Randy Johnson

Dawn,Please...answer my questions though...ok? randy

Dawn, On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration". Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy No, I didn't say it just evolved. We have always believed it. At least, I was taught that years ago when I was but a wee lassie. It is a newer concept in the rest of Christianity, but even with that, I don't think new means just a couple of years old, maybe 20-30 years, or so. I don't know. A lot of it came with the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so that is probably when it started. But just because the concept was recently discovered doesn't mean it wasn't true all along. It just meant that there was no way to find out that information prior to 40 or 50 years ago, but it was true, never-the-less. Truth is truth. Maybe God revealed the truth to Joseph Smith, and the LDS chose not to embrace it because it did not fit the design they chose for themselves. I don't know. I just know that it has been around in our church a lot longer than it has been in mainstream Christianity. Let me ask you a question. Why don't you ask these questions on the other board where there are much more studied people than I? Dawn, Trust me...I would, but I cant seem to receive an account to post. Bradly Barnhart has touched up the exact question I have posed to you. It is clear that Peter was President of the church. This position is supported throughout the NT, particularly before ACTs and through the first half of ACTs. In the 2nd half of ACTs it is clear the emphasis is on Paul and to a lesser extent James, the brother of the Lord. Since Bradley accept the position that James, the Lord's brother, was President of the Church in Jerusalem...well after the resurrection of the Lord, at what point was Peter "released" from his calling as Chief & Senior Apostle? My position is that he wasnt, of course. But what are your thoughts? randy plz post my questions on the other board for me...if you would. thx

Dawn,On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration". Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy

Dawn,I am thinking you are avoiding answering my questions!! randy

Dawn,When you share your testimony of the Restoration with your friends...and you go to the scriptures and other good books.....to share with them what you know to be true....could they not say the same thing about you? When I teach the truths of the restoration...I let the spirit go before me. I let the Holy Ghost testify of the truth. If thats being biased...then call me guilty! I dont need to go to other uninspired writers...writers who do not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to lead and direct them. Writers...who no doubt, if asked if they believed in the Restoration gospel would almost to a man would say they did not. The ironic part about that is they would probably go to these same source documents to try to prove the Restoration false!! No....when it comes to these types of issues....these NT "shades of gray" as I said...I will always defer to latter-day revelation on the subject. randy

Dawn,I have explained it in detail before! It all goes back to what was happening at that particular place in time. The church was in its infancy. The Church was still in the process of being restored. Line upon line, precept upon precept, the Lord revealed to the Prophet how things should be. At certain times he made allowances if certain things were to happen. They didnt. The church organization continued to be unfolded by the Lord to the Prophet....specifically as it relates to church government and the importance of Temple work. Section 43 was given in Feb, 1831!! You know what was going on at that time...with others supposedly receiving revelations etc. The Lord was making it clear who should receive them for the Church as a whole. (oddly enough, this basic rule was forgotten in 1851). It was necessary during this time that some provision be made for the perpetuity of the PH..with its keys and powers, as well as the Prophetic office, in case Joseph did not prove faithful. He did prove faithful...thus after the Lord restored the Quorum of the 12 wherein the Prophet Joseph bestowed upon these 12 all the "keys, powers and authorities" in order that the work would always go forward...hence...these particular safeguards were not necessary any longer. This is attested to by Josephs own words to the 12 which I know you have heard before. Is your Section 43 the same as ours? Our section 43 talks about "there is none other appointed unto this gift" and "except through him, shall another be appointed in his stead".....are we talking about the same section? I am thinking the one you are referring to is our section 107...I shall investigate. No...Dawn, none of this is beside the point. I am thinking that all this time you were under the impression that the "James" in the Presidency of Peter, James and John was the Lord's brother. You have found out that is not correct. There are some serious ramifications that come from that bit of knowledge. Dawn, I know the RLDS church claims authority for "lineal descent" when the Lord told Joseph...."In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed". I have read this...and read this...and have searched in vain for any hint that the Lord here was referring to the Presidency of the Church. Nothing. Has this scripture been fulfilled in the RLDS/Restorationists movement? If so...how? If not, why and when will it? That Joseph's seed was to be blessed (if they remained faithful, like any of the rest of us) but that was a blessing, conditioned upon being faithful and obedient, and had nothing to do with any one of his seed being selected to preside over the church. Of course...there are several direct descendants of JSjr in the LDS church who hold the MP...and thus they are a blessing to the church and to the world in which they live! So...to that extent...that scripture has been fullfilled. randy .....and btw...I have asked the Lord about this. I have received my answer.

