Zions Redemption Radio Network

11/07/2024

https://youtu.be/ypkblgLlDXA?si=N2cTiQJ9QqgcIZNE

In this episode of the Key of David Podcast, hosts David “The Lion” Douglas and Trevor Keyes discuss the fascinating experiences of their guest, Mark Lichten...

11/05/2024

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 2 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 183 to 187

iTunes Podcast:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000675467042

Where much is given, much is required, and in those early days of the Church, God gave great manifestations and revelations and thus expected a great deal from the members in return. In 1864 George A. Smith gave an illustration of this principle:

It was at the same Council [June 1833] that Daniel Copley, a timid young man, who had been ordained a Priest, and required to go and preach the Gospel, was called to an account for not going on his mission. The young man said he was too weak to attempt to preach, and the Council cut him off the Church. I wonder what our missionaries now would think of so rigid a discipline as was given at that time thirty-one years ago, under the immediate supervision of the Prophet. (JD 11:8)

Members who commit heinous sins are already cut off from the Spirit of the Lord even before they are brought to a Church trial. They generally continue to go downhill and fall into darkness, while those who are unjustly excommunicated feel no effect of it.

Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in such a way that it did not take the Spirit of God from them. And the reason why they were cut off was because they did not come up to the particular standard of perfection of those who dealt with them, or they did not come up to their feelings. (Francis M. Lyman, Mill. Star24:100)

President Joseph F. Smith added even more information in the following reference:
[184] Several examples have occurred in the history of the Church where men through transgression, duly proved and decided upon by the constituted authorities, have been stopped from acting in the Priesthood, which is just as effectual as taking away their Priesthood would be, if it were possible; but this has taken no ordination from them, and if in such cases the transgressors should repent and make complete and satisfactory restitution, they would still hold the same Priesthood which they held before they were silenced, or stopped from acting. A person once ordained a bishop, an elder, or high priest, continues to hold those offices. A bishop is still a bishop though he may remove to another ward, or for other reason temporarily lose his calling. But in case he is wanted to act in a new office, or place, and the proper authorities call him to act, it is not necessary to re-ordain him a bishop; he would only need to be set apart for his new calling. So with other officers in the Priesthood, once having received the Priesthood, it cannot be taken from them, except by transgression so serious that they must forfeit their standing in the Church. But, as stated, their right to officiate, may be suspended or stopped. The Lord can take away the power and efficacy of their ordinations, and will do so if they transgress. No endowments or blessings in the House of the Lord, no patriarchal blessings, no ordination to the Priesthood, can be taken away, once given. To prevent a person for cause from exercising the rights and privileges of acting in the offices of the Priesthood, may be and has been done, and the person so silenced still remain a member of the Church, but this does not take away from him any Priesthood that he held. (Joseph F. Smith, Imp. Era 11:465-466)

President Smith here reiterated the fact that only sin can take away a man’s blessings, promises and priesthood. Just because a man is cut off because of a personal grudge of a bishop does not take away his Priesthood. A stake president may excommunicate a man for erring in doctrine, but in reality [185] it may be the stake president who has erred in the doctrine. Today several are excommunicated for believing and promoting the teachings of the early Church leaders, but in reality it has no effect on their Priesthood. Others are excommunicated because they do not have a testimony that the president of the Church is a prophet, seer and revelator, but this does not jeopardize his Priesthood, nor is it a sin. Excommunication should be only for those who commit very grievous sins.

Who, then, has the authority or responsibility to try someone for committing sins? The answer is the bishop of the ward in which the offense has been committed. When a law of the Gospel is broken, then the offenders may be subject to a trial–no matter who has committed the transgression. According to Brigham Young–

In the capacity of a Bishop, has any person a right to direct the spiritual affairs of the kingdom of God? No. In that capacity his right is restricted to affairs in a temporal and moral point of view. He has a right to deal with the transgressor. I do not care what office a transgressor bears in the Church and kingdom of God, if he should be one of the Twelve Apostles, and come into a Bishop’s neighborhood, and purloin his neighbor’s goods, defile his neighbor’s bed, or commit any breach of the moral law, the Bishop has a right to take that man before himself and his council, and there hold him to answer for the crime he has been guilty of, and deal with him for his membership in the Church, and cut him off from the Church to all intents and purposes, to all time and eternity, if he will not make restitution and sincerely repent. “What! One of the Seventies?” Yes. “One of the High Priests?” Yes. “One of the Twelve Apostles?” Yes, anybody that happens to come into his neighborhood and transgresses the moral law. (JD 9:91)

