Secret anointings and succession

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

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.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

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.

All great points.

Secret ordinations are completely antithetical to the Restored Gospel.

Do we have a source for these ordinations supposedly appearing after the death of J.S.?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:11 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.

All great points.

Secret ordinations are completely antithetical to the Restored Gospel.

Do we have a source for these ordinations supposedly appearing after the death of J.S.?
Yes, JS own journal and his own prophecies that he would restore the Fullness of the Priesthood before he died.

Also they weren’t secret.

Besides:

JSH 1
74 . . . In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 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.
They literally did though. They made this point numerous times. In public. Even got printed in the Times and Seasons.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 2. Why would BY say you are now without a prophet to lead you.
Because he didn't consider himself a prophet.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 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?
Marks didn't "outrank them" in "secret ordinations".
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 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?
Because the subject of Priesthood in the LDS Church got seriously confused as the years went on.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 5. If First Presidency apostles fall back into the quorum according to seniority, why didn't Sydney fall back in as the senior apostle?
First Presidency are High Priests, not Apostles (we probably agree on this).

Sidney hadn't received his second anointing (and therefore Fullness of the Priesthood), while BY had.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 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.
Again, they aren't "secret anointings". They spoke about them openly, before and after Joseph's death.

Joseph revealed all these things. It's literally documented all over the place.

"It is so strange brethren, that you have been in the Church so long, and not yet understand the Melchizedek Priesthood."

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:51 pm They literally did though. They made this point numerous times. In public. Even got printed in the Times and Seasons.
The point was, they didn't use them as a succession claim.
Because he didn't consider himself a prophet.
Exactly, he knew his secret anointings did not include being a prophet.
Marks didn't "outrank them" in "secret ordinations".
Yes, he did. You just have yet to compare the ordination dates.
Because the subject of Priesthood in the LDS Church got seriously confused as the years went on.
The most confusion is at the succession crisis itself. The D&C is clear that any member of the First Presidency can function as the First Presidency in the absence of JS. The presidency was still intact. The Church had an ordained PSR to lead them.
First Presidency are High Priests, not Apostles (we probably agree on this).
Do we agree on what that means? Apostles are Elders, they are below High Priests. If you are a High Priest, you are above an apostle. Besides, the Lord calls Sydney an apostle well before the Q12 is even established.
Sidney hadn't received his second anointing (and therefore Fullness of the Priesthood), while BY had.
Sydney did receive it, he just received later than the rest.
Again, they aren't "secret anointings". They spoke about them openly, before and after Joseph's death.
But clearly secret, at least, by revelatory standards and the words of the Lord. We have specific revelations for even mundane things, but the most important change of them all has no accompanying revelation.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 4:44 pm The point was, they didn't use them as a succession claim.
Again, yes they did.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Exactly, he knew his secret anointings did not include being a prophet.
The gift of prophecy makes one a prophet, regardless of any ordination.

The office of King and Priest encompasses all lesser authority. There is nothing higher than a King and Priest.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Yes, he did. You just have yet to compare the ordination dates.
I know when he was ordained. But it doesn't have any relevance - William Marks was not even contending for leadership of the Church. Besides, as Brigham pointed out, he was among those who claimed to believe in Joseph Smith, but was trying to tear down everything Joseph had built up in Nauvoo.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm The most confusion is at the succession crisis itself. The D&C is clear that any member of the First Presidency can function as the First Presidency in the absence of JS. The presidency was still intact. The Church had an ordained PSR to lead them.
Joseph had sent Sidney packing anyway.

Sidney did not receive the ordination of a King and Priest. This is a fact. He wasn't qualified to be running the Church with lesser authority.

Brigham was the only candidate who had received the Fullness of the Priesthood, and this is an undeniable fact.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Do we agree on what that means? Apostles are Elders, they are below High Priests. If you are a High Priest, you are above an apostle. Besides, the Lord calls Sydney an apostle well before the Q12 is even established.
I don't see how this is relevant to the succession crisis and the matter of Kings and Priests.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm Sydney did receive it, he just received later than the rest.
No, he didn't. He received his first anointing, but not his second anointing.

