Restoration of the Gospel

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _grindael »

subgenius wrote:How so? I hold the Priesthood but am unable to just confer it upon anyone of my choosing.

I believe you will discover what the fullness of the priesthood is and how these "4" - while performing ministerial duties, did not possess the necessary keys...and therefore restoration became necessary.

Just as the quorum of the 12 hold keys as a quorum we see Peter, James, and John being commissioned...etc....yet those keys are unable to be exercised solo. Nevertheless, the real barrier was the emergence of the wickedness among mankind in general....etc..

it also seems necessary to realize that the 3 nephi and John are moved only to immortality through the resurrection. Once again, we witness you critics pick-and-choose when he wants to interpret scriptures literally or not.


Please cite chapter and verse where this is so, or any General Authority that has given this as the correct scenario. (That the KEYS were taken from them personally to act). I think you will search in vain, therefore this is just speculation. In fact Mormon Scripture directly contradicts this scenario,

5 I say unto thee, Peter, this was a good desire; but my beloved has desired that he might do more, or a greater awork yet among men than what he has before done.

6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a aministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be bheirs of salvation who dwell on the earth.

7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come.


Where were the keys taken from John & the Nephites? Please show us where. In fact, Mormon "Apostles", who are "prophets, seers & revelators", have said,

The Lord told the brethren once concerning the Revelator John, "If I will that he tarry til I come, what is that to thee?" The last that we hear of John's persecutors is that they put him into a caldron of boiling oil, but he came out unhurt—as miraculous as when the Hebrew children went into the fiery furnace. And that John is ministering to the house of Israel in distant portions of the earth, or wherever they are; and a record is going to come from them to us—the same as the Book of Mormon and the Bible have come to us, and they three shall become one. (Franklin D. Richards, Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol.3, p. 30)

But then contradict themselves,

Jesus Christ was crucified, the Apostles were put to death, and most every man who bore the Priesthood was slain, excepting John the Revelator. The Lord had ordained him to live, and he did not die, but remains today upon the face of the earth, in fulfilment of the promises of God to him. But in that day they had not the privilege of building the Zion of God or the Kingdom of God. It was not a dispensation prepared for that. These men laid down their lives, and the judgments of God overtook the Jewish nation, in fulfilment of the predictions of the Savior and the Prophets. Moses told them in his day, "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee." All this came to pass, and the kingdom was taken from the earth, the holy Priesthood was taken up to God, who gave it, and the Church went into the wilderness, and there remained until the day set for its restoration to the world. (Wilford Woodruff, Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol.3, p. 155).

So how could the "holy priesthood" be taken up to God who gave it, when Jesus himself promised John he would have the keys "until I come". In fact, this should all be wrapped up, according to Wilford Woodruff, who spoke about John in a later discourse,

I feel to thank God that I have lived as long as I have, and to see as much as I have in fulfillment of the words of the Prophet of God. His days were few. The lives of great men have been strange. The idea of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, only laboring three years and a half in the ministry and then He was put to death! His Apostles, too, were put to death, excepting John the Revelator, and they would have killed him if they could have done so. He lived because God wanted him to live. We live in the last dispensation and in the midst of the great work that all the Patriarchs and Prophets since God made the world have spoken of. Afflictions and tribulations await the world. The destroying angels have got their sharp sickles in their hands, and they are going to reap the earth. Everything that has been spoken by the prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost will come to pass in the generation in which we live. Do not forget it. We are here to fulfill these principles. (Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, April 1898, p.90).

Then you have more contradiction:

The Nephite Apostles and John the Revelator, who are laboring among the people, at times perhaps in this land. and possibly among the tribes of Israel, will not baptize and lay hands upon people for the gift of the Holy Ghost who are within the purview of this Church. If they should do such a thing, it would be understood by the Prophet who stands at the head of this Church. Joseph Smith received all the keys that pertain to this dispensation; and although the Bible says that John the Revelator has a mission to gather the ten tribes of Israel, I desire to say that it will be done under the order of the Priesthood established in this Church and by the keys that were given to the Prophet Joseph Smith; for it belongs to this dispensation, and it will be done under the direction of whoever stands at the head of the Church at the time. (Matthias F. Cowley, Conference Report, October 1901, p.19)

But that is not what D&C 7 says. John had the keys, and he was running around long before there was a "prophet" that had "purview". So where are the "ten tribes"? On a rock circling the earth? Under the North Pole? This stuff is just ridiculous. How do they know? They had it revealed to them by the Holy Ghost!

