There is nothing that would so soon weaken my hope and discourage
me as to see this people in full fellowship with the world, and
receive no more persecution from them because they are one with
them. In such an event, we might bid farewell to the Holy Priesthood
with all its blessings, privileges, and aids to exaltations, principalities,
and powers in the eternities of the Gods. (Brigham Young, April
8, 1862, JD 10:32)
My greatest happiness, I find in the good will and friendship
that has developed among all classes of people at home and abroad
toward the Latter-day Saint Church during my lifetime; in place
of everyday persecutions and bitterness we now enjoy the high
regard and happy association with all denominations. (Heber J.
Grant, Nov. 22, 1938, Salt Lake Tribune)
DHC Documented History of the Church. By Joseph Smith,
compiled by B. H. Roberts. Deseret Book, 1976. 7 volumes plus
index.
JD Journal of Discourses. Talks by President Brigham Young
and his associates from 1852 to 1885, compiled by George D. Watt
and others. F. D. Richards, 1854. 26 volumes plus index.
MFP Messages of the First Presidency. Official statements
of the First Presidency from 1833 to 1964. Compiled by James R.
Clark, Bookcraft, 1966. 5 volumes
TPJS Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Compiled by
Joseph Fielding Smith, second edition. Deseret Book, 1976
WJS Words of Joseph Smith. Transcriptions of the Nauvoo
discourses of Joseph Smith, original spelling and punctuation
preserved. Compiled by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook. BYU,
1980
We are a people who believe that the scriptures say what they
mean and mean what they say. We read in the scriptures that the
Saints of old "labored with their might" to teach the
people, that the sins of the people might not come upon the heads
of them who taught them. (see Jacob 1:19)
We also read:
...it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.
(D&C 88:81)
We have written this pamphlet to warn you that the Gospel of the
Son of God is no longer the gospel of the LDS Church. The true
Gospel is an unchangeable Gospel; with unchangeable doctrine,
unchangeable ordinances, and unchangeable fruits.
In the pages that follow, we will show you that the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, which God restored through Joseph Smith, is essential
to our salvation and exaltation. We will also show you that the
doctrines and ordinances that God pronounced necessary to our
eternal progression have been pronounced unnecessary by the LDS
Church leaders today.
Many men stumble across some great truth in their lives. Unfortunately,
most simply pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and hurry
off as if nothing had happened. (Sir Winston Churchill)
You will notice the same quotations and scriptures used in different
parts of this pamphlet. Please read these quotations in their
entirety each time you come across them. They contain the mind
and will of God, and to skip over them is to skip over the very
things we wish to emphasize the most.
All through history, miraculous healings have accompanied the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. The lame have leapt, the deaf have heard,
the blind have seen, lunatics have been made whole, withered hands
have been restored, lepers have been healed, even the dead have
been brought back to life. Wherever Jesus Christ went among the
faithful, miracles of healing followed. In the New Testament we
read about the healings He did in Judea, and in the Book of Mormon
we read about His healing touch among the Nephites. Christ was
not selfish with His power to bless and heal; just the opposite
is true. Jesus gave His followers in Jerusalem power to perform
the healings that He performed Himself. When the Gospel was restored
to Joseph Smith, the same power to heal was restored with it.
The power to heal in the name of Jesus Christ is much more than
many have supposed. A simple ordination to the priesthood gives
a man authority to administer to the sick in Christ's name, but
it does not give him power to heal. Consequently, there are members
of the LDS Church today with authority to heal, but don't have
the ability to do it. The authority without the ability is useless
- you might as well give a blind man permission to read a book
as to give a man authority to heal but not the power to do it.
The power to heal was very much invested in Jesus Christ, as the
fruits testify. Today we claim the same authority to heal as Jesus
did, that is, the Melchizedek Priesthood. Today, if we are really
honest about what we see around us, we must admit that the nine
million members of the LDS Church put together have not equaled
the healings performed by Jesus Christ and a few fishermen. Assuming
that the LDS Church has the priesthood authority to heal, it must
not have the power. What is this power?
Knowledge is power. Remember that the apostles came to Jesus,
telling Him about the evil spirit that refused to leave when the
apostles cast him out. Let's look at that situation, because the
apostles had authority to cast out evil spirits, but lacked the
power to dispatch this one.
Jesus' response was not to lay His hands on His apostles to confer
upon them additional priesthood power. Instead, He instructed
them that some evil spirits only come out with fasting and prayer.
(Matt. 17:21) Jesus armed His disciples with knowledge, and with
that knowledge they could function in their priesthood authority.
Without knowing how to cast out that devil, their authority did
them no good.
So it is with healing. Priesthood is the authority to heal, but
many of those with authority to heal do not know how to use it.
So thousands of what we'll call "typical administrations"
take place, and people do not throw down their crutches and leap,
or open their blind eyes and see, or hear through deaf ears. All
these afflictions could be healed instantly, if the elders had
some knowledge to accompany their authority.
The "typical administration" is performed by two Melchizedek
Priesthood holders. One pours a drop or two - a few at most -
of consecrated oil on the crown of the head of the person receiving
the blessing. The one anointing then lays his hands on the head
of the recipient and says "I anoint your head with this consecrated
oil by authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the name of
Jesus Christ," or some variation on those words. The other
priesthood holder then lays his hands on the recipient's head,
along with the one who anointed, and says: "We seal this
blessing," and adds a few words, "by authority of the
Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."
One "typical administration" is considered as efficacious
as another, so only one is given at a time.
The beneficial effects of such administrations are questionable.
In most cases, the sick do recover a few days after the administration;
but in most cases, the sick would have recovered even if an administration
had not been given. In families without the Gospel, people get
fevers just like we do; and they almost always recover, without
priesthood administrations. Do we really recover faster; and if
we do, is it because of the administration, or is it because of
the placebo effect that accompanies it?
Many times administrations are given before surgery. The honest
observer must ask, "Did any of Christ's administrations need
to be followed up with surgery?" If we hold the same authority
to heal as Jesus, why isn't the injury or illness requiring surgery
healed when we administer to the patient? Sometimes it is; usually
it is not. When Jesus touched a man, or when Peter, or Joseph
Smith, or Alma laid hands on the sick or injured, was the healing
complete; or did the person still need surgery to do what God
could not?
Our "typical administrations" do not accomplish what
Christ's administrations did. This is a matter that cannot be
ignored, because "ye shall know them by their fruits."
(Matt. 7:16) If we do not have the fruits of healing in our administrations,
then we had better quit claiming to hold the same power and authority
that Jesus once held.
Some will say that Jesus was Jesus, and that of course His healings
would be more efficacious than ours. Well, if our administrations
only work some of the time because we are not God, are our baptisms
only efficacious some of the time, because we are not God? This
question may make us uncomfortable, but it needs to be asked.
If our priesthood authority does not always heal the sick, does
it always wash us clean during baptism? No!
An ordinance is efficacious, if done correctly by the Spirit and
by authority. Obviously, ordinances must be done the very way
they are revealed, or they are not efficacious, no matter the
authority. Jesus Christ Himself cannot baptize by sprinkling.
Jesus must baptize by immersion, or the baptism does not count.
Likewise, Jesus must have administered to the sick in ways that
God recognized and He did not administer to the sick quite like
we do. He actually washed the eyes of the blind man. He touched
the withered hand to make it whole. The woman touched His robe
and was healed. Following Christ's example, Peter pulled the cripple
from the ground to an upright position, and the cripple walked.
