Secret anointings and succession

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3379

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Juliet »

If an anointing is true then the Holy Spirit will bear witness to it. King David was secretly anointed in his childhood home. God then had to bless David such that his life brought forth the fruit of the Spirit of God. Then, in time; people came to accept his anointing. But it was not an easy journey to gain access to the throne and jurisdiction over all 12 tribes of Israel. He even had the previous King trying to kill him, after he had his anointing.

In other words, if God anoints you in secret, He also is responsible for bringing about your life's mission and calling such that you are preserved and eventually recognized for the Spirit of God, and God's hand on your life. And this will be by the fruits of God in your life, and by people's ability to recognize them.

To maintain any calling based upon the priesthood alone is not doctrinal.

D&C 121: 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by inho »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Some are still making the claim that it is the secret anointings of the 12 that gave them their authority to lead the church after Joseph's death. Here are a few questions that that line of thinking brings up.

1. Why didn't the 12 upon the death of Joseph make reference to these anointings. Why not make the claim to the saints that an anointed King and Priest includes being a prophet and is higher than a prophet.
2. Why would BY say you are now without a prophet to lead you.
3. If the 12 really thought this and if they knew the Nauvoo High Council was equal in authority to the 12, why wouldn't they defer to Stake President William Marks who outranked them in all secret ordinations?
4. If secret ordinations matter, why did the 12 not continue making the senior 'King' the next prophet instead of resorting back to the senior Apostle? Why is it still seniority of an apostle to this day?
5. If First Presidency apostles fall back into the quorum according to seniority, why didn't Sydney fall back in as the senior apostle?

My point is, there is only this one time in history when believers of the secret anointing doctrine say it is applicable for seniority. It is important to note here that there is no revelation from the Lord instituting these secret works.

Everything about the priesthood and its offices and responsibilities was described by the Lord through revelation, but all of sudden that pattern stops, and non-scriptural ordinations take over.
Luke already answered these questions, so I will mostly just repeat what he said.
  1. When contending with Sydney (who had not received 2nd anointing), the Twelve did several veiled and not-so-veiled references to the anointing.
    This lead Sydney to administer his own version of washing and anointing to the dissidents that were with him - this he did without authority or proper knowledge of the ordinance. That was a factor in his excommunication too.
  2. A prophet is not the same as the President of the Church. Brigham didn't feel prophetic - can't really blame him, it is tough to be compared to Joseph. Interestingly, he did receive some revelations, and thus I count him as a "real" prophet.
    Also, 'Prophet' was a word they widely used to refer to Joseph. This they did despite there were others who prophesied (H.C. Kimball is one who is famous for exercising the gift of prophecy).
  3. Marks would have had pretty good case for being the next leader, if he had wanted to be. Joseph was so unclear about the succession that there were several possibilities. Twelve didn't like Marks due to his anti-polygamy stance. They opposed him, since the felt that the principle of polygamy was so important that it was necessary to make sure that it is not lost.
  4. Your concept of seniority is anachronistic. Nobody is claiming that the seniority in being ordained King and Priest decided the succession. Especially, since the First Presidency was not reorganize until in Winter Quarters. It is crucial to understand that at first the 12 as a body where selected as successors. So seniority did not play any role.
    Also, during the next decades following Joseph's death, the way the seniority in Q12 was decided was changed several times (there where changes such as time outside the quorum resets the seniority, which send Orson Pratt several steps back; and changes between being ordained apostle and being admitted to the quorum, which made Brigham Jr. to stay in the end of the list event though he was ordained in very young age).
  5. Correct me if I am wrong, but Sydney was never ordained in the office of apostle. Thus he could not fall back to the Q12. I think there have been cases in 20th century, when FP has had an (extra?) councilor who was not apostle. In those cases, after the death of the president the non-apostle does not became part of a quorum he has never belonged to.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

darknesstolight wrote: August 9th, 2022, 5:15 pm I'm not sure "secret" anointing are antithetical to the restored gospel.
Second anointings done secretly are just fine, it's a personal thing anyway. Teaching and establishing entire doctrines in secrecy is what is antithetical to the gospel. The Lord establishes how his church operates openly and gives them written revelations where he himself testifies leaving his witness open to all.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Baurak Ale wrote: August 9th, 2022, 5:34 pm James Strang came in at that gate.
I love how you are thinking outside the box, and I would never presume to tell God what he can and can't do, but I don't see that as coming in at the same gate. Yes, he received an appointment letter from Joseph, but Section 43 teaches that it is a revelation that appoints referencing past precedent where the revelations were laid before the church. This section also says he is to be ordained, meaning openly before the church.

To understand this section better we only have to look to Hyrum Smith. Hyrum fulfills all these criteria in this section. He was called by direct revelation through a revelation that was published and known to the church. He was then ordained before the church. Interestingly though, we later only have Joseph saying that he would no longer be their prophet and that Hyrum would be their prophet.

