Repentance first requires acknowledgement. Thats my way of seeing these things. I haven't heard much acknowledgement or repentance from the leadership. In fact, they won't even use the word apologize
Agree 100%. No acceptability literally for anything ever. Claim prophets, seers and revelators that cannot ever astray but whether screw up or the older church leader totally blew it.. their answer is always, “Well we’re just men trying our best to listen to God” Or better yet “We don’t know detailed things because we are ‘General Authorities”.
Exactly. When I remembered sins I'd committed over the years...I didn't till later because I was dissociative all my life until I healed, I repented and acknowledged my sin but I just see cover ups. What does that mean about sincere repentance? Maybe they are dissociative like I was. Maybe they are living 2 lives at the same time? I dunt know? I can't judge them. I dunt want to leave the church , I love the church. But I see this heavily esp in leadership.
I agree but would offer some counterpoints. The church as a corporation (even though it may not legally be so), cannot admit wrongdoing or it would open itself up to lawsuits. Much of those lawsuits would be frivolous and waste the funds of the church (which I know they have in exceeding abundance) even though there might be legitimate lawsuits that could be brought. I do think the leadership should make it clearer that there have been things done wrong in the past and we are trying to rectify them now. I remember during the celebration for the priesthood/temple ban being "lifted" that Pres Oaks said he prayed about this many times and wanted to understand it and never felt like he understood why. I don't know if he actually knows this and didn't want to say it but maybe the reason he doesn't understand why it was in place is b/c it was never right to begin with!
@@duncansh81 The LDS church is legally defined as a corp in the US and its CEO is Pres. Nelson with full authority over it's wealth, making him one of the richest men in the world. If the church has committed wrong doing, and they are the "true and living church of Christ", would it not be just and virtuous and praiseworthy to be subject to the lawsuits? Did JS mean for his church to become a corp full of scribes, lawyers and accountants? Reminds me a bit of the Sanhedrin, no? Of course, doing the "right" thing has consequences. Should the church not be accountable for it's mistakes? Surely an infallible institution was not the intention of Christ when He established or restored "the church". Yes, false doctrines were never right to begin with. Agreed. The pure doctrine of Christ is eternal just as our unchanging God.
So if the church leaders can go against God, do basically anything they want that is wrong, there is no way they would be considered to be in apostasy? This goes against everything I taught while a missionary.
Agreed. Certainly we have scriptural examples of leaders going into true apostacy which required correcting. Hence D&C 85:7 "7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, TO SET IN ORDER the house of God," Can't send someone to set the church in order if it isn't OUT of order ...
@@drmount Interesting in light of this scripture and this musing being on Brigham Young. Here is a quote of his: “Brethren this church will be lead to the brink of hell by the leaders of this people. Then god will raise the one mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th section of the Doctrine and Covenants to save and redeem this church.” Brigham Young 24 August 1867 Provo Bowery Conference. Found in L Tom Perry special collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, page 106. See also the complete discourses of Brigham Young, volume 4. Edited by Richard S VanWagoner, pages 2478-2479.
Do as they say not as they do. They are not required to pay tithing on their modest stipends and the entire first presidency never even served a mission. They are hypocrites and in my humble opinion wolves in sheep's clothing.
True, and most importantly it goes against what Jesus taught, to only trust in or follow those who live 'all' of his teachings, authority or not. Jesus was all about people not being led astray, as always happens to everyone to one degree or another.
Not to be contentious but please explain the confusion of the original 12 Apostles as well as their disagreements after Christ was risen. I thinks it’s right to say that he is not a God who will suffer confusion for long while he has his priesthood on the earth, but that’s a relative concept. God is also long suffering. So how long would he allow an error to continue to let people have a chance to correct it before he needs to intervene? It’s also a little inconsiderate to say that in our position here on earth after the restoration has occurred. Many many people were left in confusion before and after Christ and the great apostasy. I think the amount of things we are saying are “confusing” is response to this video are minimal and trite compared to things people used to believe and/or lacked until this dispensation.
It's not confusion. We are in the wilderness and in the mists, "seeing through a glass darkly". It promotes agency, seeking God, and provides opposition in all things.
For me Alma clarifies if the church is necessary. “Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?”
Has nothing to do about the church not being nrcessary. Christ comes to the Americas and established his church without question. To imply or assume the church isn’t necessary since we can worship at anytime or any place is quite different. The church is the members of the body of Christ and it is through this organization the ordinances of salvation are manage through.
@ the church and its organization has existed only a drop in the bucket of history and among all people. Christ establishing a church among the Nephites doesn’t mean it is required for making it to heaven or to worshipping God. If it did most people would be excluded.
@ the church is the organization for all the saving ordinances and especially work for the dead. Why have a restoration of keys to Joseph who then was commanded to organize the church if it isn’t required? The point of the referenced scripture is about worship not if a church is necessary or not. We read into things that the text doesn’t actually support.
@@daleclark7127it's actually not clear to me that Christ formed a church when he came to the Americas. I believe the scriptures actually suggest that the disciples started a church. In 3 Nephi 11 Christ teaches what his doctrine is. He also makes it pretty clear that anything more or less than what he taught is no bueno.
@ when there was disputation of what the church name should be Christ addressed them that it should be his name. If the church isn’t necessary it seems odd Christ would not have corrected them. Without a church how can the priesthood ordinances and the temple be managed?
I'll keep this succinct, b/c there is a lot more to this. Our teachings on what His church has been distorted. The Church has become an idol. His church is not a government-registered organization, and "there are save two churches only" (1N14.10). Simply put, 'church' (Greek: ekklēsía (ek, "out from and to" and kaléō, "to call") means 'called out ones'. His church is His body, it is they who are one in Christ. How do we become one with Christ? And "the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God," (1N14.12) The saints are those who are walk in the Spirit, who have gifts of the Spirit. (Read 1 Corinthians 12) Even in Joseph's day His church already existed as we read in Section 10.50-55 (circa 1828). Compare that to Section 1.30. These passages are referring to the same thing. The only way to have a living church is to have saints who have received the Holy Ghost (again read 1 Corinthians 12). The LDS Church is very full of pride to boast that Church Inc is the only true church. His shurch is not limited to a denomination. And members of our Church can also be members of the church of the devil. We need to remember, repent and continue in righteousness.
Did Alma stay in King Noah’s church or did he leave? Did the followers of the way stay in the Jewish church or did they leave? Perhaps starting with the premise that the Lord needs a “vehicle” such as a corporation, rather than the vehicle of His word, or doctrine, is causing false conclusions. Remember that He defines His church as those that repent and come unto Him. It is people, not a telestial organization. Jesus told the Jews to follow the law of Moses, but not to follow the leaders, because it was not yet fulfilled. When it was, they no longer participated in the Jewish rituals and ordinances. Alma received power and authority from God through his repentance and willingness to follow God’s commandments, just as we all can, not because of some imagined priesthood line of authority. Whether in a religious organization or not, power comes through our faith and relationship with God. By your argument, why doesn’t every restoration branch have authority? Are you saying the Brighamite branch is the correct one, simply because it is the biggest? It is comforting to believe that ordinances are still valid regardless of righteousness, but that doesn’t make it true.
This is important and interesting to consider. Yes there is for sure a pattern of leading out a remnant, and yet the group they remnant leaves still has significance and purpose. Take for example Lehi. He was led away from Jerusalem. A corrupt church was left behind. Inside that corrupt church there were still faithful members who served the Lord. Fastforward to Jesus' time and we find many who were needed to fulfill important roles like Mary and Joseph, Jesus, Elizabeth and Zechariah, John the baptizer, the disciples, Paul, etc. Some will be led out (for the Lord's purposes), some will be led to stay and serve where they all.
What about his points about Jesus and him telling people to go show the priests or people still worshipping in the temple? It’s so confusing, I really think we have to be in tune with the spirit and the Lord will lead us, maybe some feel inclined to stay for a reason yet others feel moved to go.
@@HMcC0712that was Jesus telling them to keep the law of Moses, until it was fulfilled. After it was fulfilled, they no longer participated in the Jewish religion. My point is not to tell people to leave. It is to say that you don’t need to stay because of “priesthood authority”. Come unto Jesus with a broken heart and contrite spirit and ask Him what He wants you to do. He is the only keeper of the gate.
By this argument, wouldn't it make the Catholic Church the true church? If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, apostasy is impossible, because all that matters is an unbroken chain of authority, doctrine and ethics are irrelevant.
I would say that an important distinction is that the apostolic authority was not passed down. Just as Alma would not been able to regain his priesthood authority if he never got it, how could that institution continue if that authority was lost? That and when an institution rejects general revelation, how can God accept that as His church when its adherents are would reject further light and knowledge?
Lehi didn’t deal with it and left his home, left his congregation and took his family with him. What’s your thoughts on us that see it and take our families into the wilderness to be taught from on high?
Amen! Great thought! Apostasy has been the cause of God's wrath throughout scripture. Its not a new concept. Revelations is written to all those churches in a state of apostasy within the lifetime of the Apostles who lived and worked with Him , saw his death, burial, and resurrection. I at one time thought it a thing of the past but as 2 Thessalonian 2 says, there will be a great falling away before the Man of Lawlessness appears. Heads up. I think he's here.
There is still an assumption here that 1. the Lord needs an organization run by men to contain a certain authority and 2. that these men were actually called of God and didn't just put themselves there in power. Jeremiah 23 rubukes those who call themselves prophets and speak things in the name of God that he didn't tell them to say. Much of what Brigham taught goes against scripture. In my opinion the idea of continuing revelation becomes very problematic when there is a belief that a certain man speaks for God. What does one do when that new revelation goes against Scripture or previous instruction that was thought to be God's word? Now days they say in conference that the new stuff overwrites the old. We even had a high council talk last spring that said the current prophets words are more important than scripture. What??? It opens the door for leaders to say anything they want! God wants a relationship with each one of us. A true prophet should lead you to develop that relationship so you can get your instruction from God. And while i do think a community of true believers is a good thing, I don't think it has to be an organization. Men eventually corrupt every organization they get their hands on.
I think organized community is essential-what does it matter to have the commandments in isolation? Even with the major flaws within the LDS church organization, I think total dissolution would have far more severe consequences in the negative direction. Better to just recognize the potential for fallibility and double check anything a leader says with personal revelation.
The organization cannot be top-down through “authority”. The organization is supposed to be organic, from the bottom-up. The “church”, as defined in D&C 10, is all those who repent and come unto Christ. The church is not an institution, it is not a building, it is not a 501c3. The church is supposed to rise up from the hearts and minds of individuals - more of a spiritual entity - who are of one heart and of one mind. Just like a beehive
@steel6322 The Great Apostasy was just that, an apostasy. There were those who like Conner, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, and Denver Snufer who are seeking to influence the church away from God's chosen prophets and apostles he ordained to be the heads of this church. John the Apostle was the known leader of the church, but others took over. How did you not know about that? " I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 1:9-10)
Doesn't this all boil down to the Gospel vs. the Church? Plenty of branches-from Joseph Smith’s to the Catholic Church-can trace authority back to Christ, but what really sustains true authority? While church structure helps with unity, it's not perfect at preserving doctrine. Maybe Jesus wanted us to focus on his Gospel personally, not just through an organization. Living the Gospel might mean finding communities that actually live out service, truth, and compassion like Christ taught, while staying grounded in solid doctrine. For LDS members aware of past missteps, this view allows full commitment to Christ’s teachings within an imperfect Church. Ultimately, real worship and growth come from following Gospel values, not relying solely on the institution.
At best organized religion is the precepts of men mingled with scripture, at worst it's the precepts of men mingled with scripture “whose founder is the devil” (1M14.9). Both cause man to stumble and to err. Pure religion is man embracing the great commandments. The first is loving God. "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. ‘Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father’ (James 1.27) is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - Joseph Smith
I completely agree. How do we reconcile this idea with the idea of "Priesthood", "saving ordinances", "covenants", and "authority". This is where it gets a bit tricky. This is the best explanation I have ever found to reconcile these two seemingly competing ideas: ruclips.net/p/PLUyMSjLHia0xpZV7Qf0ACUl-JfJJn-FN2
@@wayne2064 “…full commitment to Christ’s teachings within an imperfect church.” Oh man…how many times my family has tried to go back to our ward! When we go there, easily 90% of faithful utterances are about Pres Nelson or the temple…not the Savior. It’s so distracting! It’s like going to a class on physics, but instead watching Three Stooges movies (no offense to my boys). You can’t have meaningful conversations about the Savior with people stuck in substitutions and distractions.
Problem is, you can’t get a recommend and partake of the ordinances in the temple without pledging allegiance to the leaders. If the leaders are corrupt (have even changed the ordinances), then those leaders can prevent you from exaltation if you don’t conform to their corruption. This doesn’t make any sense. I usually agree with your musings but the cognitive dissonance in this one is too much
The temple recommend question is do I believe the church leaders hold the keys. That is, thankfully, a very narrow question that allows me to participate in saving ordinances without “following the prophet” when he’s otherwise leading us astray.
We don't pledge allegiance. We sustain as prophets, etc. I agree with Connor that a mortal man can be a prophet and still be fallible. Not everything out of their mouths is prophetic and revelatory. Most of the time they are experienced men who are sharing advice and counsel. Most of the time it is good, or at least harmless. My sustaining doesn't include complying with anything that is wrong, according to God and The Scriptures.
@@Robin-ge2qc It’s mostly good and harmless until the supreme sustained leader, the supposed “ONLY one” wih the keys, misleads millions of people into the hands of the very conspiring men the scriptures warned about. We might be complying with more that is wrong than we think. I dunno, I’m seeing the church depart farther and farther from the doctrine that I see in the pages of the BoM
So why if a man has his priesthood revoked for sin today he is not allowed to perform ordinances but if BY and others were wicked they could still use their priesthood and it is still valid??
True, if someone today lived and taught the falsehoods that BY did, they would be exed and could they then go start a new church and it be true because they were once given supposed authority? This is contrary to what Jesus taught, even if Joseph seemed to think authority stays with a person despite unrighteousness. Jesus taught that unrighteousness invalidates a person's authority or worthiness to lead.
At 21:30 you make the faulty assumption that Growth = God’s Work. In this Telestial world there has been many examples where Might does not equal Right; in fact it is often the opposite. In the last days, “they have ALL gone astray save it be a FEW, who are the humble followers of Christ… because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Nephi 28:14; see also Mormon 8:36 & 1 Nephi 14:12)
It is quite easy to recognize that things which are no longer taught, and which are distasteful to today's members are false. Although I will give you credit for having done so, which is more than most are able to do. It is quite another to examine those doctrines which Brigham taught which are popular. I speak of course, the subject of the temple endowment. While it is true that Joseph did utter the word 'endowment', it is not at all clear what that meant, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that it was anything like the temple ordinance today. There is ample evidence that it is yet another instance of Brigham tinkering with an idea until he cobbled together something that seemed satisfying. Today, it is seen as perhaps THE central doctrine which binds members to the church. An examination of the purposes and uses of the temple in scripture points to the fallacy of the idea. In ancient times (both Biblical and BofM times) temples were used to teach each other, it was a place to openly exchange ideas about the works of God. There were ordinances performed, but, according to the both the Bible and the D&C this consisted primarily of sacrifices and Baptism for the Dead. There is not a word in holy writ about the endowment as an ordinance. Sealings or marriages were, in Joseph's day, to be public ceremonies. Today, you can't attend any two meetings where the endowment is not referenced in some way. Yet, the BofM, the most perfect of any book, containing the fulness of the gospel doesn't mention it a single time! Yes, I know the temple is seen as special, and sacred by today's Latter Day Saints, but a doctrine's popularity doesn't make it true. Today there seems to be a competition among church presidents to see who can commission the largest number of temples. There is little demand for these things in the first place, but I think more and more that we are becoming that church warned about in the BofM which builds fancy buildings in lieu of actually doing good. You will recall that the BofM is prophesying about a corrupt church 2 Nephi 26:20-23, 4 Nephi 1:41-44, and especially 2 Nephi 28:3-16.
