Truth Never Changes Volume 10, Number 12

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES

A PUBLICATION IN THE SPIRIT AND TRADITON OF TRUTH MAGAZINE

Y VOLUME 10  December 2006  NUMBER 12 Y

Owenism Defined

(From The Teachings & Writings of Jackson Ted Jessop, pp. 153-154)

The purpose of this letter’s inclusion is not to encourage insubordination or defiance in any way.  Brother Owen had corresponded with Brother Ted on three different occasions, and on this, the third and final response, Brother Ted did not withhold any punches.  Brother Ted stood up for correct principles, and this letter confirms his willingness to stand, alone if necessary, to preserve sacred ordinances and perpetuate legitimate teachings. –Associate Editor—

DEPARTURES I HAVE WITNESSED

DOCTRINES NO LONGER TAUGHT:

1.      Fathers are no longer the head of the family

1. Fathers can’t go and baptize their own children at their own discretion
2. Fathers can’t ordain their sons to the Priesthood at their own discretion
3. Bishops and appointees now interview those candidates first

2.      The eldest male in the family is not recognized as the Family Heir

1. To receive revelation as to possible family ordinance work
2. Priesthood bearers not allowed to hold special prayers in their own homes
3. Council’s permission required to dedicate ones own home
4. Permission required to use the signs

3.      Cessation of Temple work in general (We-Are-On-The-Wrong-Road Doctrine)

1. Ceasing the practice of the Law of Adoption
2. The cessation of sealing living children to their parents
3. Cessation of vicarious work for the dead
4. Calling the Ozumba Temple an endowment house
5. The refusal to build temples
6. Failure to comply with the 1981 Revelation
7. Changes in the garment

4.      The denial to the Fulness of the Priesthood & the Keys to perpetuate the same (or claims to perpetuate it as the mood hits them)

5.      The denial of the teachings and prophecies of John W. Woolley and Lorin C. Woolley (in spite of the fact that others in Short Creek and Independents have kept them alive)

6.      The rejection of the Law of Purity in marital conduct

7.      The teaching of the Infallible One Man “doctrine” (A “doctrine” that has always led to apostasy.)

8.      Excommunications from the Priesthood?  (The Group is not the Church).

9.      Plagiarizing the Bishop’s Handbook and implementing Church policy.

SOME QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES

1.      A person is guilty by accusation without an opportunity for defense

2.      Releases given over trivial complaints—that equates to wife-swapping

3.      Having money has become the governing factor for entering the principle

4.      Micro-managed spousal selection that equates to placement (Parents, Bishop, Council, Bro. Owen)

5.      Council money matters that border on money-laundering

6.      Complete reversals on different issues—sometimes two or three times on the same issue

7.      Lack of revelation in calling men to the council—Bro. Owen wanted a child molester in the Council and he got one—Owen himself called him.

SOME LONG-TERM OBSERVATIONS

Sidney Rigdon organized the Church of Christ, supposedly to return the original teachings of Joseph Smith Jr.  This organization has now deteriorated and become a Protestant church.

The Reorganized Church rejected the main Law of Abraham.  Now they have also become like a Protestant Church.  Also denying in the main teachings of Joseph Smith Jr.

The Church has taken definite steps to be more like the rest of the Christian Churches.

The Priesthood Group under the Woolleys was a loosely-knit structure, giving every individual the ability to come up just as high as they possibly could.  They were close tot he Spirit of the Lord—never were the revelations of heaven very far away.

Upon the death of J. Leslie Broadbent, Brother John Y. Barlow stated that things were about to change; major changes did indeed take place within the Group.

With Leroy Johnson taking the leadership of the Group, even more changes took place.  With Rulon Jeffs (and now Warren Jeffs) at the head, they have ceased to be a Priesthood group and have become another church.