Dawn,My sources come from "New Testament Apostles Testify of Christ, a guide for ACTS through REVELATIONS". The author and their credentials are: D. Kelly Ogden. Holds Master degree in: Hebrew Language and Historical geography of the Bible, from The Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. Holds Ph.D in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Utah. He is a Professor of Ancient scripture at BYU. He lived for more than a decade in the Holy Land. Andrew Skinner. Holds Master's degrees from Iliff School of Theology and Harvard University in Hebrew Bible and theology and Ph.D in history from the University of Denver. He pursued graduate studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and has taught several years at the Jerusalem Center. He serves as Chair of the Ancient scripture dept at BYU. He is also a member of International editorial group working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He and his family have lived in the Holy Land many years. Both of these authors have traveled extensively and done research in other lands of the early Apostles, including Turkey, Greece and Italy. So....these guys aint rookies. They know what they are talking about. randy

Dawn,Everything seems to be a red herring! Your reasoning is not consistant. There is no question but James the Lord's brother held a prominant leadership role. There is no doubt about that. But there is no doubt that Peter numerous times throughout the NT is without doubt, regarded as the Chief Apostle and the one the other Apostles and the church in general turned to for counsel and guidance. The fact that Peter, James, brother of John, and John came back as resurrected and translated beings to restore the MP and eventually bestow the "keys of the Kingdom" which ONLY they had, it is obvious that they were the First Presidency of the Early Church. No where that I have found..yet, has the Prophet Joseph made any declaration that James, the Lord's brother....was President of the Church after Christ. Contrast that with numerous quotes about Peter specifically....and also about Peter, James and John....and their coming to earth to restore the MP...etc. I will always defer to latter day revelation with respect to this issue. I will ask you this though..... It is clear that Peter was the Senior Apostle when Christ was alive. It stands to reason he was still the Chief Apostle ie; President of the Church after the Resurrection of the Savior. We know that James, the Lord's brother became converted sometime AFTER the resurrection....and then after a significant period of time after that was called into the Apostleship. So...it stands to reason, just looking simply at the chronology...that at some point you must believe that Peter was released. Show me in the NT, or at least share with me your thoughts on when and why Peter was "released" from that calling. randy

Dawn, Fair enough. In Matt 10:2 it tells us that "James and John" were brothers---sons of Zebedee. It is this James that the Lord first called into the Apostleship. I think it is interesting that during three very sacred events the Lord only took these three...the First Presidency...with him. They were: 1) the Mount of Transfiguration when he and Peter and John received the "keys of the kingdom". 2) Raised Jairus's daughter from the dead (see Mark 5:37-42...this tells us clearly that this "James" is the brother of John) 3) When Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:37-39) Upon further study this morning...it appears that upon the death of James, the brother of JOHN....this vacancy in the 12 was filled by James, the Lord's brother...according to Pauls writing in Galatians. This event occurred about A.D. 56 randy 3)

Dawn, Just a little background on the "James" of Peter, James and John fame....that "James" is the brother of John. This James, brother of John was killed during Passover in 44 A.D. So, that was what prompted my question with respect to James, the Lord's brother....if he was the Presiding Apostle he would have out of necessity been the one to come back and restore the MP and ordain Joseph and Oliver, given the fact that the Lord respects and honors his PH authority..all things are done in order in his house. Would you agree with that? If not...how come? randy I don't believe so, Randy. Why would that James, who was a relative nobody, have been the dispensational holder? Some proof is needed for you to make that remark. Dawn, All you need to do is look at the chronology of events. James, the brother of John was with Peter and John when those three...which basically constituted the First Presidency of the Church, received the "keys of the Kingdom" from the Savior, Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration. Act 12:2 tells us this James, brother of John was killed by Herod. It is generally understood by scholars that James, "the Lord's brother" became converted sometime "after" the resurrection of Christ. Also, it is about ACTS 21 where James, "the Lord's brother" is apparently called into the Apostleship. My question though is this...."if" James "the Lord's brother" was the Presiding Apostle....dont you suppose he would be named first as in James, Peter and John? The reason I ask that question is that according to those links you gave me...the listing, positioning or order of mention of the names is supposed to give a clear indication on the order of rank..if you will. Obviously....Peter is always mentioned first. randy

Dawn,Just a little background on the "James" of Peter, James and John fame....that "James" is the brother of John. This James, brother of John was killed during Passover in 44 A.D. So, that was what prompted my question with respect to James, the Lord's brother....if he was the Presiding Apostle he would have out of necessity been the one to come back and restore the MP and ordain Joseph and Oliver, given the fact that the Lord respects and honors his PH authority..all things are done in order in his house. Would you agree with that? If not...how come? randy

Dawn, I am sorry...I didnt pay attention to the question mark. No...the "James" that came back with Peter and John was NOT James "the Lord's brother". randy

