The MODERN MORMON DILEMMA published by Star of Truth An Answer To The "FUNDAMENTALIST DILEMMA" by Allen Richardson Fundamentalist Dilemma by Allen Richardson The Modern Mormon Dilemma publ. Star of Truth TABLE OF CONTENTS (Allen Richardson Paper) Preface to volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i The Fundamentalist Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 by Allen Richardson a. Regarding Canon and Doctrine . . . . . . . . . 1 b. Regarding Prophetic Infallibility. . . . . . . 3 c. Biblical Precedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 d. Regarding Inspiration & Revelation. . . . . . 6 e. Regarding Practice of Plural Marriage. . . . . 7 f. Regarding Work For the Dead . . . . . . . . . 14 g. Church in State of Apostasy . . . . . . . . . 15 h. Priesthood Independent of Church? . . . . . . 15 i. Priesthood higher than Melchizedek? . . . . . 16
Transcript
The MODERN MORMON DILEMMA
published by Star of Truth
An Answer To The "FUNDAMENTALIST DILEMMA"
by Allen Richardson
Fundamentalist Dilemma by Allen Richardson The Modern Mormon Dilemma publ. Star ofTruth
The bulk of this booklet has been written in response to apaper by Allen Richardson. In order to understand our response,we have printed his paper first--pages 1 through 22--so that thereader can follow the issues and references. Our paperfollows--pages 1 through 136.
One of the purposes in writing an answer to AllenRichardson's allegations against those believing and livingplural marriage is to address his many sensational and erroneousstatements circulated about a people trying to live theirreligion. Simply stated, we believe all that the Lord commandedin the restoration of the gospel through the Prophet JosephSmith. The so-called "Fundamentalists" are, therefore, trying tolive all of the gospel, against great odds, as did the"mainstream" Mormons at one time.
Many accusations are made against some of the teachings andactions of some of the fundamentalists. We certainly agree withthose accusations at times. We no more recognize all individualsand groups posing as fundamentalists as being true, than Mormonsrecognize all other religions as being true, or all Mormons asspotless. Richardson lumps all fundamentalists together, thoughhe might be more reluctant to lump all Mormons together.
Richardson's paper incorporates many of the thoughts andaccusations circulated through the years against those livingthe law of celestial plural marriage, the same allegationshurled at the early Utah pioneers before Utah and the Mormonsbecame "Americanized." The paper is a grand collection ofmisinformation which the enemies of the Church used to feed thepress, and which many Mormons now feed each other. Since much ofthe thinking in the paper is common among modern L.D.S. Churchmembers, we have chosen to respond once again to thosedust-laden issues.
[ii] The Richardson paper has been carried about by a fewrepresentatives of the Mormon Church for the past three years,at this writing. It has been used as a weapon of authority in anattempt to invalidate the fundamentalists' point of view. It hascome among our own people as well, dismissed as inept by mostbut wondered about by some of the youth--which explains ourmajor reason for giving time to response. The Prophet JosephSmith has presented our case very well for us:
"It is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart--For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it--Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness,
wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven--These should then be attended to with great earnestness. Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things" (D&C 123:11-15).
Perhaps the very prayerful man will feel the spirit of ourreply with the recognition that there is a clear case to bemade, one which is not permitted investigation by those who maybe in a position to police thought in the Church.
Our purpose is not to challenge the Lord's Church nor topoint fingers in return. It is to highlight truth as it existsunder unusual conditions. It is to champion that cause to whichwe have been called, even the perpetuation of all of the Lord'srestored gospel.
[iii] Finally, in the event that there are those in the Churchwho are sincerely seeking gospel principles in their fulness andwho are not satisfied with the usual milk and water answers toperplexing questions we present for your consideration, "TheModern Mormon Dilemma, An answer to `The FundamentalistDilemma'".
STAR OF TRUTHPUBLISHING
3139 West 14700South
Bluffdale, Utah84065
Summer 1988
[1] The
FUNDAMENTALIST DILEMMA
by Allen Richardson
The purpose of this analysis is to issue a challenge tothose, in sympathy with fundamentalism, to search their souls asthey ask themselves what the "weighter matters of the law"really are. They are aware of the great need to "study thesething out in their minds" and to "reason together" and then toask God if "these things are not true," after fasting andpraying for many days (Alma 5:45-47), while eternal destinyhangs in the balance. In making such an extremely seriousdecision, they cannot ignore the following vital issues.
A. Considerations Regarding Canon and Doctrine
1. Those who become interested in fundamentalism usually doso because it sounds so serious, important and true. Yet themost cherished doctrines, peculiar to fundamentalism, are takenfrom non-canonical statements of early church leader. They dothis in spite of the fact that none of the individual statementsof any general authority are automatically binding on the peopleas formal, official doctrine, to become church doctrine. Astatement must be canonized by being presented to a generalassembly representing the membership of the church, to be votedupon. In so doing, "all things are done in order, and by commonconsent." Anything less than this leads to the confusion anddisorder of the 150 apostate groups which have all broken awayfrom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all withthe pretext of following leaders who [2] supposedly authorizedthem to do things in secret, through unofficial statements (SeeDoc. and Cov. 26:2; 28:13; 132:8). Therefore, canonizedscripture must be valued above the non-canonized opinions ofindividual church leaders. It is a matter of history that somegeneral authorities, such as Sidney Rigdon, William Law, LymanWight, etc., led followers away into error. By contrast, thecanon of scripture contains that which can lead us to eternallife (See John 5:39; D.&C. 42:59-60).
2. Even though the fundamentalists are zealous and faithfulenough to follow certain leaders blindly, they question otherleaders. This is neither consistent nor fair. Brigham Young,whom fundamentalists trust and revere, said that members shouldnot follow his statements or those of any other church leaderblindly or without gaining a personal witness of the truth ontheir own.
3. The true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsresembles a democracy, not a dictatorship. Brigham Young oncesaid that the U.S. Constitution established by the Lord (D. &C.101:80) and the laws of this country resemble a theocracy anddiffer little from the kingdom of God (Jour. of Disc., v. 6, pp.342, 345). The unique features of the Constitution are itschecks and balances and that the powers of government arebestowed upon the leadership by the vote of the people. Thus wevote upon those who are called to preside in the church (D.&C.20:63, 67). Likewise, just as the government includes a judicialbranch to hear appeals of the citizens, so also the church has ajudicial system in which appeals are presented and judgments aremade.
Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith presided by the voiceof the people (J.D. 1:133). Three presiding High Priests of theMelchizedek priesthood were to be chosen by the body, upheld bythe confidence, faith and prayer of the church (D.&C. 107:22).No one is even allowed to preach the gospel unless it is "knownto the church that he has authority" (D.&C. 42:11 and [3] D.&C.20:63, 65). In ancient times, matters pertaining to churchdoctrine were presented before the body of the church (Acts15:12-22). In other words, no one may be secretly ordained orauthorized in the church. All leaders and church workers aresustained by the consent and vote of the people. Joseph Smithsaid that it is impossible to exercise faith in a God who
secretly changes (Lundwall, Lect. on Faith, p. 36, par. 22).
4. How wrong, how confusing, how unfair it would be for Godto allow his spokesman to tell the people not to do somethingwhile wanting them to do it! Is it not blasphemous to teach of aGod who would punish his children for obeying his spokesman?Such a gross miscarriage of justice would be a doctrine ofdevils. "If a trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall preparehimself....?" (I Cor. 14:8)
5. The Lord God worketh not in darkness and has condemnedsecret combinations. Yet, fundamentalists are working indarkness. The church would have had to work in darkness, had notthe Lord God provided a way for them to continue taking thegospel to the world.
B. Considerations Regarding Prophetic Infallibility
1. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that a Prophet does notalways speak as a prophet (Doc. Hist. Ch., vol. 5, p. 265). Thefundamentalists accept this statement as truth. They understandthat the canon of scripture is inspired of God. Yet, when theyset it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statementsof individual leaders, they wander into the realm ofuncertainty. This is because they do not know when a leader isspeaking as a prophet or as a man. Therefore, they setthemselves up as being qualified to sit in judgment and to pickand choose what they prefer to hear from an early authority,while ignoring other unpopular statements made by the sameauthority. This is inconsistent as well as doctrin-[4]allydangerous. For example, the following unpopular statementsuttered by early church leaders were presented with as muchsincerity, power and conviction as other statements thefundamentalists prefer to accept. it is clear that they havebased their doctrinal position on material culled from thefollowing.
a. Joseph Smith said that there were Gods who were still infants sitting on thrones without having had a cubit added to their stature.
b. Brigham Young said that some of the more wicked spirits will be annihilated out of existence (J.D., vol. 1, pp. 118, 275; vol. 4, pp. 31-32). Heber C. Kimball said the same thing (J.D., vol. 5, pp. 161, 216).
c. Heber C. Kimball, often quoted by fundamentalists, said that the territory of Deseret would never be called Utah--but the State of Deseret (J.D., vol. 5, pp. 161, 216).
d. Joseph Smith blessed his son to be successor to the President of the High Priesthood, the Seer, Revelator and Prophet, by blessing and by right. Brigham Young agreed (J.D., vol 8, pp. 69). Heber C. Kimball agreed (J.D., vol. 4, p. 6).
e. Brigham Young preached against the evils of "Round Dancing."
f. Brigham Young said that if the temple were built of adobe, it would last longer than if it were built of granite.
g. Brigham Young said that gold and silver grows (J.D., vol. 1, p. 219).
h. Brigham Young said that the civil war would not free the slaves (J.D., vol. 10 , p. 250).
i. Brigham Young said that zippers in trousers were a gross evil.
[5] j. Brigham Young said that within 26 years, the elders of the church would be thought of as kings, and the rulers of the world would consider it an honor to be allowed in their presence (J.D., vol. 4, p. 40).
k. Heber C. Kimball predicted that the Saints would be governed only be statesmen from among their own people (J.D., vol. 5, p. 173). Yet Alfred Cummings of Georgia replaced Brigham Young as governor.
l. Heber C. Kimball said that soon Brigham Young would be president of the United States and that he, himself, would be vice-president (J.D., vol. 5, p. 219).
m. Heber C. Kimball said that he could sleep better with knives, revolvers and rifles under his pillow (J.D., vol. 5, pp. 164, 278).
n. Brigham Young once said that a man must enter into plural marriage to be exalted. Later he contradicted himself (Jour. of Wilford Woodruff, Sept, 24, 1871). Which Brigham Young do they accept? Which Brigham Young do they reject?
o. Brigham Young taught that "poor curses" who become possessed of the devil by doing such things as creeping around courthouses to see what is going on, should be sent far away on missions for a long period to be allowed time to apostatize (J.D., vol. 3, pp. 239, 241; vol. 7, pp. 228-229). p. Fundamentalists insist that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the God we worship. Yet the scriptures declare that Adam transgressed. He died. He is in subjection to the Son. He is described as a Son of God. The canon of scripture is clear on Adam's position (See II Nephi 2:22223; Alma 12:26-27; D.&C. 29:40-43; D.&C. 107:5354; D.&C. 130:5; Moses 4:8-11, 28: Luke 3:38; 1 Cor. 15:22).
[6]C. Biblical Precedents
The fact that a prophet can err and still remain in thegood graces of the Lord is borne out in the following examples.
a. Moses at the waters of Kadesh (Num. 20:10-12).
b. Jonah fled.
c. Peter denied Christ three times.
d. Peter cut off a man's ear.
e. James and John wanted Jesus to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans.
f. Thomas doubted.
g. Peter ignored the gentiles while in the presence of Jews, which caused Paul to defy him to his face (Gal. 3).
h. Paul and Barnabas couldn't get along and had to separate.
D. Considerations Regarding Inspiration and Revelation
1. The fundamentalists have not achieved infinite perfection nor omniscience; therefore it is likely that they can be deceived and err in judgment.
2. Of the 150 apostate groups, nearly all claim special revelation. Yet they differ on many points of doctrine. Therefore, it is clear that what the many apostates think is revelation from God cannot in fact be revelation.
3. The revelations some of them have received have been strong and impressive enough to motivate them to sacrifice their children, or to leap to their deaths from an eleven-storey window, or to publicly predict the precise date [7] of the outbreak of a nuclear holocaust, or to send killers to murder a rival cult leader, or to burn houses and gun down the inhabitants as they flee from the flames, or to try to interrupt a general conference session with a threat that the tabernacle will be blown sky high, etc. Therefore, the intensity or impressiveness of revelation is not a factor in determining its truthfulness.
4. The scriptures make it clear that Satan is an expert counterfeiter who can irritate angels, impressions and feelings so well that the only sure way of discerning them is to offer your hand (D.&C 128).
5. Another part of the pattern given by the Lord to enable us to know whether or not one is deceiving us is to observe whether or not that individual is obeying "mine ordinances" (D.&C. 52:4-19). This means all ordinances, including the ordinances of the house of the Lord.
6. Even if some L.D.S. Church leaders were in a state of partial apostasy, as Judas was in the ancient church, and even though many members are inactive, unfaithful, unvaliant and spiritually immature, there are still millions of Latter-day Saints who have always been open to the promptings and dictates of the Spirit. This great host constitutes a far greater majority of witnesses who have received personal revelation, attesting to the truthfulness of the L.D.S. Church as it now functions, than the few members of any one splinter group or even all followers of all apostate groups combined.
E. Practical Considerations Regarding the Practice of PluralMarriage
1. Of the 150 separate apostate breakoffs from the L.D.S.Church, nearly all concur that plural marriage must be practicedtoday in compliance with a few non-canonical utterances byBrigham, Young and other early church leaders.
2. Yet Brigham Young said that a man may [8] embrace theprinciple of plural marriage without taking a second wife andshall be justified before the Lord (Jour. of W. Woodruff. Sept.24, 1871). Therefore, the fundamentalist must ignore Brigham toobey Brigham when they step outside of the canon of thescriptures.
3. The fundamentalists know that the principle of pluralmarriage is one which is commanded at certain times and revokedat other times (Jacob 2:30; D.&C. 56:4). Therefore, they shouldnot blindly insist that God, could not have revoked it in 1890and 1904.
4. The fundamentalists fully understand that if theypractice plural marriage against the will of God, it becomes anadulterous, abominable whoredom (Jacob 2:24, 26, 31, 33).
5. The practice of plural marriage is a means to an end,not an end itself. The fundamentalists are aware that the wholepurpose of plural marriage is to raise up righteous seed untothe Lord (Jacob 2:30). Yet, they are aware that many children ofpolygamous families are straying away from their religiousupbringing. Therefore, it is apparent that at least in thosecases the polygamists are defeating their purpose.
6. The obvious reason for this is that the fundamentalistfathers neglect their children. It is usually all a man can doand sometimes more to provide for one wife and a few children inour modern tines. Of course, the problem is compounded by havingmore wives and more children.
7. The problem is further compounded in that since thefundamentalists feel obligated to blindly follow thenon-canonized counsel of the early church leaders to the letter,they must be fair and consistent enough to require their wivesto have as many children as they can possibly carry and bear.Otherwise, they will be found guilty of infanticide (J.D., vol.
12, pp. 120-121).
[9] 8. In addition to providing for the temporal needs of theirchildren and wives, the fundamentalists must not neglect toprovide for their spiritual needs. Yet they cannot be close athand to supervise and counsel their children in this modern agewhich is so demanding of a father's time. In the earlier pioneerdays when a father worked in his fields with his children,teaching from the rising of the sun to its setting (Deut.11:18-21; 6:7) about the great spiritual truths of the gospel,the children were less likely to go astray as they have recentlybeen doing. But in this modern age the problem is beingcompounded with not only less time with a father, but more evilin the world. There are more temptations made to appear moreenticing, with greater availability to vulnerable youth.
9. In an attempt to justify themselves for their inabilityto provide for the temporal and spiritual needs of theirchildren and their wives, fundamentalists point to Isaiah 4:1-3to excuse themselves from the obligation to provide bread andapparel for their wives and children. Such an excuse iscontradictory to the tenor of the whole canon for the followingreasons:
a. The wording of Isaiah 4:1-3, "In that day links thetrend of thought with the previous verses in Isaiah 3:16-26,clearly pointing to the impending collapse of Jerusalem in 589B.C., rather than to the latter days. This is a demonstration ofthe fallibility of scholars such as Stephen Langton, who iscredited with having divided the Bible into chapters late in the12th. century.
b. A wife or wives and children must not be counted as"dross" as is inferred from one or two non-canonical opinions ofearly leaders (and often quoted as justification for neglectingdependants), because the Lord has said:
1. Women have claim upon their husbands for their maintenance until their husbands are taken (D.&C. 83:2-3).
[10] 2. If they do not provide for their kin and for those of their house, they have already denied the faith and are worse than an infidel (I Tim. 5:8).
3. The worth of souls, including those of wives and children, is great.
4. A soul such as that of a wife or children is worth more than all the wealth in the world. For what doth it profit a man ... to gain the whole world and lose his own soul ... or the soul of one of his loved ones?
5. Since our joy will be great if we bring one soul (such as a son or daughter), to the Lord (D.&C. 18:15-16), how much greater will be our joy if we bring all our children to the Lord? By contrast, how
great will be a father's sorrow who loses one or more of his children through neglect.
6. There is joy in heaven when one sinner repents.
7. The conversion of one soul, such as a prodigal son, can bring a forgiveness of sins to the converter (or to the father).
8. One righteous soul (wife or child) can be enough to prevent God from destroying a city (Jer. 5:1; Ezek. 22:30).
9. When a newly converted fundamentalist offends his wife and his children by neglecting their temporal and/or spiritual needs by spending his time prospecting for other wives and fathering more children of other wives, the Lord will visit him with a sore curse when the Lord sees "the sorrow" and hears "the mourning of the daughters of his people... because of the abominations of their husbands" (Jac. 2).
10. If a fundamentalist "breaks the heart [11] of his tender wife and loses the confidence of his children because of his bad example before them, he will "come unto great condemnation...." (Jacob 2:23-35)
11. If a fundamentalist offends one of the Lord's little ones, it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and that fie be cast into the depths of the sea.
12. The Lord will smite the earth with a curse at a rapidly approaching dreadful day, if fundamentalists do not turn their hearts to all their children by providing for all their needs (Mal. 4:6).
13. If a fundamentalist's house is not in order, if he allows the wicked one to have power when he neglects to teach his children light and truth (D.&C. 93:50) .
14. A fundamentalist must not suffer his children to go naked or hungry or to transgress the laws of God, but he must teach them light and truth (Mosiah 4: 14-15).
15. If a fundamentalist is truly Godlike, his whole work and glory will be to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of his children (Moses 1:39), rather than to let them fend for themselves.
16. A fundamentalist must seek a godly seed and not deal treacherously against his wife (Mal. 2:14-15).
17. If a fundamentalist does not "restrain" his children from evil because he is too busy with other
wives and other children, God will "raise up a faithful priest" to take his place (I Sam. 2:12-17 and I Sam. 31:10-18).
18. Without his wife, a fundamentalist cannot receive his second anointings and [12] be accepted into the anointed quorum which is all part of the fulness of the priesthood. Nor can he be made a king and a priest at that time without her.
10. Could all of this be why Brigham Young said that theabuse of the principle of the plurality of wives will sendthousands to hell? (J.D., vol. 9, p. 269).
11. The practice of plural marriage in our time and localeis unlawful. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,rulers and magistrates and in obeying, honoring and sustainingthe law. If we keep the laws of God, we have "no need to breakthe laws of the land" (D.&C. 51:6). "All things are made sure bythe law of the land" (D.&C 51:6).
12. A fundamentalist should not sit in judgment of WilfordWoodruff, who issued the Manifesto in 1890. God does not expectobedience to a commandment when his people are prevented bytheir enemies. But the prophet, seer and revelator at the time,President Woodruff, said that, "He (the Lord) has told meexactly what to do. . . I have had his Spirit upon me for a longtime. But I want to say this: `I should have gone to prisonmyself and let every other man go there, had not the God ofheaven commanded me to do what I did do'" (in issuing theManifesto ending the practice of polygamy. Disc. of W. Woodruff,p. 215-216). It was obvious that the Church would have beendestroyed, the government would have confiscated all Churchproperty, including the temples. The temples were the subject ofgreat controversy in the government as well. The Church wouldhave been disfranchised. More of the leaders would have beenimprisoned and scattered. The members would have had to exilethemselves to escape the judgments of the law. The Church couldnot have continued to function.
13. President Wilford Woodruff did not yield to enemypressures. The pressure of the government was nothing comparedto killings, [13] burnings, beatings, rapings and sufferingsthat the Saints had endured for so many years in having beendriven from city to city and state to state. If God had notrevealed his will to his servant, President Woodruff, thatpolygamy be discontinued, the Saints would have suffered greaterpersecution. The Lord has said, "When I give a commandment toany of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sonsof men go with all their might and with all they have to performthat work and cease not their diligence, and their enemies (theU.S. government and its laws) come upon them and hinder themfrom performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to requirethat work (such as plural marriages) no more at the hands ofthose sons of men..." (D.&C. 124:49-51).
14. The Lord said that the thing of most worth is to "cry
repentance unto this people" (D.&C. 15:5; 16:6). Also, "Thisgospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world... andthen shall the end come" (Matt. 24:14). Yet, this cannot be doneamong so many nations, kindreds, tongues and people who arerepulsed by the practice of polygamy. Who will cry repentance ifthe L.D.S. do not? How could it possibly be done in any otherway or to any other people? The Lord did not say, "The thing ofmost worth is to live polygamy." Are the fundamentalists moreconcerned about missionary work or additional wives?
15 . Since one of the earliest revelations on pluralmarriage, given in 1832, counseled the men or the Church to takewives of the Lamanites in order to help the Indians to becomewhite and delightsome, the fundamentalists really should marryIndian women in order to more closely follow the counsel of theearly Church leaders as they originally introduced theseprinciples.
16. The fundamentalists could help to raise up righteouschildren unto the Lord and build up the kingdom of God, which isthe whole purpose for getting into polygamy, if they open theirhomes for as many Indian children on the [14] placement programas they can possibly accommodate at least as many children asthey would have had in polygamy.
17. Apostates could sponsor refugee families and bring theminto the Church and help to raise up a righteous people unto theLord.
F. Considerations Regarding Work For The Dead
1. Joseph Smith said that the greatest responsibility Godhas laid upon us is to seek after our dead (T.P.J.S. p. 365). Hedid not say the greatest responsibility is to take more wives.Yet, the polygamists have laid aside this "greatestresponsibility" in order to take other wives.
2. Joseph also said that work for the dead pressed itselfupon his mind the strongest (D.&C. 128:1).
3. We cannot be made perfect without our dead. That isscripture (D.&C. 128:18). The fundamentalists are without theirdead. Therefore, it follows that they have not been madeperfect.
4. Joseph Smith said that work for the dead is the "voiceof gladness in the gospel...glad tidings for the dead" D.&C128:20).
5. It is a "great cause" which by doing, we "go forward andbackward." Are the fundamentalists going forward and backward?
6. Who lets "the dead speak forth anthems of eternalpraises" (D.&C. 128:22), the fundamentalists or the Latter-daySaints?
7. Have the fundamentalists built a temple? Do they plan to
build one? (See Importance of Temples.)
G. Has the President of the L.D.S. Church [15] permitted theMembers to Drift Into a State of Apostasy?
Evidently the fundamentalists are required to ignore thefollowing scriptures and statements:
1. Isa. 54:17 -- No weapon formed against thee shallprosper.
2. Dan. 2:44 -- The kingdom shall never be destroyed, andthe kingdom shall not be left to other peoples...and it shallstand forever.
3. Brigham Young said the Lord would not permit him or anyother man to lead the people astray. The Lord would take himfirst (O. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball).
4. Joseph Smith said that the hosts of Satan will not beable to tear down the kingdom as fast as the twelve will be ableto build it up (O. Hyde, Times and Seasons vol. 5, pp. 649-665).
5. Whosoever belongs to the Church need not fear, for suchshall inherit the kingdom of heaven (D.&C. 10:55, 67-69).
6. Wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for thesame are overcome of the world (D.&C. 50:8). Who is in apostasy,the Church or the fundamentalists?
7. Joseph Smith gave a "key" to know how you are notdeceived. The true Church will have the vast body of members init. The true Church will have the records of the Church (Mill.Star: J.D. vol. 13, p. 367).
H. Can the Priesthood Function Independently of the Church?
1. The priesthood operates in the Church [16] in ailgenerations (D.&C. 84:17-18).
2. The restoration of the Priesthood preceded theorganization of the Church so that the Prophet Joseph would havethe proper authority to organize the Church. However, betweenthe time of the restoration of the priesthood and theorganization of the Church, Joseph Smith could not operate thevarious functions of that priesthood,
I. Is There a Priesthood Higher Than Melchizedek?
1. All priesthood is Melchizedek (T.P.J.S., p. 180-181).
2. All other authorities or offices are appendages to theMelchizedek priesthood (D.&C. 107:5).
3. The Holy Order of God is the Melchizedek priesthood(Alma 13:1-19).
4. Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in allgenerations (D.&C. 84:17-18).
J. Is There a Higher Office of Leadership Than That of thePresidency and the Twelve?
1. Brigham Young once said, "If the wicked should succeedin taking my life, the keys of the kingdom will remain with theChurch" (J.D., vol. 5, p. 76).
2. The president of the high priesthood is the president ofthe Church (D.&C. 107:82, 91).
3. Wilford Woodruff said, "I was made president of theChurch of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. This is the highestoffice ever conferred upon any man in the flesh" (M. Cowley,Wilford Woodruff, p. 564).
4. The Lord said that the keys would go [17] from JosephSmith to the Church (D.&C. 90:3-4).
5. Brigham Young said that when the Prophet passes away,the Quorum of Twelve is to take over. "This is true," he said,"so help me, God" (D.H.C., vol. 7, p. 233).
6. All patriarchs were to be ordained by the Twelve (D.&C.107:39; J. Taylor, Times and Seasons, vol. 6, pp. 920-922).There was never any man who ever stood between Joseph Smith andthe Twelve (Times & Seasons, vol. 5, pp. 683-684).
7. The First Presidency and the Twelve hold the priesthoodtogether (D.&C. 112:30-32).
8. The Lord gave "a law" to the Church to receive, not theteachings of any other man except the one anointed to receiverevelations.
9. And so that we would not be deceived, the one appointedwill "come in at the gate" (D.&C. 43:27). This was given to thepeople as a standard by which to determine whether they shouldfollow the prophet or secretly obey a secret fundamentalistleader.
10. No person is to be ordained to any office without thevote of the Church (D.&C. 20:55).
11. The keys of the kingdom are given unto the twelveapostles (D.&C 27:13).
12. The fundamentalists should not be seeking to find faultwith the Lord's anointed because:
a. "Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed" (D.&C. 121:6).
b. "The accuser of the brethren will be cast down" (Rev.12:10).
c. We have been told to "Do my prophets no harm" (I Chron. 16:22; Psa. 105:15).