If you have any evidence to prove otherwise, please show me and I will retract my statement.
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm But clearly secret, at least, by revelatory standards and the words of the Lord. We have specific revelations for even mundane things, but the most important change of them all has no accompanying revelation.
As with every other post on this forum, you have invented a standard which you like and then hold everything to said standard.

Seeker144k
captain of 100
Posts: 337

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Seeker144k »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 2. Why would BY say you are now without a prophet to lead you.
Could you provide me a reference to this? That's hits a number of alarms in my book. Means he had no idea what a prophet was.
5. If First Presidency apostles fall back into the quorum according to seniority, why didn't Sydney fall back in as the senior apostle?
Good question.
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.
yeah, I don't buy that. The Lord doesn't follow that pattern in all our history of scripture.
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.
Yeah, right?

~Seeker

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Seeker144k wrote: August 9th, 2022, 10:11 am
Shawn Henry wrote: August 8th, 2022, 3:05 pm 2. Why would BY say you are now without a prophet to lead you.
Could you provide me a reference to this? That's hits a number of alarms in my book. Means he had no idea what a prophet was.
It’s in Vol. 7 of the DHC.

From his speech given on 8 August 1844.

I don’t have the page number to hand right now, but it’s around the 235 mark.

Edit: found the references:

“For the first time in my life, for the first time in your lives, for the first time in the kingdom of God in the 19th century, without a Prophet at our head, do I step forth to act in my calling in connection with the Quorum of the Twelve, as Apostles of Jesus Christ unto this generation—Apostles whom God has called by revelation through the Prophet Joseph, who are ordained and anointed to bear off the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world. This people have hitherto walked by sight and not by faith. You have had the Prophet in your midst. Do you all understand? You have walked by sight and without much pleading to the Lord to know whether things were right or not. Heretofore you have had a Prophet as the mouth of the Lord to speak to you, but he has sealed his testimony with his blood, and now, for the first time, are you called to walk by faith, not by sight. The first position I take in behalf of the Twelve and the people is, to ask a few questions. I ask the Latter-day Saints: do you, as individuals, at this time, want to choose a Prophet or a guardian? Inasmuch as our Prophet and Patriarch are taken from our midst, do you want some one to guard, to guide and lead you through this world into the kingdom of God, or not? All that want some person to be a guardian or a Prophet, a spokesman or something else, signify it by raising the right hand. (No votes).” (Brigham Young, 8 August 1844, DHC 7:232)

“You are now without a prophet present with you in the flesh to guide you; but you are not without apostles, who hold the keys of power to seal on earth that which shall be sealed in heaven, and to preside over all the affairs of the church in all the world; being still under the direction of the same God, and being dictated by the same spirit, having the same manifestations of the Holy Ghost to dictate all the affairs of the church in all the world, to build the kingdom upon the foundation that the prophet Joseph has laid, who still holds the keys of this last dispensation, and will hold them to all eternity, as a king and priest unto the most high God, ministering in heaven, on earth, or among the spirits of the departed dead, as seemeth good to him who sent him. Let no man presume for a moment that his place will be filled by another; for, remember he stands in his own place, and always will; and the twelve apostles of this dispensation stand in their own place and always will, both in time and in eternity, to minister, preside and regulate the affairs of the whole church.” (Brigham Young, August 1844, Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, No. 15, pg. 618, 15 August 1844)

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 8th, 2022, 4:51 pm The office of King and Priest encompasses all lesser authority. There is nothing higher than a King and Priest.
Yes, and a prophet is part of the ordination. So, if BY had greater authority, why would he say, 'you are now without a prophet to lead you'? He is acknowledging his 'Anointed Quorum' ordination does not make him eligible to become the prophet. He likely also knew that the Lord said one has to 'come in at the gate' and be called as Joseph was. There is no revelation calling BY to lead the church, he had himself voted in, and there is no revelation to reform the First Presidency.
Joseph had sent Sidney packing anyway.
This is entirely unfair and even a low blow. By the time of the April 1844 conference Joseph had completely reconciled things with Sydney. Joseph said all things were aright between them. He placed him on the Council of Fifty in March of 1844. He ordained him into the Anointed Quorum on 11 May and he chose him as his running mate.