I have tried giving Strange his due diligence, actually. I just got stuck halfway through his book.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:02 pm Hyrum was appointed by JS but he died.

So what else were the people to do? Joseph certainly did not appoint Sidney Rigdon.

They voted in Brigham, who had the right to due to:

1. Him receiving the second anointing (Fullness of Priesthood)
2. Him being part of Joseph’s inner circle who he gave the commission to carry on his work

He was the only one who met these two requirements who stepped forward for leadership.
There are two things here that can be true at the same time.

1. This section can also be foretelling what will happen. That Joseph and his only appointed successor would be taken and that the saints would then be entering the "little season" with what truth they had to prepare them to eventually redeem Zion when the time comes.

2. That voting out an ordained PSR after God has told them that with even just one member, the Presidency is still intact, has consequences. It is literally a latter-day repeat of voting for a king to rule over you and not a prophet.

So yes, I agree, Sydney would not have meant the church could have continued as is because of this section, but he was still the only one available who could receive the oracles and they could have at least had revelations telling them what went wrong. The church voted out an intact First Presidency and thereby voted out the oracles.

Stepping forward for leadership is much appreciated but it is a far cry from being called by God through his appointed channels and coming in at the gate.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:06 pm Kirtland was technically all of the the Fullness of the Priesthood (as they had the power to seal up to eternal life) but they didn’t understand all the principles and ordinances connected with it.

The Lord took it away (we agree on this) and when He restored it anew, it was restored along with the relevant principles and ordinances which Joseph had learned.
I think you are stretching here, but I do see where you are coming from. One thing that is fair to ask is why the revelatory omission of these new things. After the Nephites lived the fulness for 200 years, why is there no hint of Nauvoo teachings in the writings of Mormon and Moroni?

We shift to entirely new spiritual ground accompanied by a dearth of revelation explaining it.
Last edited by Shawn Henry on August 10th, 2022, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:06 pm Also the Lord said nothing about “not following secret works to Utah”.

Also, whether BY understood that or not is irrelevant. No doubt he got Priesthood confused after JS’ death, that’s just a fact when you look at the loss of JS’ teachings wholesale post-martyrdom. But BY was the man for the job, and Joseph even prophesied that he would lead the Church.
I acknowledge that is simply my interpretation of that verse of the Savior I quoted.

Joseph did prophecy that BY would lead the church, along with 8 other forms of succession (which is why we default to scripture), but there are two relevant points there.

1. This would be a prophecy would be true whether it meant lead it for good or lead it for bad. I'm sure it may have been prophesied that King Noah would lead his priests and his people.
2. That quote by some sources is cut short. I know Quinn in his book list two sources that say JS said BY would lead it to hell.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Chris wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:50 pm I understand people getting antied and leaving, i understand people becomming less active. Never in my life did i think the devil could also get a group of people together who believe Joseph Smith is a "PROPHET" and yet the church he started, the prophecies he made and the church he organized are false and fell into apostacy, even though every book of scripture talks about the destinys of that church including Joseph and yet yall deny it all.
Chris, that was a lot of raw unprocessed emotion that came through in your post. There is nothing wrong with letting reason and intellect into the picture, but perhaps after your emotions have finished peaking.

For the record, I reject a large portion of the DOC group's thinking and doctrine. Second, I'm all for Second Anointings. I'm simply saying they have no bearing on apostolic seniority and leadership. There is no scripture linking the two concepts.

I would like to respond to the above portion I selected and hopefully I can do so while reigning in my emotions.

First off, I am and always will be faithful to the scriptures, in particular, the ones JS brought forth. My personal definition of apostacy would be any deviation from the scriptures he brought forth. I assume we both believe that one day God's house will be set in order, per the spirit of prophecy that was in Joseph. If you think it is already in order and that it cannot be set in order, then you are the one with the lack of faith in God's word and would be more prone to the path of apostacy than I would.

My intent is to be faithful to what JS revealed, that is why the OP referenced Section 43. Do you believe section 43? Why do you seem so willing to throw it under the bus?

Isn't it strange how a person who believes the words of Christ in section 43 and says he believes them is called apostate by someone who apparently does not believe them? How does that work?

As far as the "church" and the "prophecies" about it, this is where you are lacking. The scriptures are clear that the restoration is a future event. They are clear that there will be no rain (revelation)in the vineyard. The scriptures are clear that the bride of Christ (the church) is sometimes faithful and sometimes unfaithful.