[186] Excommunication is a two-edged sword. It is a serious matter for both the person who is cut off as well as for those who administer the excommunication. The order of these councils was much more strict anciently than in our day, for the Prophet Joseph noted:
. . in ancient days councils were conducted with such strict propriety, that no one was allowed to whisper, be weary, leave the room, or get uneasy in the least, until the voice of the Lord, by revelation, or the voice of the council by the Spirit, was obtained, which has not been observed in this Church to the present time. It was understood in ancient days, that if one man could stay in council, another could; and if the president could spend his time, the members could also; but in our councils, generally, one will be uneasy, another asleep; one praying, another not; one’s mind on the business of the council, and another thinking on something else. (TPJS, p. 69)

All this brings us to some very critical questions regarding those involved in excommunications. What happens to a person who is excommunicated unjustly? What happens to the bishop or stake president who unjustly cuts a person off from the Church? We know that correct judgment can be influenced by bias, prejudice and emotions. When bad judgment results in an excommunication, real judgment will be more serious for the “excommunicater” than the “excommunicatee.”

For members of the early Christian church, excommunication was the punishment for those who were sinful, corrupt and wicked. It was a just and fair result of their wrongdoings. Later church leaders themselves became corrupted by riches, pride and the honors of men, and so new standards for excommunication were set. Anyone who did not totally agree with the church, its leaders or doctrines was [187] excommunicated. Those members who supported the early teachings of Christ rather than the more modern versions of the Gospel were considered rebellious and wicked and were cut off the church. The “wicked” began to excommunicate the righteous. This reversal has unfortunately been repeated many times in the history of Christianity.


[188] Chapter 10

CHRIST’S CONTROVERSIAL DOCTRINES

Podcast Episode · Zion’s Redemption Radio Network · S8 E759 · 47m

11/02/2024

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 1 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 178 to 183

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000675164649


In simple terms, communication includes a connecting, sympathetic relationship, while excommunication involves a disconnection or exclusion. In a Latter-day Saint context, some have thought that excommunication results in some terrible curse or judgment that befalls those cut off from the Church. However, when someone is excommunicated for a gross sin, that person has already incurred a severe judgment, for he has already lost his Priesthood because of his actions, and his excommunication has nothing to do with that loss.

Most churches, notably Christian and Jewish, have a ceremonial program for the punishment of their members. The type of punishment depends on the seriousness of the sin. When greater offenses have been committed, individuals are removed from the general membership of the church. Thus, they are “excommunicated,” “cast out” or “cut off.” Just as a man might have an arm or leg cut off or separated from the body, so is a member separated from the body of the church.

Cutting off. In the Old Testament a penalty or form of punishment used primarily, though not exclusively, for various offenses against the ceremonial laws. The agent of the “cutting off” was either God or the community. (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, p. 412)

[179]
Excommunication. This is the judicial exclusion of unrepentant sinners from the rights and privileges of the communion of saints carried out by a local congregation. The ultimate purpose is to bring the offender to a realization of the seriousness of his offense and to lead him to repentance. It also removes offense from the church.
Excommunication was used already in the time of the apostles. The primitive church continued the practice. (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, p. 561)

Most Bible scholars consider the Biblical terms of “cut off,” “cast out,” and “excommunicated” to mean the same. The separation ceremony of cutting off a person may originate from the community, the church or the Lord Himself. In any case, it is a form of punishment to encourage repentance by the victim and a forgiveness by those who cut him off.

Whether or not this desired effect becomes an actuality is difficult to determine for not much has been written on the subject of excommunications. On a broad scale, we don’t know how people feel or the physical or spiritual consequences of being “cut off.” Does a person feel worse, about the same, or is it possible for him to feel better?

