It’s Conference Once Again
Thomas S. Monson
When this building was planned, we thought we’d never fill it. Just look at it now.
My beloved brothers and sisters, how good it is to be together once again as we begin the 181st Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The past six months seem to have passed rapidly as I’ve been busy with many responsibilities. One of the great blessings during this time was to rededicate the beautiful Laie Hawaii Temple, which had been undergoing extensive renovations for nearly two years. I was accompanied by President and Sister Henry B. Eyring, Elder and Sister Quentin L. Cook, and Elder and Sister William R. Walker. During the evening prior to the rededication, which took place during November, we watched 2,000 young people from the temple district as they filled the Cannon Activities Center on the BYU–Hawaii campus and performed for us. Their production was titled “The Gathering Place” and creatively and masterfully recounted significant events in local Church history and the history of the temple. What a wonderful evening it was!
The following day was a spiritual feast as the temple was rededicated in three sessions. The Spirit of the Lord was with us in rich abundance.
We continue to build temples. It is my privilege this morning to announce three additional temples for which sites are being acquired and which, in coming months and years, will be built in the following locations: Fort Collins, Colorado; Meridian, Idaho; and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. They will certainly be a blessing to our members in those areas.
Each year millions of ordinances are performed in the temples. May we continue to be faithful in performing such ordinances, not only for ourselves but also for our deceased loved ones who are unable to do so for themselves.
I really understand and appreciate the desire to build temples. But I often wonder at the validity of modern temples and temple ordinances.
Doctrine and Covenants 124:35, 36
35 And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.
36 For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead.
Time was given to the Saints to build the Nauvoo temple. Regardless if they completed the temple in time, all baptisms for the dead not performed in certain locations were to be invalid after that time.
The only locations Baptisms for the Dead are valid in are Zion, Stakes of Zion(meaning cities), Jerusalem, and places the Lord has appointed for a refuge.
Now you may think I’m reading he cities of Zion hing into it. After all, stakes in the Church are called stakes of Zion. But notice how verse 35 mentions that baptisms for the dead performed “by those who are scattered abroad,” are not acceptable after that time. Scripturally those scattered abroad are those who have not been gathered to Stakes of Zion. Stakes of Zino at the time were cities, Kirtland, Nauvoo, far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, etc. We are wresting the scriptures if we interpret them out of the context in which they were given. To say that Stakes of Zion mentioned in verse 36 means our modern definition of stakes is not correct.
There is only one chance for modern baptisms for the dead. Are temples today located in places the Lord has appointed for a refuge? I really don’t have an answer, I’ve never asked the Lord.
Every conference I keep hearing about new temples being anounced. But when are we going to build the one temple that really matters? The Temple for the Presidency in Zion. Until we build that temple, no other temples will be enough for me.
The Church continues to provide humanitarian aid in times of disaster. Most recently our hearts and our help have gone out to Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami and the resultant nuclear challenges. We have distributed over 70 tons of supplies, including food, water, blankets, bedding, hygiene items, clothing, and fuel. Our young single adults have volunteered their time to locate missing members using the Internet, social media, and other modern means of communication. Members are delivering aid via scooters provided by the Church to areas that are difficult to reach by car. Service projects to assemble hygiene kits and cleaning kits are being organized in multiple stakes and wards in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka. Thus far, over 40,000 hours of service have been donated by more than 4,000 volunteers. Our help will be ongoing in Japan and in any other areas where there is need.
I really think that any aid we give to oter human beings is wonderful in the Lord’s sight. I really appreciate the help the Church has given to people in times of disaster. I believe the Lord really appreciates it too.
My brothers and sisters, I thank you for your faith and devotion to the gospel, for the love and care you show to one another, and for the service you provide in your wards and branches and stakes and districts. Thank you, as well, for your faithfulness in paying your tithes and offerings and for your generosity in contributing to the other funds of the Church.
I’m just curious if most members interpret gospel to mean church. I don’t know which was intended here. I’m curious why tithes and offerings are being brought up. Firstly since tithing cannot be paid unless we are living the Law of Consecration. Secondly, surely there are other areas besides money that we coud be thanked for.
As of the end of the year 2010, there were 52,225 missionaries serving in 340 missions throughout the world. Missionary work is the lifeblood of the kingdom. May I suggest that if you are able, you might consider making a contribution to the General Missionary Fund of the Church.
