YTRUTHY
NEVER CHANGES
VOLUME 11 MARCH
2007 NUMBER 03
A
PUBLICATION IN THE SPIRIT AND TRADITON OF TRUTH
MAGAZINE
Line Upon Line
Excerpt
from Treasures of Knowledge, Volume I
During the time that Joseph Musser presided over the
Priesthood, there were members of his own Council who didn’t agree with the
manner in which he proceeded. They felt
that since they were apostles, they had a perfect right to perform ceremonies
without his approval.
|
IN THIS
ISSUE:
Line Upon
Line…………………………….…29
Button, Button—Who’s Got
the Button?……..31
Commentary
On……………………………....34
Women Their
Rulers………………………….35
Abject
Apologies……………………………...37
Truth……………………………………….….40
The Universal
Test…………………………....40
Men, Not the Truth,
Change………………….41
Editorial…………………………….…………44
Of Princes &
Kings…………………………...46
|
Because they were apostles, although he was their senior,
they had the authority and they could go ahead without his approval. There were instances where they did
this. The confusion that resulted from
this was such that parents came to Joseph complaining that their daughters had
been married to men without their consent, which was out of order. Joseph investigated the situations under
which these women were sealed to these men, and unsealed the couples. Now, this brought resentment and apostasy
among the people.
Today, we have those who feel that Brother Rulon
isn’t proceeding properly, that he has no right to curtail or to say no. Therefore, they are performing their own
ceremonies or appointing somebody to perform their ceremonies, which is again
bringing about not only the spirit of apostasy, but the result that comes when
we apostatize, which is confusion, disorder, loss of confidence, and the
preaching of an entirely new doctrine which is this: The keys of authority are
not upon the earth. Therefore, we can
perform these ceremonies, and it doesn’t make any difference because the
ceremony is temporary in its nature in any event and you have to have a final
sealing. And if we are married by the
law of the land or by someone we appoint, we can be sealed for time and
eternity later on under Christ’s supervision, and that’s all it will take. This
doctrine is false because the ordinances of the gospel are line upon line,
precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. We grow up the ladder of perfection. And if you’re going to start at any point and
say baptism isn’t necessary because we’ve got to get to these others anyway,
and we’ll just start at the top, or, marriage isn’t necessary because it has to
be that you have to have the second marriage, the first endowment isn’t
necessary because you have to have the second endowment, this kind of
reasoning, of course, is false. We must live one principle in order to be
worthy to live another. We must go
and get our first endowment and make covenants which we keep, in order to be
called up and receive our second. We must perform the first sealing in order
to be worthy to have it sealed without conditions. We must have the spirit of Elias before we
receive the spirit of Elijah. The
Aaronic Priesthood supercedes it. You
might just as well argue that you don’t need the Aaronic Priesthood. We can get along without it. Ordain an Apostle and you’ve got
everything. That’s fine, but generally
we’re not quite ready for the Apostleship right off the bat. We grow up the ladder from the Aaronic
Priesthood, the spirit of Elias, to the Melchizedek Priesthood, the spirit of
Elijah and the sealing power; from the spirit of Elijah and the sealing power
for time to the spirit of Messiah and the sealing forever, and from joint heirs
with Jesus Christ.
So we have among us today the same doctrine that
crept in among the people during Joseph’s time, only from another channel and
in another way, being very firmly taught and advocated—that the keys are not
here, we don’t need them, anybody can perform the ceremony, and it’s
acceptable. I want to warn you brethren, this is not of God.
God had commanded Joseph to organize the Church,
agreeable to the laws of the land. The
Priesthood was here, the ordinances of the gospel were here, baptisms and
blessings had been performed and confirmed and yet the Church is now
organized. This was because God has a
form, a determination to conform to the laws of the land where He had prepared
the groundwork for the restoration of the gospel, so that we might proceed
according to the laws of the land and keep His commandments within the
framework of His commandments. This did
not make it a compulsory thing to belong to the Church. I want to emphasize this. If you didn’t belong to the Church, you still
had the calling and appointment that gave you the right and the authority to
organize the Church. You had the holy
Priesthood, the ordinances had been administered. In the teachings of B. H. Roberts’ course for
seventies, he tells us that when the Church was organized, there were those who
were present who attended subsequent meetings, who had previously been
baptized, who were re-baptized after the organization of the Church. This cannot be sustained from the history of
the Church or the writings of the prophets, but rather, can be disproved. Those who had been previously baptized before
the organization of the Church were confirmed members of the Church, and the
baptism was just as valid. But it was
not done over.
The reason I bring this up is because there is a
step in the progress of God’s order where you are adding to, again. You cannot be a member of the Church without
confirmation into the Church. The
previous ordinances performed by the authority of the Priesthood were
valid. Now that you are a member of the
Church, your function continues in the Church.
The Prophet Joseph Smith was a prophet and held the Priesthood just as
much before the organization of the Church as he did after. This is the point to remember, because it
will come into being—this included in your text to give you consecutive order.
(Brother
Rulon Allred, Jan. 21, 1973, Pinesdale, MT, Treasures
of Knowledge, Volume One, pp. 111-113)
Button,
Button—Who’s Got the Button?