We will quote here from two prominent LDS sources that describe what happens to those who are excommunicated: The LDS Reference Encyclopedia (Brooks) and Mormon Doctrine (McConkie).

In the first source, author Melvin Brooks thinks that a person who is excommunicated would have his name removed from “one of the `books of life:'”

When a person has fallen from virtue, and fails to repent, or is advocating false principles which mislead others and cause their apostasy, he is liable to [180] excommunication. If he should be excommunicated, his name is taken or deleted from the Church record, which is one of the “books of life” spoken of in Revelation 20:12. His priesthood, if he has any, is of no efficacy and is lost.
Upon repenting, he must be judged and allowed admittance only by that tribunal that took his membership from him. Then, if he is to return to the Church, he must be baptized and confirmed.
The priesthood may again be restored to him depending upon his worthiness to receive the same. (LDS Reference Enc., Melvin R. Brooks, 1:126)

On the other hand, Brigham Young made it clear that everyone is recorded in the “Book of Life” and would remain there unless they “sin unto death,” which is the fate of the sons of perdition who return to native element:

You know that it used to be a great saying, and I might say worthy of all acceptation, among the Methodists, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and my name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” Their names were always there, and never will be blotted out, though they may be up and down, warm, hot, and cool, and though they may sin to-day, and to-morrow repent of it, but their names will remain in the Lamb’s Book of Life until they sin the sin unto death. And when their names are once blotted out they will never be written there again; they will then be numbered with those who will cease to increase, cease to learn, to multiply, and spread abroad. (JD 3:208)

Now look upon the opposite side of these principles. Suppose you say, “We will give up the pursuits of our holy religion. We are not Latter-day Saints. Let us go and seek after the things of the world, speculate, get unto ourselves riches, turn away from our duties, neglect the things pertaining to our salvation, . . . I tell you the result of that course. You would cease to increase in all the attributes of excellence, glory, and eternal duration, from that very [181] moment. So soon as you conceive such ideas, they find a soil within you prepared to nurture them, and it brings forth their direful effects; from that very moment you cease to increase. The opposite principle seizes you, fastens itself upon you, and you decrease, lessen, diminish, decay, and waste away in quality, excellence, and strength, until your organization becomes extinct, oblivion covers you, your name is blotted out from the Book of Life, from the heavens, from the earth, and from under the earth, and you will return, and sink into your natural element, which cannot be destroyed, though many read the Bible as conveying such an idea, but it does not. (JD 1:118)

In the second source, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that anyone excommunicated would lose “every blessing of the gospel” and would be “delivered unto Satan:”

Whenever, as is presently the case, there is a separation of Church and state, then the highest punishment which the Church can impose upon its members is excommunication. This consists in cutting the person off from the Church so that he is no longer a member. Every blessing of the gospel is thereby lost, and the excommunicated person is “delivered unto Satan.” {1 Tim. 1:20; Matt. 18:15-19; 1 Cor. 5:1-5} (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p. 240)

There are many people who are excommunicated from the LDS Church who feel that they did not deserve that kind of treatment. They argue that their punishment was unfair. Some have been excommunicated for such trifles as a belief in something controversial. Others are cut off for defending and following the teachings of former prophets. Some are cast out because of the personal opinions or particular bias of a bishop or stake president. This is not new, because many times it came to the attention of Brigham Young:

[182]
How many there are who come to me to find fault with, and enter complaints against, their brethren, for some trifling thing, when I can see, in a moment, that they have received no intentional injury! They have no compassion on their brethren, but, having passed their judgment, insist that the criminal shall be punished. And why? Because he does not exactly come up to their standard of right and wrong! They feel to measure him by the “Iron Bedstead principle”– “if you are too long, you must be cut off; if too short, you must be stretched.” Now this is the height of folly. I find that I have enough to do to watch myself. It is as much as I can do to get right, deal right, and act right. If we all should do this, there would be no difficulty, but in every man’s mouth would be “May the Lord bless you.” (JD 1:6)

However, Brigham Young was very clear on some of the reasons for excommunication. For example, he said that if an Elder of the Church would “use the name of the Lord God in vain,” he should be cut off. (JD 6:286) He thought that anyone who refused to pay tithing should also forfeit their Church membership. (JD 10:283) He also warned the sisters to “cease trading with any man . . . who does not belong to the church,” or they might be cut off. (JD 12:315) He also stated that things were more lenient then than they had been earlier.

