Randy Johnson

You are lucky, then. But stick around and watch the number of people that disagree with you about feeling coerced into things. And, not to ruin your perception of urban legends, but I have talked to members of my church living in SLC, one worked in one of the hospitals there, others in other places, and tithing was automatically deducted from their wages even though they had, on several occasions spoken directly to management regarding their church status. One of them had to threaten to sue to stop the money from being deducted. If that is not a form of coersion, I don't know what it. I have always felt that some aspects of the LDS church such as family unity as well as doctrinal unity, as well as it's missionary program, have been wonderful achievements, and have, at times, wished that we could replicate them in our church (and, to a moderate degree, we did (until 1960, or so, when everyone decided that they needed to get rid of those practices)). I have said this over and over again. Those don't make the church true, though. And I agree with your last observation. Many feel rudderless, most of those, though, joined the Remnant church. There are many, many more who have watched the process over the last 30-40 years, and while we don't like what we see, and many have been extremely hurt by it, we feel that God is in control, and the church will emerge triumphant, to the glory of Christ our Lord. Dawn, Oh...dont worry...I will stick around. No problem. As far as people being made to feel compelled to do this or that....all I can say is that I am not going to debate someone who feels they have been coerced to do something. Do you feel coerced when your read the 10 commandments? Or after reading D&C 76....and start thinking about what we need to do in our lives in order to progress? People may feel they are being "made" to do something when if fact...it was suggested to them..but they..because of possible guilt....felt they were being coerced. Bottom line is....I have NEVER seen it. NEVER. I have been around this nation and lived in many wards...with many Bishop's and all their personalities...and I have never seen it. Maybe I am lucky. With respect to the comment about a person's tithing being auto-deducted from their payroll is laughable. First...tithing can only be accepted personally by a member of the Bishopric or mailed to the Bishop's home address. Period. The member would fill out the appropriate tithing form....and hand it to a member of the Bishopric..ONLY. Then the member of the Bishopric and the ward finance clerk enter the data into the Church financial software and send it to Church HQ's. There isnt even a provision for such a transaction as your friends described. If there was I would have known about it......plus the fact if it were possible...I would have arranged to have it done myself!!! Yes....this is DEFINATELY an ubran legend of EPIC proportions!! Cecil B. DeMille type proportions!!

Fatboys, I appreciate your post, and I understand what you are saying, but my only point is that I don't believe that what the church morphed into in Nauvoo, as a direct result of the influence of BY, was what God wanted the church to become. BY might well have been a God-fearing man (and I have read more than just the things my church pushed on me to read), but (and let's look to our friends on ChristianForums for this example), most of the people on CF consider themselves God-fearing people, don'tcha think? But do you really feel that they are being led by the spirit when we (both you and I) feel nothing radiating from many of their posts but anger and hate? That is how I feel. BY might have felt he was a God-fearing man. But, IMO, he was not the man God wanted as the leader of His church. I could liken it to how I feel about the CoC at this point in time. I have met Grant McMurray (president of the CoC) and know him to be a good man who cares about many people. But he is leading the church in ways that are at odds with what I know as the restored gospel. If I can say that about the man who is president of my own church, I feel comfortable saying it about the man who assumed leadership of your church at that time of crisis (and I do realize it was a time of crisis. I realize that there was no easy answer, but looking to God and what He said when he restored His church gives me a good clue as to who I think I, personally, would have followed had I been there.) Dawn, You and I both know....and you should know more than most...whatever it was that Nauvoo "morphed" into...it was under the inspiration and guidance of the Prophet Joseph. Brigham Young...and all the Apostles were under his direct tutiledge. See...its here that we really take the 180 degree forks in the road....because to here the Restorationists tell it....Joseph Smith was completely and totally clueless about what was going on around him in Nauvoo....and if not clueless...he was so weak as to not even try to keep the church pure in its doctrine and beliefs. In short...he gave up. I dont believe that happened...not for one nano second. The Prophet knew what was going on around him...and "IF" BY was doing a millioneth of the things that you and others have attributed to him....Joseph..who was a man's man...would have taken care of business. There is not one doubt in my mind! No....what happened in Nauvoo was simply a continuation of the restoration of the gospel....plain and simple. What was restored in the Kirtland Temple was expanded upon in Nauvoo. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Nauvoo basically was Joseph Smith...it reflected everything about him. His signature was in and through everything. The LDS church does not believe for a moment that JS was a fallen prophet...or a Prophet who had lost his "spiritual edge" or however RLDS/CoC what to describe or label his life while in Nauvoo. He lived great....and he died great. This we believe. This we know to be true.

