
4. You have not strengthened the weak, nor healed the sick, nor bound up the injured, nor brought back the one who has strayed, nor searched for the one who is lost, but you have driven them with harshness and brutality.

20. Therefore, this is what the sovereign Lord says to them: Surely I will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep,
21. Because with flank and shoulder you shove and with your horns you butt all the weak ones until you drive them away from the land.
22. I will save my flock and they will no longer be plunder and I will judge between sheep and sheep

Robin Hood said...

So what are you moaning about?

Robin Hood said...

You're the one who started with the personal insults and the name calling.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

There are a few names for which you accurately qualify, but I don't need to share them. Everyone on this blog knows what they are.

iterry said...

Robinh, You don't seem to understand the abuse that you people engage in. She has a right to tell you that it was an ugly experience. Why wasn't any defense offered? What if 6 members as it says in the D&C spoke in her behalf? Maybe they would find out about abuse of the leaders of the Church. This kind of abuse is rampant through the Church today.

This was an illegal trial and not based on the D&C. Can you tell me why they abused her this way? Man oh man you are an apostate. Hell will open its mouth wide when you enter in.

iterry said...

Robinh, Calling you an apostate is not name calling. This is simply a description of what you are. Calling me a white supremacist is name calling and that is when you lost the last debate because it labeled you as a sore loser and had nothing more to offer. But calling you apostate is a description. You don't believe in the scriptures. You don't follow the prophets of God. You don't follow God. You are in rebellion against Him. I've shown you numerous scriptures to that fact. I'm only calling you what God calls you in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joseph Smith. I can show you those scriptures as well because when these ancient prophets of God prophesied about the leadership of the Church which is you they can you apostate. So I'm not doing anything but repeating what these ancient prophets have said. Telling you that you are going to hell is nothing more that repeating what Nephi said is going to happen to you in 2 Nephi 28 for those who say "all is well in Zion".

It doesn't bother me in the least to call you what you are and call you out for your abuse of the members and your utter disregard for the commandments of God and His prophets. It will continue I might add.

Isaiah 1
3. The ox knows its owner, the ass its master’s stall, but Israel does not know; my people are insensitive.
4. Alas, a nation astray, a people weighed down by sin, the offspring of wrongdoers, per-verse children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have spurned the Holy One of Israel, they have lapsed into apostasy.

fearfullooking said...

Can someone please explain to me if the bottom line here is that the Mormon Church today is not the Lord's true church? Is it possible that there was no true prophet, seer and revelator once Joseph died? That Brigham Young was an imposter who did not carry Joseph's work forward, according to the true will of God?

Jared Livesey said...

It is possible.

Jared Livesey said...

It is more than possible, actually.

Brigham Young (JOD 16:4 [April 7, 1870]): "To give to the idler is as wicked as anything else. Never give anything to the idler."

Brigham Young taught that giving to the idler is as wicked as raping, murdering, and cannibalizing your mother.

But what did Jesus teach?

Jesus (KJV Luke 6:30): "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."

Jesus (JST Matt 5:21): "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great, and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven."

Jared Livesey said...

Jesus (3 Nephi 14:1): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Jared Livesey said...

My bad. Brigham's address was delivered in 1873, not 1870.

I wonder how many more contradictions between Brigham and Jesus, or between Woodruff and Jesus, or between Snow and Jesus, and so on down the line to today, one might be able to find were one to go through them all with a fine-toothed comb.

The Church sez: Have a year's supply of food on hand.

Jesus taught: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Jesus taught: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof."

Jesus taught: "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."

The Church sez: Get all the education you can.

The Book of Mormon teaches: "[W]hoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them."

Cherryann said...

Robinhood, the purpose of my post was in response to Rock's article. Nothing more. I am not moaning, only sharing my experience since it pertains directly to the discussion that Rock began. I do not wish to be drug into your arguments and will not contend with you. I wish you all the best in your search for truth.

Jared Livesey said...

You know who the real hero of The Hunt for Red October was?

It was the KGB agent, the lowly cook's assistant. He knew the orders Ramius, the traitor, murderer, and thief, read to the crew were fake. He did his duty at the cost of his life.

We face a similar choice. We have a copy of our real orders in the scriptures - the things Jesus said to do. Luckily, we don't have to stay on the boat to carry them out.

Lester said...

Mr. Hood, What purpose could be had in mocking Cherryann by inquiring what she is moaning about? Should you be hoping to warn her as a neighbor as all Christians have been charged to do by the Lord, you're stumbling badly, friend. If you're feeling inspired to call her out because you perceive that she has turned to the path of the adversary, your mocking a weak, ineffective challenge. If the account of her and her husband submitting to LDS excommunication instead of professing loyalty to a group of men lavishly sustained by the widow's mite bugs you, just come out and say so. Mocking another comes from a place of smallness. We all get to choose. Should you experience a crisis of faith in the days to come, both Rock and Cherryann probably would welcome your questions and genuinely sympathize with your confusion and sense of betrayal. Peace and clear thought be with you.

iterry said...

One thing that ought to be understood is that throughout history whenever there is a restoration there is always an apostasy. Verlan Anderson of the 70 said many years ago that it is in evitable that the Church at some point will lapse into apostasy. It is not a matter of if but only a matter of when.
Fearfullooking asked the question if the LDS Church is not the true Church. Was there no prophet after Joseph Smith? Was Brigham Young an imposter? These are all excellent questions.
The answer to the first question is no, it is no longer the true Church. But how so? Doesn’t it still have the standard works and keys of the priesthood? The answer is yes it still has the scriptures but no longer has any of the keys of the priesthood. That is clear now. The same is true of the Catholic Church. It still has the scriptures but it certainly does not have any priesthood, oracles, or gifts. It, like the Church was once the Lord’s Church but at some point in time lapsed into apostasy. The LDS Church now resembles the Catholic Church in top down control in every respect.
The second question is was there no prophet after Joseph Smith. A simple check of the D&C reveals that there was no revelation after Joseph Smith except for perhaps the revelation given to Brigham in 1847. Brigham Young didn’t even claim to be a prophet until he got in battles with the 12 and finally decided to assume the title. But there is no revelation after 1847.
D&C 101:43-62 is a parable that tells us what happens to the Church in the last days. I don’t have room to print it here but I will interpret the metaphors so that it can be understood. I’ll have to be brief however.
The Lord is the nobleman, of course. He speaks to his servants and tells them to plant twelve trees on this choice piece of land. The twelve olive trees are the twelve tribes of Israel, He commanded them to build a watchtower to see and warn the people when the enemy was coming.
The Lord tells his servants to plant the olive grove. This is the restoration of the gospel. There are not twelve trees in the grove yet, but there are people from all the tribes who are scattered among Ephraim, so the twelve trees still applies.
Continued below

iterry said...