From the time of John the Revelator up to 1820, we affirm, we make the positive declaration, we are convinced in our hearts and souls, for we have had it revealed unto us by the power of the Holy Ghost, that there was no organized Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth, with the authority of the priesthood to take a man down into the water and baptize him, that his sins might be remitted, or to lay hands upon his head and confirm him a member, and confer upon him the gift of the Holy Ghost. So that this Church stands alone with respect to that. (Anthony W. Ivans, Conference Report, April 1928, p.87).

But that is not what D&C 7 says. Wilford Woodruff even preached that John spoke of 666 "false" Sects that must come into existence by way of his prophecy...

According to the vision of John the Revelator, there are to be "six hundred, threescore and six" false sects of religion: how many of these already exist is a matter of dispute among theologists, but I suppose that the number is nearly complete. Let me now ask if you think things look or indicate that these contending creeds are all of God. It is certainly not like the order carried out in the days of Christ and his Apostles. It is much more like the confusion of the Pharisees, Essenes, Herodians, Sadducees and Stoics, for they had different creeds, principles and notions by which they were governed, and it is just so now with the sectarian world. It is composed of every sect and party that profess religion upon the face of the earth. But the honest in heart will be gathered out of all these creeds and systems and be brought home to Zion. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 10, p.13).


Only the dishonest would be part of the "sectarian world". Right. Orson Pratt had a unique perspective on this. He said,

Was Aaron called in any other way but by new revelation through the prophet Moses? He was not. Can any man receive the priesthood only by revelation? Can he receive his calling in any way wherein God does not communicate himself by new revelation from Heaven? I answer no, no. No man Call assume the priesthood, and the power thereof, and officiate therein, unless he be called as this man of God was called in the days of Moses.

Admit then that the canon of scripture was closed When John the Revelator received his gospel, after he returned from the Isle of Patmos, and that when the apostles passed from the earth communication between earth and Heaven was closed, who could be their successors? No individual could hold the office or receive it unless God sent new revelation from Heaven, pointing out by name the individual upon whom the authority and calling to preach and administer in His name should rest. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, p.248)

Pratt just left John out completely. Now there's ingenuity. John Taylor simply says that John just gave up...

John the Revelator speaks of a time when "an angel should fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach to those who dwell on the face of the earth, and to every nation, kindred, tongue and people, crying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come." Who was it that saw this? Why John, on the Isle of Patmos. But did'New Testament he have the Gospel? Yes. But he saw that a certain power would arise that would make war against the Saints and overcome them, that they should be given into the hands of this power to a certain time. ( now.
Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, p.365).

Then, according to Orson Pratt who remembers to add John back into the equation says that John still had the keys, but was at the North Pole...

Having spoken concerning the gathering of the ten tribes, I will refer again to their Prophets. "Their Prophets shall hear his voice." Do not think that we are the only people who will have Prophets. God is determined to raise up Prophets among that people, but he will not bestow upon them all the fulness of the blessings of the Priesthood. The fulness will be reserved to be given to them after they come to Zion. But Prophets will be among them while in the north, and a portion of the Priesthood will be there; and John the Revelator will be there, teaching, instructing and preparing them for this great work; forté him were given the keys for the gathering of Israel, at the time when he ate that little book while on the Isle of Patmos. At that time, John was a very old man; but the Lord told him [p.26] that he must yet prophesy before many kingdoms, and nations, and peoples, and tongues, and he has got that mission to perform, and in the last days the spirit and power of Elias will attend his administrations among these ten tribes, and he will assist in preparing them to return to this land. Whether missionaries will be sent from Zion to hunt up these dispersed tribes in the north I do not know; but one thing I do know, from that which is reported by those who have tried to find a passage to the pole, that there is a warmer country off there, and that birds of passage go north to find a warmer climate. That I know from the writings of intelligent men who have been on voyages of discovery. And I know, furthermore, that they have crossed by means of dogs and sledges a certain portion of this great band of ice and have come to an open sea, which proves that there is a warmer country further north. There is a tract of country around the pole, some seven or eight hundred miles in diameter, that no man among the nations. that we are acquainted with, has ever explored. But how much of that land may be fit for habitation I am not prepared to say, for I do not know. I know it would be a very easy matter for the Lord God, by the aid of great mountain ranges encircling them around about, to produce a band of ice which would prevent other nations and people very easily reaching them. I also know that it would be a very easy matter for the Lord God to cause deep and extensive valleys, very deep in comparison with high ranges of mountains around them, where the temperature would be comparatively mild, the same as in these mountains here. We see all the rigors of an arctic winter on our eastern ranges of mountains, while at the same time here are deep valleys in which there is a comparatively warm climate, which makes me think of that which was spoken by the mouth of Isaiah the Prophet in referring to the latter-day work. He says that "when it shall hail, Coming down upon the forests, the city shall be low in a low place," where the climate is warm. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 18, p.25-6)