So basically we are now ok that our “prophets” are just like everyone else and every other church: just trying to figure things out AND we allow them to claim that what they say is revelation and the word of god when in reality they know it’s a lie and it’s just their best guess? 🤔 that’s straight up lying. There is a difference between claiming you’re receiving things directly from god when you know that’s not the case and claiming that you feel that something is the will of god based on lots of pondering and hope that you are correct. But, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night. I have enough respect for myself that I require full honesty with myself.
I love how you are approaching these topics - acknowledging the facts while providing sound logic and context for how to move forward... Love your summarizing the history of God consistently working through flawed people. As a local leader in the church, I am very aligned... It does lead to an interesting question for me - if the early apostles had the authority and ordinances from the Savior - could not some church's argue the same logic - yes, lots of corruption, but the authority has continued with that church for all the reasons you gave for the post Brigham Young church? At some point, the Lord has His limits in accommodating human weakness.... Keep up the GREAT work!!!
Connor, I love your program, I’ll continue to listen and follow, but I disagree wholeheartedly with these two. I love the quote that you said about the standard of truth going forward, I just don’t think that needs to be in the brighamite church. The changes and false doctrine aren’t limited to a few missteps, but entire changes, such as the temples and temple work, created by BY and his cronies. I could go on and on, I think the BOM is for certain, the leaders are as corrupt as King Noah, and the brighamite church is being led carefully to hell.
It is very interesting to see the difference between the temples out east and the temples and the ordinances that were constructed out west. They are not the same.
By that thinking, then wouldn't any or all of the branches from Joseph's original church (Community of Christ, FLDS, Etc) or even perhaps the Catholic Church and or all of it's branches be true churches with real authority? Since they likely had members and leaders who were once given such authority? Jesus didn't teach that growth determines a true church or a true prophet, for then couldn't the Catholic Church be considered the true church? Falsehoods actually attract more followers than truth, so a church that taught feel good falsehoods would likely be much larger than one that taught the difficult truths that Jesus taught. It seems all religions and churches and scriptures teach a mix of truth and error, including Joseph's original church, thus why Jesus seemed against formal religion and even against following so called prophets, for there are no perfect people to lead a church and not always have people be led astray by imperfect prophets and leaders who will often be wrong or unrighteous. It seems Jesus just wanted us to follow his simple natural law teachings on our own, that we can prove are truth by experience over time and not put our trust in man to lead us.
Secular history would make the Pope God's authority on earth as it's history can be traced from Peter to the present Pope, and it is growing in numbers by very good people reactivating or joining but without full approval of the current Pope's policies.
stop making stuff up, Jesus was baptized by the one prophet they had at the time, and he attended synagogue every week and the temple three or four times a year.
@@BrianTerrill That does not seem very likely given many of his teachings, for he didn't seem to believe in his religion. How would we know if what the Gospels say about him is true and what he really did, for we weren't there? We only have his teachings to go on, not what people claimed he did, etc. Many of his teachings contradict each other, so they can't all really be from him and likely aren't when we study how the Gospels came to be.
@Posi2300 talk specifics what teachings are you saying contradict one another, I hate reading this horse crap that people say he taught without actually being shown some specifics abd I've read the Journal of Discourses.
My problem is that the church has not repented of its paths of wickedness. 6 figure living stipends are not supported by the scriptures. The LDS church has a paid ministry if you get high enough. "26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God." Mosiah 18:26 To further prove the point, research when Alma said he got paid by the people. The churches business dealings are dishonest. They use and abuse the poor. They create the poor. Not even a whisper of caring for their fellow man. They make a big show of their donations to the UN, American Red Cross and other organizations all the while they neglect the foster-care system. They neglect those injured by their actions in business. The members donate greatly, while the church leadership loves its back room deals. "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." "(A)nd your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts." "O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?" Mormon 8 applies to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints more than it applied to the churches at the time of Joseph Smith.
@@allthingsarepossiblethruchrist Connor had a musing about that a while back. I evaluate the actions in the now. Moses was a part of who knows how many Egyptian things. Alma the Younger was a participant in Noah's court. People can repent. I look at the now, not throw mud at what the people did in the past after they have changed and repented.
@@allthingsarepossiblethruchristthats because the skull and bones President Nelson was part of did not resemble anything close to what it is now. It was nothing more than a social club where people could do activities together.
@wheels636 @wheels636 where did you get that information from? The University of Utah admitted that one initiate literally went crazy during the ceremony. He caused lots of damage to the University and was hospitalized. It was in the Universities newspaper
Yes Brigham did…I’ve never felt good about him, often feeling guilty for listening to his “dark” teachings. Brigham was a Fallen Man whom I believe never was a prophet!!!
You can't have it both ways you can't have the church today is true but all the prophet's and leadership of the church who practiced polygamy are bad. The whole tree would die without the roots.
Like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was a flawed man. Both were prophet's of God nonetheless. Brigham Young was the right man for the job. He was steady, and hard-headed. He kept the church together.
Even if Joseph did, Jesus did not teach that authority is how you tell a true church or a true prophet, but by whether or not the person, prophet or church really lives and follows all of his teachings, which he knew no one could for no one is perfect, thus his point to only follow his teachings and not imperfect mortals. For any church or prophet can claim true authority, as most do, but who really follows the pure teachings of Christ?
The JST of Matt 24 debunks your last point. It says “All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that they will make you observe and do; for they are ministers of the law, and they make themselves your judges. But do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.”
Thank you for your words. I have had the same thoughts. I have looked around at other Churches. I still believe this is Christ Church and where He wants me to be.
36 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.
So, did BY lead the people of the church astray? If so, why did it take God 25-30 years to remove him? Did BY ever have the keys of the priesthood? Can a wicked man hold the keys?
Because despite teachings to the contrary God lets man choose. Every dispensation has ended in corruption. Brigham leading the church would have been like Judas taking over leadership of the church.
Where do you get the idea that God removes corrupt leaders? You won’t find that teaching in the scriptures, simply in the teachings of the false leaders.
The quorum of the 12 were never suppose to run the church. . They were only to go our into the world to preach the gospel to those without it. BY changed all that to position himself to be in charge.
Not quite accurate. Saul was removed and his throne given to David. Jehu was sent into Jerusalem to remove Jezebel who slew her and dogs ate almost all of her before they could bury her as God promised. Remember the king in Daniel who God warned by writing on a wall that he would die for his evilness and he did the next day. Sometimes God gives us who we deserve and seek after just before He delivers His wrath. But His judgment is just as is His mercy.
@rebekahgriffin567 I definitely agree with you, Rebekah. Every prophet of this dispensation (except Joseph) has taught that principle. When I asked the question my tongue was firmly in my cheek LOL.
Your mention of Hugh Nibely reminds me of my reading of Approaching Zion. Nibley seemed to be castigating members and even leadership. Moreover, he seemed to cast a critical light those who sought money, wealth over spirituality or drawing closer to Christ. He specifically mentioned MLMs and its prevalence in Utah.
I appreciate your honest, straight forward explanation. I mostly appreciate your respect, and grace. I have been listening to a few people who have a feeling of defensiveness and anger. Even if they don't want that. You are calm, well studied and non-judgmental. Our family enjoys your books and understanding This was good! I'm glad I listened and like your explanation. Id like to say it feels good 😊 but I know I need to make sure God is teaching me alongside what you are saying. Something I have realized as my life plods along is all these beliefs are still passed down. I remember my mom making statements about the gospel... False doctrine taught by her leaders and parents. It just was the teaching As I have gotten older I have realized a few things... When I repeat them or ponder them I just "know" something isn't right. Some of these things you talked about I actually didn't even know what they meant. But I remember being taught tidbits. Interesting as well, many were countered by teachings in the BOM 🤔 I can feel many things being taught now are off a bit and signs of our culture as a nation and church I am grateful for the Spirit of God that guides me.
God never called his prophets by voting consensus. You might argue Joseph was. None of the following claimed to be called of God by him appearing to them.
Thanks Connor. Good stuff as always. I'm going to push back on a you a bit for discussion sake. I'm not suggesting we should "leave the church", but I do think there are a few problems with your justifications here. #1, if leaders can maintain their "priesthood authority" despite apostasy or wickedness, then can we not argue that the Catholics still have priesthood authority? What if the leader corrupts the ordinance (e.g. BY temple)? Didn't JS teach that ordinances were established in the beginning and should not be changed/corrupted? Do we not say "amen" to the priesthood of a man who changes eternal ordinance? Do we not say "amen" to the priesthood of a man who violates the commandments of God? You say the man can repent and his "ordination" is still valid. Assuming that is the case, are we meant to support and sustain that man BEFORE said repentance? #2 If apostasy is prophesied, does that justify our participation in it? Should we not follow the counsel of JS in D&C 102 to try leaders who violate commandments or apostatize the gospel? What is the threshold where the "institution" no longer serves God's purpose due to false doctrine and apostasy? Is there no obligation of a member to object and withdraw sustaining vote when we see such violations? Can we withdraw this sustaining vote and maintain our membership? Or will the institution reject us for daring to question the oracle? #3 Again, "the fruits" argument is a bit slippery, because you can argue that the protestants were unjustified in their reforms because the dominant Christian faith was the Catholic church. Indeed, there are some wonderful disciples of Christ in the Catholic church. Are they not fruits of God's church? Just because the Brighamite branch survived, does that make it divine or "true"? #4 leaders have agency, but so do we. Are we required to betray our agency in order to stay? There are an increasing number of members (like yourself) who have criticized the church, or (heaven forbid) taught clear restoration doctrines in SS/EQ who have been censored and even excommunicated. I was told to stop "teaching meat" in my EQ class last month. What if the spirit moves me to bear testimony of Isaiah's prophecies and my leaders label me as dangerous? What if they actively pursue me for thought crimes? What if I want to stay, but they don't want me to stay? What if my church leaders use their agency to violate mine? #5 I believe all of these examples occur BEFORE His resurrection and restoration. So the Jewish "institution" became null/void upon Peter's ordination. If a prophet arises to restore what has been lost/corrupted, are we not required to heed their call to repentance despite our "institution"? How will our "institution" react to such a prophet? If our church persecutes and stones him, do we remain faithful to it? Or do we say Amen and Farewell? Tough questions. I'm not suggesting I know the answers. I wanted to invite you to watch this lecture series by Todd McLauchlin: ruclips.net/p/PLUyMSjLHia0xpZV7Qf0ACUl-JfJJn-FN2 I'd love to hear you muse about it. Also, you need to put chapter breaks in your videos.
So when did Brigham young and following church leaders repent of these false doctrines? When has the church repented? The church doest practice polygamy( in this life)but still supports and teaches it. Blacks and the priesthood? "Men are punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgressions" right? I'll continue to turn to the Lord and his proven prophets in the BOM and Bible, not a prideful organization that requires money for my salvation... sorry I'm poor.
Good points. The lesson today at church focused on people criticizing the Catholic Church for requiring money for salvation. I found it ironic considering we require a full tithe for "saving" ordinances.
I gotta say one more thing on this. When we go and read the scriptures to instruct us on what we are doing wrong and right, we should actually heed the warnings. What the general pattern has been, is there is genesis, a prophet with truth comes on the scene, repentance occurs, time passes, apostasy occurs, the old institution is called to repentance, they do not repent and God starts a new thing. God has started a new thing, go find it.
Do the LDS hold the priesthood? D&C 121 says no. There is an interesting paradox that answered part of this question. It pertains to the Roman Catholic vs. LDS position on Priesthood. The Roman Catholics claim to have an unbroken chain of priesthood authority. If the Catholics have retained the priesthood, there would be no reason to restore it. If the LDS had it restored to them, then it needed to return because the Catholics lost it. Catholic claims to the priesthood are rejected by us (LDS members) because we believe it was lost to them millennia ago due to unrighteousness/apostasy. However...we seem to teach the same doctrine as the Roman Catholics, only we teach it cannot be lost to us because God is with us. If priesthood cannot be lost, then the Catholic claims are justified. If LDS claims are correct, it is necessary to recognize that it can be lost (D&C 121:37). We seem to want it both ways - It can be lost to others who are unrighteous, but won’t be lost to us if we are (2 Nephi 28:8). We see this when someone who is secretly sinning blesses the sacrament or gives a priesthood blessing. If we find out about it later, we say that God still blesses the ordinance regardless of the priest’s worthiness. This kind of thinking leads to a dangerous, prideful, and arrogant mindset. I've proposed this conundrum to many people to see their response. The answer is the exact same every time: If a male doesn't keep the priesthood pure through personal sin, etc. God will still honor the blessing (of the sacrament or other blessings). This is hard for me to understand because we teach that the Catholics didn't keep the priesthood because of sin, so they lost it, but the unspoken belief is that although we too sin and are frequently impure, we get to keep it.
As much as I appreciate Connor's efforts here, a lot of this sounds like an attempt to validate the church no matter what it does. So, Jesus is fine with leaders leading people astray because maybe things can be corrected later. Yeah, sorry, but no thanks.
@@jaredshipp9207 Right?? I've discovered 40% of these detractors are frauds, spiritual and intellectual karens. Honesty seems to be an issue also in some.
@@jaredshipp9207 So, no matter what the church does, we have to agree with it? How is that "Protestant" in nature? Was it not Joseph Smith who said, "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (History of the Church 5:340) Apparently, latter-day saints now have creeds they must follow?
If you have congregation that helps you grow closer to Christ that’s wonderful, stick to it. Just make sure you use the spirit and give your support directly to those that need it. The corporation doesn’t need any more support than it already has. With no consequence for a $5 million SEC fine they should be on everyone’s financial probation. Also individualized personal revelation is better than a one-size-fits-all correlated manual. Wake up sleeping sheep! God wants to work through you! You were not created to be an exploitable minion.
I think there's a clear difference between a leader sinning vs a prophet teaching false doctrine. David commiting adultery and murder or Peter refusing to eat with gentiles is different from Peter or Paul or Isaiah, etc teaching false doctrine. It seems to me that the whole point of having a prophet and a church with teaching authority (as opposed to just going by the scriptures alone or by personal religious experience alone) is that they maintain sound doctrine. Its supposed to avoid the errors of other churches that constantly adopt the views of the world and incorporate them into their beliefs. If a prophet can teach false doctrine and another prophet can contradict an older prophet on doctrine, then that seems to defeat the whole point of having modern-day prophets.
It would be interesting to analyze at what point does God say, no more, this is not my people or my church. What was it that caused the Lord to finally reject the Jews or the need to restart reform restore the Christian experiment? Being part of the church is not the same as being part of the ChurchTM. It may be perfectly okay with the Lord to separate from the Church TM as long as we don't separate from the larger more important definition.
Yes. D&C 10. The “church” is a spiritual thing. It is all those who repent and come unto Christ. You can’t point to a building or institution and say “there it is”
I wonder that too. I'm trying to go by what the spirit teaches me to do. I just want truth, not trusting in our Father's traditions or culture which is becoming more and more evil!