I have told you my mind, you can now do as your own minds shall dictate, if you think proper, and be responsible for the same. I have frequently thought, what would be the consequence in this community, were we to be as strict now, as the authorities of the Church once were? For it used to be, if a man did not obey counselafter it was given him, he was cut off from the Church. Do you not think we are lenient, easy, and forgiving? Let us be kind to each other, and cultivate the spirit of peace, and seek diligently to know the will of God. (JD 1:78)

Next Episode:

EXCOMMUNICATION–JUST AND UNJUST, Part 2 of Chapter 9 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 183 to 187

Podcast Episode · Zion’s Redemption Radio Network · S8 E758 · 32m

10/26/2024

Facebook has attacked all of my other pages and has been suspending them and unpublishing them. If you like my content please friend request me Lichtenwalter Mark

10/25/2024

Joseph Smith taught about the Adam-God Doctrine & about multiple Gods in
teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the 5th Standard Work.

https://youtu.be/oZvpN1uszS4

how can a modern profit say Brigham was wrong when they also say the Prophet can not lead you astray. Bruce R Mckinkie talked about the seven deadly heresies taught by Brigham, explaining that the prophet Brigham lead the church astray in false doctrine and at the same time says he and the other leaders and Profits can not lead anyone astray in the church today. The fact of the matter is, in the endowment Jehovah tells Michael to create the earth and Michael says it will be done... then Michael does the work. He is the Creator according to the endowment. Joseph knew this. Joseph taught god the Creator was THE FATHER. Further more, before 1880 the church Correctly taught that Jehovah was a Father above Jesus, not that Jesus was Jehovah. In fact Ether chapter 3 refutes the false doctrine taught by the apostate LDS church today in that Jesus said he had never shown himself ti anyone before the brother of Jared... and yet Jehovah walked and talked Face to Face with Enoch and others before the brother of Jared was ever alive. Also Jesus says he was only a spirit until he would come in the flesh, yet Jehovah had a body when he ate food with Abraham and wrestled with Jacob. The Fundamentalists keep good Doctrine alive when the Gentiles have hijacked the truth and gone apostate in the Lds church. And so many TBM wouldn’t understand that because they only read the correlated crap the church approves for them to read. Sorry, I hate lies and ignorance...

Joseph Smith taught about the Adam-God Doctrine & about multiple Gods inteachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the 5th Standard Work.Video completed by Kevin...

09/22/2024

Part 3. TWENTY PRIESTHOOD LAWS AND EVIDENCES, part 3 of Chapter 8 of The Church and The Priesthood

Pages 128 to 139

7. Rebaptism

Nearly all Mormons are aware of the doctrine and necessity of baptism. Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) However, few Church members today realize that rebaptism was an important doctrine taught and practiced from the commencement of the Church until the turn of the century.

[129] The primary purposes of baptism are to “enter into the kingdom of God,” to bind a covenant and for the remission of sins. However, there were many other reasons why members wanted to be rebaptized:

Joining the Church . . Joseph Smith and those who had been baptized prior to April 6, 1830, were again baptized on the day of the organization of the Church. (Des. News, March 30, 1935, p. 6)

Renewal of covenants . . he [Brigham Young] now proposed to them a solemn renewal of their covenants to righteousness, a new avowal of their acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ by baptism, President Young himself to set the example. * * * This procedure, however, must not be regarded as casting any doubt upon the validity of their original baptism, or repudiation of it as a sacrament. It was only to make more solemn the renewal of covenants with God. (CHC 3:286-287)

Entrance into the Salt Lake Valley
I will here state that Martin Harris, when he came to this Territory a few years ago, was rebaptized the same as every member of the Church from distant parts is on arriving here. That seems to be a kind of standing ordinance for all Latter-day Saints who emigrate here, from the First Presidency down; all are rebaptized and set out anew by renewing their covenants. (Orson Pratt, JD 18:160)