(Truth Never Changes, Vol. 4:17-20)
J. Leslie Broadbent has been noted as reciting this
popular children’s rhyme, when referring to whom it was, that held the keys of
the Priesthood after the death of Bro. Lorin C. Woolley. There was a question of where the keys lay in
the minds of many during this time.
Charles f. Zitting claimed that Lorin Woolley had set J. Leslie
Broadbent apart to be Lorin’s second Elder and counselor. Brother Broadbent was also technically,
Brother Woolley’s successor, he being the next worthy senior member of the
council.
But why was there the question in the minds of the
Saints? Many could not accept Brother Broadbent as being in charge of Priesthood affairs, so many dissented and went
to form their own groups, thus apostatizing from the Priesthood. One of these groups—the Kingstons’ Davis
County Cooperative—was formed over 60 years ago in Davis County, Utah. This group has gained notoriety and infamy
due to the media spotlight trained upon them.
Of course many good Saints exist within their midst, but their teachings
are out of order. The Kingstons
instituted ‘other ordinances,’ and that ‘man can receive the Priesthood without
the laying on of hands and many other unusual ideas,’ as recorded in the
Journal of Joseph Lyman Jessop, Eskel Peterson came to him in 1937 to attempt
to persuade him to join the Kingston Colony, saying they were living the United
Order and Plural Marriage and the Fullness of the Gospel.
The staff of this publication wish to forcefully
assert that not all polygamous peoples are alike in practice and belief. We do not sustain the practice of robbing a
young lady her free agency, nor do we condone the practice of ‘placement’: The
practice of going into the home of a father and using influence to persuade the
young lady to enter into one family or another.
These practices are diabolical and originate from infernal nether
regions. To rob an individual of their
free agency is luciferian, and wo! unto those who practice this—whatever group
they may belong to. Not one act remains
unseen in the eyes of our God, and all things are recorded in heaven and will
be used either for us or against us. It
is really that simple.
This pattern, sadly, that when any individuals or
groups of people depart from under the mantle of the Priesthood, the adversary
is unleashed and given full sway. It is
a constant battle; we must ever remain stoically vigilant in our combat against
the adversary and keep our eye single to the glory of God and building His
Kingdom.
Brother Broadbent’s tenure as President of the
Priesthood was brief—six months—then he, too, passed on. John Y. Barlow, being next in line, took the
helm. Moroni Jessop is quoted as
reporting that he heard Brother Barlow say, “From now on, things are going to
be ran different!”
But was Brother Barlow, as the next worthy senior
member of that council truly qualified to preside in that capacity? Was he licensed from God to preside over His
Priesthood? Unto whom did President
Broadbent give the appointment to succeed him after he was gone? It is very easy for one to not even consider
that perhaps Brother Barlow was never intended to operate as President of the
Priesthood. Perhaps he DID usurp that
authority; perhaps he did not. We shall
let the reader exercise his/her agency in determining and answering that
question. However, we have furnished the
reader with historical facts in the previous article (A Priesthood Issue Part
II—Excerpts from the Journal of Joseph Lyman Jessop, Vol 4:10-17) that suggests
Bro. Barlow was not fully authorized.
Ianthus W. Barlow was quoted as saying that he had a
testimony that his brother was an ordained Apostle of the Lord, and a Patriarch
to all the world, but that Bro. John Y. was not the ‘one man’ on the earth
holding the highest authority.
Was John Y. qualified to preside over an individual
who had more Priesthood than he did?
THAT is the question we wish to pose!
Brother Barlow did not have all that he claimed to, even though he was
recorded as saying he had a dream where he saw a set of keys laying on the
sidewalk and he picked them up, so he was therefore, designated to be the ‘man
holding the keys.’
Dreams do not give one Priesthood keys, and for that
matter, dreaming of the Savior does not make ones calling and election
sure. It is ORDINANCES that one must
receive—the higher blessings—in order to possess a Fullness of Keys of
Priesthood. It is the same ordinance
that will enable a man to see the Lord face-to-face and converse with Him as
one man converses with another—and live.
It is the same ordinance that will enable to have his blessings sealed
up by the Master—there is no other way to achieve the highest degree of glory
without receiving this lofty ordinance, and we wish to add that the Lord gives
this higher blessing by way of revelation.
No man can call another to obtain this power. The Lord gives it unto whom He sees fit to
receive it, but we should all be praying to Him to receive it, should we
not? Or do we wish to become servants to
those who have received their calling and election made sure and will go forth
and create and people worlds without end—for they will be in need of servants.
Bro. John Y. was an ordained Apostle—not having
received the ordinance, which would enable him to hold a Fulness of Keys. A man can receive an ordination and conferral
of Priesthood authority, but to receive all, he must receive all the
ordinances. No evidence is found that
Pres. Lorin Woolley ever administered the higher ordinances upon the brethren
whom he called as the ‘Council of Seven’ in 1929. Surely there would be an account documenting
this somewhere. It is then logical to
deduce, that because of the lack of information—both written and oral
histories—these brethren never received a fulness of Priesthood, in regards to
temple ordinances. These brethren under
Lorin Woolley being called to only seal
people in marriage and ensuring that not one year would pass that children
would not be born under the covenant of this Principle of Celestial Plural
Marriage, and these men also being called as Patriarchs to all the world. These two aspects were the sum of the Council
of 1929’s authority.