All that having been said, what is your understanding of the first 7 verses of section 43? What do you see in the meaning of coming in at the gate?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Thanks for that, l agree with much, but let me add where I push back. I'll put my additions in red if my lack of technical prowess will allow it, lol.
inho wrote: August 10th, 2022, 11:33 am
  1. When contending with Sydney (who had not received 2nd anointing), the Twelve did several veiled and not-so-veiled references to the anointing.
    This lead Sydney to administer his own version of washing and anointing to the dissidents that were with him - this he did without authority or proper knowledge of the ordinance. That was a factor in his excommunication too. The First Presidency is the presiding quorum, per the D&C they receive the oracles for the church. So it is at least an odd claim by the 12 that they would have authority that bypasses the First Presidency, even if just one member thereof. Also per the D&C, Joseph can't give any authority to Sydney because the Lord already made him "equal in holding the keys" so any authority Joseph had would be automatically had by Sydney as well.
  2. A prophet is not the same as the President of the Church. Brigham didn't feel prophetic - can't really blame him, it is tough to be compared to Joseph. Interestingly, he did receive some revelations, and thus I count him as a "real" prophet. This comment completely avoids the main point that he did not come in at the gate as described in section 43. Do you see the problem, this section, by the Lord's own words is the recipe for avoiding deceptive revelations. No matter what you slice it, Joseph never produces a revelation appointed BY. Matter of fact, all who were previously called to the First Presidency were never called from the 12 and the 12 conversely were never ordained PSR's.
    Also, 'Prophet' was a word they widely used to refer to Joseph. This they did despite there were others who prophesied (H.C. Kimball is one who is famous for exercising the gift of prophecy).
  3. Marks would have had pretty good case for being the next leader, if he had wanted to be. Joseph was so unclear about the succession that there were several possibilities. Twelve didn't like Marks due to his anti-polygamy stance. They opposed him, since the felt that the principle of polygamy was so important that it was necessary to make sure that it is not lost. Yes, 8 different possibilities of succession according to Quinn, but that is so not the point when you consider that we already have the words of Christ on the matter laid out in the D&C. I'll never understand our propensity to not even consider his words, but rather, default to JS. Shouldn't Christ's words be considered first? Shouldn't his words trump 10 Joseph Smiths? And hence the point of section 43.
  4. Your concept of seniority is anachronistic. Nobody is claiming that the seniority in being ordained King and Priest decided the succession. Especially, since the First Presidency was not reorganize until in Winter Quarters. It is crucial to understand that at first the 12 as a body where selected as successors. So seniority did not play any role. Actually, I think Luke makes that claim or at least so is my understanding, but I agree, the 12 were selected. BY's political savvy got them voted in and they voted against an actual ordained PSR. The point here is though, according to the D&C the First Presidency was still intact. The Lord had declared that any member of the First Presidency could function as the First Presidency in the absence of either or both members. The 12 even admit this inadvertently when they specifically resort to bringing Sydney to trial according to procedures outlined in the D&C for trying members of the First Presidency. This disbanding of the First Presidency upon the death of the President nonsense is a BY creation, as is calling apostles PSR's.
    Also, during the next decades following Joseph's death, the way the seniority in Q12 was decided was changed several times (there where changes such as time outside the quorum resets the seniority, which send Orson Pratt several steps back; and changes between being ordained apostle and being admitted to the quorum, which made Brigham Jr. to stay in the end of the list event though he was ordained in very young age).
  5. Correct me if I am wrong, but Sydney was never ordained in the office of apostle. Thus he could not fall back to the Q12. I think there have been cases in 20th century, when FP has had an (extra?) councilor who was not apostle. In those cases, after the death of the president the non-apostle does not became part of a quorum he has never belonged to.
Two points here. 1. The Lord refers to him as such in revelations, but yes, it was not a specific calling. Those did not begin until 1835. The Lord also refers to Joseph as an apostle and we would have no problem ascribing as much to him. 2. The calling and ordination to be a PSR is clearly well above an apostle. I can't imagine calling a priest and thinking that he can't do everything a deacon could. Kinda silly, right? Maybe a third point here as well. Sydney wasn't only called as a PSR, but was chosen as well. This is shown through his Throne Theophany experience in section 76 where he and JS, just as the great prophets of old, were called up to heaven to witness Christ on the right hand of the Father and to hear a voice bear witness. Doesn't get more prophet than that. We also have to consider he is the spokesman prophesied of 2 Ne 3 in the Joseph the Seer prophecy. He is the one called to declare the word that the Seer receives.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9413
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 10th, 2022, 2:47 pm Thanks for that, l agree with much, but let me add where I push back. I'll put my additions in red if my lack of technical prowess will allow it, lol.
inho wrote: August 10th, 2022, 11:33 am [*] Your concept of seniority is anachronistic. Nobody is claiming that the seniority in being ordained King and Priest decided the succession. Especially, since the First Presidency was not reorganize until in Winter Quarters. It is crucial to understand that at first the 12 as a body where selected as successors. So seniority did not play any role. Actually, I think Luke makes that claim or at least so is my understanding, but I agree, the 12 were selected.
No, I've already stated twice that it doesn't matter who was ordained as a K&P first.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 10th, 2022, 2:47 pm The calling and ordination to be a PSR is clearly well above an apostle. I can't imagine calling a priest and thinking that he can't do everything a deacon could. Kinda silly, right? Maybe a third point here as well. Sydney wasn't only called as a PSR, but was chosen as well. This is shown through his Throne Theophany experience in section 76 where he and JS, just as the great prophets of old, were called up to heaven to witness Christ on the right hand of the Father and to hear a voice bear witness. Doesn't get more prophet than that. We also have to consider he is the spokesman prophesied of 2 Ne 3 in the Joseph the Seer prophecy. He is the one called to declare the word that the Seer receives.
And a King and Priest is above a PSR. Joseph clearly taught that the office of King and Priest embodied all lesser offices. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
  • There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter
    1st Levitical which was neve able to administer a Blessing but only to bind heavy burdens which neither they nor their fath wer able to bear.
    2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church
    3d That of melchisedec who had still greater power even power of endless Life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarc only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man & No man can attain to the Joint heirship with Jesus Christ with out bein administered to by one having the same power & Authority of Melchisede
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... richards/1