[18] 13. Joseph Smith said, "If I am taken away, upon you, thetwelve, will rest the responsibility of leading this people, anddo not be bluffed by any man.... You have got all the keys andall the ordinances and you can confer them upon others" (Timesand Seas., vol. 5, pp. 649-651, Sept. 1844).
14. The Twelve hold the keys to open the door by theproclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D.&C. 107:35).
15. Brigham Young said, "The apostleship is the highestauthority that can be imposed upon man upon the earth" (Des.News, vol. 26, p. 18, June 1877).
16. The Lord said, "There is never but one man upon theearth at a time on whom this power and keys of this priesthoodare conferred (D.&C. 132:7).
17. The three presiding high priests are not a secretspecial entity apart from the First Presidency of theChurch--they are the First Presidency (D.&C. 107:22).
18. In light of the above (#17) , the keys of the kingdombelong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood (D.&C.81:12).
K. Is the Kingdom of God Separate From the Church?
1. The keys of the kingdom have been committed to theLord's apostles (D.&C. 27:13).
2. The keys are given to the Church (D. &C. 90:3-4).
3. The President of the Quorum of the Twelve has power tounlock the door of the kingdom....
4. The Twelve hold the key to open up authority of theLord's kingdom upon the earth (D.&C. 112:128, 143).
[19] 5. The keys of the kingdom are given to the apostles andtheir head (Matt. 16:19).
6. The kingdom grows out of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints (Comp. Hist. Ch., vol. 7, pp. 381-382).
7. Brigham Young said that the Church is to produce thegovernment and cause it to grow and spread (J.D., vol. 2, pp.316-317).
8. The Presidency of the Church is to control the affairsof the kingdom of God by teaching and governing it.
9. The Council of Fifty was concerned with specificpolitical matters; for example:
a. They pushed the nomination of Joseph Smith as president of the United States.
b. They launched the Territory of Deseret.
c. They worked to help Utah gain statehood.
10. "The Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority ofmy kingdom upon the four corners of the earth...." (D.&C.124:127-128).
11. Brigham Young said, "The keys of the kingdom willremain with the Church" (J.D. vol. 5, p. 76).
12. The keys of the kingdom will always belong to thePresident of the High Priesthood (D.&C. 81:1-2), which is theFirst Presidency of the Church (D.&C. 107:22).
L. Considerations Regarding Changes in the Temple Garment
1. If the fundamentalists resist change, to be fair andconsistent, should they not insist that we all wear coats ofskins?
[20] 2. The latest changes in the garment cannot be a sign oferror made by an apostate Church, but are indications that theChurch is conforming more closely to the original patterninitiated at the time of Christ. Josephus describes the type ofgarment worn by the Christians of the first century. They weretwo-piece with openings at the top for head and arms. The lowerpiece was worn like the Roman breeches, down to the knees(Josephus, book 3, chap. 7).
3. The style of garment in Joseph Smith's time resembledthe style worn by all people of his day, the only differencebeing the marks in the garment adapted for temple work.
4. The style of garments were changed in Joseph Smith'sday. The temple marks were originally sewn into shirts, but werediscontinued when the vests became less commonplace.
5. The marks are what make the garment significant, not thestyle.
M. Considerations Regarding the Admission of Blacks Into thePriesthood and the Temple
1. The only canonical source hinting at withholding thepriesthood from the blacks (Abraham 1:24, 26-27) does notspecify how long the withholding would last.
2. The scriptures state that the gospel, which includes thepriesthood would be taken to all the world, as one of the signsof the second coming, to every creature (Mark 16:15), to allnations (including black nations; see also Matt. 24:14; 28:19).
a. Philip was commanded to give the gospel (including the priesthood which is an important part of the gospel) to the Ethiopian (Acts 8:3639), in spite of the fact that the Ethiopians could not change the color of their skin (Jer. 13:23).
[21] b. In the last days, in our time, when the Book of Mormon was to come forth (II Nephi 26:14), Nephi said that the blacks would be invited to come to the Lord--none would be denied all would be alike unto the Lord (II Nephi 26:33).
c. Joseph Smith said that every color of man, including the (black) Hottentot, would enter the temple (D.H.C., vol. 4, p. 213).
d. In the time of Joseph Smith, Elijah Abel, a black, was ordained an Elder in 1836 and a Seventy in 1841 (L.D.S. Biog. Ency., vol. 3, p. 577).
e. In a day when Judah would be a terror unto Egypt (Isa. 19: 17), the (black) Egyptians would "swear" to the Lord. There would be an "altar" in their midst. They would "vow a vow" (Isa. 19:19-21). Zebedee Coltrin, a fellow Seventy, tells of Elijah Abel receiving temple ordinances.
N. Is the 1886 Revelation Proof that the Church Was SlippingInto a State of Apostasy?
1. The fundamentalists allude to the meeting and therevelation for these reasons:
a. The revelation indicates that the Lord will not revoke an everlasting covenant. The Lord has often discontinued the practice of an (eternal) principle without revoking that principle itself. So the question of whether or not the revelation is true or false, is immaterial.
b. The meeting is necessary to the fundamentalists in order that the keys that could be held only by one at a time (D.&C. 132:7) could be given to other men. This is a contradiction. For if John Taylor, whom the fundamentalists re-[22]spect, had them before he gave them to other men, he lost the keys at that time. If he didn't pass those keys on, there is a break in the line of authority. The fact is that John Taylor continued to act in the authority of those keys which he was supposed to have given to another man.
2. There are other serious problems with the possibility ofa September 1886 meeting:
a. The 1886 meeting was not recorded in John Taylor'sdiary.
b. The meeting was not recorded in George Q. Cannon's diary--he was ill at the time.
c. The distance to the meeting was too far for Woolley to
travel.
d. The meeting was recorded 42 years later. Yet the Lord has told us to....
(Our copy of Richardson's paper ends at this point and we havebeen unable to locate a copy of the final page*)
[i] TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Response to Allen Richardson Paper)
The Modern Mormon Dilemma. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1An Answer to "The Fundamentalist Dilemma"
"Follow The Living Prophet" Issue . . . . . . 2
The Journal of Discourses . . . . . . . . . . 7
Priesthood Actions Not Always Public . . . . 12
Work Of The Priesthood . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The 1890 Manifesto . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Jesus Was Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Plural Marriage And The Book of Mormon. . . 27
Certain Revelations Buried . . . . . . . . . 40
Morality Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Does God Revoke Laws? . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Law Of The Land Hobbyhorse . . . . . . . . 48
Plural Marriage Repulsive? . . . . . . . . 59
Lamanite Wives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Plural Marriage A Correct Principle. . . . . 63
The Manifesto Again . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
New And Everlasting Covenant. . . . . . . . 68
Work For the Dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Can The Saints Be Led Astray? . . . . . . . 72
A Prayer Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
A People Chosen Out Of L.D.S . . . . . . . . 80
Church And Priesthood Organizations . . . . .83
Keys Taken From The Church . . . . . . . . . 94
Office Higher Than Church President . . . . 97
Church Does Not Lead The Priesthood . . . . 112
Jumping To Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .113
Priesthood Garment . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
Priesthood And The Blacks . . . . . . . . . 119
The 1886 Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
[1] The MODERN MORMON DILEMMA An Answer To The "FUNDAMENTALIST DILEMMA"
Allen Richardson's allegations pertinent to "fundamentalistdoctrine," as he puts it, are based on the Church of JesusChrist of Latterday Saints' definition of "canon." The ancientCatholic Church went the same route. Because the Lord in theDoctrine and Covenants gives the members the right to chooseobedience or rebellion against the word of God, they feel thatit becomes a sort of divine license to reject the revelations ofheaven. Scenario #1: God speaks, the concept is agreeable, thepeople vote to accept, it becomes binding. Scenario #2: Godspeaks, the idea is repugnant to members of the Church, theyvote against it with uplifted hands, and the action is bindingupon God as though the people, not God, make the rules by whichthey are to receive salvation. Scenario #3: God speaks, thereceiver carries it to the General Authorities, but they refuseto vote the issue and it is never taken to the people foracceptance; therefore, it is as though God never uttered therevelation. Again, the people are not responsible for livingwhat God revealed, so God is forced by their decision to acceptthem into his presence anyway. This type of reasoning is called"Jesuit."
One must keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church is theashes of the true Church established by Christ. As thepriesthood was left behind by the "Holy Universal Church," orthe Catholic Church, there arose a sect calling themselves the"Jesuits," or "Followers of Christ." It was their function toexplain away [2] and ameliorate all the digressions andcontradictions foisted upon the people by the changing doctrinessuited to appease the world and the long-time enemies of theChurch at the time of Constantine, rather than maintain,inviolate, the precious word of God. These official explanationsdeveloped by the Jesuit sect eventually became what was calledthe "canon" of the "Holy Mother Church." This was what was to be
accepted by the people without question, under pain and penalty.At first, non-acceptance of the canon was punishable by themortally-feared terror word, "Excommunication," the thought ofwhich stirred feelings of eternal fire and licking flames oftorment in the minds of the less educated and superstitiousamong the lower class. But as the Church gained power with theRomans, their canon was then enforceable through sword, dungeon,torture and death. The very word "canon" was born out of theseless-than puritan beginnings and has never once been used in anyrevelation imparted by God to man on the earth. Yet, many menhave picked it up like a dropped gauntlet, and, holding it highaloft, run the ancient road to Rome.
"Follow The Living Prophet" Issue
In old Rome, the Jesuits concocted the concept that thePope could do no wrong, because he was better than Peter. Theway this is explained is that the very worst sin is to deny theChrist. Since Peter denied Christ three times and yet was stillaccepted of Christ, the Pope, who has never denied Christ, maydo all manner of sin short of denying Christ and still beacceptable. Thus, he is "infallible" in the delivering of theword of God to the masses.
Today, we are not even given that explanation of why thePresident of the L.D.S. Church is infallible. For if we cannever be led astray by the President, then what use do we haveof the Holy Ghost? We could comfortably set aside the Spirit,not worrying about anything more than doing what the "livingprophet" says to do. Following the living prophet is a set canonin the L.D.S. Church today. As it is presented, there is no needfor controversy or argument or conflicting thinking or prayer.
[3] The Richardson paper points to Sidney Rigdon, William Lawand Lyman Wight as leaders who "led followers into error." Weask, were these not also General Authorities of the Church? Whydo we have "follow the leader" signs posted all over the Churchtoday? When was the last time a General Authority of the L.D.S.Church fell away or was caught in an act worthy ofexcommunication or censure? Is it that not only the President isinfallible nowadays, but the entire General Board as well? DoesRichardson consider Joseph Smith the only one foolish enough tohumbly reveal his human fallibility in the Doctrine andCovenants, in that he, according to the Lord, could fall? Butwhere do we have on record in modern times that a President ofthe Church has been told by the Lord to "beware lest he fall andonly have power to appoint another in his stead"?
The only thing we have that the Lord has said to anyPresident of the Church in modern times, according toRichardson, is a personal view of the resurrection giver toJoseph F. Smith, and the Addendum #2, which concerns the BlackManifesto, the latter by the President's own words being coaxedfrom the Lord (if it was from the Lord at all) by "pleading longand earnestly... supplicating the Lord." This was found in apress release on June 9, 1978. But nowhere have we seen thesupposed revelation reversing in the Church some 6,000 years of
doctrine on the subject. So what the Lord has said, theAuthorities have either coaxed him to retract or have ignoredaltogether. More or this subject later.
Joseph had the same hapless experience of pleading with theLord long and hard over the 116-page manuscript given to MartinHarris after the Lord had already made his will clearly known.Now we are being taught that the whole General Board can do nowrong, and all we have to do is to pin ourselves to theircoattails. We are also being taught that we can toss thescriptures away whenever it comes to a conflict between thePresident and the word of the Lord in the revelations of God toformer prophets on any doctrine. We have been taught that God is[4] now a changing God and that his doctrines also change. Thisseems more of a coverup to fit the vacillations of men, ratherthan the word of God on the subject.
Richardson's paper alleges that the fundamentalists allfollow their leaders blindly. We wonder if he comes to thatconclusion because he knows all fundamentalists personally orbecause he is assuming that the same Church imperative to"follow the living prophet" (blindly) applies amongfundamentalists. Life among fundamentalists would clearly tellhim otherwise!
The Richardson paper also says that the fundamentalistsfollow some leaders blindly, while other leaders are questioned.He says this is neither fair nor consistent. He quotes BrighamYoung's statement that we should not follow him or any otherleader blindly, and accuses fundamentalists of doing this. Hethen says we should get a personal witness of the truth, asPresident Young counselled. Which is it to be? Are we to followthe living prophet, or get a witness for ourselves as to wheretruth, all truth, is being disseminated? Are we being told it isa foregone conclusion that the only one to follow is thePresident of the Church in all things, because others havealready gotten our answer for us through their fasts andprayers?
We have on record a General Authority for the L.D.S. Church(S. Dilworth Young) giving the advice to a 10-Stake Fireside atBrigham Young University in 1972, "...When the Prophet speaks,the thinking has been done." Or, consider this wonderfulstatement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie at the Religious Educators'Symposium at B.Y.U., August 1978: "Forget everything that I havesaid, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q.Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary tothe present revelation." Forget what they said; forget thecontradiction. When will the present leader's revelations bereversed later on? Do we have a capricious God? Richardsoncounsels us to "follow the living prophet" blindly and thenaccuses us of following our leaders blindly. And he speaks [5]of consistency?
The Richardson paper states on page 2, that the Church is ademocracy, not a dictatorship. Strange that we are told the samething about the nation, but the difference is that not once have
we had our citizenship called into question for voting againstthe President of the Union, which is not quite the way it is inthe Church. As a matter of fact, Bishop Heber Bennion,brother-in-law to President Heber J. Grant, said:
"I do not think it such a serious thing to differ in opinion with the authorities. Everything in this church is supposed to be done by common consent, by vote and voice of the people. If we have no right to differ, why vote at all? The right to vote carries the right to differ, or it is a fake and a fraud. I never lost by differing with authority" (In a communication to Pres. Heber. J. Grant, July 9, 1929).
Our understanding of the matter is that God givescommandments and men are free to choose to do as they pleaseabout it.
We have also heard members in high positions in the Churchstate that the Lord would justify members following theirleaders' counsel, or the President's counsel, even if it werewrong. This idea has also become quite common. But Brigham Younggave the more sensible counsel:
"If a Bishop or any other officer of this church shall counsel the people to violate any of the law of God... I will justify them, and the Lord will justify them in refusing to obey that counsel" (Journ. of Disc, vol. 12, p. 164).
Or how about the statement of George Q. Cannon to the BritishSaints:
"Do not, brethren, put your trust in a man, though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will [6] fail you at some time or place" (Mill, Star, 53, pp. 673-674).
Or how about:
"If you are cheated out of your crown at last, who has cheated you? ...Salvation is an individual operation. I am the only person who can possibly save myself... There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instructions and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. `I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own,' they say, `to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you Brother Joseph, or you, Brother Brigham, upon you, Brother Heber, or upon you) Brother James. I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently, I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore, you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation.'
... Now those men or those women who know no more about the power of God and the influences of the Holy Spirit than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the Celestial Glory to be crowned as they anticipate; they never will be capable of becoming Gods... They never can become Gods nor be crowned rulers with glory, immortality and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go [7] forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course" (B. Young, J.D., vol. 1, p. 312).
Does this sound of truth? How does it stand up tomodern-day "canon" such as "Follow the living prophet," or "Whenthe Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." It soundsrather pale when compared side by side. Brother Brigham said:
"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the Spirit yourselves. That is your priviledge" (Ibid., vol. 4, p. 368).
The Journal of Discourses
We might insert here that we often quote from the Journalof Discourses, as do the L.D.S. Church scholars, B.Y.U.researchers, and even General Authorities in their writings.Some of them disparage the Journal because of several teachingsof our early leaders, which teachings are now out of harmonywith current Church policy. However, who is out of harmony withthe word of God? Leaders today do not want the members readingthe Journal because it tends to confirm in vivid detail why Godwants his people to live all of the laws, notwithstanding thelaws of man. One or the other, then, has to be out of harmonywith God.
The Lord said in effect, "When I return, will I findfaith?" That is a good question based upon how well the Mormonpeople have upheld the instructions which the Lord of thevineyard left to be obeyed regarding the upbuilding of hisKingdom while in his absence. If modern Mormonism is out ofharmony with the Journal of Discourses then we'd better look towho really has made the changes. The Journal is comprised oftalks and counsel of the early prophets as they received theword of the Lord according to his dictates and in conjunctionwith the in-[8]structions and teachings through the ProphetJoseph Smith, Jr. We have frequently found quotes from thewritten sermons of the General Authorities today taken from theJournal of Discourses. Yet many of those same leaders discouragethe people from reading them. Why? Are they afraid of whatpeople will find? Will the Saints get their eyes opened andrealize, possibly, that all is indeed not well in Zion? Or willthe words of the early brethren sound of more truth than we have
today and perhaps cause the people to hunger after more than theskimpy food they receive in the wards and stakes today?
This from Brigham Young: "The Journal of Discourses is avehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people,.but especially to the Saints" (J.D., Pref. vol. 11).
From George Q. Cannon: "The Journal of Discoursesdeservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, andevery right-minded Saint will certainly welcome with joy everynumber as it comes forth from the press as an additionalreflector of `the light that shines from Zion's hill'" (J.D.,Pref. vol 8).
From Joseph F. Smith: "We regret that the circulation ofthe Journal of Discourses is so limited. Its importance wouldwarrant a thousandfold greater extension of this work. Weanticipate a time, not distant in the future when a copy of thepresent volume will be more precious than gold. It is even nowalmost impossible to obtain a complete series" (J.D. Pref. vol.18).
Elder John A. Widtsoe used the Journal exclusively assource material for his book, Discourses of Brigham Young. Inhis Preface, Dr. Widtsoe said, "The consistency of the viewspresented, from the first to the last discourse, would beastounding, were it not for the fact that he clung constantlyfor interpretation to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as he had beentaught it by the Prophet Joseph Smith."
One final statement by George Q. Cannon from [9] hisPreface to volume 9: "All men can be profited by perusing itspages and pondering over the words of truth and salvation asthey flow in beautiful simplicity and power from the mouths ofthe Living Oracles."
Interesting to note: That which the early leaders stronglyencouraged us to read, our present leaders discourage us fromreading.
If so much that God gave in the beginning of thedispensation is being changed, such as temple ordinances andgarments, priesthood to the seed of Cain, consecration, pluralmarriage, removal of seventies and the Church Patriarch, deaconsadministering the sacrament, missionaries without purse andscrip, coddling homosexuals, etc., issues upon which the Lordhas clearly spoken, in what are we to believe with any degree ofconfidence? Where is the word of the Lord in these digressions?How does Richardson justify his position with no more foundationthan to follow the arm of flesh? This is no more tenable todaythan it was in Joseph's day, who chastised the people, as didBrigham Young, for depending upon him.
We are more than willing to give these changes a justhearing and prayerful consideration, if any evidence of the wordof the Lord can be produced. We are more than discomfitted bythis tendency to literally label our founding leaders as false
prophets who taught false doctrines.
There must be more than this old blind called "follow theleader." God gave us the scriptures and his eternal laws for apurpose, and a major portion of that purpose was that his peoplemay not be deceived. God gave us the meat of the gospel andRichardson and others want to skin it and boil it down to boneand expect us to chew on it after our teeth have been removed.Fundamentalists aren't going to swallow it, and neither are thetrue prophets of God, past or present.
When was the last time we heard, "Get the [10] Spirit ofGod and keep it"? This has very nearly been replaced by, "Followthe Man." Men are flesh, Brother Richardson. So who is followingwhom blindly?
Let us take notice of the following excerpt from theMillennial Star, vol. 14, pp. 594-596:
Never Follow Anyone Blindly
"Willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the priesthood, is indispensible to salvation; (but) none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. ...Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents they should do it without asking any questions.
"When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands.
"We would ask for what is the Priesthood given unto men? It is that they may have a right to administer the law of God. Have they then a right to make [11] void that law? Verily, No. ...None can revoke the decree but him by whom it was given; neither can the laws of God be trampled upon with impunity, or revoked by a lesser power than that by which they were framed ....
"If a man could have as much authority as the Almighty, it would not authorize him to do wrong, nor counsel another to do wrong; and the man that will administer with partiality, for the sake of screening iniquity, will find his
stewardship will be taken from him.
"Some have supposed that the more authority men have in the Kingdom of God, the greater is their liberty to disregard his laws, and that their greatness consists in their almost unlimited privileges, which leave them without restrictions; but this is a mistaken idea."
How is it that these previous leaders and prophets were tobe followed in their day, but now the living leaders andprophets today give opposing information, and they are to beobeyed? Are we to hold our breath because whatever current"living prophets" say is momentary and we'd better have our bagspacked and be ready to move as soon as the new ones take office?Is this a double standard? Have all the living leaders of theChurch followed their "living prophet"? Had they done so, therewould be no changes in the fundamental qualifications, laws andordinances required for exaltation. Modern leaders urge us tofollow them in deference to those they, themselves, did notfollow. When the leaders of today are gone, it becomes a newballgame and we are subject to the modern exigencies anddictates of the day.
So if they didn't follow their leaders and teach what theytaught, why should we follow them unless they are in line withall the laws which God has commanded us to obey? We repeat,today's definition of "follow the living prophet" is 100%enmeshed with the dogma of "put your [12] trust in the arm offlesh." We are weary of this cliche which stifles thought andentrenches the minds of Church members in an emotional diversionwhich is a stumbling block to seeking the Holy Spirit. (D&C1:19; 2 Ne. 4:34; Jer. 17:5.)
Concerning Richardson's comments on page 2, item 3,President Joseph Smith, Jr., did preside (over the Church) bythe voice of the people, but he also said he held keysindependent of their vote. That means independent of theirvoice, choice, vote, election or protest. The vote of the Churchis the exercising of free agency, a choice not encouraged in themodern interpretation of "follow the living prophet."
Priesthood Actions Not Always Made Public
The Richardson paper says that no one may be secretlyordained or authorized to any calling in the Church. This is notan informed position to take. Joseph certainly called men tolive the law of celestial plural marriage without general Churchknowledge many years before the principle was made public in1852. As to ordinations kept secret Joseph F. Smith was a casein point, contrary to Richardson's premise. In the Life ofJoseph F. Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 225: "He wasordained an apostle and counselor to President BrighamYoung--the ordination kept secret." Page 227 gives the accountof that secret ordination, and it was kept secret for 14 months.The same instance is true of George A. Smith. Interesting, too,that Joseph F. Smith was an apostle for 20 years before he was amember of the Quorum of Twelve. The Church, Brother Richardson,
cannot bind the priesthood, and the priesthood is neverinstructed from below.
Another exercise in thought: To what Council was it that 7men, named in the 5th chapter of the Teachings of the ProphetJoseph Smith, were called and received the highest order ofblessings, endowments and ordinations? Can that be correlated toany Church organization? How does Judge James Adams fit intothat Quorum? Who were the 18 men named in William Clayton'sJournal, page 203, who were members of a Council at that time?These cannot be inserted into the [13] Quorum of Twelve either.We doubt most Saints have ever heard some of their names before.And what about Brigham Young's speech at the guardian quest ofSidney Rigdon, when President Young said he didn't care if theyvoted Ann Lee as President of the Church, because he knew wherethe keys of priesthood were? Right after he spoke, Heber C.Kimball arose and said:
"Elder Rigdon, after he came from Pittsburg, never attended Council, only when he could not avoid it. He has no authority, only what he receives from the Church. ... Brother Phelps was the means of bringing him in, but he has not got the same authority as others: There are more than thirty men who have got higher authority than he has. Brother Hyrum plead to have Elder Rigdon restored...Brother Joseph would not receive him again but shook him off. The Church voted to try him again and it was the Church that received him and not Brother Joseph" (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp. 663-664).
Nothing secret in the Church? Again, who were the 7 mennamed to a Council? Who were the 18 men of the Council robed intemple clothes of the priesthood out on the open bluffs? Whowere the "more than 30 men who held higher authority" than theFirst Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church? God doesnot change, though some would like to think so. Changes in theChurch are now so far advanced, so far down the road, that thedistance covered obscures the view of modern Church members sothat they can no longer recognize from whence they came (thosewho "know not Joseph"). Some among us appear to think that theynow know better than Joseph, that they must correct Joseph Smithand Brigham Young and others, having more knowledge andexperience than the prophet holding the keys of thisdispensation. They seem to think they are more advanced than heof whom God said:
"But this generation shall have my word through you" (D.&C. 5:10); "And I have [14] sent forth the fullness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph...." (D&C 35:17); and, "Wherefore meaning the Church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me. For his words ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (D&C 21:4-5); also, "Verily, the keys of the Kingdom shall never be taken from him till I come" (D&C 112: 15); and, "Let no one therefore set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him...." (D&C
132:60).
This says to us that we had better be very careful how weplace ourselves in relation to Joseph Smith. We notice that norevelation from God provides equal rebuttal time to any ChurchPresidents.
Work Of The Priesthood
The program for the work of the priesthood, aside fromorganizing and establishing the Church as one part of the Houseof God, was prophesied a long time ago. We read in Revelation12:1-4: (See especially Insp. Ver., v. 7.)
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where [15] she hath a place prepared of God...."
The Kingdom of God was "born" in the spring of 1844,established by Joseph, a separate entity from the Church whichwas established in the year 1830. The fulness of priesthood cameout of the Church when the latter started to reject the lawswhich God had given. This was necessary so that all the lawswould remain on the earth, since the Church became unwilling tocontain and defend them. Provision was made in the foreknowledgeof God to see that they were protected.
The above-cited reference in Revelation has been a mysteryto a great many of the Christian world. What is this womancrowned in glory? What is the child to which she gave birth?Most all accept the dragon to be Satan. But George Teasdale ofthe First Presidency of the Church sheds some light on thematter:
"In this symbolical representation, the woman stands for the true and apostolic Church of God, while the anti-Christian power appears in the form of a great red dragon. It will be observed that the woman herself, or the Church, is not that against which the dragon is specially disposed to exert his power of destruction: but the chief object of his animosity is the man child which should be born" (Mill. Star, vol. 50, pp. 232-235).
President Teasdale continues to make it very clear that theChurch, being the woman, was not of major interest to Satan. It
was that child which was to come out of the mother Church, bornof tribulation, which was the Kingdom -- or the principal objectof hate which Satan wished to destroy. Teasdale points out thatthe main work of the enemies of God is to destroy the power ofthe priesthood, which is the ruling power of God on the earth.
