Uncle_Bud wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
You are splitting hairs, Jaye.

It does not matter what we think today about whether it was doctrinal then. The Mormon leadership under Young considered it doctrine, which is all that matters.

Yes? Isn't that pretty much what I've been saying?


This is where Wren's logic get's really far off, just as we have logical thinking Mormons in our day, I'm sure not "all" mormons took Brighams words as scripture, as they weren't in scripture. As my great grandfather questioned certain doctrine taught by Brigham in his journal, I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

dubbie, the point is that Brigham Young was sustained by the Mormon membership of that day as being a Prophet, get it in your thick skull gumball, Brigham Young taught and believed these things as the evidence proves and it doesn't mean squat what your grandfather or the membership thought about it. the evidence proves that Brigham Young was not a Prophet of God.


What you and your ilk will never seemingly understand is our doctrine is found in scripture. Period. End of discussion.



You ever going to answer questions?



Priesthood Restored or Retrofit?

By Lane Thuet

On May 15, 1829, Mormon history records that John the Baptist gave the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Later, the apostles Peter, James and John gave them the Melchizedek priesthood. With these priesthoods restored, Smith could officiate the affairs of God�s kingdom with full authority. Mormons are taught that this authority had been lost soon after the original apostles died. During its absence, no one on earth had the proper authority to administer ordinances such as baptism, communion, or even marriage. LDS Prophet Spencer Kimball remarked, "Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization" (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.494).

Mormons today are led to believe that their church alone has this true priesthood. Kimball added that �without this priesthood power, men are lost�There is no priesthood anywhere else today than in this restored [LDS] Church.� Current President Gordon Hinckley added, �The priesthood is here. It has been conferred upon us. We act in that authority� (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.473). Mormonism teaches that for churches to act without this authority is a grievous sin.

Because of its necessary authority, this priesthood had to have been restored in order to properly organize the LDS Church. That means the restoration must have happened before April 6, 1830 � the Mormon Church�s official date of organization.

Significantly, no Mormons seem to have known about the priesthood in the earliest years of the Church. It should have been one of the foremost topics of teaching. Instead, there is no mention of any priesthood found in the histories, diaries, or writings of church members until several years after it had already been established. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, said,

�I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5. or [183]6�in Ohio.� I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver�� (Early Mormon Documents, 5:137).

Another early convert, William McLellin, stated, I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so.� Some time later he repeated that �I never heard of it in the church for years�� (An Insider�s View of Mormon Origins, pp.224-25).

Whitmer states that teachings concerning the priesthood were first introduced into the church �almost two years� after its beginning (An Address To All Believers In Christ, p.35). LDS writer Grant Palmer admits, �Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s� (An Insider�s View of Mormon Origins, pp. 223-224). LaMar Petersen agreed, writing, �There seems to be no support for the historicity of the Restoration of the Priesthood � prior to October, 1834� (Problems in Mormon Text, p.8). Former Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn informs us that �men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year after the church�s founding. No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35� (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.15).

In �A Revelation on Church Government� that Smith received in April 1830, there was no mention of either priesthood (History of the Church 1:64-70). Some time later, Smith went back and added three verses to the revelation, one of which mentions a �high priesthood� (D&C 20:67). When the Book of Commandments was printed in 1833, it included no mention of these ordinations.

The first time that any mention of angelic messengers is documented was in 1834 at a meeting of the Kirtland High Council. Soon after, Cowdery also started to talk about angels. In 1835, he said, �[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself� After this we received the high and holy priesthood �� (Early Mormon Documents 2:452-453).

The revelation referring to the Aaronic restoration is missing from the Book of Commandments, as well as from the original church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star (edition dated March 1833, p.6). The only known manuscript copy of the revelation makes no reference to the LDS priesthoods either (Origins of Power, p.16). All mention of priesthood was added at a later time. In fact, the addition included 459 words that were not in the original revelation.

The account of the Melchizedek restoration is entirely missing. B.H. Roberts writes that �there is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals�� (History of the Church, 1:40fn). Palmer confirms that �no contemporary narrative exists�. the date, location, ordination prayer, and any other circumstances surrounding this experience are unknown� (An Insider�s View, 229).