Entering the United Order
On January 2, he (John Bushman) was baptized into the United Order by Wm. H. Winn and confirmed by Israel Evans, same day. This was the instructions from the Church Authorities, that all renew their covenants and work in the United Order. (John Bushman Diary, p. 31)

[130] Remission of sins
I was baptized first in 1832, and I was baptized the next time when I came out here to Utah. I was baptized first for the remission of sins. Was baptized the second time for the same thing. I came out here in 1847 and was rebaptized then. When I came out here I was baptized again renewing my covenants and also for the remission of sins that I might have committed in taking this long and tedious journey through all these mountains and canyons. (Joseph C. Kingsbury, Temple Lot Case, p. 340)

Because of lost records
The purpose of rebaptism, as before mentioned, was not just for the individuals who had lost their records. Although many records were lost, the purpose of rebaptism at this time was for a renewal of covenants and remission of sins. (Rebaptism, Ogden Kraut, p. 24)

Entering marriage
It was customary in those days to be rebaptized before being married. This young couple adhered to that practice, though one foot of ice in Big Creek had to be broken in order to do so. (Life of George F. Richards, p. 😎

Reinstatement into the Church . . This Council was called to re-consider the case of Orson Pratt, who had previously been cut off from the quorum of the Twelve for the neglect of duty; and Amasa Lyman had been ordained an Apostle in his place. I told the Council that as there was not a quorum present when Orson Pratt’s case came up before them, that he was still a member, that he had not been cut off legally, and I would find some other place for Amasa Lyman to which the Council agreed. President Young said there were but three present when Amasa was ordained. I told them that was legal when no more could be had. * * *
At three o’clock, Council adjourned to my house, and at four I baptized Orson Pratt and his wife, Sarah Marinda, and Lidia Granger in the Mississippi River, [131] and confirmed them in the Church, ordaining Orson Pratt to his former office and standing in the Quorum of the Twelve. (“History of Joseph Smith,” Mill. Star 20:423)

After fornication
Nov. 27th, 1889 (at Fillmore) –two young unmarried people have committed fornication. Bro. Kelly (1st counselor in Stake Pres.) was told that on asking forgiveness, they should be permitted to receive rebaptism and not be cut off; but where persons thus sin who have received their endowments, they must be excommunicated. (Abraham Cannon Journal, p. 197)

To fulfill all righteousness
I will refer again to the brethren and sisters who have lately come over the plains. My counsel to them today is, as it has been on former occasions to all who have come into these valleys, go and be baptized for the remission of sins, repenting of all your wanderings from the path of righteousness, believing firmly, in the name of Jesus Christ, that all your sins will be washed away. If any of you inquire what is the necessity of your being baptized, as you have not committed any sins, I answer, it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness. (Brigham Young, JD 2:8)

For a spiritual revival
Now it was almost a general thing through England that the Saints were being rebaptized, for they had many and mostly become old and cold and it required a renewal of covenants and fresh works together with more faith and diligence, to give the work new impetus and revive the dropping spirits of the Saints and the work generally. (Oliver Huntington Diary, Feb. 7, 1847, p. 114)

My advice to you is, go and be baptized for the remission of sins, and start afresh, that temptation may not overcome you again; pause and reflect, that you be not overcome by the evil one unawares. (Brigham Young, JD 1:324)

[132] Brigham Young’s advice regarding rebaptism as a Priesthood law is just as applicable and important today as when he first gave it:

In the first place, if you were rebaptized for the remission of sins, peradventure you may receive again the Spirit of the gospel in its glory, light and beauty; but if your hearts are so engrossed in the things of this world, that you do not know whether you want to be rebaptized or not, you had better shut yourselves up in some canyon or closet, to repent of your sins, and call upon the name of the Lord, until you get His spirit, and the light thereof. . . . (JD 1:324)

Since it is obvious that we commit many more sins after we turn eight years old than before, rebaptism is a significant and beautiful ordinance. The Lord seemed to recognize its importance because many spiritual gifts attended this ordinance.