Others were told to do strange things such as Naaman washed seven
times in the River Jordan and was healed. Joseph Smith passed
around a handkerchief, and those who touched it were healed. Moses
raised a serpent upon a stick, and whosoever looked upon it, lived.
Those unusual administrations would seem out of place in the Church
today; and the instantaneous healings that accompanied those strange
administrations would also seem out of place today. We are content
with "typical administrations"--just a drop of oil on
the crown of the head, and our members are less blessed than the
ancients. Our administrations, like our baptisms, need to be done
correctly by the Spirit and real authority and when they are,
they will work, and God will recognize them.
Joseph Smith instructed the Saints to perform ordinances in a
certain way, it being the way that God revealed to him. When the
administrations were done as revealed, they worked. Lorenzo Dow
Young records in his journal that his father went to Joseph Smith
and told him, "My son Lorenzo is dying; can there not be
something done for him?"
Joseph answered:
Yes! Of necessity, I must go away to fill an appointment, which
I cannot put off. But you go and get my brother Hyrum, and with
him, get twelve or fifteen good faithful brethren; go to the house
of Brother Lorenzo, and all join in prayer. One be mouth and the
others repeat after him in unison. After prayer, divide into quorums
of three. Let the first quorum who administer, anoint Brother
Young with oil; then lay hands on him, one being mouth, the others
repeating the prayer in unison. When all the quorums have, in
succession, laid their hands on Brother Young and prayed for him,
begin again with the first quorum, by anointing with oil as before,
continuing the administration in this way until you receive a
testimony that he will be restored. (Gifts of the Spirit, Duane
S. Crowther, p. 219-220)
Joseph's instructions were "strictly obeyed" and Lorenzo
was healed.
Joseph Smith taught that twelve or fifteen good, faithful brethren
should participate in an administration. Before administering,
prayer should be offered, one being voice, the others repeating
in unison the prayer. (Those of you who have been endowed will
recognize the similarity between this and a portion of the endowment.)
Then quorums of three were to lay on hands, and pray, one being
mouth, the others repeating in unison. Each quorum was to do this
in turn, and then the first quorum was to begin again. This was
to continue until the testimony was obtained that the sick one
would be restored.
Lorenzo Dow Young's journal tells us that it was during the first
quorum's third administration that the testimony came.
Two elders did not seem sufficient to Joseph Smith when twelve
or fifteen could be had. Neither was one administration sufficient.
Three were given. The sealing prayer was repeated aloud by those
who were administering, not just the one being mouth.
Some would say, "That was then, this is now; that was Joseph
Smith, this is today". To those who feel this way, we ask,
"Is not the Gospel always the same? If God revealed to Joseph
Smith ways to administer to the sick, should not we do it the
way God reveales too?" Of course we should. We know we should,
but few of us ever will, because we are too comfortable with the
"typical administration" to try something different
as prompted by the Spirit.
There is no scriptural commandment that one person anoints and
another one seals the anointing. One person may do both. There
is no scriptural limit to the number of administrations a person
may receive. There is no scripture limiting the amount of oil
used to just a drop or two. Brigham Young taught that when a man
is anointed, enough oil should be used that it drips from his
beard. He is also credited with the maxim, "When in doubt,
pour more out."
If available, twelve or fifteen men should participate in the
administration. Two (or even one) is sufficient, but Joseph in
this example said twelve or fifteen should be called.
Once an administration has begun, it should be continued until
the testimony of Heaven is obtained. If the person is going to
recover, God will reveal it. If the person is going to die, God
will reveal that, also. Administrations should be repeated until
the testimony is obtained that the person will be made well, or
will die. To do a "typical administration" and then
leave, hoping that it will work, is to leave the job undone. The
ordinance is not complete until God has spoken, and declared the
person will be healed, or is appointed unto death or some other
end.
Until the Latter-day Saints repent of the traditions they have
espoused, and perform the administrations correctly, the fruits
of the Gospel that followed Jesus Christ and others will never
follow the LDS Church, and wo be unto those who profess His name
but do not show the fruits of discipleship.
Joseph Smith taught:
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of
the world, in the Priesthood, for the salvation of men, ARE NOT
TO BE ALTERED OR CHANGED. (TPJS, p. 308)
The Prophet Joseph Smith was taught by God Himself how the sacrament
should be administered. In a revelation he received in April 1830,
God explained that it is an elder's "calling to baptize,
and to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons, and
to administer bread and wine, the emblems of the flesh and blood
of Christ." (D&C 20:38-40)
In verses 46-50 we learn :
46 The priest's duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and
baptize, and administer the sacrament,
47 And visit the house of each member and exhort them to pray
vocally and in secret and to attend to all family duties.
48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.
49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
present;
50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
expound, exhort, and baptize.
Let's take a closer look at verses 46 and 50 -
46 A priest's duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,
and administer the sacrament,
50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
expound, exhort, and baptize.
From these verses we learn that God commands that the sacrament
is to be administered by elders. Priests are not to administer
it unless an elder is not present. Teachers and deacons have no
part in administering it, for we read in verse 58:
58 But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize,
administer the sacrament, or lay on hands;
In the LDS Church today, priests, teachers, and deacons all administer
the sacrament when elders are present. This violates God's instructions
in D&C 20.
Once God decrees who is authorized to administer His ordinances,
He does not revoke His decree and authorize others. Joseph Smith
taught -
The gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfill
its requirements, the same; and the officers to officiate, the
same; and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the
same. (TPJS, p. 264)
God has appointed elders to administer the sacrament. He has not
appointed teachers or deacons to administer it. In D&C 132:10,
God asks "Will I receive at your hand that which I have not
appointed?"
The answer, of course, is no. If the sacrament is not administered
by those whom God has appointed to administer it, God will not
receive it.
In verse 76 of D&C 20, the elder or priest (if no elder is
present) is instructed to kneel "with the church" while
the sacrament prayers are offered. He is also instructed to kneel
"with the church" in the Book of Mormon, in Moroni 4:2.
If the church does not kneel with the elder (or priest), then
the ordinance is not being done according to the instructions
of God in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.
D&C 20:40 identifies the emblems of the flesh and blood of
Christ as "bread and wine." During a time when enemies
of the Church were trying to poison the Saints, Joseph Smith went
to buy some wine to be used in the sacrament. He was met by a
heavenly messenger on the way, who told him:
Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase
wine neither strong drink from your enemies. (D&C 27:3)
This heavenly messenger also explained that it did not matter
what we eat or what we drink, so long as we do it with an eye
single to the glory of God.
The LDS Church uses water instead of wine today, and they point
to D&C 27 as the reason behind the use of water instead of
wine.
What they do not remember is that verse 4 of D&C 27 reads
that we should partake of no wine, "except it is made new
among you." The angel then explains that "Jesus Christ
will yet drink of the fruit of the vine with you on earth."
In D&C 89, God explains that the sacrament "should be
wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."
This was given in February, 1833, two and a half years after section
27 was given. The commandment not to purchase wine for sacrament
was a circumstantial instruction, and wine of the Saints own make
is what God would have us use. If it cannot be obtained except
through enemies, then it doesn't matter what is used as emblems
of the flesh and blood of Christ, but in a time of peace and prosperity,
this excuse cannot be used to substitute water for wine.
Christ identifies His church as those who are built upon His Gospel.
