I recently read a great post over on the Mormanity website on a guy named “Bookslinger” who has been flooding the earth with the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.
After reading this post and the comments people mentioned how the Bookslinger isn’t currently a member of the LDS church, but after reading Bookslinger’s website I can see he’s a dedicated disciple of Jesus. On this site, he shares amazing stories of meeting people from all walks of life and languages and sharing both the Bible and Book of Mormon with them.
After learning that he isn’t currently a member of the LDS church it reminded me of the Baptist Preacher who believes in the Book of Mormon and preaches it to his congregation.
Personally, I have seen the power of Jesus that comes from reading the words of the Book of Mormon. After I read the Book of Mormon when I was 13 I had an intense desire to share it with the world. I have personally experienced what Joseph Smith stated when he said the Book of Mormon will bring you closer to God than any other book.
People may wonder how one can be a firm believer in the Book of Mormon but be a member of the LDS church.
Personally I think it is awesome that these people are true to their testimonies of the Book of Mormon even though for whatever reason they are not currently members of the LDS church. I hope we can all learn from their examples in sharing the scriptures with others.
Due to various circumstances there are people like those mentioned who are not members of the LDS church. Why do you think some people aren’t members yet still believe?
04-05-09
I can tell from some of the comments below that my intention for this post didn’t come across like I’d like it to have.
As LDS I feel we too often focus on one’s “membership” status in the church. We are all sinners and beggars and are all in need. I wanted to highlight the good that many “non-members” of the LDS church do and how God works through them. I apologize if the post came across as being offensive to Bookslinger, the Baptist Preacher, or anyone else.
45 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 4, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Bookslinger
Oliver Cowdery, Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and more, all knew the Book of Mormon was true, and still fell away. Hey, it happens. (I guess I could say I’m in good company, no? 🙂
LikeLike
May 13, 2009 at 1:43 am
Lin
Just found this website and am a current “in-active” LDS member attending faithfully the Presbyterian church. I still believe in the Book of Mormon, but have difficulty with ANY church keeping people from being baptized based on their sexual preference–which is just being judgmental. There are good people in all walks of life and there are also the not so good ones. It is NOT our place to judge. By the way, I’m also a heterosexual, democrat, a middle-aged convert, and strongly believe in the things our Heavenly Father CAN do.
LikeLike
April 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Anon
I think that while your heart is in the right place, this is a post that should not have been written, or at least should not draw attention to Bookslinger. He has been a member of the church, and will be again — he is hardly a non-member despite his current status! He isn’t one who “chose not to be baptized” or who “fell away from the church,” and I think it is unfair — rude, even — to illustrate your post with him and focusing attention on his status. HE can do that. YOU should not.
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 12:25 am
Jeff Day
I’m a former LDS member that still believes in the Book of Mormon in many regards. I have questions about its historicity, but I also find spiritual value therein, and have continued to share it, or at least portions of it, with others.
LikeLike
April 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Jerry Wayne Anderson
This is just a thought. I’m not looking for a debate or even a dialogue.
I used to have questions about the historical accuracy (not to mention the physical probability) of nearly all scripture. I found that was was over-stressing my testimony.
Heavenly Father has promised to make all things known to us … in his time. Considering our time as mortals is less than a blink, I’m willing to wait. In the meantime, I’ll just take advantage of the blessings and joy (spiritual & temporal) that we were given a body to experience.
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 2:22 am
Ezra
For me, the Gospel of John is the book that brings me closer to God. I like the fact that Jesus’ dialogue is so pronounced in this Gospel and that we learn the essential teachings in this book.
In John we read the statements of Christ that affirm his unique place as “the only begotten Son of God” and the unique relationship Jesus had as “the Christ.” We learn of God’s love, poured out through Jesus, “that all who believe in him would not perish, but have everlasting life” (3:16).
We have the “I am” statements, which intimated that unique relationship with the Father and the whole household of believers:
I am… the Bread of Life, the Light of the world, the Door, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Vine.
All of these statements angered the religious leaders, who realized that Jesus was proclaiming a unique relationship with the Father–and an eternal one, at that. And the one that underlined that was when Jesus said that “Abraham looked forward to his coming…and saw it.” Incensed, the leaders pointed out that Jesus wasn’t even 50 years old and claimed to have seen Abraham!
And Jesus’ response: “Before Abraham was, I Am.” Their anger was justified–for if Jesus was incorrect, then he truly spoke blasphemy: for the official name of God, YaHWeH, is literally rendered, “I Am.”
John is such a powerful book and one that should be used to bring people to understand who Jesus was and what his life and death and resurrection was all about.
For me, the book that brings me closest to God is that which the closest disciple wrote about the only-begotten Son of God.
As the disciple and author wrote:
“These things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 3:42 am
Bookslinger
Ama, And thanks for the kind words.
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Brad
The Spirit that is felt while reading the Book of Mormon is undeniable. Many good people immediately recognize the truthfulness of the book as they begin to read it. However, for some, it is much more difficult to make the life-changing decisions required of them.
Being a disciple of Christ means following him 100%, including the most basic principles and ordinances of the gospel. No matter how good a person is, he or she cannot be saved without faith, repentance, and baptism.
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 5:39 pm
ama49
Anon,
You are probably right. Maybe my purpose in the post didn’t come across like I wanted it to. I wanted to show people that God still works through us no matter what our status was. However, I wanted to leave it open for people to think about rather than share my own opinions.
Personally, I commend Bookslinger and look up to him for what he is doing. I don’t know anything about his status other than people said he wasn’t a member. I was hoping to show that although one may not be a member one can still be a courageous disciple of Jesus because I think too many people judge others for not being “members”.
LikeLike
April 5, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Mormon Heretic
AMA,
I enjoy what you’re trying to do on your blog. Don’t get too wrapped up in TBM’s attitudes. My guess is that Jeff Day, Anon, and others don’t read your blog very often, and aren’t aware that this is a message you preach often. As such, I wouldn’t take their thoughts very seriously. Keep doing what you’re doing, because I think you’re on the right track.
I just want to point out that many of the early church members were Baptists–Sidney Rigdon was a baptist preacher, Parley P Pratt and Orson Pratt were in his congregation. And when Sidney resigned from his Baptist church, about 100 members of his congregation joined him. So, it would see that there is quite a history between the Book of Mormon and the Baptist church.
LikeLike
April 6, 2009 at 12:49 am
Bookslinger
Ama, and Anon on April 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm,
My membership status is not something I advertise. But I have mentioned it in comments on other blogs where I thought my insights of joining the church, getting disaffected, leaving, and coming back, were germane to the thread of discussion. Those were some mainstream bloggernacle blogs that some ex-members frequent. You’ve probably seen them with their drive-by snide remarks and carping.
I think it ticked off the ex-mos to see that someone who left the church would come back and support it. So they saw fit to deride me. It’s to be expected.
During my years away from the church, I was careful to not speak out publicly against it, because I knew it was still true. It was just those pesky ‘Mormons’ I couldn’t stand.