Does this mean that the priesthood was born out of theChurch? No, the priesthood came [16] first to the ProphetJoseph, by which authority he was empowered to form the trueChurch of God. So the mother Church was not the Creator of thepriesthood, but rather the recipient of that authority, withoutwhich she cannot function. Although not all fundamentalistsbelieve the Church has any priesthood left in her, it is a factthat there will always be some. But the Kingdom and the fulnessof the gospel were brought out of the Church, away from her,just as the Lord said he would accomplish in the Book ofRevelation and in the Book of Mormon, in III Nephi 16:10-12,because of the many secret abominations found in the Church andbecause of the unwillingness of the Saints to keep inviolate allthe laws of God necessary for this dispensation to wind up thescene and call forth the Messiah from the heavens.
So if the Lord is working in darkness at all, it is onlythe darkness of the closed eyes of those who do not want all ofthe restored gospel. Joseph restored all necessary ordinancesfor the salvation of men on the earth. He sealed them, final andcomplete, with his martyr's blood on the floor of Carthage jail.He was the restorer. All who have stood in his stead since thenare not restorers, they are guardians. The guardian's job is tomake sure that the Holy Thing is not tampered with, that it isnot changed, altered or adulterated. He is to see that there isno change of ordinance, for Joseph said that if there is achange of ordinance, there is change in priesthood. And we'dbetter believe it. Joseph is the "living prophet" to follow. Ifwe don't know what the Lord restored through the Prophet Joseph,then how can we suppose modern Church Presidents are guardingit?
In whose darkness is the Lord working, according toRichardson and others, if he chooses to gather the few out ofhis Church who will do his work and who function within hispriesthood? The gospel God restored in its fulness yet abounds.The severest and most costly prosecutions, as Lorenzo Snowstated, have never extracted from heaven a reversal of God'slaws. Men and women [17] were expected to suffer the slings andarrows, clinging to the arm of heaven for their support, ratherthan to cave in to pressures from both within and without. Saidthe Prophet Joseph:
"The law of heaven is presented to man, and as such guarantees to all who obey it, a reward far beyond any earthly consideration; though it does not promise that the believer in every age should be exempt from the afflictions and troubles arising from different sources in consequence of the acts of wicked men on the earth...then certainly, if the law of man is binding upon man when acknowledged, how much more must the law of heaven be. And as much as the law
of heaven is more perfect than the law of man, so much greater must be the reward if obeyed. The law of man promises safety in the temporal life; but the law of God promises that life which is eternal, even an inheritance at God's own right hand, secure from all the powers of the wicked one" (T.P.J.S., p. 50).
If we consider the words of the Prophet to be of worth,would we expect less of the Saints in the latter days than ofthose in former ages, put to similar tests? President Woodruff,in his 1890 epistle to Washington, states that the Saints hadgiven up that which they considered all their lives to benecessary to their salvation and exaltation, in order to be onewith their neighbors. What consolation! --to toss aside theirexaltation on the right hand of God for the unspeakableprivilege of having the population of the United Statessatisfied that the Mormons had been put in their place, evengaining admittance as a state into a government alreadyearmarked by the Almighty for destruction! Certainly thefundamentalists should jump in line with the rest of the Churchmembers for such a prize as Richardson and others recommend tous.
According to that line of reasoning, Jesus [18] had noright to act against the mainstream of the established church inhis day, let alone John the Baptist also having done so. Who,out of Jewry, authorized them to do anything? The man theMormons revere for signing the 1890 Manifesto for reasons theChurch chooses to interpret as a reversal of the law of God,said in referring to the principle of celestial plural marriage:
"And God our Heavenly Father, knowing that this was the only law ordained by the Gods of eternity that would exalt mortal beings to kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers and dominions, and heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ to a fullness of celestial glory, I say the God of Israel, knowing these things, commanded Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and the Latter-day Saints, to obey this law, "or you shall be damned," saith the Lord. Now after having obeyed the law for many years ... It places us precisely in the same position that it did the Hebrews in the fiery furnace, and Daniel in the den of lions" (Mill. Star, vol. 41, p. 241).
Frankly, we would rather cast our lot, hope and reward withthe three Hebrew children, Daniel and a host of other Saints whowere bludgeoned by the "law of man" in preference to the exaltedlaws of God, rather than with the gentiles of this world or themilk and water Mormons who are unable to recognize thedifference between a required law of God and a work that is buttemporary in nature. (See Acts 5:29)
Richardson's reference to working in darkness no doubtrefers also to the 1886 revelation given to John Taylor onSeptember 27th that year. Men were subsequently set apart toperpetuate the principle of plural marriage. Where did the Lorddo anything behind the President's back? John Taylor saw the
light of day; he saw reality! As the Prophet of God, he hadevery right to step forward at the Lord's direction to keep alaw alive, assisted by his faithful First Coun-[19]selor, GeorgeQ. Cannon, when the rest of the Church had already made theirnon-compliance obvious, not to mention the constant badgering byway of complaint made to President Taylor in letter andconversation from "Saints" whose knees smote together in fear oflosing their property, etc. The Lord promises to fight ourbattles if we keep his laws, but where we refuse we are on ourown (D&C 82:4, 10).
The issue here is not really about plural marriage anyway,is it? It is about keys, the sealing keys of the everlastingpriesthood, given to man on the earth. The question we all faceis what men or man? Plural marriage, temple marriage, or anymarriage is only good in eternity if the authority is there fromGod at the performance of an ordinance. Who has it, where is it,and who will find it, are the questions and the KEY to eternallife. And some have thought it is easy!--merely look to whoeverhappens to be the current President of the Church and playfollow the leader. But Joseph Smith said:
" ... and it is necessary to know who holds the keys of power, and who does not, or we may be likely to be deceived (T.P.J.S., p. 336).
Now if it were as simple as the Richardson paper implies,isn't this a rather useless statement? Who could be deceivedabout who holds the keys of authority as long as we arecognizant of who the current Church President is? Is this theidea? Even when one has the right man in sight, there is aterrible responsibility upon us which negates the "follow theliving prophet" routine we discussed earlier. If there was everanyone the people might get away with following withoutreservation or using God-given agency, it should have beenJoseph the restorer. But even he rebuked the people fordepending too much upon him, as we stated.
"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet that the people [20] should each stand for himself and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption in the Jewish Church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds...." (Ibid., p. 238).
On to the next issue. By the way, Richardson's page 3, item4, overwhelms us. We wonder how he reconciles God's commands toAdam and Eve in the Garden with this wonderful reasoning here.It would seem to make God "wrong, confusing and unfair." Some ofus do tend to drive stakes for God and his acts.
The Richardson paper says on page 3 that thefundamentalists "pick and choose" what they prefer to hear fromthe early leaders. We have seen and heard examples of the pot
calling the kettle black before, but the picking and choosing(and deleting) of Joseph Smith's teachings belong to today'ssmorgaasbord Mormons, certainly not the fundamentalists whobelieve all the gospel. The list of quotations from the earlybrethren, pages 45, seems to be out of context and serves moreto embarrass those brethren than to support Richardson's point.Has it become such that he is now into debunking Joseph Smith aswell as Brigham Young? When one stands on a tree limb and beginshacking away at the roots of the tree, only time will tell thefall.
The paper's Section D, "Considerations RegardingInspiration and Revelation," #3, indicates less than strength ofevidence to support the premise or accusation. The statementindicates that any revelation a fundamentalist receives would befrom a dark source, referring to families jumping out ofwindows, murders in "rival cults," etc. (It is, by the way, justas ridiculous to say that the Mormons and the Episcopalians are"rival cults" because a man of Mormon background set upon a manof Episcopalian background, as it is to say that fundamentalistsare [21] all wild-eyed "rival cults." The idea belongs with theexcitement-seeking news media, not with a writer who purports tobe informed.) This writer recalls that when he was on hismission for the L.D.S. Church in England, many doors closedimmediately following the words, "Go home and save your ownpeople. At least the British don't shoot their President in thehead." According to Richardson's reasoning, he and the rest ofus are responsible for the shooting of President John F.Kennedy--lumping us all together.
So if the fundamentalists are entitled to nothing but darkrevelations because they are fundamentalists and thereforesuspect, were Joseph Smith's revelations also from swamp angels?He was the most outstanding fundamentalist of this dispensation.Abraham, Isaac, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, etc., were ofsome renown, too, in their day. Is there something wrong withGod's program after all, that his prophets were fundamentalists?
Certainly there is deception. The adversary is a masterdeceiver. But whenever Israel gave up any of the commandments ofGod, it always created a void that Satan would fill withdeception. What is worse, the Lord tells us that he will permitthe adversary to deceive those who have not the love of thetruth, that he "will send them strong delusions" (II Thess.2:11).
We find that every time we meet someone who can't tell thedifference between the Spirit of God and the janglings of theadversary, they ask the same old question, "How do you know yourrevelations or inspirations are from the right source?" If youdon't know how to tell the difference by now, BrotherRichardson, then you'd better study the writings of the Propheta little more and get some of your own experience with theAlmighty. If Lucifer can imitate the Lord's revelationsperfectly in all things, then there is no hope for you or us.And how would offering your hand have anything to do withdetecting an evil spirit in a dream?
We appreciate #5 in Section D. This should [22] carry fargreater concern for Church members than it does for manyfundamentalists as to application and implication. The Churchhas dismissed several of the ordinances restored by the ProphetJoseph. One would think the Mormons would be searching mightilyto find the fulness of the gospel and the connected authority.
Richardson's #6 in Section D lacks good reasoning. If thereare still millions of Latter-day Saints "who have been open tothe promptings and dictates of the Spirit" and have receivedwitness that the Church is the Lord's Church, then we rejoicewith them. For there is no other conclusion they could come to.We certainly accept the fact that the Church is the Lord's. Theprodigal son's father acknowledged his boy as his own after all.But the Church, as the boy, must be set in order, which is thework of God and his "chosen one," not the work offundamentalists (see D.&C. 85:7). The work of thefundamentalists, which has been authorized by priesthood fromJohn Taylor's day, is to stand in the breach and to, act as abastion against the encroachments of "civilization" urged uponthe Church in its various hues and forms. Each time a compromiseis made to appease the members and the world, and a law orordinance is tossed out the collective window of the Church byupraised hand to the vote, some will be standing there to catchit and carry it somewhere safe, to nurse it along until Christcomes. Thus the fulness of the Lord's restored gospel remains.
There is so much now that has been thrown out the Churchwindow, that we sadly look forward to a nearly empty house soon.The load they keep shifting off their back gets heavier andheavier for us to bear. We don't mind the weight, but thefinger-pointing, ridicule and derision cast at us from the ivorytower up on North Main gets rather old after awhile. If millionsof members is all that keeps your faith inviolate, because ofsafety in numbers, then shouldn't we all be Catholics? Theysurely outnumber the Mormons. But don't try explaining thattheory to the three Hebrew children. They didn't understand itthen and they won't go for it now.
[23]The 1890 Manifesto
Now let's take page 7, Section E. We are back to "canon"again. Richardson claims that "utterances" from the earlyleaders (Brigham young) were "few" and "non-canonical." Few andnon-canonical can hardly be applied to Joseph Smith, BrighamYoung, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff's, etc., views and actionsrespecting plural marriage. Thirty-two times (32) the revelationknown as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants uses the word"law." Four times in different ways, the Lord states:
"...for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same" (v. 3). "...and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord. I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my holy priesthood as was ordained by me
and my Father before the world was" (vs. 27-28).
Now, what was this law referred to by the Lord? Was ittithing? Was it the word of wisdom? Maybe it was baptism? Thankheaven the Lord was kind enough to define it beyond any doubt.He saith:
"... he that receiveth a fullness thereof must and shall abide the law or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God" (v. 6).
And what was that law? Read verse 34:
"God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law ...."
Perhaps Brother Richardson considers the revelations of God tobe non-canonical as well.
The 1890 Manifesto was canonized by the Church body. Butthe Prophet Joseph Smith stated:
"If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by [24] commandment, or, thus saith the Lord, we do not consider it binding...." (T.P.J.S., p. 136).
The wording of the Woodruff Manifesto was:
"...my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."
Isn't "advice" a suggestion? Are there any names mentionedin the Manifesto? Do we find a commandment or a "thus saith theLord" there, anywhere? Was Wilford Woodruff directing his wordsto those who had discernment and ears to hear? Woodruff'scounselors didn't even sign the document, thus making it invalidas an "Official" Church Presidency action. The Manifesto fitsright into the category to which the Prophet was referring. Bydefinition, the Prophet Joseph says the form of the Manifestoisn't binding, except to the U.S. Government and disgruntledMormons. Section 132 states that Abraham lived this law bycommand, the same law we are also commanded to obey in thisdispensation or we shall be damned. Who is more important for usto obey, Uncle Sam or the God of Heaven?
"Be diligent in keeping my commandments, lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you and your enemies triumph over you...." (D&C 136:42)
As we read Church history and contemplate the strugglebetween the true servants of God and the representatives of thedevil in the U.S. Government over the issue of the "most holyprinciple," who won? In the days of Samuel, the Prophet, whenIsrael demanded a king and the Lord fought to keep them from theevils of a king, who won in that tug-of-war? When Martin Harrisinsisted upon the manuscript translation of a portion of the
gold plates and the Lord said no several times, who prevailed?
It is obvious from the lack-luster perfor-[25]mance of theSaints that the Lord was voted out of his position to fighttheir battles. The remaining 3% struggled to carry the burden ofkeeping the commandments of the Lord alone. The vast majority,approximately 97%, demanded the "king" Manifesto, and they gotit, didn't they, Brother Richardson--and you?
"And the horn made war with the Saints and prevailed" (Dan. 7:21).
The Church has been trying to justify this defeat eversince. The U.S. Government gave up any concern about thoseliving plural marriage a long time ago and left the Churchstanding with egg on its face, as it proclaims how justifiedthey were in doing what they did and tries to convince the restof the world, who really could not care less at this point intime.
Of course President Woodruff signed the Manifesto. Thepeople gave him and the Lord the same alternative Israel gaveSamuel. But who loses? Are the Saints naive enough to think thatmerely because they have found sufficient excuse to hide behind,that the Lord is bound and has to admit them into his presence,even though they have no experience in his law, a law all theservants of God have had to live in order to merit the presenceof Abraham, Isaac and Israel? Safety in numbers? Maybe we shouldbe Buddhists--there are a lot of them.
Are we aware that the 132nd Section was part of the Pearlof Great Price originally? We wonder why it would be of "greatprice" when it is of no consequence today. The revelation oncelestial plural marriage was not given in 1843. It was onlyrecorded then. It was revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1829.Three times an angel with a drawn sword came to him andcommanded him to obey (See J.D., vol. 20, p. 29). If it was thatimportant then, why is it such a "non-essential" now?
One of the non-canonized statements of the early brethrenin reference to plural marriage says:
[26] "The Church of Christ in its fullness never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage, you are bound to have plural marriage, bound to; and it is one of the marks or the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing ordinances" (Teasdale, J.D., vol. 25, p. 21).
Jesus Was Married
According to the non-canonized Apostle, plural marriage isone of the marks of the true Church. Of course, what did GeorgeTeasdale know? He had to go through all that silly persecution.That was all unnecessary, as we have been so much moreenlightened to understand in our day. Jedediah M. Grant wasanother of those non-canonical-type people summarily dismissedby Richardson. Grant quotes Aurelius Celsus, a Gentile
contemporary of Jesus Christ, and says:
"The grand reason why the gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was because he had so many wives: there was Elizabeth and Mary and a host of others that followed him" (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 345-346).
We remember that Jesus said, "Come, follow me." Did theSavior live a law and come to show the way and the law necessaryfor every person to live in order to admit them into hispresence one day? Or did he say, "Climbeth up another way and Iwill justify you in the end. You may receive a few stripes butin the end, saved at last!" No, we don't think those were theLord's words. They were more like what Nephi said, paraphrasingthe adversary in 2 Nephi 28:8.
"...and if it so be that we are guilty God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God."
We have in our possession a copy of a letter from J. RicksSmith written to his uncle, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., askingif Christ married. President Smith made a notation at the bottomof his nephew's letter, saying, "Yes! [27] But do not preach it!The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" How manyother unpreached pearls are there, Brother Richardson? PresidentSmith's signature follows his statement. Now what was thatRichardson was saying about secrecy and that nothing is done ortaught in the Church in the dark? More and more people knowbetter.
If Jesus was a married man, how was he married plurally ormonogamously? What was the custom in his day? What was themarital status of a Rabbi? Or are we all in the dark and Jesuswas a confirmed bachelors signifying that we should follow himand be celebates? "Come, follow me," the Lord said. Maybe theCatholics have a point there?
"And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee ministering unto him" (Matt. 28:55). "And all his acquaintances and the women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things" (Luke 23:49).
Plural Marriage And The Book Of Mormon
The Church loves to quote Jacob 2 in the Book of Mormon tojustify denying a law of God. But what does Jacob 29 which wasaddressed to a wicked people steeped in adultery and whoredoms,have to do with a law and commandment of the last dispensation?Is Richardson trying to say that the Church must not obey thelaw of celestial plural marriage for the same reasons Jacob gaveto the Nephites? Is the Church full of adultery andabominations? Heber C. Kimball said that if the Mormons gave upthe practice of plural marriage, the daughters of the mothers ofIsrael would "walk the streets as harlots" in Salt Lake City.Wilford Woodruff knew what the Church was giving up. He said:
"And God our Heavenly Father, knowing that this was the only law ordained by the Gods of eternity that would exalt immortal beings to kingdoms, thrones... [28] and heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ to a fullness of celestial glory....." (Mill. Star, vol. 41, p. 241)
Is the Book of Mormon canonized? It tells us that theBrother of Jared had "families." This is plural. It says thatJared had a family (See Ether 1:41; 6:20; 7:2; 14:2, Alma10:11). The original edition of the Book of Mormon had thisfootnote:
"m. From this verse it is seen that the Brother of Jared had a plurality of families."
The Prophet Joseph gave this warning:
"...do not betray the revelations of God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come. Yea, in all your kickings and flounderings see to it that you do not this thing, lest innocent blood be found upon your skirts, and you go down to hell" (T.P.J.S., p. 156).
The Prophet also states:
"...the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise, the Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing" (Ibid., p. 169)
On page 181 of Teachings, the Prophet gives us a key:
"Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal is of the Devil."
Now, who can say that plural marriage was not an ordinance?Who would dare say it is not a principle? Is it a celestial law,one that our Father in Heaven lives? Joseph again speaks:
[29] "...any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too" (Ibid., p. 331).
Possibly there are those who prefer a partial salvation.This we would admit. But don't tell us that God is bound by thepresent-day "canon-vote-law of the land/my mother made me do it"attitude of vascillating modern Mormons, merely because theyraised their hands to the "unanimous" (it wasn't) vote. Israelvoted Saul in, in the same manner, and what did it getthem--slavery in Babylon.
"Baptism by water is but half a baptism and is good for nothing without the other half--that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost" (Ibid., p. 314).
It is the same with celestial marriage. Living the full lawis required. Temple marriage is also good for nothing inbecoming a God, unless accompanied by the other half of thecovenant, which is the plurality of the principle in practice,not in esoteric, nebulous theory. The early leaders went togreat lengths and stress to establish the principle and to seeto its perpetuation. Note the following, which should be read inits entirety from the source:
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was some kind of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind ... some Saints have said that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the priesthood for time and eternity, receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful...as he could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false... The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part... but this is only the be-[30]ginning of the law, not the whole of it.
"Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it...
"He (the Prophet) taught it (plural marriage) as he was commanded, to such as were prepared to receive and obey it and they were commanded to enter into it or they were threatened that the keys would be turned against them..... If, then, this principle was of such importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to that law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful. Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do not exist in monogamy... which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions, responsibilities and conditions of increase are greater...But, indeed, the benefits...are immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage covenant.
"...But if he remain faithful with only one wife, observing the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and ful-[31]ler observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot.... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and
practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned; I say I understand it to mean this, and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus Christ that it does mean that.... This law is in force upon the inhabitants of Zion (J.F. Smith, J.D., vol. 20, pp. 28-31).
Faith, which is the theory, is dead without works, which isthe practice. To not fulfill the law is to receive only apartial salvation, whatever the excuse for non-compliance, andno matter whose arm of flesh some are leaning on. Some may hideunder the banner of the Manifesto, but try waving it aloft inthe banquet hall of the Savior, who lived it, as did all theother prophets, saints and servants of God, who suffered toestablish and perpetuate it. Try serving it up to Abraham, Isaacand Jacob and make it palatable for them. See if Moses will buyit, "because it is not convenient for our day." See if those inthe days of Joseph and Brigham, who suffered for it and shedtheir blood on the plains and buried their children there forall the laws of God, will relish such an attitude at the finalday.
Let's stack up the faith of the ancients, who God, himself,honored and revered and blessed with progeny exceeding thecountless concourses of the galaxies. Let's see whose faithcomes closer--the modern Mormons or the lowly fundamentalist whoin his heart knows every breath is sustained by a merciful Godwho has put his hand over the polygamist bent with burdens andconcerns and economic difficulty, and who is anathema to hisneighbors who are embarrassed by the gospel, and who are moreconcerned about how to get a new boat or a third car into theirtwo car garage, than a life sculpted and molded by thewhisperings of the Spirit.
[32] Another aspect to Jacob 2 which must be considered instudying its application, is the fact that this dispensation isunique in that all the laws ever lived are to be restored andcontinued in this day. This is why so many of the foundingprophets said that the principle of plural marriage never wouldbe done away again. Joseph the Prophet said:
"Now the purpose in himself in the winding-up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensation ... Therefore, he set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever...." (T.P.J.S,. p. 168).
Isaiah says, "The earth also is defiled under theinhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws,changed the ordinances, broken the everlasting covenant" (Isa.24:5). The Doctrine and Covenants correlates this by adding:
"...it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fullness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations and keys, and glories should take place, and be revealed from
the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the earth ...." (D&C 128:18).
Joseph the Prophet said:
"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundationof the world, in the priesthood for the salvation of men, arenot to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the sameprinciples ... If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood ofGod, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtainedit, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all[33] the ordinances of the house of the Lordly (T.P.J.S., p.308).
Now, if some people are going to argue with Joseph, it isuseless to discuss the matter. If he was mistaken, then theymust argue with him and with God in the end. But we will notcontend with the Author or the Scribe of our salvation. IfRichardson and others accept Joseph as authoritative in thesematters, then will they not concede that marriage in its pluralform was a function and ordinance of the House of the Lord?Jesus Christ had to comply with all the law. And if he livedthis holy law, it was because he intended to fulfill all thelaw. He intended to live the law the Father lives, to keep thewhole law, too, and more especially where it pertains to man'sexaltation in the Kingdom of God. He was not after the half aloaf that many seem to be satisfied in championing today. He washere for the living of the law of the House of God, for he hadknowledge of the way things are in Heaven, which were to betranscribed in their pattern here on the earth.
One who had a good understanding of this concept was ElderOrson Spencer. In his correspondence with the Reverend WilliamCrowell editor of the "Western Watchman" in St. Louis, andeditor of the "Christian Watchman," Boston, Mass., he wrote thisin his fifteenth letter:
"Here let me say that the family order which God established with Abraham and the Patriarchs, was the order observed among celestial beings in the celestial world. And this family order is not only one at which God sits as the Head, and the first pattern in the series of matrimonial examples; but it is of perpetual duration, both in and beyond this world."
The series of communications was compiled into book form,entitled, Patriarchal Order, or Plurality of Wives, by ElderOrson Spencer. Elder Spencer was the Chancellor of theUniversity of Deseret, Utah Territory, and President [34] of thePrussian Mission of the Church. A brilliant and spirituallyfaithful man, he elaborates:
"When God sets up any portion of his Kingdom upon the earth, it is patterned after his own order in the Heavens. When he gives to men a pattern of family organization on the earth, that pattern will be just like his own original
family organization in the Heavens... And every family which God institutes upon the earth, is fashioned like his own original family in the Heavens."
Elder Spencer continues by elaborating on the ApostlePaul's reference to the "doctrine of devils" in the forbiddingof marriage in our day. He says:
"Progression in knowledge and increase in dominion, power and happiness are inseparably connected with the multiplication of fallen Angels, while he commands the obedient to multiply... thus it appears that God blessed good men by multiplying and increasing them and punishes evil doers, by blotting out their names and cutting off from the earth their posterity ... God always attached an honorable distinction to males and females who engaged in the sacred system of plurality according to the conditions he laid down for them to observe.... Not only was Abraham honorable, virtuous and pure in taking others to himself, but Sarah and Hagar were also honorable, virtuous and pure in consenting to be made the wives of one and the same man.
"How so, say you? Why, because the Almighty distinctly certified and caused the same to be made a matter of record that they and their Lord and husband, Abraham, were honorable in so doing.... What did he say about his family matters? Did he say, Abraham, beware of a carnal mind! Beware of the lust for [35] women! Did he say the first word of the kind? No sir, he said no such thing. Well tell us plainly what did he say ... He virtually said this to Abraham--Abraham, I find no fault with your taking two wives, but on the other hand, I bless you for it, and bless you in doing it, and I bless them in becoming your wives, above all other women upon the earth. I bless you and your wife Sarah with the strength and joy of your youth, you shall have a son, you shall not only have a son, but you shall have even nations of sons and daughters ... and your posterity shall be as the dust of the earth for number and multitude, and as the sands upon the seashore."
So who is it, exactly, who "forbiddeth to marry"? We aretaught that this is a doctrine of devils in the canon of the NewTestament (See I Tim. 4:3). We were taught by the prophets for40 years that the U.S. Government took up the complaint of thedevil against the Saints who were multiplying great patriarchalfamilies. Who is it today who says we must observe the "greatChristian (?) institution of monogamy"? We don't see theGovernment harrassing polygamists. We do not hear ofprosecutions. The only institution we see carrying that torch isthe Mormon Church. Was it not originally the Mormons who werepersecuted to death for the same cause? Just exactly whose partdo they now take? This old song has a familiar tune.
"You will never find a people of God who have the truth persecuting another people. If they were to do so, they would cease to be the people of God. It is the characteristic of the Church of God always that it never
condescends to persecution. It does not fear the announcement of any doctrine or any principle or any form of belief, or any so called revelation. Strong in the knowledge that they have the truth and that God is with them, such a people can af-[36]ford to let false doctrine when it manifests itself have the freedom of action, the right of agency which God has given unto every human being and which every human being has a right to exercise undisturbed by his fellowman so long as he does not interfere with the happiness and the lives and the liberties of his fellowman" (G. Cannon, Des. Eve. News, 11 July 1885).