I have here defined some of the changes that Brother Owen has implemented.  Once Brother LaMoine no longer is accountable to Brother Owen, greater changes yet await and will be put into practice.  I have no delight to point these things out.  How long, O Israel, will we allow men to tamper with the things of the Lord?  I am called an apostate by so many—where is my apostasy?  Failing to support all the departures?  For believing in and trying to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.?  I want for my children and generations to come (to have) the Gospel in its purity—if we can hang on to it.

THE SO-CALLED HEADLESS TED JESSOP  CHRIST IS MY HEAD

Differentiating

the Purpose & Positions

of the

Church & the Priesthood of God

Brother Rulon Clark Allred, circa 1972

(Continued From page 392)

One account delineates this relationship of John Woolley’s work coming under the “presidency of Joseph F. Smith.”  As an evidence of this we find Joseph Musser, himself taking direction from Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith, and he honored them.  Brother Musser told me on one occasion that the brethren (speaking of some men in this Fundamentalist group, Priesthood group or whatever you want to call it) “have got to stop talking about President Woodruff the way they do—if they could attain to half the glory that he enjoys, they would be very well off.”  This is something that Joseph told me personally, so I’ll repeat it: Joseph honored Wilford Woodruff.

Now it is true that some of Joseph Musser’s writings seem quite critical of Wilford Woodruff, but I know personally, having talked with Joseph about it that he was not critical of Wilford as a man, only of his policies that he represented as titular head of a Church that had yielded.  Another thing we should consider in this connection is that Joseph was appointed by J. Leslie Broadbent to take the Church to task on its policies.  I don’t know of any other men who have ever been given that calling.  J. Leslie and Joseph were the only two who ever took that position officially.  We’ve had a lot of willing critics of the Church, but they really didn’t have Priesthood authority to do what they did in publishing, etc.

It is true again that we have to make moral judgements, we have to make decisions in our lives.  We must decide whether we’re going to accept the Gospel or not, whether we are going to live it or not.

I am reminded again of Lorenzo Snow, and of George Q. Cannon, who said in effect of those who continued living plural marriage after the Manifesto of 1890 that there is no sin in it; they will have to bear their own burdens, however, for the Church can do nothing for them.

Actually we have John Taylor as the man who stopped plural marriage in the Church, although Wilford Woodruff is the one publicized as having done it by way of the Manifesto.  There was never a plural marriage performed in the last few years of John Taylor’s life, with his consent, that was done by the Church as such.  (I am well aware that the Church doesn’t perform any marriages; it’s the Priesthood that does.)  I mean under the cover or under the aegis of the Church.

Wilford Woodruff bore witness that never, at any time while he was the President of the Church, did he authorize a plural marriage.  But John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff did perform marriages underground.

A good way of understanding this problem is to remember the situation of an Indian who has become famous in a recent book.  His people were under such disabilities he took the position that, as an individual American citizen, he is entitled to certain rights, and his attorney defended him in withdrawing from the tribe in order to more effectually plead a case in Court.  He stood alone, taking his own chances.

We are in a similar position today.  We have withdrawn, or more properly have been excluded, from the “tribe” in order that we might have the right to live the Gospel and pay the penalty.  Now that is very important for us to understand, because when we break a law, we must be amenable to the punishment that is affixed by law.  It isn’t right for us to be brazen and break a law, thinking that we are going to be exempt from it’s punishment simply because we have abided a higher law.

First of all no man is justified before heaven for breaking a law unless, in doing so, he is obeying a higher law.  Second, although he is obeying a higher law and will receive the reward accompanying it, he is also liable or subject to the penalty affixed to breaking the lesser law.  This is what the Apostle Peter means when he told us to submit to the powers that be.  He does not mean that we should obey the law of man in preference to the law of God; but we should submit to the laws of men and their penalties, while serving the Lord, and not rail against them.  If God sees fit to deliver us from unrighteous men, so be it.  If he does not open an avenue for escape, we’ll go ahead and serve the Lord anyway, following the example of Daniel and three Hebrew children.