Joseph B. Thompson was recorded as saying that the
brethren called in the Council of 1952, through the instrumentality of Pres.
Jos. W. Musser, had also thought they had received everything, “but that was
not true; they had to receive the ordinance.”
Which they later did by Rulon C. Allred, acting under Joseph W. Musser. Many of these brethren never knew what they
had received, until William N. Baird, a man who spent hours and hours in
conversation with temple workers, was called into the council. Brother Bill understood the ordinances, and
on one occasion when Bro. Thompson was describing some of the ordinances they
had received—specifically in 1952, Bro. Bill explained those ordinances
encompassed the higher blessings. It was
later re-administered to the remaining brethren of that council called long
ago, during which, Brother Owen stated, “I have received this before…”
Can a man administer something he has not yet
received? No, he cannot. Did the brethren called into the Council of
1952 have this ordinance properly administered to them, and was it from someone
qualified to do so? Yes, and yes. Brothers Rulon Allred and Margaroto Bautista
received this ordinance from President Musser, who was called to these
blessings in 1899, under the direction of Pres. Lorenzo Snow, in the Salt Lake
City Temple at age 27! That day, Brother
Musser received all the authority a man can receive upon this earth. That day Brother Musser was called as an
Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, by means of receiving that ordinance.
THIS IS THE APOSTLESHIP! There is no other greater calling given to
man on this earth. Incidentally, the
additional calling brother Musser received—in 1915, by Pres. Joseph F. Smith
and in 1929 by President Lorin C. Woolley, were merely confirmations of what he
had already previously received. They
were “reinforcement callings”, if you will, but they did not affect in any way
the highest degree of authority he had already received in 1899.
Although Brother John Y. was Brother Musser’s senior
in the council of 1929, John Y. had never received the higher ordinances, so
was not able to truly preside over a man with a higher calling. However Brother Musser appears to defer and
did not want to make waves, so he allowed John Y. to function in that capacity
as president, but Joseph White Musser often acted as the mouthpiece of God for
John Y.
This is a controversial subject, however, we wanted
to suggest to the reader this approach, for we fell this is the correct
understanding, as we are on a mission to spread the TRUTH. May God bless you, dear reader, in your quest
for gaining a better understanding of the Fulness of the Gospel, in the name of
Jesus Christ. Amen.
—COMMENTARY—
ON
Teenage Rebellion
I was once a teenager, and I was also
rebellious. A thorn in my parents’ side
I must have been—rebelling against their patient teachings; resisting the
Gospel; defying my own testimony; being insubordinate to my Sunday School
teachers; snickering with my “friends” as we made fun of the Church
speakers. What is the root of
rebellion? It seems to me that when a child enters those early teen years,
the seeds of rebellion are sown, and a mutual discontent and antipathy of
order, obedience and everything adult, is found in their “friends,” which
negatively cultivate those roots of defiance and hardens their hearts and
stiffens their necks.
Today, when I see the youth in our Church mirroring
behaviors I once saw in myself, I can’t but help to feel two emotions: sadness
and amusement. I feel saddened because I
know their current path is not pleasing to God, and amusement because I know that
they know—deep
down, they know that the example their parents set for them, the lives their
parents lead, will one day bear fruit.
No matter how difficult one may choose to bury up
ones testimony, one cannot. It is always
there. Always. It takes courage to stand up for the
Gospel. Courage and fortitude, and the
eternal guidance of the Spirit of God.
Look to Nephi for an example, or better yet, to Alma the Younger, who
repented of his wickedness and set his right foot forward and his left foot
followed ever after.
To you youth of Israel, it is not too late to change
your hearts—soften your hearts, sit up during meetings and actually
listen. You may learn something of
value.
I know my own heart will be satisfied—knowing I did
my best—once my own children reach that age when they think they know more than
I—just as I once thought I did with my own saintly parents. I hope I turned out to be the son they always
envisioned; the son they always knew I was, even though I didn’t know it for
myself, and I have that same faith and confidence in my own children. In the end, they will turn out just fine,
just fine.
Women Their Rulers
(TRUTH
4:110-111)
According to the Tribune report (Oct. 7,
1938) of the counsel given to the Sisters at the recent Relief Society
Conference by President Heber J. Grant, the speaker stated:
While the man may be the head of the house, the woman is
the neck and may turn the head wherever she wants.
This remarkable statement, while undoubtedly quite
true, indicates how far from the plan of the Lord the people have strayed. At the dawn of creation the Lord designated
the true order of heaven as pertaining to leadership. It was after the “fall” in the Garden of
Eden. To the woman the Lord said:
Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee.
And to the man:
Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife,
…cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
of thy life; …In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.
Here is clearly set forth the true order of heaven
as pertains to leadership. The man shall
be at the head; and because he listened to the woman contrary to the Lord’s
instructions, the earth from which he was to receive sustenance was cursed and
he was sentenced to subdue it and eat his bread “by the sweat of his face.”
If these expressions mean anything they mean that
man is to lead; he is to take his instructions from the Lord and the woman from
her husband. The law is plainly set
forth by modern Prophets.