(See 3 Nephi 27:8-11) His Gospel is the Book of Mormon and the
Doctrine and Covenants. Unless the Latter-day Saints repent and
administer the sacrament with wine, by elders, and with the church
kneeling, like the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants command,
then they are not built upon Christ's Gospel, and are not His
church.
It is taught today in the LDS Church that baptism is the process
a person must go through to become a member of Jesus Christ's
church. The Lord, however, has a different understanding of church
membership. He has stated:
Behold, this is my doctrine, whosoever repenteth and cometh unto
me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than
this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is
not of my church. (D&C 10:67-68)
Repenting and coming unto Christ are the steps a person must complete
to become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, and this, God
declares, is His doctrine. Baptism is not for church membership.
Baptism is a step in the repentance process, and so is a part
of the process of church membership. Over the years, this one
part of the process has grown in importance while the other parts
(repenting and coming unto Christ) have become proportionally
less emphasized. Baptism is for the remission of sins.
Alma ended his discourse to the people of Zarahemla with these
words:
I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church;
and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way
of invitation, saying: Come and be baptized unto repentance, that
ye also may be partakers of the fruit of the tree of life. (Alma
5:62)
From this we see that baptism is "unto repentance",
not unto church membership. We also see that Alma commands those
who belong to the church at Zarahemla to be baptized.
Alma commands church members to be baptized?
Yes. The baptisms that take place in Alma 6:3, after Alma had
preached to the people at Zarahemla, were rebaptisms. A careful
reading of Alma 6 shows us that church members who were not rebaptized
"were rejected, and their names were blotted out".
When Alma was done in Zarahemla, he immediately went to the city
of Gideon, and to the church members there he taught:
Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for
the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the
kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance,
that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on
the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is
mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness. (Alma
7:14)
Baptism is "unto repentance". And just as repentance
can not be done once to obtain church membership, then forgotten;
so baptism is not done once for church membership, then forgotten.
A careful study of the chronology of the Book of Mormon shows
that just before Christ came almost everyone in the whole land
was baptized (Helaman 16:1-5), rebaptized (3 Nephi 1:23), and
rebaptized again (3 Nephi 7:23-25). Christ came to the Nephites
and they were all rebaptized again (3 Nephi 19:11-13) . That's
at least four rebaptisms in the generation that received the Savior.
3rd Nephi hints at even more rebaptisms during that time :
Now I would have you remember also, that there were none who were
brought unto repentance who were not baptized with water. (3 Nephi
7:24)
Remember that Samuel the Lamanite, Nephi, Nephi's son, who was
also named Nephi, his brother Lehi, and many other prophets (3
Nephi 6:20) were all crying repentance unto this generation. And
"there were none brought to repentance who were not baptized
with water".
The generation of Nephites that met their Savior were very familiar
with the principle of rebaptism, and participated in it.
And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and
teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought
forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. (Moroni 6:1)
Assuming that the Gospel was the same for the Nephites as it is
for us (and there is plenty of scriptural evidence that it is
the same for everybody), elders, priests, and teachers must have
already been baptized as part of the process of church membership
before they became elders, priests, and teachers. This is yet
another case of rebaptism in the Book of Mormon.
In the early part of this dispensation, baptisms for the remission
of sins were administered to Church members:
1. upon joining the Church
2. during the reformation of May, 1842 in Nauvoo (BYU Studies,
D. Michael Quinn, W78:226-27)
3. upon entering a united order (Temple Lot Case p. 340)
4. upon taking the marriage covenant (BYU Studies, W78:231. Some
older Church members may remember this one)
5. when they arrived in Utah after crossing the plains (JD 18:201)
6. during the reformation of 1856-57 (Deseret News, Sept. 9, 1856)
7. whenever the Saints requested it (JD 18:241)
8. to heal their illnesses (DHC 4:256; Bancroft's History of Utah,
p. 337)
Brigham Young talked about a revelation Joseph Smith received
about baptism in 1840. Said he:
At this time came a revelation that the Saints could be baptized
and rebaptized when they chose (JD 18:241)
For many years the Saints were rebaptized as many times as they
felt necessary. But over the years, Church leaders seemed to tire
over the constant requests to baptize. In General Conference on
October, 1897, the First Presidency announced that there was "too
much rebaptism going on," and declared that it must stop.
And stop it did. Now rebaptism is not allowed at all. Although
the leaders of the LDS Church have stopped it, God still recognizes
rebaptism as an inseparable part of repentance, because the Gospel
is unchangeable. The cleansing waters of rebaptism are available
to all, and we invite you to follow Christ into the waters of
baptism again, and rededicate yourselves to living the laws of
God, and not of man.
The duties and offices of the Priesthood have been changed, almost
completely, since the Gospel was restored through Joseph Smith.
We are going to identify these changes in this section of our
pamphlet.
Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according
to the gifts and callings of God unto him, and he is to be ordained
by the power of the Holy Ghost which is in the one who ordains
him. (D&C 20:60)
Since 1906, minimum age requirements have been set for deacons,
teachers, priests, and since the 1920's, for elders. Rather than
young men being ordained to offices in the priesthood by the power
of the Holy Ghost, young men are ordained according to their age.
Of course there is still the worthiness interview. A young man
must be able to answer questions to the satisfaction of his bishop
before he can be ordained. This was not supposed to be the case.
Joseph Smith taught that men were to be called by revelation,
not by answering the questions correctly. The very idea of interviewing
young men every two years for advancement in the priesthood would
seem foreign to Joseph Smith. When a young man (or an old man,
for that matter) was ready to assume new duties in the priesthood,
God made it known through revelation. The LDS Church claims:
We believe a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the
laying on of hands, by those who are in authority, to preach the
gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Fifth Article
of Faith)
But in actual practice, they believe that a man must be called
by age, and by interviews, to receive the priesthood his fathers
received by revelation and prophecy. Is this being ordained by
the gifts and callings of God? Has the LDS Church lost the ability
to hear the voice of God in heaven? If they have not lost it,
why do they not allow God to reveal to them the officers of the
priesthood? Why do they limit God by minimum age requirements?
The LDS Church today would discredit the ordination of John the
Baptist (8 days old), Peter, James, and John (no worthiness interview,
just "come, follow me"), Brigham Young Jr. (Ordained
an apostle at age 12), Joseph F. Smith (who served a full-time
mission at 15), and Mosiah Hancock (who was endowed at age 12).
The LDS Church would not recognize such ordinations today, but
God still would!
D&C 20:58 reads:
But neither teachers or deacons have authority to baptize, administer
the sacrament, or lay on hands.
In the LDS Church today, the deacons administer the sacrament
every week. Administering the sacrament is practically the only
responsibility of an LDS deacon today. In the scriptures, the
duties of a deacon are: To warn, teach, expound, exhort, and invite
all to come to Christ. The teacher's duty is to watch over the
church always, see that the church meets together often, see that
there is no iniquity in the church, see that the members do their
duty, and to warn, teach, expound, and exhort. The deacons are
also to assist the teacher when occasion requires. (see D&C
20:53-59)
Today, deacons administer the sacrament and collect fast offerings.
Listen to the words of President Brigham Young in General Conference
-
When you have a Bishop, and he ordains counselors, Priests, Teachers,
and Deacons, and calls them to help him; and he wishes men of
his own heart and hand to do this. Says he, 'I dare not even call
a man to be a Deacon, to assist me in my calling, unless he has
a family.' It is not the business of an ignorant young man, of
no experience in family matters, to enquire into the circumstances
of families, and know the wants of every person. Some may want
medicine and nourishment, and to be looked after, and it is not
the business of boys to do this; but select a man who has got
a family, to be a Deacon, whose wife can go with him, and assist
to administering to the needy in the ward. (JD Vol. 2, pg. 89-90,
October 6, 1854)
How things have changed! The problem is, some things were never
meant to be changed. The Gospel is one of them.