Most importantly though, Sydney's call didn't come from Joseph. It was a direct revelation from God that called Sydney. Joseph can't undo what God has done simply by stating he has lost confidence.
He wasn't qualified to be running the Church with lesser authority.
The same lesser authority that actually did run the church for Joseph. The same lesser authority that brought us new scripture and everything we needed to build Zion, even the fulness of the MP. And then when BY and the church get this alleged higher authority revelation ceases and the heavens close and here we are 200 years later with a supposed higher authority that has yielded Jack $*!t. Look at the fruits of your supposed higher authority. How does anyone speak highly of an authority that results in no rain in the vineyard?
Brigham was the only candidate who had received the Fullness of the Priesthood, and this is an undeniable fact.
You mean the fulness that if restored would make God a liar because the saints never met his conditions for restoring it. They never built the Nauvoo House. Or do you mean the fulness that Sydney already had in 1830 before it was taken from the church.

Come on Luke, the Lord says restore unto you AGAIN that which was lost. Whatever was restored was that which they already had. How else could it be restored unto them again if they didn't already have it?
No, he didn't. He received his first anointing, but not his second anointing.
Even if that were true, a second anointing has nothing to do with church leadership. You can't place importance on this for church leadership first off, when any saint at any level can get it and second off, when Mark's ordination is before BY's. You can't have it both ways.
As with every other post on this forum, you have invented a standard which you like and then hold everything to said standard.
I have not invented this standard. It is very clear in the D&C that it is the Lord's standard.

By the way, Michael Quinn agrees with me when he says 95% of the membership new nothing of these "secret things".

He also says that the 12 claiming that to give priority to second anointings undermines their "last charge" claims. So which is it?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Seeker144k wrote: August 9th, 2022, 10:11 am Could you provide me a reference to this? That's hits a number of alarms in my book. Means he had no idea what a prophet was.
Luke beat me to it; I think there is one more as well. I know there is the time when he said he was just a Yankee guesser.

The point is, the 12 knew they were never ordained PSR's. There was one conference in Kirtland where they were sustained as such, but that seems to be anomaly because at no conference before or any conference after did that happen again. There are definitely no records of ordination because everyone knew that that was not their calling. Every D&C reference has them going out to the world as apostles and never mentions anything related to the PSR calling. Every time a First Presidency member is called though, they receive that title and ordination. At no time did the Lord ever bring a member of the 12 into the First Presidency and every time a member was added to the First Presidency there was a revelation from the Lord where the Lord appoints that individual himself.

The Lord is very clear that Joseph will have no successor unless Joseph gets a revelation where the Lord shows who that successor will be. He also makes it clear that anything less will result in our being deceived.

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; (hint, the 1876 additions to the D&C)

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.

Joseph received no revelation calling BY in his stead. The above verses are quite clear. BY did not come in at this gate.

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.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Here's Stake President William Marks indicating what he thought of being ordained a prophet, priest, and king regarding it qualifying one for leadership over the church.

" There [have been men] ordained prophets, priests, and kings, but I have never heard of any one [else] being ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator. I think I am knowing to all the ordinations, but I don't know of a man who has been ordained to the office and calling Brother Sydney has; and if he is cut off, who will we have to obtain revelations? A man must be in possession of this power to be able to ordain a prophet, and a seer and a revelator......I don't believe there are sufficient revelations given to lead this people, and I am fully of the belief that this people cannot build up the kingdom except it is done by revelation."

Very prophetic President Marks. If Sydney is indeed cut off, who will we have to obtain revelations? And he we are without obtaining revelations for nearly 200 years.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:15 pm Here's Stake President William Marks indicating what he thought of being ordained a prophet, priest, and king regarding it qualifying one for leadership over the church.

" There [have been men] ordained prophets, priests, and kings, but I have never heard of any one [else] being ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator. I think I am knowing to all the ordinations, but I don't know of a man who has been ordained to the office and calling Brother Sydney has; and if he is cut off, who will we have to obtain revelations? A man must be in possession of this power to be able to ordain a prophet, and a seer and a revelator......I don't believe there are sufficient revelations given to lead this people, and I am fully of the belief that this people cannot build up the kingdom except it is done by revelation."