Also, doesn't matter that Sidney had a Throne Theophany. He fell from his station. Just like many others did.

Chris
captain of 100
Posts: 319

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Chris »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 10th, 2022, 1:41 pm
Chris wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:50 pm I understand people getting antied and leaving, i understand people becomming less active. Never in my life did i think the devil could also get a group of people together who believe Joseph Smith is a "PROPHET" and yet the church he started, the prophecies he made and the church he organized are false and fell into apostacy, even though every book of scripture talks about the destinys of that church including Joseph and yet yall deny it all.
Chris, that was a lot of raw unprocessed emotion that came through in your post. There is nothing wrong with letting reason and intellect into the picture, but perhaps after your emotions have finished peaking.

For the record, I reject a large portion of the DOC group's thinking and doctrine. Second, I'm all for Second Anointings. I'm simply saying they have no bearing on apostolic seniority and leadership. There is no scripture linking the two concepts.

I would like to respond to the above portion I selected and hopefully I can do so while reigning in my emotions.

First off, I am and always will be faithful to the scriptures, in particular, the ones JS brought forth. My personal definition of apostacy would be any deviation from the scriptures he brought forth. I assume we both believe that one day God's house will be set in order, per the spirit of prophecy that was in Joseph. If you think it is already in order and that it cannot be set in order, then you are the one with the lack of faith in God's word and would be more prone to the path of apostacy than I would.

My intent is to be faithful to what JS revealed, that is why the OP referenced Section 43. Do you believe section 43? Why do you seem so willing to throw it under the bus?

Isn't it strange how a person who believes the words of Christ in section 43 and says he believes them is called apostate by someone who apparently does not believe them? How does that work?

As far as the "church" and the "prophecies" about it, this is where you are lacking. The scriptures are clear that the restoration is a future event. They are clear that there will be no rain (revelation)in the vineyard. The scriptures are clear that the bride of Christ (the church) is sometimes faithful and sometimes unfaithful.

All that having been said, what is your understanding of the first 7 verses of section 43? What do you see in the meaning of coming in at the gate?
Fair enough, section 43 was written specifically because of the false prophets that were popping up at with wild tales and revelations. One guy even had a seer stone so to speak. This whole section is on the lord laying out that the revelations of the church at that time ( this is prior to any apostles being called ) come only through joseph and those he appoints.

If you stuck clearly with the scriptures i wouldnt have to much of a problem with tgat. But you dont, ypu already said you dont believe 132.

Did you watch tge video i attached to my last post, i dont know how you can ignore that.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11221
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Robin Hood »

Luke wrote: August 10th, 2022, 2:58 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 10th, 2022, 12:30 am
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:02 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:55 pm
Explain how and when they "came in at the gate".

2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Can you at least have the intellectually honesty to admit that BY never came in at the above-described gate? There is no revelation from JS authorizing BY to receive revelations from the Lord.
Hyrum was appointed by JS but he died.

So what else were the people to do? Joseph certainly did not appoint Sidney Rigdon.

They voted in Brigham, who had the right to due to:

1. Him receiving the second anointing (Fullness of Priesthood)
2. Him being part of Joseph’s inner circle who he gave the commission to carry on his work

He was the only one who met these two requirements who stepped forward for leadership.
The people voted for the Twelve to lead, not specifically for Brigham.
True. Brigham presided as head of the Twelve.
Technically yes, but the Twelve were collectively the presidency of the church.
Brigham may have been president of the Twelve, but that did not make him president of the church.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 10th, 2022, 2:54 pm And a King and Priest is above a PSR. Joseph clearly taught that the office of King and Priest embodied all lesser offices. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
I don't mean to seem like I'm ignoring it, I'm not. I do agree he taught that, but why doesn't the Lord teach it? The Lord doesn't even confirm that there are 3 Grand Orders of Priesthood, never mind changing the structure laid out in the D&C.