"An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize."
(D&C 20:38) An elder's duties are to ordain, administer the
sacrament, confirm, teach, expound, exhort, watch over the church,
and to take the lead of all meetings as led by the spirit. (D&C
20:39-45) A priest's duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort,
baptize, visit all members and exhort them to pray, ordain other
priests, teachers, and deacons, assist the elder, and to take
the lead of meetings and administer the sacrament when no elder
is present. (D&C 20:46-52)
Why do we have trouble finding one priest, teacher, or deacon
in the Church today that is doing his duty as God defined it?
It is because the LDS Church has changed the duties! The duties
outlined in the General Handbook of Instruction have taken the
place of the duties explained in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Which one did God author, the General Handbook, or the Doctrine
and Covenants? If the two conflict and contradict each other (and
they most certainly do), why not follow the doctrines of God instead
of the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?
Bishops, according to the Doctrine and Covenants, collect stewardships
and offerings, and judge in temporal matters. They do not preside
in the Church or judge in spiritual matters. Bishops preside temporally
over united orders, not spiritually over churches.
Seventies are traveling missionaries, not General Authorities.
In fact, traveling seventies have no administrative authority
in stakes, much less general authority over the whole Church.
Apostles are traveling missionaries. In fact, Apostle means "one
sent forth" in classical Greek. Today, the LDS apostles run
the affairs of the Church. They do not "Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations" as Christ instructed His Apostles
to do. (Matt 28:19) It might be said that they "stay ye therefore
home and send boys to teach all nations". When apostles do
go out into the world, it is not to teach, but to organize stakes
and branches. If they teach at all, they preach to the converted.
God's chief missionary force, the apostles, do very little actual
missionary work.
From the days of Joseph Smith until 1979, the Church had a presiding
patriarch. Now, they say, it does not need one anymore. (It doesn't
need stake seventies, plural marriage, consecration, gathering,
rebaptism, etc. anymore, either.) Why are there so many changes
in the unchangeable Gospel?
In the days of Joseph Smith, God set down the pattern for the
Saints to follow. The LDS Church has gone astray from it. The
fact that the General Authorities have made most of these changes
without the common consent of the Church is not an excuse - the
members of the Church are still rebelling against the Book of
Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. You must make a choice.
Will you follow the brethren and the General Handbook, or will
you follow God and the standard works? The camps are now too far
apart to follow both.
The principle of plural marriage is one of the least understood
parts of the restored Gospel. Today it is taught that:
1. plural marriage was never a necessity, but it was optional,
2. the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage is temple marriage,
not plural marriage,
3. God revoked plural marriage in 1890, and
4. plural marriages are not recognized by God today, and won't
be until the millennium.
The truth is much different than what the LDS people have been
taught.
In the Celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And
in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order
of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of
marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter
into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot
have an increase. (D&C 131:1-4)
It is necessary that a man must enter into the New and Everlasting
Covenant of Marriage. If he does not, he cannot obtain the highest
degree of the Celestial Kingdom. His eternal progress is stopped;
he cannot have an increase.
The following quotations show that plural marriage is the New
and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, and also that plural marriage
is necessary to obtain exaltation.
In Apostle Orson Pratt's first volume of The Seer, D&C 132
was included under the title:
CELESTIAL MARRIAGE: A REVELATION ON THE PATRIARCHAL ORDER OF MATRIMONY,
OR PLURALITY OF WIVES
Thus, identifying celestial marriage as plural marriage.
A Deseret News article printed April 6, 1870, states "D&C
132 commands plural marriage." Apostle Charles W. Penrose
was the editor.
In the 1890 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, 131:2 reads:
...into this b order of the priesthood..
The footnote at the bottom of the page reads "b :
D&C 132," identifying the New and Everlasting covenant
of Marriage as the kind of marriage commanded in D&C 132.
The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those
who enter into polygamy. (Brigham Young, JD 11:268-69)
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage
was a sort of a superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation
or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have
said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by
the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive
an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he
possibly could get with more than one. I want here to enter my
solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There
is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing
can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with
the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage
of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power,
according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial
law of marriage in part - and is good so far as it goes - and
so far as a man abide these conditions of the law, he will receive
his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not
obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the
beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever
has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings
pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion
of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. (Apostle
Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878, JD 20:28)
I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as
any principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear
my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ
in its fullness; never existed without it. Where you have the
eternity of the marriage covenant you are bound to have plural
marriage; bound to. (Apostle George Teasdale, Jan 13, 1884, JD
25:21)
The great question is this - will we unite with the plurality
order of the Ancient Patriarchs, or will we consent voluntarily
to be doomed to eternal celibacy? This is the true division of
the question. One or the other we must choose. We cannot be married
to our husbands for eternity, without subscribing to the law that
admits a plurality of wives. (Millennial Star 15:266)
Without the doctrine this revelation (D&C 132) reveals, no
man on earth could be exalted to be a God. (Brigham Young, Millennial
Star Supplement, 15:31-32)
Yes sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John
Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt
Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom
must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was
a means of exaltation. (Bathsheba W. Smith, Temple Lot Case, p.
362)
If the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the
glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly
interwoven together. (Charles W. Penrose, July 16, 1883, Millennial
Star 45:454)
God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.
And why did she do it? Because this was the law... (D&C 132:34)
But the doctrine that Brigham Young, Charles W. Penrose, Orson
Pratt, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and God
Himself explained was essential, James E. Talmage wrote in his
Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89:
But of Celestial marriage, plurality of wives was an incident,
never an essential.
Dr. Talmage was either doctrinally ignorant or a deliberate liar.
But Talmage's view of the plurality of wives as non-essential
is the view the LDS Church takes today. Modern LDS leaders must
be doctrinally ignorant or deliberate liars, because they teach
a false Church history.
It is hard to believe the 1890 manifesto was a revelation if the
historical events that surround it are understood. While the Prophet
Joseph Smith was in Liberty Jail, he wrote:
If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned,
except by commandment, or "Thus saith the Lord," we
do not consider it binding. (DHC 3:295)
The 1890 manifesto does not even refer to God, much less state
"Thus saith the Lord." (Go read it yourself, if you
do not believe it.) It ends, "And now I publicly declare
that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting
any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." It was "advice,"
not a commandment, from Wilford Woodruff to refrain from plural
marriage. If Joseph Smith's statement from Liberty Jail is true,
then the manifesto cannot be considered binding!
Joseph Smith taught that a revelation that contradicts a former
revelation is false (see TPJS p. 215). Since the 1890 manifesto
contradicts D&C 132 and the teachings of every prophet and
apostle from 1852 to 1890, it is safe to consider it false.
The most glaring contradiction of the 1890 manifesto is the Church's
actions after it. D. Michael Quinn, former professor of history
at BYU, has documented:
All first presidency members either allowed or authorized new
plural marriages from 1890 to 1904, and a few as late as 1906
and 1907. One Church President married a plural wife, and three
counselors in the First Presidency performed marriages for men
who had wives living already. A Presidency's secretary proposed
polygamous marriage in 1903, and another Presidency's secretary
performed a polygamous marriage in 1907.