Well, there was that thing about sinning and not repenting on my part. Maybe that had something to do with my leaving too. 😉
LikeLike
April 6, 2009 at 4:37 am
ama49
Bookslinger,
I think you’re an amazing example for us all. Not only for sharing the Word with everyone, but for your humility to be able to admit mistakes. We all have weaknesses and we can either let them overcome us or make us stronger. I think you’re a great example of someone who has made a weakness a strength.
LikeLike
April 6, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Bookslinger
AMA, I don’t know how old you are or whether you’ve served a mission, but there are plenty of people who’ve received a testimony of Joseph Smith and/or the Book of Mormon and don’t get baptized for whatever reason. Missionaries encounter them a lot. They just can’t get over the various hurdles that are in place
Also, a lot of people do get baptized and then hardly ever come to church again (less actives, etc). The parable of the sower describes some of those situations. It could be problems keeping the commandments, or wanting to keep one foot in the world, or it could even be cultural differences. I saw a black family get baptized in an all white ward (well, all who were active were white), and when they went inactive, I wondered if they felt like they didn’t belong. I wonder if the ward went out of their way sufficiently to make sure they felt welcome. The given reason was that the meetings were too dry and boring, not like the more energetic and enthusiastic church services they were used to at their previously mostly African-American church.
In the US, only 50% of the membership is active. And overseas, only 25% of the membership is active. So there are lots of people who (either joined for the wrong reason or else) don’t participate even if they have a testimony.
A testimony (or a belief) alone just isn’t sufficient. To get baptized and stay active it takes conversion, a change.
LikeLike
April 6, 2009 at 9:45 pm
gloria
I agree with “Ezra” …. the Book of John , is the book that I believe is the book of among books. It is the “salvation” book in my estimation. The book that clearly states what one has to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus preached “himself” the I AM the bread of Life sermon, and yes religionists in his day and in “our” day don’t like that kind of preaching. That is why I do not believe any “church” holds all the keys or the ‘truths’ or is the ‘only’ way…… no, the name of that WAY is Jesus. He is the way – not a church or membership or anything.
That is what I most sincerely believe,
Gloria
LikeLike
April 6, 2009 at 9:48 pm
gloria
Brad,
With all due respect you said that one can not be saved without faith, baptism and repentence. May I be so bold as to point you to the Bible that declares that one must be “born again” to see the kingdom of God, and that we are saved by grace. Salvation is the work of our Lord Jesus, and it He stated it over and over again we must have a belief unto salvation to be saved. ( book of John points that out )
God bless,
gloria
LikeLike
April 9, 2009 at 3:35 pm
ama49
This comment is directed towards Bookslinger, Brad and Gloria’s comments.
Bookslinger and Brad,
You mention in your last comments that a full conversion includes being baptized and having faith.
Gloria believes that it’s a mere belief in Jesus that will save us. She also mentions the book of John.
Bookslinger, would you say you are converted even though you’re not baptized? You’re showing all the fruits of someone who has had a change of heart. If so, then you fall in line with what Gloria is saying.
However, Gloria mentions the book of John and within the book of John Jesus says one must be “born of water and spirit” to see the kingdom of God. Being born of water clearly means baptism. Additional scriptures in the Bible such as Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 also discuss how not only belief but baptism will save us.
Personally, I believe that you are all right. First one needs to believe and if one truly believes he/she will have the desire to be baptized. The scriptures clearly state baptism is essential along with belief. If there is no belief there is no baptism and therefore no salvation so belief unto salvation includes being baptized
LikeLike
April 10, 2009 at 5:54 pm
jack
ama,
Your interpretation of the John passage does not take into account the context of the message. Your broad statement, “However, Gloria mentions the book of John and within the book of John Jesus says one must be “born of water and spirit” to see the kingdom of God. Being born of water clearly means baptism” is not accurate, especially when you’re trying to tie it into a requirement for salvation. Jesus is talking about the difference between being born into flesh and being born of the Spirit. There is no indication regarding baptism. To support my statement, read further: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Mormonism is no different than a lot of belief systems that want to make the act of being baptized efficacious. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. Rick Warren does a wonderful job explaining this in his book, “The Purpose Driven Life” (120-121). The act of being baptized doesn’t save anyone, but is an outward sign of an inward grace: just as circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, baptism is the sign of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. I know it’s difficult for the Mormon to see that even putting baptism into the salvation equation is adding to the Work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Faith in Jesus Christ as God and Savior is what saves us. Baptism, good works, ministering to people are the fruits and evidence of one who has been saved. James makes this perfectly clear.
Peace and Grace!
Have a Blessed Easter!!
LikeLike
April 11, 2009 at 12:20 am
ama49
Jack,
You are absolutely right and I think you are probably right that many Mormons think baptism alone saves them. However, Salvation comes from the Savior alone however, as you clearly point out and as the scripture in John points out one will be baptized and enter into the covenant with the Lord if one has faith and believes. Therefore, as I mentioned if one has faith one will be baptized and therefore saved.
On the other hand if one doesn’t have faith in Jesus and is baptized just for the mere sake of being baptized that doesn’t result in salvation either….so baptism alone doesn’t result in salvation.
Thanks for stopping by and I hope you have a happy Easter as well.
LikeLike
April 19, 2022 at 7:59 am
Cal
Dear friend and brother ama49, Please allow me to use your comment as a springboard for a general comment to all. As you know, water baptism is a vital subject in LDS/non-LDS dialog. The only thing I differ with among your comments is this: “If one has faith one will be baptized.” I was baptized two whole years after I gave my heart to Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit came into me. During those 2 years, I grew in the Lord. I was beyond all doubt experiencing his power in my life to overcome sin and experience his constant companionship. I had the testimony mentioned in Romans 8:16 (NIV)—”The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” The context of that verse shows that the children referred to in it are those who have received the (gift of the) Spirit. It’s not a reference to all people. . . . This is just a thought for all LDS Christians to pray about. Joseph Smith was definitely a man of God with prophetic gifts, but I hope LDS will consider the possibility that Joseph may have been in error more often than is commonly thought. . . . God bless. I’m glad you, ama49, know our Savior.
LikeLike
April 11, 2009 at 1:17 am
gloria
Ama,
I appreciate your remarks.
What do you think then of 8 yrs old being baptized?
I always thought a person was baptized into the LDS church for various reasons – 1. washes away their sins 2. for membership purposes and 3. to follow the example of Jesus.
While I was LDS I always had a struggle with my 8 yr old getting baptized…….I felt they were much too young. I wanted them to wait, until they were old enough to really understand. And plus, since 8 yr old techinically do not have any sins to be “accountable” for ( according to LDS teachings) then why would they need to be baptized?
In any case, I really believe in a “believer’s baptism”… that is a person who is old enough to really understand what they are undertaking.
Now, as a born again believer, I was baptized – but it wasn’t to wash away my sins. I believe our sins are washed away by the blood of the Lamb. ( Romans 5:9) . For christians, baptism is not about joining a church or for church membership purposes, it is done to show the world , and bear witness that we are Christ’s . That is we are baptized in “Him”. Very different than an LDS baptism.