Jedediah M. Grant said:
A man is a president to his family. If the Church has a head, which is Christ,
then is the man the head of his family…I want the women to understand, when
they have a good husband, one that does his duty, that he is president over
them, and that they have made covenants to abide the law of that husband. (J. of D. 4:128)
The words of Heber C. Kimball:
Do you think a wife is contending against her
husband with a good spirit, when she is commanded to be subject to her husband,
even as we are to Christ? Is it not just
as necessary that women should be governed, as that men should be? …I want to know what good a wife is to me,
unless she will let me lead and guide, and let me govern her by the word of
God.
When a wife is obedient to her husband there is
union, there is heaven, that is, there is one heaven, though it is a little
one; and a righteous union is what will make a heaven.
There are many kinds of sin, among which is plenty
of confusion in a family where each one wants to be head.
…I have no wife nor child that has any right to
rebel against me. If they violate my
laws and rebel against me they will get into trouble, just as quickly as though
they transgressed the counsels and teachings of Brother Brigham. Does it give a woman a right to sin against
me because she is my wife? No, but it is
her duty to do my will, as I do the will of my Father and my God. It is the duty of a woman to be obedient to
her husband. (Ibid. 4:82)
Brigham Young taught:
Let mothers commence to teach their children while in
their laps…Teach them to keep your commandments, and you will learn then to
keep the commandments of your husbands.
It is not the prerogative of a child to dictate to his mother or his
father; and it is not the prerogative of the father to rise up and dictate to his
God whom he serves. It is right that my
wife should dictate to me? It is just as
reasonable, and as right, as it is for your children to rise up and dictate to
their mother. It is not their business
to dictate to you, their duty is to obey and not to dictate.” (Ibid. 1:68)
It
cannot be contended that this is purely a modern version. The Apostle Paul taught the same
principle. Said he:
Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto
the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ
is the head of the Church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let
the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (EPH 5:22-24)
That
is the order of heaven, and no other order will obtain in the celestial kingdom
of our Father. President Grant’s
admission that, “Woman is the neck and may turn the head wherever she wants,”
recalls to our minds the awful apostasy in family government foreshadowed by
the Lord through the Prophet Isaiah:
As for my people children are their oppressors and women
rule over them. O my people, they which
lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths. (ISA 3:12)
Isaiah
envisaged the time when, because of apostasy, women should rule over men. President Grant, according to the report,
shows that we are experiencing that very situation: the neck is turning the
head and the children are oppressing both “head” and “neck.”
It may
be urged that this situation is the logical outcome of the decline of true manhood, Its baseness and corruptness—man’s tendency
to live a “double life;” to be dishonest with themselves and their wives.
Through the debauchery they are forfeiting their right to rule, and the world
is being turned topsy-turvy. It is not a
normal instinct for true womanhood to wish to rule; women crave leadership—a
leadership to which they may look for counsel and protection. Strength and justice in man and beauty and
tenderness in woman are the cardinal virtues upon which the sexes build their
ideals and hopes. The tragedy in the
present situation is the fact that men, though corrupt living and consequent
decay have become too senile to lead, and have bounced the responsibility of
leadership off their shoulders onto those of their wives.
To
distinguish ourselves as a “peculiar people”—a God-fearing and world-saving
people—the Latter-day Saints must return to fundamental principles of
leadership and cease patterning after Babylon with her rapidly decaying
institutions.
Abject Apologies
(TRUTH 4:49-51)
A correspondent brings
to our attention a Priesthood quorum lesson, published in the S. S. Quarterly
for April, May and June, 1938, p. 55.
The excerpt reads as follows:
Alma was in a perfect condition to determine the
values of life. He had tasted of both
sin and of righteousness. During his
young manhood he had partaken of the security and comforts of the aristocracy
as a priest of Noah. He had lived among
those who enjoyed all of the physical pleasures of life, for in Noah’s court
there were choice wines in abundance and people who reveled in
drunkenness. Noah and his priests each
had many wives and concubines—chosen, no doubt, from among the most beautiful
and attractive women in the empire. All
that the passion and appetites of man could want were at their disposal. Wealth, position and luxuries abounded. There were no moral laws to handicap them, no
poverty to restrict them, no regulations to interfere with their enjoyment of
every pleasure their physical being craved or wanted. …
Alma partook of all this and learned from experience
how impossible it was to find true happiness without religion. He saw the effects of lives of debauchery.
The clear intent of
the lesson being to impress upon the student the futility of living in sin, the
author seeks to include in the category of sins of King Noah’s day the
principle of polygamy, making no distinction between the practices of the
wicked king and those of Abraham, Jacob and others whom the Lord justified and
even commanded. The lesson makes the
mistake of leaving the obvious inference that polygamy is wrong in fact, the
ruling purpose in its practice being to indulge one’s sensual appetites, and
that “attractive women” are an essential feature of the system. “Noah and his priests had many wives and
concubines—chosen, no doubt, from among the most beautiful and attractive women
of the empire.” These “wives and
concubines” were associated in the lesson with “choice wines,” “drunkenness”,
and the enjoyment of “ALL THAT THE PASSIONS AND APPETITES OF MEN COULD
WANT.” There being no “moral laws” to
restrain them, these wicked men indulged their sensual desires with “many wives
and concubines,” etc.