How does you view of retaining priesthood in spite of false teaching square with section 124 and its threat of rejection as a church at the loss of Joseph and Hyrum?
My friend, insightful as usual. Although I really think you are stretching on this conclusion. I personally can’t find any way for sincere seekers of truth to fit into the LDS church.
Wow. That says what I was saying to my husband the other day. I told him I don't hear any revelation. The just say the same things that others say. Vomit is a great way of saying it.
Oooof! This was a hard listen. I didn’t like any of your points. I too see the problems with Brigham, and am still a member, but I’d recommend a study of authority using only scripture and see where it really comes from. Those baptisms at the water of Mormon were authorized through the spirit, not a dormant priesthood, as if that’s a thing. Take a look at the de-evolution of the definition of keys from the early church. Take a look at what has been added to and taken from the original doctrine on heavenly reward. All the best.
The fruits of the gospel have nothing to do with organizational size, wealth, or multi-million dollar buildings. It is angelic visitation, healing, revelation, etc. If these things cease it is due to unbelief. Incorrect beliefs is unbelief. Also, Christ wanted compliance to the authorities of Judaism as a testimony to them that he was God and he had not yet redeemed men via his sacrifice. John wrested the kingdom from the Jews according to Joseph Smith and Christ came from outside the established order.
Issues with President Young are not the only problems the modern church must face. It was the illustration of Joseph’s face gazing into his hat that knocked me off course.
They HAVE changed the ordinances.. I used to have to covenant to obey my husband and now that is gone. I make the covenant to obey directly with God now.
That’s the problem with connors ideas. How can we just sit back and allow the leaders to make their mistakes without acknowledging that those mistakes are affecting the very things that grant access to exaltation? It’s silly, really.
They changes to the temple rights have been in constant change since Brigham. He taught that Adam came down with one of his wives and started the garden of Eden. Adam was God, God was a polygamist. That is in opposition to what Joseph taught and in opposition of what the current church teaches. The church is in apostasy. Period.
So, regarding authority, and the example of Alma, and what it says in Doc and cov 121: would it follow then that the other “branches” of the restoration (who were founded by people who can also trace their authority back through Joseph Smith) are potentially still operating with true authority as well? I know I see many good fruits of the Spirit happening in those churches, and I believe and hope we will all be grafted back to our mother tree, as Jacob 5 says.. I guess I don’t have any good reason to believe that God doesn’t also honor their priesthood authority.
It's not about the righteousness of the one performing the ordinance, it's that the ordinance was changed (made up) by BY in St George just before his death. The only valid ordinance we have is the baptismal ordinance because it's found in the BofM. Even the sacrament was changed from wine to water. We only have a shell of a church that Joseph restored.
@@reppi8742 what do we know of the Native Americans who were left at the end of the BOM? They were wicked and had destroyed all the righteous. Why would they have true ordinances from God to pass down?
You explained well what I am been trying to wrap my thoughts around. There was one other example that I think is one of the most powerful examples of recognition of authority. Jesus remained silent while the priests, etc., were questioning him in his spurious trial. Matthew 26 62-65. They ask him many questions. But Jesus holds his peace. Then the high priest says "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." That is when Jesus makes an answer to them. Thus, by His example He recognizes their authority (to their detriment).
I'd like to give a little pushback of sorts regarding the scriptures used starting at the 33 mark. In Matt 8 Jesus DID tell the cleansed leper to shew himself to the priest and offer the gift. It is true that while Jesus was introducing new doctrines and practices...He still He Himself was keeping many of the customs and practices...and telling His followers to do the same. To say that this is in any way a sign that Jesus was having His followers bow to the corrupt religious leaders requires putting words in and motives that simply aren't there. All we DO have...is that it says it was to be done "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM." If we believe the record...the purpose was simply to show the corrupt leaders that JESUS HAD HEALED THE MAN. Yes...he was conforming to the law of moses...but that is not a sign that Jesus was telling this man to bow to corruption. Secondly...Matt 23:1-3. If you read different translations something will become clear. Jesus was saying in essence..."These guys are the ones who study and can give you the law. So get the law from them. But don't do what they do...because they're hypocrites". He WAS NOT saying to do whatever they say even if it's wrong. He WAS NOT saying to obey their policies. He was saying to listen to them sharing THE LAW!!!! Also...many translations say that "They have seated THEMSELVES in Moses seat". Not that their authority was given by HIM.
Being a man and sinning is quite different than teaching and implementing false doctrine. Certainly we have no use for false prophets who teach false doctrine! Why would God allow his chosen method to reveal his truth be undermined by falsehood that undermines trust?
I'd be curious to have anyone's feedback on the following: 1. The story of Emma hating Section 132 when Hyrum showed it to her (burning the copy of it in the fireplace) 2. The justification of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and others in taking more than one wife. The caveat given by B.O.M. Jacob wrt the practice of plural marriage. 3. The implied practice of plural marriage by Jared and the Brother of Jared (look at the number of children). 4. The current practice of polygamy in African, Middle Eastern and Eastern Cultures. And how to minister to them currently in the ordinances of the Gospel. 5. RMN's statement that in the coming days we would be given "Abrahamic Tests." 6. The apparent felicity of Joseph F Smith's family. 7. The statements of Eliza R Snow and other Pioneer Women regarding plural/celestial marriage. I find it hard to believe that she was a gullible, hoodwinked acolyte of Brother Brigham.
and emma kicked eliza out of their home she had been living with them as a boarder when she found and eliza and jospeh got sealed and wasnt friends with her anymore....i dont think eliza could have kids cause she was married to joseph and brigham and never had kids and i dont beleive she nevee slept with either...so joseph not having other kids doesnt bother me...more dna tests could prove more kids or like he and emma maybe didnt make it past infancy and early childhood like several of their kids did
To think that Jesus would sustain or use BY and others to lead people (to be unrighteous and live opposite to his teachings) would be completely contrary to his teachings in the Gospels and how he taught about not falling for false prophets. Jesus was all about not wanting people to be deceived by people or prophets who claimed to have authority or follow him, but don't.
I think Brigham's repentance may have started even in his lifetime. You see this in how his language changes a bit in respect to teaching some things like Adam-God. In the beginning he is much more sure, but later records he uses the "I reckon" wording a lot more. I think he was still wrong about a lot when he died, but maybe there is some evidence that he was starting to change. Thanks for your perspective.
Perhaps he was starting to change some of his opinions (though I don't think so), but he was still committing adultery frequently, and encouraging others to do the same. He was also committing genocide on native American tribes in the area, and calling for the murders of many Americans. His life was full of lies, and those were hardly going away when he was murdered by John Taylor. Oops...I just opened a new can of worms with that last part, didn't I?
I always appreciate your thoughtful musings. This is no exception. I do respect that you've spent a lot of time on this... but what if Pres Nelson reinstituted Polygamy again today? Scripturally, he could justify it, with Sec 132. Even the Family Proclamation doesn't exclude the possibility of homes with more than one wife. It has always been implied that (like Emma) women condone supporting their husband in plural marriage to receive the highest level of exaltation. We ignore that today, but it is there in sec 132. My personal study of this issue has been relatively recent, but protracted over seven years. I feel like you are in the early stages of realizing the problems, but are still making excuses because of..... keys and line of authority. Prophets absolutely do and can get it wrong. And when it's a "current" issue...it can cause a ton of destruction. For not following the prophet on the jibbyjab issue, we were excoriated and shunned by family, friends, our ward, and my husband had his job threatened for 2.5 years. It felt like total catastrophe. Unforgiveable really, but it would have been nice to consider forgiving if only any sort of apology or recognition of wrong-doing was offered. Still waiting. Yet, the damages and death and pain brought on by this "misstep" are all around us, stacking up in the room like rotting carcasses. Polygamy is similar in nature. You might be 5th or 6th generation like me in so many family lines of ancestors that decided to follow Brigham. The 1852 polygamy revelation read by William Clayton wasn't something that was easily ignored. You were required to be rebaptized. You were prodded to make that blood oath in the endowment house. You were surrounded by hundreds of miles of unforgiveable wilderness and desert, so without money and means you couldn't just leave. Generations suffered at the hands of those coerced into polygamy. Perhaps your grandmothers who were burdened by the "blessing" or "command" left their thoughts. One of my grandmothers lamented in her autobiography that she never had a day of rest once her husband took other wives. She was abandoned and unloved. Raised 10 kids on her own. Walked 10 miles or more a day for work just to have enough meal to feed her family. I wish she was the only example. There are several. Did you know that Joseph Smith, in a lecture given in Nauvoo, prophesied that those who entered into the practice... would curse their families for up to four generations? Is it just a coincidence that the fifth and 6th generations of these ancestors are FINALLY coming to terms with this great evil thrust upon their ancestors, waking up to the false traditions of their fathers? I have let go of my expectations with the institution I learned so much from, took so much pride in, and absolutely adored being a part of for 50+ years. Following leaders in error because of keys and authority.... feels comfy and cozy. I'd love to do it. But to me, the realization has come all too clearly that generations literally hang in the balance when 'missteps' happen. And the institutions led by these men become really uncomfortable and even hostile when you are non-compliant. I felt completely trapped during the "jibbyjab" trial. I wish my ancestors had figured out a way to escape what they recognized as... questionable and "hard" doctrine in polygamy. (I actually do have one grandfather that packed up and left...and it was a harrowing escape.) When Jesus visited the Nephites he first taught faith, repentance, baptism. He taught them it was the doctrine of Christ. And not to add or subtract from it. Why have we ADDED so dang much? Do we believe our own scriptures? Do we believe Christ? Do you have a line? Or are we really just supposed to be what feels like "luke warm"....and accept the good with the bad because hey, the keys and authority are here. I feel so much peace recognizing that ultimately, the authority is with Christ. Anything that gives me the "icky" vibes.... and is an addition or subtraction of the doctrine of Christ.... is just out for me these days.
Your rationale that past Church leaders taught false doctrine, yet the Church as an institution remained in force as God's authorized "True Church", is the same argument made by the Catholic Church to justify their unbroken line of authority from Peter to present day Pope...despite their dark history of the Inquisition, etc. I'm with you...a true/active LDS believer; however, some of our history is perplexing. My self-talk to keep me on the path = "there is a lot more we don't know than what we do know" + all of these past leaders are dead and despite their amazing record keeping, we don't have the complete context of their logic and reasoning. The Book of Mormon has always been the anchor to my testimony of the Restored Gospel.
Christ was saying that the scibes and pharisees have the scriptures; therefore, keep peace with them and follow the internal and external word of God...regarding Matthew 23 (KJV).
I always find it interesting when people try to equate numbers with truth. History has shown that the truth was always with the minority not the majority and the righteous who follow God are usually few in number.
At approximately your 7:53 mark, you cite Alma as the example of a man, ordained in wickedness…”WHO REPENTED”…and went on to be such a righteous leader of the Nephites. The modern leaders of the church STILL perpetuate the lie that Joseph instituted and lived polygamy. Just these last two weeks, they’ve updated Gospel Library materials to display a very soft touch surrounding the practice. What’s more…President Oaks has said that the church, AS A MATTER OF POLICY…NEVER apologizes (yet WE must when WE repent). They praise Joseph out one side of their mouths, while calling him a liar, adulterer, and child predator out the other. They train and dispatch fully unsavory men like Brian Hales to defend their position. I could go on and on how they have betrayed the saints very early on, and continue to do so today.
I mean Joseph did institute polygamy, this is a fact, all the evidence points to it, and it was from God. Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith has dismantled every argument of polygamy deniers.
@ Poppycock. You’re presupposing, because you don’t like what the implications are, otherwise. As for being a fact, it most certainly is not as clear as you say, simply because you say so. There is copious evidence that he did not institute polygamy, and many many holes and problems with any evidence that he did.
No other church has the Book of Mormon, Temple Endowment or was restored by Joseph Smith. That’s what I hang my testimony on. Living the teachings of the Gospel as taught in our Church brings peace and joy and a path to follow Christ. I think the culture of prophet worship and thinking they are infallible is a big part of the problem.
The temple endowment we have today is made up from Brigham not recieved from God through Joseph. Joseph taught we could only recieve an endowment from on high once the Navoo temple was complete and Joseph died before it was completed. It never actually was fully finished anyhow.
This is simply not true. There are other churches that have the Book of Mormon and which descend from Joseph’s restored church every bit as much as the brighamite church. As for the endowment, what the brighamite church has is what remains in an evolved state from what Brigham introduced as what he claimed Joseph revealed to him in partiality with alleged instructions to “figure out the rest.”
I really like these videos, and I'm glad more people within the church are aware of what is happening. My question for your argument about staying in the church is what about the Catholic church? Wasn't that the original church from the apostles with the priesthood, or even the Jewish church? If we should stay and fix a corrupt church, why restore or start over like Joseph did? Although I'm still a member, I just don't see the point anymore staying in the church or believe Temples and temple work is even necessary, especially since so much was fabricated by Brigham and keeps getting changed. Temples, garments, etc, seem to me now as idols replacing the work Jesus did for us.
You're in the church because you are famous and your Stake president doesn't dare to excommunicate you. Not everyone has that luxury. Like you said, leader roulette is a real thing. 😢
Thank God for Joseph, Hyrum and their families. It’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not the Church of Jesus Christ of General Authorities. The faithful Saints, with the disseminated priesthood, have always kept the Gospel from being taken from the Earth and always will.
I think the agency discussion is the best explanation for many policy changes. Especially the blacks and the priesthood issue. Was it right? In my opinion no. But as a point of order, it was the agency of the leaders that made that policy "binding." God was able to fix it because he is leading His Church.
I mean Peter got mad at Paul for a bunch of stuff he wrote, so there's that. Basically created a lot of the Evangelical core beliefs that exclude things like baptism. Mortals make mistakes.
The message with the coin in the mouth of the fish goes deeper...first...try it. And you will then get the message. If you serve the sheep ie and "are a fisher of men"...the coin you catch is souls. This is what qualifies you for the temple blessings, which are not for the physical temple. Peace.
These arguments would only make any sense if the Community of Christ did not exist as an international body, even if it is much smaller than the Brighamite LDS Church, and to put this “population takes all” argument into perspective, even the BLDS has yet to eclipse the SDAs.
Your argument about authority remaining despite wickedness validates the Catholic church’s claim to authority as much as it does the LDS church. They claim keys through Peter, why is there authority invalidated?
Only halfway through the video and your points are all disproven (if we take the first vision to be true.) By the first vision itself. God's intervention into religion would prove that not only can authority be lost by unworthiness, but that teaching false doctrine is a huge issue to God, one that He Himself would come to intervene. If the prophets do teach false doctrine, then the church is false, even by LDS doctrine.
I agree that a true church with righteous leaders would not teach false doctrine. Jesus was very clear to not follow or trust in false prophets or leaders like BY who claim to follow him but live opposite to his teachings, who then lead people astray with them.
Why can't people just judge the church for what it is today? Does your experiences and the way the church has blessed your life change because of what happened 180 years ago? Is the church about the history or the doctrine? If you are being taught correct principles, if it brings you closer to Christ, if the church blesses your life today then why would Brigham taking it off the rails matter? The church would be wise to denounce Brigham for the usurper that he was. He was not called of God to lead the church he was voted by the members to do so. The only kind of prophet he was, was a false one who taught false doctrines and led people to sin. The biggest obstacles to people joining the church, and the things that cause many to leave, come from Brigham. Denounce him and all his false doctrines and influences and build from where and what the church is today.