I hope that makes sense.
Enjoy a blessed Easter,
gloria
LikeLike
April 11, 2009 at 4:08 pm
ama49
Hi Gloria,
I think you are spot on with baptism and I personally think that both you and Jack are right in that many Mormons believe the baptism is what saves them. It isn’t. It is Jesus that saves us.
Now, you bring up a good point with the children being baptized that my wife and I just had a discussion about, which is interesting.
I personally feel that baptism should be a choice. If your child feels that they want to be baptized and have a clear understanding of what it is and why they’re doing it then I see no reason not to baptize them. However, if the child doesn’t want to be baptized, why force them to do it? I’m guessing that there are many LDS people who fit in the category of those who think baptism saves them and therefore they need to baptize their kids before they’re accountable for their sins. I personally don’t agree with that. It’s a covenant between the individual and Jesus and no one else. The person should be old enough to make a decision and have a desire to enter into a relationship with Jesus and show it with the sign of baptism.
For me, I was baptized when I was 8 and I really wanted to do it. I remember choosing to read about it and learn about what it meant, etc. without my parents forcing things on me. I feel that is how it should be for everyone and if the child doesn’t want to be baptized why force it?
I hope your Easter is blessed as well.
LikeLike
April 11, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Mormon Heretic
Gloria,
I did a post a while back on the History of Baptism/Mikvah, which also addresses some issues with regard to the proper age of baptism. I think you’ll find it interesting. Have you ever heard of the Jewish Mikvah, which is quite similar to the Christian baptism?
Happy Easter all!
LikeLike
April 18, 2009 at 9:40 am
James Brian Marshall
Bookslinger says “Oliver Cowdery, Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and more, all knew the Book of Mormon was true, and still fell away. ”
What do you mean by falling away?
You know Emma Smith has been said to have fallen away from the LDS Church also?
If the LDS is the true Church, surely the wife of the man who helped her husband translate the very Book of Mormon plates, and whom was commanded by God herself to creates hymn books of song, would have remained a life long LDS member till her death. Yet she did not? Why not?
Why did she and others Sidney Rigdon and Martin Harris ” fall away?”
Emma didn’t reject the Book of Mormon! To the day Emma Smith died, she was a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
History tells us there were between 100,000 to perhaps as many as 200,000 Latter Day Saints at the time of Joseph Smith’s murder.
Yet only a 10,000 thousand minority of these Saint’s followed Brigham Young to Utah?
Why this picture?
16 years after Joseph Smith was murdered, The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ claiming to be the true and original church started by Joseph, Reorganized!
What does the word reorganized mean? I mean has anyone thought about it?
The Utah LDS Church claim to be the true church Joseph Smith started! Right?
Yet to those of the querky inqiring mind, possesing a vocabularistic understanding of the word ” Reorganized” should give any Utah LDS member pause to think… Right?
I mean have you thought about the meaning of the word reorganized?
Why would an impostor Church, take the name Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ, if they were not the origanal Church Joseph Smith started?
Why would Oliver Cowdery, Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer furthermore remain lifelong members of the Reorganized Church till their deaths? That is any of them who didn’t die prior Smith’s death.
These men where main whitnesses to the Book of Mormon being translated! They were tared and feathered, threatened with their very lives! They were shot at, hunted, put in jail for the sake of the everlasting gospel!
Why would they turn tail and run at the sight of the Utah LDS Church, after bearing and bring forth testimony for the Book of Mormon, while doing the will of the Father at threat of their very lives and lives of their families?
These men were men! They didn’t scare easy? They just didn’t and I quote ” fall away”! These men were not the fall away types! Other wise they would have rejected the Book of Mormon and the Book of Mormon credibility would have been tarnished, as well as the credibility of the other whitnesses…
Further more why was the Reorganied Church in courts of law during the 19th century given all legal copy rights to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, Book of Mormon and D&C? That is if the Utah LDS church is the true church?
Futher why did two different U.S. Courts, a Canadian Court, and United States Congressional Investigation declare the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ the true successor church?
Below is an excerpt of a court ruling. and two excerpts of the U.S. Congressional Investigation.
In a court trial involving possession of certain real estate, Judge John F. Phillips, of the Circuit Court of the United States Western District of Missouri, found as follows in his decision given March 16, 1894:
“…That the church in Utah has largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws, ordinances, and usages of said original church … and has incorporated into its system of faith the doctrines of celestial marriages and a plurality of wives.”
United States Senator Julius C. Burrows was chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections during the long drawn out Reed Smoot Case. Great masses of evidence were examined, and scores of witnesses summoned. No man ever had a better opportunity to study the subject from the standpoint of an unprejudiced student. And at the close of this well-remembered case, Mr. Burrows made a speech in the United States Senate, from which I present two extracts for your consideration:
“In order to induce his followers more readily to accept this infamous doctrine, Brigham Young himself invoked the name of Joseph Smith, the Martyr, whom many sincerely believed to be a true prophet, and ascribed to him the reception of a revelation from the Almighty in 1843, commanding the Saints to take unto themselves a multiplicity of wives, limited in number only by the measures of their desires. … Such the mythical story palmed off on a deluded people.” — Congressional Record, December 13, 1906.
At the same time, Senator Fred T. Dubois, another member of the committee, made the following statement:
It is only fair, I think, for me to say — and I am glad the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Burrows) treated upon it the other day — that there is a branch of the Mormons, called the “Josephites,” who ought to be separated clearly in the minds of all Senators from the Brighamite Mormons.
The Josephites claim that they are custodians of the church as it was founded. They claim that Brigham Young has interjected doctrines into the church which the Mormons did not accept in the beginning. At any rate, however that may be, the Josephite Mormons, with their headquarters at Lamoni, in the State of Iowa, and wherever they are, no matter in what part of the country, are among the best of our citizens in all respects — Congressional Record, December 17, 1906.
Ladies and Gentleman, I know it’s been said: “Sidney Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and more, all knew the Book of Mormon was true, and still fell away.”
But I beg to differ with any who would say so. And I would ask you to check your scipture, you history, your hearts and the contradicting evidenses.
Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Emma Smith did not fall away from the LDS Church. If anything the LDS Church fell away from them as members.
Let me illustrate with some church history, by pointing D&C contradicting Utah Commandments supposedly given by God through Joseph Smith as revelation.
1831 Joseph Smith Gave Revelation Man Should Cleave To one Wife.
A revelation received on February 9, 1831, and published to this day in the Utah edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as well as our own, commands: “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else” (RLDS Section 42:7; Utah Section 42:22).
Second 1831 Revelation Marriage Against Pural Marriage
The following month, another revelation contained this language: “Marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:3).
1835 Marriage LDS Marriage Ceremony
On August 18, 1835, a conference of the Church considered the form of marriage ceremony to be used in the Church and adopted the following covenant, which is used in every marriage ceremony in this Church to the present day: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives?” (Doctrine and Covenants 111:2b).