Dawn,Yes, I know that..hence the question!!!! If James, the Lord's brother was the Presiding Apostle, it would seem the "he" would be the one Presiding at the Ordination of Joseph and Oliver. Why do you suppose "Peter, James and John" were the ones to come back as resurrected and tranlated beings to take care of the Restoration of the PH? randy

Dawn, Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. randy At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you? As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on. Dawn, hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding! Give me your references!! randy Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181 http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html (how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.) Dawn, I was hoping for just the scriptural references....so I can just go to them and read them without any biasis attached. can ya do that? randy No, I don't think I can. It goes beyond just scripture. It goes by historical references, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Sorry. I just posted those so you would know I wasn't making it all up. It really is the current belief based on all the things that the scholars have studied. It is, of course, your option to believe whatever you want, just like it is mine. Dawn, I never implied you were making it up! I just always heard this being put forward with no references given. I have read the links you gave...and will several more times in the next few days...as I digest this information. I smiled when I read several of them. This discussion will be fun. I do want to ask you one question though... When the MP was restored to the earth, why wasn't James "the Lord's brother" included? Given your position that he was "President of the Church" after Christ, it would seem only appropriate and right for him to lead the way in the restoration of that PH. Your thoughts plz? I will start another thread on this. This one will take a while!! Chompin at the bit! randy

Dawn, Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. randy At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you? As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on. Dawn, hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding! Give me your references!! randy Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181 http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html (how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.) Dawn, I was hoping for just the scriptural references....so I can just go to them and read them without any biasis attached. can ya do that? randy

Dawn, Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. randy At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you? As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on. Dawn, Restorationists, CoC and Remnant church's all feel they are following the word of the Lord in section 43 and all of you disagree vehemently with each other...so what does that teach you?? randy

Dawn, Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. randy At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you? As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on. Dawn, The members of the upper quorums are in lock-step with the agenda of the CoC. Cant you see that? randy

Dawn, Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. randy At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you? As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on. Dawn, hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding! Give me your references!! randy

Dawn,I share this with you regarding your belief that James, not Peter was the President of the Church after Christ: Acts 15:7 which reads...."And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles "BY MY MOUTH" should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Peter was the President of the Church, and as such received the mind and will of Diety on all matters. This was one those. Peter made the decision. In verses 6-11...Peter strikes at the heart of the controversy over circumcision. It wasnt really circumcision per se', but rather: Can the gospel be offered to uncircumcised Gentiles or is it limited to circumcised Israel? Are people who do not keep the law of Moses eligible in inherit the blessings of salvation which Christ came to bring? Is salvation through in Moses or in Christ? These are rhetorical questions...however as Peter, as President of the Church had received the revelation from God on the matter...there wasnt anything to decide. Circumcision...with all it symbolizes...is not essential for salvation. Now...in Acts 15:19 James says this...."Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God....." This could be misinterpreted to mean that James was making a decision on the case and therefore was head of the Church in Jerusalem, having some pre-eminence over Peter. Such is not the case. The fact is that Peter was the presiding officer in the Church and had in fact rendered and announced judgement on the issue of circumcision...see Acts 15:7-11. James is simply proposing the detailed instructions to put in force the decision already announced by Peter. Dawn, I dont know if this was one of the scriptures you would be refering to, but if it was...you might take a harder look. randy In Acts 15:13 its says...."And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me..."

Dawn,Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen. The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you. Please forward ASAP the references for James being the President after Christ. I want to look into that deeply. randy

Dawn,If you would please, could you give me the references you use for believing James became the President after Christ? randy

Dawn,First...I did have brain fart about Alexander Hale Smith. I stand corrected. However, I must ask you this....you put SO MUCH emphasis on Section 43 about the President being able to designate his successor....which Wallace B. did in Grant McMurray...yet you do not count him among the Presidents of the Church. Why? The President had the right to choose...and he did , and it was brought before the body of the saints of the RLDS (which you attend) in General Conference...and he was sustained by the common consent (rlds version) of the people....seems to me he should be included in the list. Cant just pick and choose again! Now....I have asked you before if Wallace B. Smith was in such a state of apostacy and sin, which would render his designation basically null and void, that then perhaps there would be something more substantive to discuss. But, you have continually maintained the position that he was not in apostacy to that degree. Indeed, one of the hopes was, depending of course on who you talked to, was that Wallace B. Smith would perhaps accept the invitation to come back...IF ONLY to designate a successor!! So....I am sorry, as a Restorationist you either need to accept Section 43 (as it is taught in the RLDS/Restorationist camp) and all the ramifications that have come about from it..ie; Grant McMurray being president...and in turn, the ramifications from his NOT choosing a successor and all that entails...ie; having to refer back to JS III's "Letter of Instruction" to give guideance on how to resolve the problem and all the confusion and contention that has resulted from that......OR you need to accept that your interpretation of Section 43 has been wrong. I understand your position toward the Remnant church perfectly. The LDS people do not worry ourselves with any other church or splinter group. We just go about doing what it is we do. However, from an historical perspective..the Remnant Church gives the Restorationist's a problem because they represent what it is you all want. They have: 1) unity in belief and practice 2) a First Presidency with a descendant of JS jr as Prophet/President. I realize that you dont accept that because he is descended from the Maternal side...however, they have gone to great pains to show how that is not, and should not be an issue with respect to "lineal succession". Again, to be clear....I dont believe either of the two camps have a leg to stand on with respect to this issue, but the Remnant Church was born from the womb of the Restorationists....so it should be an issue with you. IMO. 3) They have a almost full Quorum of the 12. They are establishing a structured missionary outreach. 4) They have Presiding Bishop. That's what they have, that I can think of off the top of my head. Now...Dawn, can you tell me with a straight face that the Restorationist's do not desire these same things...as it pertains to the church as a whole? randy