So our position today is that we are to keep the Gospel alive in its fullness, not expecting the Church necessarily to approve of it; but at the same time, doing it in a way that we don’t bring reproach upon the church.  (The Prophet wouldn’t bring reproach upon the Church, yet he would live the law just the same.)  We are under covenant to obey God at any cost, which we can see from Section 98.  At any cost!  But in doing it, we ought to be modest and not bring reproach upon the Church.

Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith all publicly denied plural marriage—everyone of them—and privately went on living it, and they inducted others into the Principle.  This cannot be gainsaid.  There is too much evidence accumulated now, to prove it beyond any doubt whatever.

When we get to Heber J. Grant there is a major change in policy, then publicly and privately he is opposed to plural marriage.  In George Albert Smith’s and David O. McKay’s days, and in the present administration, we find more tolerance than in the ‘30’s.

Joseph Musser gave us the charge to keep the Gospel alive in its fullness, perpetuating that Priesthood necessary to administer all the ordinances; and to save the Church from its digressions.  We can’t save the Church by fighting it; but, on the other hand, we can’t save it unless we live saving principles.  And so, we will have to bear our own burdens.  They can do nothing for us; from time to time, they do things against us.  However that may be, we will have to be Christian about it, forgive those who persecute us and stand for correct principle.  It has been prophesied that the day would come when the Church will be glad to have us back again because we will have maintained saving and true principles.

By way of clarification, and strangely enough, the law of plural marriage was never intended for the Church as a body.  It is not a law of the Church at all, and God forbid that it ever become the law of the land!  This would be tantamount to an excuse for Him to destroy the whole earth.  As far as the Church is concerned, its function is to bring first principles of the Gospel to every kindred, tongue and people; or, as the Prophet once put it, we should preach repentance to this generation.

One account of Joseph Smith’s first discourse of plural marriage to the Saints is very interesting.  The narrator says that in the morning they had assembled in a grove near the Nauvoo temple to hear Joseph speak.  He supposed a case where a missionary went to some country such as Turkey or India, and there he preached the first principles of the Gospel.  A certain man over there accepted these things, came forward in faith and repentance to submit himself for baptism.  The Elder also conferred upon him the Holy Ghost as a gift, then went on his way.  The next time he was in the neighborhood, the convert approached him asking if it were not true that there is a principle of gathering?  The missionary allowed as much, as if it were the first time it had occurred to him: Why, yes!  Those who accept the Gospel should gather to Zion.  Next the man wondered if he could take his wives with him?  Why, certainly!  America is the land of freedom.  The laws in Zion permit a man to live any kind of religion, if he doesn’t hurt other people.

The Prophet stopped talking and went to dinner, when he was visited by a group of irate Mormon women.  That afternoon he got up and “un-preached” his former sermon, as another brother put it.  But the first narrator said that the disclaimer didn’t take with him, for he was satisfied Joseph had meant what he said in the morning.  This is one of the most beautiful statements I have ever run across in all of Mormon literature—he believed in the morning!  If we understand what it means to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, we would realize that the celestial law always first comes by imitation.  It is always a suggestion.  It is gentle, quiet and still; and if the people accept it, they continue to receive more light until the perfect day.  But those who will not receive it, and who harden their hearts, have that light taken from them, and they become darkened until they lose what they supposed they had.

So it is today.  The majority of us are looking for ways to avoid consecration of all that we have; yet the Prophet told us in the “Lectures on Faith” that we cannot know the course of life we are pursuing is acceptable in God’s sight, except by the sacrifice of all earthly things.  He said that there is no other way.  And without opposition there is no way to test men’s faith.  A compromise has always eased the persecution, making it so that we were not being tested.  Without testing there is not differentiation, and without differentiation there is no exaltation.

The problem we have today with the Church is that the majority of the members do not want the Celestial law.  It wouldn’t be proper of us to urge it on that people.  The leadership of the Church today is very well aware that the average Latter-day Saint does not want these things and they are acting properly when they don’t give out more than what the people want.