One last word from Orson Spencer:
"...Christianity must be weighed in the balance, with all her boasted institutions. Her supposed fine jewels, but rather meretricious ornaments, must be taken away. The time is at hand when the attire with which she has played the harlot, by forbidding to marry or limit it where God has not limited it, must be regarded a refuse silver. In the law of marriage, all Christendom has broken the new and everlasting covenant made with Abraham. In the fulfillment of that covenant, God gave Abraham many wives and concubines, and thereby expressed his designs how all the faithful seed of Abraham in all generations and future worlds should fulfill the command of Jehovah to multiply and replenish."
It is conceded that plurality must be practiced in purityand by command of God. It is true that Brigham Young said thatthe principle would damn many more than it would exalt, possiblybecause of impure practices, possibly because of unlawfulconnections without priesthood approbation and the sealing keys,and also just possibly because it will damn those who did notcomply with God's mandate to practice it in these latter days.If there is an outside chance that there was an 1886 meeting,revelation, appointments made and priesthood perpetuation tokeep the law alive, what kind of "dilemma" does that putRichardson and the Church in? Could they be found fightingagainst the work of God and [37] "kicking against the pricks"?
"All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fullness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fullness of that glory if they do not lose the whole" (T.P.J.S., p. 309).
There are no shortcuts, not for you, us or the Church. Theadversary as well as his mortal agents would have us believethat there are shortcuts, but the Lord knows better, for God'splan by which Gods exalt men has been the same, with the samerules in all ages and all worlds before us. Satan tried changingthe rules in the pre-earth existence. He found out that no onechanges the rules. You may be cast out, but no one changes therules and they pertain to mortality as well.
"We are capable of comprehending that certain things exist, which we may acquire by certain fixed principles. If men would acquire salvation, they have got to be subject, before they leave this world, to certain rules and principles, which were fixed by an unalterable decree before the world was. The disappointment of hopes and expectations at the resurrection would be indescribably dreadful" (Ibid., p. 324).
All things restored were to remain till the Lord comes. Howelse could he receive all things unto himself? How else could hehave a people prepared to receive him? He isn't returning torestore the law, he comes to receive the stewardship back fromguardian servants placed here to keep the full law perpetuatedand multiplied, as in the parable of the talents. Everyordinance, key, practice, law, principle and performance mustremain. God did not restore those things he placed here throughthe hands of the Prophet Joseph only to have them violated ordismissed. This is a special time in the hist-[38]ory of theearth.
"...for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the priesthood, under the direction and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation; therefore, all things had under the authority of the priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of the holy prophets...." (Ibid., pp. 171-172)
The covenant was a gift brought from heaven and transportedperfectly in the pattern given by God to the Prophet Joseph. Hedidn't make it up as he went along to suit his day. If he had,the gospel would certainly have been different and man-made. ButJoseph knew well where his authority came from and knew wellwhereof he spoke and by what Spirit he spoke. He established allthe law; then God required that he stamp the law unto thesalvation or damnation of this dispensation, in his own blood,according to how men applied themselves to it. This is why hecould authoritatively say:
"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" (Ibid., p. 314).
It all boils down to who is on the Lord's side. Let it bean angel, Spencer W. Kimball, Heber J. Grant, Ezra Taft Benson,or a fundamentalist leader, if the gospel plan is not lived inaccordance with the way God said it must be, men will notreceive the blessings for laws they have not lived. God offeredthe posterity of Abraham certain blessings. Those blessings aresure to the faithful. The descendants themselves are free tochoose the full law or accept half the loaf. When a man turnsagainst the law of God, can he expect the blessings?
"When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man and he refuses to receive [39] it, he will be damned" (Ibid., p.
322).
Heber C. Kimball said:
"Many of this people have broken their covenants by speaking evil of one another, by speaking against the servants of God, and finding fault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. But you cannot do that, for God will out you off and will raise up another people that will carry out his purposes in righteousness, unless you walk up to the line of your duty" (J.D., vol. 4, p. 108).
Did the Church walk up to the line of its duty? Richardsonsays there are 150 fundamentalist break-offs. How can he be surethat one of them cannot be "another people" about whom PresidentKimball spoke? How can Richardson be sure he was not passed by?
The Pharisees thought they had it all too. They evenexcommunicated the Savior of the world and all who thought andacted as he did. But who lost the priesthood? Was it the LordGod? The founding fathers of our Church and Kingdom will have tobe discredited in order to make today's practices appearjustified. Joseph Smith, Abraham, the Savior of the world, eventhe Father of Lights could not hold a temple recommend in theChurch today. The Lord has again been cast out of the synagogue.How sad we are as a Church, attempting to dictate to God hislaws and commandments by which we demand salvation--anup-to-date salvation, that is--because those who really knew thelaw have fallen asleep and a generation has arisen who know notJoseph. So they must denigrate him and all those who lived bywhat he revealed in order to look good.
The Church archives are now closed to the historians andthe enemies of the gospel laugh at us because as a Church we areso wrapped up in dichotomies, lies and subterfuge that theteachings of the ancients do not dovetail at all with the modernleaders' teachings. They point [40] this out to the unwarymembers so the unthinking and spiritually lazy will be snaredaway, and many are lost to their sophistries. When will Israelrepent and turn unto the Lord God? Where is the God of JosephSmith? Joseph did not turn the researcher, the seeker of truth,or the antagonist away. His book was open for all to see.
"...Why has access to the papers of all Church presidents been revoked, including access to the Brigham Young collection? Why has further access been denied to two B.Y.U. professors, writing biographies of Church presidents, Wilford Woodruff and Heber J. Grant? Why must scholars now submit their manuscripts for review--with threat of possible court action if they quote archival documents? Why are they told that permission to quote may be, in part, on support of official Church position...?
"He, Jerry Cahill, Church spokesman, does not tell us that the executive director of the Historical Department has recently said that it is the long term intent of the L.D.S.
Church officials to close all public and private papers and minutes of meetings of 19th and 20th century apostles and seventies" (R.L. Priddis, letter to the "Salt Lake Tribune," 6 Feb. 1987).
This reminds us of the secretive Vatican Library--talkabout a closed dark shop The parallels are becoming frightening.
Certain Revelations Buried
There are several buried revelations which God gave andwhich the Church should have canonized, but because they did notsuit the Saints' condition or predisposition, those revelationshave been swept under the rug. One of them surfaced in areference made in the "Church News" in 1982. In an article aboutthe calling of Heber J. Grant, we read:
[41] "A week later, President Grant was called to the office of President John Taylor in Salt Lake City. President Teasdale was also there. A secretary read a revelation given to President Taylor: `Let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve...." (A. Irvine, "Moments with the Prophets" Sept., 1982).
Now where do we suppose that revelation calling Heber J.Grant came from? Won't we be upset to learn that it was not"canonized"? It is from the revelation given October 13, 1882,to John Taylor in Salt Lake City, Utah. But the Church has not,as Richardson puts it, "canonized" it. Surely this would meanthat President Grant was never, an apostle. Does it also meanthat God did not call him into the Quorum of Twelve? Could italso mean that he was therefore never President of the Church?What a dilemma, Brother Richardson! What will you do now? Goddidn't call Heber J. Grant, because the members of the Churchnever did canonize God's 1882 revelation. In several matters,the dilemma of the Church is far greater than any that can bepiled onto the shoulders of the fundamentalists.
Would we all like to know why God's word in this instancewas not canonized--this among several other revelations? Therewas more to the 1882 revelation than just the callings of HeberJ. Grant and George Teasdale. There was also one Seymour B.Young, who was also called to the First Quorum of Seventy. Buthis call, unlike that of the other two brethren, wasconditional. Brother Young had not yet complied with a certainlaw into which the other two had entered. John Taylor refers tothis revelation himself in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 25,p. 309. The revelation continues to say that Brother Young maybe called--
"...if he will conform to my law. For it is not mete that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood."
[42] Seymour B. Young was not in the law of plural marriage,having but one wife, while Brothers Grant and Teasdale had
already entered into that law.
Apparently, Brother Young desired to receive the call,because he then married two more women and received admittanceinto the Quorum of Seventy. The 1882 revelation was never put tothe vote, but it did find its way into several European editionsof the Doctrine and Covenants. Why would an uncanonizedrevelation wind up in canonized scriptures in Europe, but not inthe United States? Do we see a dilemma here? Do men living alesser law preside over men who are living a higher law? Is Godconsistent?
So why didn't Heber J. Grant just canonize the revelationwith the members when he became President of the Church? Howwould it have made him look, after he was responsible forpromoting the Utah Legislature in prosecuting polygamists andpersecuting, encouraging imprisonment and preaching against theSaints who were living the law he, himself, was living at thatsame time? How could he now come forth and reveal to allconcerned that the Lord had said, "It is not mete that men whowill not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood"?
Is it more comfortable to assume that the revelationreferred to a different law or principle? President Taylor, whoreceived the revelation did not see it that way. He said:
"God has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage. I did not make it. He has told us certain things pertaining to this matter, and they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. (Sound familiar?) This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it and will not do it. I find some men try to twist around the principle in any way [43] and every way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some way.
"Now, God don't want any kind of sycophancy like that. He expects that we will be true to him and to the principles he has developed, and to feel as Job did, `Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.' Though other folks would slay us, yet we will trust in the living God, and be true to our covenants and to our God. These are my feelings in relation to the matter. We have also been told that, `It is not mete that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood,' and yet some men would very much like to do that" (J.D., vol. 25, p. 309).
Would Brother Richardson agree that some men try to twistaround the principle? So they throw the men and women living thehigher laws out of the synagogue. What do we do with the 1882revelation, keep it or throw it out? Heads, we throw out a lawof God; tails, the President of the Church had no revelationcalling him to his position. Who has the real dilemma, BrotherRichardson?
President George Albert Smith cited the opinion common in
his day--and ours:
"There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they believe the Bible, that Christ when he came, did away with plural marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy...." (J.D., vol. 13, p. 38).
He goes on to show that this is not the case:
"And I know, furthermore, that he rejoiced in the fact that the law of redemption and celestial marriage was revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of the power of earth and hell to destroy it ...." (Ibid., p. 38).
[44] It certainly is strange how the L.D.S. Church was foundedand led by so many false prophets, if the present teachings onsome issues are correct. How long do we keep the commandments ofGod as restored by the Prophet Joseph?
"Had he previously told them, `If ye love me, keep my commandments?' How long? For a day? Keep the commandments of the Lord for a week? Observe and do his will for a month or a year? There is no promise to any individual that I have any knowledge of, that he shall receive the reward of the just, unless he is faithful to the end" (Ibid., p. 311).
Morality Question
President Brigham Young testified in his day that moralitywas far better in Salt Lake because of plurality of wives thanin monogamic Christendom, with her plagues of prostitution,debauchery and disease, which have always been attached tomonogamy. How does the "Christian" edict fare today? Richardsonmakes accusation of adultery in multiple marriage today in allcorners where it is practiced. (What is he saying about God'sholy law?) Has the world's law of monogamy created immunity toadultery in or out of the Church? Let us quote from a conferencetalk of October 1973:
"One of the painful things that I have as a responsibility is to have a flood of recommendations for cancellations of sealings of those who have been married in the temple. It is frightening, brethren, and much of it stems from one of the greatest of all the sins next to murder, the sin of adultery, that is running rampant throughout the Church" (Harold B. Lee to the priesthood).
This statement was made 15 years ago. Has the situationimproved? Has the great problem of immorality increased? Thestatement is almost a direct quote from President John Taylor'spre-[45]diction in 1886, when he said that the day would come,because of giving up the principle of plural marriage, whenwhoredoms would run rampant in the Church. In 1976, the Churchorganized a special division of Church Social Services to deal
exclusively with homosexuals in the Church. When the Church hasto set up an entire department just to deal with the mostperverted practices to ever plague the earth in the midst ofIsrael, where are we justified in looking into thefundamentalists' backyard to see if the fathers are out hoeingthe weeds with their sons?
Richardson speaks on page 10, #9, about the fundamentalistsoffending wives and children, neglecting them, out scouring thecountryside for more wives and being visited with curses fortheir efforts. It sounds like something from the afternoonSoaps. If a husband is neglecting the needs of his family wherehe has power to do better, he should be visited withcondemnation. So should many monogomists. It is, of course,wrong on both sides of the fence. And there are those whoprospect for other wives, and then there are those who prospectfor other men's wives, Brother Richardson, as President Leeintimated.
In our day it seems to be the Church that is offended, orembarrassed, to be the only ones left defending a ruse of yearsago. No one else really cares, and that's the irony of it. Noone else cares but many in the Church that others have steppedforward to do what they have refused God. Who is carryingforward the cause of the Adversary who pursued the woman and thechild into the wilderness, trying to consume them? (Rev. 12:1-6)Who is the devil's advocate? If Jacob 2 were more applicable toour day than Section 132, why didn't the Lord tell Joseph Smithto go instruct the people to live monogamy?
We wonder why Richardson assumes that he has such knowledgeof fundamentalists and plural marriage concepts. Has he beenplurally married? Has he been persecuted for his beliefs? Whenwas he fired from his job by the boss who hap-[46]pened to bethe local Bishop or Stake President, when he was struggling tohonorably support his family? The statements, concepts andallegations in the Richardson paper show that he is in a deepfog about the principle.
Does and Revoke Laws?
The paper on his page 8, #3, speaks of plural marriagebeing commanded at times, revoked at others. One would think itwould be clear that the revocation of a law by God is very farfrom being to the credit or blessing of the people. If Godrevoked part of his restored gospel in 1890, and the peoplereally believe they will receive the blessing or an exaltationanyway, they really are in the fog. What we would have is acapricious God!
Further, Richardson's premise is amiss. We know of noinstance where God has revoked his laws. God told the Nephitesin their day that they would not have the privilege of livingthat law, because they had disqualified themselves. We tend tobe willing to admit that they would not receive the blessings,but insist that though we, ourselves, are not living the samelaw, we are different and will receive every blessing. Such
thinking is sheer folly. They couldn't continue to live pluralmarriage because they were unworthy; we couldn't continue tolive it because we voted not to. What's the difference? We'llfind that the end result is the same--falling short of everyblessing. It couldn't be otherwise. This is the lastdispensation in which all things have been restored, thedispensation of the fulness of times. God has said that when hewould raise up seed unto himself, he would command his people,as he clearly did in our day, and for the last time. And heopened the way to keep the full restoration alive and well.
History indicates that the Lord's people have oftenrejected him and then tried to justify it by persecution,prosecution, accusation preventing others from entering thestrait gate while they, themselves, go not in. BrotherRichardson can stand there at that gate and try to directtraffic, though we don't know who on earth or in [47] heavengave him that appointment. The Lord will do the judging. We willlive the laws the Lord lived and then we'll see if he meant whathe said when he admonished all men to follow his example.
One of those uncanonized statements by George A. Smithwhich many Saints don't like quoted was that it had been hisobservation that those men who were disposed to monogamy as away of life,
"... are a poor, narrow-minded, pinchbacked race of men who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct...." (J.D. vol. 31 p. 291)
Heber C. Kimball contributed this:
"For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business." (J.D. vol. 5, p. 22).
We, who ought to know, heartily agree.
Charles W. Penrose carried the thought further. He citedthe reference people always use to show that the Lord "revokes"laws. They are fond of citing Doctrine and Covenants 124:49. Ofthat scripture, Penrose said:
"... quotations sometimes referred to by the weakbacked who need a ramrod fastened parallel with their spinal column. It is a little singular that some people will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation as the building of a house when prevented by enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not apply even remotely...." (Des. Eve. News, Edit., June 5, 1885).
[48] Heber C. Kimball and others had more than 45 families andhe governed them all and supported them and took care of their
needs. The Mormons today insist upon their "small business." Howmany children are straying away from the Church? The devil is aroaring lion, going about to see who he can destroy. Since thefundamentalist's families are too large, according toRichardson, to save all their children, we certainly expect tosee his few in the celestial kingdoms, or we are going toseriously wonder about him, since his family responsibilitiesare so much more simple.
Richardson presents, again, a flaw in God's plan forproviding for the raising up of a choice seed--which we aren'tsupposed to have. We can't imagine where Richardson is gettinghis information, but we have never met a man who excused himselffrom providing for his family by pointing to Isaiah 4:13, asRichardson accuses on his page 9, #9. The idea is his own mentalwanderings. He sets that up as his premise and then proceedsfrom that faulty foundation. He then tries to stuff it down thethroats of those least likely to know the facts. Those in theChurch who are informed must be a little embarrassed by thisspokesman.
After this faulty premise is suggested, Richardson tries tosupport it with truisms which are not even relevant. But becausethe statements are true in their own right, one would have tosupport his ridiculous foundation to correlate the two. We canonly agree with his numbered items because of their own merit.
Law Of The Land Hobbyhorse
Concerning the old issue of the law of the land, his page12, #11, it certainly didn't mean very much to Joseph Smith andhis successors, all of whom lived plural marriage against thelaws of record in their day and region. It wasn't long until thewhole Church elected to make the law of man, or "the law of theland," a priority over the laws of God. Does Richardson believethat when the Father commanded the Prophet Joseph to establishand practice the law of celestial plural marriage, he was notaware [49] that it was contrary to the law of the land? Did henot have enough foresight to predict the Edmunds-Tucker Act andthe decision of the Supreme Court adjudicating the matter,disregarding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? There wereanti-bigamy laws in every state in which the Saints lived.Richardson suggests that God commanded the Saints to live a lawwhich he didn't realize was against the statutes of record. Anda law where parents couldn't really take care of so manychildren. And a law where wives are mistreated and neglected.And a law where husbands are too busy beating the bushes formore wives, to work. We must have a God who has to learn by hismistakes.
We assume, however, that our Father and our God knew hislaw was superior to man's law of the land from the first time hecommanded Joseph to live plural marriage in 1829 or 1830, letalone later when he sent an angel with a drawn sword to commandJoseph to establish plural marriage or be destroyed. It neverwas and is not now a debatable law.
All the early Church leaders were fully aware that theprinciple was against the law of the land, but they relentlesslyadvised, counseled and preached to the Saints to live it if theywere to inherit all they sought in the eternities. For so it wasestablished,
"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing and the conditions thereof as were instituted from before the foundation of the world" (D. C. 132:5).
We also read,
"...and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory but shall be damned saith the Lord. I am the Lord thy God and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. ...Go ye, therefore, and do the works of [50] Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law" (D.C. 132:27-28, 32-34).
Not once did our early leaders mention that the peopleshould be reluctant to obey the Lord's law because the law ofthe states would prohibit them. God's laws take precedence inall ages, from Daniel and earlier, to modern times. Everybodyknows about the jail term of George Q. Cannon, the wanted posterout for John Taylor, the $100 fine handed down to Heber J.Grant, etc. But nowadays the "weak-backed" Mormons hold the "lawof the land" banner high aloft. It's such a shame. There cannotbe an inheritance with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
The Saints continue to shrink from their responsibilities,except for the faithful few, a percentage of whom will bevaliant when the lazy majority wish only to have their leaderssave them.
While we're on this issue, we might as well take a look atthe word of the Lord from the "canon" of scripture by whichRichardson claims to abide.
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land. It is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land" (D.C. 98:4-6).
[51] So now we have it. The Lord says the law of the land is theConstitution. Why is the Constitution the law of the land? TheLord tells us a little later:
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose...." (D.C. 101:80).
So the Lord tells us that he wrote the Constitution, usingthe hand and pen of men raised up by him to do that expressthing. He says we are justified in befriending what he wrote. Tous, that means supporting it. The very first Amendment to theConstitution states,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What is the law of the land? It is what God says it is.What did he say it is in regard to our religion? He said we havethe right to practice it. He established the Constitution withthe intent that his laws would be freely practiced under itsprotection. And one of those laws was plurality of wives.Furthermore, he says that we had better not permit that which hehas appointed, to become polluted. How? By consenting to allowit. If we do that,
"This is a very sore and grievous sin against me, and against my people... Therefore, it is my will that my people should claim and hold claim upon that which I have appointed unto them. . . ." (D.C. 101:98-99).
Now, if the "law of the land" is what God says it isbecause he wrote it, and it expressly tells us that we have theright to practice the religion he has restored and given to us,who has the right to say we must not, and then attempt to giveauthoritative foundation to that edict? It may be forced upon usby men to the degree that we have to make a choice--do we obey[52] God and champion the freedom to practice our religion, ordo we cave in to men's laws and give up an eternal crown inorder to be patted on the head and told, "That's a good boy," bythe devil in order to be at peace with the world? Some tradeoff!To us, it sounds like trading pottage for exaltation.
By Richardson's definition, whatever the Congress says goesand we all, including God, must abide by it. Congress has made alaw against practicing our religion, but we don't see in the"canon" of scripture where the Lord said he raised up the men inCongress. And if he didn't, who did? We say it must be men.What? Obey man's law in deference to God's? God covered thatpoint, too:
"And as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this (meaning the Constitution) cometh of evil. I the Lord God make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless when the wicked rule the people mourn" (D.C. 98:7-9).
The people not only mourn, they deteriorate. God says thelaw makes us free. Free to do what? To practice the laws Godgave to us, of course. But when wicked men take office, they
serve the devil and impose legislation contradictory to the lawof God. This creates a dilemma for the Saints. God would have itso, for there must be opposition in all things in order to learnwho will stand up for the law of the Lord. We thereby proveworthy of the reward of God, for it will not be received by thefaint-hearted, who seem to moan and cry and gnash their teethagainst his laws.
So why all the bally-hooing at the fundamentalists? IfRichardson wants to obey the law of man and have his reward withthem, that is his right. But if the fundamentalists want to obeythe law of God and receive his blessing, he has made it clearthat we should be free to do so. So we each have chosen to dowhat we want, which [53] is our right. Why all the vengeanceagainst the fundamentalists? "Methinks thou dost protest toomuch."
Is it true that anything passed in the legislature is to beobeyed? Even our own law books indicate that we are notnecessarily duty-bound to obey an unconstitutional law--thoughjust try to bring this up in the courts today.
"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is super superseded thereby.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it" (16th "American Jurisprudence," 2nd ed., p. 177).
Is Brother Richardson going to see that women get abortionsmerely because the Supreme Court may sometime say it isConstitutional? Where do we draw the line? What happens ifCongress says we can have only two children per family? It,can't happen? What of the Saints in China? It can't happen here?Congress rules supreme?
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,potentates, dictators, totalitarians, magistrates, communists,and any and all other abominations which present themselvespublicly in the name and color of the law." Is this the way theArticle of Faith reads? Is this the law of the land we are toobey, carried out to the extreme? Just where does it end? Are weusing excuses in order to forget what God has commanded in theselast days? Does our Article of Faith now say, "We believe inman's laws over God's laws and in relinquishing God's laws soman will accept us; we also believe that God will exalt usanyway"? Or, "God will not fight our battles if we keep hiscommandments."
Concerning the law, the 1890 Manifesto, and [54] PresidentWilford Woodruff no fundamentalist who truly understands thepredicament in which President Woodruff found himself, will eversit in judgment of that great man. He found himself with aChurch membership generally too lethargic in the law of God to
carry it off, as well as crying about the possibility of losingtheir property, and other persecutions. President Woodruff foundhimself in the same position that Samuel of old experienced whenIsrael demanded a king and the Lord told him to give them whatthey wanted. The Lord also told President Woodruff to give thepeople what they wanted and to sign the Manifesto. But do werecall the footnote which the Lord gave when it was all over? Hesaid, "Don't worry, Samuel, the people have not rejected you,they have rejected me" (I Sam. 8:7).
President Woodruff was instructed in a revelation given tohim in 1889, to not make any concessions to the courts to giveup plural marriage. Woodruff himself broke the rule of theManifesto, as did many Apostles. Were they guilty of "adultery"and "gross wickedness," as some leaders imply toward the pluralmarriages of today?
The members of the Church did not reject President Woodruffany more than Israel rejected Samuel. With uplifted hand for the"vote," the majority of Church members readily accepted theManifesto in deference to the pleas and admonitions of theleaders through the years to remain faithful. They had alreadydecided what they wanted long before, and it was not God's law.They had not rejected President Woodruff, they rejected theLord.
There is no doubt that the Church would have been destroyedand Church property confiscated. The members had tied the Lord'shands. They would not live his law and thus had no claim on himto fight their battles, as he had promised. He did what he couldin the face of another errant Israel, and that was to give themtheir own choice. (The revealing question is, would the Lordmake no provision whatever for the few who [55] were willing toaccept all of God's laws?) How different the scene, had themembers stood their ground to live and defend the law of theLord.
It is interesting to note that Section 130 of the Doctrineand Covenants, verses 14-17 tells us that Joseph Smith onceasked the Lord when the time would be for the Son of Man tocome. The Lord responded, ". ..if thou livest until thou arteighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son ofMan...." Joseph was born in 1805, and 85 years from that datewould bring us to 1890. Had the Saints proved faithful at thattime, would they have seen the face of the Lord in 1890, insteadof the face of the Manifesto?
President Lorenzo Snow could very well have given thefollowing guideline to us when the Manifesto was issued a littlelater:
"Now, do you imagine that there would have been any wrong if the people wanted to find the principles of the higher law and obey them as near as circumstances would admit? Do you suppose it would have been wrong to search out the fullness of the gospel while living under the Mosaic law? In the Book of Mormon, we find this point more fully
illustrated. We find the inhabitants of this continent had a knowledge of the fullness of the everlasting gospel and were baptised for the remission of sins many generations before Jesus came into the world. We find that Alma was baptised in the Waters of Mormon, and some 450 other individuals. Alma, by his energy and perseverance, had discovered the fullness of the gospel and obtained revelations from the Lord and the priviledges of observing the gospel in all its fullness and blessings" (J.D., vol 19, p. 345).
In scripture we have seen the Lord displeased with thosewho did not believe any of his gospel and also with those whodid not believe even [56] part of it. But we have yet to findwhere he was displeased with anyone who believed all of hisgospel and lived it, even under the Mosaic law, with properauthority.
Next, President Snow asks an excellent question, one whichwe ask today. If Brother Richardson can answer it differentlyfrom how we do, then we wonder why the Lord caused Lorenzo Snowto become President of his Church.
"Do you think the Lord was angry with them? They were under the Mosaic law, and yet considered it a blessing to observe the higher law ... Remember, while the gospel in its fullness was observed by Alma and his brethren, and by many thousands in different ages of the world, they lived under the Mosaic law, and cannot the Latter-day Saints, under the law of tithing, observe the fullness of the gospel, if we allow that we are under the principle of the law of tithing, is there any harm in our complying with the principles of the united order?" (Ibid., p. 345).