When I said what I said, it was a personal belief, based upon the holy number of 7. This is the 6th dispensation, we have had 6 prophets. The next dispensation (the 7th) is to be Zion. Christ is to come and usher in Zion. If we follow the rule of 7's, Christ would be the next head of the church. It is nothing that I'd write on paper, or prophesy about, just a belief that we are that close to the end of this era. James, the brother of Jesus, was considered the head of the church in Jerusalem. That makes it lineage. The keys of the kingdom were equally bestowed on Peter, James and John, but it was James who was considered the head of the church. You keep throwing out red herrings by mentioning the Remnant. They are not important. They are not even in the ball game. The RLDS/CoC is the church the promises were given to. That some misguided men organized themselves a church is beside the point. I don't think you know what the restorationists want. Sorry, but your posts miss the mark by quite a ways. Dawn, Correct me if I am wrong I count the RLDS has had 8 Prophets: 1) JS jr 2) JS III 3) Alexander Hale 4) Frederick M. 5) Israel 6) W. Wallace 7) Wallace B. 8) Grant McMurray So the "law of 7's is not a viable argument. What do the Restorationists want? randy

Dawn,I hear what you are saying...I do. The problem arises is that as eloquent and articulate you are in your beliefs....it does not hold up scripturally. On the other board you stated that it is your personal belief that the next Prophet within the "true" RLDS church ie; Restorationists after the Lord comes and "sets his church in order" will be Jesus Christ. On what do you base this belief? Can it be accurately said then...that before that day comes there will be no First Presidency, no Apostles in the true RLDS church before the Lord comes and puts in order his church? This is more of a rhetorical question, but answer if you feel compelled. I have studied this issue of Presidential succession for years...as have others alot smarter than I..and they having access to records and documents that I do not....and many...if not most agree with the LDS position on succession from what the scriptures teach and what the Prophet Joseph taught. The two church's have a fundamentally different view on the meaning of D&C 43. I have to ask....looking back now almost 170+ yrs....which mode of succession has brought about unity, progress, stability....has brought the Church out of obscurity, has flooded the earth with the BoM, has spread the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people...save now only a few countries? When the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them" he was serious. He said there would be fruit to see! You state the Church has always operated based upon lineage, yet it is clear that Apostolic succession was also the church order in the meridian of time. It is clear that succession through lineage has not brought stability, unity or progression....but rather the fruits of which I have already mentioned. I simply bring up the CoC and Remnant church's....especially the Remnant church...because they represent exactly what it is the Restorationists want....and have looked forward to all of these years. Their members are as die hard and knowledgeable as the RLDS ...yet, the Restorationists look upon them with disdain. Why? For alot of different reasons...but, at the very core all these contending viewpoints stem from pride. randy

Dawn,My point is simply this....that even given this detailed "letter of instruction" to the church (it was not a revelation) yet...it is accepted as though it was, the RLDS/CoC have somehow misused or misapplied its intent. It just appears to me that this "letter of instruction" has fostered even more confusion...because it seems as though everyone ie; CoC/Restorationist and Remnant Church all look to it as the filter by which things will be "put in order". Yet...when this letter is applied within the CoC and the Remnant Church's respectively..the Restorationists cry foul. The CoC and Restorationist's cry foul when the Remnant Church uses it to support their position of "putting the church in order"...and on and on and on. It will never end. By the very nature of the beliefs that each of the factions hold...confusion is just naturally resident. It cant be avoided. Do you see what I am trying to say? In all three of these groups it's guidelines are being supposedly followed, yet confusion reigns on all fronts! Nothing but confusion and contention one with another. Can you see why the Lord allowed Apostolic Succession to become the Lord's way of Succession in the Presidency? It just seems so clear. randy