How can we say for sure that this teaching comes from the Lord, especially considering Joseph himself taught that sometimes he speaks as a man. We don't know for sure, that is why we wait till the Lord confirms it. Also, why does the BoM teach that a Seer is the greatest gift there is?

You say it encompasses all lesser offices, but if the 12 believed that, why didn't they say as much when they took control of the church? Why didn't they say, no worries, the entire 12 are Kings and Priests and are therefore also PSR's.

Also, if every call to the First Presidency to be a PSR came through a revelation where we could witness the call was from the Lord, why wouldn't higher calls merit a witness from the Lord. What if the 12 were called but not chosen?

Did any of the 12 even ever make the claim that the heavens opened, and they heard the Lord's voice confirm their anointing?

Why didn't the Lord mention any of this in section 124? Why the call to Hyrum calling him as a PSR? Why not just call him to be a King and Priest? Where is Joseph's call from the Lord to be a King and Priest?

If Joseph had authority to ordain to this position, then so did Sydney, right? The Lord made him equal with Joseph in holding the keys.

How about we both put forth more effort in understanding each other's concerns and answering questions.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 10th, 2022, 2:54 pm
Also, doesn't matter that Sidney had a Throne Theophany. He fell from his station. Just like many others did.
How did he fall? He got voted out. His trial after was a sham. The 12 were against because he refused to accept polygamy. His callings came by direct revelation from the Lord, and he fulfilled them honorably.

Besides, the 12 had no right to force any member of the First Presidency to obey their will. The First Presidency is a higher position, and it was still intact after Joseph's death according to the D&C.

Imagine a quorum of deacons meeting together to undermine a teacher or priest, it doesn't work that way. You are being completely unfair and showing your bias.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Chris wrote: August 10th, 2022, 7:12 pm Fair enough, section 43 was written specifically because of the false prophets that were popping up at with wild tales and revelations. One guy even had a seer stone so to speak. This whole section is on the lord laying out that the revelations of the church at that time ( this is prior to any apostles being called ) come only through joseph and those he appoints.

If you stuck clearly with the scriptures i wouldnt have to much of a problem with tgat. But you dont, ypu already said you dont believe 132.

Did you watch tge video i attached to my last post, i dont know how you can ignore that.
Yes, I watched the video, thank you for referencing it. The problem is none are contemporary accounts. Here is a short paragraph from historian Richard Van Wagoner in his article "The making of a Mormon Myth".

"The earliest detailed accounts of a purported transfiguration did not begin to surface until long after the Saints were
settled in the Great Basin. The fact that no account was included in “Joseph Smith’s History,” completed in August
1856, or in The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, completed before his 1857 death, suggests that the myth was not
fully developed by this period."

Here is the full article if you want to read it. http://ww.w.mormonismi.net/pdf/myth_creation.pdf

Even if such an event occurred, we still have the process outlined by the Lord in section 43 violated. The Lord says very clearly that he is giving us this so we will not believe any other revelations. Joseph is the only one to canonize revelations, unless he appoints someone through a revelation from the Lord. This means none of the 1876 additions to the D&C should have been added, including section 132.

The only critic you should really be able to level at me is that I take the Lord at his word too literally and I can live with that.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by inho »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 2:52 pm Notice there is an "if it be taken from him" clause in these verses. If it be taken would include being taken due to him being taken through death. Even if that were to happen, the Lord says he would have power to appoint someone in his stead.
I disagree with this. "It taken from him" sounds to me quite different than "him taken through death".

Also, I don't see how D&C 43 could be used to defend Sidney's right to succession. Being a counselor to president does not necessarily make one successor to president. It could, but this section does not say it clearly enough so that this would be a silver bullet against all the other potions.

Anyway, it is also important not to read things anachronistically. Church organization was quite different in 1831. And in this revelation Lord speaks according to the church structure of the time. Things get more complicated when more leadership positions are established. Even the First Presidency wasn't established yet. You should quote D&C 81:2 instead, but with the understanding that the church organisation kept evolving after 1832 too.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

inho wrote: August 11th, 2022, 5:59 am I disagree with this. "It taken from him" sounds to me quite different than "him taken through death".

Also, I don't see how D&C 43 could be used to defend Sidney's right to succession. Being a counselor to president does not necessarily make one successor to president. It could, but this section does not say it clearly enough so that this would be a silver bullet against all the other potions.

Anyway, it is also important not to read things anachronistically. Church organization was quite different in 1831. And in this revelation Lord speaks according to the church structure of the time. Things get more complicated when more leadership positions are established. Even the First Presidency wasn't established yet. You should quote D&C 81:2 instead, but with the understanding that the church organisation kept evolving after 1832 too.
Look again and you will see both ways used.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

Either way, the Lord is saying that any successive individual would have to be ordained like Joseph was. We learn from section 21 about how Joseph was ordained. There was a specific revelation where the Lord declares what his role is and that revelation is to be kept on record and the Lord even appoints by revelation the specific person who is to ordain him. Either way, this is not the gate BY entered in at. There is no revelation from the Lord whatsoever. Why would the Lord give us this as a key to avoid deception and not ordain BY as Joseph? I think it is clear that the time for 'no rain' in the vineyard was to commence.