Hey Dawn, Man..thats the pot callin the kettle black...dont ya think??? Besides...I know why the RLDS church hasn't grown as well as you do!! Oh....and it kinda sounds like ya might wanna review the term "unrighteous dominion"!! Sure love ya! You know I was just joshin' with ya. You did see all the smilies I put in the post, right? B) Besides, I don't think I will need to use my supreme powers on you. We're old buddies. So what do you think is the answer? When Christ comes again, and the world has not been preached to because the of trying to figure out what someones beliefs really are, what will happen? Do you believe that it is our responsibility to help others find Christ? What do you think personally about changing from RLDS to the community of Christ. Also I was speaking member of the RLDS before the change was made who was disgusted with what he could see was happening. He was one who had a high leadership role and was totally against what the president was doing. He said that they had sold their souls for a bowel of porridge. He said that the RLDS was in financial trouble and asked help from the United Christian something or other. He said that they had to drop the RLDS and become more mainstream. He said that they would have to drop the Book of Mormon, and the leaders were going to do this over a period of time. Sort of weaning them off from it. I don't know if what he said was the truth. He claimed that he was in position of Leadership to know what he was saying is true. Jenda I know what the leadership has told RLDS, but since they had been known for so long as RLDS, I just don't understand it. What do you think? People still have their agency. God has restored the church many, many times since the creation. Do I wish that there weren't so many blind people in the church? I sure do. Do I wish there weren't so many lazy and/or embarassed people in the church so the gospel is spread more? Of course. The alternative to allowing people to do as they desire or feel led is to force them to do it (sort of as how many perceive the LDS church), and the RLDS has always refused to force the membership into anything. If it is not something that is done because someone wants to do it, then those people wouldn't be good representatives, anyway. But the RLDS Restoration Branches are picking up the ball and running with it. The movement is very new, only 15 years old, but with the creation of the Elders Conference which helps organize the unorganized membership (which isn't meant to be misconstrued as an official organizational structure), the group has focused on missionary outreach, and, for it's newness and size, is doing fairly well. I think it will grow faster than the CoC is growing, or has grown in the last 20-30 years. Dawn, But in 1830 he restored it for the last time. I can tell without any hestitation...that I have NEVER felt compelled by the Church to do anything that I first didnt have a desire to do myself. The other urban legend that is still going around is that the LDS church forces or coerces its members to do this that and so. It is simply not true. Are we taught in plainess what the Lord expects? Yes. Does that in and of itself convict us and motivate us to strive to do what is right and be obedient to gospel principles? Of course! What it doesnt mean is that the Leaders of the church exercise mind control over the church. As a people...from the dawn of the restoration...we have strived to be an obedient people...first to the Lord....then to his servants who he has called to lead us. We do not apologize for being a united people. There is much strength, courage and conviction to be found among a united people....and of course a spiritual power that is in many ways unequaled. I suspect....that those of the other restoration factions wish that they had the same degree of unity of the faith and such a clear vision of what they are about. Most...if not all....seem to appear rudderless. Just my observation. randy