Of the 16 men who served only as apostles - in other words, their
service did not extend into the First Presidency, but they served
only as apostles, 8 of these 16 men married post-manifesto wives.
Three of them who did not do so, performed plural marriages. Two
of them who did not do either of the above arranged for plural
marriages. Only three men who served only as apostles from 1890
to April, 1904, did not participate at all in encouraging, promoting,
or entering into new plural marriages. (D. M. Quinn, talk delivered
to Apostolic United Brethren, Aug. 11, 1991. Write to PO Box 177,
Manti, UT 84642 for a typescript. $1 for copying and postage.)
The very men who issued the 1890 manifesto did not live by it.
Maybe the following excerpt from a letter to the President of
the United States explains why:
To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow
citizens who are not of their faith and to share in the confidence
of the Government and people, our people have voluntarily put
aside something which all their lives they believed to be a sacred
principle. (Petition for Amnesty, Messages of the First Presidency
3:231)
This letter was signed by the First Presidency and ten apostles.
They wrote that the Latter-day Saints have "voluntarily put
aside" plural marriage, not that God revoked it. It is understandable
that most of the men who signed that letter did not follow the
"advice" of the 1890 manifesto themselves. They knew
it was not a revelation because they issued it. They knew it was
not binding, and that God still required a plurality of wives
for exaltation.
Ten months before the 1890 manifesto was issued, Wilford Woodruff
received a revelation commanding the First Presidency not to give
up plural marriage. It is too long to reprint here, but it is
printed in Messages of the First Presidency 3:175-76. A photocopy
of the entire revelation can be obtained by sending a self-addressed,
stamped envelope to the address above.
Note the law of common consent as God revealed it:
And all things shall be done by common consent in the church,
by much prayer and faith, for all things shall you receive by
faith. (D&C 26:2)
For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in
the church, by the prayer of faith. (D&C 28:13)
The 1890 manifesto was presented to the United States government
in Washington, on September 25, 1890, by John T. Caine. It was
not until October 6, 1890, two weeks later, that it was presented
for common consent to the LDS people. The leaders of the Church
told the government that the people had been advised to give up
plural marriage before the people knew a thing about it.
The 1890 manifesto fails every test applied to it. It does not
command anything, or say "Thus saith the Lord". (DHC
3:295) It contradicts a former revelation. (TPJS 215) It was not
issued by common consent. (D&C 26:2, D&C 28:13) The authorities
who issued it did not live by it, but continued to live the New
and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage.
The 1890 manifesto explains the reason for Wilford Woodruff's
"advice" to the Latter-day Saints. Where it reads, "Inasmuch
as laws have been passed in Congress forbidding plural marriages...".
We are a people who believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining
the law."
The truth of the matter must go deeper, because Joseph Smith lived
plural marriage in Illinois, where is was punishable by $1,000
fine and two years imprisonment. Brigham Young lived it for 15
years in Utah Territory, where it was punishable by five years
imprisonment and $500 fine. Were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young
guilty of adultery in the eyes of God because they were violating
the laws of the land?
God defines the law of the land as this:
And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land,
it is my will that my people should do all things whatsoever I
command them
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that
principle of freedom in sustaining rights and privileges, belongs
to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church,
in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the
land;
And as pertaining to the laws of man, whatsoever is more or less
than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4-7)
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
which is the law of the land in God's eyes, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Had James E. Talmage been right, and plural marriage was not a
vital part of the restored Gospel, then it might be argued that
the first amendment does not apply to plural marriage among Saints,
but faced with the overwhelming evidence (part of which has been
quoted above) that plural marriage is indeed a necessity to the
LDS religion, the laws forbidding plural marriage are unconstitutional,
and are not justifiable before God. (see D&C 98:5)
Furthermore, California legislators enacted a law on January 1,
1976, that repealed all penalties for the practice of plural marriage.
More Latter-day Saints live in California than in Utah, and there
is no law of the land in California prohibiting the practice of
plural marriage, but the LDS Church still excommunicates its members
in California for entering into plural marriages. Those claiming
that plural marriage was revoked because it violates the laws
of the land have not explained why it has not been restored in
California.
Finally, the Prophet Daniel lived in a day when the law of the
land was to bow down and worship the King's golden image. Anyone
who refused or worshipped any other God would be put to death.
Daniel chose to disobey the law of the land and worship God, and
God blessed him because of it. The laws of the land have changed,
but the principle is still the same. God would rather have us
obey him than Congress. To claim that the unalterable decrees
of God are revoked because wicked men pass unrighteous laws is
to subjugate God to Congress, instead of Congress to God.
Plural Marriage Conclusion
God has not revoked plural marriage. It was - and still is - necessary
to our exaltation. The leaders of the LDS Church teach that it
was revoked by God in 1890, that it hasn't been practiced by them
since then, and that God does not approve of plural marriage today.
They are wrong on every count. It was a necessity, the 1890 manifesto
did not revoke it, the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve practiced
it after 1890, and God's requirements for this dispensation have
not changed.
Please read D&C 132 and see for yourself if God commands plural
marriage. Read the 1890 manifesto, and see for yourself if God
revoked plural marriage. Compare each of them to other revelations
in the Doctrine and Covenants, and see which of them came from
God, and which came from man.
Then "Go and do the works of Abraham".
Consecration is one of the covenants we must obey in order to
enter into the presence of God. It is necessary to live consecration
to build Zion. It is also forbidden by the LDS Church leaders
today.
The Lord said:
Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the
law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto
myself. (D&C 105:5)
The law of the Celestial Kingdom spoken of here is the law of
consecration. And we, the Saints, will not return to Jackson County
and build up Zion until we succeed at living the law of consecration
here.
Consecration is not home teaching, as some have said. Neither
is it a lifetime of faithful Church service. God explains that
consecration means the consecration of property, "with a
covenant and deed which cannot be broken." (D&C 42:30,
see also D&C 51:4 and D&C 78:11)
Consecration is the United Order. It is giving all to God, then
relying on Him to give back the necessities of life through the
bishop. Consecration is well defined by God in D&C 42, D&C
51, D&C 58, D&C 78, D&C 85, and D&C 104. To say
consecration means something different today is to accuse God
of changing.
Orson Pratt, one of the Twelve Apostles in the days of Brigham
Young, asked the Saints the following question:
Supposing we should all be returned say this fall, or next year
to Jackson County. Say a large majority should be returned to
the land of our inheritances, in Missouri, and in the regions
round about, and it should be said unto us, 'Go ye my Sons and
build up Zion according to the Celestial law, through the consecration
of the property of my church, as I have commanded,' Would you
be prepared to do this work? Have you an experience at it? Have
you learned the lessons by experience? No, no; years after years
have passed away since the law was given, and the law has not
been practiced in our midst. (Aug. 16, 1873, JD 16:158-59)
We can compare the lives of the people in 1873 to the lives of
us today in the mid 1990's, and we testify that we are doing a
worse job of consecration today than our fathers did in 1873.
In 1873, When Apostle Orson Pratt chastized our fathers for not
living consecration well enough to build Zion, some of the Saints
had consecrated all that they had and signed deeds of stewardship,
transferring the ownership of all their property to God, through
his agent, the bishop, but there were not enough in 1873 living
the law correctly to build Zion. Today, there are none in the
Church living the law. Anyone who offers all his property to the
Church - or to God - through the bishop, learns that the Church
will not accept it.