The same section which includes this marriage covenant incorporates also this declaration of belief from the Church: “We declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband” (Doctrine and Covenants 111:4b. This section was removed from the Utah edition in 1876, and the “revelation” on polygamy substituted). The Book of Mormon, which was translated by Joseph Smith, calls polygamy an abomination and states the rule that one man shall have one wife, “and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:36).
Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Emma Smith did not fall away from the LDS Church. If anything the LDS Church fell away from them as members, as well as the majority of LDS members in the 19th century.
I have not even presented a 10th of the evidense to this matter. Those who whish to read further are welcomed to visit my bloggs of historical and archeological evidenses supporting the Book of Mormon.
Unfortunately while I support the Utah LDS people, I cannot support the church hierarchy. While I believe very much in the Book of Mormon and restored Church, I cannot support an organization whom I believe and know historically to have corrupted the original message of Joseph Smith. Their foundation has been built upon sand ground.
A church organizational hierarchy whom by their actions has taken truth and twisted it, bearing false whitness of Joseph Smith’s actually deeds and reputation, causing fulfilment of Isaiah 29:21 they who” That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.”
Or as prophecied by Jeremiah 17:5-8
5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
Does this not sound like Utah? They’re in a salt land?
While not to brag, the Reorganized Church is based by a river, yes even on River Street!
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
So my contention is and question remains the same. Did Salt Lake Utah Mormonism loose Signey Rigdon, Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Emma Smith? Did they indeed fall away?
Or did the Utah Church indeed lie about Joseph Smith? I mean after all, Joseph Smith died in 1844. The doctrine of polygamy was not introduced till 1852, 8 years after Smith’s death and 8 years before the Reoganized Church of Jesus Christ reorganized.
Brigham Young publicly presented to the Saints a mysterious document (Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants). He claimed that it was only a copy of an original revelation which Joseph had received. Brigham claimed that he had kept the copy secretly hidden in his desk. He declared:
This revelation has been in my possession many years; and who has known it? None but those who should know it. I keep a patent lock on my desk, and there does not anything leak out that should not. (Supplement to Millennial Star 15 [1853]: 31; RLDS History of the Church 3:349)
Brigham Young Contradicts a sermon given by Joseph Smith claiming he was not a polygamist one month before his murder: ” A man asked me whether the commandment [revelation] was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery…. Wilson Law [William’s brother] also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery…. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth’s sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves…. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago [when charged with polygamy shortly after his marriage to Emma Hale]; and I can prove them all perjurers. (LDS History of the Church 6:410–411; italics added)
Sincerely
James Brian Marshall
Priest
Reoganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
LikeLike
April 20, 2009 at 1:58 am
Mormon Heretic
James,
Wow, that was long–perhaps you could write a shorter response. Let me pick out just a couple of points I’d like to talk about.
I mean after all, Joseph Smith died in 1844. The doctrine of polygamy was not introduced till 1852, 8 years after Smith’s death and 8 years before the Reoganized Church of Jesus Christ reorganized.
Are you trying to tell me that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy? Because I have a mountain of evidence to the contrary, and have posted a small amount on my blog.
As for the Succession crisis, David Whitmer did lead a church, so did Sidney Rigdon, so did James Strang, so did William Bickerton…… William Law and others kept badgering Joseph III until he finally accepted their offer to lead the RLDS some 20 years after Joseph was dead. (Joseph III was just a boy when his dad died in 1844.)
I plan on doing a succession crisis post soon, and will be posting on Schismatic LDS groups.
LikeLike
April 24, 2009 at 12:52 am
Bookslinger
Heretic, Thanks for responding to our RLDS friend. He apparently got some of the history wrong, even more than what you pointed out.
I wonder which “RLDS” church he actually belongs to, since the “main” RLDS church renamed itself to “Community of Christ”. The RLDS/CoC has had its own schisms and splintering since it’s founding too.
In the splintering that occurred after JS Jr’s death, two things are important (to me at least):
1) most (all but 2) of the Quorum of the 12 went with Brigham to Utah. And before the exodus to Utah, only 1 apostle split off. So you could also say 11 out of the 12 stayed with Brigham.
2) the largest single group of members post-martyrdom also followed Brigham Young and the Q of the 12. That 10,000 out of 100,000 is not an accurate figure.
Also, I just plain prayed about it, and got an answer. The keys stayed with Brigham Young and the 12.
LikeLike
April 26, 2009 at 6:13 am
ama49
MH and Bookslinger,
Thanks for the clarification and I appreciate especially Bookslinger’s thoughts of why the “Brigham” LDS church was the correct one. It makes sense.
LikeLike
June 3, 2009 at 5:02 am
James Marshall
Hi Bookslinger and MH…..
I’m a lifelong member of the Reoganized Church of Jesus Christ. Yes you’re correct, the RLDS as you know it, has changed their name to Community of Christ.
As for Brigham Young,
He Broke State laws and Church bylaws when he declared himself leader of the Church. This is affirmed by Court Rulings…. This effectively legally disorganized the Church…
As for my having my history wrong??? hmmmmm That’s a laugh! Everything I know about the LDS Church comes from your own History Books and Publications…. Nope I don’t have it wrong…. Not unless the LDS Church keeps a secret history and a public one…..
Besides if you had your history right, you’d post it for the world to see. As I’m about to do right now! Only I’m going to post some U.S. Court and Government History relating to the LDS/RLDS Church
The RLDS/LDS Church in Court
Compiled and Arranged by Elbert A. Smith
A Descendant of Joseph Smith the Martyr
DECISIONS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN COURTS AFFECTING THE STANDING OF
THE REORGANIZED CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS
INTRODUCTION The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized April 6, 1830. Joseph Smith, sometimes known as Joseph Smith the Martyr, was the chief instrument in the hands of God in perfecting this organization. Joseph Smith was slain June 27, 1844. A period of confusion and disorganization ensued. Ambitious leaders arose. Among them was Brigham Young, who led a certain number to Utah, where they acquired more or less temporal power, and where they began to promulgate certain doctrines, such as polygamy, that had been no part of the belief of the church in the days of Joseph the Martyr.
Other members of the original church came together and reorganized on the original plan, forming what has since been termed the Reorganized Church. Joseph Smith, the oldest son of Joseph Smith the Martyr, took his place at the head of the Reorganized Church April 6, 1860. He had received a divine personal call to that position, besides having been blessed and set apart for that work by his father. The Reorganized Church claims to be in fact the church of Christ. It claims further to be the legal heir, and in succession to all rights, privileges, and properties belonging to the church established in 1830. These claims have been challenged, and on several occasions the question has been carried to the civil courts, where evidences could be weighed before unprejudiced tribunals and where an authoritative decision could be rendered.