The servants did as the Lord commanded. These servants are Joseph Smith and others who participated in the restoration. After the initial restoration, the first servants leave and the other servants are left to carry out the commandments of the Lord. They are told to build a watchtower and put a watchman on it to watch for the enemy.
The hedge is the doctrines and ordinances of the restored Church. It is the hedge which protects the people. It is their defense against the world and against the enemy. There were watchmen placed around the hedge. These are the teachers and leaders of the Church, including the so-called apostles, whose duty it is to keep the doctrines pure and not to change them. Notice the watchmen are placed around the hedge rather than on a watchtower. This means that they are not prophets and cannot see farther than anyone else.
The watchtower represents revelation, however. It allows the watchman to see far into the distance, which is the future. Only a prophet can do that, and only in this can they know of the approaching enemy before he is near. Apparently, the Lord intended to continue speaking with the Church through a prophet. He ordered the Church or the servants to continue receiving revelation.
In the parable, the Lord explains what would happen. The other servants after the first servant is gone, sit and consult. They question why the Lord needs a watchtower seeing it is a time of peace. They see no threat from the enemy. They have the revelations and ordinances. What more do they need? Of course they need the warning eyes on the watchtower to alert them to danger.
As these men consult, they decide that the money would be better spent invested in business. While they were arguing, they became slothful and failed to obey this commandment. After the first servant leaves, these servants fail to build the watchtower. We know there was no further revelation in the Church, but in this parable the Lord seems to be laying the blame on these servants, who are the apostles. They are the ones who have access to the Lord’s money.
Now that you understand the metaphors involved in this parable the rest should be easy to understand. So to answer the question was there a prophet after Joseph the answer is no there was not. The Church has simply drifted along by the intelligence and cunning of the current leadership. So there isn’t any wonder then that things are so wrong in the Church today.

Lester said...

By his own confession, iterry, Brigham Young supports your assertion that Brigham Young was not a prophet when he said,

"I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser[.]" (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1306.)

Hmmm. A Yankee guesser sounds pretty good for some things but I'd agree with you that one wouldn't confuse it with being a prophet. We search in vain for the fruits of prophetic callings from Brigham until now.

iterry said...

Well said Lester. The problem now is since God hasn't spoken to His Church since Brigham the leadership in their apostate condition begin to elevate themselves to the status of deity practically. Now the members think that everything Monson breaths is revelation. As D&C 101 points out - that is not the case and they are in fact slothful servants who do not keep the commandments of God.

fearfullooking said...

thx, Log! good response.

fearfullooking said...

Thx for your comments and perspective, iterry.

Robin Hood said...

I wasn't mocking anyone.
I was merely pointing out that to decide to have nothing to do with the church, and join another movement, because the church is "apostate", and then complain that the church cancel your membership, is contradictory. It makes no sense.

She even said that she felt wonderful after the verdict. So she should, if anything, feel gratitude to the SP for facilitating that.
Poor bloke can't win.

Lester said...

Thanks for the clarification, Robin Hood. Your original question to Cherryann makes sense in light of this. While I've usually appreciated your comments on this blog, that short-hand-style question seemed to strike an odd note for me.

Stake presidents faced with members choosing loyalty to Jesus Christ over the Q15 are indeed in an uncomfortable pickle. I'd agree that from Cherryann's point of view, the SP probably did her and her husband a favor.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, Howdy folks!

I usually make it a point to read all the comments on this blog, but I confess that I have studiously avoided my own blog for several days. The reason is I have no interest in the subject, and I don't have the time to wade through arguments rehashing a topic I have no interest in. And I have no interest in the seeing this topic beaten to death, other than to assert, as I did way back when this quarrel started, that there was no revelation "giving" blacks the priesthood because there was no need, because there had never been a revelation prohibiting anyone of African descent from holding it.

Now, I'm guessing there may be some other comments in there on topics other than this one, so eventually I'll wade through the comments because I feel a responsibility to. But I feel no responsibility to weigh in on this topic when my feelings are that whatever priesthood we are given on this earth, God has not prohibited one class or race of people from the privileges of it.

That having been said, one paragraph did catch my eye as I was skimming through here today. I saw iterry call Robin Hood an apostate.

Now, I don't know the context, or what went on in the discussion before that label was tossed about, but it would appear that iterry felt justified in labeling his brother an apostate based only on the fact that his brother interpreted scripture differently than he.

I would be careful tossing around that label when not using it by its proper definition. And apostate in religious contemplation, is someone who has completely turned his back on his formerly held beliefs. It is unfair to use that term to describe someone who believes DIFFERENTLY than you do, and it is certainly wrong to use it in the way it is most often used today: to describe someone who has chosen to put Christ first, especially Christ's teaching that we ought not put our trust in the arm of flesh, and we ought to obey God rather than men.

I and many others here have been accused of apostasy simply because we are unable to sustain men as prophets, seers, and revelators who have failed to provide any evidence of having those gifts. That is not apostatizing from the truth, and neither is it apostasy when someone expresses opinions or interpretations different from your own.

Some of Robin Hood's opinions differ markedly from my own, but I would never call him an apostate, because we have much more in common in our religious beliefs than separate us. We both embrace the Restored Gospel, the Book of Mormon, and a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Everything else is peripheral. I have never apostatized from the core beliefs of my faith, and neither has he nor, I would wager, most of the people weighing in here. So let's respect our differences. Argument is intended to help the other person understand where we are coming from; it is not intended to stomp on the other guy's views.

Let's learn from each other. And be amenable to the possibility that ALL of us are capable of error.

Jared Livesey said...

What's really going on, Rock, is that there are at least two faiths being represented here - each calling themselves "Mormonism."

They use the same ward buildings on Sunday, carry the same books of scripture around, but lead very different inner lives.

Because they are different inside but can't be told apart from the outside, the conflict between them over their worldviews takes the form of inquisitions, accusations of apostasy, hunting heresy, and the like.

Because: diversity + proximity = war(1). At most one of them can be the truly true team of God, even if both can fail to be the truly true team of God.

(1) The actual equation is diversity + proximity + fear = war. Fear is the nigh unto universal state of man due to the fall of Adam; when Satan said he would take the spirits that followed him and possess the bodies God created for Adam and Eve, God didn't say that wasn't going to happen. It seems to me that, scripturally, everyone is possessed by the spirit of the devil until they are redeemed of God, and the devil's power is fear.

Robin Hood said...

Getting back to Rock's article, I have a question.

Why do you (anybody) think that the Church is getting involved in these high profile real estate adventures?

The reason I ask is that they are clearly very visible, controversial, and expensive. Seems quite a risk to take when other investment opportunities are available.

What do you think is the rationale?

Jared Livesey said...

Robert Conquest's Third Law of Politics: “The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."

The rationale is irrelevant unless it's "God came down from heaven and told us to do it."

Robin Hood said...

I'm not sure it's that simple.
For example, do the hierachy think they are building the kingdom? If so, how?
Or is something else going on?
I've had more than one Utah based member say to me that City Creek is only a shopping mall for now. It will have another use in the future.
Now I don't know if that is true or a leading contender for the 2016 Mormon Urban Myth award (I suspect it is), but my point is the brethren must know, or think they know, what they're doing.

It just strikes me as odd that they would deliberately draw fire in this way.
I would be very interested in your perspectives; especially those who live in the SLC area.

Unknown said...