A previous Sunday School lesson sought the same
end—to teach, with Book of Mormon backing, that polygamy is basically
wrong. This we treated in TRUTH under
the heading of “The Book of Mormon and Polygamy,” in our April number (Vol.
3:11). For a long time a certain class
of teachers among the youth of Zion have made, what appears to be, a studied
effort to discredit the Mormon marriage system, subordinating it to the system
of monogamy established by Babylon. To
place the immoral family relations of King Noah and his court, as the lesson
obviously does, at least by strong implication, in the same category with the
wives and concubines of Abraham, Jacob and other faithful servants of the Lord,
is wholly without justification. As well
one might claim marriage to be basically wrong because of the sexual debauchery
often growing out of the marriage relation.
Had the authors of the lesson referred to been disposed to be honest and
consistent; had they considered it necessary to refer to King Noah’s “many
wives and concubines” to show the moral profligacy of that particular regime,
they would have contrasted the sexual lives and motives of those wicked men
with the high and chaste standards set by real men of God whose adherence to
the Patriarchal order of marriage brought them greatness and glory; they would
have shown that while the principle of polygamy has a high and holy purpose,
being attended with the greatest blessings both in this life and in the life to
come, its counterfeit—the whoredoms of the world, is conceived in sin and that
it was this counterfeiting that King Noah and his priests were guilty of
practicing.
As we have previously noted in the columns of TRUTH,
we resent the almost continuous imitation given out by Sunday School teachers,
Missionaries and other leading lights in the Church, that polygamy stands for
immorality. If their moral fibers are at
so low an ebb that they cannot distinguish between an eternal law righteously
lived and its counterfeit being employed to destroy the moral life of the
world, that is not our fault. We hope
they will repent of their silly notions before it is too late. Meanwhile, we most emphatically object to the
standard placed by such little souls on the marriage laws of heaven and
proclaim to the world that only through the principle of Celestial marriage of
which plural marriage is a NECESSARY part, can mankind regain the presence of
Father in the celestial worlds.
King Noah, having surrendered the more precious
parts of the Gospel, gave way to sensual gratification of the flesh, subverting
a chaste and exalting family union into a loathsome debauchery—changing the
pure channels of life into the dregs of death.
It was not the fact that King Noah had many wives and concubines that
caused him to fall, nor could the living of that principle as the Lord intends
it should be lived, be a contributing factor of his fall—HE FELL IN SPITE OF
IT, and in the fall he debauched a
principle that, lived properly, would have saved him and lifted him above the
monogamic rabble of his day.
Why cannot our modern teachers see this point, and
quit their wicked inferences against a principle of marriage that alone can
exalt mankind? Is it because their
spiritual and intellectual lives have become so dulled to reason that the light
of Christ is completely shut out from their souls? It is a wicked assumption that men and women who
enter into the plural relationship, bringing forth large and honorable
families, do so from lust, and yet such is the charge frequently hurled at them
by Sabbath School teachers, Seminary teachers and the like. Such a charge emanated from the present Church
leader who publicly charged men and women of entering into principle of
Patriarchal marriage in the present day, with doing so, “NOT TO RAISE
POSTERITY, BUT TO GRATIFY YOUR OWN PASSIONS.”
“As with the priest so with the people.” Aping their leader in his foolish tirade
against a group of earnest and honest Latter-day Saints, many of them active in
the counsels of the Church, lesser lights have gone still further in their
defamation, by ascribing to the principle of plural marriage motives of sensuality,
leading to lives of sexual debauchery.
They condone the early living of the principle on the theory that it
married off a surplus of “old maids” then existing in the Church; also as a
system claimed to have been instituted by Brigham Young to more quickly
populate the Territory. Those and other
silly notions are being taught and it is common for the Saints to apologize and
make all kinds of servile excuses for the family lives of their forebears, even
to the extreme of casting reflections on their own birth, many of whom being
the fruits of polygamy. Ashamed of the
principle that brought them into life, these dwarfed ingrates, are often heard
vociferously crying out against a principle that is so far above their moral
climb as to be completely out of sight to them and totally beyond their powers
of appreciation.
In the early days when plural marriage was a tenet
of the Church, much criticism was hurled against the Josephite branch because
of their opposition to the principle.
The Latter-day Saints in Utah were not slow nor soft in their
expressions of indignation toward a group led by the son of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, that made flight against the marriage system introduced by the
Prophet. It now appears, however, that
the Josephites were more consistent than the Mormons in Utah. The former fought the principle believing it
to be wrong. They were confirmed
monogamists—monogamy being a tenet of their faith; while the Utah Mormons,
notwithstanding their professed belief in polygamy, their adoption of the
principle as a tenet, and the gallant fight of many of them to maintain their
religious rights—many of them are now engaged in abjectly apologizing for and
discrediting the principle, casting out from their association those who still
endorse the practice and are seeking to maintain the law which was revealed
from heaven.
We hold there was at least a semblance of excuse for the position assumed by the Josephites, but not a particle of excuse exists for the position taken by the jelly-souled Mormons now opposing the principle and feeling ashamed for the manner of their birth.