Thanks for the insights. Two interesting scriptures that I think deal with the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. JST Luke 3 8 Until the fullness of time, and the law and the testimony shall be sealed, and the keys of the kingdom shall be delivered up again unto the Father; 9 To administer justice unto all; to come down in judgment upon all, and to convince all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds, which they have committed; and all this in the day that he shall come; DC 133 71 Behold, and lo, there are none to deliver you; for ye obeyed not my voice when I called to you out of the heavens; ye believed not my servants, and when they were sent unto you ye received them not. 72 Wherefore, they sealed up the testimony and bound up the law, and ye were delivered over unto darkness.
Is there a reason you won't let me comment on your videos Connor? I love your content and want to add my voice, but your channel won't let me comment on your page. Is there a reason for this?
I respect your well thought out conclusions. I think you have thoroughly visited various perspectives enough to reasonably come to what you feel is the best result. I too agree that we, as well as prophets, are fallible. B.Y. definitely had a way of mixing emotions with scripture. Too often people wrongly assume that however they are feeling about something is 100% in line with how God must obviously be feeling too. ie P Nelson claiming "Mormon" offends God. I have a hard time believing that of the 100s or 1,000's of GA's over the years, that hes the only one who figured that out and that all the others were so spiritual dead as to not conclude the same. Even he, had been challenged or corrected by other GA's including Hinkley that, no, in fact God is perfectly fine with it and isnt too petty. Now, to conclude: Only thing I personally disagree with B.Y. on, and feel was outside of the nature of the love of Christ, is his extreem stances on the mixing of races. I believe he too was conflaiting his feelings onto Gods. The rest of your mentions, although controversial, doesn't exactly bump heads within the relm in the nature of god, or things that have taken place in scriptures before or are too far of an extension off from teachings offered by Joseph Smith previously. I feel like if there was any Prophet since Joseph Smith who was most fitted to finalize the full implementation of Joseph teachings, both public and private, it would've been B.Y.. With that, I also feel like if the church were able to have existed these last 200 years without any outside worldly or governmental influences, that things would not have changed as they have; that rather than changes taking place because of the corrections of god, as you feel, I believe they have taken place because of the outside influence and corrections of men. We even see this continuing to today in various attempts in wording or policies to avoid offending people at all costs; almost conflating the offense of people being an offense of God. Niceness culture. Now, do I go around expounding and teaching those taboo doctrines today? No. It's not within the policies right now, and I do respect the institution of our church. I also acknowledge teachers and leaders can be wrong, however it's not my place to correct them, that remains in God's hands alone according to His wisdom. However, within that belief, I do not agree with Wilford Woodruff in his statement that God will not allow him to lead us astray. That's a contradictory teaching. If it were true, God would have stopped Brigham long before he implemented the teachings that he did. But He didn't. He strengthened him. I don't believe God will stop the free agency of any prophet or apostle, but he will most definitely cease to bless them and sustain them in those efforts or teaching if they choose the acceptance, support or blessings of the world over trusting in Him. Does that mean things will utterly fall apart? Not necessarily. It just changes the direction in which we bend our knee and to whom. But God will still dig about His Vineyard and try His best to help it grow because of His love and mercy; thus at times, I perceive, may give a false sense of confidence in a chosen direction. - this of course can be perceived in multiple different directions according to one's opinions or conclusions. So for me, at the end of the day, the question is, not what we ourselves are comfortable with or are okay with in our imperfect fallen state, but, for any docterine, is there any previous precedence or basis or any other Witness that goes to show this being a reoccurring guidance or direction from God? Has He tried it before, but we keep abandoning it or losing or denying it? Both in for or against, including corrections? We may not like it, but what do His previous attempts reveal? Plural marriage for example; do we have any records of God issuing a correction concerning Abraham or the honest, non deceptive, moral, plural marriages of any others? No; not if they were honest, non deceptive and moral. So then what basis or foundation do we arbitrate on? Why do we have such a difficult time deliberating without the influences of our own biases? Why do we struggle in looking to God alone without others opinions? Why cant we trust Him even when we ourselves dont understand? Why are we most likely to fall in line or follow in previous peoples or civilizations paths, rather in Gods? Why is that more comfortable? Why does our history have to keep repeating itself? Why can't we follow His lead to help get us out of these loops? Why does coming to the same conclusions as so many other people before give us greater confidence than in concluding to follow God? And within all of that, why is it we each always feel as though we are the ones who finally got it right, when all we're doing is the exact same thing as everyone else before us? - all especially when those conclusions are in opposition to what it was that God was trying to get us to do before? I dont get it.
I understand the limits of you analogy but, there is always breach of contract. You have errored on the side of staying in the boat but when should we panic? Mountain Meadows is an example of the harm by following men because of their mantle. No matter what people will follow them after receiving their own witness from God ie. the jab and many other examples. What would be an issue that would cause you to question the brethren and their claim to revelation?
What's the alternative? The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ. That is the rock I build my testimony on. What people do is immaterial to my belief.
@@tinkeringengr To follow the simple and few teachings of Jesus on your own, as he seems to have wanted. But it seems after he was gone people added to his teachings and made him out to be super human to create a religion around him. While Jesus seemed to be against formal religion for they are always quickly led astray by imperfect leaders and false doctrines.
@Posi2300 That's not true. Jesus Christ does sponsor organized religion, when built upon his rock, and gives men the authority to administer ordinances. Go read 3 Nephi and tell me Christ wasn't instituting organized religion among the people of the Americas. Read in the gospels what Christ was authorizing and teaching his apostles to do in organizing and administering ordinances to his faithful followers. Read the word of Isaiah, words which Christ highly endorsed, about the establishment of Zion and the enlarging of the tent covering and her cords and strong stakes. Christ, who instituted the sacrament and charged his apostles to administer it often, clearly sponsored organized religion.
Lehi left thr Church in Jerusalem to get away from the abominations there... for they were practicing polygamy and wanted to kill him for soeaking agsinst them.
Lehi never said any of that. He said he left due to a dream. All people there were wicked, which was a view shared by many of his contemporaries like Jeremiah. Jerusalem was destroyed. That why LEHI said he left. Not good to make things up to support your view. What you said is not given as why Lehi left.
Great musings, Brother Connor-as usual. We LDS face the MOST CRITICAL DECISION JUNCTION since the death of the Lord’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith. Why? Because BOTH items below are clearly true: TRUTH # 1 Joseph Smith ALWAYS condemned and NEVER preached or practiced ANY form of polygamy by any name (celestial or plural marriage or spiritual wifery, etc.) and was ALWAYS faithful to his ONE wife, Emma. TRUTH # 2 THEREFORE, though tough to hear--Brigham Young introduced the abominations of polygamy (Jacob 2-3) into the church, while FALSELY PINNING that decision upon Joseph Smith. So what’s next for LDS members? We must also accept: TRUTH # 3 That corruption introduced through polygamy DID NOT destroy or cancel these LIFEBLOOD elements of the Lord's true and living restored church, which REMAIN with us TODAY: * the PRIESTHOOD KEYS * the continuing presence & efficacy of COVENANTS (including Abrahamic, Sacramental, Temple, & Book of Mormon (see DC 84) * the continued efficacy of TEMPLE WORK and ORDINANCES, which build upon those KEYS and COVENANTS, and which continue to make possible the work of salvation on BOTH SIDES of the veil. * the Savior's atoning sacrifice--as the life-giving ROOT of His restored church today * the Savior Himself--as the HEAD of his living and restored church today (BTW: I think the Lord gave us the Parable of the Olive Trees (especially Jacob 5:62-75), planted throughout the Lord's Vineyard to: 1) Warn us how the polygamy Jacob condemned in his day would arrive in OUR DAY and 2) Show us how the Lord would preserve the good and "NATURAL BRANCHES" of the Olive Tree (the LIFEBLOOD found in KEYS, COVENANTS, and TEMPLE ORDINANCES) even after the CORRUTPION from the WILD and BAD branches that infested the VINEYARD during polygamy . . . More on that parable's message to us today--as I REPLY to myself below) In the meantime, this bit of advice seems relevant: * DON'T FEAR the TRUTH * CELEBRATE the FACT that the Lord's Founding Prophet, Joseph, always spoke the truth when he said he never practiced polygamy and was always faithful to his one wife, Emma (C'mon--doesn't that just make you take a big breath of relief and shout: "Halleluiah Joseph!") * TRUST that the Lord preserved the foundations of his church (the keys, covenants and ordinances) --even if Brigham Young temporarily introduced polygamy and its inevitable corruptions into the Lord's vineyard (PART TWO follows BELOW in my REPLY to this comment:)
[Continued from above . . .] Jacob & Zenos both show how the Lifeblood of Christ's Church prevails over temporary corruptions: The following verses of Jacob 5 (65-75) accurately describe how the bitter & corrupt branches & fruit of polygamy arose & then was plucked out of the Lord's church in these latter days, while preserving the NATURAL BRANCHES (those essential keys, covenants, ordinances, & blessings), which are then grafted unto the NATURAL TREE (monogamy}: [Note: I place [brackets] around any words I add to these verses] Some potential definitions: "NATURAL" = That which was originally planted and ordained by the Lord (versus "Wild," "Bitter," "Bad," or "Evil," which oppose the Lord) "TREE" = The vehicle for gathering and blessing the Lord's children through the Gospel "FRUIT" = The lives of the members or disciples "ROOT" = Faith in Christ "TOP" = Christ as the Head of the Tree Jacob 5:65-69: * The Lord of the vineyard cautions his servants to "clear away the branches [polygamy] which bring forth BITTER FRUIT," while being careful to "not clear away the BAD thereof all at once, lest [they completely] lose the trees [of life] of my vineyard * .... wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according AS the GOOD shall GROW.... until the good [keys, etc., plus monogamy] shall OVERCOME the bad... * .... And thus will I sweep away the BAD OUT OF MY VINEYARD, & the branches of the natural tree [priesthood keys, covenants, ordinances, temple blessings, etc.] will I graft in again unto the natural tree [monogamy] .... * .... & thus will I bring them [keys, etc. plus monogamy] TOGETHER AGAIN, that they shall bring forth the NATURAL FRUIT, & they [natural trees, branches, and fruit] shall be one .... & the bad [polygamy] shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard.... (Jacob 5:65-69) Jacob 5:73-75: * "And there began to be the NATURAL FRUIT again in the vineyard; & the NATURAL BRANCHES began to grow & thrive exceedingly; & the WILD branches [polygamy] began to be plucked off & to be cast away; and they did keep the ROOT & the TOP thereof [perhaps the atoning sacrifice of the Lord as the "ROOT" & the Lord's place at the head of His church as "the TOP"] * .... And thus they labored .... even until the BAD [polygamy] had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had PRESERVED unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit [of the NATURAL roots, tree, and branches]; and they became like unto one body; and the FRUITS were EQUAL [perhaps in the way men and women in the Lord's church should always be seen as equally valued in the eyes of their Heavenly Father--which polygamy corrupts?]; & the Lord of the vineyard had PRESERVED unto himself the NATRUAL FRUIT [that was nurtured from the natural ROOTS (of the atonement), natural BRANCHES (of keys, covenants, ordinances), and natural TREES (of monogamy)], which was most precious unto him from the beginning .... * .... And ... the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt .... and the bad is cast away [and he said to his servants:] .... behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard." (Jacob 5:73-75) Bottom line: * We can recognize that polygamy was indeed "bad" and a blight (temporary "wild branches") upon the Lord's restored church--that had to eventually be "plucked out" to preserve the olive tree and allow the good fruit to be nourished and flourish, * That Joseph Smith indeed condemned and shunned the abomination and practice of polygamy--which was, as he and the scriptures always clearly and unequivocally exclaimed, a corruption and an abomination (or blight) that especially undervalued, and often subjected, pierced, and shot daggers into the tender hearts of the Lord's daughters, * But that, despite that corruption, the still-preserved and living roots (atonement of Savior) & "natural branches" of the olive tree (such as priesthood keys, covenants, ordinances, & temple blessings) remain an integral part of the Lord's living church today . . . with the Savior Himself at the head (TOP) of that church . . .
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Firstly, I have to admire that you do not flinch or shy away from hard things. Thank you for having this and all your other conversations.
Repentance first requires acknowledgement. Thats my way of seeing these things. I haven't heard much acknowledgement or repentance from the leadership. In fact, they won't even use the word apologize
Agree 100%. No acceptability literally for anything ever. Claim prophets, seers and revelators that cannot ever astray but whether screw up or the older church leader totally blew it.. their answer is always, “Well we’re just men trying our best to listen to God”
Or better yet “We don’t know detailed things because we are ‘General Authorities”.
Exactly. When I remembered sins I'd committed over the years...I didn't till later because I was dissociative all my life until I healed, I repented and acknowledged my sin but I just see cover ups. What does that mean about sincere repentance? Maybe they are dissociative like I was. Maybe they are living 2 lives at the same time? I dunt know? I can't judge them. I dunt want to leave the church , I love the church. But I see this heavily esp in leadership.
Yeah, Oaks made that clear when he said "We don't apologize". No apology equals no repentance.
I agree but would offer some counterpoints. The church as a corporation (even though it may not legally be so), cannot admit wrongdoing or it would open itself up to lawsuits. Much of those lawsuits would be frivolous and waste the funds of the church (which I know they have in exceeding abundance) even though there might be legitimate lawsuits that could be brought.
I do think the leadership should make it clearer that there have been things done wrong in the past and we are trying to rectify them now. I remember during the celebration for the priesthood/temple ban being "lifted" that Pres Oaks said he prayed about this many times and wanted to understand it and never felt like he understood why. I don't know if he actually knows this and didn't want to say it but maybe the reason he doesn't understand why it was in place is b/c it was never right to begin with!
@@duncansh81 The LDS church is legally defined as a corp in the US and its CEO is Pres. Nelson with full authority over it's wealth, making him one of the richest men in the world. If the church has committed wrong doing, and they are the "true and living church of Christ", would it not be just and virtuous and praiseworthy to be subject to the lawsuits? Did JS mean for his church to become a corp full of scribes, lawyers and accountants? Reminds me a bit of the Sanhedrin, no? Of course, doing the "right" thing has consequences. Should the church not be accountable for it's mistakes? Surely an infallible institution was not the intention of Christ when He established or restored "the church". Yes, false doctrines were never right to begin with. Agreed. The pure doctrine of Christ is eternal just as our unchanging God.
So if the church leaders can go against God, do basically anything they want that is wrong, there is no way they would be considered to be in apostasy? This goes against everything I taught while a missionary.
Agreed. Certainly we have scriptural examples of leaders going into true apostacy which required correcting. Hence D&C 85:7
"7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, TO SET IN ORDER the house of God,"
Can't send someone to set the church in order if it isn't OUT of order ...
@@drmount Interesting in light of this scripture and this musing being on Brigham Young. Here is a quote of his: “Brethren this church will be lead to the brink of hell by the leaders of this people. Then god will raise the one mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th section of the Doctrine and Covenants to save and redeem this church.” Brigham Young 24 August 1867 Provo Bowery Conference. Found in L Tom Perry special collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, page 106. See also the complete discourses of Brigham Young, volume 4. Edited by Richard S VanWagoner, pages 2478-2479.
Do as they say not as they do. They are not required to pay tithing on their modest stipends and the entire first presidency never even served a mission. They are hypocrites and in my humble opinion wolves in sheep's clothing.
