I'm confused;

[Shawn Henry]

I understand that people don't like hearing things they don't like that.

I like hearing what you have to say when you make sense. And there are those times.

This is not one of those times, when you reference Christ claiming his church and imply that his endorsement is ongoing.

He clearly implied that this is conditional when specifically saying that if the church did not meet his criteria in Nauvoo they would be rejected as a church. Why would we not take him at his word considering the Nauvoo House, the Boarding House, the House of the Lord in section 124 never got past the foundation.

[Wolfwoman]

I have been active LDS virtually my entire life. I've been in Bishoprics, been YM Pres, EQ Pres, High Councilman, etc... but when the 1st presidency began urging membership to get the clot shot, followed by many of the brethren declaring these killer jabs as "safe & effective", I was deeply disturbed, and it's only gotteen worse, especially as I've seen friends and family die and/or have serious health problems from them. Since then, my eyes have been opened, and I'm more confused than ever. It seems like a lot of if not most of church h leadership have become "woke". We seen large donations of tithes and offerings going to woke (Satanic) organizations like the UN. I hear brethren basically regurgitating leftist talking points, especially about non-existent "racism", such as what happened at BYU Women's volleyball, where none of what was accussed happened. I'm bewildered. Things about the church that never bothered me before are now very disconcerting, such as the similarities between our temple ordinances & signs and the Masonic lodge. Now I'm seeing multiple accusations toward the church as being part of a CIA mind control program called Monarch, and accusations of long term physical and serial abuse of children as part of this program. I'm hearing about the "Left hand of God" within the LDS church, and many of those making the allegations don't appear to have much to gain by doing so. I'm truly confused.

While I still have a strong testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as of right now I have zero faith in the church as an organization. Has the church h "fallen"? If so, how long ago? Or are many of the leaders being deceived? Am I being deceived? How can I pay tithes that are given to satanic organization?

Bottom line; it is indeed a hard time, where evil is declared good, and vice versa. I'm hoping joining this forum and listening to those on this board can help me find peace, whether in the church, or outside it but still within the gospel of Christ.

Welcome to the forum!
I have the same concerns. I have not heard of the "Left hand of God" idea.

[Artaxerxes]

I understand that people don't like hearing things they don't like that.

I like hearing what you have to say when you make sense. And there are those times.

This is not one of those times, when you reference Christ claiming his church and imply that his endorsement is ongoing.

He clearly implied that this is conditional when specifically saying that if the church did not meet his criteria in Nauvoo they would be rejected as a church. Why would we not take him at his word considering the Nauvoo House, the Boarding House, the House of the Lord in section 124 never got past the foundation.

We should take him at his word. The Nauvoo temple was completed, and what the saints had lost (which he specifically says was the ability to do baptisms for the dead) was restored.

[EmmaLee]

I'm a conservative.

Governor He/Him Caillou Cocks, Egg McMuffin, and Mitt Delecto Romney claim to be "conservative", too. All liars and pretenders, of course.

[ransomme]

The gospel of Christ is true. It is those things he was hanging on to. It's when you begin to peel back the layers that you discover what you thought was the lord's church is just a facade. A bunch of charlatans. And sure, maybe a few of them truly are doing their best given where they are, but that doesn't change the fact that much has been distorted and even completely contradicts what Christ taught in the scriptures. Sure, the BoM is truly another witness of the Lord, but that doesn't mean that the lord will always sustain this organization. In fact, he prophesied to the contrary.

You completely changed the issue, so I'll say it again: If OP was told by the Lord that this was His church 10 years ago, then he can dismiss his concerns about things that never bothered him before.

Having a testimony of the Gospel of Christ, of Joseph Smith's calling, of the BoM, etc doesn't mean that the CoJCoLDS is true. It means those other things are.

Just like in ancient Israel, or with the Nephites, the Church was not what was true, as demonstrated by it often being in apostasy. Really, an organization itself can't be "true". It's the doctrines, teachings, etc that are true or false.

Are we disciples of Christ or followers of an organization no matter what they do?