We are taught in the Scriptures that all peoples, kindreds and tongues receive the leadership to which they are entitled.  It is no different in our Church than in the Kingdom, or somewhere among the nations of the earth.  The majority of the people do not want these things.

Further I will say that before Adam took the first step toward the Fall, an atonement was prepared.  Again, because the Lord loves this Church (for it is His Church) He made provision to save it before those steps were taken deliberately to give up Celestial law in the organized Church; to save it, that is, in the calling of the Priesthood group who subsequently have become known as Fundamentalists.

Through the years some of the Fundamentalists have become pretty bitter, because they have been treated shabbily by the Church.  The Church has become very defensive because many of the Fundamentalists, whether in number, or as individuals, have behaved vindictively—they’ve had their feelings hurt and have lashed back.  For a long time there has been a breach between these two factions.  But our position is, as it is stated in Section 21, we are indeed the Church of God if we accept what Joseph Smith taught as he received it—in other words, without change.  The Lord said that if we would sustain these restored things, walking in all holiness and faith, the gates of hell would not prevail against us.  After Jesus was crucified, the gates of hell did prevail against that Church because they changed the ordinances and broke the everlasting covenant.  This Church today would do exactly the same thing, if given enough time, but the Lord has promised to cut short this last time.

Now it is important for us to understand that Father has not rejected the Church in our day.  He has not put His wife away.  Because of this, we as children (collectively speaking) cannot reject our Mother any more than our Father does.  We must sustain the Church in its righteousness.  In its efforts to gather genealogical records, it is unexcelled.  It is the outstanding agency in all the world, in this realm.  In teaching the first principles of the Gospel, the Church is functioning in its proper role.  It is bringing hundreds of thousands of people into the first principles.  Many of these individuals will not remain faithful, but I am encouraged by the increased membership, because the more the Church gets in, the better chance there is that a few persons will accept the higher law.

We as a people—Mormon Fundamentalists, if you please—should not enter into competition with the Church.  If we make contacts with them in our daily walks, it should not be done with the idea of proselytizing or drawing them away from the Church.  We should be strengthening the Church as the Doctrine and Covenants tells us, as our covenants enjoin us.  We should be strengthening the Church on correct principles, and we ought to send people back in where they are welcome.  Many times people come to us and say that the Spirit is not in Church meetings, that they want to come among us because they can learn more.

My answer to them has often been: “If you can’t find the Spirit of God in Church meetings, then take it with you; but go back and do what you can to help strengthen them.”  Remember this rule; however (the Savior gave it to us): Give to those who ask.  The Fullness of the Gospel is not intended to be promulgated.  (By the Fullness of the Gospel, I mean the Celestial law, which ought to not be promulgated in the same manner as the first principles.)  Someone will come to you and ask about higher principles of the Gospel and, if his question is sincere, not foolish, and he is not trying to dig a pit for you, you are under an obligation carefully to respond to that question, but you are not to knock on doors or to make an effort to get people to leave one congregation to join another.

John Taylor, Lorin Woolley and others consistently taught that we are not to form another church.  There are only two churches—the Church of Christ and the church of the devil.  The Doctrine and Covenants says that we should not contend with any church, except it be the church of the devil.  Well, ours isn’t just any church—this is the Church of Jesus Christ.  President Joseph Fielding Smith is an apostle of Jesus Christ, called by Joseph F. Smith, Sr., whom we as a people sustain and uphold.  Therefore, Joseph Fielding Smith is authorized.

Not only is he authorized, he teaches the truth.  When we carefully examine what he teaches from the pulpit, we find that he is telling the truth.  He words many of his sermons in the way the Prophet Joseph did.  Those who have little understanding will receive it as a lesser portion of the word, and be sustained in what they are doing.  Those who have more understanding will accept it in its deeper meaning, and likewise be sustained.