Interesting question, isn't it? Do you suppose there is anywrong in the winding-up dispensation if the people under the lawof tithing desired to fulfill the whole law? Was Jesus angrybecause three of the Nephites wanted to do more? Because Johnthe Beloved wanted to do more? Do you imagine there is sin inthe people under the law of the new and everlasting covenant ofmarriage, restricted by the evil decrees of their owngovernment, desiring to live and fulfill more of the law of God,having taken upon themselves this covenant in the temple oftheir God at the time of their marriage sealing of one wife to ahusband? They covenant to fulfill more, all the laws, rites,ordinances.
Brigham Young said he would take all the sin there is inplural marriage upon his own back if it was lived inrighteousness. Richardson would have us believe that althoughthe Church has caved in to the demands of the government and[57] most Mormons, that all people everywhere must desire to doonly the bidding of Uncle Sam, and the Lord can just forgetabout his laws in this wonderful day. But there are thousands ofLatterday Saints in the Church who would be valiant and true toall of God's laws, if they only knew where to f ind them. Theyknow that the gospel is unchanging.
After the 1890 Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff and the 1904mini-Manifesto of Joseph F. Smith, President Smith testified inthe Reed Smoot Investigation in Washington, D.C.:
"THE CHAIRMAN: Do you obey the law in having five wives at this time, and having them bear to you eleven children since the Manifesto of 1890?
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have obeyed the law of the land.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is all.
MR. SMITH: I do not claim so and I have said before that I prefer to stand my chances against the law" (Reed Smoot Invest., vol. 1, p. 197).
Our question is, if the President of the Church can stateunder oath to the United States Senate that he is a law-breakerin behalf of the principle of plural marriage, and he is willingto take his personal chances with the law, and he was nothandled, excommunicated or even taken to task, then why is it soterrible that we claim the same privilege? Isn't the head of theChurch supposed to set an example? Did he not understand hisposition in the eyes of the people as well as any head of theChurch did?
President Smith bound himself to the pledge of the 1890Manifesto and his own 1904 Manifesto as Church head, and then hetold the U.S Congress that he was a law-breaker. He then tellsthe Church in conference assembled:
[58] "I have never broken any pledge with my God, the Mormon people, or the world" (S.L. Tribune, Sat., Oct. 8, 1910).
It was in this same issue of the Tribune that 200 nameswere printed of individual priesthood holders who had enteredinto "new polygamy," names of General Authorities included,since the Manifesto was issued.
All of this confusion about when plural marriage stoppedand the nebulous history that surrounds its continuance inMexico and Canada long after the 1890 Manifesto, is deceivingonly to the members of the Church who would have it their way.It certainly never did deceive the gentiles, since they couldalways see through the Manifesto and the verbal gymnastics ofthe leaders as to where they stood. Those deceived by theManifesto were and are the members of the Church, and they sighwith relief. Few want to live all of the restored gospel anyway.
All of God's laws as restored by Joseph Smith must be keptalive in this last dispensation. In the Joseph Smith Translationof the Bible, the Lord says:
"And the bow shall be in the clouds; and I will look upon it that I may remember the everlasting covenant, which I
made unto thy father Enoch; that when men should keep all my commandments, Zion should again come on the earth" (Gen. 9:21).
When will we be willing to keep all the commandments of theLord? Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, when will it be?"During the Millennium," we hear. Plural marriage is usuallyamong the distasteful commandments shoved under the rug of theMillennium--the cure-all Millennium. However, the Lord declaresin the Doctrine and Covenants:
"There is no law, but my law when I come" (Sec. 38:22).
[59] To whom will he come? Will he come to a people living halfa loaf, or maybe three quarters of a loaf? Or will he come tothe loafers who think that when the leaders speak, "The thinkinghas been done?" What do you think, Brother Richardson? It's verycomfortable to think as you do. Let the Prophet leading theChurch do the thinking and then all Israel can go to sleep withhim at the helm, and, "All is well in Zion."
When Attorney Bierbower was prosecuting President LorenzoSnow for the principle of plural marriage, Bierbower made aprophecy of his own. He said that all the court had to do was toimprison Lorenzo Snow, and then a new revelation wouldimmediately come forth which would withdraw the practice ofplural marriage. President Snow's comment to this was:
"Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer, he certainly will fail as a prophet. The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change his law of celestial marriage. But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God will be overthrown" (Mill. Star, vol. 48, pp. 110-111).
Was Bierbower, after all, a true prophet and Lorenzo Snow afalse one? We are here to testify that the Lord provided theway. Lorenzo Snow then spent 11 months in prison for the sake ofthe law of God. And no revelation revoking God's law of pluralmarriage on earth ever came forth. There are those who are beingled to the fountainhead of the priesthood, whether the world andthe Church approve or not. God can still do his own work withoutthe help or approval of the Church.
Plural Marriage Repulsive?
Richardson says on page 13, #14, that many people are"repulsed" by the principle of plur-[60]ality of wives and thatthis is harming missionary work. Now, why didn't the Lord thinkof that when he restored the full gospel? "Repulsed," Richardsonsays. The wicked are always repulsed by the truth. Repulsed?What is Richardson saying about Jesus, Joseph Smith, ourpolygamous forefathers and their repulsive way of life? Has theChurch become wiser than God and the prophets who lived a
"repulsive" principle for thousands of years? We doubt thatthinking people will give much credence to Richardson's worriesabout missionary work. That work is doing just fine and isadding many fine people to the Church daily. We understand thatpolygamist's names will be on the gates to the Holy City inJackson County. Surely Brother Richardson will not want to gothere, since it will be repulsive to him.
Perhaps Richardson does not understand the principle. Oneman who understood it well and fought all his days by the sideof the prophets to preserve and perpetuate it, was George Q.Cannon. He stated in the Tabernacle in 1871:
"I will tell you a rule, brethren, sisters and friends, that I have observed through my intercourse with men in my travels, and that is that they who have opposed this principle most bitterly when they understood it, have been the most corrupt men, the very men who have practiced adultery and whoredom in secret; while openly, to hear them speak of our system of patriarchal marriage, one might think them immaculate; But I never found pure-minded men or women, honest and true to their God, and to their partners if they had them, but what, when they heard it explained as the Saints in this Territory understand and preach and practice it, let them believe what they might on other points they would acknowledge that there was something God-like in that doctrine, if we carried it out as we believed it. That has been my experience" (J.D., vol 14, p. 58).
[61] Rather than "repulsive," we fundamentalists prefer to thinkthat we are a "peculiar" people. We don't believe our Fatherever gave any law, practice or principle that is repulsive,either in the heavens or among those few who seek the fulness ofthe gospel. Some of the Lord's truth will be repulsive to some,and all of the Lord's truth will be repulsive to many more. LetRichardson and others choose their own side.
We assume that Richardson understands that plurality ofwives is practiced in heaven, the only kind of marriagepracticed among the Gods, says Brigham Young, though weunderstand that most modern Mormons feel they are above andbeyond the gospel as taught by the Prophet Brigham Young. Pluralmarriage will be repulsive only to those in the next life whodwell in kingdoms other than the one called Celestial. We preferto stand with the Prophet Joseph when he said:
"The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it" (T.P.J.S., p. 332; D.H.C., vol. 6, p. 223).
If Brother Richardson is not willing to stand alone, thereare those who are. So let him mingle with those who will accepthim without the crowning principles, and we will work our wayalong the best we can, living the law as our Lord and the
Prophet Joseph taught us to do. And let them judge between usand thee.
The Lord did not set this work apart from the Church topreach it to all the world. The precious things of God werenever intended for the general populace. The first principlesare adhered to first. Any converts are brought to the feet ofthe priesthood to be taught more, if they prove worthy. We havealready conceded that the Church belongs to the Lord, and themissionaries, though not conducting their efforts as the Lordoutlined, do an excellent [62] work, given the handicaps theyare under. But we can leave that for another discussion. We areinstructed to receive those guided by the Lord into more lightand truth, not the untried and spiritually inexperienced (orrepulsed), lest they heap condemnation upon themselves and us.You folks in the Church carry the first principles to the world;you are doing a very fine work. If any thereafter desire greaterlight, the Lord will guide them to it.
Lamanite Wives
Quoting from Richardson's paper, page 13, #15: "Since oneof the earliest revelations on plural marriage, given in 1832,counselled the men of the Church to take wives of the Lamanitesin order to help the Indians to become white and delightsome,the fundamentalists really should marry Indian women in order tomore closely follow the counsel of the early Church leaders asthey originally introduced these principles."
Such foolish statements are sprinkled throughout theRichardson paper, making light of sacred things. But why wouldhe use the 1832 "revelation" as a reference to be obeyed, whenit has never been canonized? Did he not state that non-canonizedstatements of the early brethren are not binding? Richardsonwould reverse himself just for his own argument.
However, he does bring to light a good point, which is thatthe revelation had specific reference to "white and delightsome"and not the new view to go along with giving priesthood to theNegro, making the wording, "pure and delightsome." The 1832revelation directing the members to take wives of the Lamaniteswas to purge the dark skin, that they may become "white," not"pure," since many are already pure in heart. This has the"Black Manifesto" correlate to the new position which the Churchhas assumed in regard to the sons of Cain. The Prophet declaredthe Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth. Weprefer to leave the wording alone until the Prophet Joseph isavailable for comment on the editing job in 2 Nephi 30:6. Andwhat makes Richardson think that the fundamentalists are nottaking Indian wives when valiant [63] and qualified Lamaniteshave a desire to live all the truth? And if, as Richardsonclearly says, this counsel was from the early brethren what isRichardson's own responsibility?
Plural Marriage A Correct Principle
If the law of celestial plural marriage was right in
Abraham's day, if it was right and from God in Joseph Smith'sday, then was the principle right then but wrong now, merelybecause the Government got in the way? That is the question. IfGod has said a principle is true and just, then it is good forman, not bad for him. If men by threatening other men canintimidate God into rescinding an eternal requirement forexaltation, then the devil has won the war. God our HeavenlyFather cannot refuse the blessings of heaven to men on the earthwho qualify themselves by earning those blessings. If he did,then he would be a partial God and a respector of persons. Hecannot deny a blessing to men on the earth just becauseRichardson, for instance, says we are not permitted to do thework required to earn the reward. It would tie the hands of God,not just on the point of plural marriage, but on every pointthat brands his gospel as possessing the requirements ofsalvation necessary for the highest glory.
The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, testifiedunder oath in the Reed Smoot hearings on privileges andelections:
"I believe the principle of plural marriage is as correct a principle today (1906) as it was then (1843)" (Smoot Invest., vol. 1, p. 109).
The Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., stated:
"Every principle proceeding from God is eternal, and any principle which is not eternal is of the devil" (T.P.J.S., p. 181).
Because Richardson says he wants part of the gospel andthat is good enough for him, it may not be all that others want.No man can be prevented from seeking out his God and what God[64] teaches him to do. We are not talking about butcheringbabies as Richardson intimates, nor are we talking about one (1)family that threw their children off a roof. Aberrations arehardly isolated to fundamentalists, any more than all Mormonsare goofy because we run across a few who are. But we aretalking about a law validated and sanctioned by the Almighty.
L. John Nuttall was secretary to four presidents of theChurch; he was clerk to the Utah Territory and then StateLegislatures. He was chief conference recorder for the Church,and he kept a voluminous diary-journal. His whole life'svocation, avocation and recreation was centered around keepingaccurate written records. In the first volume of his personaljournal, he states that Joseph Smith, Jr., considered thepractice of plural marriage as much a commandment as to acceptthe principle of baptism, and that we cannot be saved withoutit. He then castigated the members' interpretation of the "lawof the land" as taking precedence in the eyes of the people(Nuttall Journal, vol. 1, p. 220).
God is no respector of persons. If the law was essentialfor Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Joseph and Brigham, Lorenzo Snowand Heber J. Grant, not to mention Jesus Christ the Lord, then
it is clean and pure and essential for us when lived properly,no matter what men say or do to us. And in the end, as with thewar in heaven, we will see who has stood for the work which Godgave the Saints to do for the cause of truth and the fulness ofthe gospel.
What the fundamentalists believe is not foreign to thegospel. It is not less than the gospel. It is not anothergospel. It is the gospel as revealed to the Prophet Joseph. TheLord did not raise up the Prophet and cause him to establishthese holy things, because he didn't have anything better to dowith his time, nor was he wasting Joseph's. It was all part ofthe ancient gospel as given to Father Adam, laws and ordinancesto be found in the winding-up of the dispensation of the fulnessof times. All [65] of the gospel was to be on the earth, beinglived so that the Savior might have a people who were tried,true and ready to receive him when he comes again on the earth.There will be a lot to do when he arrives. Taking the timenecessary to teach people the principles and ordinances and thenget the experience necessary to live plural marriage and theunited order from scratch is not on the agenda. He will come toa people who are prepared. "Gather my Saints together unto me;those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice" (Lundwall,Lect. on Faith, p. 59).
The Manifesto Again
Richardson says in his paper, page 13, #13, "If God had notrevealed his will to his servant Wilford Woodruff, that polygamybe discontinued, the Saints would have suffered greaterpersecution." So what? Again we ask, was God's timing wrong? Orshould the Saints have proven themselves faithful? Some acts,worries and votes are, after all, worse than being sent to thelions. It was not the will of God to have his law become nulland void. It was not "his will" that Israel have a king, either.But the way Richardson presents it, he would have said in theirday, "God told Samuel to give Israel a king and even called Saulas king; therefore, it is revelation through Samuel and thewhole congregation has voted on it, and it was unanimous, so itis the will of God, amen." If this appeals to Richardson andother comfortable Mormons, so be it. Richardson would tend toregard the giving of the 116 pages to Martin Harris as the willof the Lord.
From D. Michael Quinn's paper, wherein some legitimate timeand research has been demonstrated, we read:
"Following the final version of the Manifesto, Counselor Smith had dinner with Joseph H. Dean and told him that `There is tacit understanding between the Church and the Mexican Government, that we may practice plural marriage, but must outwardly appear to have but one wife.' Responding to Heber J. [66] Grant's question in August of 1891, if he regarded the Manifesto as a revelation, `President Smith answered emphatically, no.' After explaining that he regarded the document as inspired under the circumstances in which the U.S. Government placed the Church, Joseph F.
Smith added: `But he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural marriage'" ("Joseph H. Dean Diary," 24 Sept. 1890, "First Presidency Off. Jrnl.," 20 Aug 1891).
B. H. Roberts wrote in the "Improvement Era":
"Man is by nature a free moral agent, and that agency involves the liberty of violating the laws of God as well as the liberty of respecting them. If individuals reject the will of God, they will be rejected by him; and this applies also to the Church. What men may do in their individual capacity, the Church may do in its organized capacity with, of course, similar results to the institution" (vol. 8, p. 363).
The Wilford Woodruff revelation of 1880 was canonized byJohn Taylor and the Council of the Twelve, in April of thatyear. It states:
"And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the patriarchal law of Abraham which leadeth to the celestial glory ... for whosoever doeth those things shall be damned" (Woodruff Diary entries of 26 Jan. and April 1880; J.D., vol. 22, pp. 47-48, 174)
As we mentioned earlier, who actually wrote the Manifesto?On the witness stand in the Reed Smoot case in 1904, GeorgeReynolds testified:
"I assisted to write it (in collaboration with Charles W. Penrose and John R. Winder, who) transcribed the notes [67] and changed the language slightly, to adapt it for publication" (Smoot Invest., vol. 2, pp. 51-52).
Those who have thoroughly researched the Manifesto knowthat reference to it as a "revelation" is a concoction of thepast 80 years. Modern scholars know better, and it is notacceptable anymore to refer to the 1890 Manifesto as arevelation. We have mentioned this subject earlier, but here isanother statement worth considering:
"Brother Penrose told me once in the City of Mexico, that he had written the Manifesto, and it was gotten up so that it did not mean anything, and President Smith had told me the same thing" (M.F. Cowley, Trial Minutes of May 10, 1911, S.L. Temple, Ch. Hist. Off., S.L.C., Utah).
It may be interesting for Richardson to note that therevelation on plural marriage, Section 132, never once mentionsthe word "Church." The revelation was "a law unto mypriesthood." There is a difference, whether Richardson acceptsthat or not. In the Manifesto, the word "priesthood" is not usedone time, but every reference is to the Church. The Church neverwas told that they had to live that law of God. It was beinglived by men in the priesthood long before the members were
invited to live it, which was in the security of the RockyMountains, in 1852. They were invited, but when they uninvitedthemselves by way of the Manifesto, this did not unseat theauthority of God or the validity of his revelation. TheManifesto merely disqualified the Church from receiving thatexalting ordinance. It was a commandment to the priesthood. Thepriesthood lived the principle before the Church had anything todo with it, and they perpetuated it after the Church votedagainst it.
"The truth remains. The action of the Church has not affected it in the least. The truth remains just as true as if the [68] Church had accepted it. Its action simply determines the relationship of the members to that truth; and if they reject it, the truth still remains.... " (Roberts, "Imp. Era," vol. 8, p. 364).
According to all the writings, Church members will not makefurther progress until they accept that rejected (repulsive)truth. Joseph said to John Taylor that unless they went forwardto stem the tide of opposition against the principle andpractice it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken. (J.D., vol.11, p. 221).
Orson Pratt said:
"In the latter days, when God establishes his kingdom on the earth for the last time, there will be thousands and tens of thousands of precepts and commandments revealed to certain individuals, which will be binding upon them alone. There will be other commandments that will be adapted to all the Church, and they will be binding upon the Church and upon the Church alone" (J.D., vol. 17, p. 26).
We suppose it is up to each individual to decide whatcommandments they will keep. And there are those who want to andwill keep them all. For those who will keep them all, they haveto first know what all the commandments are that will bring themto a full exaltation in the celestial glory. That quest does notuse catch-phrases and thought-stifling cliches such as, "Followthe living prophet," and, "Obey the law of the land" in allthings, as a springboard to acquire knowledge unto salvation.
New And Everlasting Covenant
President Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., states in his work,Doctrines of Salvation:
"What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what [69] the new and everlasting covenant is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum-total of all the gospel covenants and obligations... The Lord says in Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants that we shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, not by this word and that word and reject the others. We have got to accept
every covenant that he gives us if we want exaltation" (vol. 1, p. 156).
Another point: When one goes through the temple to besealed for time and eternity--as part of keeping the new andeverlasting covenant--why is it that the one performing theceremony extracts a promise from the couple being sealed?"
"...with a covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant...."
The words "will fulfill" pertain to future tense, meaningthey have something further to accomplish which is necessarybefore their marriage is sure in the eternities, and it includesfurther "rites" pertaining directly to matrimony. Church membersignorantly affirm their consent to these laws, rites andordinances, having no knowledge as to what is entailed, orperhaps making a slim guess at best. From the Richardsonpresentation, however, it appears that be is apprised as to whatall these sacred necessities are. Is this why he finds himselfso adept at straightening out the fundamentalists and callingthem to repentance? Repenting from the truth is what the Mormonsdid in 1890.
"Do you desire to enter the celestial kingdom and receive eternal life? Then be willing to keep all the commandments the Lord may give to you... The man who is baptised and confirmed, who pays his tithing, keeps the word of wisdom and attends to the ordinary duties required [70] of members of the Church, is entitled to enter that kingdom. Yet, he may merely be a servant there. If that is all he is willing to do, he cannot be exalted. He will not become an heir and receive the fulness of that kingdom. Other ordinances and obligations will be required of him if he obtains exaltation and becomes in every sense of the word an heir possessing all that the Father hath" (J.F. Smith, The Way To Perfection, pp. 206-207).
Work For The Dead
With reference to Richardson's page 14, regarding work forthe dead, number F-1, his reference to Joseph Smith's statementshould indicate page 356, not 365, of T.P.J.S., wherein hetalked about the greatest responsibility which God has laid uponus being to seek after our dead. He also said:
"...the greatest and most important duty is to preach the gospel" (Ibid., p. 113).
So which is it? Which is the greatest, to preach or to dowork for the dead? Who is it, exactly, who has told Richardsonthat the fundamentalists do not seek after their dead? Frankly,nearly every fundamentalist we know is anxiously engaged indoing genealogy work. A former leader of our work was known asone of the greatest genealogists in the Church. How far back has
Richardson done his? Where does he get the idea that work forthe dead has been "laid aside" by all of us? We do hope he isnot considered one of the Church's reliable scholars andresearchers.
Our intent is to seek after our dead, but notindiscriminately. We are not after every Tom, Dick and Harry,and we do not look forward to being handed any name as we take aseat in the temple. We are not seeking after Cain's dead andprogeny. We are seeking after our dead, those of our ancestorsin our own blood-line, who came down through the priesthoodfathers.
[71] "Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh (bloodline) and have been hid from the world with Christ in God; Therefore, your life and the priesthood have remained and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began" (D&C 86:8-10)
We also learn from the scriptures:
"...to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage... the bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the gentiles" (Ibid., 113:8-9).
The direction of the Prophet Joseph was for us to seek outour genealogy and do that work. How, exactly, are the posterityof the Gentiles and the Canaanites being brought in through theback door by the actions of the Church today? It is done by theindiscriminate ordinance proliferation for myriads of unknowns,simply because a birth date and location and a death date andlocation are submitted on the proper form. The idea of sealingfor the dead is to create a line of worthy priesthood all theway back to Father Adam, "heirs according to the flesh." Justwhere are those sealed back to the murderer, Cain, going to windup as they follow him into eternity? I, for one, would find thatto be a curse. And this is what the reward of the Church will befor bringing the cursed bloodline of the Canaanite into thesacred temples of the Most High.
"...and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 14:21).
"The gifts of God are all useful in [72] their place, but when they are applied to that which God does not intend, they prove an injury, a snare and a curse instead of a blessing" (T.P.J.S., p. 248).
"Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?" (D&C 132:10).
Can The Saints Be Led Astray?
We are appalled at Richardson's lack of references to backup his statements. First he castigates Brigham Young and says wequote his uncanonized opinions. Then he turns around and quotesone of his uncanonized opinions to support his own argument. Hesays on page 15, G-3, "Brigham Young said the Lord would notpermit him or any other man to lead the people astray. The Lordwould take him first."
The fact is that a promise was given specifically to HeberC. Kimball and to Brigham Young from the Prophet Joseph Smith,that the Lord would take them, those two, if it appeared thatthey would fall. See J.D., vol. 9, p. 142, and vol. 12, p. 103.There is no mention that this applies to every leader of theChurch. Richardson appears to have the statement of BrighamYoung and that of Wilford Woodruff confused. Wilford Woodruffsaid on the 7th of April, 1889:
"The Almighty will never permit me, nor any other president who holds the keys of the kingdom of God, to lead you astray. If I do not walk in the paths of righteousness and do what is right in the position that I occupy, he will remove me out of my place, or any other man who attempts to lead the people astray" ("Des. Eve. News," 13 Apr. 1889).
(We might mention that in the same speech, he said, "We aimat a place in the celestial kingdom of our God, with God andChrist and those who have kept the celestial law. In order toget there, we have got to keep the same law that has exaltedthose who have gone before us." We thought this might be of deepinterest to Richardson.)
[73] Why is it so hard to search out history and find out whatthe facts were, what the structure was which Joseph established?President Woodruff's position at the time was President of theHigh Priesthood, as well as President of the Church. Obviouslyit was of the former that he was speaking, the man with the keysof the kingdom, not just of the Church. Our own history welldocuments the several men among the leaders of the Church whoheld keys in common and who went astray. Who were Joseph'scounselors who went astray? Were it otherwise, we would not havethe Roman Catholic Church, nor the decline of the Nephitechurch, nor the Pharisees, etc. How is it that the Church hasfallen away from the earth time and time again? Why was thereneed for a restoration What makes the members today so superiorto the members in ancient times, other than self-conceit? ThePharisees had plenty of that. Their great sin was their refusalto accept the fact that they had strayed from the gospel ofMoses. They contended that they had kept the law inviolate downthrough hundreds of years and that Christ was the upstartapostate. Now the Mormons even admit to some drastic changes andthink it's just fine. Were Christ and Joseph to return todayteaching the same things they taught in their day, anyone in hisright mind would have to admit that they would lose their templerecommends and be excommunicated from the Church. And that's afact.
When men turn from the law as God has laid it down in itspure form, to a ceremony more convenient and acceptable fortheir day, just who has apostatized from what? Who demanded theking--was it God? Who demanded the Manifesto of 1890--was itGod? Who demanded the priesthood be given to the Negro--was itGod? Who demanded that the holy temple garment be shortened,mutilated, changed--was it God? Who has changed the ordinancesof the temple, discontinued the law of consecration, ceasedconfirming priesthood before ordination to Church office for 30years, dropped the principle of gathering, discontinued thecalling of the seventys, eliminated the Lord's directive totravel without purse or [74] scrip in the missionfields,transgressed the law and changed the ordinances and broken theeverlasting covenants, etc? Was it God? The official "word"coming from the Church today appears only to be to change orcorrect the mistakes that God and Joseph made in the early days.If the early prophets were not delivering the word of God, thenthey were false prophets. If they were false, what leg does theChurch have to stand on today? If they were not false and spokeGod's word, then why do they need to be corrected today? If theleaders of the Church now who correct former prophets, are true,then is God correcting himself because he was wrong before? Itsounds confusing for a God who represents himself to be perfectand unchanging to go about changing everything he set up in thefirst place for the final dispensation. It seems more consistentwhen you see the pattern that was carefully transported fromheaven to earth being tampered with, changed and reconstructed,that it is more the meddling and "better ideas" of men than theinadequacies of God.
Richardson quotes on page 15, #5, "Whosoever belongeth tomy church, need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom ofheaven" (D.C. 10:55). Had he read a little farther, he wouldfind the Lord defining his own church. We'll quote it for him:
"Behold, this is my doctrine--whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church" (Ibid., vs. 67-68).
Would Brother Richardson like to add something to this andtell us about the great Church organization, the great businessholdings, stocks, banks, Wall Street connections, etc., or inother words, how well accepted the Church is in the world today?
When the Lord restored the gospel to the earth, he did notintimate that the "Church," as [75] Richardson perceives it,would never go astray. He said that the "keys" of the priesthoodwere restored for the last time, never to be taken from theearth until Christ comes. Show me a reference where the keyswere never to be taken from the Church, and I will show you thewarnings where the keys would be turned against the Church andtaken away if certain commandments and performances were notadhered to in the Church, and that when there is a change inordinances, there is a change in priesthood.
The commandments and performances of the Church aredelineated in the 8th chapter of Mormon as Moroni sees ourChurch in our day. Verses 27 to 34 pinpoint our day by a perfectdescription of present conditions. Then he nails it down as towhat is occurring even as we write.
"Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing. And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes and malice and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.