Some of you have covenanted with God (not with the LDS Church,
but with God) to obey the law of consecration. The Church will
not let you keep your covenant today. If you do not live up to
every covenant you make at the altars of the temple, you are in
Satan's power, and your own church leaders forbid you from living
up to the covenant of consecration.
In the early 1830's, thousands of the Saints were driven out of
Jackson County by angry mobs and corrupt politicians. Joseph Smith,
seeing the suffering of these Saints, asked God why it had happened.
God answered:
I the Lord have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith
they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgression...
Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions,
and envyings and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among
them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.
(D&C 101:2,6)
They had gone to build Zion by the law of consecration, but they
envied, coveted, and contended over property. Thus the Lord allowed
them to be driven out, because the decree is that His Saints will
never build up Zion unless they do it by the principles of the
law of consecration.
The LDS Church will not allow consecration, but they still administer
the Consecration Covenant in the endowment. God expects you to
keep your covenants. Since the LDS Church will not provide the
opportunity for you to consecrate, we suggest you find a church
that will.
The Lord explains that a full tithe is not 10%, it is all surplus
property, then 10% ever after. Joseph Smith asked, "O Lord,
show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the property
of thy people for a tithing."
The answer (D&C 119):
1. Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property
to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,
2. For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation
of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency
of my Church.
3. And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
4. And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth
of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law
unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.
5. Verily, I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those
who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus
properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found
worthy to abide among you.
6. And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep
it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that
my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may
be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a
land of Zion unto you.
7. And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion.
Even so. Amen.
The LDS Church will not allow you to live the Lord's definition
of tithing, but God declared it to be a standing law forever.
You can live the law of tithing the LDS Church practices today,
or live the law of tithing God revealed and let the consequences
follow. God bless you to make the right choice.
The Prophet Joseph Smith once explained the purpose of the endowment
to Bathsheba W. Smith, wife of Apostle George A. Smith. She records
that Joseph said "...that we did not know how to pray and
have our prayers answered. But when I and my husband had our endowments
... Joseph Smith presiding, he taught us the true order of prayer."
(Words of Joseph Smith p. 54)
Just before the endowment was offered, Joseph "spoke of delivering
the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful
members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands,
that the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful,
might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer." (TPJS,
p. 226)
Brigham Young explained that the endowment was "to receive
all those ordinances in the House of the Lord which are necessary
for you, after you have departed this life, to walk back into
the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels,
being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens,
pertaining to the holy Priesthood and gain your exaltation, in
spite of earth and hell." (JD 2:31)
The endowment has never been an optional ordinance, like a patriarchal
blessing or a healing of the sick. The endowment is a necessary
ordinance in our progression toward heaven. We cannot receive
the blessings available in the endowment in any other way except
through the endowment, and those blessings are prerequisite to
our receiving our exaltations. Joseph Smith taught that God had
uttered certain irrevocable decrees, and that "when we receive
any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which
it is predicated." (D&C 130:21) Talking with God face
to face is predicated upon using the True Order of Prayer that
is only taught in the endowment.
Joseph Smith personally administered the endowment to men like
Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Heber C. Kimball. Near the
end of his life, he called together the Twelve Apostles and others
and diligently taught them the ordinances of the Gospel, how to
administer them, and the symbolic meaning and power behind each
aspect of each ordinance, including the endowment. Once the ordinances
and the authority to perform them had been given to men on the
earth, Joseph warned them not to alter them.
Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of
the world, in the Priesthood, for the salvation of men, ARE NOT
TO BE ALTERED OR CHANGED. (TPJS, p. 308)
Taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean and
mean what they say, we have sufficient grounds to go on and prove
from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same; THE ORDINANCES
TO FULFILL ITS REQUIREMENTS, THE SAME; and the officers to administer,
the same; and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises,
the same. (TPJS, p. 264)
And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an
eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled
and gathered into one, and that all things whatsoever, that should
be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same
fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore,
HE SET THE ORDINANCES TO BE THE SAME FOREVER AND EVER, and set
Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or
to send angels to reveal them. (TPJS, p. 168)
And speaking particularly about the endowment, he said:
The order of the House of God has been, and EVER WILL BE, THE
SAME, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the
thousand years it will be the same. (TPJS, p. 91)
On June 8, 1887, Wilford Woodruff wrote a letter to Logan Temple
President Roskelley. Part of it says:
Now, concerning the endowment, in all its phases. My own views
are these--that we ought to follow out, as far as we can, the
pattern laid down by our leaders. I consider that if there ever
was a man who thoroughly understood the principle of the Endowments
it was Brigham Young. He has been with Joseph Smith from the beginning
of the Endowments, to the end, and he understood it if any man
did. And before his death he required me to write a Book, every
ordinance of the Church and Kingdom of God, from the first to
the last, beginning with baptism, to the last ordinance performed,
through every department of the endowments. I was several weeks
doing this writing, and President Young corrected it all, until
he got through. Then he said to me "Now, THERE YOU HAVE A
PATTERN OF ALL THE ORDINANCES OR ENDOWMENTS FOR EVERY TEMPLE WE
SHALL BUILD, UNTIL THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN."
Now, if I ever have anything to do or say, in any Temple on the
earth, concerning the Endowment, I would say: FOLLOW THE PATTERN
THAT PRESIDENT YOUNG HAS SET US, AND NOT DEVIATE FROM IT ONE IOTA.
And if we do that, we may have a hundred Temples at work, and
all the work and ceremonies will be alike in every Temple. While
on the other hand, if every man who is called to preside over
a Temple has his own way, and introduces his own form of ceremonies,
our Temple work would be as diverse as the sectarian world, and
God would not approbate it.
Brother Roskelley, I have given endowments in Salt Lake City for
twenty years, and I received my endowments under the hand of the
Prophet Joseph Smith. I directed the fixing up of the Temple in
St. George for giving endowments, under the direction of President
Young; since THE RULES ARE WRITTEN FOR OUR GUIDANCE IN ALL FUTURE
TIME, I feel very strenuously that in giving Endowments we should
all work alike, and NOT DEVIATE FROM THE WRITTEN WORD. (Original
in Church Historian's Office, copies in Truth 1:34-35, and Truth
16:42.)
Despite all of the above mentioned instructions to keep the endowment
ceremony unchanged, the LDS Church has changed the endowment several
times over the last century. Without revealing things that should
not be revealed, let us take a look at the changes in the endowment
ceremony and related ordinances.
In 1894, the sealing principle was changed by Wilford Woodruff.
It used to be that faithful members of the Church did genealogy
to find their righteous ancestors and have those ancestors sealed
to them. The Saints would then become saviors on Mount Zion to
their righteous ancestors, and these ancestors would become part
of the eternal posterity of the Saint who had them sealed to him.
Wilford Woodruff reversed this when he told the Saints to be sealed
to their ancestors, no matter how corrupt or evil they may have
been. Sealing ordinances in the temples have been reversed for
the last hundred years, and today Church members are sealing the
dregs of society to themselves as their patriarchs (giving these
ancestors patriarchal authority over the patrons), simply because
they slept with one of their grandmothers years ago.
The Lecture at the Veil was rewritten and the identity of our
Heavenly Father was deleted just after the turn of the century.