Let me give you an example: Recently he made the proclamation that the fullness of the Gospel is upon the earth today, available to anyone who is willing to pay the price.  Now you can read any way you like—you can accept that to mean the Book of Mormon is for sale at $.75, or you could perhaps accept that in a deeper way.

The Mormon leaders have always been accused of duplicity; but this is because the world does not understand the obligation which the Priesthood of God has; namely to serve Him and keep His commandments at all costs, and to be as gentle and careful as possible with others who don’t want to take that deep plunge.  But the law of God is not changed.  The works of God are never frustrated by the acts of men.  If we are going into His presence, we shall have to obey the same laws He did.  It won’t matter what rationalizing we undertake, what excuses we offer, if we don’t obey the law we will not obtain the blessing.  The Gospel is unchangeable.  Joseph Smith and Paul have taught that where there is a change in the ordinances, or in the administration of the law, there is a change in Priesthood.  Also Brigham Young explained that, although it is written the Priesthood was taken from the Church, it is not so; the Church left the Priesthood and instituted other ordinances.  Therefore we stand for the Gospel as it was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith—unchanged.  We stand for that Priesthood necessary to administer all the ordinances of the Gospel.  We stand ready to respond to sincere investigators after the greater truth.

The question is often asked, particularly in view of Section 132 verse 7: Is there more than one prophet upon the earth?  The answer is yes, there is.  In Jeremiah’s day there were three or four different prophets.  The Book of Mormon tells you that, and that seems to be fairly reliable source.  All through the history of Israel there have been many prophets; they aren’t necessarily linear, sometimes they are collinear.

The reason the men in 1886 were given the Apostleship was that John Taylor foresaw, after having talked with the Prophet and the Savior, what would happen in the Church; namely that they as a body would yield the living of the Celestial law.  John Taylor and others were under covenant to see to it that the law of the Priesthood, which is celestial marriage, did not die off, but would remain upon the earth until the Savior’s coming in glory.  Therefore he gave the Apostleship to them, not to exalt these men, not to appoint them to set the House of God in order at the time, not to be critical of the Church, but to have sufficient priesthood to administer the ordinances of the Gospel—particularly later on in their career when the Church would unequivocally say, “Stop.”  And if these men held authority, they could go ahead and serve God without being insubordinate to their brethren in the Church.  This is the exact reason it was done.  It was not to set up a competitive body, it was not to set up a group of men who would rule over the Church.  It was never intended.  As a matter of fact, when the Savior comes, those men who are leading the work today are ready to lay down their authority and say: “We have done our work, we are ready to re-enter the Church or do anything which the Lord commands.”  There is no self-aggrandizement or aspirations whatsoever.  There isn’t a man in this situation who needs it, who wants the job.

We don’t want it.  We’ve got a job to perform, and we’ll do the best we can with God’s help.  But we look forward to a day when the Prophet Joseph Smith will come and set the House of God in order—yes, the man, the woman and the child.  We further look to the day when the Son of Man will come to accept a dispensation which has been set in order by the Prophet.

We have been called to bear the burden of this people and this Church, not to be lifted up ourselves.  It is an improper principle to imagine that exaltation comes to a man who does such a thing; and this, the Savior taught very plainly.  Yet in keeping the Fullness alive, and in presiding over the Priesthood, it is necessary that this presidency live all the laws of the Gospel for, as the Lord told John Taylor: “It is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood.”

The whole key to it is this: Our mission within the dispensation of the fullness of times was inaugurated to save the Church from its digression, to perform those things which they cannot or will not do, and to provide a scapegoat which would receive the reproach.  We as a people have got to understand this and bear it off, ceasing our complaining about it.  Our responsibility is to be offered on the altar and to do it for an ungrateful Church.

But we are not asked to do anything as much as the Savior was.  The world crucified Him, certainly ungrateful for the sacrifice.  The individual who will reign with Christ in the eternal worlds will be those who gave up their good names, prayed for their detractors, took up the cross and followed Him, and last waited patiently for vindication.