I agree that missionary work is the lifeblood of the kingdom. However this brings up a lot of questions for me. Are the missionaries preaching the fulness of the Gospel as defined in the Book of Mormon? Or are they preaching a wide variety of other programs and principles mixed in with the Gospel.
3 Nephi 11:37, 38
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
If other programs and principles are being but on par or included as part of the Gospel i suggest we take heed to the warning given in the next verses:
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
I’m also curious why we have a missionary fund. In a previous post I discussed missionary work and providing for missionaries. Doctrine and Covenants 84:77-91 specifically tells us that we are not to provide for ourselves or other missionaries through any type of fund. But rather missionaries are to be provided for in their area of service. Those who receiev them are those who should feed, clothe, and give them money.
By having a missionary fund that provideds for all missionaries regardless of area we violate these commandments. Missionaries go with purse and scrip, a readily available money source. In doing so our missionaries cannot receive the promised blessings associated with missionary work:
1. Shall not be weary in mind.
2. Neither darkened, neither in body, limb, nor joint.
3. A hair of their head shall not fall to the ground unnoticed.
4. And they shall not go hungry, neither athirst.
5. The Lord will be on their right hand and on Their left.
6. The Spirit shall be in their hearts.
7. The angels will be round about them, to bear them up.
We likewise deny blessings to those who receieve missionaries. Verse 90 tells us that those people who receive missionaries who don’t take purse or scrip, and feed them, and clothe them, and give them money; will not lose their reward.
Verse 91 tells us that we can know who is a disciple of Christ because they go without purse or scrip(a.k.a. sure source of money). Is it any wonder so many people turn down missionaries? They(including myself back in 2004-2005) do not work according to the pattern wherein they can be easily identified as Christ’s disciples. Perhaps if our missionaries would live according to scriptural edict they wouldn’t have to walk around wearing name tags with the name “Jesus Christ” emblazoned upon them.
Now, brothers and sisters, we are anxious to listen to the messages which will be presented to us today and tomorrow. Those who will address us have sought heaven’s help and direction as they have prepared their messages. That we may be filled with the Spirit of the Lord and be uplifted and inspired as we listen and learn is my prayer. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
My intent with these commentaries is not to bash or be negative towards anyone. Rather I wish to examine the statements and compare to the scriptures. Are we being taught correctly? Lets find out. Please leave comments I don’t care what viewpoint you come from. If you think I’m completely off base please tell me why. If you have anything to contribute please make it known.
zomarah.wordpress.com 
Interesting comments…I always look forward to reading them. God Bless!
One thing I have thought about recently is the momentum acquired by the Church in certain directions, and the difficulty that the institutional Church would face if they had received revelation and were inclined to change the Church’s direction on a major article of faith.
Case in point: the priesthood ban. I believe that it arose and was perpetuated by bias and ignorance on the part of the membership and leadership of the Church, and look at the mess and pressure there had to be prior to the receptivity of the institution to change. With fourteen million nominal members, any major change (a move towards living the United Order, say, or a return of the Word of Wisdom to its original role as an occasional standard) necessarily becomes problematic, especially because the grasp of many on doctrine is perhaps tenuous at best.
Do you know what I found missing from conference almost entirely? Jesus Christ. Not the vain mention of his name, but discussion of the doctrine of the atonement, of the actions of his life, of his nature and love and longsuffering for our sake. Almost no one touched on that seriously (2 talks, I think). And there were some good moments (Elder Uchtdorf’s priesthood session discourse, and the first half of Elder Bednar’s talk). I just came away without feeling that I had learned of Christ, spoken of Christ, rejoiced in Christ.
I’d be interested in hearing your take on the “official” list of the most important doctrines of the Church at http://newsroom.lds.org/topic/core-beliefs . I’ve been thinking about the mercurial nature of that list from 1830 until today, and the major doctrines that have fallen by the wayside, with little or no public discussion outside of some books: intelligences, consecration (law of and personal), United Order (contrary to Elder Eyring’s assertion in GC that it is functionally equivalent to the welfare program), priesthood (as something beyond hierarchy and some set ordinances, but as the power of heaven), etc. I made a list but my son ate it off of my desk.