Even Joseph Smith�s own family did not know about the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. Quinn writes, �Smith�s own mother made no reference to angelic restoration of authority in an 1831 letter she wrote to her brother about the new church� (Origins of Power, p.19). Joseph Smith III, the son of the founder of Mormonism, admitted that �there is no historical evidence of such an event. Nor is there any evidence that Peter, James, and John were present�. It is not safe then to write historically that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ever ordained literally�� (Reorganized History of the Church 1:64-65).

The information that is available about the Melchizedek restoration also creates a problem. Many LDS scholars who have studied the event place the ordination within a few weeks of the Aaronic priesthood ordination date, which was in May 1829 (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:885-86). There is a brief mention of the event in Oliver B. Huntington�s journal, which places the Melchizedek ordination on a night after Joseph and Oliver had been on trial in Colesville, New York (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, 13 January 1881). Joseph Smith dated this incarceration in mid-to-late June of 1830 (History of the Church 1:84-85, 92-94). Wesley Walters located the court bill for this trial, which was dated �July 1st 1830� (Joseph Smith�s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, p.125).

That date is several weeks after the Church was organized. But LDS sources are emphatic that Smith could not have legally organized the Church unless he had received the Melchizedek priesthood first. That creates an irreconcilable problem for the LDS claim of authority.

Grant Palmer points out that

�by degrees, the accounts [of LDS priesthood restoration] became more detailed and more miraculous.� Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened.� The most plausible explanation is that they were retrofitted to an 1829-30 time period to give the impression that an impressive and unique authority had existed in the church from the beginning� (An Insider�s View, pp.228-230).

Conclusion

The evidence shows that the LDS teachings regarding a restored priesthood authority originated many years after the founding of the church, and that they were subsequently added to the early revelations and history. This is certainly a dubious foundation for such sweeping claims to be God�s infallible, and only, authority on earth.
Further Reading

* Priesthood Restoration - Chapter 7 of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, by Grant Palmer
* Jesus' Unique Priesthood

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Unless otherwise noted, you are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute our text, audio, and video in any format provided that you do not alter the content in any way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. Translations faithful to the original meaning in other languages are also permitted and encouraged. For web posting, a link to our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Mormonism Research Ministry.

just wondering what you guys think of this.

Damn that was going to be part of the history lesson I was going to give Dubbs, But oh well thanks Uncle_Bud

also I should note here that during the time Joseph was introducing his new priesthood, polygamy Ect. into the church a lot of people started leaving the church, that is when something happened that changed the church, this Irishmen by the name of Michael Chandler had some old Egyptian papyruses, the members of the church thought if they bought the papyruses from Mr. Chandler and Joseph translated them then people would come back and believe Joseph to be a prophet again,
well it worked because no one at that time could read Egyptian hieroglyphics, also it seems funny that in his translations of these papyruses all the new stuff Joseph was introducing into the church were written in these records even the priesthood...
But now today we all know that Joseph just made up everything about what was written in the papyruses, Due to the fact that people can read Egyptian hieroglyphics now...

Boy that's all new stuff haven't heard before, LOL


You need to stop reading the anti verison big and uncle and Blogan, and read the real history.

Dubbs wrote:
Boy that's all new stuff haven't heard before, LOL


You need to stop reading the anti verison big and uncle and Blogan, and read the real history.

OK Dubbs prove that the LDS Version is true and real, prove to us Dubbs that Joseph Smith knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphics, and that everyone else who has read the papyruses are wrong

remember Dubbs even Mr. Thomas Stuart Furguson admitted Joseph Smith did not translate the papyruses but faked it, and Mr. Furguson is often recalled by latter-day saints as a stalwart defender of the faith who, among other things, established the New World Archaeological Foundation at BYU and he was once a general officer of BYU's Society for Early Historic Archaeology, he also wrote the popular LDS book One fold and one shepherd

so Dubbs do your best, Joseph Smith was a fraud... end of story....

Prove to me your verision is truth first, your claim, your burden of proof.