The following excerpt speaks for itself -
Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and
the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother
Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City and was the son of Richard
Horne and grandson of Joseph Horne, said - in reference to the
Adam-God Doctrine - that when he first went through the (Salt
Lake) Temple for his Endowment in 1902 before going on his mission
he was surprised to hear the teachings during the Temple ceremony
that 'Adam was our God' and that 'He came here with Eve, one of
His wives'. Also, it was taught that 'Eve bore our spirits'. He
asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion
about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few
years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed
from the Temple ceremony. (C. Jess Groesbeck's Elders Journal,
Vol. 1:291)
The next change to the endowment was brought about by political
circumstances. Before 1896, Utah was a Territory, controlled by
the United States government. Utah's citizens had no voice in
United States policy, because territories are not allowed to send
representatives to Congress. States, on the other hand, are guaranteed
by the United States Constitution the right to choose their own
representation. Utah tried unsuccessfully many times to gain statehood
so that Utahns could elect their own congressional representatives.
In 1896, Utah succeeded in obtaining statehood. In the early 1900's
Utah elected a man named Reed Smoot to be a senator in Congress.
Although he was legally elected and the United States Constitution
guaranteed Utah its own representation, when Reed Smoot got to
Washington and tried to begin his responsibilities, the Congress
of the United States refused to seat him.
Why? Reed Smoot was a Mormon apostle.
What followed has become known as the Reed Smoot Investigations.
For several years the federal government tried to prove that a
Mormon apostle - even though legally elected - was unfit to serve
in Congress. The LDS Church was thoroughly investigated by unfriendly
bureaucrats and zealous lawyers. Any controversy that could be
dug up, was dug up, and used against the Church.
The Oath of Vengeance is what the investigation committee used
most effectively. Part of the endowment ceremony was the Oath
of Vengeance. Endowment patrons took an oath to never cease praying
that God would bring vengeance upon this wicked nation for shedding
the blood of the prophets. The Oath of Vengeance proved, to the
federal investigators, that Mormons were not patriotic citizens
and that a Mormon apostle such as Reed Smoot was unqualified to
be a senator.
Joseph F. Smith was president of the Church at that time. His
solution to the dilemma was to remove the Oath of Vengeance from
the endowment. In 1908, President Joseph F. Smith ordered the
Oath of Vengeance removed. He also tried to cover up all evidence
that such an Oath ever existed. President Smith never presented
a revelation from God telling him to change the endowment. He
never claimed to have received one. He simply took a covenant
out of the endowment to appease the federal government. This was
the first covenant removed from the endowment.
It should be pointed out here that the covenants made in the endowment
are each extremely serious. God will not be mocked in these covenants.
God revealed to Joseph Smith the covenants of the endowment ceremony,
and Joseph administered them as he was commanded to by God. These
covenants are eternal in their nature. Obeying them brings eternal
blessings; disobeying them brings eternal cursings. They were
in the endowment that was administered in ancient Israel, they
were in the early LDS Church endowment, and they should still
be in the endowment today. When these covenants are removed, it
becomes impossible for the Saints to keep all the covenants of
God, for they cannot receive them. Likewise, if a covenant in
the endowment is replaced with a commandment of men, God will
not accept its fulfillment as binding. God is bound when we do
what He says, not when we do what men say. When God gives a covenant
through revelation and Church leaders replace it with a covenant
of their own making, God is not bound to keep it. Only those who
receive and obey all of the covenants of the endowment qualify
for the blessings the endowment offers - the ability to pierce
the veil and commune with God, to pray in the Order of Prayer
that God answers with revelation.
Some of you may remember these placards:
THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE REGARDED AS AN ESTABLISHED AND IMPERATIVE
RULE. THE GARMENT WORN BY THOSE WHO RECEIVE ENDOWMENTS MUST BE
WHITE AND OF THE APPROVED PATTERN; THEY MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR
MUTILATED, AND ARE TO BE WORN AS INTENDED, DOWN TO THE WRISTS
AND ANKLES AND AROUND THE NECK. ADMISSION TO THE TEMPLE WILL BE
REFUSED TO THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.
THE SAINTS SHOULD KNOW THAT THE PATTERN OF ENDOWMENT GARMENTS
WAS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AND THAT THE BLESSINGS PROMISED IN CONNECTION
WITH WEARING THEM WILL NOT BE REALIZED IF ANY UNAUTHORIZED CHANGE
IS MADE IN THEIR FORM OR IN THE MANNER OF WEARING THEM.
JOS. F. SMITH, Pres.
On June 28, 1916, Joseph F. Smith caused the above written placards
to be hung in every temple then in existence. In 1923, President
Heber J. Grant sanctioned what was called the "street garment,"
or a shorter version of the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. It
did not go to the wrists or ankles - it was designed for socially
conscious members who wanted to wear the fashions of a wicked
world. President Grant did not make wearing it mandatory; people
could still obtain from the Church and wear the original Garment.
(The original pattern as revealed to Joseph Smith is no longer
available from the LDS Church. This, in effect, makes Heber J.
Grant's "permission" to wear the altered garments mandatory.)
When Heber J. Grant replaced the Garment of the Holy Priesthood
with the "street garment" in 1923, he ordered every
one of Joseph F. Smith's placards to be taken out of the temples
and burned.
During the "women's movement" of the early 1920's, Heber
J. Grant rewrote the Woman's Oath of Obedience, because some sisters
found it offensive. The wording was changed to make the woman
the judge as to whether her husband was leading "in righteousness".
If the woman judged her husband as lacking, she was not bound
by her oath to him. No revelation to do it was ever presented.
No revelation was ever claimed. The judge of the husband was now
the wife, instead of God.
In 1933, Heber J. Grant was paid a visit by a sister from southern
California who had broken the Law of Chastity covenant. She had
divorced her husband "to whom she had been given by the Holy
Priesthood" and her new husband was married to her by civil
authority only, she was indeed having sexual intercourse with
a member of the opposite sex to whom she had not been given by
the Holy Priesthood. She had presented her case to her Stake High
Council, who arranged for her to visit President Grant. She showed
up in President Grant's office, crying. What could she do? President
Grant had a simple solution; he rewrote the covenant. When he
was done it read "to anyone of the opposite sex to whom you
are legally and lawfully married." President Grant neither
produced a revelation from God commanding the change, nor did
he ever claim to have received one, but the sister from southern
California felt better.
Do God's requirements for exaltation change? Of course not. Then
why did Heber J. Grant change one of them? Why haven't the people
in the Church insisted that their leaders include the covenants
that God recognizes in the endowment? Heber J. Grant changed the
standard, and the Church no longer considers this sister guilty
of adultery. BUT GOD STILL DOES! His requirement didn't change
a bit just because Heber J. Grant's did. With that in mind, did
President Grant do this sister a favor, or a disservice?
In the early days of the dispensation, New Names were given to
endowment patrons by revelation. These New Names had a special
significance, but that significance is no longer taught in the
temple. New Names that were given were names of ancient Saints
who had received salvation and were justified through Christ Jesus.
Today, New Names are read off of a sheet of paper to endowment
patrons. Everyone in the session receives the same one. No revelation
is involved. New Names of "Cain" and "Nimrod,"
two of the most evil men to walk the earth, have recently been
given to patrons. If patrons who received such New Names knew
the relationship between themselves and the person whose New Name
they bear, they would be shattered at the realization of what
they had received.
Washings and Anointings have changed somewhat, too. Washing with
water is symbolic of being washed clean from sin. A hundred years
ago, endowment patrons were literally washed. Today, a sprinkle
of water here and a sprinkle of water there is considered sufficient.
Anointing with oil is symbolic of the Holy Ghost being poured
out upon a person. Patrons used to have oil poured out upon them.