Disciples of Christ should be alarmed, even outraged by evil teachings and doings. Supporting UN BS is inexcusable. Going woke is departing from the Way. Pushing the UN's version of sustainability is tyrannical. And so forth.

It's probably a good idea to read posts before responding....

I was on my phone reading through...I guess I grabbed the wrong pagan artaxerxes post... It was in answer to your misguided (*cough* as usual) 10-year remark. It's not about the person changing, but rather that the contrast between the organization and the Gospel of Christ is becoming starker, and more apparent to him. It started with the clot shot but it will of course lead to other questions and concerns.


this post
"I don't think OP is claiming that he held church callings and didn't doubt during the 1830s. I think he's saying that just a few years ago he didn't have problems, but now he does. He listed things like Masonry, CIA conspiracy theories, and the like. Those aren't new. If the church was true 10 years ago, then he can dismiss his concerns. The church certainly hasn't become MORE masonic since then. OP was fairly open about things "never bothered me before" suddenly becoming an issue. That is a clear indication that he has changed, not the church."

PS I also don't think that the OP claimed that he held church callings or had doubts in the 1830s

[Shawn Henry]

The Nauvoo temple was completed, and what the saints had lost (which he specifically says was the ability to do baptisms for the dead) was restored.

No, it was the fulness.

No, the Temple wasn't completed. All historians agree on that and BY and a couple others say it themselves.

No, the Nauvoo Temple isn't mentioned once in section 124. The entirety of the section speaks of the Boarding House as the House of the Lord, and it only had the foundation finished.

Joseph is on record saying that both had to be completed, but the Lord's words in 124 only mention the Nauvoo House.

[Artaxerxes]

The Nauvoo temple was completed, and what the saints had lost (which he specifically says was the ability to do baptisms for the dead) was restored.

No, it was the fulness.

No, the Temple wasn't completed. All historians agree on that and BY and a couple others say it themselves.

No, the Nauvoo Temple isn't mentioned once in section 124. The entirety of the section speaks of the Boarding House as the House of the Lord, and it only had the foundation finished.

Joseph is on record saying that both had to be completed, but the Lord's words in 124 only mention the Nauvoo House.

Historians absolutely do not agree on that.

Section 124 is perfectly clear:
For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood. For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead.

We don't have to guess what was taken away. It says exactly what was lost.

[largerthanlife2]

Keep true to yourself and follow the Holy Ghost. Only the Holy Ghost can tell you right from wrong. Church leaders are obviously wrong on many things so don't follow blindly.

[Shawn Henry]

Historians absolutely do not agree on that.

Section 124 is perfectly clear:
For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood. For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead.

We don't have to guess what was taken away. It says exactly what was lost.

Yes!!! "even the fulness of the priesthood". So glad you can read, lol.

So how about you start saying the saints had the fulness of the priesthood taken away, just like it says.

Baptisms by the way don't require the fulness of the priesthood, they are Aaronic.

[Shawn Henry]

Historians absolutely do not agree on that.

I've seen the quotes myself. BY and many others have said it plainly. They all knew the temple wasn't finished. They simply did the endowments anyway. Now, if you want to make the case that it isn't necessary to complete a temple in order to do endowments, that is different.

[Artaxerxes]

Historians absolutely do not agree on that.

Section 124 is perfectly clear:
For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood. For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead.

We don't have to guess what was taken away. It says exactly what was lost.

Yes!!! "even the fulness of the priesthood". So glad you can read, lol.

So how about you start saying the saints had the fulness of the priesthood taken away, just like it says.

Baptisms by the way don't require the fulness of the priesthood, they are Aaronic.

Fullness completeness. Without one of the ordinances, they were incomplete. As it says. Pretty darn clearly.

[Artaxerxes]

Historians absolutely do not agree on that.

I've seen the quotes myself. BY and many others have said it plainly. They all knew the temple wasn't finished. They simply did the endowments anyway. Now, if you want to make the case that it isn't necessary to complete a temple in order to do endowments, that is different.

So you've changed from "historians agree" to "Brigham Young said"?

Of course it was finished.

The news release for the dedication said "This splendid edifice is now completed, and will be dedicated to the Most High God on Friday, the 1st. day of May, 1846."