True, and most importantly it goes against what Jesus taught, to only trust in or follow those who live 'all' of his teachings, authority or not. Jesus was all about people not being led astray, as always happens to everyone to one degree or another.
God is not the author of confusion.
So true. If it's confusing either God wasn't the author or we don't understand enough yet.
He is the father of a lot of authors though. And boy do they talk way more.
Not to be contentious but please explain the confusion of the original 12 Apostles as well as their disagreements after Christ was risen.
I thinks it’s right to say that he is not a God who will suffer confusion for long while he has his priesthood on the earth, but that’s a relative concept. God is also long suffering. So how long would he allow an error to continue to let people have a chance to correct it before he needs to intervene?
It’s also a little inconsiderate to say that in our position here on earth after the restoration has occurred. Many many people were left in confusion before and after Christ and the great apostasy. I think the amount of things we are saying are “confusing” is response to this video are minimal and trite compared to things people used to believe and/or lacked until this dispensation.
God did put a veil over our minds and sent us here to a world where there is a lot of confusion from many sources
It's not confusion. We are in the wilderness and in the mists, "seeing through a glass darkly". It promotes agency, seeking God, and provides opposition in all things.
For me Alma clarifies if the church is necessary. “Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?”
Has nothing to do about the church not being nrcessary. Christ comes to the Americas and established his church without question. To imply or assume the church isn’t necessary since we can worship at anytime or any place is quite different. The church is the members of the body of Christ and it is through this organization the ordinances of salvation are manage through.
@ the church and its organization has existed only a drop in the bucket of history and among all people. Christ establishing a church among the Nephites doesn’t mean it is required for making it to heaven or to worshipping God. If it did most people would be excluded.
@ the church is the organization for all the saving ordinances and especially work for the dead. Why have a restoration of keys to Joseph who then was commanded to organize the church if it isn’t required? The point of the referenced scripture is about worship not if a church is necessary or not. We read into things that the text doesn’t actually support.
@@daleclark7127it's actually not clear to me that Christ formed a church when he came to the Americas. I believe the scriptures actually suggest that the disciples started a church. In 3 Nephi 11 Christ teaches what his doctrine is. He also makes it pretty clear that anything more or less than what he taught is no bueno.
@ when there was disputation of what the church name should be Christ addressed them that it should be his name. If the church isn’t necessary it seems odd Christ would not have corrected them. Without a church how can the priesthood ordinances and the temple be managed?
I'll keep this succinct, b/c there is a lot more to this. Our teachings on what His church has been distorted. The Church has become an idol. His church is not a government-registered organization, and "there are save two churches only" (1N14.10). Simply put, 'church' (Greek: ekklēsía (ek, "out from and to" and kaléō, "to call") means 'called out ones'.
His church is His body, it is they who are one in Christ. How do we become one with Christ? And "the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God," (1N14.12) The saints are those who are walk in the Spirit, who have gifts of the Spirit. (Read 1 Corinthians 12)
Even in Joseph's day His church already existed as we read in Section 10.50-55 (circa 1828). Compare that to Section 1.30. These passages are referring to the same thing. The only way to have a living church is to have saints who have received the Holy Ghost (again read 1 Corinthians 12).
The LDS Church is very full of pride to boast that Church Inc is the only true church. His shurch is not limited to a denomination. And members of our Church can also be members of the church of the devil. We need to remember, repent and continue in righteousness.
@@frankcastle5513 I completely agree
If Brigham Young was leading the Church today, would you sustain him as Prophet. Seer, and Revalator? If so, why? If not, then where is the line?
*That* is an excellent question!
I wouldn’t be in a false Mormon church, so I’d be happy following the real Jesus (hint: Jesus is not of or in the Mormon church)
Fantastic question!
@@savedbygracethrufaithkeep looking 😊
@@asarg1776 I found Jesus, have you? (hint: He’s not in the Mormon church) ❤️
Did Alma stay in King Noah’s church or did he leave? Did the followers of the way stay in the Jewish church or did they leave? Perhaps starting with the premise that the Lord needs a “vehicle” such as a corporation, rather than the vehicle of His word, or doctrine, is causing false conclusions. Remember that He defines His church as those that repent and come unto Him. It is people, not a telestial organization. Jesus told the Jews to follow the law of Moses, but not to follow the leaders, because it was not yet fulfilled. When it was, they no longer participated in the Jewish rituals and ordinances.
Alma received power and authority from God through his repentance and willingness to follow God’s commandments, just as we all can, not because of some imagined priesthood line of authority. Whether in a religious organization or not, power comes through our faith and relationship with God.
By your argument, why doesn’t every restoration branch have authority? Are you saying the Brighamite branch is the correct one, simply because it is the biggest? It is comforting to believe that ordinances are still valid regardless of righteousness, but that doesn’t make it true.
I agree! Great points!
Yes! Well said, Rebekah! 👏
This is important and interesting to consider. Yes there is for sure a pattern of leading out a remnant, and yet the group they remnant leaves still has significance and purpose. Take for example Lehi. He was led away from Jerusalem. A corrupt church was left behind. Inside that corrupt church there were still faithful members who served the Lord. Fastforward to Jesus' time and we find many who were needed to fulfill important roles like Mary and Joseph, Jesus, Elizabeth and Zechariah, John the baptizer, the disciples, Paul, etc. Some will be led out (for the Lord's purposes), some will be led to stay and serve where they all.
What about his points about Jesus and him telling people to go show the priests or people still worshipping in the temple? It’s so confusing, I really think we have to be in tune with the spirit and the Lord will lead us, maybe some feel inclined to stay for a reason yet others feel moved to go.
@@HMcC0712that was Jesus telling them to keep the law of Moses, until it was fulfilled. After it was fulfilled, they no longer participated in the Jewish religion. My point is not to tell people to leave. It is to say that you don’t need to stay because of “priesthood authority”. Come unto Jesus with a broken heart and contrite spirit and ask Him what He wants you to do. He is the only keeper of the gate.
By this argument, wouldn't it make the Catholic Church the true church? If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, apostasy is impossible, because all that matters is an unbroken chain of authority, doctrine and ethics are irrelevant.
I would say that an important distinction is that the apostolic authority was not passed down. Just as Alma would not been able to regain his priesthood authority if he never got it, how could that institution continue if that authority was lost?
That and when an institution rejects general revelation, how can God accept that as His church when its adherents are would reject further light and knowledge?
@@мельник754how do we know the authority was lost?
If we're going down that road, I prefer Orthodox Christianity.
Look up how the catholics claim the first bishop got authority. Sounds dubious to me.
Yup. Amen.
Lehi didn’t deal with it and left his home, left his congregation and took his family with him. What’s your thoughts on us that see it and take our families into the wilderness to be taught from on high?
Amen! Great thought! Apostasy has been the cause of God's wrath throughout scripture. Its not a new concept. Revelations is written to all those churches in a state of apostasy within the lifetime of the Apostles who lived and worked with Him , saw his death, burial, and resurrection. I at one time thought it a thing of the past but as 2 Thessalonian 2 says, there will be a great falling away before the Man of Lawlessness appears. Heads up. I think he's here.
But who was the apostatizing from? That is the question.
Lehi was returning to the truth God had set forth.
God bless you.
"God gave me a brain and I intend to use it" 😂 💯
There is still an assumption here that 1. the Lord needs an organization run by men to contain a certain authority and 2. that these men were actually called of God and didn't just put themselves there in power. Jeremiah 23 rubukes those who call themselves prophets and speak things in the name of God that he didn't tell them to say. Much of what Brigham taught goes against scripture. In my opinion the idea of continuing revelation becomes very problematic when there is a belief that a certain man speaks for God. What does one do when that new revelation goes against Scripture or previous instruction that was thought to be God's word? Now days they say in conference that the new stuff overwrites the old. We even had a high council talk last spring that said the current prophets words are more important than scripture. What??? It opens the door for leaders to say anything they want! God wants a relationship with each one of us. A true prophet should lead you to develop that relationship so you can get your instruction from God. And while i do think a community of true believers is a good thing, I don't think it has to be an organization. Men eventually corrupt every organization they get their hands on.
I think organized community is essential-what does it matter to have the commandments in isolation? Even with the major flaws within the LDS church organization, I think total dissolution would have far more severe consequences in the negative direction. Better to just recognize the potential for fallibility and double check anything a leader says with personal revelation.
Actually, what you just taught is against scripture. God has always had an organization of some sort, even in the early parts of the Bible.
The organization cannot be top-down through “authority”. The organization is supposed to be organic, from the bottom-up. The “church”, as defined in D&C 10, is all those who repent and come unto Christ. The church is not an institution, it is not a building, it is not a 501c3. The church is supposed to rise up from the hearts and minds of individuals - more of a spiritual entity - who are of one heart and of one mind. Just like a beehive
@@BrianTerrill What about the great apostasy then?
@steel6322 The Great Apostasy was just that, an apostasy. There were those who like Conner, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, and Denver Snufer who are seeking to influence the church away from God's chosen prophets and apostles he ordained to be the heads of this church. John the Apostle was the known leader of the church, but others took over. How did you not know about that?
" I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." (3 John 1:9-10)
Doesn't this all boil down to the Gospel vs. the Church? Plenty of branches-from Joseph Smith’s to the Catholic Church-can trace authority back to Christ, but what really sustains true authority? While church structure helps with unity, it's not perfect at preserving doctrine. Maybe Jesus wanted us to focus on his Gospel personally, not just through an organization. Living the Gospel might mean finding communities that actually live out service, truth, and compassion like Christ taught, while staying grounded in solid doctrine. For LDS members aware of past missteps, this view allows full commitment to Christ’s teachings within an imperfect Church. Ultimately, real worship and growth come from following Gospel values, not relying solely on the institution.
At best organized religion is the precepts of men mingled with scripture, at worst it's the precepts of men mingled with scripture “whose founder is the devil” (1M14.9). Both cause man to stumble and to err.
Pure religion is man embracing the great commandments. The first is loving God. "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. ‘Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father’ (James 1.27) is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - Joseph Smith
I completely agree. How do we reconcile this idea with the idea of "Priesthood", "saving ordinances", "covenants", and "authority". This is where it gets a bit tricky. This is the best explanation I have ever found to reconcile these two seemingly competing ideas: ruclips.net/p/PLUyMSjLHia0xpZV7Qf0ACUl-JfJJn-FN2
@@wayne2064 “…full commitment to Christ’s teachings within an imperfect church.”
Oh man…how many times my family has tried to go back to our ward! When we go there, easily 90% of faithful utterances are about Pres Nelson or the temple…not the Savior. It’s so distracting! It’s like going to a class on physics, but instead watching Three Stooges movies (no offense to my boys). You can’t have meaningful conversations about the Savior with people stuck in substitutions and distractions.
This is the advice from Isaiah:
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?
We require the breath in the heart
Problem is, you can’t get a recommend and partake of the ordinances in the temple without pledging allegiance to the leaders. If the leaders are corrupt (have even changed the ordinances), then those leaders can prevent you from exaltation if you don’t conform to their corruption. This doesn’t make any sense. I usually agree with your musings but the cognitive dissonance in this one is too much
💯! Abso-freakin-lutely!
I know that bothers me ! I think we should just acknowledge that Joseph was the prophet of this last despensation.
The temple recommend question is do I believe the church leaders hold the keys. That is, thankfully, a very narrow question that allows me to participate in saving ordinances without “following the prophet” when he’s otherwise leading us astray.
We don't pledge allegiance. We sustain as prophets, etc. I agree with Connor that a mortal man can be a prophet and still be fallible. Not everything out of their mouths is prophetic and revelatory. Most of the time they are experienced men who are sharing advice and counsel. Most of the time it is good, or at least harmless. My sustaining doesn't include complying with anything that is wrong, according to God and The Scriptures.
@@Robin-ge2qc It’s mostly good and harmless until the supreme sustained leader, the supposed “ONLY one” wih the keys, misleads millions of people into the hands of the very conspiring men the scriptures warned about. We might be complying with more that is wrong than we think. I dunno, I’m seeing the church depart farther and farther from the doctrine that I see in the pages of the BoM
This series has been GREAT! It truly has given me a different perspective and encouraged me to evaluate my own behavior. Thank you!
The first example is instructive- Alma did leave the church..
So why if a man has his priesthood revoked for sin today he is not allowed to perform ordinances but if BY and others were wicked they could still use their priesthood and it is still valid??
True, if someone today lived and taught the falsehoods that BY did, they would be exed and could they then go start a new church and it be true because they were once given supposed authority? This is contrary to what Jesus taught, even if Joseph seemed to think authority stays with a person despite unrighteousness. Jesus taught that unrighteousness invalidates a person's authority or worthiness to lead.
maybe people who think BY is wicked have got it wrong.
I am reminded that Lucifer has the priesthood. Should we be obedient to him as many obviously are?
@@FreeThinker-n1t Satan would like you to think he has the priesthood.
@@FreeThinker-n1t Satan certainly flaunts his priesthood in the temple and tells us to put on an apron like his, and we follow him.
At 21:30 you make the faulty assumption that Growth = God’s Work. In this Telestial world there has been many examples where Might does not equal Right; in fact it is often the opposite. In the last days, “they have ALL gone astray save it be a FEW, who are the humble followers of Christ… because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Nephi 28:14; see also Mormon 8:36 & 1 Nephi 14:12)
It is quite easy to recognize that things which are no longer taught, and which are distasteful to today's members are false. Although I will give you credit for having done so, which is more than most are able to do. It is quite another to examine those doctrines which Brigham taught which are popular. I speak of course, the subject of the temple endowment. While it is true that Joseph did utter the word 'endowment', it is not at all clear what that meant, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that it was anything like the temple ordinance today. There is ample evidence that it is yet another instance of Brigham tinkering with an idea until he cobbled together something that seemed satisfying. Today, it is seen as perhaps THE central doctrine which binds members to the church. An examination of the purposes and uses of the temple in scripture points to the fallacy of the idea.
In ancient times (both Biblical and BofM times) temples were used to teach each other, it was a place to openly exchange ideas about the works of God. There were ordinances performed, but, according to the both the Bible and the D&C this consisted primarily of sacrifices and Baptism for the Dead. There is not a word in holy writ about the endowment as an ordinance. Sealings or marriages were, in Joseph's day, to be public ceremonies.
Today, you can't attend any two meetings where the endowment is not referenced in some way. Yet, the BofM, the most perfect of any book, containing the fulness of the gospel doesn't mention it a single time! Yes, I know the temple is seen as special, and sacred by today's Latter Day Saints, but a doctrine's popularity doesn't make it true.
Today there seems to be a competition among church presidents to see who can commission the largest number of temples. There is little demand for these things in the first place, but I think more and more that we are becoming that church warned about in the BofM which builds fancy buildings in lieu of actually doing good. You will recall that the BofM is prophesying about a corrupt church 2 Nephi 26:20-23, 4 Nephi 1:41-44, and especially 2 Nephi 28:3-16.
So basically we are now ok that our “prophets” are just like everyone else and every other church: just trying to figure things out AND we allow them to claim that what they say is revelation and the word of god when in reality they know it’s a lie and it’s just their best guess? 🤔 that’s straight up lying. There is a difference between claiming you’re receiving things directly from god when you know that’s not the case and claiming that you feel that something is the will of god based on lots of pondering and hope that you are correct. But, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep well at night. I have enough respect for myself that I require full honesty with myself.