Hey Dawn, Man..thats the pot callin the kettle black...dont ya think??? Besides...I know why the RLDS church hasn't grown as well as you do!! Oh....and it kinda sounds like ya might wanna review the term "unrighteous dominion"!! Sure love ya! You know I was just joshin' with ya. You did see all the smilies I put in the post, right? B) Besides, I don't think I will need to use my supreme powers on you. We're old buddies. Dearest Dawn, Yeah...I know you were yankin my chain!! Thats ok....I kinda enjoy it! Oh...ya might be careful about wielding your supreme powers....ya never know who might be moderatoring the moderators!! I guess my observation has been my entire life with respect to this is....that the good folk in the RLDS/CoC and now with the Remnant Church....have always seemed like they dismiss the notion that the lack of increase in membership is really not an indicator of anything..other than...well...not increasing. All the prophesies about the Church being a "stone cut out of the mountain, rolling forth" etc....seem to be interpreted as applying to the church "after" it has been "put in order" by the Lord....or "after" the "one mighty and strong" comes to take his rightful place in the church. It seems as if the "success" if you will of the RLDS is always somewhere in the future...never in the present. My friends in the RLDS/CoC/Remnant Church have always prefaced their comments about the Church never having broke 250,000 and at present are closer to 235,000 ( remembering that they believe the church ALREADY had around 200,000 at the time of the exodus).....with the "the LDS always think its about numbers....its not about numbers...its about where the truth of the Gospel lies". Well, I have to agree and disagree with that premise. My personal belief is that in the last days (as prophesied) "the truth about where the gospel lies" will be first spiritually manifested to the people of the earth...they then will have a desire to join the Lords true church....hence, the numbers are simply one of many barometers we can look at to measure success....albeit..a very important and straightforward one. The "numbers" are vitally important because of what they represent. What do they represent? They represent real people....who have "come unto Christ". They represent families who are now reaching out to others around the globe...testifing of the truth of the gospel...and especially the Book of Mormon. Our friends in the other restoration factions certainly would have nothing against "lots of people" joining their ranks. I would dare say if any of them were to experience just for one year...the kind of growth the LDS church has continued to experience....they would be proclaiming the "end is at hand"....and using that growth and what it represents as a "witnessing tool" to others. But...since the exodus of the Saints west....not ONE of the other restoration groups have even approached anything close to real missionary success. Thats not meant to be harsh...thats just the reality of it. None of them have. Of course, one could argue that even the "one" convert is a success...and I would agree! Of course it is! But...I think we all know and agree that for the purposes of this thread...we all know what we mean by numerical missionary success. Yes....I have seen the argument of "if you go by numbers...then the Catholic church would be the true church". They have kinda had a few more centuries to work on their lead. I guess bottom line is....the various restoration factions IMO will plod along....pulling members back and forth from one another...but as far as making a global impact on nations....as far as truly evangelizing the world with the message of the Restored gospel....the LDS church, bar none...is the ONLY one that has positioned itself through revelation given through Prophets of God...and that has been given the PH and endowed with power from on high to truly make it happen as the Lord has told us it would. So...I say to all of our restoration cousins..."come join with us"!

Hey Dawn,Man..thats the pot callin the kettle black...dont ya think??? Besides...I know why the RLDS church hasn't grown as well as you do!! Oh....and it kinda sounds like ya might wanna review the term "unrighteous dominion"!! Sure love ya!

Hello there,The simple answer is because <looking to see if Jenda is around> is because it was prophesied by Brigham Young at the time Sidney Rigdon was proposing to the Church that he be "guardian of the Church"....said he..." let them draw away from us who they will...and start their own church...but I say to you...they will not prosper". I paraphrased that...but that was the gist of what he said. I will let Dawn tackle this one.

Hi Ya!Being the father of 6 kids..all grown now...I remember vividly those kind of meetings! I can honestly say...that my wife and I did our level best to keep the kid's mouths shut...and if they couldnt...we went to the rest room which is where they KNEW they didnt want be. We never took em out and just let them walk around the halls...that would be like heaven to them. Reverence in Sacrament meeting is something that has been talked about...preached about from the Prophets pulpit to the Bishop's pulpit. As a people we MUST do much, much better. Honestly...I do not understand why parents do not take crying babies out...or toddlers that are banging around etc. They need to be taught at home that this behavior is unacceptable. period....and if they do it...there will be consistant discipline fit for the crime....and it wont be fun! I have seen parents "bear hug" their kids...while they are screaming their heads off!! Why on earth would they do that during a Sacrament service....or ANY public service for that matter?! I know not why! Nope...as parents, teachers and Bishops (to assist parents who seem to not be able to do it themselves) we need to take some strong steps in correcting this behavior. It's direspectful to the Lord and the rest of the Saints who have probably busted their chops to get to Church in order to have some semblance of a spiritual experience or to leave with some nugget of wisdom. I agree...perty hard when you have out of control kids all around ya!!! Ok....stepping down off my soapbox.... ....oh and by the way...in my opinion...unfortunatley..it probably is the norm. Hard to say...but thats my guess. The Church is still true though....even with the screaming kids! .....oh..one more thought....with having said all the above....in my mind it does NOT include a fussy infant...or a little crying here and there. Not at all. My issue is with the toddlers and older kids who are wreaking havoc. .....But, if the baby crys to long and to loud....head out the door! Ok...now Iam done! randy