THE KIRTLAND TEMPLE SUIT
February 23, 1880, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by its attorneys, appeared before the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, (see journal entry, February term, 1880) as plaintiff, asking for possession of the Kirtland Temple, an edifice erected during the early days of the church, and prior to the death of Joseph Smith the Martyr. The church in Utah, then presided over by John Taylor, was named with others as defendants. Judge L. S. Sherman rendered the following decision: Now at this term of the Court came the Plaintiff by its attorneys, E. L. Kelley, and Burrows and Bosworth, and the Defendants came not, but made default; and thereupon, with the assent of the Court, and on motion and by the consent of the Plaintiff a trial by jury is waived and this cause is submitted to the Court for trial, and the cause came on for trial to the Court upon the pleadings and evidence, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, the Court do find as matters of fact:
1st. That notice was given to the Defendants in this action by publication of notice as required by the statutes of the State of Ohio; except as to the Defendant, Sarah F. Videon, who was personally served with process.
2d. That there was organized on the 6th day of April, 1830, at Palmyra, in the State of New York, by Joseph Smith, a religious society, under the name of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” which in the same year removed in a body and located in Kirtland, Lake County, Ohio; which said Church held and believed, and was founded upon certain well defined doctrines, which were set forth in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Book of Doctrine and Covenants.
3d. That on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1841, one William Marks and his wife, Rosannah, by Warranty Deed, of that date, conveyed to said Joseph Smith as sole Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, being the same Church organized as aforesaid, the lands and tenements described in the petition, and which are described as follows: [The description of the land is omitted. — E. A. S.]
And upon said lands said Church had erected a church edifice known as The Temple, and were then in the possession and occupancy thereof, for religious purposes, and so continued until the disorganization of said Church, which occurred about 1844. That the main body of said religious society had removed from Kirtland aforesaid, and were located at Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844, when said Joseph Smith died, and said Church was disorganized and the membership (then being estimated at about 100,000) scattered in smaller fragments, each claiming to be the original and true Church before named, and located in different States and places. That one of said fragments, estimated at ten thousand, removed to the Territory of Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young, and located there, and with accessions since, now constitute the Church in Utah, under the leadership and Presidency of John Taylor, and is named as one of the defendants in this action.
That after the departure of said fragment of said church for Utah, a large number of the officials and membership of the original church which was disorganized at Nauvoo, reorganized under the name of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and on the 5th day of February, 1873, became incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, and since that time all other fragments of said original Church (except the church in Utah) have dissolved, and the membership has largely become incorporated with said Reorganized Church which is the Plaintiff in this action.
That the said Plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Religious Society, founded and organized upon the same doctrines and tenets, and having the same church organization, as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830, by Joseph Smith, and was organized pursuant to the constitution, laws and usages of said original Church, and has branches located in Illinois, Ohio, and other States. That the church in Utah, the Defendant of which John Taylor is president, has materially and largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws, ordinances and usages of said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has incorporated into its system of faith the doctrines of celestial marriage and a plurality of wives, and the doctrine of Adam-god worship, contrary to the laws and constitution of said original Church.
And the Court do further find that the Plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the True and Lawful continuation of, and successor to the said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830, and is entitled in law to all its rights and property. The leading points sustained by the above quoted decision may be summarized as follows:
The Reorganization is the legal successor to the church organized April 6, 1830, under the leadership of the Prophet Joseph Smith. That polygamy and kindred false doctrines were first promulgated and adopted by the church in Utah, such doctrines not having any place in the faith of the original church during the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. That the Reorganized Church, being one with the original church in organization and doctrine, is the legal continuation of said church, and heir to all its rights and properties.
THE RULING OF A CANADIAN COURT
May 19, 1893, Hiram Dickout, a regularly ordained priest of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at Niagara Falls, Canada, solemnized the marriage of Abraham H. Taylor and Alice E. Vance. Priest Dickout was arraigned before a police magistrate and fined ten dollars. The charge in effect was that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was not a Christian denomination, and hence under the laws of the Dominion (R. S. O., ch. 131, sec. 1) a minister of that church could not legally solemnize a marriage. An appeal was taken and the case came before Chief Justice Armour, in the Court of the Queen’s Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice, for Ontario, at Toronto, November 28, 1893. The following decision was rendered by Judge Armour, see Ontario Reports, vol. 24, pp. 250-254, also reported in the Toronto Mail, November 28, 1893; also in the Globe:
We think it quite clear that this conviction can not be maintained. The defendant was clearly a duly ordained minister of this religious body, and there is no doubt that it is a religious denomination within the words of the statute. Assuming that Christianity is the law of the land in a sense, there is nothing contrary to Christianity in the tenets of this body. It is true they have some authorized works supplemental to the Bible, but that is the case with every church or denomination.
The Church of England has its creeds, and the Presbyterian Church its confession. That does not make the church an anti-Christian one. The statute should receive a wide construction. It does not say “Christian”, but “religious.” If it said “Christian,” it would exclude Jews. The fundamental law of the province makes no distinction between churches or denominations. Every person is at liberty to worship his Maker in the way he pleases. We have, or ought to have, in this country, perfect freedom of speech and perfect freedom of worship. Conviction quashed.
Under the above decision Latter Day Saints enjoy equal rights with other churches in Canada and retain their standing as a religious body. Enemies of the church sometimes charge that it is not Christian, but the charge can not be maintained before an unprejudiced court.
THE TEMPLE LOT SUIT
This case was tried before Judge John F. Philips, in the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, at Kansas City, Missouri. The property involved was a tract of land in the city of Independence, Missouri, known as the Temple Lot, acquired by the church in the early thirties, and at a later date claimed by a body of people known as the Church of Christ, more commonly called “Hedrickites.”
The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ appeared as plaintiff, the Church of Christ or “Hedrickites” as defendant. The dominant church in Utah came to the aid of the defendant, not openly, but to such an extent that Judge Philips in his decision spoke of it as “the power behind the throne.” They furnished many leading witnesses, including Wilford Woodruff, president of the Utah church, Lorenzo Snow, president of the Utah twelve, and at least two of the women who had become notorious by reason of their claim that they were plural wives of Joseph Smith the Martyr.
Able attorneys represented both sides, and many witnesses were summoned. An abstract of the evidence fills a book of five hundred and ninety-seven pages. The decision of the judge occupies an additional twenty-eight pages.
The question was largely one of doctrine, and a desperate attempt was made to prove that Joseph Smith the Martyr taught polygamy. Every effort possible was made to break down the claim of the Reorganized Church to succession.
The judge sustained the Reorganized Church on every material point. On an appeal to the Appellate Court the decision as to the possession of the property was set aside and the defendants were permitted to retain possession of the Temple Lot, solely on the ground that the Reorganized Church had not moved soon enough, a question of latches. The decision by Judge Philips as to the weight of evidence presented and the standing of the Reorganized Church as the legal successor to the church established April 6, 1830, was never reversed and still stands. The Reorganized Church was merely unfortunate in not presenting its claims at a date sufficiently early to come within the statute of limitation.
In his decision, rendered March 16, 1894, Judge Philips said:
Beyond all cavil, if human testimony is to place any matter for ever at rest, this church was one in doctrine, government, and purpose from 1830 to June, 1844, when Joseph Smith, its founder, was killed. It had the same federal head, governing bodies, and faith. During this period there was matter fundamental, or affecting its oneness. The only authorized and recognized books of doctrine and laws for the government of the church from 1830 to 1846 were the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which consisted principally of claimed divine revelations to Joseph Smith, was the edition published at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835, and at Nauvoo in 1845….