I think we can give this one to science and say that Orson was anything but "inspired". Mormon "prophets, seers & revelators"... ya gotta love em.. they sure are entertaining. Like a good episode of Dr. Who. But I saved the best for last, George Q. Cannon who said,

If every man of the Twelve but one were slain, the one remaining would have the right to organize a First Presidency of the Church, to choose Twelve Apostles, and to organize the Church in its fulness and power, and to preside over it. And his acts would be accepted of the Lord, and binding upon the people. This is the authority of the Apostleship. If every Apostle anciently had been slain but John the Revelator, as they all were, and there had been faith and men enough left, he would have had the right to ordain other Apostles, and set in order the entire Church, and carry forward the work as the Lord should dictate it. So in our day. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 19, p.235)

So there you have it. Total mayhem. But this is par for the course. But one thing is certain, the D&C and Cannon both affirm that John had the keys... but I guess (according to Cannon) he just couldn't find ONE PERSON in 1800 years that had "faith". Shame, that. God waited for Jo to come along with his peepstone and dreams of Capt' Kidd's treasure....
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _subgenius »

grindael wrote:...(snip)...I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come....(snip)...

how this contradicts my original assertion of them only being able to "minister" and not having keys to confer escapes me.
Otherwise, thanks for the affirmation.
The "keys" of ministry are explained in D&C 13, but speak nothing about conferring the priesthood...so what are you talking about?

Please, note: Journal of Discourses, of any author, is not official Doctrine of the LDS Church.
For your edification, please reference:
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 7?lang=eng
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _LittleNipper »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:But you want religious thought excluded from the public educational forum. Isn't that a form of murder?
A) No, I do not want religious thought excluded from the public educational forum, and B) No, that's not a form of murder.

You sound a little confused, Nipper.

Oh, so you have no problem with Creationism, Deluge Dynamics, and Intelligent Design being presented in public school biology/science classrooms --- or am "I" still confused?
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

LittleNipper wrote:Oh, so you have no problem with Creationism, Deluge Dynamics, and Intelligent Design being presented in public school biology/science classrooms --- or am "I" still confused?

No, I have no problem with those subjects being presented, as long as it's done in an objective and scientific manner.

Nipper, would you please tell me how you know A) that a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the old testament as opposed to, for example, Lord Vishnu Sahasranama?

And when this god of yours gives you wisdom and council, how does he/she/it/they do it? Do you hear a loud voice? Crashing thunder? Unusual configurations in the entrails of sacrificial animals? Is it spelled out on a Ouija board?
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _huckelberry »

Nipper, it sounds like you would like deluge dynamics taught by science teachers who may well not believe the theory. Would it be appropriate for the presentation to compare all the reasons supporting the theory with all the reasons not to? What would be the penalty for a science teacher who laughed about the flood theory?

There are a large number of adults who think the sort of creationism which is linked to flood geology is wrong. How do you want their views to be presented in school?
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _grindael »

subgenius wrote:
grindael wrote:...(snip)...I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come....(snip)...

how this contradicts my original assertion of them only being able to "minister" and not having keys to confer escapes me.
Otherwise, thanks for the affirmation.
The "keys" of ministry are explained in D&C 13, but speak nothing about conferring the priesthood...so what are you talking about?

Please, note: Journal of Discourses, of any author, is not official Doctrine of the LDS Church.
For your edification, please reference:
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 7?lang=eng


The JOD are doctrine. You simply want to avoid the issue so that you can manipulate what your own authorities have said. Here is my standard reply, written up long ago, that I have to trot out every time I hear this rubbish...

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.


One Mormon told me:

The JOD are not necessarily the same as conference talks. They were written by second hand witnesses, and not by the speaker. Nor were they approved or edited by the apostles, and they were never sustained or approved by the body of the church. So, they are useful from a historic standpoint, but are in no way considered declarations of truth, as the Ensign transcripts are.”

I will get back to this in a minute. Notice that Clark says, about the verse I quoted (D&C 68):

“The very words of the revelation recognize that the Brethren may speak when they are not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; yet only when they do speak as “moved upon” is what they say considered SCRIPTURE. NO EXCEPTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THIS RULE OR PRINCIPLE. It is universal in its application.” (J. Reuben Clark, Address to Seminary Students, BYU July 7, 1854)

Mormons selectively accept this today, and add the caveat, only when it is voted upon, which is a modern fabrication. One Mormon said to me,

“By definition, anything a Prophet or General Authority says CONTAINS “sacred doctrines and precepts.” It does not make every word that drops out of their mouths or drips out of the ends of their pens doctrine.”