How old is that person now… the person who is the sixth prophet of the RLDS church now? Do you believe Jesus will come back immediately after he dies? If not, how long do you think you’ll wait before you change your belief about who should or should not lead the church of Christ? 20 years? 50 years? Of course that person would just be fill-in, right? Because according to your understanding, nobody but a literal descendent of Joseph Smith Jr. should be the leader of the Church, right? That person (Wallace B. Smith) is probably about 65. There is (are?) (an)other lineal male descendent(s), through the male line. It would be Wallace B.'s cousin. The grandson of Israel A. Smith (our 4th prophet). And he was blessed at birth (by Israel A.) for that role. Nothing as close as a designation, but still a blessing from God through the prophet. He would be about 50, maybe. But my belief about Christ returning as the 7th leader of the church is just that. My belief. Nothing that is scripturally based. A play on the number 777, which is considered the holy number. So don't go around saying that RLDS believe this. Okay, thanks for the clarification. :) Dawn, I dont believe I have put words in your mouth at all. I want you to know....and I mean this with all sincerity...I really enjoy talking with you!! You are well read...articulate and fiesty...all in one package! You and I go back a little ways....on other discussion boards...so we know where each other is coming from. To others on this board....this is the way Dawn and I banter back and forth! Just like brother and sister! She and I mean no disrespect towards one another...and in fact....I believe we respect each other a great deal....I know I do her! I received your other message...thank you....accepted....and I hope you accept mine as well!! hug hug hug. Okay...so lets get ready to ruuummblllle!!!

Ray, It's my understanding that the Restorationists's believe that it must be a literal descendant of JS on the "fathers side". The President of the Remnant church is a direct descendant of JS, however he is descended from his "mothers side" which according to the Restorationists disqualifies him.

How old is that person now… the person who is the sixth prophet of the RLDS church now? Do you believe Jesus will come back immediately after he dies? If not, how long do you think you’ll wait before you change your belief about who should or should not lead the church of Christ? 20 years? 50 years? Of course that person would just be fill-in, right? Because according to your understanding, nobody but a literal descendent of Joseph Smith Jr. should be the leader of the Church, right? Hi ya Ray! Way back when...my good fundamental RLDS friends told me that when W. Wallace Smith was President....and he had designated his son Wallace B. Smith..who by my calculations became the 7th President of the church.....thats what they told me then....."this was it....Wallace B. is the one...he is the 7th Prophet etc...things are really going to move forward with speed and great power". It didnt happen. Things only got exponentially worse. Dawn..correct if I am wrong...Wallace B. Smith is the 7th correct..... 1) JS jr 2) JSIII 3) Alexander Hale 4) Fredrick M. 5) Israel 6) W. Wallace 7) Wallace B 8)??? ....or is it your position is that in order for your scenario to work out...Wallace B. Smith....must repent...and THEN he would be in a position to "appoint another in his stead"? But...then...he has already done that once with Grant McMurray. So...share with us in some detail if you can...how this process eventually work.