I love how you are approaching these topics - acknowledging the facts while providing sound logic and context for how to move forward... Love your summarizing the history of God consistently working through flawed people. As a local leader in the church, I am very aligned... It does lead to an interesting question for me - if the early apostles had the authority and ordinances from the Savior - could not some church's argue the same logic - yes, lots of corruption, but the authority has continued with that church for all the reasons you gave for the post Brigham Young church? At some point, the Lord has His limits in accommodating human weakness.... Keep up the GREAT work!!!
Connor, I love your program, I’ll continue to listen and follow, but I disagree wholeheartedly with these two. I love the quote that you said about the standard of truth going forward, I just don’t think that needs to be in the brighamite church. The changes and false doctrine aren’t limited to a few missteps, but entire changes, such as the temples and temple work, created by BY and his cronies. I could go on and on, I think the BOM is for certain, the leaders are as corrupt as King Noah, and the brighamite church is being led carefully to hell.
It is very interesting to see the difference between the temples out east and the temples and the ordinances that were constructed out west. They are not the same.
By that thinking, then wouldn't any or all of the branches from Joseph's original church (Community of Christ, FLDS, Etc) or even perhaps the Catholic Church and or all of it's branches be true churches with real authority? Since they likely had members and leaders who were once given such authority? Jesus didn't teach that growth determines a true church or a true prophet, for then couldn't the Catholic Church be considered the true church? Falsehoods actually attract more followers than truth, so a church that taught feel good falsehoods would likely be much larger than one that taught the difficult truths that Jesus taught. It seems all religions and churches and scriptures teach a mix of truth and error, including Joseph's original church, thus why Jesus seemed against formal religion and even against following so called prophets, for there are no perfect people to lead a church and not always have people be led astray by imperfect prophets and leaders who will often be wrong or unrighteous. It seems Jesus just wanted us to follow his simple natural law teachings on our own, that we can prove are truth by experience over time and not put our trust in man to lead us.
Secular history would make the Pope God's authority on earth as it's history can be traced from Peter to the present Pope, and it is growing in numbers by very good people reactivating or joining but without full approval of the current Pope's policies.
stop making stuff up, Jesus was baptized by the one prophet they had at the time, and he attended synagogue every week and the temple three or four times a year.
I agree
@@BrianTerrill That does not seem very likely given many of his teachings, for he didn't seem to believe in his religion. How would we know if what the Gospels say about him is true and what he really did, for we weren't there? We only have his teachings to go on, not what people claimed he did, etc. Many of his teachings contradict each other, so they can't all really be from him and likely aren't when we study how the Gospels came to be.
@Posi2300 talk specifics what teachings are you saying contradict one another, I hate reading this horse crap that people say he taught without actually being shown some specifics abd I've read the Journal of Discourses.
My problem is that the church has not repented of its paths of wickedness. 6 figure living stipends are not supported by the scriptures. The LDS church has a paid ministry if you get high enough.
"26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God."
Mosiah 18:26
To further prove the point, research when Alma said he got paid by the people.
The churches business dealings are dishonest. They use and abuse the poor. They create the poor. Not even a whisper of caring for their fellow man. They make a big show of their donations to the UN, American Red Cross and other organizations all the while they neglect the foster-care system. They neglect those injured by their actions in business.
The members donate greatly, while the church leadership loves its back room deals.
"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."
"(A)nd your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts."
"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?"
Mormon 8 applies to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints more than it applied to the churches at the time of Joseph Smith.
Not to mention we have a Skull and Bones profit at the head of our church now.
@@allthingsarepossiblethruchrist Connor had a musing about that a while back. I evaluate the actions in the now. Moses was a part of who knows how many Egyptian things. Alma the Younger was a participant in Noah's court. People can repent. I look at the now, not throw mud at what the people did in the past after they have changed and repented.
@@Veevslav1 did he repent? It put it in his book Heart 2 Heart and said it was a fun time.
@@allthingsarepossiblethruchristthats because the skull and bones President Nelson was part of did not resemble anything close to what it is now. It was nothing more than a social club where people could do activities together.
@wheels636 @wheels636 where did you get that information from? The University of Utah admitted that one initiate literally went crazy during the ceremony. He caused lots of damage to the University and was hospitalized. It was in the Universities newspaper
Yes Brigham did…I’ve never felt good about him, often feeling guilty for listening to his “dark” teachings. Brigham was a Fallen Man whom I believe never was a prophet!!!
You can't have it both ways you can't have the church today is true but all the prophet's and leadership of the church who practiced polygamy are bad. The whole tree would die without the roots.
@@wheels636Jesus Christ is the root. Brigham Young had his agency
@ED-wired actually it takes Jesus Christ's approval
and the priesthood authority.
Amen.
@@ED-wired Brigham believed in a different Jesus that Joseph Smith, they cannot both be right. Only one could truly have known god.
Like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was a flawed man. Both were prophet's of God nonetheless.
Brigham Young was the right man for the job. He was steady, and hard-headed. He kept the church together.
Even if Joseph did, Jesus did not teach that authority is how you tell a true church or a true prophet, but by whether or not the person, prophet or church really lives and follows all of his teachings, which he knew no one could for no one is perfect, thus his point to only follow his teachings and not imperfect mortals. For any church or prophet can claim true authority, as most do, but who really follows the pure teachings of Christ?
You nailed it when you said that the institution is inherently corrupt
The JST of Matt 24 debunks your last point. It says “All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that they will make you observe and do; for they are ministers of the law, and they make themselves your judges. But do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.”
Thank you for your words. I have had the same thoughts. I have looked around at other Churches. I still believe this is Christ Church and where He wants me to be.
Do you stay because you grew up in this church or because you are seeking truth?
36 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.
So, did BY lead the people of the church astray? If so, why did it take God 25-30 years to remove him? Did BY ever have the keys of the priesthood? Can a wicked man hold the keys?
Because despite teachings to the contrary God lets man choose. Every dispensation has ended in corruption. Brigham leading the church would have been like Judas taking over leadership of the church.
Where do you get the idea that God removes corrupt leaders? You won’t find that teaching in the scriptures, simply in the teachings of the false leaders.
The quorum of the 12 were never suppose to run the church. . They were only to go our into the world to preach the gospel to those without it. BY changed all that to position himself to be in charge.
Not quite accurate. Saul was removed and his throne given to David. Jehu was sent into Jerusalem to remove Jezebel who slew her and dogs ate almost all of her before they could bury her as God promised. Remember the king in Daniel who God warned by writing on a wall that he would die for his evilness and he did the next day.
Sometimes God gives us who we deserve and seek after just before He delivers His wrath. But His judgment is just as is His mercy.
@rebekahgriffin567 I definitely agree with you, Rebekah. Every prophet of this dispensation (except Joseph) has taught that principle. When I asked the question my tongue was firmly in my cheek LOL.
Your mention of Hugh Nibely reminds me of my reading of Approaching Zion. Nibley seemed to be castigating members and even leadership.
Moreover, he seemed to cast a critical light those who sought money, wealth over spirituality or drawing closer to Christ. He specifically mentioned MLMs and its prevalence in Utah.
I appreciate your honest, straight forward explanation. I mostly appreciate your respect, and grace. I have been listening to a few people who have a feeling of defensiveness and anger. Even if they don't want that. You are calm, well studied and non-judgmental.
Our family enjoys your books and understanding
This was good! I'm glad I listened and like your explanation. Id like to say it feels good 😊 but I know I need to make sure God is teaching me alongside what you are saying.
Something I have realized as my life plods along is all these beliefs are still passed down. I remember my mom making statements about the gospel... False doctrine taught by her leaders and parents. It just was the teaching
As I have gotten older I have realized a few things... When I repeat them or ponder them I just "know" something isn't right. Some of these things you talked about I actually didn't even know what they meant. But I remember being taught tidbits. Interesting as well, many were countered by teachings in the BOM 🤔
I can feel many things being taught now are off a bit and signs of our culture as a nation and church
I am grateful for the Spirit of God that guides me.
God never called his prophets by voting consensus. You might argue Joseph was. None of the following claimed to be called of God by him appearing to them.
Thanks Connor. Good stuff as always. I'm going to push back on a you a bit for discussion sake. I'm not suggesting we should "leave the church", but I do think there are a few problems with your justifications here. #1, if leaders can maintain their "priesthood authority" despite apostasy or wickedness, then can we not argue that the Catholics still have priesthood authority? What if the leader corrupts the ordinance (e.g. BY temple)? Didn't JS teach that ordinances were established in the beginning and should not be changed/corrupted? Do we not say "amen" to the priesthood of a man who changes eternal ordinance? Do we not say "amen" to the priesthood of a man who violates the commandments of God? You say the man can repent and his "ordination" is still valid. Assuming that is the case, are we meant to support and sustain that man BEFORE said repentance? #2 If apostasy is prophesied, does that justify our participation in it? Should we not follow the counsel of JS in D&C 102 to try leaders who violate commandments or apostatize the gospel? What is the threshold where the "institution" no longer serves God's purpose due to false doctrine and apostasy? Is there no obligation of a member to object and withdraw sustaining vote when we see such violations? Can we withdraw this sustaining vote and maintain our membership? Or will the institution reject us for daring to question the oracle? #3 Again, "the fruits" argument is a bit slippery, because you can argue that the protestants were unjustified in their reforms because the dominant Christian faith was the Catholic church. Indeed, there are some wonderful disciples of Christ in the Catholic church. Are they not fruits of God's church? Just because the Brighamite branch survived, does that make it divine or "true"? #4 leaders have agency, but so do we. Are we required to betray our agency in order to stay? There are an increasing number of members (like yourself) who have criticized the church, or (heaven forbid) taught clear restoration doctrines in SS/EQ who have been censored and even excommunicated. I was told to stop "teaching meat" in my EQ class last month. What if the spirit moves me to bear testimony of Isaiah's prophecies and my leaders label me as dangerous? What if they actively pursue me for thought crimes? What if I want to stay, but they don't want me to stay? What if my church leaders use their agency to violate mine? #5 I believe all of these examples occur BEFORE His resurrection and restoration. So the Jewish "institution" became null/void upon Peter's ordination. If a prophet arises to restore what has been lost/corrupted, are we not required to heed their call to repentance despite our "institution"? How will our "institution" react to such a prophet? If our church persecutes and stones him, do we remain faithful to it? Or do we say Amen and Farewell? Tough questions. I'm not suggesting I know the answers. I wanted to invite you to watch this lecture series by Todd McLauchlin: ruclips.net/p/PLUyMSjLHia0xpZV7Qf0ACUl-JfJJn-FN2 I'd love to hear you muse about it. Also, you need to put chapter breaks in your videos.
At the end of 4 Nephi there were 3 types of churches. What was the biggest? Was it the truest? No!
So when did Brigham young and following church leaders repent of these false doctrines? When has the church repented? The church doest practice polygamy( in this life)but still supports and teaches it. Blacks and the priesthood? "Men are punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgressions" right? I'll continue to turn to the Lord and his proven prophets in the BOM and Bible, not a prideful organization that requires money for my salvation... sorry I'm poor.
Good points. The lesson today at church focused on people criticizing the Catholic Church for requiring money for salvation. I found it ironic considering we require a full tithe for "saving" ordinances.
I gotta say one more thing on this. When we go and read the scriptures to instruct us on what we are doing wrong and right, we should actually heed the warnings. What the general pattern has been, is there is genesis, a prophet with truth comes on the scene, repentance occurs, time passes, apostasy occurs, the old institution is called to repentance, they do not repent and God starts a new thing. God has started a new thing, go find it.
Then the church named their entire school system after him lol
Do the LDS hold the priesthood? D&C 121 says no. There is an interesting paradox that answered part of this question. It pertains to the Roman Catholic vs. LDS position on Priesthood. The Roman Catholics claim to have an unbroken chain of priesthood authority. If the Catholics have retained the priesthood, there would be no reason to restore it. If the LDS had it restored to them, then it needed to return because the Catholics lost it.
Catholic claims to the priesthood are rejected by us (LDS members) because we believe it was lost to them millennia ago due to unrighteousness/apostasy. However...we seem to teach the same doctrine as the Roman Catholics, only we teach it cannot be lost to us because God is with us.
If priesthood cannot be lost, then the Catholic claims are justified. If LDS claims are correct, it is necessary to recognize that it can be lost (D&C 121:37).
We seem to want it both ways - It can be lost to others who are unrighteous, but won’t be lost to us if we are (2 Nephi 28:8). We see this when someone who is secretly sinning blesses the sacrament or gives a priesthood blessing. If we find out about it later, we say that God still blesses the ordinance regardless of the priest’s worthiness. This kind of thinking leads to a dangerous, prideful, and arrogant mindset.
I've proposed this conundrum to many people to see their response. The answer is the exact same every time: If a male doesn't keep the priesthood pure through personal sin, etc. God will still honor the blessing (of the sacrament or other blessings). This is hard for me to understand because we teach that the Catholics didn't keep the priesthood because of sin, so they lost it, but the unspoken belief is that although we too sin and are frequently impure, we get to keep it.
This is some Olympic level mental gymnastics
Great points Connor, I very much enjoyed this one
As much as I appreciate Connor's efforts here, a lot of this sounds like an attempt to validate the church no matter what it does.
So, Jesus is fine with leaders leading people astray because maybe things can be corrected later.
Yeah, sorry, but no thanks.
Our belief and "testimony" if you want to call it that should be in and of Christ and the gospel. Not an organization fronting as a church.
@@TPIR_Fan_1972Spoken like a true Protestant, not a Latter-day Saint.
@@jaredshipp9207 So you’re saying in order to be a Latter Day Saint one has to validate the church no matter what it does?
@@jaredshipp9207 Right?? I've discovered 40% of these detractors are frauds, spiritual and intellectual karens. Honesty seems to be an issue also in some.
@@jaredshipp9207 So, no matter what the church does, we have to agree with it?
How is that "Protestant" in nature?
Was it not Joseph Smith who said, "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (History of the Church 5:340)
Apparently, latter-day saints now have creeds they must follow?
Bravo! Excellent musings on Brigham. You always make me think. I especially like it when you validate my thoughts too. 😊
If you have congregation that helps you grow closer to Christ that’s wonderful, stick to it. Just make sure you use the spirit and give your support directly to those that need it. The corporation doesn’t need any more support than it already has. With no consequence for a $5 million SEC fine they should be on everyone’s financial probation. Also individualized personal revelation is better than a one-size-fits-all correlated manual. Wake up sleeping sheep! God wants to work through you! You were not created to be an exploitable minion.
I think there's a clear difference between a leader sinning vs a prophet teaching false doctrine. David commiting adultery and murder or Peter refusing to eat with gentiles is different from Peter or Paul or Isaiah, etc teaching false doctrine.
It seems to me that the whole point of having a prophet and a church with teaching authority (as opposed to just going by the scriptures alone or by personal religious experience alone) is that they maintain sound doctrine. Its supposed to avoid the errors of other churches that constantly adopt the views of the world and incorporate them into their beliefs. If a prophet can teach false doctrine and another prophet can contradict an older prophet on doctrine, then that seems to defeat the whole point of having modern-day prophets.
Another fantastic video! Thank you Connor!
It would be interesting to analyze at what point does God say, no more, this is not my people or my church. What was it that caused the Lord to finally reject the Jews or the need to restart reform restore the Christian experiment?
Being part of the church is not the same as being part of the ChurchTM. It may be perfectly okay with the Lord to separate from the Church TM as long as we don't separate from the larger more important definition.