But as essential as it is, the ordinance of rebaptism didn’t last long in the LDS Church. In the October conference of 1897, an announcement was made to diminish the popular practice of rebaptism. George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency, declared:

We hear a good deal of talk about rebaptism, and the First Presidency and Twelve have felt that so much rebaptism ought to be stopped. (Conf. Rept., Oct. 1897, p. 680)

The practice was gradually discontinued altogether. Rebaptism was no longer a privilege, an option or a requirement. It was forbidden within the Church–thus discontinuing another doctrine of the Priesthood.

[133]
8. Conferring and ordaining to Priesthood

Priesthood has been defined as the authority to act in God’s name, which entails officiating in the ordinances and operations of the Gospel. Joseph Smith said that Priesthood “is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven.” (TPJS, pp. 166-167)

The Church, on the other hand, is the organization through which this authority, or Priesthood, can function in an orderly manner.

However, obtaining the Priesthood and obtaining an office in the Church are two different procedures. For instance, we don’t ordain a man to an office in the Church and suppose he has obtained the Priesthood.

There is a definite set of words to be used for baptism (See D & C 20:73) and for the Lord’s Supper (See D & C 20:77-79). The Prophet Joseph explained, “There are certain key words and signs belonging to the Priesthood which must be observed in order to obtain the blessing.” (TPJS, p. 199) When John the Baptist gave the Priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, he used certain key words. According to Joseph Smith, John the Baptist said:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, . . . (DHC 1:39)

Joseph added that,

The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist. . . . (DHC 1:40)

[134] Then, according to Oliver Cowdery, “when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, `Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this priesthood and this authority, . . .'”

Brigham Young had been counseled by Joseph Smith as to the difference between conferring Priesthood and ordaining to an office in the Priesthood or Church. Said Brother Brigham:

The Prophet came to us many times, saying, “Brethren, you are going to ordain Seventies. Do not forget to confer the High Priesthood upon them and to be one of the Seventy Apostles.” That was my language in the ordination of the Seventies, and that is the way I ordain them now. (Des. Weekly News 26:274)

John Taylor was questioned as to the appropriate wording and he responded by saying he wasn’t sure, but if there was any question over someone being ordained, then do it over. However, in 1881 he was assured of “conferring” Priesthood first because he mentioned the word six times in one paragraph. (See JD 26:106)

This procedure of first conferring Priesthood and then ordaining to an office was followed from 1830 to 1921. At that time an official statement was issued by the First Presidency (under Heber J. Grant) changing the wording. They felt that they had been making a mistake by giving everyone the Priesthood since everyone in the Church functioned under the authority and keys of President Grant’s Priesthood. The missionary handbook contained the wording as changed on April 26, 1921:

[135] ORDAINING TO THE
MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD

Calling the candidate by name–“By (or in) the authority of the holy priesthood and by the laying on of hands, I (or we) ordain you an Elder (or whatever the office may be) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you all the rights, powers, and authority pertaining to this office and calling in the holy Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.”
Such words of blessing as the spirit may dictate may be included.

Missionary Handbook, 1946, p. 141

However, 36 years later the question was brought up again to President David O. McKay. He evidently thought the wording was incorrect and changed it back, as follows:

(Use full name) by the authority of the Holy Priesthood in us vested, we lay our hands upon your head and confer on you the Priesthood of Melchizedek, and ordain you an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and bestow upon you all the rights, powers and authority pertaining to this office and calling in the Melchizedek Priesthood, and we do this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

This wording has been used since April 1957.

[136] There is no office in the Church that possesses equal or greater authority than the Priesthood itself. No office gives authority to the Priesthood; rather all offices receive their authority from the Priesthood. The tail does not wag the dog.

Some say this is a “distinction without a difference” and that “either will do” and consider this a small technicality; however many Supreme Court cases are won or lost by a small but important technicality. It is important to remember that no one can receive the authority of the Priesthood by merely being appointed to an office which is an appendage of the Priesthood.

We must believe that either a mistake was made for nearly 100 years and then corrected, or that it was correct at first and then was incorrectly changed.
Because of this change, serious problems have resulted: (1) During the 36 years when men were given offices in the Church without first having Priesthood conferred, did they actually receive the Priesthood? (2) Can they pass on Priesthood authority or just ordain to an office? (3) How many thousands of men today hold merely an office in the Church without actual Priesthood authority?