Dawn, We should start a new thread to talk about the PH office of HP and Apostle. I would love to discuss that with you in detail. So...all the Saints in Nauvoo were under the threat of death from BY after the death of the Prophet..is that what you are telling me? Honestly...all the things you attribute to BY is incredible.....and all this after JS receives a revelation thats found in the D&C 126..that starts by the Prophet saying...."Dear and well-beloved brother Brigham Young....." this given in 1841...when BY was President of the Quorum of 12. Ya know...really...as much as I love to talk about history....and yes...I get a bit excited at times....you and I are not going to change things. The "Differences that Persist" will always persist in the old school, old time died in the wool....hate BY....members of the Restoration branches...and for that matter the CoC and the Remnant church. Actually...thats probably the only thing ya'all can agree on! What was....was.....what is....is. The LDS church is moving forward with strength and vitality. The church bar none...is flooding the earth with the BoM...and the message of the Restoration as it was prophesied would be done. You have said in the past that the LDS church is successful because we are telling "your" story...meaning the RLDS message of the restoration. Of course...I understand that thats really the only position you can make. I have to ask you....why hasnt the Restorationists been successful on the scale prophesied would happen? I am not talking about waiting for the Lord to come and "put his Church in order" or waiting for the "one mighty and strong" to come and do it. I am talking about the old RLDS and now the Restorationists who claim to be the true RLDS...why are you guys STILL in such an extreme state of chaos? There is now disagreement within the CRE about this and that and the other. The Remnant Church of course, as you mentioned came out from the CRE because of disagreement. Basically...those who started the Remnant Church just got tired of waiting for the Lord to "reorganize" yet again...the church. They feel of course that they used the same pattern of "reorganization" as the original "reorganizers" thus giving them a scriptural foundation (in their view at least) to move forward with the calling of the Twelve...and eventually their President. They took everything from the history of the RLDS church...and applied it to their situation...and...poof....we have yet another splinter group. The LDS church has no history of chaos and confusion. The church has steadily and boldly moved forward with its message of the Restored gospel and the BoM. The blessings have been remarkable....the miracles innumerable. The LDS church is the stone cut out of the moutain. By their fruits ye shall know them. The fruit of each of the restoration churches is there for all to see and to pray about....to see if its good fruit...or bad fruit. Everywhere one turns to look in the history of the RLDS church there has always been some degree of chaos and confusion about something.

Dawn, Your answer regarding the Remnant Church was ambiguous at best. You know what their claim is....THEY are the "original" church...THEY have a lineal descendant..albeit from the Mom's side....from JS....THEY have the higher quorums semi filled....so... Why don't you join with them??? If you say you cant join with them...does that make them "apostates" or just "good restorationists that have just lost their mind...if only for a moment"? Is the attitude that "we'll just let them do their thing...and when it fizzles out we will accept them back with open arms and let bygones be bygones?