MrHFMetz said:
Well that was really an exciting debate yesterday on this forum about the negro priesthood issue. I almost fell off my chair. When do we ever read from someone, writing with that power and courage like iterry did.
There was name calling indeed: the term white supremacist was used, even Rock Waterman was called upon to do something about the situation, that made someone a bit nervous obviously. Of course he would'nt, and he did'nt; that would degrade his action to the same priestcraft level that was excercised against him when he was excommunicated lately.

"Even Rock Waterman was called upon..."

That made me laugh so hard.

Brigham Young never saw Jesus Christ, according to BY himself (LOL) and was in fact never referred to as an apostle in the D&C.

The fact iterry believes blacks shouldn't hold the priesthood is preposterous. I love that he uses a scripture about Cannanites not being in the house of God, and that that somehow is referring to blacks and the priesthood.

One of the apostles was a Canaanite. Mathew 10:4, Mark 3:8

An admirable thing about Rock is that he allows all these ridiculous comments and debates to keep going, and never censors anything, but it's also not very useful. All you guys just keep blabbering on.

140 comments later on this post, nothing accomplished.


I pray God has mercy on all of us.


iterry said...

The Church steals from it's members to fund projects like the Mall. Why does the Church want to invest anyway?

D&C 51:10 says this: And let that which belongeth to this people Not be taken and given unto that of another Church.

The Church today gives money to the Catholic Church, Refugee organizations, Red Cross, and even builds a Mall with the members money. This is thievery from the members. This is contrary to the commandments of God. The members have absolutely no say-so in how their money is spent. God said ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Obviously this commandment is not being kept. The leaders of this Church are in a state of Apostasy. Apostasy is when you depart from the established path and engage in activity that is not in accordance with the commandments of God. This is disregard for the commandments of God.

Anonymous said...

Actually those references about one of Jesus' apostle Simon being referred to as Simon the Canaanite are actually a bad translation in the KJV. It is really suppose to say Simon the Zealot.
The truth is that in spite of iterry being a little rough around the edges and short tempered he is right about the Blacks and the priesthood thing. The scriptures back him up on this one.
Moses 7:8 says point blank that there was a "blackness come upon the all the children of Canaan." In that same chapter vs 22 says:
"And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."
Then in Abraham 1 we read:
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
vs 21 says that the king of Egypt was a descendant of Ham and a "partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth", meaning he was a Canaanite.
vs 22 says that through this line of Ham to Canaan to the Pharaohs of Egypt, that the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. This certainly seems to be saying that the blood from the pre-flood Canaanites was being preserved through this specific line or race.
vs 24 says that through this lineage of Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. The lineage of the Canaanites was cursed and in the next few verses we see what that curse was.
vs 26 says how the first Pharaoh of Egypt was righteous, even trying to imitate the original order of Adam down to Noah, but Noah cursed him as to the Priesthood, even though he blessed him with wisdom and the blessings of the earth. The curse of upon the Canaanites was that they could not have the priesthood.
vs 27 says that Pharaoh was of the lineage by which he could not have the right of the Priesthood.
The pre-flood Canaanites were cursed with blackness. Through the lineage of Ham and Egytus to Canaan and then through Pharaoh and the original Egyptians the cursed race of the Canaanites was preserved. This race was cursed as to the Priesthood and had no right to it. I challenge anyone to try and give an alternate interpretation to these verses in the POGP than I just provided.


R. Metz said...

Kai Gorbahn; thanks for your comment; of course you are right, in the eyes of the Lord we are all apostate.
But saying that anyone will go to hell, as someone did on this forum, is not right.
That calls for repentance; only the Lord Himself could say that. Maybe in the heat of the debate we forget who we are, but even the apostle Paul, who preached the Gospel with much contention, would'nt say that. Interesting debate though.

Jared Livesey said...

Is the phrase "the right of the Priesthood" equivalent to "the Priesthood"?

Do those extra words, "the right of" have any semantic content?

Because it seems to me the Lord does not waste words.

If then the words "the right of" have semantic content, what is it?

What, then, is "the right of the Priesthood" and how does it relate to "the Priesthood"?

What if - and I think this may be provable by the scriptures - those who are not members of the Melchizedek priesthood in this life cannot be saved?

And if it is the case this is provable by the scriptures, then would not a ban on blacks being members of the Melchizedek priesthood be a defacto declaration that they cannot be saved because of their lineage?

And would not such a ban then contradict the Book of Mormon, which says explicitly that God denies none that come unto him, and that all are alike unto him, both male and female, black and white, bond and free, Jew and Gentile?

If one cannot be saved except he be a member of the Melchizedek priesthood, and if God denies none who come unto HIM, and if the Church banned persons from becoming members of the Melchizedek priesthood, then is not the conclusion that the Church's priesthood is not God's priesthood?

Jared Livesey said...

I think it is provable by the scriptures for good reason.

One must receive God in this life or else one cannot be saved.

To receive him is to come into his presence.

But the power and authority to come into his presence is precisely the power and authority of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Jared Livesey said...

Who are the apostates?

Doctrine and Covenants 59:21
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

Those who keep not his commandments, having a knowledge of them, and who confess not his hand in all things.

Who are the priesthood?

Alma 13:6
6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest[.]

Those who teach his commandments, that all might enter into his rest.

What is his rest?

Doctrine and Covenants 84:24
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

His presence.

Luke 6
46 ¶And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

The message of the prophets is almost always the same.

Mosiah 15
26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

27 Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim.

Robin Hood said...

Thank you, I think you make an excellent point.
There is a difference between a right and a gift. A right is claimed, whereas a gift is received.

Your point holds true concerning the incident with Pharaoh in the BoA. He was claiming the right of priesthood based on his lineage. He was not of the correct lineage to have it by right, but that does not mean he could not receive it by revelation and bestowal.

I hadn't seen it that way before.
Thanks once again.

Anonymous said...

Log and Robin,

I think you guys are missing the point here.

Log asked "Is the phrase 'the right of the Priesthood' equivalent to 'the Priesthood'?" and "What, then, is 'the right of the Priesthood' and how does it relate to 'the Priesthood'?"

Good Question.

No I don't believe the "right of the priesthood" is the exact same thing as "the priesthood." The priesthood is the power and authority of God bestowed upon man to do His work here upon the earth. I believe that Abraham 1:27 is saying that that particular lineage or race was not permitted to hold the priesthood, based solely on their lineage as Canaanites.

Perhaps the term "right" is not the best way to say that they are not permitted to have the priesthood. We have to remember that this is a translation and not the original text. (We don't have access to the original) I think we can look at the context of the surrounding verses for clarification.

The surrounding verses say that through this lineage the cursed race of the Canaanites was preserved upon the land. The first Pharaoh was righteous and was blessed by Noah with wisdom and the blessing of the earth, but was "cursed as to the priesthood". It doesn't say he was cursed that he just wasn't of the line that could have the priesthood be birthright only. It says he was "cursed as to the priesthood". The first Pharaoh certainly seems to be very righteous and worthy to receive the priesthood. He ruled his people justly and wisely all his days. He sought diligently to establish the original order of Adam. Yet this man and his lineage were "cursed as to the priesthood", because they were of the lineage or race of the cursed Canaanites. In spite of this denial the Pharaohs down the road still claimed the priesthood through Ham.