The more oil used, the more symbolism of the Holy Ghost. Today,
tiny drops of oil are used to anoint patrons, so as not to offend
anyone.
May 3, 1978, a letter from the First Presidency was sent to all
stake presidents and bishops, ordering them to stop using the
True Order of Prayer outside the temples. Since 1842, when Joseph
Smith gave the first endowments of this dispensation, until 1978,
for 136 years, temple patrons were taught the True Order of Prayer
and commanded in the Lecture at the Veil to use it "to call
upon God for the rest of your lives." Using the True Order
of Prayer outside of the temple is now grounds for excommunication,
and unless you are a temple worker and happen to be playing a
certain part in the endowment ceremony, you do not get to be mouth
during the prayer. We are taught very specifically how to pray
and receive an answer, but are now forbidden to do so.
In January, 1980, another major revision of the garment took place.
The Garment of the Holy Priesthood that was revealed to Joseph
Smith has shrunk from the wrists and ankles to the shoulders and
thighs, and 4 of the 8 symbolic marks have been removed. The new
"sport garment" comes in a package marked "AUTHORIZED
PATTERN", and anyone wearing the original "authorized
pattern," or Garment of the Holy Priesthood, is considered
by current Church authorities as not wearing the approved garment,
and will not be allowed to participate in the temple ceremonies.
One is the "authorized pattern" of the LDS Church; the
other is the "authorized pattern" of God.
On April 10, 1990, a major revision of the endowment took place.
The Woman's Oath of Obedience was changed. The Five Points of
Fellowship were removed. The part of the preacher was removed.
The penalties accompanying the tokens of the Priesthood were all
removed, and the first sign of the Melchizedek Priesthood was
changed.
Those who understand the significance of the endowment will appreciate
the seriousness of these changes. The purpose of the endowment,
according to Joseph Smith, was "to teach you how to pray
so as to have your prayers answered." The way we are taught
to pray in the endowment is the True Order of Prayer. In the True
Order of Prayer, all of the names, signs, and penalties must be
offered up to open the veil and commune with God. If the penalties
are left out, then it is no longer the True Order of Prayer. It
has become an Untrue Order, or a False Order of Prayer.
Anciently, a sacrificial lamb was offered in the temple ceremony.
It was killed in a symbolic manner. The throat was slit, it was
slit across the 13th rib, and it was disemboweled. Ring a bell?
On April 10, 1990, the "daily sacrifice was taken away"
from the temple ceremony, just as Daniel saw in his vision. (Dan.
8)
The first sign of the Melchizedek Priesthood has been changed,
and I am told that the way it is done now is the same as a sign
used in both the mafia and the occult. If there is any power in
the sign used today, it is power to open up the veil to the Satanic
side.
The Five Points of Fellowship, or the Holy Embrace, is very significant.
In the endowment, after we have fulfilled all of our covenants
and offered up the True Order of Prayer, we converse with the
Lord through the veil. Although He hides His face from us, we
still recognize that it is indeed the Lord with whom we speak,
because He takes us in the Five Points of Fellowship.
In our mortal lives, once we have fulfilled all of our covenants
and offered up the True Order of Prayer, we do converse with the
Lord through the Veil. He must hide His face from us, because
of His all-consuming glory, but we still recognize that it is
the Lord with whom we speak, because He takes us in the Five Points
of Fellowship. The Five Points of Fellowship are one of the ways
we recognize Celestial Beings from beyond the veil.
The preacher, who has been to college and been trained for the
ministry, is paid well to preach the doctrines of men mingled
with scripture. The LDS leaders claim that they took out the preacher
because other denominations found it offensive, but no other denomination
is allowed to attend the LDS temples. How would they know that
the endowment portrays a preacher paid to mingle the philosophies
of men with scripture? Were they really trying to hide something
else?
During General Conference in 1991, a group of homosexual LDS Church
members demanded more respect from the Church. They warned that
unless they were granted the right to have homosexual marriages
solemnized in the temples and more recognition by the Church,
they would march onto Temple Square during the final conference
session on Sunday, April 7, 1991, and demand that their names
be removed from Church records. On Saturday, April 6th, Church
Spokesman Don LeFevre issued a press release. Part of it said:
An individual with homosexual feelings can be a member in good
standing and should not feel an outcast in the Church. It is the
sexual act outside of marriage - homosexual or heterosexual -
that is not condoned and may lead to Church discipline. (Deseret
News, April 7, 1991)
Homosexuals in good standing have been allowed to attend the temple
ever since.
We have been taught for years that when we die, we will be tested
by the angels on our knowledge of the tokens, names, signs, and
penalties we receive in the endowment. If we have received names
that are read off of a sheet of paper, an incorrect sign, and
no penalties at all, how much good has our endowment done for
us? It will not admit us past the angels; neither will it part
the veil and allow us to commune with God while in mortality.
It has become nothing more than a status symbol among members
of the Church. It surely is not efficacious in the eyes of Heaven.
Modern LDS leaders claim that exaltation is impossible for those
alive today without the modern endowment. The truth is that exaltation
is impossible without the original endowment. The original was
revealed by God Himself. He recognizes its signs, tokens, and
penalties. He is bound to fulfill His part of the covenants if
we fulfill our part, but He is not bound to fulfill the covenants
that have been deleted or rewritten. Neither does He recognize
prayer in the True Order, with changed signs, New Names assigned
without revelation, and no penalties. Perhaps the biggest crime
of all is not that the endowment has been stripped of its divine
power, but that the patrons are led to believe they are getting
something that they are not. Those who have changed the elements
of the endowment will receive their punishments - if not in this
life, then in the next, for God will not be mocked.
This pamphlet has demonstrated that the doctrines and ordinances
restored by God to this dispensation have been greatly altered,
forgotten, denied, and rewritten. Below are some statements that
inform us of the consequences of these changes.
Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on earth; we
will summons [sic] the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High
Council, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Israel. Suppose
we summons them and appear here, and here declare that it is right
to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall
come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings
God has given to us.
On that very day and hour we should do so, the Priesthood is taken
from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The
moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church
must go to destruction. (Brigham Young, Feb. 5, 1852; BYU Studies,
S79:399-400)
You might as well deny 'Mormonism' and turn away from it, as to
oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church,
and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say
with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole
of them would be damned. (Heber C. Kimball, JD 5:203)
If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.
(Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 158)
If there is no change of Priesthood, there is no change of ordinances.
(Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 308)
There is nothing that would so soon weaken my hope and discourage
me as to see this people in full fellowship with the world, and
receive no more persecution from them because they are one with
them. In such an event, we might bid farewell to the Holy Priesthood
with all it's blessings, privileges, and aids to exaltations,
principalities, and powers in the eternities of the Gods. (Brigham
Young, JD 10:32)
What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the
heart of the opponents of 'Mormonism,' more properly termed the
Gospel of the Son of God? Simply to renounce, abrogate, or apostatize
from the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in its fullness.
Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the
Saints as a body. The authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn,
with its gifts and powers, and there would be no more heavenly
recognition of the ordinances among this people. The heavens would
permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another
people of greater valor and stability, for His work must, according
to His unalterable decrees, go forward. (Charles W. Penrose, Deseret
News, April 23, 1885)
There is very little Priesthood left in the LDS Church, and none
at all among its leaders. Every warning they have received, they
have rejected, and the Priesthood has been withdrawn by God. Another
people have been raised up, a people who will live every part
of the restored Gospel. We are that people.
We welcome your questions and are waiting to hear your response.