I agree with you that section 43 does not give Sydney the right to succession. Matter of fact, there is automatically the same issue. There is no appointment from Joseph. The First Presidency was still intact, nonetheless. It was still the presiding authority. No keys were lost because Sydney had every key Joseph had.

I don't think the Lord views things chronistically, so I'm not worried about us viewing them anachronistically. I think he gives this pattern of avoiding deception already having the view of when and where the deception will come. Yes, the church grows and evolves, but only revelation can modify existing revelation. Typically, Presidents of the Church simply countermand revelation with a simple policy change, as if policy could trump revelation or excuse leaders for the inability to provide new revelations.

Yes, D&C 81:2 is a good scripture to include.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by inho »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:05 pm Look again and you will see both ways used.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.
No, I don't see the both ways. It talks about appointing a successor only in the case of the gift being taken from Joseph. Yes, it says that while Joseph lives, he is the one to receive commandments and revelations. But it does not say that Joseph should/shall appoint someone to take his place after his death.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:05 pm Either way, the Lord is saying that any successive individual would have to be ordained like Joseph was. We learn from section 21 about how Joseph was ordained.
In April 1830 there were only two offices in the church: the first elder and the second elder. Thus, the revelation comes from a very different time and church organization than what was in Nauvoo after Joseph's death. One cannot directly apply it to so different context.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:05 pm I don't think the Lord views things chronistically, so I'm not worried about us viewing them anachronistically. I think he gives this pattern of avoiding deception already having the view of when and where the deception will come.
I think this is where our views differ the most. When talking about eternal principles, time is irrelevant concept to God. But God also cares about us in the here and now. So, when he talks about the organization of the church, he speaks for that time and place.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:05 pm Yes, the church grows and evolves, but only revelation can modify existing revelation.
And Joseph received many such revelations. Church evolved from what it was at the time of D&C 21, or D&C 43, or D&C 81. The context of those revelations matters.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

inho wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:44 pm But it does not say that Joseph should/shall appoint someone to take his place after his death.
Let's suppose for a minute that we are in agreement with that. When then of coming in at the gate and being ordained as Joseph was?

I understand what you are saying about church organization changing. I guess, what I'm uncomfortable with is revelation setting a precedent followed by that precedent not being followed and no revelation explaining why the first revelation was abandoned. Why even warns us that anyone receiving revelation for the church must come in the same gate as Joseph when that warning would never be applicable. Why set a precedent only to not follow that precedent?

I'm not trying to change anyone's thinking, but I suppose it would be nice if I could find someone who could at least say, 'I do see your point, though.'

Chris
captain of 100
Posts: 319

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Chris »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 1:03 am
Chris wrote: August 10th, 2022, 7:12 pm Fair enough, section 43 was written specifically because of the false prophets that were popping up at with wild tales and revelations. One guy even had a seer stone so to speak. This whole section is on the lord laying out that the revelations of the church at that time ( this is prior to any apostles being called ) come only through joseph and those he appoints.

If you stuck clearly with the scriptures i wouldnt have to much of a problem with tgat. But you dont, ypu already said you dont believe 132.

Did you watch tge video i attached to my last post, i dont know how you can ignore that.
Yes, I watched the video, thank you for referencing it. The problem is none are contemporary accounts. Here is a short paragraph from historian Richard Van Wagoner in his article "The making of a Mormon Myth".

"The earliest detailed accounts of a purported transfiguration did not begin to surface until long after the Saints were
settled in the Great Basin. The fact that no account was included in “Joseph Smith’s History,” completed in August
1856, or in The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, completed before his 1857 death, suggests that the myth was not
fully developed by this period."

Here is the full article if you want to read it. http://ww.w.mormonismi.net/pdf/myth_creation.pdf

Even if such an event occurred, we still have the process outlined by the Lord in section 43 violated. The Lord says very clearly that he is giving us this so we will not believe any other revelations. Joseph is the only one to canonize revelations, unless he appoints someone through a revelation from the Lord. This means none of the 1876 additions to the D&C should have been added, including section 132.

You are totally twisting section 43 to view it the way you would like to interpret it, and you are taking very credible account of people who have no reason to lie and calling them liars...... Multiple accounts and those are only a few and calling it a myth....

If you took the Lord Literally in full and His prophet literally you would know Brigham is indeed his chosen successor...... You just dont want to believe it.....

So do you hold the priesthood?