There can be no question of the fact that Brigham Young’s assumed presidency was a bold and bald usurpation.
The Book of Doctrine and Covenants (printed in 1846) page 411, containing a revelation to Joseph Smith, January 19, 1841, gave unto them “my servant Joseph, to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and a prophet.” … The book clearly taught that the succession should descend lineally and go to the first-born. Joseph Smith so taught, and, before his taking off, publicly proclaimed his son Joseph, the present head of Complainant Church, his successor, and he was so anointed….
The Book of Mormon itself inveighed against the sin of polygamy…. Conformably to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants expressly declared “that we believe that one man should have but one wife, and one woman but one husband.” And this declaration of the church on this subject reappeared in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, editions of 1846 and 1856. Its first appearance as a dogma of the church (the dogma of polygamy) was in the Utah Church in 1852.
Claim is made by the Utah Church that this doctrine is predicated of a revelation made to Joseph Smith in July, 1843. No such revelation was ever made public during the life of Joseph Smith, and under the law of the church it could not become an article of faith and belief until submitted to and adopted by the church. This was never done ….
The Utah Church further departed from the principles and doctrines of the original church by changing in their teaching the first statement in the Article of Faith, which was, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost,” and in lieu thereof taught the doctrine of “Adam-god worship.” …
It has introduced societies of a secret order, and established secret oaths and covenants, contrary to the book of teachings of the old church. It has changed the duties of the President, and of the Twelve, and established the doctrine to “Obey Counsel,” and has changed the order of the “Seventy, or Evangelists.” …
A considerable number of the officers and members of the church at Nauvoo did not ally themselves with any of the factions, and wherever they were they held onto the faith, refused to follow Brigham Young to Utah, and ever repudiated the doctrine of polygamy, which was the great rock of offense on which the church split after the death of Joseph Smith.
In 1852 the scattered fragments of the church, the remnants of those who held to the fortunes of the present Joseph Smith, son of the so-called “Martyr,” gathered together sufficiently for a nucleus of organization. They took the name of “The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” and avowed their allegiance to the teachings of the ancient church; and their epitome of faith adopted, while containing differences in phraseology, in its essentials is but a reproduction of that of the church as it existed from 1830 to 1844. To-day they are twenty-five thousand strong. [At present, 1911, the membership is about sixty thousand. — E. A. S.]
It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, “the Martyr,” secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in “nest hiding.”
In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the “secret wife system,” charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Doctor Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the Utah Church. And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies’ Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff.
No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph’s death.
But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young. — Decision of Judge Philips in Temple Lot Case, pp. 20-26.
By reading the foregoing decision the reader will discover the following facts:
1. Brigham Young’s assumption of the presidency was a bold and bald usurpation. 2.He it was who introduced polygamy and kindred false doctrines.
3.These false doctrines are denounced in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, which three books were the standards of authority in the church during the days of Joseph Smith, and are still standards of authority to the Reorganized Church.
4.An effort to prove that Joseph Smith was a polygamist can not successfully be made before a competent court that is capable of weighing evidence, not even when his reputed plural wives are present.
5. The Reorganized Church is in line of succession and has kept the faith, having shaped its course in harmony with the word of God and in such a way as to merit the approval of all good men.
A STATEMENT BY HON. JULIUS C. BURROWS AND THE HON. FRED T. DUBOIS
Reed Smoot, a member of the twelve apostles of the dominant church in Utah, having been elected to the United States Senate, took the oath of office, March 5, 1903. A protest against the seating of Reed Smoot having been filed with the Senate, the matter was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
This committee, composed of leading senators of the United States, summoned many witnesses, including the president of the dominant church in Utah, investigated a great mass of documentary evidence, and made a thorough and exhaustive investigation of “Mormon” history. Their work of investigation continued until June, 1906. A transcript of the evidence taken and speeches made fills four large volumes.
The Committee on Privileges and Elections was not a court, in the strict sense of the term, but it had some of the functions of a court. The Reorganized Church was not directly involved, as it had no interest in the seating of Reed Smoot, but the matter was overruled, divinely or otherwise, so that it terminated to our favor.
For these reasons, we have decided to use in this connection certain statements made by the chairman of the committee, United States Senator Julius C. Burrows, while reviewing the matter before the United States Senate, December 11, 1906. The position of the man making the statements, the unusual opportunity that had been his to discover the truth, the great publicity of the utterance, and the fact that it was made before one of the greatest legislative bodies in the world, gives great weight to that which we shall quote. Concerning the origin of polygamy Senator Burrows said:
In order to induce his followers more readily to accept this infamous doctrine, Brigham Young himself invoked the name of Joseph Smith, the Martyr, whom many sincerely believed to be a true prophet, and ascribed to him the reception of a revelation from the Almighty in 1843, commanding the Saints to take unto themselves a multiplicity of wives, limited in number only by the measures of their desires…. Such the mythical story palmed off on a deluded people. — Congressional Record, December 13, 1906.
Concerning the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, he said:
The death of Joseph Smith in 1844, however, carried dismay and demoralization throughout the entire membership of the Mormon church, scattering its adherents in divers directions and for the time being seemed to presage the complete overthrow and dissolution of the organization.
Recovering, however, from the shock, the scattered bands soon reappeared in various parts of the country and promulgated their doctrines with increased zeal, and set to work to reassemble and reorganize their scattered forces, resulting finally in the formation of what is now known and recognized as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, with headquarters at Lamoni, Iowa, and presided over by Joseph Smith, a son of the Prophet. The courts have repeatedly declared this organization to be the legitimate successor of the original Mormon church, and its adherents, numbering some 50,000 peaceable, patriotic, and law abiding citizens scattered throughout the United States in small church societies, conforming to the laws of their country wherever they may be and adhering to the faith of the founder of their creed, repudiating and denouncing the doctrine of polygamy and its attendant crimes, without temple, endowment house, or secret order, worship in the open like other church organizations, unquestioned and unmolested. — Congressional Record, December 13, 1906.
Another member of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, Senator Fred T. Dubois, in a speech before the United States Senate, December 13, 1906, confirmed the statements made by Mr. Burrows. Senator Dubois said:
It is only fair, I think, for me to say — and I am glad the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Burrows) treated upon it the other day — that there is a branch of the Mormons, called the “Josephites,” who ought to be separated clearly in the minds of all Senators from the Brighamite Mormons. The Josephites claim that they are the custodians of the church as it was founded. They claim that Brigham Young has interjected doctrines into the church which the Mormons did not accept in the beginning. At any rate, however that may be, the Josephite Mormons, with their headquarters at Lamoni, in the State of Iowa, and wherever they are, no matter in what part of the country, are among the best of our citizens in all respects. — Congressional Record, December 17, 1906.