Yes. D&C 10. The “church” is a spiritual thing. It is all those who repent and come unto Christ. You can’t point to a building or institution and say “there it is”
Simple answer is that the Mormon church is not and was never the Lord’s church. Christians are His church ❤
I wonder that too. I'm trying to go by what the spirit teaches me to do. I just want truth, not trusting in our Father's traditions or culture which is becoming more and more evil!
But couldn't Catholics say the same thing? And when would it be a "great apostasy"?
How does you view of retaining priesthood in spite of false teaching square with section 124 and its threat of rejection as a church at the loss of Joseph and Hyrum?
My friend, insightful as usual. Although I really think you are stretching on this conclusion. I personally can’t find any way for sincere seekers of truth to fit into the LDS church.
Wow. That says what I was saying to my husband the other day. I told him I don't hear any revelation. The just say the same things that others say. Vomit is a great way of saying it.
I appreciate you lowering the bar so far and in a way the church never would.
Oooof! This was a hard listen. I didn’t like any of your points. I too see the problems with Brigham, and am still a member, but I’d recommend a study of authority using only scripture and see where it really comes from. Those baptisms at the water of Mormon were authorized through the spirit, not a dormant priesthood, as if that’s a thing. Take a look at the de-evolution of the definition of keys from the early church. Take a look at what has been added to and taken from the original doctrine on heavenly reward. All the best.
Very good points. I think we have a complete misunderstanding of what authority is and how we receive it.
The fruits of the gospel have nothing to do with organizational size, wealth, or multi-million dollar buildings. It is angelic visitation, healing, revelation, etc. If these things cease it is due to unbelief. Incorrect beliefs is unbelief. Also, Christ wanted compliance to the authorities of Judaism as a testimony to them that he was God and he had not yet redeemed men via his sacrifice. John wrested the kingdom from the Jews according to Joseph Smith and Christ came from outside the established order.
I’ve been holding my breath for this.
Issues with President Young are not the only problems the modern church must face. It was the illustration of Joseph’s face gazing into his hat that knocked me off course.
8:48 The same would go for the catholic/orthodix christian chruches.
I agree with you, unless they change the ordinances. Which is what a lot of people seem to think they have done. What do you think about that?
They HAVE changed the ordinances.. I used to have to covenant to obey my husband and now that is gone. I make the covenant to obey directly with God now.
That’s the problem with connors ideas. How can we just sit back and allow the leaders to make their mistakes without acknowledging that those mistakes are affecting the very things that grant access to exaltation? It’s silly, really.
They changes to the temple rights have been in constant change since Brigham. He taught that Adam came down with one of his wives and started the garden of Eden. Adam was God, God was a polygamist. That is in opposition to what Joseph taught and in opposition of what the current church teaches. The church is in apostasy. Period.
So, regarding authority, and the example of Alma, and what it says in Doc and cov 121: would it follow then that the other “branches” of the restoration (who were founded by people who can also trace their authority back through Joseph Smith) are potentially still operating with true authority as well? I know I see many good fruits of the Spirit happening in those churches, and I believe and hope we will all be grafted back to our mother tree, as Jacob 5 says.. I guess I don’t have any good reason to believe that God doesn’t also honor their priesthood authority.
It's not about the righteousness of the one performing the ordinance, it's that the ordinance was changed (made up) by BY in St George just before his death. The only valid ordinance we have is the baptismal ordinance because it's found in the BofM. Even the sacrament was changed from wine to water. We only have a shell of a church that Joseph restored.
But how do you explain the temple ordinances among the Native Americans?
@@reppi8742 what do we know of the Native Americans who were left at the end of the BOM? They were wicked and had destroyed all the righteous. Why would they have true ordinances from God to pass down?
You explained well what I am been trying to wrap my thoughts around. There was one other example that I think is one of the most powerful examples of recognition of authority. Jesus remained silent while the priests, etc., were questioning him in his spurious trial. Matthew 26 62-65. They ask him many questions. But Jesus holds his peace. Then the high priest says "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." That is when Jesus makes an answer to them. Thus, by His example He recognizes their authority (to their detriment).
I'd like to give a little pushback of sorts regarding the scriptures used starting at the 33 mark. In Matt 8 Jesus DID tell the cleansed leper to shew himself to the priest and offer the gift. It is true that while Jesus was introducing new doctrines and practices...He still He Himself was keeping many of the customs and practices...and telling His followers to do the same. To say that this is in any way a sign that Jesus was having His followers bow to the corrupt religious leaders requires putting words in and motives that simply aren't there. All we DO have...is that it says it was to be done "FOR A TESTIMONY UNTO THEM." If we believe the record...the purpose was simply to show the corrupt leaders that JESUS HAD HEALED THE MAN. Yes...he was conforming to the law of moses...but that is not a sign that Jesus was telling this man to bow to corruption. Secondly...Matt 23:1-3. If you read different translations something will become clear. Jesus was saying in essence..."These guys are the ones who study and can give you the law. So get the law from them. But don't do what they do...because they're hypocrites". He WAS NOT saying to do whatever they say even if it's wrong. He WAS NOT saying to obey their policies. He was saying to listen to them sharing THE LAW!!!! Also...many translations say that "They have seated THEMSELVES in Moses seat". Not that their authority was given by HIM.
Being a man and sinning is quite different than teaching and implementing false doctrine. Certainly we have no use for false prophets who teach false doctrine!
Why would God allow his chosen method to reveal his truth be undermined by falsehood that undermines trust?
I'd be curious to have anyone's feedback on the following:
1. The story of Emma hating Section 132 when Hyrum showed it to her (burning the copy of it in the fireplace)
2. The justification of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and others in taking more than one wife. The caveat given by B.O.M. Jacob wrt the practice of plural marriage.
3. The implied practice of plural marriage by Jared and the Brother of Jared (look at the number of children).
4. The current practice of polygamy in African, Middle Eastern and Eastern Cultures. And how to minister to them currently in the ordinances of the Gospel.
5. RMN's statement that in the coming days we would be given "Abrahamic Tests."
6. The apparent felicity of Joseph F Smith's family.
7. The statements of Eliza R Snow and other Pioneer Women regarding plural/celestial marriage. I find it hard to believe that she was a gullible, hoodwinked acolyte of Brother Brigham.
and emma kicked eliza out of their home she had been living with them as a boarder when she found and eliza and jospeh got sealed and wasnt friends with her anymore....i dont think eliza could have kids cause she was married to joseph and brigham and never had kids and i dont beleive she nevee slept with either...so joseph not having other kids doesnt bother me...more dna tests could prove more kids or like he and emma maybe didnt make it past infancy and early childhood like several of their kids did
To think that Jesus would sustain or use BY and others to lead people (to be unrighteous and live opposite to his teachings) would be completely contrary to his teachings in the Gospels and how he taught about not falling for false prophets. Jesus was all about not wanting people to be deceived by people or prophets who claimed to have authority or follow him, but don't.
I think Brigham's repentance may have started even in his lifetime. You see this in how his language changes a bit in respect to teaching some things like Adam-God. In the beginning he is much more sure, but later records he uses the "I reckon" wording a lot more. I think he was still wrong about a lot when he died, but maybe there is some evidence that he was starting to change.
Thanks for your perspective.
Perhaps he was starting to change some of his opinions (though I don't think so), but he was still committing adultery frequently, and encouraging others to do the same. He was also committing genocide on native American tribes in the area, and calling for the murders of many Americans. His life was full of lies, and those were hardly going away when he was murdered by John Taylor.
Oops...I just opened a new can of worms with that last part, didn't I?
@@jasonsellers56yup! Go further!
I always appreciate your thoughtful musings. This is no exception.
I do respect that you've spent a lot of time on this... but what if Pres Nelson reinstituted Polygamy again today?
Scripturally, he could justify it, with Sec 132. Even the Family Proclamation doesn't exclude the possibility of homes with more than one wife. It has always been implied that (like Emma) women condone supporting their husband in plural marriage to receive the highest level of exaltation. We ignore that today, but it is there in sec 132.
My personal study of this issue has been relatively recent, but protracted over seven years. I feel like you are in the early stages of realizing the problems, but are still making excuses because of..... keys and line of authority.
Prophets absolutely do and can get it wrong. And when it's a "current" issue...it can cause a ton of destruction. For not following the prophet on the jibbyjab issue, we were excoriated and shunned by family, friends, our ward, and my husband had his job threatened for 2.5 years. It felt like total catastrophe. Unforgiveable really, but it would have been nice to consider forgiving if only any sort of apology or recognition of wrong-doing was offered. Still waiting. Yet, the damages and death and pain brought on by this "misstep" are all around us, stacking up in the room like rotting carcasses.
Polygamy is similar in nature. You might be 5th or 6th generation like me in so many family lines of ancestors that decided to follow Brigham. The 1852 polygamy revelation read by William Clayton wasn't something that was easily ignored. You were required to be rebaptized. You were prodded to make that blood oath in the endowment house. You were surrounded by hundreds of miles of unforgiveable wilderness and desert, so without money and means you couldn't just leave. Generations suffered at the hands of those coerced into polygamy.
Perhaps your grandmothers who were burdened by the "blessing" or "command" left their thoughts. One of my grandmothers lamented in her autobiography that she never had a day of rest once her husband took other wives. She was abandoned and unloved. Raised 10 kids on her own. Walked 10 miles or more a day for work just to have enough meal to feed her family. I wish she was the only example. There are several.
Did you know that Joseph Smith, in a lecture given in Nauvoo, prophesied that those who entered into the practice... would curse their families for up to four generations?
Is it just a coincidence that the fifth and 6th generations of these ancestors are FINALLY coming to terms with this great evil thrust upon their ancestors, waking up to the false traditions of their fathers?
I have let go of my expectations with the institution I learned so much from, took so much pride in, and absolutely adored being a part of for 50+ years.
Following leaders in error because of keys and authority.... feels comfy and cozy. I'd love to do it. But to me, the realization has come all too clearly that generations literally hang in the balance when 'missteps' happen. And the institutions led by these men become really uncomfortable and even hostile when you are non-compliant. I felt completely trapped during the "jibbyjab" trial. I wish my ancestors had figured out a way to escape what they recognized as... questionable and "hard" doctrine in polygamy. (I actually do have one grandfather that packed up and left...and it was a harrowing escape.)
When Jesus visited the Nephites he first taught faith, repentance, baptism. He taught them it was the doctrine of Christ. And not to add or subtract from it.
Why have we ADDED so dang much? Do we believe our own scriptures? Do we believe Christ?
Do you have a line?
Or are we really just supposed to be what feels like "luke warm"....and accept the good with the bad because hey, the keys and authority are here.
I feel so much peace recognizing that ultimately, the authority is with Christ. Anything that gives me the "icky" vibes.... and is an addition or subtraction of the doctrine of Christ.... is just out for me these days.
Your rationale that past Church leaders taught false doctrine, yet the Church as an institution remained in force as God's authorized "True Church", is the same argument made by the Catholic Church to justify their unbroken line of authority from Peter to present day Pope...despite their dark history of the Inquisition, etc. I'm with you...a true/active LDS believer; however, some of our history is perplexing. My self-talk to keep me on the path = "there is a lot more we don't know than what we do know" + all of these past leaders are dead and despite their amazing record keeping, we don't have the complete context of their logic and reasoning. The Book of Mormon has always been the anchor to my testimony of the Restored Gospel.
Christ was saying that the scibes and pharisees have the scriptures; therefore, keep peace with them and follow the internal and external word of God...regarding Matthew 23 (KJV).
I always find it interesting when people try to equate numbers with truth. History has shown that the truth was always with the minority not the majority and the righteous who follow God are usually few in number.
Thank you for this. So helpful.
At approximately your 7:53 mark, you cite Alma as the example of a man, ordained in wickedness…”WHO REPENTED”…and went on to be such a righteous leader of the Nephites.
The modern leaders of the church STILL perpetuate the lie that Joseph instituted and lived polygamy.
Just these last two weeks, they’ve updated Gospel Library materials to display a very soft touch surrounding the practice.
What’s more…President Oaks has said that the church, AS A MATTER OF POLICY…NEVER apologizes (yet WE must when WE repent).
They praise Joseph out one side of their mouths, while calling him a liar, adulterer, and child predator out the other.
They train and dispatch fully unsavory men like Brian Hales to defend their position.
I could go on and on how they have betrayed the saints very early on, and continue to do so today.
I mean Joseph did institute polygamy, this is a fact, all the evidence points to it, and it was from God. Jacob Hansen from Thoughtful Faith has dismantled every argument of polygamy deniers.
@ Poppycock. You’re presupposing, because you don’t like what the implications are, otherwise.
As for being a fact, it most certainly is not as clear as you say, simply because you say so. There is copious evidence that he did not institute polygamy, and many many holes and problems with any evidence that he did.
No other church has the Book of Mormon, Temple Endowment or was restored by Joseph Smith. That’s what I hang my testimony on.
Living the teachings of the Gospel as taught in our Church brings peace and joy and a path to follow Christ.
I think the culture of prophet worship and thinking they are infallible is a big part of the problem.
There are literally hundreds of churches that came from the church JS started.
The temple endowment we have today is made up from Brigham not recieved from God through Joseph. Joseph taught we could only recieve an endowment from on high once the Navoo temple was complete and Joseph died before it was completed. It never actually was fully finished anyhow.
This is simply not true. There are other churches that have the Book of Mormon and which descend from Joseph’s restored church every bit as much as the brighamite church. As for the endowment, what the brighamite church has is what remains in an evolved state from what Brigham introduced as what he claimed Joseph revealed to him in partiality with alleged instructions to “figure out the rest.”
@@mssearchfortruth Principles of the endowment originated from the very beginning. Your spreading lies.
ruclips.net/video/eTEFErUI3r0/видео.html
Jesus did not teach the temple endowment, he taught the opposite. Marriage and family are naturally eternal for all human beings.
I really like these videos, and I'm glad more people within the church are aware of what is happening. My question for your argument about staying in the church is what about the Catholic church? Wasn't that the original church from the apostles with the priesthood, or even the Jewish church? If we should stay and fix a corrupt church, why restore or start over like Joseph did? Although I'm still a member, I just don't see the point anymore staying in the church or believe Temples and temple work is even necessary, especially since so much was fabricated by Brigham and keeps getting changed. Temples, garments, etc, seem to me now as idols replacing the work Jesus did for us.
You're in the church because you are famous and your Stake president doesn't dare to excommunicate you.
Not everyone has that luxury. Like you said, leader roulette is a real thing. 😢
This is probably the comment closest to the truth.
Thank God for Joseph, Hyrum and their families. It’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not the Church of Jesus Christ of General Authorities. The faithful Saints, with the disseminated priesthood, have always kept the Gospel from being taken from the Earth and always will.
I think the agency discussion is the best explanation for many policy changes. Especially the blacks and the priesthood issue. Was it right? In my opinion no. But as a point of order, it was the agency of the leaders that made that policy "binding." God was able to fix it because he is leading His Church.
I mean Peter got mad at Paul for a bunch of stuff he wrote, so there's that. Basically created a lot of the Evangelical core beliefs that exclude things like baptism. Mortals make mistakes.
This is very faith promoting.
If they wonder why a vast majority of their members have left the flock, look no further than a mirror.
Is finding fault with the Lord's Annointed consistent with keeping the Sabbath Day holy?