We have been instructed not to seek to vindicate our own position but to sustain the Church in its righteousness, and to keep the Fullness of the Gospel alive at any cost.  That is our position.  (Bold print added for emphasis)

John Taylor, April 1886 Conference

The reports from the Elders engaged in active field of missionary labor are far from discouraging, though the results in baptisms in those lands where our brethren have labored the longest, will not equal the showing of former years.  The annual number of baptisms, as well as the total membership of the church in Scandinavia, now exceeds those in Great Britain.  But the most marked results of our labors, of late, have manifested themselves in New Zealand, amongst the Maories [sic], the aborigines of those islands, WHO BEING A REMNANT OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, nearly allied to the Sandwich Islands, have received the gospel with gladness, and show great firmness and integrity in cleaving to its truths.

—COMMENTARY—

ON

FREE AGENCY

In conjunction with the response authored by Brother Ted to Brother Owen in 2001, I have a few more recent observations to include:

1. Advising brethren their absence in a meeting will be “a sign of your unworthiness.” Brethren were ordered to attend early morning Priesthood meeting on Christmas morning 2005 at Bluffdale, Utah.  When several brethren expressed a desire to spend that time with their families, they were told their absence would be a sign of their unworthiness.  Where is ones free agency in this incident?

2. Advising a sister, whose husband is a self-admitted adulterer she cannot have a release because she may be “too vulnerable to her brothers,” who are not on good terms with the Council because of their standing on correct principle.  This dear sister was “released” the moment her husband committed adultery and broke his covenants.  No further action was required—however, for one to convince her he could “withhold” her release from such a man is disheartening.  Is that not a form of unrighteous dominion?

 3. Screening the Saints for iniquity and

 4. Bishops issuing “recommends” for Saints to obtain blessings.  When did the Priesthood—the people of God; the governing body over the Church, decide they need to emulate her?  Once all is set in order, the Priesthood will be once again presiding without dispute.

 5. Bishops prying into the personal lives of the Saints and not adhering to the Mormon motto of Mind Your Own Business.  Once again, as Brother Ted stated to Brother Owen—when and where did Bishops or Apostles think they have any right to step over a husband?

6. An unreasonable encouragement to the sisters that their hair should not cover their faces.  Modesty doesn’t mean dressing like you’ve just stepped out of the 1940’s.  The Scriptures state that long hair on a woman is glorious, and this is for a work she will one day perform upon her beloved husband.

7. The banning of cultural dances (Cha-Cha) because of one individual’s perspective and interpretation.  This one is similar to a recollection of a man in the Group getting offended over a hula-hoop contest, stating that it was sordid and lewd.  As to the former, perhaps this man could learn to dance?  This is reminiscent of the Church philosophy to “follow the living prophet.”

8.      A general loss of free agency.   It is a shame when men begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.  We all know the consequence of this action.

Like Brother Ted, I believe that organizing is a good thing and no harm can come from it.  However, when men seek to control others through compulsion and unrighteous dominion, that is where I have a big problem.  Unless I (God forbid) break my covenants, no man can step over me—not my Quorum President, not my Bishop, or United Order Leader—not even an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.  I preside in my home.

Saints in general have a mistaken idea that they need to be led every step of the way; that they need to allow others to make their own decisions, that they need to never question authority, and “follow the living prophet.”  These ideas are false.  I consider myself accountable only to Christ and to Him only.  I will not stand before any other man in the hereafter and account my actions in life—it will be the Lord.  We have been delegated the heavy responsibilities of maintaining and preserving the ordinances of the Holy Priesthood know better than to permit “the one man” or “living prophet” syndrome amongst us.  We must always question and ask the Lord if His servants are being led by Him, to paraphrase Brother Brigham.  I have no problem following a man, provided I have the knowledge he is being led by the Lord.  I once took a stand for correct principle, and God being my helper, I will continue to do so.  Free agency is an essential part of the plan of salvation, and woe to those who dare infringe upon another’s freedom.