James Marshall
LikeLike
June 7, 2009 at 5:52 am
MH
Bookslinger,
The Community of Christ (CoC) has been going through many theological debates over the last 20 years or so. Many CoC members have become disenchanted with the CoC due to ordaining women to the priesthood, new prophets outside of the Smith family, a position that the Book of Mormon is hot historical, belief in the trinity, etc. A group of former RLDS members formed a schism of the CoC and re-created a new group which they call the RLDS church (since the name is now available.) James belongs to one of these groups. It seems to me that this happened in 2004, but I could have the date wrong. Perhaps someone can correct my memory if it is wrong.
James,
While I know you view the Community of Christ as heretical, I think you should read their prophet’s most recent statement on Joseph Smith and polygamy. It is found at the official Community of Christ website, of which your documents come from.
I’ve bolded a few things that CoC Prophet and President Stephen M. Veazey said as recently as April 2009,
“Another example is how we have viewed the origin of celestial or plural marriage in the early church. There is no doubt the early Reorganization endeavored to distance Joseph Smith Jr. from the doctrine and practice of plural marriage. Such separation was viewed as critical to church identity and survival.
However, during the past fifty years or so, RLDS/Community of Christ historians cautioned us not to be so certain in our conclusions. Unfortunately, many ignored their findings. Even worse, some attacked their integrity and harassed them and their families.
The vast majority of church historians have persuasively concluded that Joseph Smith Jr. was involved prominently in the doctrine and practice of celestial or plural marriage. There is also some evidence that shortly before his death, Joseph approached William Marks, Nauvoo Stake president, and said that he (Joseph) had “been deceived” in the matter of plural marriage and that every effort must be made to rid the church of the doctrine. Unfortunately, he was killed before anything could be done.
So, where does this leave us? The Reorganized Church has always said that plural marriage in the early church was wrong, regardless of its origins. We need to let it go at that. Reigniting old debates over this issue will be unproductive and only serve to distract us from more important endeavors.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 9:59 pm
ethan
Mormons do believe Christ was divine. Also, Don’t confuse the LDS doctrines of salvation vs. exaltation.
Actually, Mormons believe all mankind is SAVED by the GRACE of God, even Hitler will end up in a degree of glory (for Mormons hell is a lesser glory relative to the higher state where God dwells and family units are eternal). Conversely, Evangelicals believe a person must perform the WORK of physically “accepting Jesus” vocally to be saved. For them, not all will be “saved.”
Therefore, mormons believe in being saved by grace and Evangelicals believe in salvation by works (act of being born again).
LikeLike
June 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm
ama49
Ethan,
Interesting take on Grace and works I haven’t seen before. thanks for stopping by.
LikeLike
June 15, 2009 at 6:00 pm
MH
I just did an Interview with the Community of Christ. Of course they also believe in the Book of Mormon, but are not LDS. You might find it interesting.
LikeLike
June 19, 2009 at 2:19 am
Bookslinger
James Marshall,
1) Ummm, I don’t read comments that are over 2 pages (or screen’s worth of text), but I do skim them.
2) In my opinion, Priesthood succession has nothing to do with what secular or civil authorities decree. So what judges ruled or decided has no bearing with me on matters of priesthood succession.
The overall point I’m making here (in this item #2), is that when things boil down to a “he said/she said/they said” matter, it’s like trying to determine the issue of Joseph’s prophetic calling (or the truth of the Book of Mormon) all over again. We, or at least I, can’t rely on the testimony of men and the decisions of third parties to determine “Truth”. We have to get a spiritual confirmation for ourselves.
So to me, the issue of priesthood succession after JS’s death, is just like determining if JS was a prophet, or if the Book of Mormon is true in the first place: one needs to go to Heavenly Father in prayer and get an answer on one’s own. I’ve done that, and I received an answer.
I acknowledge and respect the possibility that you received a different answer than I did. In that case, we’ll have to reconcile things in the future, perhaps at that future point in time, as promised by Jesus, that all mysteries will be made known.
3) the Q of the 12 sided with Brigham. (though apostle Lyman Wight sided with Brigham, he went to Texas, not out west. And apostle William Smith didn’t go west, but I don’t know the details of whether he sided with BY or not at JS’s death. If William Smith did not side with BY, then he was actually the only one of the 12 who did not.
The others you mentioned, who you say had a connection to the RLDS church at some point, really don’t count as arbiters of succession, since they had no priesthood standing with the church (or Joseph) at the time of Joseph’s death. They were all either excommunicated (while Joseph was still prophet), or in the case of Sidney Rigdon, estranged from him.
And as far as Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, both eventually requested rebaptism into the SLC-based LDS church.
The succession issue can be made to appear very messy.
But to put it in the simplest terms I can, the main point is: all the 12, with maybe the exception of William Smith, sided with Brigham. And 10, all but 2 (William Smith and Lyman Wight), went out West with Brigham.
Second point: No one, not one of those who held apostolic (Q of the 12 or member of the 1st presidency) authority under Joseph Smith Jr at the time of his death, gave or bestowed that authority on Joseph Smith III. Nobody left outside of Brigham’s group had any authority to “give” JS III anything.
Third point: JS III had no apostolic authority himself at the time of his father’s death, so there was no way he could “assume” anything.
Taking point 2 and point 3 together, there was no chain of priesthood authority or apostolic authority between JS Jr and JS III. With the death of JS Jr, everything rested in the apostles.
And, even if one were to think that Lyman Wight or William Smith transfered any apostolic authority to JS III (and I don’t think the RLDS ever claimed that they did), by separating themselves from the body of the 12, Lyman and William cut themselves off anyway.
4) If we’re allowed to, let’s look each other up on the other side of the veil in the spirit world and compare notes again.
LikeLike
June 19, 2009 at 2:37 am
Bookslinger
MH: thanks. I read most of that “assembled” interview.
The more I read of the actual words from CoC or RLDS members/leaders/apologists, the more they convince me that the original RLDS/JS-III group didn’t have the priesthood authority to do what they did, and have since then gone farther and farther astray. They seem to have continually watered down Joseph’s religion. They’ve done to Mormonism sort of what the Protestants have done to Catholicism.
No temple endowments? No new temples? JS Jr was very big on temples, from Kirtland to Independence, Far West, and Nauvoo. No exaltation? No eternal marriage? No baptisms for the dead? Whoa there! I have testimonies of those things.
The claims of the “new-RLDS” seem even weirder to me, even though they are trying to go back to pre-CoC RLDS conditions. If, as they say, the CoC has “gone astray”, then the new-RLDS is just as wrong, because they are an off-shoot. Kind of like how if the Catholic church is wrong, then all the Protestants are wrong along with them, because they came off of or out of from them.
I’ll support everyone’s _right_ to believe as they want, as in Article of Faith #11. But the CoC/RLDS stuff is not for me.
LikeLike
June 21, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Larry
I might make a historical correction here in reference to Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery both leaving the LDS Church and becoming RLDS. Neither ever became RLDS. Oliver rejoined the LDS Church and was planning on moving west with the main body but died before he could go in his brother-in-laws home in Missouri. Martin Harris did get rebaptised and died in Utah as a strong member who was highly sought after for talks. David Whitmere never did join the RLDS and neither did Emma Smith. She was never excommunicated from the LDS Church. None of these people ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon and their belief tghat Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
LikeLike
June 28, 2009 at 6:59 am
MH
Bookslinger, thanks for stopping by. I do want to correct/clarify a few things.