Wilford Woodruff said at the time "Notwithstanding the many false Prophesies . . . that the roof should not go on nor the House be finished And the threats of the mob that we should not dedicate it yet we have done both."

It was completed and everyone knew it.

[HereWeGo]

Thanks all, I can't even tell what "Art" is talking about in his last couple of posts, but it is obvious that he thinks being snide will win those of us struggling with the CHURCH, not the gospel of Christ, back. Does Art always have to be right, and get the last word? Seems that way...
Art, I get it, I need to pray. Thanks for the advice, and as I've already stated I have been and will continue to do so. I recommend you do likewise - you can never pray to much! But Art, you do not come across as caring or trying to help in any way. You come across as a judgmental and uncaring? Do you happen to be a lefty?? Perhaps so many on this board would find you more tolerable if you got off your high horse. Now, ate you humble enough to endure criticism? We shall see...

Welcome, Nevervaxxed. You have met one of the 5-6 diehard Church apologists now. Your assessment is pretty good. These posters are All Church, All Defense, All of the Time. You will immediately be able to recognize them when you meet them. Some people call them Trolls because of their debating techniques--judgmental, confrontational, have to have the last word, derail the discussion if it isn't going their way, etc. The best way to deal with them when they become this way is to just ignore their posts and don't respond to them. It only feeds them and they will continue with their tactics until you feel crazy or begin to ignore them. Some here think they are paid Church Employees. They act like Jesus needs someone to defend His church against anyone who isn't repeating the Church talking points. Their eyes are not open yet.

Most of us on here were true blue Mormons for most of our lives. We started waking up like you and went through the same things you are experiencing. We understand the few Apologists here because we were once like them. The Apologists cant understand the rest of us because they lack experience with going through what we have gone through. Many of us pray that their eyes may be opened but know that unless they are open to the possibility that they have been deceived, they will not see.

Let the Spirit help you to listen to the people who will help you with your journey. Stay close to the Lord. Seek his direct guidance.

[HereWeGo]

Nevervaxx, Notice how the apologist is hijacking the original intent of the thread to stop discussion of what you are going through and how people are trying to support you?

[Shawn Henry]

Fullness completeness. Without one of the ordinances, they were incomplete. As it says. Pretty darn clearly.

No that's just dumb! The fulness of the priesthood is the Melchizidek Priesthood.

The loss of the priesthood is also in section 113.

He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost.

What sense does it make to lose an Aaronic priesthood ordinance while keeping the MP ones? That make do damn sense!

[Shawn Henry]

So you've changed from "historians agree" to "Brigham Young said"?

I haven't changed anything. Historians do agree. Apologists don't agree, but that's because they only look at the statements that reference its completion and ignore the ones that say it wasn't.

Obviously, if Apostles are saying it was finished while some Apostles were saying that it was not, we would have to default to the ones who were saying it is not, because history agrees with them, and their statements have no hidden agenda. The obvious hidden agenda is that some Apostles were quite aware that the temple should be completed. You don't dedicate an unfinished temple, yet they did, so they stretched the truth a little. Everyone in Nauvoo knew it wasn't finished. You just choose to put your head in the sand.

[cab]

You misunderstand my post.

I don't think OP is claiming that he held church callings and didn't doubt during the 1830s. I think he's saying that just a few years ago he didn't have problems, but now he does. He listed things like Masonry, CIA conspiracy theories, and the like. Those aren't new. If the church was true 10 years ago, then he can dismiss his concerns. The church certainly hasn't become MORE masonic since then. OP was fairly open about things "never bothered me before" suddenly becoming an issue. That is a clear indication that he has changed, not the church.

The gospel of Christ is true. It is those things he was hanging on to. It's when you begin to peel back the layers that you discover what you thought was the lord's church is just a facade. A bunch of charlatans. And sure, maybe a few of them truly are doing their best given where they are, but that doesn't change the fact that much has been distorted and even completely contradicts what Christ taught in the scriptures. Sure, the BoM is truly another witness of the Lord, but that doesn't mean that the lord will always sustain this organization. In fact, he prophesied to the contrary.