"For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted. O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies--because of the [76] praise of the world?" (Morm. 8:35-39).
So who is it who has membership in "the holy church of God"in these latter days? This chapter is not only obviouslyspeaking of today, but the commentator earmarks thetime-designation as our day at the chapter heading. There isonly one Church of God, Brother Richardson. You claim to be init and you and others proudly claim to have cast us out of it.So who is polluting it?
If Moroni does not know what he is saying, or if thispollution is not taking place in our day for reasons we havediscussed earlier, then why after the Lord rehearses thedevastation, darkness, vengeance, wrath, burning, weeping andjudgments falling upon the inhabitants of the earth, etc., doeshe say:
"And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me and blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord" (D.C. 112:25-26).
Does Richardson know the Lord's definition of his House? Ifnot, he should be finding it out. When the Lord cleans house, healways begins with the top and works his way down to the veryroots of the foundation. And where do you think the headquartersof his House is located?
"...and ye that hear me not will I curse, that have professed my name, with the heaviest of all cursings ... I will be your ruler when I come; and behold, I come quickly,
and ye shall see that my law is kept. He that receiveth my law and doeth it the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you...." (Ibid., 41:1, 4-5).
[77] Has the Church kept all of the law? Where is the law ofconsecration, the law of celestial plural marriage, the law ofgathering, and many more? Where are they? The only place in allthe world we see an effort being made to keep the laws of God intheir entirety is among the so-called fundamentalists, with alot of struggle and heavy burden grievous to be borne upon theirshoulders, and not among the mainstream Mormons. Richardson willnot lift a finger to lighten their load, but he and the Churchstand by in their tall and spacious building at the top of NorthMain, pointing fingers out of the windows, disparaging,persecuting and "calling to repentance" those who labor below,while scorning them and finding fault because they do not dressas well as others or don't appear to "have time to spend withtheir children."
"And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived ... Wherefore, he that prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if he obey mine ordinances" (Ibid., 52:14-15, et. seq.).
A Prayer issue
Let's discuss the subject of prayer mentioned in the 15thverse. The fundamentalists believe in it as Richardson does. Butwho obeys the "ordinance" of prayer spoken of in that verse? TheProphet Joseph said:
"You must make yourselves acquainted with those men who, like Daniel, pray three times a day toward the House of the Lord. Look to the Presidency and receive instruction" (T.P.J.S., p. 161).
Do the members of the Church pray every day? Once? Twice?Three times a day? Do they face the holy temple as Daniel didand for which he was thrown into the lions' den? Who are the menwith whom we must make ourselves acquainted, those who keep andteach this ordinance? Apparently, they have a presidency fromwhom we are to receive instruction. Does the Presidency of theChurch teach this ordinance of prayer? This has been taught tothe priesthood to be observed [78] from the beginning of theearth. Even with their digression from it, the Muslem perform itmore faithfully with their prayers five times a day towardMecca, than does the modern Mormon. When is the last time wehave heard of its observance taught by any General Authority,let alone the First Presidency? Yet there were those among thehierarchy of the Church who were more aware and more faithfulthan others. In the last general priesthood meeting he addressedbefore he died, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., reiterated the wordsof Joseph the Prophet for all those who had ears to hear. Hesaid:
"In this same connection, the Prophet Joseph said: `You must make yourselves acquainted with those men who, like Daniel, pray three times a day toward the House of the Lord. Look to the Presidency and receive instruction'" ("Ensign," July 1972).
This admonition was uttered three times in that conference.The "Ensign" published it as only having been said once. Earlierthan President Smith, Wilford Woodruff was aware of thisordinance. He incorporated reference to it in the DedicatoryPrayer of the Salt Lake Temple, April 6, 1893. He prayed:
"Heavenly Father, when thy people shall not have the opportunity of entering this, thy holy House... and shall turn their faces towards this, thy holy House...." (Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, p. 132).
In an unpublished revelation given to Joseph Smith, whichis the prayer for the redemption of Zion, we read:
"And when they turn their faces towards Zion and bow down before thee and pray, may their sins never come up before thy face, neither have place in the book of thy remembrance" (Collier, Unpub. Rev., p. 67; T.P.J.S. p. 37).
[79] Three prayers every day as a minimum is referred to in Alma34:
"Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in prayer unto him ... Cry unto him when ye are in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day and evening" (Alma 34:19-21).
In 600 B.C., we have:
"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime" (Dan. 6:10).
Why did Daniel face Jerusalem? Because that is where thetemple was or should have been or was going to be. It was anordinance of the holy priesthood from the beginning and pertainsto the fulness of the gospel, the same as does plurality ofwives and consecration.
Before Daniel, there was Solomon (1015 B.C.), and what didhe do? He dedicated the Temple of Solomon unto the Lord withsimilar words to those of Wilford Woodruff at the Salt LakeTemple dedication. He said:
"...Hearken therefore unto the supplications of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: ... When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess thy
name,...and they pray unto thee toward this holy city which thou hast chosen and the house which I have built... pray toward their land Jerusalem, which thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city of the temple which thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for thy name: ...." (II Chron. 6:21, 26, 34, 38)
[80] We also find the same prayer recorded in I Kings 8:29-30,35, 38, 44, 48. The Psalmist, David, recorded in 1050 B.C.:
"Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee... toward thy holy oracle" (Psalms 28:2).
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth;...." (Ibid. 138:2).
A People Chosen Out From Among The L.D.S.
Another issue to be aware of is that of a people beingcalled forth from among the Latter-day Saints. There is a peoplepreparing for the greatest of all God's gifts:
"When Christ comes to assume the personal presidency of the earth and all its affairs, he will come in his glory. Before that time, he may appear in the midst of his Saints who purify their hearts before him.
"Before the great day of the Lord shall come...two potent cleansing forces shall be in active operation. The first of these is the preparation of a choice people, purified by an application of their lives, as individuals and a community, of the principles of the gospel of peace. Such a body will evolve from those called Latter-day Saints... and from the remnant of the whole House of Israel, will emanate the nucleus millennial population of our globe" (Mill. Star, vol. 42, p. 584).
Daniel H. Wells reiterated this prophecy:
"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 [81] good works, willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in his ways and who will walk in his paths" (Des. News, 6 Nov. 1876).
And again:
"And if we as a people do not hold ourselves on the altar ready to be used, he will pass on and get somebody else; because he will get a people that will do it. I do not mean to say that he will pass on and leave this people; no, there will come up from the midst of this people, that people which has been so much talked about" (Ibid., 9 Dec.
1882.
Who is this "people" to whom the early brethren referred?Is it the 6 million members calling themselves Mormons? We havereason to believe not. There is not always safety in numbers.
Orson F. Whitney must have been talking with Daniel H.Wells, because he makes a similar statement publicly:
"Many of this people are perhaps preparing themselves, by following after the world in its mad race... but I know that there is a people in the heart's core of this people that will arise in their majesty in a day that is near at hand, and push spiritual things to the front, a people who will stand up for God, fearing not what man can do" (Des. News Weekly, 11 Aug. 1889).
The time is here of which Heber C. Kimball prophesied:
"But the time will come when the Lord will choose a people out of this people upon whom he will bestow his choicest blessings" (Ibid., 9 Nov. 1865).
Once again the still voice of prophecy, un-[82]heeded bythe masses:
"Many of this people have broken their covenants...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 ... No tongue can express the suffering and afflictions this people will pass through if they do not repent" (Kimball, J.D., vol. 4, p. 108).
Richardson's effort seems to evaluate the "celestial laws"which are being lived in the Church today, and then criticizeand tell the fundamentalists what they should be doing. But letthe Church clean its own house and we will clean our own, withthe help of God. In the Church, for example, where did writtenspeeches come from? What happened to speaking by the power ofthe Holy Ghost when moved upon? Where is the power of the wordof God in all premeditated speeches written by speech-writersfor the General Authorities at Conference and by the members forSacrament meetings?
"One of the great signs is the lack of faith in God and the rapid departure from the fundamentals of the Christian doctrines by the people... Hence the folly of sermons written beforehand; and unless the written beforehand sermons are be revelation or prophecy, all men the world over may know when they hear a sermon read from the pulpit, that God has no hand in that matter; and the preacher is not sent of God and is not God's servant...." (W. Richards, Des. News Edit., 4 Sept. 1852).
Whatever happened to the Holy Ghost taking charge of aspeaker so that the audience may hear the word of the Lord given
under immediate inspiration? We can hardly give a talk in theChurch any longer without writing, editing and approving beforethe sermon is uttered.
[83]Church And Priesthood Organizations
Richardson is making statements without foundation again,as we note on page 15, H-1 and 2. He says, "The priesthoodoperates in the Church in all generations," and, "Therestoration of the priesthood preceded the organization of theChurch so that the Prophet Joseph Smith would have the properauthority to organize the Church. However, between the time ofthe restoration of the priesthood and the organization of theChurch, Joseph Smith could not operate the various functions ofthe priesthood."
These are more irresponsible statements which would makeMormon scholars blush. Of course the priesthood operates in theChurch in all generations. The Church cannot function withoutthe priesthood. The priesthood can, has and does functionwithout the Church. Which was restored first, the priesthood orthe Church? The Church didn't come to organize the priesthood;the Church is helpless without it.
Said J. Reuben Clark:
"The priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is not essential to the priesthood" (Imp. Era, p. 134, March 1936).
And who told Richardson that Joseph Smith could notfunction in the various workings of the priesthood? Since Josephreceived the priesthood but supposedly "couldn't operate thevarious functions of that priesthood," how is it that he wasable to organize the Church at all? He had to operate or presideover each function and office to establish someone in it orordain them to it. He operated it so well that he establishedanother organization separate from the Church in the spring of1844.
Under letter "I" on page 16, the question is asked, "Isthere a priesthood higher than Melchizedek?" We answer, nonepertaining to the function of man upon this earth.
Under letter "J" Richardson asks, "Is there a higher officeof leadership than that of the [84] Presidency and the Twelve?"We answer, as far as Church office is concerned, no. But asBrigham Young once put it, after describing the Church officesfrom the First Presidency right on down to the Deacon's Quorum:
"I will say to you with regard to the kingdom of God on the earth--Here is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized with its rules, regulations and degrees, with the quorums of the holy priesthood, from the First Presidency to the Teachers and Deacons; here we are an organization... This is what we are in the habit of calling
the kingdom of God. But there are further organizations. The Prophet gave a full and complete organization to this kingdom the spring before he was killed...Can you understand me? The Church...is organized for the building up of this Church alone ... But the kingdom of God when it is established and bears rule, will defend the Methodists in their rights as much as the Latter-day Saints...Now I want to give you these few words--the kingdom of God will protect every person, every sect and all people upon the face of the whole earth, in their legal rights. I shall not tell you the names of the members of this kingdom, neither shall I read to you its constitution. But the constitution was given by revelation...Can you understand this? (J.D., vol. 17, pp. 156-157, 1874).
The Church is one organization and Brother Brighamrecognizes it and delineates it. Then he adds, "There arefurther organizations." What! More organizations than theChurch? He must have been referring to something else, do youthink? It doesn't sound as though Brother Brigham is trying torestrict and limit priesthood to the confines of the Church oranything else, as Richardson is doing. Whatever thisorganization was, the Prophet gave a "full and completeorganization to this kingdom the spring [85] before he waskilled." This organization has officers and a constitution. Theconstitution was given by way of revelation. President Young waskeeping the names of the officers a secret. (Terrible thing! Thepeople didn't even get a chance to vote on it!) It was no secretwho the officers of the Church were. The function and purpose ofthe kingdom was "to protect every person, every sect and allpeople upon the face of the whole earth, in their legal rights."
Is the purpose of the Church to protect all peoplepolitically? No. The spring before Joseph was killed was in1844. Brigham says this is when the "Kingdom of God" wasorganized. Wasn't the Church organized in 1830? George Q. Cannonsaid the kingdom was a separate entity from the Church. (SeeDoc. Hist. of the Church, vol. 7, p. 382. See also p. 213.)Brigham Young was obviously speaking to those in his audiencewho were not dismal as to the organizations of the priesthood,for he spoke to the others in words of, "Can you understand me?"and, "Can you understand this?"
In Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we are toldthat the First Presidency of the Church does not even have to beapostles:
"Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests...."
Then we are told by the Lord that they are to be:
"... chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, ... to form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church (D.C. 107:22).
Who does the appointing and from what body are they chosen?
Are these High Priests appointed by one higher or lower thanthemselves? If higher, then there must be one higher than thePresidency they form. How could one lower appoint those whowould function in a higher office than the one doing theappointing? If the Twelve is the body doing the appointing, then[86] how do they hoist up an office or quorum of officers higherthan themselves, since the Presidency presides over the Twelvein all the world? Confused? Hold on, it gets worse.
Earlier, we quoted Heber C. Kimball saying that there aremore than 30 men who hold higher authority than Sidney Rigdon.He said that Rigdon had no authority except what he receivedfrom the Church, as if that certainly was not enough. (See Timesand Seasons, vol. 5, p. 663). Rigdon was the First Counselor tothe President of the Church. But Brigham Young said he didn'tcare if they made Ann Lee President of the Church. In fact,Joseph himself tried to get Hyrum to be President of the Churchso he, Joseph would have more time for his higher office. Butthe people would have none of it.
"July 23, 1843. Last Monday morning, certain men came to me and said, `Brother Joseph, Hyrum is no prophet--he can't lead the Church. If you resign, all things will go wrong; you must not resign; if you do, the Church will be scattered.' I felt curious and said, `Have you not learned the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, which includes both Prophets, Priests and Kings?'" (T.P.J.S., p. 318).
What was the Prophet trying to tell the brethren who wereafraid Joseph was going to put Hyrum in as President of theChurch, when he said, "Have you not learned the priesthood?" Andwhat does it tell us about authority higher than President ofthe Church? It seems to us that the situation is still the sametoday in the Church, or we would not have the leaders puttingasunder what the Lord has established; i.e., restructuring theLord's priesthood with not even a claim of revelation to do so,such as the elimination of the seventys, no Church Patriarch asinstructed in D. & C., 124:124, etc. And what is this additionof an "Emeritus" status? These things and others all smack ofadding to and taking from, which Joseph Smith warned us against,lest cursings follow. The Catholics [87] started doing the samethings in the third century A.D., adding unknown offices such asCardinals, Pope, etc., and restructuring the church of Christ.
"And while they, the servants of the nobleman were laying the foundation thereof (meaning the fulness of the gospel), they began to say among themselves: And what need hath my Lord of this tower (the fulness completed), seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers? (Babylon, or big business, Wall Street, Zions Bank, Beneficial, etc.) For there is no need of these things (plural marriage, consecration, seventys, etc.). And while they were at variance one with another, they became very slothful and they harkened not unto the commandments of their Lord. And the enemy came by night (a time of slothfulness) and broke down the hedge (protection--changed
the ordinances); and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive-trees" (D.&C. 101:47-51).
This demonstrates the Lord's foreknowledge of what wouldhappen to his Church after he left his servants, the 12 olivetrees or apostles, to guard it. Verse 43 indicates it is asynopsis of what would occur in the future, verses 59-62 provingit. The real indictment against those leaders was when "the lordof the vineyard" came back and said, "What is the cause of thisgreat evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you?"(v. 52-53)
Read the Prophet's dream found on page 393 of T.P.J.S., andtell us it does not refer to the Church. He returned to find itin shambles. We may find when the Prophet comes again that hewill be ashamed to own the organization and teachings whichmodern Mormons so proudly wave before the world these days.
If the Lord sent the Prophet Joseph to res-[88]tore thefulness of the gospel, could we say he restored the "Kingdom"organization without the authority of the priesthood? Could welightly say, "My Lord hath no need of these things?" What didJoseph really do here? Perhaps it is time Richardson took stockand didn't worry quite so much about what those people are doingwith their lives who have studied the priesthood of God indepth.
Speaking to those who little understood priesthood in hisday, Brigham Young said:
"Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question--Does a man's being a prophet in this Church prove that he shall be President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a prophet, seer, and a revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being President of the Church.... Can you find a revelation appointing him, Joseph, the President of the Church? The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth...When he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people, though he held the keys of the priesthood independent of their voice" (J.D., vol. 1, p. 133).
From Gerald Newquist's compilation, "Discourses andWritings of George Q. Cannon," we read:
"What is a Prophet? It has been remarked sometimes, by certain individuals, that President Young has said in public that he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I have traveled with him since 1833...I have traveled a good many thousands of miles and have heard him preach a great many thousand sermons; but I have never heard him make that remark in my life. He is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are [89] prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle."
The fact that Joseph was a legitimate prophet had nothingto do with the fact that he was Church President. The people puthim there. He wanted Hyrum to occupy the position of President.This thing today about calling the President of the Church, "TheProphet," may not be legitimate. The word "prophet" was not usedin the ancient church as it is used today. There were many"prophets," but no one was forced to vote on it on penalty oftheir membership--with the possible exception of king Noah inBook of Mormon days.
There was an interesting prophet situation in the Book ofMormon:
"For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt in Jerusalem all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people...." (I Ne. 1:4).
Jeremiah was also a contemporary of Lehi, a prophet inJerusalem, who prophesied to the people. So who held the keys,Jeremiah or Lehi? Or was it one of the other many prophetscrying repentance unto the people then? The infallibility of thePope--is that what we have come full-circle to? Or is it theinfallibility of the President? No, it's just "follow theliving--prophet"? What is a prophet? Mosiah 8: 15 tells us thata seer is greater than a prophet and then explains why. It is agood review for us to read.
In Section 21 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord callsJoseph a seer first, a translator second, then a prophet. Sowhat's more important? In Section 124, verse 125, where the Lordpresents the officers in the Church, he calls Joseph to be anelder over the Church, then to be a translator, a revelator,then a seer and last, a prophet. He doesn't even call him an[90] apostle. That's because the President doesn't have to be anapostle, only a high priest. So what's Richardson's big issueover the prophet, the prophet? Do we assume the name merelybecause the title goes with the position and that makes it so?
The Book of Enos testifies:
"And there were exceeding many prophets among us" (Enos, v. 22).
Apparently there are going to be a lot of false prophets inthe Church as well. And we even wonder about apostles:
"For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion. And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known" (D.C. 64:38-39).
Even the Bishop must beware:
"And even the bishop who is a judge, and his counselors if
they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead" (Ibid., v. 40).
All this says to us is that it is time for a housecleaning.But we are not the ones who will do it, and the Church refusesto do it on its own, so:
"It shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong... to set in order the house of God ..... (Ibid., 85:7).
Anyway, back to educating Brother Richardson on thepriesthood. In 1879, President Cannon made this statement:
"Joseph Smith set the pattern; he taught the brethren who were with him better ideas; you well informed Latter-[91]day Saints know that there are two powers which God has restored in these the last days. One is the Church of God, the other, the Kingdom of God. A man may belong to the Kingdom of God and yet not be a member of the Church of God" (J.D., vol. 20, p. 204).
In 1863, Heber C. Kimball gets his two cents in on thisissue. The Church is a come one, come all organization. But theKingdom was not something to be sought out. From the beginning,only the more spiritually educated and valiant elders, bent onserving their God at all costs, were invited into thisorganization. Joseph had to wait a long time, nearly until hisdeath, before he had enough men on whom he could count, who hadlearned the priesthood. But it was and will be a power to bedealt with, since God intended for the keys of the Kingdom toremain. It was not intended to have portion after portion of therestored gospel altered or given up, together with theflounderings to prove and to justify as we see today.
Heber C. Kimball said:
"It is very easy to understand that a man can see very little of a kingdom unless he goes into it, and a man to see and understand the Kingdom of God must first become a member of the church of Christ, and then he progresses until he has an opportunity of looking into the Kingdom, of becoming acquainted with its officers and laws..." (Ibid., vol. 10, p. 240).
We all know the Church has officers and laws, but Heber C.Kimball said that you first become members of the Church andthen you may find out about the officers and laws of theKingdom. Here, you say, "Aha, you have to be a member of theChurch first." But how does that reconcile with those who sayyou can be in the Kingdom but not a member of the Church?
First of all, if a man has the priesthood, [92]excommunication cannot take that away from him if he has donenothing wrong. It stops him from acting in that capacity in theChurch. But he would no longer be in the mainstream
organization, would he? Suppose a man is in the Church and hewants to live all of Father's laws. Then he seeks further lightand knowledge. The Lord reveals it to him because his heart ispure, but the Church kicks him out of the synagogue forfollowing Father. Now, is he in the Church or is he not?Richardson and others say not. But remember, the Lord'sdefinition of what his Church is, with anything more or lessthan that, is not of him and cometh of evil. So he said.
From John Taylor:
"You cannot take any man's priesthood away without transgression" (Times and Seasons. vol. 6, p. 922).
As recorded in the Millennial Star:
"Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in such a way that it did not take the Spirit of God from them" (vol. 24, p. 99).
We have been told that there are two powers set up in theselatter days. Even though the Mother Church claims to have allthe chips, that does not disfranchise the other power in theeyes of God, if they are obedient, no matter how jealous theMother becomes or how much she cries and yells about how she isthe only one around here with any priesthood. So if there ispriesthood outside of the "mainstream" Church, taking intoconsideration Section 10:67-68, then don't you think there wouldalso be authority to baptise, even into the Church, although itwould not be put on the "mainstream" records until the settingin order? But then when that happens, a lot of Church memberswill find that they are [93] not members of either organization.
Meanwhile, back to priesthood powers, for there is anothersurprise here. Heber C. Kimball will tell you about it:
"This is the Kingdom of which all the prophets spake, and to which Daniel alluded when he said, `And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the Kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.' It is a blessing to have the privilege of entering into the Kingdom of God and partaking of the privileges and blessings that are bestowed upon its members" (J.D., vol. 10, p. 241).
Yes, we have all seen the charts of Nebuchadnezzar's dreamchild with the head and shoulders of gold and the feet of clayand iron, and how the scholar has sandwiched the organizationdate of the Church in between the Grecian monarchs and the lossof France's king after the French Revolution. Nonetheless, it isnot applicable to the establishment of the Kingdom which Danieland the prophets in the Bible all saw. Please observe that theProphet Joseph's number one student, Brigham Young, explains
again:
"It may be asked what I mean by the Kingdom of God. The Church of Jesus Christ has been established now for many years, and the Kingdom of God has got to be established, even that Kingdom that will circumscribe the kingdoms of this world. It will give laws to every nation that exists upon the earth. This is the Kingdom that Daniel the Prophet saw which should be set up in the last days. What Daniel saw should come to pass in the latter times...If the Latter-day Saints think when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth that all the inhabitants of the earth will [94] join the Church called Latter-day Saints, they are egregiously mistaken.... Do not imagine that if the Kingdom of God is established over all the whole earth, that all the people will become Latter-day Saints" (Ibid., vol. 1 p. 275).
The reason Richardson and most Church members never hearabout these things is, one, that they don't search all truth,they are satisfied to let the leaders do their thinking for themand think it a virtue; two, because with all the whining andcomplaining of the members, the fulness of these things is nevertaught. They were eliminated from the Church teachings before agreat portion of members was even born. And number three, theworst the Lord warned us about has come to pass:
"Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given to Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon his servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others, he told me and I can bear witness of it, `that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and Kingdom could not proceed.' When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the Kingdom would be taken from them (J. Taylor, J.D., vol. 11, p. 221).
Keys Taken From The Church
The keys of the Kingdom were taken from the Church a longtime ago. It really is important to know who holds those keys,because Joseph said that if we don't, we can be deceived. And itgets us back to the who-and-what-is-a-prophet thing again. Whatis a prophet? Joseph Smith, [95] who Should have known, said
"The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those who were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets...and these had to hide themselves in deserts and dens and caves of the earth..." (T.P.J.S., p. 206).
It's no different today. The Church has rejected so many of
the laws of God that the keys were taken and gross darknessbesets the minds of the people until they can no longer discernbetween the true and false prophets, let alone so-calledrevelation that places the unholy thing where It ought not tobe. Study your abomination of desolation texts in thescriptures, Brother Richardson.
Joseph poses and answers the question on what a prophet is:
"Do the Mormons believe Joseph Smith, Jr., to be a Prophet? Yes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus, For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Ibid., p. 119).
Do you have a testimony of Jesus, Brother Richardson? Thenwhy don't the members have to sustain you in conference as aprophet every six months? We have a testimony of Jesus, but noone makes the members vote us prophets.
Joseph Smith says:
"No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet" (Ibid., p. 160).
He tells us the same thing, same definition, on pages 265,269, 300, 312 and 315, so what is this forced tradition aboutsustaining prophets who don't prophecy, "seers" who don't tellus what they "see," and "revelators" who are not revealing. Atleast they or their ghost-writers aren't including it in any oftheir talks in Conference. We don't doubt these are very good[96] men at the head of the Church. We sustain them in anythingrighteous. We're sure they are doing their best with the body ofmembers over whom they preside, and they have a strong testimonyof the Savior and his mission. But where is the power instead ofthe pablum? The God of Heaven has work for his people to do, andif we want the gifts of the Spirit, the real gifts of God, wehad better be about doing his will, living his laws and obeyinghis ordinances--to the letter. Joseph gives us a key whichRichardson may not appreciate. He says, and he is the one whorestored these organizations:
"...For the fundamental principles, government and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the Kingdom" (Ibid., p. 21).
Now, if the keys of the Kingdom were taken from the Churchbecause of sloth, as is indicated in Doctrine and Covenants101:50--
"And while they were at variance one with another, they became very slothful and they harkened not unto the commandments of their Lord."
--And because of what the Savior himself said, after sayingthat the gentiles (Church members) were blessed for acceptingthe fulness of the gospel, (3 Ne. 16:6-7), he adds:
"And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you:At that day when the gentiles (Church members) shall sin againstmy gospel, behold sayeth the Father, I will bring the fulness ofmy gospel from among them." (Ibid., v. 10)--
--And if the keys were to be taken as Brigham testified,were celestial plural marriage not lived, then just which is itgoing to be, Brother Richardson, since we can't both be right?In any case, we have tried to show a number of things that thepaper neglected to cover. We are sure, however, that themissionaries will forget to take this reply around with them to[97] show the less-than-knowledgeable Church member orfundamentalist. Perhaps you would agree with us on at least thatpoint.
Office Higher Than Church President
To continue with Richardson's paper concerning a higheroffice of leadership than that of the Presidency and the Twelvein the Church, we believe we have already shown more than enoughevidence to indicate that there surely is. Joseph the Prophetwore more than one hat and established more than one priesthoodorganization, as Brigham Young and others pointed out. That thegeneral Church populace is ignorant of these facts and teachingsis no reason to suppose that Mormons have the big picture. Wehave no argument that the keys stayed with the Church afterBrigham Young's death. This is no mystery to us. He did notstate, however, that the keys of the Kingdom would never bewithdrawn from the Church so that they could do whatever theyliked with the laws of God. The Savior, we have already shown,stated that this would be the case at the time the members beganto sin against his gospel, dropping essential portions of it.