With that as the background I don't think one can logically say that the first Pharaoh or the subsequent ones could have had the priesthood bestowed upon them from God Himself if the were found to be righteous enough. The verses directly correlate the reason they couldn't have it as solely due to them being of the race of the Canaanites, which means that all of the Canaanite men down the line could not have the priesthood either, regardless of personal righteousness or sincerity.

Yes these verses are not politically correct and they do appear to contradict the verse in the book of Mormon of none being denied by God, not male or female, black or white, bond or free. We have to ask ourselves though if everyone can have the priesthood. It's a fact that many people can come unto Christ without the priesthood, women, children, the reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin (who had zero chance to have the priesthood, because it was not on the earth for over a thousand years), etc. Alvin Smith comes to mind, too, who Joseph Smith saw in a vision in the celestial kingdom.

This also answers your other question log, about if one has to have the priesthood in this life to be saved. The answer is no, one doesn't. We know that children under the age of 8 are alive in Christ and will be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven should they die. What about a 9 year old? They can't possibly have the priesthood, but would they automatically be damned if they die? Another example is when Christ told one of the thieves at the Crucifixion that soon he would be with him in Paradise. There is zero indication that this man had received the Melchizedek priesthood.

We have to look at ALL of the scriptures, not just the ones that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside, or support what we want to believe. God has almost always had a chosen people who were favored of Him and the other races of the earth took a back seat. To say otherwise is to deny the word of God and history.


Jared Livesey said...

So my question(s) went unanswered.

To repeat: what is "the right of" the priesthood?

And let us also ask, what does it mean to be cursed as pertaining to the priesthood, in the context of "the right of" the priesthood?

And to address the latest objection:

D&C 137
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

But for those who know the commandments of God and choose not to keep them, they cannot be saved, according to the words of the holy prophets. To come into the presence of God while yet in one's sins is to be damned.

Jared Livesey said...

So let us commence our investigation by asking of Abraham - when you sought "the right of" the priesthood, what was it you sought?

Abraham 1
2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same [ie, the blessings of the fathers]; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

Does this sound like the Church's priesthood?

And, since the power and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to come into the presence of God while yet in the flesh, does it sound like he's talking about the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Might he, in fact, be talking about becoming a Patriarch, a father of nations?

Might this be the context for Pharaoh not having "the right of" the priesthood, meaning he was not of the Patriarchal lineage and therefore it did not pass to him from Noah by descent from Ham, who was cursed - ie, severed from the birthright claim - thus he was not to be a father of nations by birthright?

Jared Livesey said...

Now, let us look at the curse, remembering these things.

2 Nephi 26: 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Alma 3:19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.

Remember, to be severed from the presence of God is to be cursed, while to be brought into his presence is to be blessed.

Abraham 1
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood [what is the extent and content of this curse?].

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry[.]

Which appears to be the right to be a Patriarch, a father of nations, perhaps not necessarily the Melchizedek priesthood.

And since Simon Zelotes, apostle and prophet of Jesus Christ, appears to have been very possibly a Canaanite, there ought to be a lot more caution expressed on this subject than there has.

Jared Livesey said...

And I'm going to also point up that Moses apparently married a descendant of Ham - Numbers 12:1 - a Cushite, or Ethiopian. Cush was a son of Ham (Genesis 10:1). The KJV translated the race / nation of Moses's wife as Ethiopian, which translation survives in the JST.

I think the advice to consider ALL the scriptures pertaining to this topic was good.

Jared Livesey said...

When you conceive of "the priesthood" as being a license to exercise power or authority among men, you probably can only arrive at the traditionalist LDS understanding of things. "Blacks can't be the boss of me!"

If, on the other hand, you conceive of "the priesthood" as being an association between men and divine beings, then you arrive at different conclusions. "Blacks can't associate with God" means something entirely different than "blacks can't be the boss of me."

These two conceptions of "the priesthood" are fundamentally dissimilar. Which of these two disparate meanings do you think God has in mind when he speaks of "the priesthood" in the scriptures?

Anonymous said...

Log, Wow that's a lot to respond to. I believe that I did answer your two original questions, but perhaps I was not clear enough.

The priesthood is the power and authority of God bestowed upon man to perform His work upon the earth. Perform miracles such as healing, raising the dead, etc, and also for administering the ordinances of the gospel such as the sacrament, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, priesthood ordinations, etc.

The right of the priesthood is the right to have the priesthood based solely on one's blood line, provided that one is worthy of it of course. For example Ephraim has a legal right to the Melchizedek priesthood, because the tribe of Ephraim has the birthright for the house of Israel. Similarly Levites have the right to the Aaronic priesthood. Of course it is all still contingent upon personal worthiness and whether or not the priesthood is even to be found on earth or available to the church or house of Israel at large (which we know it wasn't during the great apostasy for example).

Those who don't have this right of the priesthood by lineage may still have the priesthood if they are worthy and the Lord makes it available to them. The gentiles would fall into this category. However the exception is that those who are of the lineage of the Canaanites are of that race and line in which they have "NO RIGHT of the priesthood." This race has been cursed as to the priesthood and simply is not allowed to have it no matter what. It doesn't matter how just or righteous they may be, they are not allowed to have the priesthood period.

I want to mention that I in no way conceive the priesthood as "being a license to exercise power and authority among men" as you suggest. I have no idea where you came up with that. It is unfortunately a common misconception in the church, but not one that I hold. The savior said that we are not to use the priesthood by any compulsory means, only by virtue of persuasion, love unfeigned, and upon the principles of righteousness. The priesthood is designed to bless the lives of God's children by providing a means for the working of miracles and the administration of the saving ordinances.

I'm pretty sure I know where you got the idea about the priesthood being an association with God, but it certainly wasn't from the scriptures.

Also priesthood is priesthood. There isn't a priesthood in the church and then one independent of it. It's all the same thing. The D&C mentions two priesthoods, the Melchizedek and the Aaronic and specifies what their purposes are and how they are to be conferred upon worthy men. Joseph Smith himself said that all priesthood is Melchizedek, which as we know is just another way of saying that it is the priesthood after the holy order of the Son of God. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say anything about that the priesthood is a relationship with God or that one has to have it in this life to be saved. The priesthood is designed to bless God's children as I said. It's not designed as he measuring stick for who is saved and who isn't.

Anonymous said...

Like I said before the Apostle Simon was not a Canaanite. He was called Simon the Zealot. The KJV has lots of little errors like that, many of which were not corrected by Joseph Smith in the Inspired Version. That phrase in the KJV cannot in any way be used to support the idea that Christ had a Canaanite Apostle. There are plenty of scriptures which refute that completely.

Also as you point out a better translation for the "Ethiopian" women that Moses married and was chastised for by his older siblings is that she was a Cushite. Yes Cush was a son of Ham. However we have to remember that it wasn't the entire posterity of Ham that was cursed, just those through his son Canaan. Canaan was the one who perpetuated the curse of the pre-flood Canaanites, hence the name Canaan. In biblical times people's names always meant something. How can it be that one of Ham's sons was cursed with black skin and denied the priesthood and the rest weren't. The answer isn't spelled out in the scriptures, but obvious. The curse was not from Ham, but rather from his wife Egyptus. So how could only one of his sons have the curse then? Obviously they had different mothers than Egyptus. Ham must have married at least one of his other brother's daughters who would have fathered his other sons.