Dawn, 1) still no name as to who should lead the church Read my last post. No name because no wish (of the Lord's) for Him to appoint anyone to that position till the church was cleansed. Only the ones who failed to recognize the evil that became entrenched in the church and those fostering it. No, I would say that the ones that they excommunicated becasue they disagreed with them were probably OK. (But you were the one who brought this into the conversation, not me. ) They were coerced. I read them, too. You are afraid to read a book that most historians, LDS as well as RLDS, consider authoritative? What is it you want me to give, if not the standard RLDS points. After all, all you are giving me are the standard LDS points. Even though a lot of historical things were put into that book, there is still a lot of hearsay in it. I am sure that young Joseph was appreciative for the love many had for their father. That they were "discrete" was really due to the fact that there was nothing to be "indiscrete" about. When a person writes a book based on a biased premise, a lot of assumptions end up being written into the book. Randy, a church went west. A church that did not resemble the restored Church of Jesus Christ. A church that did not resemble the church organized by Christ. A church that did not resemble the church as given to Adam, or to the church that was restored in BoM times. And you know as well as I do that the earthly "legal assets, etc." mean nothing to God. Neither does a corrupt leadership. Those are nothing but strawman arguments. In 1833 the church was placed under condemnation because the saints who had gone to Independence did not govern themselves well and did not follow the commandments of God. They were kicked out of town, and Joseph received this revelation: D&C 983b-4h RLDS (101:7-21 LDS) 3b They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble. 3c In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me. 4a Verily, I say unto you, Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion toward them; I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember mercy. 4b I have sworn, and the decree hath gone forth by a former commandment which I have given unto you, that I would let fall the sword of mine indignation in the behalf of my people; and even as I have said, it shall come to pass. 4c Mine indignation is soon to be poured out without measure upon all nations, and this will I do when the cup of their iniquity is full. 4d And in that day, all who are found upon the watchtower, or in other words, all mine Israel shall be saved. 4e And they that have been scattered shall be gathered; and all they who have mourned shall be comforted; and all they who have given their lives for my name shall be crowned. 4f Therefore, let your hearts be comforted concerning Zion, for all flesh is in mine hands: be still, and know that I am God. 4g Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered, they that remain and are pure in heart shall return and come to their inheritances; they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy; to build up the waste places of Zion. And all these things, that the prophets might be fulfilled. 4h And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed, neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed for the work of the gathering of my Saints, until the day cometh when there is found no more room for them; This revelation states that Independence will remain the place of Zion, and those saints who remained faithful and pure in heart would return to their inheritance. They and their children, to build up the waste places of Zion. That is exactly what happened with the Reorganization. The saints who were kicked out returned and started building up the waste places of Zion. It doesn't say their great-grandchildren, it says "they", the ones who had been kicked out. Dawn Dawn Dawn, I am sure your cousins in the CoC view the restorationists and Remnant Church in the same you light you see the LDS and vice versa. They (CoC/Remnant) see those in the Restoration branches as being mavericks and not willing or capable because of pride or tradition to accept either of them as the "original" church restored in 1830. They make the same arguments against you guys..and you against them....that you ALL make against the LDS. Figure that one out! 1) Ok...so you believe that the Lord would just let the Church grovel while this leader and that leader cried lo here and lo there. Thats NOT what the Lord said would happen to his church. 2) It is a matter of record that William Smith had a long history of instability.... He was excommunicated for blatant insubordination and rebellion. John E. Page was ex'd for the same reason in 1846 (he being the one that we all know was receiving alleged revelations.) Lyman Wight deserted the Church and was ex'd in 1849. * note...in 1977 I worked for Lyman Wights grgrgrGrandson's and we talked much about Lyman's life. The family all concurs that he lost faith and deserted. 3) Regarding the "rebaptisms"....why cant you accept them for what they were...voluntary reaffirmations of their covenants with the Lord. Why must you try to villify everything? I guess as far as this issue goes..its a wash. Some say nay...some say aye. 4) Dawn....I am not "afraid" to read any book. I already have read much of "Enigma" (borrowed it from a friend). I already pointed out some information that pointed directly to the fact that some of Joseph's plural wive's were present at the viewing of the bodies....and that young Joseph was appreciative of their demeanor and discretion....meaning ...not openly showing the emotion and grief that a wife would. Not taking certain liberties because of their sealing to him. That is what JSIII was referring to. With respect to the "Enigma" book...it is obvious you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe and ignoring the facts that are contained in what you call an "authoritative" book. How come? I agree with you that the Church is much, much more than records...assets etc. But..the Leadership of the Church with the resident "keys of the priesthood" as well as the sustaining faith of the main body of the Saints IS the Church!! And they went West!! I bring that up only because around here I keep hearing the argument that the RLDS church in the Kirtland Temple court case was judged to be the "original" church as founded in 1830. Of course..the facts of the case state no such thing....and as most of us know there is no "Court" in the land that can litigate in ecclesiastical matters. No judge could ever hope to be able to make a ruling in such matters. He would be laughed off the bench. Note: in a fairly recent HERALD there was an article that finally admitted that the RLDS church did NOT win the Kirtland Temple suit and was NOT awarded custody of the Temple. The RLDS church was able to maintain possession SOLEY upon the law of "adverse possession". So..I guess it might depend on which aspects of history one might want to look to courts to for support. 4) Amboy and Lamoni are not Independence. The LDS got back eventually...when they could. They kinda had their hands full for awhile. We are back now...and stronger than ever. The work is progressing nicely here in Indep. Mo. Finally...as is almost always the case...the focus is always pointed toward BY and all the atrocities that he was able to commit right under the Prophets nose....and while he was at it...he was able to brainwash some 15-20 thousand people who evidently turned out to be mindless clones doing his bidding. Honestly Dawn...in your heart of all hearts you honestly believe BY was actually in position to do all these things...pull off these "stunts" as you call them, coerce thousands of people to do things they didnt want to do....or believe in doctrine that they did not have a testimony and witness of themselves? You artfully avoided my question about why there wasnt journal entries given by Willard Richards, John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff detailing the "designation" "setting apart" or "ordination" of young Joseph. How come ya think? By the way...of the three terms mentioned above...which was it? It has been referred to by all three...yet all three mean different things. These kind of discussions always seem to turn out like a referendum on BY. I want to talk about Gurley and Briggs specifically....and in particular Briggs 1851 "revelation" which is the actual beginnings of the Reorganization. Are ya up for it? Dawn, The more I thought about it...the more I think I did err. I said "Amboy" when I meant to say "Plano". At any rate...the HQ's for the RLDS church for all practical purposes went to first to Plano...then to Lamoni...then to Independence. Individuals of course may have come and go...the same for LDS..but I am speaking of an official church presence. So..why didnt the RLDS leaders move the Church HQ's directly to Independence in 1851 when the Reorganization was taking shape?