I hold the priesthood and have seen it fruits in ordinances and the gift of healing and in many other ways. I have had the opportunity of seeing probably close to 30 people healed instantly through priesthood administrations. IS that all a fantasy i am experiencing? How can this be?

Either it is what it is, or i am a wizard right?
The only critic you should really be able to level at me is that I take the Lord at his word too literally and I can live with that.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1547

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Chris wrote: August 11th, 2022, 2:52 pm You are totally twisting section 43 to view it the way you would like to interpret it, and you are taking very credible account of people who have no reason to lie and calling them liars...... Multiple accounts and those are only a few and calling it a myth....

If you took the Lord Literally in full and His prophet literally you would know Brigham is indeed his chosen successor...... You just dont want to believe it.....

So do you hold the priesthood?

I hold the priesthood and have seen it fruits in ordinances and the gift of healing and in many other ways. I have had the opportunity of seeing probably close to 30 people healed instantly through priesthood administrations. IS that all a fantasy i am experiencing? How can this be?

Either it is what it is, or i am a wizard right?
I don't think I am twisting section 43 at all. I think that is how the English reads.

I am not calling anyone a liar. What I am saying is that is how memory works, for good or bad. A general authority will elevate an event and even if it's 10 or 15 years later we will remember that we were there. Our first inclination is to say, 'Yes, I was there' and their testimonials are affirming that they were indeed there and they can confirm the event. Once they do that in honesty, there is a natural tendency to also associate the specialness of the event as relayed with how we remember it, but it is fair to then ask: If they remembered it that way, why didn't they write about it that same month or year? Why are these journal entries decades later, after the general authority first mentioned it.

Another fair question is, why do all the times the Lord talks about succession in the D&C not match how succession actually happened?

I too have had the priesthood heal, but many churches without the priesthood have many such experiences, so that is not a conclusive point.

User avatar
TheDuke
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2793
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by TheDuke »

There is another thread on second anointing. I'm not one that sees it as a requisite to anything. BTW many of those sealed for eternity were later ex'ed. Hence a later, relooking at who get the second anointing, meaning it doesn't seem to work as intended. I would like others inputs here but on the second anoint thread.

I see what BY said about "Prophet" to be true. It is ALWAYS true. in every dispensation a real, big, powerful prophet kicks things off. Later, lesser prophets (if you like the term) keep things rolling until things get far enough off-track to require a more major prophet again. So, BY was right. "the prophet of this dispensation" was gone. There hasn't been another like him. Now we just have a quorum of apostles with "president" title, referred to as "Prophet", but that is not a calling but just a title. People on this forum, get hung up on claiming the title must equate to calling (perhaps because in a veiled way some of the PSR's do as well). The PH of PSR (which is either elder or HP) just adds keys for PSR. As in the scripture quoted way above, that is the one key to be handed down whether or not the person having the keys is righteous or not or used them or not (again like Eli).

Now the good question being asked is why the apostles ended up leading the church w/o a new revelation on the topic. I personally think it was because JS could never be in a position to view himself as gone and not have Hyrum or another brother or son take his place. It was therefore necessary for him to die and leave that to his followers to implement. We got BY and the apostles, but frankly no new revelation.

And Luke's claim of others getting prophetic revelation for the entire church seems BS to me. Sure, there is some lesser revelation, like we all get for ourselves, our families and our callings, but nothing like JS, no "thus saith the Lord".

BTW I accept what happened as being god's will and I love JS and accept him as a true prophet. But, perhaps if he had been more careful and less worried about being president of USA and king of the world when Jesus returned in 1890, perhaps he could have received a bit of revelation on passing on authority and succession. IMO

Chris
captain of 100
Posts: 319

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Chris »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 11th, 2022, 3:18 pm
Chris wrote: August 11th, 2022, 2:52 pm You are totally twisting section 43 to view it the way you would like to interpret it, and you are taking very credible account of people who have no reason to lie and calling them liars...... Multiple accounts and those are only a few and calling it a myth....

If you took the Lord Literally in full and His prophet literally you would know Brigham is indeed his chosen successor...... You just dont want to believe it.....

So do you hold the priesthood?

I hold the priesthood and have seen it fruits in ordinances and the gift of healing and in many other ways. I have had the opportunity of seeing probably close to 30 people healed instantly through priesthood administrations. IS that all a fantasy i am experiencing? How can this be?

Either it is what it is, or i am a wizard right?
I don't think I am twisting section 43 at all. I think that is how the English reads.

I am not calling anyone a liar. What I am saying is that is how memory works, for good or bad. A general authority will elevate an event and even if it's 10 or 15 years later we will remember that we were there. Our first inclination is to say, 'Yes, I was there' and their testimonials are affirming that they were indeed there and they can confirm the event. Once they do that in honesty, there is a natural tendency to also associate the specialness of the event as relayed with how we remember it, but it is fair to then ask: If they remembered it that way, why didn't they write about it that same month or year? Why are these journal entries decades later, after the general authority first mentioned it.