Jared Livesey said...


You might go back and re-read everything I said to iterry. You are, as he did, attributing to "priesthood" what the scriptures attribute to faith.

There is no "power" nor "authority" in Melchizedek "priesthood" except the power to enter into heaven while yet in the flesh (D&C 107:19; D&C 121:41). If that no can do, then no have Melchizedek priesthood. The faith to work miracles precedes ordination to the priesthood, meaning association with God, apparently (JST Genesis 14:26-27, 30-32).

Since priesthood is an association, and since the Church's priesthood excludes some who God does not exclude, according to the scriptures, then the Church's priesthood is not God's priesthood - it is an imitation, and a powerless imitation priesthood at that, as evidenced by the Church acknowledging Joseph as being the last to enter into the presence of God, per President Grant. No power = no authority = no priesthood. And no miracles means no faith, as also no angels means no faith. And no faith means no salvation.

But that's taking the scriptures - the word of God - over the word of men. Y'all get to do what y'all want.

Jared Livesey said...

Because I've been the recipient of "blessings" which had no power.

I've given "blessings" which had no power.

I know by experience the Church's model of "priesthood" is a fake.

(Yes, yes, I know: "I heard of a dude doing mighty works in the name of Melchizedek! I merely thought a blessing at someone and it worked!" We shall see at the end - "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you [ie, you've never before come into my presence]; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." After all, "in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus," which rules out "By the Power of the Melchizedek Priesthood Which We Hold....")

Lo and behold, it turns out that the scriptures present something fundamentally different from what the Church teaches.

Anonymous said...


It is you who have the priesthood mixed up not iterry and myself. Priesthood is not an association with God. Please show me a scripture where it says that. I admit that I do not know everything there is to know about the priesthood, but I know it is not an association.

In the ordinances of the Priesthood the power of Godliness is manifested. It is the ordinances of the priesthood that matter not having the priesthood.

Yes faith is an important part of working miracles. Miracles are wrought by faith and can be performed without the priesthood. The scriptures and church history contain many accounts of people being healed and miracles wrought by those who held the priesthood. The priesthood is in fact a real power and a real authority beyond some so called association with God.

Be that as it me, it doesn't really pertain to the topic of Blacks and the Priesthood. The scriptures are quite clear on that. Will you deny the word of God?

Jared Livesey said...

-hood. a native English suffix denoting state, condition, character, nature, etc., or a body of persons of a particular character or class, formerly used in the formation of nouns: childhood; likelihood; knighthood; priesthood.

-hood | Define -hood at › browse › -hood

Like the word "neighborhood," meaning the class of all neighbors. You're a member of the neighborhood if you live within a certain distance of some fixed point, ie, a neighbor.

Jared Livesey said...

That is to say, if you have a particular association, you're a member of the 'hood. The association of neighbors is the neighborhood.

The association of the priests, or the body of the priests, is the priesthood.

That's just what the suffix -hood means.

Except for Robin Hood.

Robin Hood said...

Even Christ held what we call today the Melchizedek priesthood. Was that to enable him to come into his own presence?

And what did Christ give to his apostles? Authority to baptise, to bestow the Holy Ghost, to rebuke demons, to heal the sick.....

Sorry Log, but your position does not withstand even a basic level of scrutiny.

Jared Livesey said...

@Robin Hood,

You might scrutinize it a bit more.

The apostles had power over disease and devils because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20) making them the Church of the Firstborn (Hebrews 10:23). The sons of Sceva apparently didn't have their names written in heaven (Acts 19:15). The disciples of Christ in the Book of Mormon got authority to baptize by the word of Christ, and received power to give the Holy Ghost by Christ laying hands on them. The Melchizedek priesthood is association with the Father and the Son and the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 107:19). Jesus, of course, had and has association with the Father and the Church of the Firstborn.

The real issue is, of course, whether any of us have had our names written in heaven.

Jared Livesey said...

Or, in other words, whether any of us associate with Christ, who will bring us to the Father.

John 14
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

Anonymous said...

Well said Robin Hood.

Log, you're argument about the LDS priesthood being fake based on the fact that the church denied it to a certain group of people doesn't hold water either. By that exact same argument Noah's priesthood would have been fake, because he denied it to the first Pharaoh even though he was a just man.

I would also like to point out that if the priesthood is an association with God that is required to be saved and it is available to all who qualify for it directly from the Heavens, then there would have been no point in John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John having to come and restore it to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

You and I have had this conversation before, but you really need to unhitch your wagon from Denver Snuffer. This is idea of the priesthood being an association with God and available to anyone out heaven any time is another one of those DS doctrines that is a perversion of scriptures.

The fact that you can't produce a single scripture that states that the priesthood is an association with God should be a red flag to you. I commend you for your knowledge of the scriptures and for much of the things you have put forth in your blog, which I have read most of. Many of the things you put forth are right on the money. You just need to break free from that Denver Snuffer. I really think that's what you're lacking, but what do I know. will you solely follow the word of God as contained in the scriptures or will you continue to put your trust in a man.

It's up to you.

Jill said...

Actually, a quick search at Bible reveals 13 out of 25 translations of Matthew 10:4 refer to Simon as Canaanite.

Jared Livesey said...


Here's the challenge. The idea is not whether I am, in fact, right or wrong - here's the question: could I possibly be right in my assertion that priesthood, scripturally, is an association and not a power, neither a license to exercise power?

The implication of this assertion, if I am correct in making it, is that the Church's priesthood - the collection of her priests, and their associates - and God's priesthood - the collection of his priests, and their associates - can be separate. Indeed, there may not be any overlap at all.

If Snuffer is one of God's associates, one of his priests, then to disassociate from Snuffer is to disassociate from Snuffer's associates, including God. I'd be quite cautious in cutting anyone off, or advising any to cut off any, before knowing the answer to that question - knowing, not merely supposing.

Also, to follow up something I said - since association with God is salvation, it is interesting to me that Christ seems to have anticipated an argument that will be made at the last day - wait a minute, we have been in thy presence! For it is quite possible to hang around someone without being their associate - without being their friend - indeed, by being their enemy.

Luke 13
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,

24 ¶Strive to enter in at the strait gate [re: repentance and baptism]: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door [re: parable of the 10 virgins; also, the approach at the veil], and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets [hey, we DO know you!].

27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

Jared Livesey said...

So, how does one become one of God's priests?

Alma 13:3 And this is the manner after which [the priests of God] were ordained--being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

(Did any here present have to do jack diddley in order to get ordained by the Church, other than show up to meetings, pay your tithes, and not perform any great wickedness?)

What do the priests do once they are ordained?

Alma 13:6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest--

They teach the commandments of God. How many present have taught the commandments of Christ (see Luke 6 for a compressed list) in his quorums or from the pulpit or to his family?

From Abinadi we learn another function of priests: they are supposed to have an understanding of the spirit of prophesying, and to teach their understanding to the people.

Mosiah 12
25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

How do they gain this understanding?

Mosiah 18
24 And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.

26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor [in the church] they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

And, again.

Alma 17
2 [T]hey had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.