Somewhere in scripture it is recorded, as the saying
of Jesus:
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my
words in this adulterous and sinful generation; (it was Jesus Christ that
revealed the law of plural marriage tot he Prophet Joseph Smith) of him also
shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with
the holy angels.
The position of the early leaders of the Church
regarding this important principle of marriage, was appropriately expressed by
President Heber C. Kimball, as follows:
Many of his people have broken their covenants by
speaking evil of one another, by speaking against the servants of God, and by
finding fault with the plurality of wives and TRYING TO SINK IT OUT OF
EXISTENCE. But you cannot do that, for
God will cut you off and raise up another people that will carry out His
purposes in righteousness, unless you walk up to the line in your duty. On the one hand there is glory and
exaltation; and on the other no tongue can express the suffering and affliction
this people will pass through, if they do not repent. J. of D. 4:108
TRUTH
Teach the child in a thousand ways, directly and indirectly, the power of
truth, the beauty of truth, and the sweetness and the rest of companionship
with truth. And if truth be the
rock-foundation of the child’s character, as a fact, not as a theory, the
future of that child is as fully assured as it is possible for human prevision
to guarantee.
The power of truth, in its highest, purest,
and most exalted phases, stands squarely on four basic lines of relation—the
love of truth, the search for truth, the faith in truth, and work for truth.
Truth is the rock foundation of every great
character. It is loyalty to the right as
we see it; it is courageous living of our lives in harmony with our ideals; it
is always—power.
Let us cultivate that sterling honor that
holds our word so supreme, so sacred, that to forget it would seem crime, to deny
it would be impossible.
THE UNIVERSAL TEST
True it is that in the most trying hour, the servants of God may then be
permitted to see their Father, and elder brother. “But,” says one, “I wish to see the Father,
and the Savior and an angel now.” Before
you can see the Father, the Savior, or an angel, you have to be brought into
close places in order to enjoy this manifestation. The fact is, your very life must be suspended
on a thread, as it were. If you want to
see your Savior, be willing to come to that point where no mortal arm can
rescue, no earthly power save! When all
other things fail, when everything else proves futile and fruitless, then
perhaps your Savior and your Redeemer may appear; his arm is not shortened that
he cannot save, nor his ear heavy that he cannot hear; and when help on all
sides appears to fail, “my arm shall save, my power shall rescue, and you shall
hear my voice,” saith the Lord. Orson
Hyde, J. of D. 1:125
M E N,
NOT THE TRUTH,
C H A N G E
During former
administrations in Church government the leaders invariably, and quite
consistently, referring to the Gospel, used the expression, “Principles of the
Gospel.” An Article of Faith says, “We
believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are,” etc. Now, since the Church has surrendered vital
principles and is condemning those of the Saints who persist in believing and
teaching the same. It has become common
to use the expression, “Principles of the Church,” the “Law of the Church,” the
“Rule of the Church,” etc.
In a letter to one of the brethren, dated November
17, 1923, President Grant used this expression: “That those who entered into
plural marriage at the present time were not only guilty of disobeying the LAWS
OF THE CHURCH, but that they are liable to prosecution under the laws of the
Land.” In his statement at the General
Conference, April, 1904, President Joseph F. Smith made it clear that those
entering into plural marriages thereafter would be “deemed in transgression
AGAINST THE CHURCH.” And in his
testimony in the Smoot case, in Washington, 1904, President Smith, along with
others of the leading brethren admitted they were living “contrary to the RULES
and LAWS of the Church,” as well as of the laws of the land. And in the present day people are “handled”
for failing to live up to the “Principles of the Church,” not of the Gospel.
In none of these instances, it will be noted, are
the people accused of breaking a law of God, nor of failing to live the
principles of the Gospel. The difference
in meaning in these several terms is clear and its purpose obvious. President Smith was not disciplined for
breaking the “laws of the Church,” but had he been guilty of breaking the laws
of God or transgressing the principles of the Gospel, his standing in the
Church would certainly have been called into question. It is well that the Saints understand these
expressions and the purpose of the change, which has been brought about since
the issuing of the Manifesto.
In his excellent work, Gospel Problems, the late Bishop Heber Bennion stated:
When men are cut off the Church
for wickedness, they become reprobate and go from bad to worse, but when cut
off without good cause the Lord will not forsake them. Nothing but our own sins can cut us off, or
come between us and the Lord. The
Priesthood has no power in unrighteousness.
Therefore
cutting people off the Church for believing that President Woodruff fulfilled
the prediction of Isaiah regarding the “covenant with death and hell,” with the
Manifesto, is equal to cutting people off the Church for believing that Joseph
Smith fulfilled the prophecy, and sinned, by letting Martin Harris have the 116
pages of manuscript of the Book of Mormon.
(Gospel Problems, pp. 45-46)
Elder Bennion touched the “keynote” and this
explains why so many of the Saints now being “handled” for choosing to live the
laws of God rather than abide by the “rules of the Church,” remain humble,
faithful and true to their covenants.
They are singularly free from the spirit of hatred and vindictiveness
and are leading clean and wholesome lives.
This fact testifies in no uncertain terms the absence of the spirit of
apostasy from among them.