Lyman Wight was sent to Texas by Joseph Smith. When Smith died, BY tried to get him to come along, but Wight refused to recognize Brigham’s authority. There is an organization called “Wightites” that lasted for a time in Texas.
Brigham excommunicated William Smith (as well as Sidney Rigdon) for apostasy. William Smith followed James Strang for a time (in Voree, Wisconsin–still in existence as the Strangites), but left him, started his own church which failed miserably, and eventually joined the RLDS church. He did make an overture to BY before the Civil War broke out, but stayed put with the RLDS church.
Oliver was rebaptized in the LDS church, but died of tuberculosis before he could come to SLC. Sidney Rigdon started a church of his own in Pennsylvania (The Church of Jesus Christ of Children of Zion), but that eventually fizzled. One of his converts by the name of William Bickerton started a movement called the Bickertonites (still in existence), and views JS as first prophet, Sidney as #2, and Bickerton as #3, though Rigdon never actually joined with the Bickertonites. (I have a 5 part series on Rigdon at my blog.)
I agree with Larry, except for Emma. She did attend the RLDS church, and her previous baptism was accepted as valid. She tried to support her sons in the RLDS church, and was technically a member of record in both churches right up to her death.
LikeLike
September 8, 2009 at 2:44 pm
searching
I skimmed through most of the previous posts…I’m not really interested in which church is true, as I’ve pretty much concluded that no one can proove it through debate. My testimony lays with the Book of Mormon. I know it is true, but because of church history in regards to polygamy, I am doubtful that the priesthood authority was maintained. So where does that leave me? I’m not sure…I have been baptized a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but can’t say that I really believe it is the true church. I am still glad that I was baptized, as I understand the need for the ordinance. I guess I’m just waiting for the day the Savior comes and clears everything up…I still attend church, but my heart isn’t really in it anymore. I raise my children in the faith because I think it’s about the best we’ve got. However, you can bet that when my daughter reads the second half of section 132 and raises questions about it, I’m going to let her know that I don’t think it’s true.
LikeLike
September 9, 2009 at 3:11 am
ama49
Searching,
Thanks for stopping by. In many ways I’m right there with you. I’ve come to the same conclusion that there were and are many shady things that happened in church history that I don’t agree with. The same goes for Christianity in general.
I have felt the Spirit testify to me the Book of Mormon is true. I’ve felt the Spirit testify to me baptism is true. I’ve also felt the spirit in the temple. Do I agree with everything leaders of the church have done or said? No, but that’s why we have the Spirit to guide us in all truth.
A relative of mine said something that has helped me out a lot. He was inactive in the LDS church for many years and decided to return to activity because in his words, “if I’m going to be a Christian, this is the best option we’ve got.” Also, he said he was happier when he was active vs. when he wasn’t.
LikeLike
October 5, 2012 at 5:13 am
Jaric.
There are those of us who hold a testimony of the book or mormon and of joseph smith, but believe that the modern LDS Church has lost it’s way. I was a member, and feel that the church no longer represents the lord. I do not however, believe any other organisation does. Despite this i still cherish the bom.
LikeLike
October 5, 2012 at 11:01 am
graceforgrace
Hi Jaric,
Thanks for stopping by.
What points do you feel the modern LDS church has lost it’s way?
LikeLike
June 23, 2013 at 11:39 am
NobodySpecial
I have never been a member of a Joseph-Smith-related denomination, although I have friends and relatives who are LDS and CofC. I have read the Book of Mormon, and believe that it is a work of fiction. However, it takes Biblical themes and places them in a new context, and makes you think about those Biblical themes in a different way. So, I think the Book of Mormon is OK. BTW, I could never be a member of the LDS church. Too much weird stuff for me (polygamy, Kolob, secret rituals, you know the list)….none of which is in the Book of Mormon, by the way.
LikeLike
July 8, 2013 at 8:16 am
Cal
That’s interesting, NobodySpecial.
I’m also non-LDS. I agree with you that the Book of Mormon “takes Biblical themes and places them in a new context, and makes you think about those Biblical themes in a different way.” It’s sort of like reading a new version of the Bible.
It’s too bad that so many who have never read the book are so prejudice against it.
LikeLike
March 15, 2014 at 10:27 am
Keith
I also believe the Book of Mormon, but am not a member of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
The reason I am not a member of that church is simply because I BELIEVE THE BOOK! Because the book speaks plainly about the churches built up by men and VERY CLEARLY identifies the LDS church as being a part of the church of the devil, and NOT “the church of Christ” (as it was originally called, by commandment of God).
And having seen the Doctrine & Covenants, both the ORIGINAL and the ALTERED versions, it is TOTALLY PLAIN that these are the teachings of men and demons, and not the teachings of Christ.
For example originally the Book of Commandments said that Joseph Smith has the gift to translate the book, and that he should pretend to no other gift, for God shall grant him no other gift.
Yet when changed to the Doctrine & Covenants, this word from the Lord is ALTERED BY MEN to say that Joseph Smith WILL have additional gifts. Do you not see that God plainly said that he would PRETEND to have other gifts, and that he broke the commandments of God to get praise, gain, and even many wives! He pushes Christ aside and sets himself up as the head of the church, creating the office of high priests for his friends, etc.
And by having men being prophets, and denying the gift of praying in tongues, they keep the congregation in darkness, following men instead of following Christ, and being taught and led by his Spirit.
LikeLike
May 6, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Eric
I am studying the BoM but sadily most Lds people can’t help with study it. All the tell me is to pray about it. Is there any one out the that can sit down with me and really study it and the bible to thank you
LikeLike
June 24, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Cal
Eric, your comment is interesting. The last time I met with a couple LDS missionaries (elders), we studied the Bible line by line. (I’m not LDS.) I’m sure they would have studied the BoM with me line by line as well. Incidentally, it was amazing how little we differed with each other when we picked through the Bible line-by-line.
God’s best to you!
LikeLike
August 9, 2015 at 3:46 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Eric,
Just noticed this so sorry for the late response.
The best way I can think of is to attend an institute class. This is similar to what other churches call Bible Study. Here’s a link to learn about Insitute and see where locations close to you might be: https://institute.lds.org/?lang=eng
If there isn’t a Book of Mormon class running currently, you can get the Institute study guide, or I would also encourage you to have the missionaries over and they can also study with you on a weekly basis. The missionaries can also invite members of the local congregation to help you as well.
Here’s where you can reach out to the missionaries: http://beta.mormon.org/ad-ctas/chat.php?gclid=Cj0KEQjw9JuuBRC2xPG59dbzkpIBEiQAzv4-G96H0Aplw8QhQttFqiECBm1rLm7jdHc2HY_gvznXGMIaAvYN8P8HAQ&cid=99114011&s_kwcid=AL!3737!3!71362975335!e!!g!!mormon%20missionaries&ef_id=Va1swgAAAG2-KANV:20150809224610:s
LikeLike