But that is NOT what the JOD are. What was bound in those 26 volumes, and are only about 30% of all the talks that [George] Watt and others copied down. And then we have the setting, in a Conference Address before the whole Church, where one would assume, would be the prime place where ‘living prophets and apostles’ WOULD be inspired by the Holy Ghost. Also, many of the sermons were published in the Deseret News, and approved by Young and others (which I will show below).

But what is interesting here, is that to make his point, what does Clark do? He quotes Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses! This happens time after time, and it’s ok for them to do so, but not anyone who is a critic. Again, double standard.

Brigham Young also said:

“We do not wish incorrect and unsound doctrines to be handed down to posterity under the sanction of great names, to be received and valued by future generations as authentic and reliable ... Errors in history and doctrine, if left uncorrected by us who are conversant with the events, and who are in a position to judge of the truth or falsity of the doctrines, would go to our children as though we had sanctioned and endorsed them.” Millennial Star, vol. 27, p. 659 (1865)

I’m not going to get into a Canon debate here. I’m well aware that not EVERYTHING is BINDING scripture. But is it DOCTRINE? Robert Millet says it best:

“If the general authorities do not teach something today, it is not part of our DOCTRINE today. That does not, however, mean that a particular teaching IS UNTRUE. A teaching may be true and yet not a part of what is taught and emphasized by the Church TODAY. In fact, if the Brethren do not teach it today, if it is not taught directly in the standard works, or if it is not found in our correlated curriculum, whether it is true or not may actually be irrelevant.” – Robert Millet, Getting at the Truth, p. 66

When is the truth irrelevant? Only in Mormonism, when it contradicts their “Correlated truth”. Let’s go back to Young. Here is a great verse that Mormons love to pull out of the JOD:

“Now, let me ask the Latter-day Saints, you who are here in this house this day, how do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? Let you be ever so true and faithful to your friends and never forsake them, never turn traitor to the Gospel which you have espoused, but live on in neglect of your duty, how do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? And this is what I wish to urge upon you—live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God.”

I’m surprised Clark didn’t quote this one too. But it is what Young says after, that makes my point:

“But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, “I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years—over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach, if you think you have one. It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it.”( Brigham Young, JOD 14:204-06)

How sad these modern Mormons must be. How sad that they would throw every Mormon under the bus from those days by admitting that these men taught “folklore” and that not one person in the church ever stood up and objected to it. That for years they just let it go. That they would believe the modern pack of lies they were sold about such things. But another Mormon “Authority” says:

“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, WHAT THE LORD WOULD SAY IF HE WERE HERE. IF WE DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY, it is because WE ARE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)

So it is not the “authorities” that have the problem, it is those who are not AGREEING WITH THEM. Brigham Young says:

“I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected, and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it.”

Again and again they call their preaching DOCTRINE. Lorenzo Snow said:

“If you Saints here do not know this work is the work of God, it is your duty to rise up and declare you have been deceived, acknowledge that the Spirit of God has not been given you, and that the declaration of the Elder who promised it is entirely false, and thus try and correct the error which you have been guilty of propagating.” (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses 14:306)

Far from doing that, those sermons were bound up in books and published, with CORRECTION AND APPROVAL! Do Mormons think, that no one read them back then? That they weren’t gone over and that if there was false doctrine or mistakes, Young would have let them go? They tore apart Amasa Lyman for a sermon of his that got in there. Young said NO to my question, in 1865 in the Millennial Star. He was pretty fanatical about this one thing. Mormons repeat over and over that Smith said he was only a prophet when he is acting like one, but he also said:

“I never told you I was perfect, but there has been NO ERROR in the REVELATIONS that I have received.” Many of Smith’s ‘revelations’ were not canonized IN HIS LIFETIME. But that didn’t mean that they were not considered REVELATIONS.

Is what we take from Addresses to the Church, just ANYTHING? Nope. They are remarks in a setting that [according to Mormon "prophets"] lends itself to the spirit of inspiration. Clarifying D&C 68, in the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, Section 68 it states:

“Scripture is the mind and will of God revealed through His servants. Peter declared, “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” ( 2 Peter 1:21 ). Such scripture has been written and preserved in the standard works as priceless gems of eternal truth. The standard works are NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SCRIPTURE, however.

As President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

“When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church. We depend, of course, upon the guidance of the brethren who are entitled to inspiration.”

But try having a conversation with a Mormon today and they will tell you that only what is voted upon is “scripture”. Ridiculous! They undermine the whole purpose of their “prophets” so they can deny doctrines that were taught in the same manner, in the same way that their “prophets” teach them today! This is the shell game that people like Mormons play. Moses Thatcher would comment about inspiration and the Holy Spirit, in this quote from 1885:

“Nothing to my mind can be greater sacrilege in the sight of the Almighty than to undertake to speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit. We may talk upon the branches of human learning and knowledge, speaking after the manner of men with but little of this feeling of timidity, but NOT when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation, of the plan of human redemption as it has always existed—as it existed before the foundations of the world were laid, as it will continue to exist until every child of God except the sons of perdition shall be brought back and exalted in a degree of glory far beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. It has sometimes been said that Mormonism, so called, is narrow, proscriptive and selfish; yet those who comprehend it, even in part, have never made such an assertion.