3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

What has any of this got to do with priesthood as the Church teaches it? Very little from what I can see.

What could even in principle bar blacks from becoming God's priests as described in the scriptures? Especially given that he denies none that come unto him.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Log is kicking butt here.

Pretty sad when someone who takes Snuffer seriously knows more about the scriptures.

The priesthood which is after the order that is without beggining of days or end of years is a baptism of fire as recorded in Moses JST

This enables the recipetent to enter the presence of the Lord.

To enter the celestial kingdom is to receive that baptism of fire/holy Spirt of promise.

I can't believe iterry had the balls to tell people they are going to hell.

Goodness gracious.


Brian Zang (The Zang Family) said...

Log, the point on the loss of the right of priesthood meaning the office that goes from father to son, i.e. the birthright, seems spot on to me. There are many instances of that being denied in the scriptures: Cain and his line, Ham and his line, Esau and his line, Manasseh and his line. Since it is an office that passes from father to son, then obviously a whole "race" of descendants is forbidden the office when the main father of the line loses the right.

Brian Zang (The Zang Family) said...

It is no more racist to say no one but Hyrum Smith's descendants could occupy the Presiding Patriarch office in the LDS Church.

Unknown said...

Good points Brian!

Anonymous said...


The discussion has gotten cyclical so this will be my last comment and then I'm bowing out.

You asked:

"What could even in principle bar blacks from becoming God's priests as described in the scriptures? Especially given that he denies none that come unto him."

You do believe in the preexistence don't you? There is a thing known as for-ordination. Typically this is used in conjunction with the truly righteous such as Abraham or the other noble and great ones. We obviously were not all on the same footing before we came to earth, because not all of us were among the noble and great ones.

Just look around you there is great inequality in the world we live in and in the circumstances into which children are born.

Some are born into wealthy aristocratic families were they grow up with everything handed to them, some are born into a middle class atheist home, some are born into a third world country were they don't even have enough to eat, some are born into good Christian homes were they are taught to have faith in Christ, some are born into Buddhist homes in China with no chance of ever hearing about Christ, some are born into homes were the parents are drug addicts or child molesters, and on and on.

Why all of the disparity? Why are only very few placed in a situation were they even have the opportunity in this life to hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ, let alone in its fullness? If God is just and wants everyone to come unto Him, why does He place most of His children in situations were the cards are stacked against them and they have no chance?

The answer must have something to do with our actions in the preexistence. It's the only explanation.

So the answer for the restriction on Blacks having the priesthood is just as the church taught for so many years, it has something to do with their actions in the preexistence. We lived somewhere before we came here, it's only natural that what we did there would effect our situation here, for better or for worse. It really doesn't matter. The scriptures from the POGP are very clear that they can't have the priesthood and that is good enough for me. I don't need to know everything to accept the word of God for what it is. Life simply is not fair. We all know that, and yet God is just and will deal justly with us, so there is always a reason for everything even if we don't know what that is.

Something to think about anyway. Take care.

Jared Livesey said...

So, if the Church's priesthood is identical to God's priesthood, and the black priesthood ban was of God, then blacks cannot choose good, repent, and work righteousness - which is how God's priests are chosen (Alma 13:3 [note the lack of lineage requirements / disqualifications]).

But if blacks cannot choose good, repent, and work righteousness, then that means blacks as such are damned - going to hell along with all other unrepentant sinners, just for being born black.

And that contradicts the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, which says God denieth none who come unto him, all are alike unto him - black and white, &c (and it also contradicts the Bible which says God is no respecter of persons, Article of Faith 2 which says men shall be punished for their own sins, and Moses 6:54 which says the sins of the parents cannot be visited upon the heads of the children).

So either the Church's priesthood is not God's priesthood, as they denied those whom God does not deny, or the Book of Mormon (among others) is false.

And if the Church's priesthood is not God's priesthood, wouldn't that begin to explain a few things about the way the Church has been, and is, running?

Robin Hood said...

Most of us here are not arguing that the priesthood ban on blacks was right. But you seem to be holding the church leaders to a standard which is beyond any human being, ie. being right all of the time.
In fact, when it comes down to it that appears to be the reason for the existence of this blog.

The problem, in my view, is that you have let Mr Snuffer do your thinking for you.

Colt H. said...

Rock, I have a tendency to find the little ironies in life, and also your writing. Case in point, you attribute at worse, the alleged Joseph Smith quote at best being a misunderstanding of what is referred to as the church, and at worse it being a form of Chinese Whispers, while in the same breath saying that the best source is the scriptures; then in the same breath say "For example, scripture is replete with true prophets, called of God, who did indeed 'rise up to condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying they are out of the way.' Some obvious examples are as follows:

Alma the Younger
Samuel the Lamanite
John the Baptist
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith"

What I find so rich is that the words of those prophets are from the bible. Talk about the poster child for Chinese Whispers and lack of true first hand accounts. I don't know if you were intending it or if its a common form of Freudian slip.

R. Metz said...

When I woke up this morning and opened this blog, I noticed that you Americans have been working on this Priesthood thing all night. It seems this forum is now totally dedicated to this subject. I am afraid we will never come to a final conclusion because all I can see is opinions and more opinions and some scripture that does not seem complete after all, and besides that, as log remarked, sometimes we also have to consider in this context the Patriarchal Priesthood whatever that may be.
By the way log, in your comment on dec. 1, 9.52 AM, you advise we consider ALL scripture on the matter. By doing so, we have to conclude that Moses did NOT take Adoniah, the Cushite queen, as a wife just because she was a Cushite. In the Book of Jasher chapter 73 the verses 31 till 37 we can read more about that:
This book is not in our Bible but is referred at by Joshua, among other sources.

R. Metz said...

And there is something else to it, that ldsawakening brings me to, in his comment that he wrote on dec. 1, 12.20 AM. He writes that " There isn't a priesthood in the church and then one independent of it". That is an idea that is common among LDS church members, but it is not correct: there is Priesthood outside the church, because Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery held priesthood (both Aaronic and Melchzedec) after they had been ordained by John the Baptist and later to the High Priesthood in 1829 by Peter, James and John, a year before the church was formally organised in 1830.
It turns out there is a priesthood order outside and independent of the church. This is also confirmed in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Mosiah, chapter 25, 26, where we read that King Mosiah allowed Alma to organise the church. Apparently Mosiah held the position of Lord's Anointed and was Alma to be the church president - as we would call them today. King Mosiah also held the seer stone and was able to translate by it; we would call him Prophet, Seer and Revelator, which is a position in the priesthood that is higher than President of the Church. It is interesting to note that Mosiah had his own pristhood council, because when Alma came to him for advise on a hard matter, Mosiah consulted "his priests" as we read in Mosiah 27 vers 1, but he let Alma solve the case.

Robin Hood said...

You're right.
The church does not possess the priesthood, the priesthood possesses the church.

Didn't realize you weren't US based.
Where are you from?

Anonymous said...


You are of course correct that the priesthood can and does exist independent of the church organization. I wasn't trying to say that the priesthood is absolutely exclusive to the church organization.