At the recent M. I. A. Conference, President J.
Rueben Clark is quoted by the Press as referring to the “Priesthood of the
Church.” Says the account:
He called attention tot he fact that they
(the young men) were approaching the age when they should receive the
PRIESTHOOD OF THEIR CHURCH, and described this as the culminating objective of
all their training.
We are of the opinion that the newspaper account of
this address is incorrect, as such an expression must be foreign to President
Clark’s understanding of the Priesthood.
And yet such an error is a common one with some of the leaders. Speaking of the “Priesthood of the Church” is
similar to say, “The principles of the Church.”
It is the Priesthood of God, not of the Church. The Church functions, as occasion, under the
authority of the Priesthood, but the Priesthood does not originate with it, nor
spring out of it.
Priesthood is God’s voice—God’s power in the earth;
it expresses the laws of the eternities, and is the power by which all earths
are fashioned and ruled. We call it the
Melchizedek Priesthood. Melchizedek
meaning “Great High Priest.” Melchizedek
is an office, it was once occupied by Shem the son of Noah, and the Presidency
of the Prieshtood rested in that office.
The Lord speaks of it as being “after the order of Melchisedec, which is
after the “Order of my Only Begotten Son.”
If President Clark spoke of the Priesthood as the power by which the
Church exists and functions, he was right, but to speak of it as the
“Priesthood of the Church,” is a misnomer and may be entirely misleading.
As intimated above, the Church is but a child of the
Priesthood—sometimes an impetuous child and disobedient.
It sometimes goes astray as it did in Moses’ day, in the
Apostolic age after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in the reign of the
Jaredites and Nephites and in the present day.
At different periods the power of the Priesthood has been employed by
the Lord to chastise the people and to set the Church back in order. The Church, being composed of an aggregation
of individuals, themselves filled with human weaknesses, is prone to stray off—go
off on a detour, as one of our leaders recently put it. It has to be brought back sometimes under
circumstances of great stress and suffering.
It may be asked why the Church in this day has adopted rules and laws
which are opposed to the principles of the Gospel and which the Church was
organized to teach; and why its leaders have had to confess breaking the “laws
of the Church” in order to live the laws of God, as in the case of President
Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant and others.
And it may be answered that the Church being but a reflex of the people
comprising it, voices the sentiments of the people. The people have gone astray and have taken
the organization with them, for they are the organization. A fountain can not rise above its source of supply.
The “principles of the Church,” then, may not always
reflect God’s purposes in the earth. The
Church, as stated, often has gone astray, but the Gospel remains steadfast and
true—an ETERNAL HERITAGE, UNCHANGEABLE AND EVERLASTING. As an evidence of this fact we need but refer
to a statement of Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, of the Quorum of the
Twelve. He said:
“Plural Marriage is one of those
irrevocable and unchangeable laws of the Gospel,” (not of the Church). “But,” said he, “THE CHURCH IS NOT TEACHING
IT NOW.”
Here we have a recognized law of the Gospel which is
“irrevocable and unchangeable,” but the Church, having adopted rules and laws
opposed to its continuance, is no longer teaching it nor upholding it; but is
disciplining its members who profess a belief in it and the right to defend
it. No greater evidence is needed to
confirm the fact that the Church is but a child of the Priesthood and gets out
of order as the minds of men who comprise it get out of order. The Lord, understanding this situation made
the following glorious promise:
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord
God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the sceptre of power in his hand,
clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal
words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, TO SET IN ORDER THE HOUSE
OF GOD, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints, whose names are
found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the
book of the law of God. D&C 85:7
Unless the “House of God” is out of order, why send
a “mighty and strong” one to set it in order?
The answer is obvious. God saw it
would get out of order. He knew the
weaknesses of His children. He knew they
would go astray and take the Church with them, as had been the case many times
previously. He knew there would be
bitterness in the hearts of some of the leaders of the Church. He caused Isaiah to say: “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are
led of them are destroyed.”
He caused His Prophet Jeremiah to say: “A wonderful and horrible thing is committed
in the land; the Prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their
means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end
thereof?”
He caused his servant
Daniel H. Wells to say in 1875:
Many will doubtless make
shipwreck of their faith, and will be led away by the allurements of sin into
by and forbidden paths; yet the kingdom will not be taken from this people and
given to another, BUT A PEOPLE WILL COME FORTH FROM AMONG US, who will be
zealous of good works, willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be
taught in His ways, and who will walk in His paths.
These warnings are definite and admit of no doubtful
interpretation. The one “mighty and
strong” is to come. The “House of God,”
including His Church is to be set in order; then, we apprehend, men will cease
referring to the “Principles of the Church,” and the “Priesthood of the Church,”
and will adopt the Gospel in its entirety, for it will then be “written in the
hearts.” May God speed the day. (TRUTH,
3:25-26)
E D
I T O
R I A
L
In my lifetime, I have viewed and observed many
unusual Mormons and their even more unusual beliefs. I believe that most Latter-day Saints have a
correct understanding of the Gospel, but there are a few that have some very
unusual ideas. And it makes me deeply
wonder why some calling themselves Mormon would want to add to (or delete) that
which was restored in this, the Last Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
I have seen
individuals lead crusades against the Lord’s anointed—a witch-hunt that spans
several years. I have heard lessons
given in what should have been Priesthood meetings about “repressed memory
syndrome.” And just when I thought this
idiocy stopped, here we go again for round two.