Can a church not even bearing the name of the Redeemer, and having neither Apostles nor Prophets, bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of our Lord in the days of and subsequent to His ministry? Do any of them ever claim to have such fruits? Who among them HAVE THE ENDOWMENTS OF THE COMFORTER, whose mission it was and is to bring the teachings of Jesus TO THE MEMORY, show things to come and LEAD TO ALL TRUTH? God neither changes nor is he a respecter of persons; the causes, therefore, which lie ordained to produce certain results in one age will produce them in another.” (JD:26:303-4, 10)
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _grindael »

Thatcher clearly understood the difference between speaking ‘after the manner of men’ and when he spoke on “the principles of life and salvation’. Mormons today, act like these men were not aware of anything of the kind. Smith himself wrote in 1833 that he knew that he was ‘accountable for every word I say’. (History of the Church 1: 312-316 for the entire letter) Brigham Young also said:

“It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is taught and to guard the Church from error, it is my calling.” (Minutes of Council of the Twelve in upper room of Historian’s Office, April 4, 1860,” Thomas Bullock, scribe, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.)

Woodruff wrote on Nov. 16th 1847:

“A vote was taken that the President shall at all times have the privilege of reproving, rebuking, exhorting and teaching at all times as he shall be led by the Holy Ghost. Council dismissed.”

Harold B Lee said,

“Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, THEIR DISCOURSES TO THE SAINTS and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded.” (Teachings of the Living Prophets, page 21)

But not Brigham Youngs? LOL. I can go on and on about what is said here, concerning these things. [Mormons today] are definitely mistaken in [their] interpretation of D&C 68, as proven by the above statements, and published material. The sad thing is, you see these things over and over again, and yet [they] cling to [their] false interpretation of what Mormon Leaders say doctrine really is. As for that quote above by a Mormon about the JOD, that is very false. Young was adamant about correct doctrine that would stay in print. From the same published message in 1865 (which was also published in the Deseret News by the way):

“This should be a lasting lesson to the Elders of Israel not to undertake to teach doctrine they do not understand. If the Saints can preserve themselves in a present salvation day by day, which is easy to be taught and comprehended, it will be well with them hereafter. BRIGHAM YOUNG, HEBER C. KIMBALL, DANIEL H. WELLS.”

What was going on here? Young took objection to Lucy Smith’s book (which he implored the members to burn) and a few of Orson Pratt’s comments in the Seer. Young only says to ‘not teach doctrines you do not understand’. He does not comment about ANYTHING published in the Journal of Discourses, at all. In fact, he doesn’t mention anything else but the Seer & Lucy Smith’s book. And he didn’t like Lucy’s book because she was too revealing about the Smith’s believe in folk magic and that Jo never had a first vision, etc. etc.

Here are a few entries from Woodruff’s journal about how much Young was involved in editing and poring over published material:

” February 17, 1856: I attended prayer meeting in the evening circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what he thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all eternity. O. Pratt said that he believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of everything that ever did exist to the endless ages of all eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the Church for it was not taught in the Church, for it was not true. It was false doctrine, for the Gods and all intelligent beings would never cease to learn except it was the Sons of Perdition. They would continue to decrease until they became dissolved back into their native element and lost their identity.”

Again, the Seer. And this is NOT the current doctrinal stance of the Church. Young is wrong here, (according to the Modern Mormon “Holy Ghost”) totally wrong – Pratt was correct! (as per more ‘modern’ prophets and the modern HG). Why did no one in the room challenge Young? The answer is obvious. He was their ‘dictator’, and according to ALL OF THEM, he had the “Holy Ghost”, just as Mormons claim to have today! So how does this “Holy Ghost” accept Adam God back then, but not now? Mormons won’t tell you, they will simply lie and say that Young taught opinion, which is as false as a three dollar bill.

March 11, 1856: “Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said. That will destroy him if he does not repent and turn from his evil way, for when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel and tries to lead the prophet, he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling.”

Again, Young was wrong (about Adam-god) and Pratt’s views are the standard in the Church now. But Young was on him like a flea on a dog.

June 24, 1856: President Young said to me that G. A. Smith said in speaking of the Church History in future, that it would be the History of the Church and not of a man. I said very well, we could not write the history of the Church without writing the history of the Prophet and President of the Church. President Young conversed freely upon the subject. I inquired of the clerks of the presidents office what they had written concerning him daily. They read some to me. I do not think it is sufficiently full.”