You completely changed the issue, so I'll say it again: If OP was told by the Lord that this was His church 10 years ago, then he can dismiss his concerns about things that never bothered him before.

Having a testimony of the Gospel of Christ, of Joseph Smith's calling, of the BoM, etc doesn't mean that the CoJCoLDS is true. It means those other things are.

Just like in ancient Israel, or with the Nephites, the Church was not what was true, as demonstrated by it often being in apostasy. Really, an organization itself can't be "true". It's the doctrines, teachings, etc that are true or false.

Are we disciples of Christ or followers of an organization no matter what they do?

Disciples of Christ should be alarmed, even outraged by evil teachings and doings. Supporting UN BS is inexcusable. Going woke is departing from the Way. Pushing the UN's version of sustainability is tyrannical. And so forth.

Very well said. It’s so interesting to me now to see that nowhere in the book of Mormon do you see testimonies being born of the organized institution of believers (except for maybe with groups like the Zoramites)… The church was ever only as true as the people were. And the people were only as true insofar as the kingdom of God had manifested itself within them through the baptism of the Holy Spirit and it’s accompanying gifts.

[LDS Watchman]

Thanks all, I can't even tell what "Art" is talking about in his last couple of posts, but it is obvious that he thinks being snide will win those of us struggling with the CHURCH, not the gospel of Christ, back. Does Art always have to be right, and get the last word? Seems that way...
Art, I get it, I need to pray. Thanks for the advice, and as I've already stated I have been and will continue to do so. I recommend you do likewise - you can never pray to much! But Art, you do not come across as caring or trying to help in any way. You come across as a judgmental and uncaring? Do you happen to be a lefty?? Perhaps so many on this board would find you more tolerable if you got off your high horse. Now, ate you humble enough to endure criticism? We shall see...

Welcome, Nevervaxxed. You have met one of the 5-6 diehard Church apologists now. Your assessment is pretty good. These posters are All Church, All Defense, All of the Time. You will immediately be able to recognize them when you meet them. Some people call them Trolls because of their debating techniques--judgmental, confrontational, have to have the last word, derail the discussion if it isn't going their way, etc. The best way to deal with them when they become this way is to just ignore their posts and don't respond to them. It only feeds them and they will continue with their tactics until you feel crazy or begin to ignore them. Some here think they are paid Church Employees. They act like Jesus needs someone to defend His church against anyone who isn't repeating the Church talking points. Their eyes are not open yet.

Most of us on here were true blue Mormons for most of our lives. We started waking up like you and went through the same things you are experiencing. We understand the few Apologists here because we were once like them. The Apologists cant understand the rest of us because they lack experience with going through what we have gone through. Many of us pray that their eyes may be opened but know that unless they are open to the possibility that they have been deceived, they will not see.

Let the Spirit help you to listen to the people who will help you with your journey. Stay close to the Lord. Seek his direct guidance.

This is a very inaccurate and unfair breakdown of the "apologists."

I can't speak for everyone else who defends the church, but I most definitely have been were many of those of you who are now very critical of the church and it's leaders are.

But the more I studied, the more I realized that things are not nearly as bad as what all of the angry and bitter voices on the internet would have me believe. The church is still the Lord's one and only true church, warts and all. The Lord still expects us to keep the covenants we have made with him in the temple.

As for the "all defense all the time" charge, the vast majority of attacks against the church on this forum are either completely outrageous and false or alternatively blown way out of proportion. I try to be a voice of reason to help keep people from being led astray as best as I can. And I know what I'm talking about because I was once just like many of you and it wasn't very long ago. And if you don't believe me, I would suggest that you read my posts from when I first came on this forum.

But when people are bitter and angry they see what they want to see I guess. I don't expect that I will change the minds of the most ardent critics of the church on here. I post mainly for lurkers and those who are on the fence. And I understand that my efforts are frustrating for the die hard critics who are trying to convert people to their point of view or who would like this forum to be an echo chamber of constant criticism of the church.

[Artaxerxes]

So you've changed from "historians agree" to "Brigham Young said"?

I haven't changed anything. Historians do agree. Apologists don't agree, but that's because they only look at the statements that reference its completion and ignore the ones that say it wasn't.