AS:
Felt the exact same way when Eyring said what he did. Interesting, I came across this: http://voiceoftheorder.blogspot.com/2011/04/united-consent-or-voice-of-order.html
“Do you know what I found missing from conference almost entirely? Jesus Christ.”
http://lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/the-way?lang=eng&query=*(+name%3a%22Lawrence+E.+Corbridge%22)
Ya mean more like this? I wondered how the other general authorities felt and thought, as well as the general members.
@Ascentury – If I asked you, would it be fair for God to break the Abrahamic covenant with us after he’s just started to gathering Judah to the land of their fathers and Ephraim to their promised land (see sect: 133), would you say yes?
That’s exactly what is implied when the church gave those outside of the blood of Abraham the priesthood. It’s like saying God is breaking the original deal by those outside of his lineage to bless all the nations of the earth and to share in the ministry that was alone promised to only Abraham’s descendants. Part of Abraham’s covenant was that through Abrahams descendants all nations would be blessed. See Matt 15. Even Christ ignored the Cannanite woman until she reminded him of the Abrahamic covenant “that even the dogs are fed by the scraps that fall from the master’s table” or in otherwords all nations are blessed even indirectly blessed through Abraham’s seed or blessings given to his seed. So Christ indirectly blessed her child and healed her of a devil.
You see PoGP Abraham 2 says that Abraham’s descendants would hold the ministry in their hands. It is through Abraham’s descendants that all nations of the world would be blessed. What they hold in their hands is priesthood “hand to head” power.
This is why Malachi’s prophecy from Moroni to Joseph was so important in 1823. The hearts of the children would be turned to their fathers. Who’s fathers? The father’s of the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, African’s etc.. NO. He’s talking about the fathers of Israel that made the covenants with Jehovah ie Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Therefore our hearts, WE as their children should remember the covenants that are our birthright and then WE as fathers should turn our hearts to our children so that we don’t break that blood line bond and promise for our children.
If you don’t care who the father’s of your children are when you choose a wife then you thin out the blood of Israel or curse your children from fulfilling their destiny as is found in Sect 113/Isaiah 52. IE putting on the strength of the priesthood. Joseph received revelation from GOD in that section that those who were to build up Zion in the last days had right to the priesthood by LINEAGE and to put on the strength of the priesthood is to build up Zion.
Now if the Higher ups in the Church say bring in the Africans and go ahead and marry them and give them the priesthood etc then they don’t believe, understand or are being blinded into a false interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant, you chose. But they through their policy will bring about the curse that would spread to the entire Earth. If you wipe out Abraham’s seed and make their fathers Cain, Ham, Cannan, Cush etc you will bring a curse upon the entire Earth and none will be left of lineage to build up Zion.
Study the life of Heber J Grant and the opinions of those who understood him to be, in the words of Wilford Woodruf, “Weighed in the balance and has been found wanting”. This church for the last few decades has been reversing the policies of Heber J Grant. HJG was atleast truthful that the heaven’s were closed to him. He admitted it in public and in private to the 12. He couldn’t pull a revelation down from heaven to save his life. and it was he that called Spencer W. Kimball to the apostleship.
One of the first policy changes reversing a HBJ policy was done by David O McKay in April 1957. HBJ changed how priesthood was ordained, or not ordained. from 1921 to 1957, if done by the manuals given from the 1st Presidency, you simply ordained to the offices in the church, you did not confer priesthood. You would simply lay hands on a man that was a priest and ordain him an elder. David O Mckay reversed this BACK to how it was done previous, where we had to confer priesthood then ordain to office. Stephen L Richards was asked about all those incorrectly ordained in that 36 years, he had to admit they don’t hold priesthood.
This is why George Q Cannon was able to prophecy “The day will come when men’s Priesthood and authority will be called into question, and you will find out that there will be hundreds who have no Priesthood, but believe they hold it, they holding only an office in the Church.”
Read Zomorah’s post on Ezekiel 14 about the Lord taking his people in a snare if they set up idols of men even prophets, you’ll find that HJG was allowed to do more damage to this church than all the apostates that ever lived. His appointee if you believe the words of Brigham Young is bringing the very need for the “One Mighty and Strong” spoken of in D&C 85.
“…the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth…. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; [say] we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate.” – Brigham Young
A lot of new liberal Mormons (including General Authorities) have started coming out and raising charges of ignorance against Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and so on – saying they were wrong in their restrictions of priesthood.