July 11, 1856; I am still quite lame. I spent the day at the office. I called upon President Young. Read a piece of history on Book E-1, page 1681-2, concerning Hyrum leading the Church and tracing the Aaronic Priesthood. It was in detached sentences. President Young thought it was not essential to be inserted in the history and had better be omitted. He spoke of the piece of history published in the News, Vol. vi, No. 18, concerning Joseph’s words upon South Carolina. He wished it not published.

November 8, 1856: The Presidency and Twelve, and others met in council at the Historians Office. They took up the subject of reading the sermon of President Young’s concerning the late emigration and what caused so much suffering. He cast reflections upon J. Taylor and F. D. Richards as Taylor had hindered the brethren from doing business for several weeks. The greatest reflections were cast upon him. The Presidency finally concluded that they would strike out those sentences that cast reflections upon those brethren and print the rest.

July 31, 1857: I spent the afternoon in the office. While in the Endowment House, President Kimball said he wished me to write the account of the saying of Joseph the Prophet when he pledged himself that he would not speak upon a certain occasion until all the Twelve had spoken. So he had to sit 3/4 of a day and hear the Twelve express their feelings, and he could not say a word. He then said to the Twelve, “You have caught me this once and I now want to give you some advice. Never get caught as I have. Never go into a corner unless you can see your way out in some manner.”

August 28, 1857: President Young stayed 3+ hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith in 1831. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it, but he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.

November 26, 1857: In company with G. A. Smith, I called upon President Brigham Young and asked council about publishing the endowments or an outline of it telling the time when the Twelve received their second anointing and about the organization of the Council of 50. He gave his consent for us to publish an account of it so that the Saints might understand it. He gave into our hands all the records of the Council of 50 and all of his own private letters, notes received, pocket books, etc., which I took to the Historians Office and spent the day and evening in examining and filing. All that was notfor historical purposes I did up carefully on file to return to him.

December 18, 1857: President Brigham Young called into the Historian’s Office 20 minutes to 10 o’clock and sat and heard his history read up to the reorganization of the Church on the 8th of August 1844. We spent the day inthe office and in the evening, we called upon President Brigham Young at his office to make some inquiry upon certain teachings of Joseph concerning the endowments.

February 13, 1859: I spent an hour with President Young in the afternoon. He spoke upon the subject of the book published by Mother Smith called Joseph Smith, the Prophet. He said he wished us to take up that work and revise it and correct it, that it belonged to the historian to attend to it that there were many false statements made in it and he wished them to be left out and all other statements which we did not know to be true, and give the reason why they are left out. G.A. Smith and Elias Smith should be present. Elder O. Pratt published that work and bought it of A. W. Babbitt at a high price. We had a copy of it in our office. It is marvelous that he should have published it without my counsel. Many other remarks were made by President Young. (See private journal.)

January 27, 1860: Minutes of a meeting of the Presidency and Twelve, Presidents of Seventies and others assembled in President Young’s Council Room at 6 o’clock. President Young stated the object of the meeting was to converse upon doctrinal points to see if we see alike and think alike. I pray that we may have the spirit of God to rest upon us that our minds may be upon the subject and that we may speak by the Holy Spirit.

April 4, 1860: I attended a Council of the Presidency and Twelve at the Historians Office in the evening upon the subject of the sermon of Orson Pratt. The sermon was read and the time was occupied till half past 11 o’clock in discussing the subject.

August 27, 1860: A certain revelation was read to President Young, given to him May 28, 1847, on Platt River in the pioneer camp. He said, record it and lay it away, but not to publish it.

September 4, 1860: Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized; he believed in this work but wanted to close up his business in New York City first. Said when he was baptized that he should lay aside his practice of medicine, as he believed the Lord had provided means for the healing of his Saints without the practice of medicine. He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham; for this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print, it would more than fill this room, but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.

December 26, 1866: The subject of a sermon preached by A. Lyman and published in the Millennial Star.

April 5, 1862, in Vol. 24, was brought up and read, and it was found to have done away with the efficacy of the blood of Christ. President B. Young said he wished to know what the Twelve had to say about it for he had a good deal to say about it. If this doctrine as preached by A. Lyman
and some by O. Pratt be preached and published as the doctrine of the Church and not contradicted by us, it would not be long before there would be schisms in the Church. This doctrine as preached in this sermon is false doctrine. If we do not believe that it was necessary for Christ to shed his blood to save the world, where is our Church? It is nothing. This does not set well upon my feelings. It is grievous to me to have the Apostles teach false doctrines. Now if the Twelve will sit down quietly and not contradict such doctrine, are they justified? No, they are not.