Another fair question is, why do all the times the Lord talks about succession in the D&C not match how succession actually happened?

I too have had the priesthood heal, but many churches without the priesthood have many such experiences, so that is not a conclusive point.
You are calling them liars, and no that is not normal for people to make fictional memories especially about such events.

As far as the priesthood. I have read all of your post about how the lord cant and wont lie.

If the priesthood was not of god and sanctioned by him you know we would be just like the priest of baal. The lord would not honor a peagon priesthood or our faith if it was in a false priesthood. The lord is very clear how he feels about priestcraft things like that.... thats what anti people say, it wasnt the priesthood it waa your faith.

But you know the lord well enough to know, he would not let a false priesthood and ritual yield his power.

So it is either all true or all false and i testify it is all real, that or i am a wizard

User avatar
TheChristian
captain of 100
Posts: 308

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by TheChristian »

And the seventy returned again with joy,
saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy "NAME".

And these signs will follow those who believe:
In My name they will cast out devils;
they will speak with new tongues;
they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none;
but such as I have give I thee:
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk..............

When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you?
Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?
By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong.
It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him,

But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit,
I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
And he came out the same hour.

No mention of Priesthood there, simply FAITH in the all powerfull name of the Saviour.

And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
And when they had set them in the midst, they asked,
By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified,
whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Again when asked by what power or what name..........
Peter did not say by a priesthood, but in the name of Jesus.........

If a priesthood was the power and authority to perform miracles, signs wonders, healings ,speak in tongues, prophesy etc.... Then why are there so little of such occuring in your meeting places, since all your males are given said priesthoods from a young age........
Why are such biblical Signs occuring in great abundance amongst the Christians in these last of days whom are accused of having no authority..........
The wealthy Pharisees,Scribes, the elders and high priest of Israel all had a priesthood authority, claimed to be the only true congregation of God apon the earth, yet there was no signs, wonders, miracles, tongues, prophesieing amongst them...
Yet poor peasant galilean fishermen and farmers whoms only wealth was their FAITH exercised such Gifts of the Spirit in great abundance...............
And all was done in the name of Jesus of Nazerath...............

solonan
captain of 100
Posts: 209

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by solonan »

Chris wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:50 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Some are still making the claim that it is the secret anointings of the 12 that gave them their authority to lead the church after Joseph's death. Here are a few questions that that line of thinking brings up.

1. Why didn't the 12 upon the death of Joseph make reference to these anointings. Why not make the claim to the saints that an anointed King and Priest includes being a prophet and is higher than a prophet.
2. Why would BY say you are now without a prophet to lead you.
3. If the 12 really thought this and if they knew the Nauvoo High Council was equal in authority to the 12, why wouldn't they defer to Stake President William Marks who outranked them in all secret ordinations?
4. If secret ordinations matter, why did the 12 not continue making the senior 'King' the next prophet instead of resorting back to the senior Apostle? Why is it still seniority of an apostle to this day?
5. If First Presidency apostles fall back into the quorum according to seniority, why didn't Sydney fall back in as the senior apostle?

My point is, there is only this one time in history when believers of the secret anointing doctrine say it is applicable for seniority. It is important to note here that there is no revelation from the Lord instituting these secret works.

Everything about the priesthood and its offices and responsibilities was described by the Lord through revelation, but all of sudden that pattern stops, and non-scriptural ordinations take over.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Why are you and all your cronniey DOC even on a LDS page. You clearly are apostate in every sense of the word. So why stay? Why dont you start your own. I know of 3 couples who have had their second anoitings that i know and one of them i know very well. They are all still alive. You have no idea what you are talking about and just what happens there. I have had some very sacred expereinces my self that i will never post on this site......

I understand people getting antied and leaving, i understand people becomming less active. Never in my life did i think the devil could also get a group of people together who believe Joseph Smith is a "PROPHET" and yet the church he started, the prophecies he made and the church he organized are false and fell into apostacy, even though every book of scripture talks about the destinys of that church including Joseph and yet yall deny it all. I am just flabergasted.

Joseph sealed 70 couples with calling and election and 2nd anoitings in the old brick store ( all of the faithful 12 , who went west ) So again if he were a prophet and the conspiracy you say is true happened. Why would he seal their exaltation upon them. Was he fallen? uninspired? Thats like saying Christ took Judas aside sealed his exaltation upon him and cast out the other 12.....

I hate the devil, but i have to admit. wow he has really surpassed my expectations. He can really get anyone to believe anything. It is amazing.....

Here are some more evil conspirators who must have had it in for joseph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKMV0rE5JyA
These films are awesome. I remember as a girl the teachings of many of BYU professors of religion like Henry, Nibley, and Madison. Such inspiring teachers. I wish these things were still taught with the same profound understanding.. Things have changed so much.

Post Reply