When you do that, you have to reject several scriptures. Gaining worldly acceptance seems more important to them than the words of apostles and prophets and the word of the Lord in scriptures. They have their right to reject scripture, but they WILL be held accountable for their actions. I take more comfort in trying to align myself with the scriptures than the world’s standards, but hey, that’s just me.
JMW, I think your commentary on Presidents Grant and Kimball are spot on. Strong delusions have indeed been sent by the Lord.
I heard Elder Zwick of the seventy instruct us via satellite training that we need to lighten the load of responsibility for those that have to work two jobs in central America as an example. I almost got up and walked out. I couldn’t believe what I had heard, a general authority telling stake presidents it’s ok to put the work on hold so Jose down in guatamala can work two jobs… How is that in harmony to the covenants of consecration we swear to in temples? I hear crap like that and hear conference talks on how to live a consecrated life which is to do a little here or there when you can. It just doesn’t make sense. 10% and a little here and there is not the same as giving your all. I’m willing to give my all the only problem is there is no protocol in church manuals for people like that lol
@JMW what a dumb ass pharisee!…don’t you know that The Father can make sons of Abraham from stones…LOL….Youre so ridiculous. Someone has another thing comin….HA!
I just want to make three points in response to JMW’s remarks. First, you seem to have completely disregarded the law of adoption into Israel. Secondly, we have always extended the priesthood to those of every race (including Egyptians (!)) except to those of black African descent. When was the Chinese mission opened? Brigham Young sent missionaries there in 1852. Thirdly, this action seems to have been ratified by the Lord, for those who have received the priesthood in this manner have the ability to administer the ordinances of the gospel as fully as those who had received it prior to that time.
The gospel is to go first to the Gentiles, who are not of the house of Israel, is it not?
We also can’t disregard the research done by D. Michael Quinn that reveals that not only was the priesthood given to blacks in the early days of the church in Kirtland, Elijah Abel being the first black man to receive it (later revoked by Brigham Young), women also received it.
One major chink in your argument concerning non-whites getting the priesthood is the fact that Joseph Smith gave black people the priesthood. It wasn’t until Brigham Young’s presidency that the priesthood was limited to whites.
OH sorry about the way that came out…I meant to say you dumb ass prideful idiots….haha and the comments should have been directed at Michael too….Go to hell…anyway I enjoyed the comentary very much Zo’ ….thought you and your sweetheart might find it interesting that my precious sweetheart and I have been called to serve a mission the right way …and in the Phillipines of all places…CRAZY stuff…but it is wonderful to answer the call of the spirit and so we view it as an adventure. : )
Hey, that’s awesome! I’ve been feeling a similar call. But it’s not quite time yet. You’ll have to stay tuned for my posts abouts about building the church even in these times of craziness.
Chantdown:
Can you share some details on your mission call? Is that in/outside the LDS church?
Michael:
Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with Brigham’s view on blacks is an attempt at gaining “worldly acceptance” and, basically, apostate as to Christ’s church?
There is nothing prideful about studying the scriptures and humbling yourself before God, making your will in line with his. I find it sad you would mock the sincere efforts of your brothers, if you will allow us to hold that sacred title.
Thank you for taking the forum down a few notches in an attempt to turn it in a mud slinging contest. How did you expect us to respond? By saying, “No, you are wrong! You are the prideful one?” Sorry, but I won’t wrestle in the mud. If you take issue with what has been written, please help me see where I am in error. Christ did rebuke the Pharisees but he demonstrated their errors. In fact Jesus gave the ancient disciples the charge to feed His sheep. So, if I am empty and I am in need and you truly are a disciple of Christ and you truly are a follower of the spirit . . . feed me.
I am concerned that you may need some help, seeing as you will be taking on a role as a messenger of Jesus Christ:
First, your tongue reflects your soul. James 1:26 reads “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” Perhaps this applies to you, perhaps not. That is for you to know.
Second, I sense little charity in your message. That could just be my perception though. I think if your message came from the messiah, you would offer me an escape from the hell you have damned me to. 1 John 1:9-11 reads “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.” The great deception of many is they walk about unaware they are in darkness. I am grateful to those you have shown me how I have wondered about in the dark, and as follows of Jesus, they have given light to reveal my path. So brother I love you and hope you can learn to extend that same love to people of the Philippines. I hope while you wear the name of Jesus on your chest, his name is on your heart. Again, I can judge no man as I am as wicked and immoral as they come.