George Q. Cannon  J.D. 25: 171-172  5/25/1884

Wherever we have gone among those people whom the Book of Mormon tells us are the descendants of the house of Israel, we have had no trouble in converting them by the hundreds, and it may be said to the thousands, to the truth.  They were ready to receive it without any difficulty whatever.  It seemed as though their hearts had been prepared by the God of heaven, and all that has been necessary has been  to tell them the truth, and they were natural Latter-day Saints, natural believers in the Gospel of the Son of God.

          I myself, went as a missionary, as many of you know, to the Sandwich Islands, the natives of which I believe to be either a branch of the Indians of this continent, or of some other portion of the house of Israel.  There was no trouble in baptizing them, AND THERE IS NO TROUBLE IN BAPTIZING ANY OF THE POLYNESIAN RACES.  THEY ARE READY TO RECEIVE THE GOSPEL, ready to be baptized; very different in this respect from us Gentiles; for there is a spirit of unbelief among the Gentile race; there is a hardness of heart; there is a want of faith that prevents the blessings of God from descending upon His covenant people.

Thirteen Questions from an Apostle of the Lord

(Truth Never Changes, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 6-7)

In July, 1992, while in Mexico, Bro. William N. Baird dictated the following questions, which he expressed should be asked to those who are serious persons seeking the fulness of the Gospel.

1)      Can a man pass on the Melchizedek Priesthood before he himself has received it?

2)      Can a man pass on any ordinances that he himself has not received?

3)      Can the man then hold the keys to an ordinance he can’t pass on and that he himself has not yet received?

4)      What would happen if, for one generation, one ordinance was not passed onto anybody and everyone who had it died, would the keys of the ordinance be off the earth?

5)      Do we need all the keys for the winding up scene?

6)      If everyone dies that has the keys to any ordinance and it is not passed onto anyone, how are we going to get it back on the earth if all the keys are needed?

7)      Have we had the last dispensation when all the keys were dispensed from heaven to earth for the last time never to be given to another people and never to be taken from the earth?

8)      If the answer is, ‘yes;’ what will happen at the winding up scene if all the keys are not here?

9)      The LDS Church maintains that we can live these laws in the Millennium, but if we live all the laws in the Millennium, all keys must be maintained until the winding up scene and beyond.

10)    The whole issue here is: Can you maintain all the keys here on earth without  perpetuating all the ordinances?

11)    If the answer to that question is, ‘No;’ then the Church is wrong when they say we can live it in the Millennium.

(Some say the leaders are living it privately.  If they are keeping birthright from the people by hiding it and keeping it, their lives should be taken.  Joseph Smith said self-aggrandizement was a correct principle as long as you wanted to bring everyone else)

12)   Can they, without living all the ordinances, hold all the keys?

13)    We can prove that all general authorities did not heed the first manifesto of 1890.  One man said, “if the general authorities won’t keep the first manifesto of 1890, why should I honor the second manifesto of 1904?”

Will any man ever be redeemed upon any other principle than what we are redeemed upon?  No.  Men must abide the same law, or God Almighty will never redeem them.  If they violate that law, they bring damnation upon themselves, and must suffer the consequences of it.  Still, I believe the greater part of the inhabitants of the earth will be redeemed; yea, all will be finally redeemed, except those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost or shed innocent blood; and they can never be redeemed until that debt is paid.  And I do not know any way for them to pay it unless they are brought back again to a mortal existence, and pay the debt where they contracted it.

God will make every man pay off the debt he contracts; for a restoration must take place, which has been spoken of by the mouth of all the holy Prophets since the world began.

LDS POLYNESIAN TIMELINE

* References taken from Comprehensive Church History by B.H. Roberts, Discourses of Elder Matthew Cowley, & “Why I Believe” by Hori Solomon

• 1814 – 1^st European settlement of New Zealand; 1^st Christian missionaries arrive.