What I was trying to say is that there is only ONE priesthood. All priesthood whether in the church or outside of it is the SAME priesthood. As Joseph Smith said all priesthood is Melchizedek. The scriptures only speak of two priesthoods the higher (Melchizedek) and the lower (Aaronic). The priesthood is explained quite clearly in the D&C. The patriarchal priesthood is not explained in the scriptures and certainly wouldn't be higher than the Melchizedek which is the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. It doesn't get any higher than that. The patriarchal priesthood would have to fall within the Melchizedek somewhere. My guess would be through the office of patriarch.

Log (because of Denver Snuffer I assume) likes to quote Alma 13 as the end all be all about the priesthood. This is not correct. We have to take this verses in conjunction with everything else that has been revealed, especially the D&C. We have to remember that the Book of Mormon came first and then the D&C. The D&C clarifies some of the ambiguous things in the Book of Mormon and elaborates on them as well. For example based on the Book of Mormon we would have no idea about the three degrees of glory. The Book of Mormon essentially teaches a heaven and hell concept, but the D&C, especially section 76, clarifies it and elaborates on it.

We also have to look at how the priesthood was conferred and upon whom it was conferred during the days early days of the church under Joseph Smith. It was conferred from one man to the next after it was initially conferred from the heavens. When it says that the the priesthood is conferred by the voice of God we have to remember that the Lord has also said that whether by His own voice or by the voice of His servants it is the same. There is no indication that Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery received the priesthood from the voice of God directly, rather just the opposite happened. They received the two priesthoods from the servants of God namely John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John who were sent from the heavens for this purpose.

There would have been no point to having these servants appear to Joseph and Oliver if the priesthood was still available on earth to anyone directly out of the heavens. That Denver Snuffer sure has some crazy ideas.

I would also like to point out that the Lord's house is a house of order. While the priesthood certainly can and does exist independent of the church, the Lord doesn't just bestow it by his voice out of the heavens upon people all over the place outside of the church. This would be a house of confusion. It goes against the D&C and all of the scriptures.

Certainly Joseph and Oliver had the priesthood just prior to the church being reestablished upon the earth, but then what happened? The church was restored within a year and then the priesthood was only conferred by those within the church to converts. There was no one else receiving the priesthood independently at that point.

A similar thing can be said about Alma.

Anonymous said...

Now does all this mean that the church currently possesses the Melchizedek priesthood? Absolutely not. We know it still has the Aaronic (unless of course one buys into the Snuffer idea that the Aaronic priesthood can be stripped of the entire church because a false prophet was excommunicated).

Seeing how there is a complete lack of mighty miracles in the church I would presume that the Melchizedek priesthood is gone from the church. Devils aren't being cast out, the blind are not receiving their site, the lame aren't being restored to perfect health, the dead are not being raised, etc. People are still being healed to an extent and experiencing some miracles on the grounds of faith, but from what I've observed the mighty miracles wrought in the name of the Lord through His priesthood power are no longer with us.

Robin Hood said...

Many thanks for your well presented comments.
The only point with which I disagree is regarding the existence of the Melchizedek priesthood in today's church.
Just because you have not seen evidence of it functioning, doesn't mean it isn't.
Some of us have, which is why I can so confidently dismiss your claim.
But on the whole, a well thought out argument.
Thank you once again.

R. Metz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R. Metz said...

Yes Robin, I am a Dutch national, raised in an atheist family (which is also a sort of religion, would'nt you say), joined the church when I was 17 years, now in my sixties finding out that some things are not as well in Zion as I was told. I keep investigating; advise people to do the same, because there is enough truth in Mormonism to hold on to it.
The subject keeps me busy, our best friends in the church are from the Antilles; the “cursed lineage”? They are the best people you can find. It is all so confusing to me.

Jared Livesey said...

So where do we get the notion of priesthood as license to exercise power? Close as I can tell, Brigham Young.

Who said blacks shouldn't have the license to exercise power? Brigham Young.

Who had never spoken with a heavenly being, by his own admission? Brigham Young.

Who publicly taught men to break the commandments of Jesus Christ? Brigham Young.


Who ordained a black - Elijah Able - to the priesthood? Joseph Smith.

Who taught that no power can be maintained by virtue of the priesthood? Joseph Smith.

Who has spoken with heavenly beings, thus showing fellowship with them? Joseph Smith.

Who taught that all the commandments of God must be kept in order to be saved? Joseph Smith.


As I said, there are (at least) two faiths, each calling themselves "Mormonism;" I guess we might accurately call them Josephites and Brighamites.

Robin Hood said...

Like every Dutchman I have ever met, your English is impecable.
I would be interested in your thoughts regarding Brexit sometime.

We have some Dutch saints visit our ward every year. We showed them "The Best Two Years" and they recognised all of the Extra's!

I must say I don't recognise the church Rock and others describe. I wonder if it's an American phenomenon.

Jared Livesey said...

@Robin Hood,

You say I hold the paid ministers to an impossibly high standard - that of never being wrong.

Yet it is not my standard, but their own claims about themselves. The old teaching was that the President of the Church could not lead us astray - until he demonstrably did. Then the teaching became that the First Presidency could not lead us astray - until they demonstrably did. Now, the current teaching (repeated explicitly in President Russel M. Nelson's Sunday morning talk during the October 2014 General Conference) is that The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (which council I pejoratively refer to as "The United Fifteen Apostles") cannot lead us astray whenever they agree with themselves - except that they demonstrably have.

I expect they will next begin to fold in the quorums of the Seventies to ensure / insure their continued infallibility. Maybe from there, when they will have been found to have led us astray again, they will fold in the entire Church, being careful to first excommunicate everyone who disagrees with them - then they will be one, united, whole, perfect, infallible Church.

Blair said...

LDSAwakening and others,
Just putting it out there, Joseph Smith did not receive melchizedek priesthood from Peter, James, and John. The church claims that that there was an event on the banks of the susquehana river in which this was done, but it is absent from scripture, and absent from other records. Proclaiming keys and dispensations is not the same thing as conferring priesthood. Melchizedek priesthood has to be confirmed by God himself, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Just because an event is absent in scripture doesn't mean it didn't happen. The first vision and the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith are also not mentioned in scripture. Joseph Smith History 1 in the POGP doesn't count. That is not scripture. It's just one of the accounts of early church history by Joseph Smith. It was eventually canonized, but it's still not technically scripture, it's just part of the official history of the church, a very important part I might add.

The account of Peter, James, and John visiting Joseph and Oliver is also contained in the 7 volume history of the church. Oliver Cowdery documented it in his writing somewhere, too, if I remember correctly.

Be that as it may, even if by some chance the Melchizedek priesthood was not conferred at that time, but at a another time (such as perhaps at the special conference at the Morley Farm in Kirtland), it was still conferred from man to man after that. There is no evidence that anyone received the Melchizedek priesthood any other way once the church was established. Or even before that I might add.

The idea that the Melchizedek priesthood has to be conferred by God Himself is false doctrine. It contradicts the scriptures and early church history. It's just another one of those false doctrines taught by Denver Snuffer.

Can God confer the priesthood Himself? Of course He can, but is that the usual way? No. The usual way is through one who already legitimately holds the Melchizedek priesthood. Even Abraham who was among idles and all alone had to travel to Melchizedek to receive the priesthood. If ever there was a time for God to just pop out of the sky and confer it upon someone Himself this would have been it.