Here's my proof, let the spirit whisper truth to your spiritual ears.


http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/contents


Mr. (doubting thomas) Ferguson made the same mistakes many people have made, that the anti's have parroted for years since, he believed the Papryus found in the Metro Musem were the ones Joseph translated from, they clearly were not. Even the very elect will be fooled in the last days. Mr. Ferguson was a lawyer by trade, not an archelogist, scholor, nor anything any Mormon looks to as a authority on what he spoke, any nut can write a book.

By the way bigdummy, is this stuff you really believe or is this more of things just to irritate ole Dubs? As you made the claim while I was away that you say things here you don't really mean, so is this one of them? Or are you really the same here as in real life, or faking it here and different in real life? LOL Busted.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I want to state that Brigham Young's teachings concerning Blacks, in my opinion, was wrong. I do not know why the Priesthood was withheld. It has been restored, I sustain this. Any other statements that Brigham Young made concerning Blacks I consider not to be of God and I condemn them. That does not mean that I do not sustain him as a Prophet of God.

In the Bible...it is written that a man may be known by his words and his actions.

Jesus said..."Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

So...is it possible that a man who has spoken such hateful and bigoted words regarding our black brothers and sisters can still be considered to be the mouthpiece of the Lord?

The Lord also said..."Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father, which is in heaven.

Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then I will profess unto them...I never knew you: depart from me, ye that worketh iniquity."

I'm sorry Thomas...I disagree with you on this point. For one thing...I don't believe that Brigham Young was chosen by God to lead the Church...although the perilous times called for a strong leader...and he was certainly a strong man...a strong willed man...and a man who brooked no argument.

I do not believe that God would select a man who's heart was filled with such hatred and bigotry for his black brothers and sisters.

Especially since Joseph Smith had already been ordaining worthy black men to the priesthood for some time before his death.

And if the founder of the faith, a man who was said to see God the Father, and the Son face to face...and said to receive the priesthood directly from Peter, James and John, had not been informed that the blacks were not worthy to receive the priesthood in their mortal life...I do not believe that God ever instructed Brigham Young to deny it to them.

For me...this places his status as prophet in doubt.

As does his teaching that Christ's Atonement was not sufficient to save sinners...and that their OWN blood must also be shed.

That contradicts everything that Jesus taught...and that the Christian faith believes.


So what are you saying Jaye, if Brigham Young wasn't chosen by God, does that not make every Prophet after him to be in direct line of Authority apostate also?

Not necessarily. It would have to depend upon how closely each man adhered to Christian principles...by their words, and their deeds.

This contradict's LDS doctine though Jay. As we believe the Prophet holds all the Keys as the Prophet, when he dies they are passed to the twelve, who choose a new Prophet, so if Brigham was not supposed to be a Godly chosen Prophet as you are saying, then he didn't hold the Keys, thus none of the other Prophets after him do. Just can't be if your claim is true. The church would not have proper authority, which is what I think you believe but won't say.

First off, being chosen as prophet of the Mormon Church is strictly on a basis of seniority and I don't believe it has ever been done otherwise except for Brigham Young, now if I'm incorrect in my assumption someone please correct me.

Can't you understand that Joseph Smith was clearly never a Prophet of God as evidence proves and never held any such authority or keys so he never had anything to pass onto any successor except a lie.

BY was the senior apostle of the Quorum of Twelve in 1844 and sustained as President in 1847. Every President since has been the senior apostle in the Twelve.

You can state that you don't believe JS was a prophet, blogan, but you can't state categorically that he wasn't because you can't prove it. However, you can and have certainly built a condemning case against JS as a prophet of God.


Blogan can't prove Christ lives either, nor can you, that he would use this lame arguement show's how illogical he is.


Reminds me of the perso who used to ask us to prove we are the one true church, when he can't prove his faith either. Mmmmm who was that?

It is obvious you never went to or did not graduate from college, because that is a false comparison.

You can't prove the LDS church is "the one true church" because the objective facts don't support it. And I never said my church (not my "faith", Dubbs, don't confuse terms -- that's another problem with your argumentation) was the one true church.

Who was the one who didn't get that? Hmmm. . . LVMIke who would not have anything to do with you, and other TBMs who lost that argument, including yourself.