Your brother, Michael
(P.S. This is the right way the Lord gave -> Mark 6:8, D&C 84:86)
@ascentury – I’m very aware of the law of adoption and the missions to china and India. Brigham was fulfilling the allegory of the olive tree found in Jacob 5. Even Christ said my sheep will hear my voice and if a Chinese or Indian heeds to the words of the servants of the Lord they were considered part of lost Israel or the branches that had been grafted into the wild trees in the vineyard. You see Brigham was a real prophet and understood that we believe in the Litteral gathering of Israel and not this apostate “stay where you are” doctrine that is currently practiced. Brigham understood that to be a true servant on the vineyard of the Lord you have to pluck those branches out of the wild trees and graft them back into the tame tree. Fools like Elder Chantdown will think they’re on the lords errand by finding these lost branches on the world but he’ll turn them onto firewood if he doesn’t gather them to Zion. That is the camel the church swallows. You see the lord doesn’t recognize sevants in Jacob 5 that build temples in the branches of the wild trees or takes a tithe of their wild fruit. The fruit the lord wants are from tame branches that are grafted into the tame tree. He burns the rest of the trees to the ground. This is why sec 133 and rev 18:4 says to come out of Babylon come out of the world or wild trees and be grafted literally into Zion.
I’ll grant that the current practice of remaining where one is doesn’t seem to have inspiration or revelation as its source (see David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism for a good discussion of the reasons which fed into that decision). And the gathering to Missouri is mentioned once (I think) in Gospel Principles, which is kind of sad for something that was one of the defining features of the believers in JS’s time.
Not that Utah is Zion, anyway. It’s Zion’s chastisement.
I’ve been planning on reading the Book of Mormon through again soon, and I’ll bear in mind the points you’ve made about the gathering and the olive trees and seek for a clear understanding. As I currently understand your position, though, it seems somewhat inconsistent to me unless you’re going to come straight out and claim that BY was a prophet and SWK and his successors have not been. (And you can, of course, if that’s what you believe. Alternatively, I suppose one could claim that, though prophets, they haven’t been seeking the will of the Lord on this issue.) Thanks for the food for thought as I ponder on these issues.
Yes Gregory Prince did a great job with his biography, I’m actually still reading it right now. However it was Heber J Grant that was the author of the stay where you are doctrine. McKay was the one that felt sorry for those who were outside of the states and had no access to temples and thought it would be a good idea to build temples in foreign lands. This proved to be a slippery slope out of generocity.
The problem with that, was it caused the bleeding heart liberals in the Twelve to say boo hoo it’s not fair that those of African descent in Brazil who won’t be able to share in the blessings of the temple even though they raised money for it. (Too bad the blessings of the temple are part of the Gospel of Abraham, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, BoM which is a fullness of Christ gospel teaches nothing of the endowments or sealings or washing and annointings.) That reasoning along with Jimmy Carter’s threats to go after the churches non-profit status (Which is how Carter won his Noble prize btw, going after private organizations using the race card) was the impetus to cause Kimball to reverse the policy on Africans holding the priesthood.
It’s like a domino effect, once you start to stray off the path, you have to start changing things here and there that shouldn’t be changed. Why is that important, well Daniel saw in a dream a horn on a beast that wore out the saints of the most high. He records it in chapter 7. Joseph Smith taught that beasts are fallen/feral/wild kingdoms or governments, horns signify power. So he sees this wear out the saints, or submit them. Then he sees the horn as it wants to change their Times and their Laws.
Which is exactly what has happened. The US Gov wore out the saints, and caused them to change the Time of Abraham and the Law of Plural marriage back in the 1890s, after World War I the immigration policy wore us out again and caused us to throw out the Times of Moses and the Literal gathering of Israel to the land of Ephraim, it wore out the Times of Enoch and the Law of Consecration with it’s tax codes. Read PoGP in the time of Enoch it was forbade to even preach to the descendants of Cain. If they came to you that was another matter, they could receive of the gospel of Christ which is salvation but exaltation which is part of the Gospel of Abraham is not offered to those outside the house of Israel. This is why Paul flips out when missionaries from Jerusalem go to the Galatians and are telling them they need circumcisions and they have to become Jews first. He tells the Galatians even if an Angel comes preaching a different gospel to throw it out. What he says about the 2 missionaries from Jerusalem is even more harsh, it’s translated in the KJV as Gal 5:12 “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” but the greek actually says this “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” that’s pretty harsh.