Obviously, if Apostles are saying it was finished while some Apostles were saying that it was not, we would have to default to the ones who were saying it is not, because history agrees with them, and their statements have no hidden agenda. The obvious hidden agenda is that some Apostles were quite aware that the temple should be completed. You don't dedicate an unfinished temple, yet they did, so they stretched the truth a little. Everyone in Nauvoo knew it wasn't finished. You just choose to put your head in the sand.

Which historians?

[Artaxerxes]

Fullness completeness. Without one of the ordinances, they were incomplete. As it says. Pretty darn clearly.

No that's just dumb! The fulness of the priesthood is the Melchizidek Priesthood.

The loss of the priesthood is also in section 113.

He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost.

What sense does it make to lose an Aaronic priesthood ordinance while keeping the MP ones? That make do damn sense!

Nope. The word fullness in the scriptures comes from pleroma, which doesn't mean what you claim at all.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... eroma.html

It makes sense for the exact reason that Section 124 says. I don't know why you keep looking outside of it. It says perfectly clearly what was lost, why it was lost, and how they can get it back.

[cab]

Thanks to all of you on this forum for your support and thoughts. For what it's worth, of course I have prayed much and studied in my efforts to find the truth. To the one person who keeps insisting that I've changed, I guess technically he's right, but as I've stated, it's BECAUSE the church has changed; those defending the church's urging to take the death jab never even consider the insidiousness of urging members to put this poison into our bodies - but you better not drink Dr Pepper! Or coffee (the horror)!! Whatever happened to the word of wisdom??? I cannot imagine a prophet of God giving that direction, and the lies of the brethren, in conference, which supposedly makes their words "scripture", saying these shots are "safe and effective", gives me great pause. Now, I am questioning everything; Joseph's polygamy, masonic lodge similarities, The book of Abraham, and so much more. If they are willing to lie to us about a deadly shot, surely they're capable and probably have lied about a LOT of things!

A friend just sent me these excerpts from prophecies that Julie Green has been given this year, which relate to Mormons and Utah.

71833.jpeg71835.jpeg

Interesting. I’ll go check out some of her stuff. I didn’t get the best first impression of her, as she reminded me of that bald guy “prophet” that got lots of attention around election time talking about his vision of dates on a calendar which didn’t seem to amount to anything…
I’ll circle back around to her…

[cab]

Thanks all, I can't even tell what "Art" is talking about in his last couple of posts, but it is obvious that he thinks being snide will win those of us struggling with the CHURCH, not the gospel of Christ, back. Does Art always have to be right, and get the last word? Seems that way...
Art, I get it, I need to pray. Thanks for the advice, and as I've already stated I have been and will continue to do so. I recommend you do likewise - you can never pray to much! But Art, you do not come across as caring or trying to help in any way. You come across as a judgmental and uncaring? Do you happen to be a lefty?? Perhaps so many on this board would find you more tolerable if you got off your high horse. Now, ate you humble enough to endure criticism? We shall see...

Welcome, Nevervaxxed. You have met one of the 5-6 diehard Church apologists now. Your assessment is pretty good. These posters are All Church, All Defense, All of the Time. You will immediately be able to recognize them when you meet them. Some people call them Trolls because of their debating techniques--judgmental, confrontational, have to have the last word, derail the discussion if it isn't going their way, etc. The best way to deal with them when they become this way is to just ignore their posts and don't respond to them. It only feeds them and they will continue with their tactics until you feel crazy or begin to ignore them. Some here think they are paid Church Employees. They act like Jesus needs someone to defend His church against anyone who isn't repeating the Church talking points. Their eyes are not open yet.

Most of us on here were true blue Mormons for most of our lives. We started waking up like you and went through the same things you are experiencing. We understand the few Apologists here because we were once like them. The Apologists cant understand the rest of us because they lack experience with going through what we have gone through. Many of us pray that their eyes may be opened but know that unless they are open to the possibility that they have been deceived, they will not see.

Let the Spirit help you to listen to the people who will help you with your journey. Stay close to the Lord. Seek his direct guidance.