January 21, 1867: We held a meeting in the evening as a Quorum of the 12 Apostles to examine into the subject of Amasa Lyman’s teaching false doctrine and publishing it to the world. He had virtually done away with the blood of Christ, that the blood of Christ was not necessary for the salvation of man. The Quorum of the Twelve were horrified at the idea that any one of the Twelve Apostles should teach such a doctrine. After Amasa Lyman was interrogated upon the subject and said those had been his sentiments, W. Woodruff made the first speech and all the Quorum followed and they spoke in very strong terms…. When the Twelve got through speaking, Amasa Lyman wept like a child and asked forgiveness. We then all went into President Young’s office and conversed with him. He felt as the Twelve did upon the subject, only more so, and require Brother Lyman to publish his confession and make it as public as he had his false doctrine.”

These are but a few, from quickly scanning through Woodruff’s journals. But there is more. John A. Widtsoe in the preface to Discourses of Brigham Young says,

“This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses… All that he said was recorded…. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so FAITHFULLY AND FULLY PRESERVED… The corrections for the printer, as shown by existing manuscripts, were few and of MINOR consequence.“
Last edited by Guest on Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _grindael »

And who was the chief stenographer? George Watt. In his Book, The Mormon Passage of George Watt (researched by the Mormon author Ronald G. Watt for 30 years, published in 2009), who writes:

“When Watt suggested to Brigham Young that he publish a journal of sermons from which Watt could receive his salary, Young and Richards agreed. The Journal of Discourses ensured that all Mormons and even non-Mormons would know what the Lord wanted through the speeches of his representative, Brigham Young. From then on, Watt had a permanent desk in the president’s office and the Tabernacle, taking down the speeches in his SWIFT, curious symbols.”

“On the first day of the new year, [1852] Watt also began teaching a class in Pitman shorthand. His students included Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock, Thomas W. Ellerbeck, William C. Staines, Nathaniel H. Felt, Albert Carrington, and Daniel Wells, some of the most influential men in Salt Lake City. He probably received a dollar from each student. To prepare for this course, Watt wrote and published his own exercise book, a shortened version of the Pitman manual. He included within it instructions in phonography and some lessons. Young began to practice shortly after his first lesson, and on
January 5, he spent all day with his shorthand studies. (pages 126-7)

So Young, and others were very familiar with Watts and his process, and had full confidence in his abilities, not only that, he taught it to others, who used it to transcribe those sermons, that Widtsoe and others KNEW were accurate, and approved. As R. Watt elaborates,

“Watt’s potential employment must have been on the mind of Brigham Young. Finally, Watt wrote a letter to Young early in May 1853. He suggested that he be allowed to prepare “a few of your sermons which have not yet been in print with Elder P. P. Pratt’s two discourses at the conference on the spirit world and birthright to send to England for publication in the form of a magazine of about 150 or 200 pages to sell.” He suggested that part of the profit go to satisfy his economic necessities and the rest be used for Young’s purposes. Almost immediately his suggestion brought assent from the members of the First Presidency. It would enable Brigham Young and the First Presidency to have the written word to send to the members of the church and the missionaries.

The next day Young notified Watt of the First Presidency’s agreement, and Watt began transcribing and editing sermons. On May 25 and 26, YOUNG SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME EXAMINING THE WRITTEN DISCOURSES. On June 1, 1853, the First Presidency officially granted Watt the privilege of preparing and publishing Young’s discourses in magazine-LIKE form, recognizing that “Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to ACQUIRE THE ART of reporting in Phonography which he has FAITHFULLY and fully accomplished.” Since publication would be less expensive in England, the sermons were to be sent to Liverpool as Watt had suggested. All the profits from the venture would go to Watt, who would also take care of all the costs. The First Presidency encouraged all church members to purchase the journal for Elder Watt’s benefit. Watt now had a permanent income and a place of employment.

More importantly for the church, the Journal of Discourses was a watershed, essentially the beginnings of a worldwide publication. Even though the Journal of Discourses was a private venture, it was an OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and the most important source of President Young’s and other church authorities’ sermons. Watt also joined OTHER CLERKS in the First Presidency’s office. Albert Carrington was Brigham Young’s clerk and attended to his correspondence. Thomas Bullock, an early convert from England, was also there.” (pages 133-34)

The JOD was an OFFICIAL publication, and was reviewed beforehand by those that gave the talks:

“In November the Deseret News announced that Watt’s service as a reporter was available not only to the News but anybody who wanted CORRECT reports, and “if the brethren will employ him, and sustain him in his employment, time will prove it a BLESSING to all concerned.” (135)