You don’t teach the gospel of Abraham to the gentiles you give them the gospel of Christ. The circumcision was the token of the Abrahamic covenant. It foreshadows an ordinance of removing the piece of skin that would inhibit a celestial body from pro-creating which is the sign of eternal life or exaltation which is for the house of Israel only.
This ties all together with Jacob 5, D&C 4 and any other parable about the separating of the house of Israel out of the world. Only Christ’s sheep will hear his voice and heed his call, this implies there are those that won’t give 2 craps about the message. Those that hear have a drop of Abraham’s blood in their veins those that don’t, don’t. This is why the Father allowed the house of Israel to be scattered throughout all nations on the Earth, it would give him the excuse in the last days to send the message throughout the world, it’s how he can say, I tried to warn you, I even sacrificed my people to the barbarisms of the world and thinned them out amongst you so you could receive my servants, you didn’t receive them, so enjoy fervent heat of the second coming when you turn to stubble.
I should clarify my position so people don’t get confused. I’m a CTR member of the church, but definitely not a Toe-the-line believer. I seek for truth, I believe this church WAS the true church and has the potential to BE the true church again. I’ve gone through the life of Joseph Smith with a fine tooth comb, it was the craziest emotional rollercoaster I’ve ever ridden, but unlike others that throw in the towel or write him off as a charlatan, I really, honestly believe he was a prophet of God, despite his short comings and follies. I stay in the church because I believe we are of the house of Israel, we’re similar to how the Jews were when Christ ministered in the flesh, governed by a sovereign that could care less about the building up of the Kingdom of God and ruled by priests that do not have the interest of building up Zion as their top priority. Nephi 26 calls priests that don’t have the welfare of Zion in heart, practicers of priestcraft. The fruits/proof of which are right across the street from temple square in a billion dollar shopping mall for example.
Even though I do not agree we’re on the right path I have a testimony that the church is EXACTLY where it should be IE it was seen by Daniel in the last days as “worn out by the horn of the beast” this happened when we gave up the Counsel of 50 or political branch of the Kingdom of God for the United States as our Sovereign. The US has forced the church’s hand now many times to give up it’s Times and Laws as foreseen in Daniel 7. Daniel saw a redemption of the saints and a beginning to the end of Satan’s power when Father Adam/Michael, the Ancient of days comes back and gives them dominion again.
To put a more modern reference than that of Daniel to our current state I’ll turn to a revelation recorded by Wilford Woodruff. He received a revelation in November of 1889 from the Lord paraphrasing “the saints are in bondage, and I will free them in my own due time”. referring to the dominion that the US was exercising against the saints and the practitioners of the law of plural marriage.
I think the more we bend to the will of the US whether it’s getting rid of plural marriage or giving blacks priesthood we defy what has been revealed to us through real prophets. See section 98 vs 4 “And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.”
This is why I really think Daniel saw our day, he left us stories of what to do when confronted with contradicting laws. Do you obey the sovereign or God? Well Daniel left us his story, you obey God even if you get thrown in a lion’s den. You obey God even if you watch 3 of your buddies get tossed into a furnace. We’ll the lion’s dens and furnaces of the 1890’s were to Scary and Hot for some of the brethren. I think the church has been slowly buckling to outside pressure now for over 100 years and in doing so it’s sucked the spirituality that was made manifest in the early church right out from under us. Our meetings are wanting, our lessons are dull, our prophets seers and revelators like BH Roberts lamented don’t prophecy, see or reveal. We’ve reverted back to writing the words of God in committee, see the Proclamation of the Family, written the same way the Nicene Creed was written, IN A COMMITTEE! And for the same reason, there was no one to say get out your pen and paper and write what I tell you “Thus Saith the Lord”… D&C 113 says that revelation hinges on whether we gather Israel or not. Since we’ve been telling our members to stay in the countries they are in, the heavens have been pretty quiet.
All in all we have a lot of repenting to do as a whole, we really need to turn back to the God of Israel and pray for deliverance so we can keep the covenants that we swear to indoors out of doors.
Mate! This blog site is cool! How can I make it look this good ! Regards.