Very prophetic President Marks. If Sydney is indeed cut off, who will we have to obtain revelations? And he we are without obtaining revelations for nearly 200 years.
BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.

Sidney had a few revelations and Joseph told him that they were deceptions.

Why defend Sidney when Joseph clearly did anything but?

Also, a King and Priest is the HIGHEST authority. Joseph said that it is greater than a prophet, apostle, or patriarch, and therefore includes those lesser authorities.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
And let them stand on their own as to whether they are from God. Everyone is able to judge for himself.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm Also, a King and Priest is the HIGHEST authority. Joseph said that it is greater than a prophet, apostle, or patriarch, and therefore includes those lesser authorities.
So in Kirtland was the complete fulness of the MP, but in Nauvoo was a 'higher fulness'?

How does the Lord restore "again" something he didn't restore the first time? How do the saints have something given to them again something lost when they never lost it?

If BY really believed that, why was it always about apostolic seniority?

Why did the Savior warn us not to follow these secret works out to Utah?

"Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
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.

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by darknesstolight »

I'm not sure "secret" anointing are antithetical to the restored gospel.

I suppose what do you mean by secret or even restored gospel.

We have secret prayer and public prayer.

Things done in secret God blesses openly.

And where else does God let a person know they are sealed but to the person themselves and nobody would be privy to that unless the person witnesses, etc.

...

User avatar
Baurak Ale
Nauvoo Legion Captain
Posts: 1068
Location: The North Countries (Upper Midwest, USA)

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Baurak Ale »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:55 pm
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
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.
James Strang came in at that gate. Does that mean the keys of gathering Israel went west while the keys of the presidency and mysteries went north? I think this is probable.

And if it’s true then it means that the keys of the mysteries have been absent from the earth for quite some time (Strang was never directed to appoint a successor by God per the pattern).

This would explain the dearth of church-wide revelation of mysteries since essentially the movement of the church to the west. Hence the church is only true to the mysteries inasmuch as they’re true to Joseph’s teachings. Brigham Young got the Adam God doctrine and polygamy, among other things, from Joseph, so those things are true but we’re not revealed anew to Brigham. Strang had the power to receive these things from God and interestingly he did.

It places us in a position to await someone called of God and given the keys of the presidency and the mysteries anew. But it doesn’t make claims to the priesthood by Brighamites or Strangites necessarily mutually exclusive.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:55 pm
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
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.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:49 pm
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm Also, a King and Priest is the HIGHEST authority. Joseph said that it is greater than a prophet, apostle, or patriarch, and therefore includes those lesser authorities.
So in Kirtland was the complete fulness of the MP, but in Nauvoo was a 'higher fulness'?

How does the Lord restore "again" something he didn't restore the first time? How do the saints have something given to them again something lost when they never lost it?

If BY really believed that, why was it always about apostolic seniority?

Why did the Savior warn us not to follow these secret works out to Utah?

"Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."
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.

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.

Chris
captain of 100
Posts: 319

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Chris »

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

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Mamabear »

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
The infamous second anointing is a counterfeit to the real thing. You do not have to be a Q15, a 70, a mission president, etc. Christ directly anoints his elect without the help of man.
You labeling someone an apostate because they think different than you, speaks volumes.

Chris
captain of 100
Posts: 319

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Chris »

Mamabear wrote: August 9th, 2022, 7:26 pm
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
The infamous second anointing is a counterfeit to the real thing. You do not have to be a Q15, a 70, a mission president, etc. Christ directly anoints his elect without the help of man.
You labeling someone an apostate because they think different than you, speaks volumes.
You are showing you dont know what happens by how you responded and what you are assuming is not part of it. And yes that is the definition of apostate by joseph smith himself

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by nightlight »

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
The Echo Of The Jews

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Robin Hood »

Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 6:02 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:55 pm
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
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.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Secret anointings and succession

Post by Luke »

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
Luke wrote: August 9th, 2022, 4:28 pm BY, JT, WW all had numerous written revelations.
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.

Post Reply