• 1830 – Arama Toirua of Mahia, New Zealand prophesied the arrival of the fullness of the gospel and the true church to New Zealand.

•  1844 – Addison Pratt sent to Society Islands (Cook Islands).  Known as oldest Polynesian mission in LDS Church.

•  1850 – French government expels Mormon missionaries from Cook Islands.  Cook Island Maori elders preside over the branches in absence of the missionaries.

• 1850 – Hawaiian Mission organized.  George Q. Cannon among the first missionaries sent there.  Joseph F. Smith would later serve a mission there, also.  Charles C. Rich organized this mission.

•  1851 – George Q. Cannon first teaches that those of Polynesian ancestry descend from those in the Book of Mormon.

• 1852 – Addison Pratt preaches in the Samoan Islands.

• 1854 – Mormon missionaries allowed back to the Cook Islands.  The Cook Island natives call themselves Maori.  Their culture and language is nearly identical to the New Zealand Maori.

•  1865 – Brigham Young tells King Kamehameha V of Hawaii in a letter that his people are descended from those in the Book of Mormon.

•  1874 – 1^st Maori convert is a sailor baptized in Hawaii

• 1881 – In March, the “Covenant” is made among the Maori Tribes that the true Church was about to come, that their lineage as pure descendants of the House of Israel would be made, and that they would enter into the temples.

•  1881 – Ngataki is the first Maori to join the Church in New Zealand, baptized in Auckland in what was then part of the Australian Mission.

• 1883 – Maori Mission opened in New Zealand

•  1883-4 - several Maori natives converted in Waikato district.

•  1883 – Wautu branch organized.  Hare Te Katene, a Maori, set apart as branch president.

• 1883 – Ira Hinckley organizes the Papwai Wairarapa Valley branch.  “Manihera, a native chief, was ordained a priest and appointed the president of the branch, and since then the mission among the natives of New Zealand has been one of the permanent missions of the Church.”

• 1886 – in April Conference, John Taylor declares the Maori lineage to be the “Remnant of Israel”.  6 months later, he sees the Savior and Joseph Smith.

•  1888 – The Samoan Mission opened in June, 1888 by Elder Dean.  This mission included Tonga.  “He at once began work among the natives of the (island) group – among whom he was immediately successful… following his arrival in the islands.”

• 1893 – a record of Hirini Whaanga being ordained to the priesthood on January 14^th and doing work in the Salt Lake Temple.

•  1894 – “numbers of native New Zealanders immigrated to Utah… some of those who came to Utah afterwards returned as missionaries to New Zealand.”

• 1890s – In a statement to the Maoris of New Zealand, Joseph F. Smith said, “I would like to say to you brethren and sisters… you are some of Hagoth’s people, and there is NO PERHAPS about it!”

• 1913 – “A delegation of the natives, Lakerei Ihaia and five other natives spent four months studying the social, industrial and religious conditions among the Latter-day Saints.”

•  1920 – In the dedicatory prayer of the Hawaii Temple, Heber J. Grant refers to the Polynesians as “descendants of Lehi”.

•  1929 – 7075 members in New Zealand

• 1930 – 4543 members in Samoa

"Another of [John] Lyon's tasks [as superintendent of the Endowment
House] was to arrange for a doctor to be present at the Endowment
House, where parents brought their children to be circumcised when
eight days old. Early Church leaders felt that they were truly
reestablishing Israel and so had to restore all known ordinances;
the substitute temple was a logical place to perform the covenant
ceremony of circumcision (T. Edgar Lyon, Interview, 1975). Lyon
worked under the direction of Heber C. Kimball, the chief
administrator of the House."

T. Edgar Lyon, Jr., John Lyon, Life of a Pioneer Poet (Provo, UT:
Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), p. 229.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Born into this world 23 December 1805

Holiness to the Lord!

Y

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES

VOLUME 10, NUMBER 12

December, 2006