D&C 84:12-17

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—

17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

These verses are crystal clear on how the Melchizedek priesthood was conferred anciently, which just happens to be the way it was done in the restored church.

Anyone got any other Snuffer doctrines for me to debunk?

Jared Livesey said...

The first step to debunking Snuffer doctrines is to make sure it is a Snuffer doctrine one is debunking.

Did he teach what you allege he taught?

Jared Livesey said...

Confirm = confer?

Unknown said...


In interpreting d&c 84, you fail to remember the book of Abraham, which is your pet when it comes to the priesthood. Maybe read it again and focus on what's not your racist hangup.

ABraham had the priesthood which came down from his fathers.

He already held the right of it, but seeks an appointment unto it to become a High Priest. He gets the fulness from Melchizedek.

Those of Cannan did not hold the right of it the same way Abraham did.

Another example of why your interpretation of 84 is incorrect is 107.

Noah received the piestnood at a young age by his father.

But in Moses JST Noah is ordained directly from God unto the order of the Son of God at an older age.

This proves that the priesthood in 84 is referring to the patriarchal priesthood, which must be renewed and confirmed upon them by the hand of God, as it was with Esais in 84.

Joseph Smith, lyman wight, Sidney rigdon and others were ordained to this order in 1831.

This order was lost to the earth in 1835.

The melchizedek priesthood is only given be revelation through a prophet of God. It is not conferred by man. The lds church has not been led by revelation since before Josephs death. None have this priesthood.

Good thing it's going to be restored to the earth shortly.


Anonymous said...


No I do not believe that confirm and confer mean the same thing.

I think I know what your getting at though.

The D&C does mention that the Lord confirmed the priesthood of Joseph Smith and a few other Elder's who were present with him, by his own voice. But does this mean he was conferring the priesthood upon them at that time? I would so no.

To be honest I'm not completely sure what that confirmation was all about. I'm assuming that the Lord was confirming that those present were in fact worthy of the priesthood and letting them know that the ordination was in fact legit and that they did indeed have His power and authority. Obviously merely having someone lay his hands on your head doesn't confer the priesthood automatically. One has to be worthy.

I really have not researched this angle much. I'm not aware of any accounts in the scriptures or in early church history were the Lord spoke to men individually after they had the priesthood bestowed upon them by another Elder of the church confirming that they did in fact have the priesthood.

Perhaps this was a one time event, that accompanied a revelation. Not completely sure. I'll have to study it out some more.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Colt H.,
The words you attribute to me are a part of the lengthy excerpt I quoted from Adrian Larsen's blog. The point being made is his, not mine.

The comparison to "Chinese whispers" is mine; I was pointing out that even allowing for the possibility of the original statement coming from Joseph Smith, by the time it was repeated by Heber Kimball, the statement had evolved from finding fault with the church (i.e. the members) to finding fault with the leaders.

Therefore even if the original were not a fabrication (and I'm convinced it was), 40 years after the prophet's death, those words were twisted into something even Willard Richard's original counterfeit hadn't said.

iterry said...

Interesting comments from some of you. I've noticed that MC is right on target. He has noticed that there are no gifts of the spirit in the Church any longer. This is all true because the Church departed from the commandment given to Joseph Smith and recorded in the Pearl of Great Price that the blacks cannot hold the priesthood. Some have said this is an interpretation. NO, it says very clearly and no interpretation is necessary that blacks cannot hold the priesthood - that simple. Others have said that this is not revelation. NO - the Pearl of Great Price IS revelation. Perhaps the entire reason for the PofGP is to tell us that we are not to give the blacks the priesthood.

In 1978 when the phony revelation was given to Kimball many members knew this was not right. I've already mentioned that Eldred Gee Smith went to the Lord about this and found out that it was all a lie. But there were many that knew also that this was wrong. Many left the Church at that time because they knew this was apostasy. There was a full page message in the SLC paper at the time denouncing the false revelation.

It was at that juncture that I noticed that everything changed in the Church. It was after the phony revelation that the gift of the Holy Ghost was taken as well as the gifts. It's apparent to me that these things are no longer present in the Church because I saw them very clearly before the priesthood was taken. Now when people such as a few here have said that they've seen the priesthood in action I know they are just joshing everyone because they don't know what it is. Most members are too young to know.

There is no pronouncement that the Melchizedek Priesthood was never to be taken from the earth again unlike the Aaronic. Aaronic is still here so that we can baptize our little children. But that is all there is now left of this Church. The Church is dead now and there is nothing left that can be done to save it. God will soon be exposing the general authorities as it says in Ezekiel 13:2 wherein the Lord says Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Only God can correct the situation now. The members cannot do anything about it. All we can do is sit and wait until God can cleanses the Church of those who will refuse to keep His commandments as recorded in the so-called Standard Works which no one in the Church believes in anymore.

I see the members as very similar to the ancient Israelites at the time of Moses after they had built a fine idol of their God. Much like the Christus downtown. They were all dancing around when Moses came down from the mount. Today the members are doing much the same thing. Dancing around thinking that all is well in Zion when in fact, Zion is not doing well but is failing. The reason for the failure? Apostasy!

Anonymous said...


D&C 84 is only talking about two priesthoods, the higher (Melchizedek) and the lower (Aaronic), at least as far as I can tell. There is no mention of a patriarchal priesthood. Perhaps it's hidden in there somewhere.

I'll tell you what, I'll study it out some more and get back with you.

Just to be clear I'm not claiming that the Melchizedek priesthood is with the church now or even available on earth at the moment. I do believe that John the Beloved, the three Nephites and any other translated beings on earth have it though. Perhaps the church still does retain some of the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood, but I certainly see no evidence that the power is still with us.

I suppose the question is when it was taken from us? I don't believe it's been with us during any part of my lifetime, so I really can't say for sure when it was taken. Really doesn't matter too much anyway. I too am waiting for the Melchizedek priesthood to be restored. I believe it will be soon as well.

And by the way I'm no racist. I have nothing against any race, including Blacks. I treat everyone the same. I'm not the one who wrote Moses 7 and Abraham 1 and the number of other scriptures that call the Canaanites/Blacks a cursed race. I'm not the one who recorded the account of Christ ignoring the Canaanite woman and calling her a dog. Nor am I the one who made the prophecy that one day (the millennium) the Canaanites would no longer be in the house of the Lord. These passages come from the Lord Himself through his ancient prophets.

Jared Livesey said...


Back to the topic of your post...

How about we ignore the issue of whether Joseph said it or not for a second, and ask first whether or not the principle is true?

If someone rises up from a community, say, by rejecting the common ground of the community (to better look down upon them - and isn't such rejection of common ground defection, or apostasy from the group?), and declares that the community is stupid / wicked / insane / ignorant while he himself is not, is it not then a truism that said man will become, or even currently is, an enemy to that community?

Take this essay, for example. Does it not illustrate precisely this principle?

And if the principle is true, then does it not belong to what Joseph called "Mormonism," which encompasses all truth?

And if it is, then is it so hard to believe Joseph said it?

R. Metz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 215   Newer› Newest»