The message with the coin in the mouth of the fish goes deeper...first...try it. And you will then get the message. If you serve the sheep ie and "are a fisher of men"...the coin you catch is souls. This is what qualifies you for the temple blessings, which are not for the physical temple. Peace.
These arguments would only make any sense if the Community of Christ did not exist as an international body, even if it is much smaller than the Brighamite LDS Church, and to put this “population takes all” argument into perspective, even the BLDS has yet to eclipse the SDAs.
I suspect that President Young will be/is embarrassed by this scrutiny.
Your argument about authority remaining despite wickedness validates the Catholic church’s claim to authority as much as it does the LDS church. They claim keys through Peter, why is there authority invalidated?
Only halfway through the video and your points are all disproven (if we take the first vision to be true.) By the first vision itself. God's intervention into religion would prove that not only can authority be lost by unworthiness, but that teaching false doctrine is a huge issue to God, one that He Himself would come to intervene. If the prophets do teach false doctrine, then the church is false, even by LDS doctrine.
Agreed
I agree that a true church with righteous leaders would not teach false doctrine. Jesus was very clear to not follow or trust in false prophets or leaders like BY who claim to follow him but live opposite to his teachings, who then lead people astray with them.
The Book of Mormon has been revealed which truly testifies of Jesus Christ. What has happened after is subject to debate.
then there are no true churches in these Latter Days. I think it is coming to that . Sadly
Why can't people just judge the church for what it is today? Does your experiences and the way the church has blessed your life change because of what happened 180 years ago? Is the church about the history or the doctrine? If you are being taught correct principles, if it brings you closer to Christ, if the church blesses your life today then why would Brigham taking it off the rails matter?
The church would be wise to denounce Brigham for the usurper that he was. He was not called of God to lead the church he was voted by the members to do so. The only kind of prophet he was, was a false one who taught false doctrines and led people to sin. The biggest obstacles to people joining the church, and the things that cause many to leave, come from Brigham. Denounce him and all his false doctrines and influences and build from where and what the church is today.
Thanks for the insights.
Two interesting scriptures that I think deal with the murder of Joseph and Hyrum.
JST Luke 3
8 Until the fullness of time, and the law and the testimony shall be sealed, and the keys of the kingdom shall be delivered up again unto the Father;
9 To administer justice unto all; to come down in judgment upon all, and to convince all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds, which they have committed; and all this in the day that he shall come;
DC 133
71 Behold, and lo, there are none to deliver you; for ye obeyed not my voice when I called to you out of the heavens; ye believed not my servants, and when they were sent unto you ye received them not.
72 Wherefore, they sealed up the testimony and bound up the law, and ye were delivered over unto darkness.
Is there a reason you won't let me comment on your videos Connor?
I love your content and want to add my voice, but your channel won't let me comment on your page.
Is there a reason for this?
I would guess it’s RUclips’s algorithm that doesn’t like your comments. I doubt Connor deletes comments. But I could be wrong.
@OmahaAreaLoya Nah, it's either him or his moderators.
This comment was fine, the rest were not.
Other commentors can get you flagged as well. So if someone doesn't like what you write, they can get it deleted. Happens to me all the time.
I respect your well thought out conclusions. I think you have thoroughly visited various perspectives enough to reasonably come to what you feel is the best result. I too agree that we, as well as prophets, are fallible. B.Y. definitely had a way of mixing emotions with scripture. Too often people wrongly assume that however they are feeling about something is 100% in line with how God must obviously be feeling too. ie P Nelson claiming "Mormon" offends God. I have a hard time believing that of the 100s or 1,000's of GA's over the years, that hes the only one who figured that out and that all the others were so spiritual dead as to not conclude the same. Even he, had been challenged or corrected by other GA's including Hinkley that, no, in fact God is perfectly fine with it and isnt too petty.
Now, to conclude: Only thing I personally disagree with B.Y. on, and feel was outside of the nature of the love of Christ, is his extreem stances on the mixing of races. I believe he too was conflaiting his feelings onto Gods.
The rest of your mentions, although controversial, doesn't exactly bump heads within the relm in the nature of god, or things that have taken place in scriptures before or are too far of an extension off from teachings offered by Joseph Smith previously. I feel like if there was any Prophet since Joseph Smith who was most fitted to finalize the full implementation of Joseph teachings, both public and private, it would've been B.Y.. With that, I also feel like if the church were able to have existed these last 200 years without any outside worldly or governmental influences, that things would not have changed as they have; that rather than changes taking place because of the corrections of god, as you feel, I believe they have taken place because of the outside influence and corrections of men. We even see this continuing to today in various attempts in wording or policies to avoid offending people at all costs; almost conflating the offense of people being an offense of God. Niceness culture.
Now, do I go around expounding and teaching those taboo doctrines today? No. It's not within the policies right now, and I do respect the institution of our church. I also acknowledge teachers and leaders can be wrong, however it's not my place to correct them, that remains in God's hands alone according to His wisdom. However, within that belief, I do not agree with Wilford Woodruff in his statement that God will not allow him to lead us astray. That's a contradictory teaching. If it were true, God would have stopped Brigham long before he implemented the teachings that he did. But He didn't. He strengthened him. I don't believe God will stop the free agency of any prophet or apostle, but he will most definitely cease to bless them and sustain them in those efforts or teaching if they choose the acceptance, support or blessings of the world over trusting in Him. Does that mean things will utterly fall apart? Not necessarily. It just changes the direction in which we bend our knee and to whom. But God will still dig about His Vineyard and try His best to help it grow because of His love and mercy; thus at times, I perceive, may give a false sense of confidence in a chosen direction. - this of course can be perceived in multiple different directions according to one's opinions or conclusions.
So for me, at the end of the day, the question is, not what we ourselves are comfortable with or are okay with in our imperfect fallen state, but, for any docterine, is there any previous precedence or basis or any other Witness that goes to show this being a reoccurring guidance or direction from God? Has He tried it before, but we keep abandoning it or losing or denying it? Both in for or against, including corrections? We may not like it, but what do His previous attempts reveal? Plural marriage for example; do we have any records of God issuing a correction concerning Abraham or the honest, non deceptive, moral, plural marriages of any others? No; not if they were honest, non deceptive and moral. So then what basis or foundation do we arbitrate on? Why do we have such a difficult time deliberating without the influences of our own biases? Why do we struggle in looking to God alone without others opinions? Why cant we trust Him even when we ourselves dont understand? Why are we most likely to fall in line or follow in previous peoples or civilizations paths, rather in Gods? Why is that more comfortable? Why does our history have to keep repeating itself? Why can't we follow His lead to help get us out of these loops? Why does coming to the same conclusions as so many other people before give us greater confidence than in concluding to follow God? And within all of that, why is it we each always feel as though we are the ones who finally got it right, when all we're doing is the exact same thing as everyone else before us? - all especially when those conclusions are in opposition to what it was that God was trying to get us to do before?
I dont get it.
Could it be that all of you are wrong? What does the Bible say about those who are the ones teaching false doctrine?? Connor?
I understand the limits of you analogy but, there is always breach of contract.
You have errored on the side of staying in the boat but when should we panic?
Mountain Meadows is an example of the harm by following men because of their mantle. No matter what people will follow them after receiving their own witness from God ie. the jab and many other examples.
What would be an issue that would cause you to question the brethren and their claim to revelation?
What's the alternative? The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ. That is the rock I build my testimony on. What people do is immaterial to my belief.
@@tinkeringengr To follow the simple and few teachings of Jesus on your own, as he seems to have wanted. But it seems after he was gone people added to his teachings and made him out to be super human to create a religion around him. While Jesus seemed to be against formal religion for they are always quickly led astray by imperfect leaders and false doctrines.
@Posi2300 That's not true. Jesus Christ does sponsor organized religion, when built upon his rock, and gives men the authority to administer ordinances. Go read 3 Nephi and tell me Christ wasn't instituting organized religion among the people of the Americas. Read in the gospels what Christ was authorizing and teaching his apostles to do in organizing and administering ordinances to his faithful followers. Read the word of Isaiah, words which Christ highly endorsed, about the establishment of Zion and the enlarging of the tent covering and her cords and strong stakes. Christ, who instituted the sacrament and charged his apostles to administer it often, clearly sponsored organized religion.
@@tinkeringengr the alternative is they are false prophets and they are not prophets of God.
Lehi left thr Church in Jerusalem to get away from the abominations there... for they were practicing polygamy and wanted to kill him for soeaking agsinst them.
So are we just to leave the church or to pull back or out because of the clown show that exists?
@@Topher2024that's a great question you should ask God.
@@Topher2024 The more you study & really follow the pure teachings of Jesus the clearer the way will be.
Lehi never said any of that. He said he left due to a dream. All people there were wicked, which was a view shared by many of his contemporaries like Jeremiah. Jerusalem was destroyed. That why LEHI said he left. Not good to make things up to support your view. What you said is not given as why Lehi left.
@jeremybelinski7713 Laman and Lemuel said they knew the people of Jerusalem were good righteous people.
Great musings, Brother Connor-as usual.
We LDS face the MOST CRITICAL DECISION JUNCTION since the death of the Lord’s founding prophet, Joseph Smith.
Why? Because BOTH items below are clearly true:
TRUTH # 1
Joseph Smith ALWAYS condemned and NEVER preached or practiced ANY form of polygamy by any name (celestial or plural marriage or spiritual wifery, etc.) and was ALWAYS faithful to his ONE wife, Emma.
TRUTH # 2
THEREFORE, though tough to hear--Brigham Young introduced the abominations of polygamy (Jacob 2-3) into the church, while FALSELY PINNING that decision upon Joseph Smith.
So what’s next for LDS members?
We must also accept:
TRUTH # 3
That corruption introduced through polygamy DID NOT destroy or cancel these LIFEBLOOD elements of the Lord's true and living restored church, which REMAIN with us TODAY:
* the PRIESTHOOD KEYS
* the continuing presence & efficacy of COVENANTS (including Abrahamic, Sacramental, Temple, & Book of Mormon (see DC 84)
* the continued efficacy of TEMPLE WORK and ORDINANCES, which build upon those KEYS and COVENANTS, and which continue to make possible the work of salvation on BOTH SIDES of the veil.
* the Savior's atoning sacrifice--as the life-giving ROOT of His restored church today
* the Savior Himself--as the HEAD of his living and restored church today
(BTW: I think the Lord gave us the Parable of the Olive Trees (especially Jacob 5:62-75), planted throughout the Lord's Vineyard to:
1) Warn us how the polygamy Jacob condemned in his day would arrive in OUR DAY and
2) Show us how the Lord would preserve the good and "NATURAL BRANCHES" of the Olive Tree (the LIFEBLOOD found in KEYS, COVENANTS, and TEMPLE ORDINANCES) even after the CORRUTPION from the WILD and BAD branches that infested the VINEYARD during polygamy . . . More on that parable's message to us today--as I REPLY to myself below)
In the meantime, this bit of advice seems relevant:
* DON'T FEAR the TRUTH
* CELEBRATE the FACT that the Lord's Founding Prophet, Joseph, always spoke the truth when he said he never practiced polygamy and was always faithful to his one wife, Emma (C'mon--doesn't that just make you take a big breath of relief and shout: "Halleluiah Joseph!")
* TRUST that the Lord preserved the foundations of his church (the keys, covenants and ordinances) --even if Brigham Young temporarily introduced polygamy and its inevitable corruptions into the Lord's vineyard
(PART TWO follows BELOW in my REPLY to this comment:)
[Continued from above . . .]
Jacob & Zenos both show how the Lifeblood of Christ's Church prevails over temporary corruptions:
The following verses of Jacob 5 (65-75) accurately describe how the bitter & corrupt branches & fruit of polygamy arose & then was plucked out of the Lord's church in these latter days, while preserving the NATURAL BRANCHES (those essential keys, covenants, ordinances, & blessings), which are then grafted unto the NATURAL TREE (monogamy}:
[Note: I place [brackets] around any words I add to these verses]
Some potential definitions:
"NATURAL" = That which was originally planted and ordained by the Lord (versus "Wild," "Bitter," "Bad," or "Evil," which oppose the Lord)
"TREE" = The vehicle for gathering and blessing the Lord's children through the Gospel
"FRUIT" = The lives of the members or disciples
"ROOT" = Faith in Christ
"TOP" = Christ as the Head of the Tree
Jacob 5:65-69:
* The Lord of the vineyard cautions his servants to "clear away the branches [polygamy] which bring forth BITTER FRUIT," while being careful to "not clear away the BAD thereof all at once, lest [they completely] lose the trees [of life] of my vineyard
* .... wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according AS the GOOD shall GROW.... until the good [keys, etc., plus monogamy] shall OVERCOME the bad...
* .... And thus will I sweep away the BAD OUT OF MY VINEYARD, & the branches of the natural tree [priesthood keys, covenants, ordinances, temple blessings, etc.] will I graft in again unto the natural tree [monogamy] ....
* .... & thus will I bring them [keys, etc. plus monogamy] TOGETHER AGAIN, that they shall bring forth the NATURAL FRUIT, & they [natural trees, branches, and fruit] shall be one .... & the bad [polygamy] shall be cast away, yea, even out of all the land of my vineyard.... (Jacob 5:65-69)
Jacob 5:73-75:
* "And there began to be the NATURAL FRUIT again in the vineyard; & the NATURAL BRANCHES began to grow & thrive exceedingly; & the WILD branches [polygamy] began to be plucked off & to be cast away; and they did keep the ROOT & the TOP thereof [perhaps the atoning sacrifice of the Lord as the "ROOT" & the Lord's place at the head of His church as "the TOP"]
* .... And thus they labored .... even until the BAD [polygamy] had been cast away out of the vineyard, and the Lord had PRESERVED unto himself that the trees had become again the natural fruit [of the NATURAL roots, tree, and branches]; and they became like unto one body; and the FRUITS were EQUAL [perhaps in the way men and women in the Lord's church should always be seen as equally valued in the eyes of their Heavenly Father--which polygamy corrupts?]; & the Lord of the vineyard had PRESERVED unto himself the NATRUAL FRUIT [that was nurtured from the natural ROOTS (of the atonement), natural BRANCHES (of keys, covenants, ordinances), and natural TREES (of monogamy)], which was most precious unto him from the beginning ....
* .... And ... the Lord of the vineyard saw that his fruit was good, and that his vineyard was no more corrupt .... and the bad is cast away [and he said to his servants:] .... behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard." (Jacob 5:73-75)
Bottom line:
* We can recognize that polygamy was indeed "bad" and a blight (temporary "wild branches") upon the Lord's restored church--that had to eventually be "plucked out" to preserve the olive tree and allow the good fruit to be nourished and flourish,
* That Joseph Smith indeed condemned and shunned the abomination and practice of polygamy--which was, as he and the scriptures always clearly and unequivocally exclaimed, a corruption and an abomination (or blight) that especially undervalued, and often subjected, pierced, and shot daggers into the tender hearts of the Lord's daughters,
* But that, despite that corruption, the still-preserved and living roots (atonement of Savior) & "natural branches" of the olive tree (such as priesthood keys, covenants, ordinances, & temple blessings) remain an integral part of the Lord's living church today . . . with the Savior Himself at the head (TOP) of that church . . .
Connor, i also think it strange that the 'true' religion in Christ's day killed him and it was still the best way forward.
It was the corrupt priest who killed him, not the religion.
*Did Brigham Young ever teach anything true?*
Yeah, it's easy to take history out of context and fill in the gaps with our modern views. I am very sceptical of this analysis.