I have seen the people of the Priesthood flock to
self-help seminars and adopt those practices into their lives, all claiming
that these counterfeit ceremonies were divinely inspired. There is no substitution for Priesthood
Ordinances.
I have seen faithful sisters in the work practicing
suspicious things like channeling, and crystal therapy. Both of which, in my opinion, are on the
verge of witchery.
I once heard an individual try to assert his own
unique version and interpretation of the Law of Adoption, and state that the
meaning of this law is that women entering the work without their biological
father, need to be sealed to a father, who is not their own.
I have seen people claim to be Latter-day Saints and
yet refute the mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and renounce some of his
teachings, and try to introduce false sectarian ideas to a Mormon
Fundamentalist people. We’re Mormons—not Born Again Christians.
I have observed individuals attempt to infuse Jewish
practices and dances as a form of worship, as if it were an acceptable practice
in Mormon Fundamentalism. And these
independents wander from group to group seeking “the little truth each group
has,” which is fine—that is their agency—but I’d ask, “Do you want to learn the
Gospel as taught by Joseph Smith, Jr. or not?”
Being suspicious by nature, I sincerely question
anyone’s motives who bring “new and
insightful” meaning to that which the Lord restored through His servant, the
Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who introduce that which I know in my heart to
be false and not of God. We should be
the champions of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We should be the defenders of the Heavenly
Realm, and through all the examples of the Saints past, we are bound to
preserve that which was restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith—in its purity.
When what I
call, “deviant saints,” bring these erroneous teachings, it is our
responsibility to steer them in the right direction. If they resist and reject our testimony, then
we stamp the dust from our feet as a testament to the Lord they cast-off the
TRUTH. Those who discard the truth and
are unwilling to be taught because of their pride and haughtiness will one day
answer for those actions. Those
modern-day Korihors who seek to lead the Saints of God astray will answer for
their actions.
One brother recently said that we should not be
judgmental of others. But the way I view
things, if one will not submit to the Spirit, and correct doctrine taught by
all the former prophets and apostles, then what reason have I to associate with
or fellowship these individuals? If they
do not yield to the Spirit, then they, in their position, are knowingly or
unknowingly enemies to God. As a
Seventy, I am not going to waste time attempting to teach those who don’t want
to be taught. There are plenty of souls
out there who are really willing to learn.
I have always relied upon my instincts, my pragmatism, my ability to
reason, my life’s experiences; hearkening to the still small voice, etc., to
determine what is right and correct—and will continue to do so. I know what my calling entails and will
gladly share what little I know of the Gospel with those who truly desire to
listen. Of this dear brother’s comment
of pre-judging others, I told this brother that these types of people can
practice their own brand of Mormonism far away from me. Our people do not need adversaries of the
TRUTH in our midst. It’s ironic that
today we don’t hear those words of Brothers Joe or Bill or Brother Rulon,
“Perhaps your place is within the Church…”
You think they were being judgmental?
In closing, we recall the words of the Apostle Paul
and Joseph Smith, “…but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the
Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
Associate Editor
Qadosh L’Adonai
Of Princes and Kings
(Contributed)
Every young
Prince wants a Princess in lace
With obvious
charms and decorative grace
She must walk
smooth, she must dance light
And be nothing
much more than the party’s delight
And so far as
he cares, she has feathers for brains
She need not
bother for what character gains
But instead
sets her mind to her looks and her hair
And what
rumors arise of what fashion to wear
Every Princess
out there, holds her fantasies high
With castles
and riches right up to the sky
And the dreams
of her Prince who will give to her all
Who moves
heaven and earth at her beckon and call
And so far as
she knows, he’s got feathers for brains
She will never
look out for what character gains
Buts so long
he seems like the dream, she believes
And she’ll
settle for that... and the gifts she receives
But the
fantasy all too soon flies way
And is melted
like ice in the bright light of day
For the Prince
wanders off after pettier fare
Being bored
with her talk of her clothes and her hair
And she wants
him back, though she doesn’t know why
So she sets
out to find her a similar guy
And for year
after year the outcome’s the same
She decides
it’s those darn men who must be to blame
If she’s
lucky, at last, she begins to arise
And shakes off
the shattered fantasies and lies
She learns
some hard lessons, and virtues are won
Her old life
behind her, a new life begun
A fortunate
Princess will find out at last,
Breaking
falsehoods and chains of her sad-hearted past,
That our most
precious treasures are often unseen
Thus she’ll
grow from a Princess, into a Queen
And she’ll
look at the world through a new set of eyes
she will see
right through those unworthy guys
Until one day,
someday, there he will be
The King who
she had to learn, to see
Then she’ll
marry her King and so take up her place
For what use
has a King for a Princess in lace?
Together
they’ll fulfill an eternal dream
For the heart
of a King desires a Queen
Holiness
Y
To The Lord
TRUTH
NEVER CHANGES
VOLUEM
11, NUMBER 03
MARCH,
2007
No comments:
Post a Comment