Joseph Smith was held at the head of the Church by thevoice of the people, but he did not have to be in that position,as we have shown. Hyrum could have been President of the Church,which is what Joseph preferred. But the people would not have itso. We repeat this because it is an important evidence.
So, if Hyrum had become President of the Church, would hehave presided over Joseph, who held all the keys? The wayMormons think today, they would have to say yes. But the answeris no, because Joseph held an office higher than President ofthe Church, which office has existed since the restoration.Joseph was President of the High Priesthood as well. He was notonly President of the Church, but also President of the Councilof the seven men mentioned in the 5th chapter of Teachings.Richardson quotes Doctrine and Covenants 107:82 and 91, andsays, "The President of the High Priesthood is the President ofthe Church." (His p. 16, J-2.)
[98] Where is the revelation which says that the President ofthe High Priesthood is or has to be the President of the Church?We read where the First Presidency is chosen, appointed andordained to form the First Presidency of the Church, in verse 22of Section 107. Next, the Lord shows the rest of the Churchorganization from the Twelve on down to the Deacons' Quorum. But
all verse 82 shows is provision that the President may be triedfor transgression. (There goes your infallibility doctrine.)
But there is a difference between the three High Priestsand those belonging to the High Priesthood. Remember, Heber C.Kimball said that there were more than 30 men with higherpriesthood than Sidney Rigdon. Verse 66 says the Presiding HighPriest out of the High Priesthood presides over the HighPriesthood of the Church. But the clincher that shows the Lordis not talking about the High Priest who is the President of theChurch, is in verses 91 and 92:
"And again the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church and be like unto Moses--Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the Church" (D.C. 107).
Doesn't Richardson feel it would be a little difficult forthe President of the Church, being head of the Church, to bestowblessings upon his own head? Blessings of this nature areimparted from the top down, not from the bottom up, or on one'sown head. There is no precedence for such behavior in Churchhistory.
The reason this revelation seems ambiguous is because wehave to understand whom the Lord was speaking to at this time.He was speaking to the members of the Church. There were manyrevelations received by Joseph which were never given to theChurch, because they were intended for the Priesthood. Theproblem the Church has [99] always encountered is that theyrepeatedly confuse themselves with the priesthood. This is whythere was confusion in the minds of many of the Latter-daySaints as to who held the authority, Brigham Young or SidneyRigdon. As we said, there were more than 30 men who held higherauthority than Rigdon, because he was not worthy to be calledinto the higher councils of the priesthood. Joseph did not wanthim there, and Rigdon was a member of the First Presidency ofthe Church.
The Church makes the same mistake today. They think thatbecause they have thrown off the higher principles, which werenever tenets of the Church to begin with, and because they havethe majority of members, that they can dictate to thatpriesthood which they gave up a long time ago. The members ofthe Church do not understand the priesthood as the Lord restoredit. Find the account of where Peter, James and John gave Josephand Oliver the Melchizedek priesthood, for instance.
"But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand" (T.P.J.S., p. 331).
The Lord never intended that all of the sacred things of
the holy priesthood be revealed to the general populace of theChurch:
"There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent (Ibid., p. 170).
Why should the Lord make all things pertaining to thepriesthood transparent to the Church? It has never been so. IsRichardson trying to tell us that all of the members arefaithful, that they all pay tithing, that they all attend [100]their meetings, that they all have their endowments, are one inthe faith, have all things in common? We think not. It is alsotrue that all fundamentalists are not at the same level. So whywould the Lord be required to have the sacred things of hispriesthood trampled upon, even by the so-called members of theChurch? All things were restored, but that does not mean thatall things were revealed to everybody at the same time, worthyor not. Joseph tells us that all of those laws and performanceswere to remain:
"...For all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the Priesthood, under the direction and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period shall be had again...." (Ibid., p. 171).
Church history tells us that Joseph bestowed every key andauthority he held upon the Twelve in 1843. He told them he wasrolling the responsibility for the Kingdom off from hisshoulders onto theirs. Then he danced around like a youth,feeling that the weight had been shifted from his back totheirs, after he had borne it all those years. Those whoreceived the ordinance of receiving Joseph's keys and authorityhad been numbered among the Twelve for years. What was it Josephgave them that they had not already received at the time theywere called to the Council of Twelve? Whatever it was, they weretold that if they did not round up their shoulders and bear offthe responsibility, they would be damned. The Twelve at thattime were proven men; they had earned those blessings. Whatrecord do we have since that time? Merely calling a man to theTwelve does not presuppose that he assumes all the keys whichthe Twelve--men who had been tried in the fire--received. Thereis more to priesthood than Richardson has been told.
William Clayton's journal records a certain [101] Councilwhose members were numbered with those in the Council of Twelve,but which were not the Twelve:
"Soon after, all of the members of the Council of the K. of G. in the camp, except Bro. Thomas Bullock, went onto the bluffs and selecting a small, circular, level spot surrounded by the bluffs and out of sight, we clothed ourselves in the priestly garments and offered up prayer to God.... The members of the above Council are Brigham Young,
Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Pratt, George A. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Amasa Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Phineas H. Young, John Pack, Charles Shumway, Shadrack Roundy, Albert P. Rockwood, Erastus Snow, myself, William Clayton Albert Carrington, and Porter Rockwell" (Clayton, "Journal," p. 203).
There were keys and offices you know not of, BrotherRichardson. This being the case, then why could there not be anofficer higher than the Church President? President Youngreferred to Twelve Apostles, High Priest Apostles, SeventyApostles, and all other Apostles.
Hyrum was also appointed by the Lord to be:
" ... a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church...." (D.C., 124:94).
We would like to know where Richardson got the word "keys"out of the word "oracles." He claims that Section 90:3-4 saysthe Lord said the keys would go from Joseph to the Church. Itsays:
"Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come. Nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another, yea even unto the church."
[102] Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives the definition of"oracles" ancient and modern:
"OR'A-CLE, n. ME.;OFr'L. oraculum, a divine announcement, oracle, a prophecy, from orare, to speak, also to pray, beseech, entreat, from os, oris, the mouth. 1. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, the place where or the medium by which deities were consulted. 2. The revelation of a medium or priest 3. (a) any person or agency believed to be in communication with a diety; (b) any person of great knowledge; (c) opinion or statements of such a person. 4. The holy of holies of the ancient Jewish temple: I Kings vi. 16, 19-23. 5. The scriptures.
Now, if you can decide from the word "oracles" what theLord was referring to, we wish you luck, because it goes fromprophecy to the scriptures to the temple. Joseph was the oneusing the word, and he was a student of Hebrew. The ancient wordfrom the Biblical Hebrew text for oracle, was "debir," which,interpreted means, the shrine or innermost sanctuary.
Richardson's interpretation of verse 4 in Section 90 is, atbest, quite loose. Verse 3 says that Joseph will keep the "keys"eternally. But verse 4 says that he shall give "oracles" to theChurch. They are not necessarily the same thing at all. It couldrefer to his giving them the scriptures, the temple rites, a
revelation or revelations, or it could mean any holy thinguttered from the mouth. In the light of much other informationand record, we would not try to pin our logic of Church "keys"on that particular reference.
Richardson indicated that Wilford Woodruff said thePresident of the Church was the highest office in the Church. Wehave no problem with this as a Church position. Notice thefollowing additional statement:
"And the highest office that any man [103] has ever held onthe face of the earth, in this or any other generation, is thatof an Apostle," (J.D., vol. 13, p. 319).
The Kingdom of God organization was a higher organizationthan that of the Church. As we said, although Joseph held thekeys of the Kingdom, he did not organize it until just before hedied, because it was not until then that he had enough menqualified through experience, men who had a knowledge ofpriesthood and who could act in its offices and perform in thefunctions of that calling. Joseph stated:
"...for the fundamental principles, government and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the Kingdom" (T.P.J.S., p. 21).
In the eight-hour meeting of 1886, steps were taken topreserve keys, rites, ordinances and laws that the Lord knewwould be tossed aside by the Church. This was a natural thingfor the Lord to do in order to avoid the end result of thedevil's work, which was to thwart the work of God in thepriesthood. He did not side-step the Lord's anointed head orChief Apostle. Indeed, he acted through his proper andestablished authority on the earth, not as the President of theChurch, but as President of the "High Priesthood over the HighPriesthood of the Church and the Kingdom":
"As to a person not knowing more than the written word, let me tell you that there are keys that the written word never spoke of, nor never will." (H.C. Kimball, "Times & Seasons," vol. 5, p. 667).
There are keys that never have been vested in the Church,which belong to the Priesthood of God in the "furtherorganizations" which Joseph established upon direct command ofthat God whose gospel this is, for the salvation of men on theearth. We are trying to make this clear at the risk of somerepetition of facts.
[104] "Joseph was ordained to the apostleship under the hands ofmen holding the keys of the Kingdom of God in the days ofJesus--Peter, James and John" (Durham, Discourses or WilfordWoodruff, p. 95).
If the 1886 revelation is from God, and the Church hasrejected it, they are the ones in Richardson's "dilemma,"because those men who were set apart by President Taylor, those
who were not already apostles, were set apart as apostles of theLord Jesus. They also held the keys of the Kingdom, though theywere not in the Quorum of Twelve, as in the case of Paul. Theydid not need to be numbered among the membership of the Churchif they held positions in the Kingdom organization. They stillheld the apostleship no matter what Richardson's opinion or theopinions of others may be. The apostleship is the highest officeon the earth, in or out of the Church. It is higher than theoffice of the President. It is higher than a "prophet." WilfordWoodruff also said:
"President Brigham Young, during his lifetime, set forth with great plainness the authority of the Apostleship...he said that when a man was ordained an apostle, he receives all the authority of the Priesthood that a man could hold on the earth in the flesh. It comprehended all the offices in the Priesthood ... The Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained apostles before the organization of the Church. By virtue of that authority, Joseph acted" (G. Cannon, Gosp. Truth, vol.1, p. 262).
Again, so much for Richardson's former statement thatJoseph could not act in the various capacities between the timeof receiving the priesthood and the organization of the Church.
Even Orson Pratt spoke of people in the Church today whowould certainly take the view Richardson has with the partialgospel which he has been bequeathed and has embraced. He said:
[105] "I do not know but that it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry out some principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of this people. They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform to Heavenly laws, it may be needful to lead some from the midst of this people and commence anew somewhere in the regions round about these mountains... I do not know how long it will be before this people are brought to the trying point to see who is and who is not for the Lord; but I would advise the Latter-day Saints to prepare for this, for it may come sooner than some of you expect. If the Lord should undertake to bring about an order of things different from that which now exists, and establish it not exactly in the midst of this people but in some place where they can commence anew, I hope the people will begin to pray ... Do you suppose that God will reveal his power among an unsanctified people, who have no regard nor respect for his laws and institutions? No ... In order to bring about this, who knows how many chastisements God may yet have to pour out upon the people calling themselves Latter-day Saints" (J.D., vol. 15, p. 361).
"And upon my House shall it begin, and from my House shallit go forth, saith the Lord." The judgments of God are at thedoor. Only the unwary who are deceived by the craftiness of menwill be asleep at that time. Those who are not apostles andprophets will be made known, and those who, for their own
peculiar reasons, prefer not to believe the truth, will be thosewithout the oil of the Spirit in their lamps to guide them whenthe calamities which are coming upon the earth are beginningright here in this valley, the valley of people who had greaterlight and truth than any other people in the history of theearth, light and truth which they have turned upon and trampledunder their feet.
[106] "God will not dwell in the midst of a people who will not sanctify themselves before him. That is the reason why he withdrew his presence from ancient Israel. Moses sought diligently to sanctify that numerous people and to bring them into subjection to the law of God; He endeavored to teach them the higher gospel ordinances and law which would have exalted them into the celestial kingdom of God, but he could not do it; they were a hard-hearted, stiffnecked people and they would not give heed to his words or to the words of the Lord" (Ibid., p. 363).
We always think those words apply to somebody else. But theLord has the same problem today. Israel as a whole has alreadyfailed the test. They have conditioned themselves for a lesserkingdom so they can be at peace with the world and no more bepersecuted for their peculiar beliefs. Now they justifythemselves by holding up permissive counsel which they demandedof the Lord in their slothfulness, and which they now proclaim"came from God by way of revelation." They have turned on thepriesthood to the point that, as in ancient Israel, thepriesthood is scarcely found among them. ("Where there is nochange in ordinances, there is no change in priesthood," saidthe Prophet Joseph.)
Richardson seems totally unaware of God's otherinstitutions and their function or purpose. Yet, in arrogance heproclaims that the Church is all there is and that God can haveno say unless we "canonize" it first. Brigham Young understoodthe priesthood. He said:
"I speak thus to show you the order of the Priesthood. We will now commence with the Apostleship, where Joseph commenced. Joseph was ordained an Apostle--that you can read and understand. After he was ordained to this office, then he had the right to organize and build up the Kingdom of God, for he had committed unto him the keys of the [107] Priesthood, which is after the order of Melchizedek, the High Priesthood which is after the order of the Son of God. And this, remember, by being ordained an Apostle" (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 134).
The voice of the Lord to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles,December 5, 1847, as related by Apostle Orson Hyde, October 1,1860:
"Let my servant Brigham step forth and receive the full power of the Presiding Priesthood in My Church and Kingdom. This was the voice of the Lord to us at Council Bluffs...."
(Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 233-234).
Brigham Young established the gospel which Joseph restored.He has taken the brunt of criticism from the world and is nowtaking it from the members of the Church who are also in theworld. He was the foremost student of the Prophet Joseph, and heeventually learned all he knew from the Heavens directly, and sotestified:
"I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself... all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit? the whole man is filled with knowledge ... what I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the Heavens...." (Ibid., vol. 16, p. 46).
Can Richardson make that same claim before he turns fromsome of Brigham Young's teachings? Can the members of theChurch? Do they know the revelations of Heaven for themselvesbecause they have seen and heard from the Heavens? I believe asa Church member and supposed representative, that it would bewise for Richardson and others to be more careful how the nameof Brigham Young comes out of their mouths.
"I know my Heavenly Father and Jesus [108] Christ whom he has sent...." (B. Young, Ibid., vol. 4, p. 218).
Many things were given to the priesthood that were neverintended for the Church at large. The Church members have,because of their ignorance of these things, fallen into the ideathat, "We are all there is, and God has to now go through us byway of the canonization process to get anything passed bycommittee." In an "uncanonized" revelation to the priesthood,John Taylor revealed in part:
"Behold, you are my Kingdom and rulers in my Kingdom, and then are you also, many of you, rulers in my Church according to your ordinations therein ... And are ye not all of my Church and belong to my holy Priesthood? And then are ye not all of my Kingdom, and do you not belong to my Kingdom, and are ye not the representatives thereof, even my Constitution?... Behold, thus saith the Lord, I will be obeyed by my Council, and if they do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord of Hosts, the God and king of the whole earth ... I have established my Kingdom to be a shield and a protection to my Church, to learn and comprehend my law, and to carry out my purposes, that my will may be done on earth as it is done in Heaven: The Church through the law and the Spirit of the gospel to preserve the virtue and purity of the Kingdom...And the Kingdom to preserve and protect the Church from the aggressions of the wicked and ungodly...Are I and my Father with the Church? Yes. Are we not also with the Kingdom? Yes...." (Rev. to J. Taylor, June 1882; J. Taylor papers, C.H.O.).
There are many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God andthe priesthood that we shall not address in this reply, for theyare sacred and not intended to be bandied about by the Church orthe gentiles. Richardson's real enemies have [109] already madepublic too many precious truths, to the embarrassment of theChurch members and hierarchy. These are the "swine that turn andrend you." We do not want to fall into the same category;therefore, we present a few leading items for his considerationand to all who love the ring of truth. The work of God will goforward, with or without us. There is room for all classes, andall mansions will be filled in the end. Our purpose in thepriesthood work is to do just what God tells us to do. Whetherwe are appointed to the highest mansion or not is not the prime,moving force with us. It is to do the will of the Almighty hereupon the earth and let the chips fall where they may. We areconfident that every man will be rewarded according to his worksand his capacity and that the Lord will be more than fair withus all. Again,
"You must make yourselves acquainted with those men who, like Daniel, pray three times a day toward the House of the Lord. Look to the Presidency and receive instructions" (T.P.J.S. p. 161).
Joseph Smith said, quoting from Revelation:
"The horn made war with the Saints and overcame them ... until the Ancient of Days came...." (J.D., vol. 6, p. 239).
Do we understand what "overcame" means? He and John theRevelator state that the Saints are overcome in the latter days.He says "Saints." Does Richardson and the rest of the Churchmembers consider themselves "Saints" of the latter days? If so,the scripture applies, and the Ancient of Days has not yet come.Do we know what the "horn" is that made war with the Saints andby which the Saints were overcome? We ought to be finding out ifwe haven't understood it before now.
So is there an office higher than that of the President ofthe Church? Of course there is and has been since Joseph Smith.The priesthood has always known it. We even have an example inthe Book of Mormon. Who held the higher office--was [110] itAlma, who was the founder of the Church?
"And thus ended the reign of the kings over the people of Nephi; and thus ended the days of Alma who was the founder of the Church" (Mosiah 29:47).
Or was it Mosiah, who was the king of the land? It looks asthough the head or the President of the Church had a problem. Itwas a matter of disputation among the people. Transgressors werebrought to the priests, and they didn't know what to do, so itwent up the ladder until it came to Alma.
"Alma was troubled in his spirit, and he caused that they should be brought before the King" (Ibid., 26:10).
What? The head of the Church takes the accused before theKing of the land? Their sins were of a spiritual nature, butAlma says to the King:
"Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in diverse iniquities; therefore, we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes" (Ibid., 26:11).
Now Alma, head of the Church, gets instructed by the King:
"But King Mosiah said unto Alma, Behold I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged" (Ibid., 26:12).
Remember that Alma was in the court of Noah and heard theprophecies and warnings of Abinadi before he was burned. But itdoesn't say where he got his authority when he went out to startthe Church. Where did he get his authority?
"Now King Mosiah had given Alma the au-[111]thority over the Church" (Ibid., 26:8).
Why did this occur? How could the founder of the Church begiven authority from above? Because "Alma who was the highpriest" (26:7) only had to be a High Priest to be in the ChurchPresidency, which we know from Doctrine and Covenants 107:22.Mosiah held the keys and was a King, while Alma took theresponsibility of guiding the Church under Mosiah'sauthority--just as Joseph wanted Hyrum to do. The problem isthat many of you in the Church have gone to sleep. Nephi alsosaw our day and said to beware, for:
"...behold, at that day shall he, the devil rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well --and thus the devil cheateth their souls and leadeth them carefully away down to hell" (2 Ne. 28:20-21).
Why "carefully"? Because he does not want them to wake upas he leads them along. In the May 1982 "Ensign Magazine," weread the words of President Spencer W. Kimball:
"... the Lord is at the helm, the Church is true, and all is well" (p. 76).
Again, Wilford Woodruff said:
"The reason why the Church and Kingdom cannot advance without the Patriarchal order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it, the Church cannot progress" (M.
Cowley, Life of W. Woodruff, p. 542).
If there is not an administrator advancing the keys of allthe laws on the earth at this [112] time, then we have to admitthat the faithful 2% were bound by the wishes of the unfaithful,that Satan has succeeded in binding Jesus Christ. But thefaithful will go on keeping the laws of God, and neitherRichardson nor the Church nor earth nor hell will ever stamp outthose laws and practices, because the Lord will have a legaladministrator to stand in the breach while the Church appeasesthe world and "all is well" Mormons. If you want to look for aman who holds all of the keys, you must look for a man who isliving all of the laws.
The Church Does Not Lead The Priesthood
Many of the members of the Church are getting restless. Themore they try to change the laws, ordinances and blessings whichGod restored for their benefit, and then attempt to appease themwith the Jesuit twisting of words and scriptures, the more thethinking people become uncomfortable. They sense in theirspirits that there is more to all this than they are receiving.They knew from pre-earth life that they came for more than thefirst principles. The valiant ones will always seek all truth,and the more you try to placate them and put them back in theirplace with thought controlling cliches such as, "Don't searchthe mysteries," or, "Don't ask questions like that in thisclass," the more they are going to squirm--not all of them, justthose who still think and are not intimidated by being calledinto the Bishop's office or having their membership red flaggedas is the present habit, to keep an eye on them.
We have no quarrel with putting Brother Ezra T. Benson atthe head of the Church. But does this put the Church at the headof the priesthood? Or ahead of God's laws so they can not onlydecide to vote some of them away, but certainly did?
The men who were set apart in the meeting in 1886 wereorganized to preside over the Kingdom and those keys until Zionis redeemed in power, as spoken of in Section 101. Zion cannotbe built up except upon celestial laws. Those men need not haveany permission whatsoever, nor sanction, nor vote of the peopleor of any pro-[113]phet subsequent to John Taylor, to carry onwhat Joseph Smith, John Taylor and the Lord Jesus Christ,himself, commissioned them to do.
The Church has refused, or voted away, giving certainordinances to the people. Therefore, the Church can no longer bethe custodian of those ordinances, together with the necessarykeys.
"The priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is not essential to the priesthood" (J.R. Clark, "Imp. Era," Mar. 1936, p. 134).
"Joseph Smith when speaking strictly, recognized a distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ and the
Kingdom of God, and not only a distinction but a separation, one from the other" (Roberts, Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, p. 180).
"Here it, ye Elders of Israel, and mark it down in your logbook, the fulness of the gospel is the United order and plural marriage...." (B. Young, sermon at dedication of St. George temple).
President Wilford Woodruff once made the statement,
"Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped" (St. Conf., Ogden, Ut., Oct. 19, 1896; "Des. Weekly News," vol. 53, no. 21).
Now, when do you suppose that time was when the head of thedispensation stopped coming to visit the head of the Church? Youguessed it--in 1890, the year the Church members decided theywanted to follow man more than their God in all things, evenunto death.
Jumping To Conclusions
It would seem that Richardson is jumping to conclusions andputting words in the Lord's mouth. On page 17 of his paper, #11,he says, "The keys of the Kingdom are given unto the [114]Twelve Apostles." He cites Section 27:13 as his reference toback it up. As we read that scripture, it would appear that theLord is speaking about the time when, and with whom, he willpartake of the fruit of the vine. The revelation was given asJoseph was going to purchase wine for the sacrament. He was metby a heavenly messenger and he received instructions. The firstfour paragraphs were written at the time, the remainder inSeptember following, in 1830.
The Lord speaks of the ancient prophets and dispensationheads with whom he will drink wine when he comes upon the earth(v. 5). The only living mortals he refers to are Joseph Smith,Jr., and Oliver Cowdery. He tells them:
"And also Peter and James and John (referring to those with whom he will drink wine), whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them (Peter, James and John). Unto whom (Joseph and Oliver) I have committed the keys of my kingdom and the dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times...." (D.C. 27:12-13).
We see no mention there, before or after, where any keysare given to the Twelve, as Richardson says. He needs to readthe scriptures more thoroughly perhaps.
The problem Richardson is facing is the same one faced bythe rest of the Church. He takes the example of valiant men whoproved themselves faithful in the fire and earned the right to
stand in the highest offices in the Church as well as theKingdom. Then by assent he thinks that everyone thereafter whostepped into that office had the same keys, rights andprivileges by osmosis or something. It was no longer necessaryto fulfill the office or keep the laws or receive all theordinances. Those who went before did all that, so we don't haveto, right? [115] Just follow the living arm of flesh and don'tworry about taking the Spirit for your guide, because ourleaders will get us there if we pay our tithing (17% of theChurch does, anyway) and attend our meetings and keep our hometeaching statistics up and keep our mouths shut, etc.
But it doesn't work by osmosis. The priesthood didn't leavethe Church in Israel's day. The Church went from the priesthood,because they were more attracted to being one and in concertwith the world--"to be at peace with their neighbors." BrighamYoung tried to warn the Mormons:
"There is nothing that would so weaken my hope and discourage me as to see this people in full fellowship with the world, and receive no more persecution from them because we are one with them. In such an event, we might bid farewell to the holy priesthood with all its blessings, privileges and aids to exaltations, principalities and powers in the eternities of the Gods" (J.D., vol. 10, p. 32).
Richardson has the members thinking that all they have todo to gain an exaltation today is to be found eating theirKentucky Fried Chicken while watching color TV when Christcomes, and then walk out the door and be caught up to eternalbliss. He might even open the door for them too.
Brother Brigham tried to put it another way:
"When we see the time that we can willingly strike hands and have full fellowship with those who despise the Kingdom of God, know then that the priesthood of the Son of God is out of your possession" (Ibid., vol. 10, p. 273).
The Church has given up the fulness of the gospel. Theliving Christ said that the keys, or the "fulness," would betaken from among us. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball., WilfordWood-[116]ruff, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and many others triedto warn the Latter-day Saints of the impending danger they wouldface if they gave up the highest laws God ever gave to man onthe earth. The keys would be taken and given to another people,a people coming out of the midst of that people callingthemselves Latter-day Saints, a people who will push spiritualthings to the front, who will not question the word of God butmeekly submit, no matter what the world says or does even ifthey have to stand alone in correct principles. This is what Godwants to make his jewels from, not compromise and concession,not vascillation, indecision and fear. If we would haveassociation with our Lord and the Prophets, then we must livethe same laws which exalted them. So they have clearly said.
On page 18, #15, Richardson says, "Brigham Young said, `Theapostleship is the highest authority that can be imposed uponman upon the earth.'" We thought Richardson said WilfordWoodruff indicated that the Presidency of the Church was thehighest.
On page 18, #16, regarding one man holding the keys, ifthere is only one man who has keys, then how can the Twelve havethe keys of the Kingdom? This is taken out of context from allthe other revelations and instructions given on this subject.Throughout Richardson's paper, he makes statements that arecompletely arbitrary and backed up by no other source than hisstatement. References do not coincide with the point he istrying to advance. The 1880 revelation to Wilford Woodruffexplains the function of keys and how and who exercises them, ina most instructive manner. But of course that revelation hasn'tbeen canonized, so the Lord couldn't have given thatinstruction. Nevertheless, the Lord tells the apostles that theyall hold all the keys in common, but that John Taylor has beenset at the head to preside and to reveal the word of the Lord tothe Church if it is so deemed appropriate. So if any one of theapostles obtains the word of the Lord, it is to be taken firstto the President, who was John Taylor, and then proclaimed tothe members, if that [117] was proper. In that way, there isorder in the Lord's House, not confusion.