This is a very inaccurate and unfair breakdown of the "apologists."

I can't speak for everyone else who defends the church, but I most definitely have been were many of those of you who are now very critical of the church and it's leaders are.

But the more I studied, the more I realized that things are not nearly as bad as what all of the angry and bitter voices on the internet would have me believe. The church is still the Lord's one and only true church, warts and all. The Lord still expects us to keep the covenants we have made with him in the temple.

As for the "all defense all the time" charge, the vast majority of attacks against the church on this forum are either completely outrageous and false or alternatively blown way out of proportion. I try to be a voice of reason to help keep people from being led astray as best as I can. And I know what I'm talking about because I was once just like many of you and it wasn't very long ago. And if you don't believe me, I would suggest that you read my posts from when I first came on this forum.

But when people are bitter and angry they see what they want to see I guess. I don't expect that I will change the minds of the most ardent critics of the church on here. I post mainly for lurkers and those who are on the fence. And I understand that my efforts are frustrating for the die hard critics who are trying to convert people to their point of view or who would like this forum to be an echo chamber of constant criticism of the church.

Interesting. You are a rare data point.

I know, for me personally, I can not unsee what I have seen. And I could never deny what I believe the Lord has shown me about where we are as a people. And I’d never want to unsee it, for my relationship with and understanding of Him and His purposes has blossomed as a result.

I’ll be dead honest. I don’t know anyone who has begun to see the problematic aspects of our history and current day floundering in light of the cyclical nature of scriptural apostasy cycles and been able to revert back to believe the simplistic “one and only true church” narrative, while staying honest with themselves and others.

True, most that begin to have their shelf broken end up throwing away everything…. But that’s just because their foundation was sandy in the first place….

My question for most people is this…. Why do we deal in such extremes? Why do we, as a people, somehow think all is lost if this institution fails to be the “one and only true church”? Do we not see another explanation in light of all the people who fell short in ages past?

[ransomme]

This is a very inaccurate and unfair breakdown of the "apologists."

Yet your flaming of the everyone else here is accurate?

Screenshot_20221029-124551.jpg (131.82 KiB) Viewed 839 times

FYI your poop stinks too.

I would say that there a good number of genuine people here that are earnestly sharing and seeking.

[ransomme]

Fullness completeness. Without one of the ordinances, they were incomplete. As it says. Pretty darn clearly.

No that's just dumb! The fulness of the priesthood is the Melchizidek Priesthood.

The loss of the priesthood is also in section 113.

He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost.

What sense does it make to lose an Aaronic priesthood ordinance while keeping the MP ones? That make do damn sense!

Nope. The word fullness in the scriptures comes from pleroma, which doesn't mean what you claim at all.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... eroma.html

It makes sense for the exact reason that Section 124 says. I don't know why you keep looking outside of it. It says perfectly clearly what was lost, why it was lost, and how they can get it back.

Enoch was told when they (hopefully we) will get it back.

JST Genesis 9:21-23
"...when men should keep all my commandments..."

Righteousness precedes the power of the priesthood, its fullness and gifts of the Spirit.

We are not there. We fell short as a Church and need to repent individually and collectively if we want to be included with Zion and to be a part of the Bride.

[ransomme]

Fullness completeness. Without one of the ordinances, they were incomplete. As it says. Pretty darn clearly.

No that's just dumb! The fulness of the priesthood is the Melchizidek Priesthood.

The loss of the priesthood is also in section 113.

He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost.

What sense does it make to lose an Aaronic priesthood ordinance while keeping the MP ones? That make do damn sense!

Nope. The word fullness in the scriptures comes from pleroma, which doesn't mean what you claim at all.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... eroma.html

It makes sense for the exact reason that Section 124 says. I don't know why you keep looking outside of it. It says perfectly clearly what was lost, why it was lost, and how they can get it back.

The fulness of the priesthood its not what you are promoting.

We are in the wilderness.

JST Genesis 14:25-32
D&C 76:54,67,71,94,102
D&C 84:23-27
D&C 121:39-46
The oath of the priesthood

"If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." (History of the Church, 5:423-424, also teachings, p.308)