“With permission to publish speeches of the church authorities, Watt needed to concentrate on the Journal of Discourses. The process of publishing each volume was laborious. He needed to be at all the meetings, recording the speeches in shorthand. Then, WITH THE HELP OF PRESIDENT YOUNG, he chose the talks that would be transcribed. In the first volume, twenty-six of the fifty-three sermons were by Young. Heber C. Kimball and Parley P. Pratt had the next most sermons published with six each. In the second volume, Brigham Young had composed seventeen of the fifty-six sermons. Young’s sermons were spoken without notes and from memory. The phonographer had to work very hard to keep up with each speaker. Watt grew accustomed to the delivery style and speed of each speaker. If Young was not the first speaker, Watt sometimes did not arrive at the Tabernacle on time, and when he arrived late for the meeting, he slipped into his desk very quietly.

On July 2, 1854, he noted in his shorthand notes, “Phineas Young spoke but I was too late to report it.” At the same meeting, Young called upon Watt to speak. After he recorded the speeches, Watt transcribed them word for word, spending many hours at his desk. NEXT HE READ THE SERMONS TO THOSE WHO GAVE THEM, AND THEY CORRECTED THEM. Sometimes Thomas Bullock read Watt’s transcribed sermons, and Watt corrected them again. Albert Carrington copy-edited them, and then Watt sent the final collection of sermons by post to Liverpool for publication. The president of the British Mission also wrote a short preface. The sermons FIRST came out in pamphlet, serial form and were sold to church members both in Britain and Utah by subscription. The publication of the Journal of Discourses meant that the sermons of the Mormon leaders were some of the first religious works to be available for potential world consumption. It helped both the missionary effort and membership.” (135-136)

Here, we see that the sermons were read back to those that gave them, and they were corrected BEFORE they even went into print! Another Mormon Myth that is debunked, that these were ‘off the cuff, sloppy transcriptions, that had many errors’. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Hence we have this statement by Brigham Young, WITH THE FULL MEANING VERY CLEAR:

“I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

Those sermons WERE copied and approved by Young, and even corrected beforehand. So, what have we learned? The JOD is a vehicle of Doctrine. They are ‘as good as scripture’, according to Brigham Young. The Mormon leaders understood the difference about speaking as men, and with the ‘Holy Ghost’. Young was involved in every aspect of what was published by the Church, and was very adept at ferreting out false ‘doctrine’. From the above, we see that any who say they are not Docrine are mistaken, and that what Mormons define as doctrine and scripture is in error. Any who say they are not, are LYING

“No man or woman is a true member of the Church who does not fully accept the First Vision, just as no man is a Christian who does not accept, first, the fall of Adam, and second, the atonement of Jesus Christ. Any titular Church member who does not accept the First Vision but who continues to pose as a Church member, lacks not only moral courage but intellectual integrity and honor if he does not avow himself an apostate and discontinue going about the Church, and among the youth particularly, as a Churchman, teaching not only lack-faith, but faith-destroying doctrines. He is a true wolf in sheep’s clothing.” –J. Reuben Clark, Jr. 7 July, 1954

According to Clark, Brigham Young would be one of those because he taught that Adam was God... But they don't denounce him, they applaud him, but say he was so idiotic that he taught folklore! LOL, how can they live with themselves? Remember again, what Marion G. Romney told the Church:

“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)

Over and over, we have that Mormon Authorities, when they speak before the Church in Conference are giving the “word of the Lord’. The JOD WERE official publications, and were Conference Addresses and qualify as “the word of the Lord.’. Any who say they are not, are not telling the truth as given by Mormon "authorities" themselves. This includes later "authorities" who have invented a modern lie about them.

Now. John had the keys, and your interpretation is wrong according to Mormon DOCTRINE given by Mormon "prophets, seers, & revelators".
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _Tobin »

subgenius wrote:
grindael wrote:...(snip)...I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come....(snip)...

how this contradicts my original assertion of them only being able to "minister" and not having keys to confer escapes me.
Otherwise, thanks for the affirmation.
The "keys" of ministry are explained in D&C 13, but speak nothing about conferring the priesthood...so what are you talking about?

Please, note: Journal of Discourses, of any author, is not official Doctrine of the LDS Church.
For your edification, please reference:
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 7?lang=eng


Oh boy... now you've done it subgenius. grindael has gone into full nonsense mode and spouting off that every utterance a leader of the LDS Church ever said is doctrine. You can expect a shower of pages of silliness to follow (bring an umbrella) even though such a position doesn't pass the laugh test.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Restoration of the Gospel

Post by _grindael »

I thought you had me on ignore.. at least that's what you said. But we can always count on you to do exactly the opposite of what you say, eh Tobin? Must be taking lessons from the Mormon Hierarchy...
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Post Reply