However, it is true that only the President of the HighPriesthood has the authority delegated to him to "reveal" whathas come from the Lord for the whole Church. He is the court oflast resort when it comes to the administration of any of thekeys of salvation. And that is what this is all about, isn't it?Not plural marriage, not united order. It is about who has thesealing keys of Elijah. And the problems faced there aremany-fold. Number one, not everyone, even in the Church, wantedto carry the burden, from the time they were in the pre-earthlife. They just were not capacitated to do it. Second, the Lordhas put up such a smoke-screen around the fulness of his gospelthat it is not easily observed by everyone. The reason for thisis simple. The living of the ordinances is a sacred process.There are those who would enter in merely to justify their sins.If one's efforts are not sanctified by the Holy Spirit, theneven if we have found the priesthood order of these things, itwill avail us nothing. Only the pure in heart will succeed. Ifwe should enter into these higher laws and ordinances for anyother reason than to serve God, they will prove a snare, and ourdamnation is assured. That which cometh from above is sacred andwe are not to trifle with sacred things.
Page 18, #17, at this point, is redundant.
Regarding page 18, #18, the keys of the Kingdom do alwaysbelong to the Presidency of the High Priesthood. Hopefully, wehave made that abundantly clear. The problem is that those whoused to wear that hat, as well as the hat of the Presidency ofthe Church, vacated the dual position a long time ago. Now, ofnecessity, the Presidency of the Church hat and the Presidencyof the High Priesthood hat are in different locations. Sadly,
most Mormons don't even know it, not being students of history,the restoration and the gospel.
Richardson's page 18, letter "K", asks: "Is [118] theKingdom of God separate from the Church?" We think we havecovered that sufficiently in our material, including p. 19, #8,under that general heading. Here is another of Richardson'ssweeping conclusions built upon assumption again. Where doesthis idea find any foundation? All that Richardson knowsconcerning the Council of Fifty he has put in his paper. JosephSmith, George Q. Cannon and others have clearly stated that thetwo organizations are separate and distinct from one another,having separate and distinct functions.
Priesthood Garment
With regard to Richardson's assessment of the priesthoodgarment, page 19, letter "L", he can quote Josephus or MartinLuther, it's all the same to us. The Prophet Joseph Smith wasvisited by an angel of the Lord who showed him the true pattern.Joseph cut that pattern out three times to be certain it wascorrect before he approved its production. The garment was apattern transported from Heaven in the design the Lord intendedto have the faithful wear it. It is not subject to the indecentfad and fashions of modern Babylon. When asked about thegarment, President Joseph F. Smith said:
"... they should hold these things sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern which God gave them" ("Imp Era." vol. 9, pp. 813-814).
We prefer to wear the garment as the Lord intended. JosephF. Smith was there in that day, as was his father, Hyrum. Heknew whether the garment was the same as the Prophet approved ornot. A little research on this "two-piece" garment diversionwill render that a poor argument. Joseph F. Smith knew theproper garment and admonished the membership not to change or"mutilate" it, as he termed it. He even had a plaque hung in allthe temples, which said in part:
"The following is to be regarded as an established and imperative rule. The garments worn by those who receive them ... must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to [119] the wrist and ankles and around the neck. Admission to the Temple will be refused to those who do not comply...."
As to insisting that we still wear coats of skin, this isanother childish statement. Whether Adam wore a coat of skin orburlap is not the issue. The issue is the commandment andpattern and example given to the Latter-day Saints in the lastdispensation, by God, through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Thisshould also be Richardson's concern.
The style of garments in Joseph's day were to be carriedthrough, unchanged, to our day. Outer shirts were used forawhile in addition to the correct undergarment. Richardson's #3
on page 20 is obscurer and #5 is another error. There was and ismeaning to every aspect of all the clothing and their design.
Priesthood And The Blacks
On to page 20, letter "M", referencing "ConsiderationsRegarding the Admission of Blacks into the Priesthood and theTemple." It's funny that all the time the Church was defendingits position of the Negro not holding priesthood, we never onceheard that Philip was commanded to teach the gospel to theEthiopian (p. 20, M-a), or that Joseph Smith said that everycolor of man, including the Hottentot (black), would enter thetemple. We agree that the reference is attributed to theProphet, but why was this never brought out by the Church beforeJune 9, 1978? Are they rewriting all Church history now? Theynot only seem to have to justify their changed position, butalso back-pedal on Church position regarding the Negro before"Addendum #2." It really looks bad on the record, and many inthe world are pointing at the Mormons, amused by theirinconsistency.
Nothing whatever is said about priesthood in the Acts8:36-39 scripture, Brother Richardson. He was taught about JesusChrist and was baptised. The Church has been doing that much formany years. If the Lord's position was not in favor of the Negroholding priesthood for 5,978 years, then why does Richardsonwant us to be-[120]lieve that Philip was supposed to give theNegro the priesthood? And then he quotes from the Book of Mormonto support that position. Is he trying to say that the black manshould have had the priesthood all along? Is that what he istrying to say? If that is true, then he is saying that theChurch has acted in error from Joseph Smith's day to June 9,1978. If they have been wrong on the Negro question all thistime, then isn't it possible they could have been wrong on someother points as well? The Church has even gone back to the Bookof Mormon to change scripture wording in order to make it lookmore consistent with what has been done--this time to appeasethe demands of the world and the United States Government. It isindeed unfortunate when we try to become all things to allpeople, play both sides against the middle and jump when theysay jump.
We remember some years back as a youth that there was acommon vernacular for those who were less fortunate than we. Weused to say, "Poor as a Hottentot." It was an expression thatwas seldom attributed to a Negro. In fact, the expression hadbeen around for a long time, and we didn't know what a Hottentotwas. I wonder if people in Joseph's day even really knew. Youwill notice in the quotation that the word "Hottentot" issandwiched between a grouping of words such as "poor" and"unfortunate" types. But as we say, there is no denying the wordbeing in print. Richardson seems to pretend that Joseph Smithdidn't know the black had a ban on him by saying, "In the timeof Joseph Smith, Elijah Abel...was ordained an elder." Abel wasordained by William Smith without the Prophet's knowledge. Butwhat do you do with this?:
"...I can say, the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are deter-[121]mined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good...." (J. Smith, History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 438).
It was in April of 1836 that the Prophet said this. isRichardson assuming that Joseph didn't know about the priesthoodrestriction from the above quotation? Here is a quiz for BrotherRichardson. Let's see if he can identify the words of one of the"prophets" of the Church:
"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar... or same theater as white people...the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective ... Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man or was it God? And when he placed them there, he segregated them ... He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when he cursed the Negro as to the priesthood and drew an absolute line... What God hath separated, let not man bring together again."
Was that spoken by Brigham or Heber? Give up? It was byMark E. Petersen at B.Y.U. on August 27, 1954, delivered at theConvention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level.
We all know the quotations from Bruce R. McConkie's MormonDoctrine. This from the 1966 edition:
"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty...." (pp. 526-527).
[122] McConkie says earlier on page 479:
".... the lineage of Cain and of Ham are absolutely denied the Priesthood as far as this mortal life is concerned" (Ibid., p. 479).
After this, of course, Brother McConkie found himself inthe position of having to apologize all over the Church for themistake he made about the blacks. Is this, then, a prophet'svoice? If the trumpet blow an uncertain sound, will the troopsnot falter? What happened to follow the leader, even if it isaround in circles! At least the thinking has been done.
While the Church leaders were lifting the curse of nopriesthood from Cain, should they have lifted the mark of that
curse as well? We quote from Wilford Woodruff:
"The Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of the earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the priesthood until the time of that redemption" (M. Cowley, Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 351).
Now, who was right, Wilford Woodruff, or Bruce R. McConkie?It is a simple question. McConkie agrees with Woodruff until1978, then he changes his tune. Woodruff's prediction extendsbeyond McConkie's, obviously unless the Church considers all ofAbel's posterity redeemed. Maybe President Woodruff was wrong,but, if that is true, then maybe the Manifesto was not the wordof the Lord through a prophet as well. Do you see the dilemma?
From the "Deseret News":
"....until the blessings of Abel's [123] birthright are fully received by his descendants, Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with Fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark" ("Des. News," vol. 2, no. 11, Apr. 3, 1852).
Well, now the Negro is positioned to marry our daughters.Brother Richardson, too, can have a Canaanite posterity, asnumerous as the sands on the seashore. He can have all hisin-law's genealogy sealed in the Temple all the way back toCain. And since he can be sealed back to Cain, he can go whereCain is going. It must be so, since Congress says so and theyare his law of the land. No wonder the Prophet Joseph and hiscontemporaries all lived plural marriage against the law of theland, against the statutes on record, against public opinioninside and outside the Church, in their day, too.
The "Black Manifesto" is the same as the 1890 Manifesto,being a political ruse to keep the government off the back ofthe Church. But it answered the ends of the adversary bycorrupting the genealogical lines of the priesthood throughintermarriage with the forbidden race, those not valiant topriesthood in the pre-existence. If Brother Richardson prefersto preside over a posterity of Canaanites, he and others areperfectly free to do so, contrary to the program of the Lord.
So Richardson and others say the Negro is getting thepriesthood, and we say the Church found another Manifesto. Theyhave doubled back on the gospel principles again to get the heatoff. But it tends to appear that they want it to look like theyhave always thought the Negro should have the priesthood. Nomatter which way the Church turns on this, it looks at best asthough they are vacillating and weak-kneed.
While they are at it, they should change the 10th Articleof Faith too. It would now better read, "We believe in the
literal gathering of [124] Israel-Canaan and in the restorationof the ten tribes." That is just what they are going to have, aposterity and heritage of the sons of Ham and Cain, themurderer. Does Richardson still believe in the "restoration ofthe ten tribes," or is that out, too?
The Lord God has always had Israel as his chosen people,but ye have polluted the holy seed. All down through the ages,God would not permit the intermarriage of Israel and Canaan. TheIsraelites under Ezra were cursed for it, Solomon lost histhrone and salvation because of it. The adversary has soughtthis end from the beginning. The Lord said through Peter:
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).
What happened to the concept of the chosen tribes ofIsrael? Where did it go? Where is the revelation rescinding thatpromise of God unto the fathers to the ends of the earth?
"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness ... a curse was placed upon him, and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures" (J.F. Smith, The Way To Perfection, p. 101).
"When they were cast out, there were many who did not join the rebellious forces, but who were not valiant. Because of their lack of obedience, they were not deprived of receiving bodies, but came here under restrictions. One of those restrictions is that they were denied the priesthood. They may come into the Church, but they are not privileged to obtain the priesthood in this life" (J.F. Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 5, p. 163).
[125] How is it that we are to believe that a law of God whichhas been in existence since the beginning of time has beenarbitrarily eliminated on the strength of a news article?
"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain... this is the law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that he would cease to be God" (B. Young, J.D., vol. 11, p. 272).
So Brigham Young has just shown us that by the Church'sactions, they have unseated God from his Heavenly throne by thatnewspaper announcement. Again, do you see the real dilemma,Brother Richardson? Have all the other children received theirpriesthood blessings? I don't think so. Are the founders of theChurch false prophets and our modern leaders true ones?
Brigham Young also said:
"Let this Church which is called the Kingdom of God on earth--We will summons the First Presidency, the Twelve, the High Council, the Bishopric and all the Elders of Israel, suppose we summons them and appear here and here agree that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to our fate" (Sermon of 5 Feb. 1852).
Let us consider a prediction made by a promi-[126]nantfundamentalist leader which was stated in 1970:
"The government is behind the move to make the L.D.S. Church acknowledge that the Negro can have the priesthood. The devil is behind it, too. And the devil has no intention of giving up the battle until he has gotten the Church to submit to it, just as the devil had no intention of giving up the battle until he got the Church to submit to the law respecting religion, denying the Church the right to practice their religion as it was guaranteed to them in the Constitution...The government has no intention of ceasing its battle to humiliate, demoralize and force the Church to give up every principle as a Christian faith that would brand them as the Church of God. This fight is going to continue, and it will get worse.
"This is just another excuse to make it (the black issue) seem plausible. The sad part of it is that about 50% of the membership of the Church is in harmony with giving up that God-given religious edict from our Eternal Father--that the Negro cannot hold the priesthood. Ninety-seven percent of them were in harmony with giving up the fulness of the gospel (united order and plural marriage) and eternal life that was attached to it, when the government insisted upon it. So you'd better brace up, brothers and sisters, and tighten your belts and get ready for the battle. It is here. God bless you" (Sermon given Sunday, 4 Jan. 1970).
Eight years later, this man's prophecy had come to pass, tothe shame of the Church and the piecemeal victory of thegovernment and milk and water Mormons. But we continue to ask,who had the more accurate estimate of what was going to happenregarding the Canaanite? Most Latter-day Saints today have noidea that it was pres-[127]sure from government sources, not theLord, that motivated the policy move on the part of the Church.There are yet additional predictions by these samefundamentalist leaders that have come to pass with far moreaccuracy than anything you have seen in the Church in yourlifetime, Brother Richardson.
Another thought: Where is the prophecy telling Israel thatthe Canaanite would hold the priesthood, ever, in mortality? We
find it nowhere. We do find references indicating that they werenot to receive it in this life, as the earlier and evencontemporary leaders taught. How is it that the daughters andsons of Ephraim, children of the holy seed, are now of suchlittle consequence that the "leaders of Israel" have voted toexpose them to the blood of Cain? Where is there precedent thatthe Lord has ever done this thing before? Was it possibly thatthe Church would lose its tax status if they refused entrance ofthe Canaanite into our temples? From where, exactly, came thepressure that caused the God of Heaven to alter his word on thisvital matter? Even a casual reading of the Old Testament willreveal how clearly the Lord revealed his position for all timeon this issue.
The leaders of Israel accepted intermarriage in the days ofEzra:
"For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I (Ezra) heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied.
"Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered [128] into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face....
"And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments which thou has commanded by thy servants the prophets ... Now therefor give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace, or their wealth forever..." (Ezra 9:2-3, 7, 10-12).
How long is forever? Until June 9, 1978? Ezra is astoundedthat they were so easily removed from the truth and the commandof God not to mingle the holy seed. And after all that had comeupon them, due to this, they prophesy their own end:
"Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldst thou not be angry with us till thou hast consumed us so that there be no remnant nor escaping ... we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this....
"We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land...." (Ezra 9:14-15; 10:2).
Solomon also lost his right to the priesthood andexaltation because of intermarriage with the Canaanites, whichGod had warned all of Israel against. We read that it was theirleaders who were "chief trespassers." Why? Because the people
did not have the position to approve those marriages in the nameof the priesthood. It came from the President of the Church."And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it goforth, saith the Lord." The judgments of God have always fallenupon his House after the prophets of Israel have spoken amissand the people have followed them into misdeeds. God's judgmentfell upon Ezra's people and upon [129] Solomon, Esau, Ishmael,Ham and any and all others in the world's history. Why should itnot fall upon this great deception among Israel in our day andage?
We do not believe there is a "revelation" from Godreversing his position. We do believe that men think they knowbetter than God when the heat is on. God sent the ProphetEzekiel to call the "prophets" of Israel to repentance in hisday for the same kind of activity we saw in 1978:
"And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying ... There is a conspiracy of her (Israel) prophets in the midst thereof ... her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean...And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord hath not spoken" (Ezek. 22:23-28).
Was Ezekiel a prophet or was he not? He was not speakingagainst the false prophets of Baal. He was speaking against theprophets of Israel who were representing themselves as havingthe word of the Lord when the Almighty had not spoken. TheGeneral Authorities say the Lord has spoken on the matter ofCanaan and Israel, reversing a law of God to all Israel. Whereis the word written? The people have all rallied (with those fewexceptions who have been summarily excommunicated when found)around the decision of the Authorities. It was not until afterthe June 9, 1978, announcement that some of the Authorities wererelegated to an "emeritus" status, whatever that is. Can thePresident of the Church be put on emeritus also? Obviously theChurch Patriarch can.
The priests of Ezekiel's day were not separating theprofane from the holy, nor the unclean [130] from the clean asthe Lord had designated them. In other words, they were "mixing"something. It appears that it may have been the holy seed beingmixed with the seed of Cain again. Because the "prophets" ofIsrael were making things up as they went along, the Lord alsotold Jeremiah:
"Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words...Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore, they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord" (Jer.
23:30-32).
We also find the following in Ezekiel 13:1-6:
"And the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! O Israel, the prophets are like the foxes in the deserts...They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The Lord saith: and the Lord hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word." (Press releases?)
What would be the feelings if God sent a prophet in our dayto explain to the people that they had been deceived intothinking the Canaanite was receiving the priesthood? What wouldbe the response of Ephraim if they learned after it was toolate, that they had married their fair daughters and theirposterity ever after into the race forbidden to the priesthood?The Lord [131] will not be mocked, especially by his chosenseed. Why? Because they are supposed to know better. The law andthe seal are upon this generation.
True prophets of God will never be found contradictingother true prophets of God, for the word of the Lord in thesalvation of men on the earth is the same in all ages. So whatdo you do with a contradiction? You find the truth. Where do youlook for the truth? In the word of God. Who perfectly supportsthe word of God as given in the scriptures and as the ProphetJoseph Smith restored it to the earth? Those who hold the truepriesthood of God, wherever they may be found, and who keep allthe laws, rites and ordinances of salvation alive, having theauthority to do so. Where do you find the one holding all thekeys? Look for the one who is living all the laws; then take itto the Lord.
It is unfortunate that the Church leaders of today are notonly attempting to correct the mistakes God made through JosephSmith and Brigham Young, but seem to be trying to correct themistakes God has made through all ages past. In order to bow topublic opinion, the Church leaders have found it necessary tocorrect. the teachings and practices of our early leaders bycorrecting revelations received by them, as well as some or thecomparable teachings in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
The 1886 Events Now with reference to Richardson's p. 26, regarding the1886 revelation and the activities of President John Taylor, wedo not intend to rehash what has already been more thanadequately advanced by both proponents and opponents of theconflict. Many have used Max Anderson's The Polygamy Story:Fiction and Fact as their text to build up fiction. It's true.His book is fiction in large measure. And Anderson knows that hecan just as easily write a book substantiating his oppositepoint of view. There have been enough holes shot in the book
that no more comment is needed.
Certainly the 1886 revelation and the 8 hour [132] meetingoccurred. It is for each individual to learn the truth forhimself. Though we have free choice, that free agency does notnegate truth. Truth stands eternal. The 8 hour meeting is moresubstantiated and witnessed than the vision of Joseph in thegrove. Whether he ever saw the Father and the Son or not becomesa matter of personal testimony. The lack of evidence andwitnesses does not prove that the event did not occur. Ithappened whether we like it or not, whether someone writes abook against it or not. So it is with the 8 hour meeting,whether we like it or not. God can get his own work done in hisown way and time.
We would like some examples of when the Lord has revoked,as Richardson says, the practice of an eternal principle,without revoking the principle itself, except, of course, amongthe wicked. If he is saying that God has revoked the higher lawsamong us, then held better examine why God has withdrawn themand why he thinks he will be blessed without living all of them."So the question of whether or not the revelation is true orfalse, is immaterial." Whether or not a revelation is true isimmaterial? No wonder Richardson is confused.
His statement "b" on page 21 is interesting: "The meeting(8 hour) is necessary to the fundamentalists in order that thekeys that could be held only by one at a time (D.C. 132:7) couldbe given to other men. This is a contradiction. For if JohnTaylor, whom the fundamentalists respect, had them before hegave them to other men, he lost the keys at that time. If hedidn't pass those keys on, there is a break in the line ofauthority. The fact is that John Taylor continued to act in theauthority of those keys which he is supposed to have given toanother man."
This is choice. Sometimes we think Brother Richardsonjests! Or perhaps he really does lack understanding about thefunction, processes and ordinances of the priesthood. Obviously,how is it that anyone holding keys, any keys, would lose them orhis own authority by passing [133] them on? This has been theonly procedure since the beginning of the world. Section 110tells us that Moses, Elias, Elijah, as well as the Savior,appeared to Joseph Smith and committed their keys to him fortheir dispensation. Does Richardson say that by doing so theylost the authority of their own dispensations? Because themantle of authority fell from Elijah to Elisha, is Richardsonsaying Elijah lost something? When Joseph announced that he hadcommitted all of his keys, power and authority upon the heads ofthe Twelve, did he sit in an easy chair with no authorityanymore? The Lord said the keys were not to be taken from Joseph"in all his lives." If Richardson has placed his hands onsomeone's head to bestow priesthood authority, is he now withoutit? Surely we're not children in the things of priesthood.
President Taylor lost nothing by giving men whom God hadchosen the authority which he, himself, held. John Taylor still
presided over those keys. Joseph Smith still presides over all,and the Lord over him. Surely Brother Richardson knows better.
He says on page 200 "There are other serious problems withthe possibility (at least he admits to the `possibility') of aSeptember 1886 meeting." However, we find that they aren't tooserious.
a. "The 1886 meeting was not recorded in John Taylor'sdiary." Who said so? That particular diary for that particularperiod is not and has not been available to researchers. It islocked away. Neither grandson Raymond Taylor nor Samuel Taylorever received permission from modern Church leaders to read thatdiary. Why? Also, if you had been through all that the earlybrethren had been through for the gospel and the principle ofplural marriage (and their enemies were ruthless andunscrupulous in their evidence-gathering), and the Savior hadjust revealed to you that you were to do the exact thing yourenemies hoped to use to skin you alive, what would you do, runright to your diary and record every detail so you could be hungwith it?
[134] b. "The meeting was not recorded in George Q. Cannon'sdiary--he was ill at the time." Same question--how do you knowhe was ill? We read where he was busily pitching quoits at thetime.
c. "The distance to the meeting was too far for Woolley totravel." That's good, Brother Richardson. The meeting was heldin the Woolley home in Centerville. He may have been fatiguedtraveling from the bedroom to the living room.
d. "The meeting was recorded 42 years later. Yet, the Lordhas told us to...." This is as far as the paper in ourpossession goes, this paper that Richardson and possibly othersof the Church have been using to attempt to overthrow the workwe are proud to be engaged in. A recording of an event 42 yearssubsequent to the event could realistically dim details, butcertainly not the issue and revelatory events surrounding the1886 meeting and President John Taylor. How much would youforget of an event with such spiritual happenings andsignificance?
Conclusion
Perhaps the Richardson paper may mislead the lethargic andthe spiritually lazy, but we are less concerned about those. Weare more interested in offering an alternative to hispresentation for the benefit of those who have not had allthought processes curtailed by the "follow the arm of flesh"philosophy.
We believe there are yet many hundreds of thinking andintelligent, spiritually astute and, right now, bewilderedmembers of the Church, who cannot reconcile the gospel of Christas restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith with the actionsand policies of the modern-day Mormon Church.
By comparison, the Roman Catholics held out much longer inwhat they believed than the Mormons, who have had more light andintelligence grace them from Heaven than any other people whohave lived upon this planet. This is why the condemnation willbe so terrible when God extends his arm to vex the nations, for:
[135] "Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face. Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth; a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord. FIRST among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord" (D.C. 112:23-26).
In conclusion, the flavor of Richardson's dialogue and theway he comes across in his paper is extremely offensive toclear-thinking people who have thoroughly investigated bothsides of the issues. He appears more interested in reclaimingmembership at any cost than clarifying and amelioratingdifferences or confusion. His intimation that allfundamentalists fall into the category of baby-killers andsuicidals who throw their families off buildings and who neglectwives and children by being out busily beating the bushes formore wives, is a pretty good indication that he tends togeneralize categorically. We feel that this represents hisoverall attitude toward truth, by diverting attention away fromlegitimate issues and creating emotional reaction throughsensationalizing, coupled with misunderstanding doctrines andprinciples and using lots of guesswork. Ervil LeBaron and thoselike him, for example, no more represent the so-calledfundamentalists than Mark Hoffman does the L.D.S. Church. Weaccept that, why doesn't Richardson?
We can't speak for the "150 fundamentalist breakoffs fromthe L.D.S. Church," as Richardson puts it, but it seems to usthat there is a little bit more reading, study, and a far better[136] grasp of the beginnings of the Church that would be to hisbenefit before he rushes headlong into attacking the beliefs offundamentalists in general--such as the very real fact that ifthe Church had stuck to her guns instead of giving up before ashot was fired, there wouldn't be "150 different fundamentalistbreakoffs" today, nor would there be the present necessity ofthe Church placating and bolstering up the thousands of singlewomen members, husbandless and childless, who have little hopeof finding a mate. This is a terrible indictment against aChurch entrusted by the Lord with the fulness of the gospelwhich would have prevented such a sad and unjust situation.
Richardson may very well one day find himself fightingagainst the work of God, and not only the work of God, but the
word of God as well. "For you shall live by every word thatproceedeth forth from the mouth of God" (D&C 84:44).
"Search these commandments, for they are just and true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:373-8).
Surely the true seeker after truth can see that there isfar more evidence for further investigation than Richardson hasadvanced in his paper. His exaltation just may be at stake, forthere is evidence that possibly may never have come to his eyeor ear. When a person sets himself up as an authority onsomething of this depth and eternal significance, he also setshimself up as a target for academic potshots from areas which hehas neither experience nor understanding to handle. Oursuggestion to Brother Richardson is to study more, much more,and then with a completely open heart, go to the Lord andsincerely apply Moroni 10:4.
![Page 1: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
![Page 52: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
![Page 53: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
![Page 54: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
![Page 55: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
![Page 56: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
![Page 57: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
![Page 58: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
![Page 59: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
![Page 60: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
![Page 61: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
![Page 62: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
![Page 63: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
![Page 64: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
![Page 65: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
![Page 66: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
![Page 67: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
![Page 68: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
![Page 69: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
![Page 70: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
![Page 71: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
![Page 72: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
![Page 73: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
![Page 74: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
![Page 75: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
![Page 76: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
![Page 77: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
![Page 78: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
![Page 79: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
![Page 80: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
![Page 81: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
![Page 82: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
![Page 83: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
![Page 84: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
![Page 85: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
![Page 86: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
![Page 87: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
![Page 88: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
![Page 89: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
![Page 90: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
![Page 91: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
![Page 92: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
![Page 93: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
![Page 94: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
![Page 95: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
![Page 96: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
![Page 97: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
![Page 98: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
![Page 99: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
![Page 100: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
![Page 101: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
![Page 102: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
![Page 103: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
![Page 104: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
![Page 105: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
![Page 106: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
![Page 107: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
![Page 108: [1] BRIGHAM YOUNG ADDRESSES - Welcome! - Mormon …mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-cont… · Web view · 2014-12-17set it aside to dwell more heavily upon uncanonized statements.](https://reader034.documents.pub/reader034/viewer/2022052516/5affe45c7f8b9a952f8c0a1f/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