President John Taylor is attributed to have made the following prophetic statements regarding Priesthood:

“I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president and that there would be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them.” (John Taylor, quoted in Lorin C. Woolley Statement, Sept. 22, 1929)
[137]
President John Taylor spoke of the time when the Constitution of the United States would hang as by a thread; the fullness of the Priesthood would also hang by a thread. (Truth magazine 15:40)

In 1901 President Joseph F. Smith clearly explained the proper procedure for conferring Priesthood:

Conferring the Priesthood. The revelation in Section 107, Doctrine and Covenants, verses 1, 5, 6, 7, 21 clearly points out that the Priesthood is a general authority of qualification, with certain offices or authorities appended thereto. Consequently the conferring of the Priesthood should precede and accompany ordination to office, unless it be possessed by previous bestowal and ordination. Surely a man cannot possess an appendage to the Priesthood without possessing the Priesthood itself, which he cannot obtain unless it be authoritatively conferred upon him.
Take, for instance, the office of a deacon: the person ordained should have the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon him in connection with his ordination. He cannot receive a portion or fragment of the Aaronic Priesthood, because that would be acting on the idea that either or both of the (Melchizedek and Aaronic) Priesthoods were subject to subdivision, which is contrary to the revelation.
In ordaining those who have not yet received the Aaronic Priesthood, to any office therein, the words of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery, would be appropriate to immediately precede the act of ordination. They are:
“Upon you my fellow servants [servant], in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron.”
Of course, it would not necessarily follow that these exact words should be used, but the language should be consistent with the act of conferring the Aaronic Priesthood. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 136-137)

[138] In referring to both wordings, George Q. Cannon was of the opinion that it didn’t matter which was used:

“I confer upon you the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordain you an Elder, or, I ordain you an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood, or whatever the office conferred may be. * * * Consequently, we are of the opinion that both are acceptable to Him. . . .” (Gospel Truths, Cannon, 1:237)

However, Cannon gave another answer without knowing it when he said, “A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain. In the affairs of the Kingdom of God a man cannot bestow that which he has not received.” (Ibid., 1:237)

The Lord has said that all the offices in the Church are appendages to the Priesthood. (See D & C 107:5) Therefore, Priesthood is not an appendage to the offices of the Church. Many ancient prophets held the Priesthood without being an Elder in a church. The Priesthood can create an elder, but an elder cannot create Priesthood.

Keeping in mind the period of time when there was no conferral of Priesthood (1921 to 1957) in the LDS Church, consider the years that our current First Presidency and Twelve Apostles were born. Do a little simple math and add 20 years on to the date of their birthdays, which would probably be the earliest time of their ordination, and it is evident that all of them (with one possible exception) fall into the critical time period when Priesthood conferral was non-existent. Hence, it is possible that all of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are without any Melchizedek Priesthood.

[139] Members of the First Presidency

Name Birthdate

Gordon B. Hinckley June 23, 1910
Thomas Monson Aug. 21, 1927
James Faust July 31, 1920

Quorum of Twelve Apostles
Boyd Packer Sept. 10, 1924
Tom Perry Aug. 5, 1922
David Haight Sept. 2, 1922
Neal Maxwell July 6, 1926
Russell Nelson Sept. 9, 1924
Dallen Oaks Aug. 12, 1932
Russell Ballard Oct. 8, 1926
Joseph Wirthlin June 11, 1917
Richard Scott Nov. 7, 1928
Robert Hales Aug. 24, 1932
Jeffrey Holland Dec. 3, 1940
Henry Eyring May 31, 1933

Blogtalkradio:

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/fundamentallymormon/2024/09/18/20-priesthood-laws-and-evidences-p3-of-ch8-of-the-church-and-the-priesthood

iTunes:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000669904269

Next episode:

Part 4

TWENTY PRIESTHOOD LAWS AND EVIDENCES, part 3 of Chapter 8 of The Church and The Priesthood Pages 128 to 139 Rebaptism Nearly all Mormons are aware of the doct