Dawn, 1) still no name as to who should lead the church Read my last post. No name because no wish (of the Lord's) for Him to appoint anyone to that position till the church was cleansed. Only the ones who failed to recognize the evil that became entrenched in the church and those fostering it. No, I would say that the ones that they excommunicated becasue they disagreed with them were probably OK. (But you were the one who brought this into the conversation, not me. ) They were coerced. I read them, too. You are afraid to read a book that most historians, LDS as well as RLDS, consider authoritative? What is it you want me to give, if not the standard RLDS points. After all, all you are giving me are the standard LDS points. Even though a lot of historical things were put into that book, there is still a lot of hearsay in it. I am sure that young Joseph was appreciative for the love many had for their father. That they were "discrete" was really due to the fact that there was nothing to be "indiscrete" about. When a person writes a book based on a biased premise, a lot of assumptions end up being written into the book. Randy, a church went west. A church that did not resemble the restored Church of Jesus Christ. A church that did not resemble the church organized by Christ. A church that did not resemble the church as given to Adam, or to the church that was restored in BoM times. And you know as well as I do that the earthly "legal assets, etc." mean nothing to God. Neither does a corrupt leadership. Those are nothing but strawman arguments. In 1833 the church was placed under condemnation because the saints who had gone to Independence did not govern themselves well and did not follow the commandments of God. They were kicked out of town, and Joseph received this revelation: D&C 983b-4h RLDS (101:7-21 LDS) 3b They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble. 3c In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me. 4a Verily, I say unto you, Notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion toward them; I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember mercy. 4b I have sworn, and the decree hath gone forth by a former commandment which I have given unto you, that I would let fall the sword of mine indignation in the behalf of my people; and even as I have said, it shall come to pass. 4c Mine indignation is soon to be poured out without measure upon all nations, and this will I do when the cup of their iniquity is full. 4d And in that day, all who are found upon the watchtower, or in other words, all mine Israel shall be saved. 4e And they that have been scattered shall be gathered; and all they who have mourned shall be comforted; and all they who have given their lives for my name shall be crowned. 4f Therefore, let your hearts be comforted concerning Zion, for all flesh is in mine hands: be still, and know that I am God. 4g Zion shall not be moved out of her place, notwithstanding her children are scattered, they that remain and are pure in heart shall return and come to their inheritances; they and their children, with songs of everlasting joy; to build up the waste places of Zion. And all these things, that the prophets might be fulfilled. 4h And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed, neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed for the work of the gathering of my Saints, until the day cometh when there is found no more room for them; This revelation states that Independence will remain the place of Zion, and those saints who remained faithful and pure in heart would return to their inheritance. They and their children, to build up the waste places of Zion. That is exactly what happened with the Reorganization. The saints who were kicked out returned and started building up the waste places of Zion. It doesn't say their great-grandchildren, it says "they", the ones who had been kicked out. Dawn Dawn Dawn, I am sure your cousins in the CoC view the restorationists and Remnant Church in the same you light you see the LDS and vice versa. They (CoC/Remnant) see those in the Restoration branches as being mavericks and not willing or capable because of pride or tradition to accept either of them as the "original" church restored in 1830. They make the same arguments against you guys..and you against them....that you ALL make against the LDS. Figure that one out! 1) Ok...so you believe that the Lord would just let the Church grovel while this leader and that leader cried lo here and lo there. Thats NOT what the Lord said would happen to his church. 2) It is a matter of record that William Smith had a long history of instability.... He was excommunicated for blatant insubordination and rebellion. John E. Page was ex'd for the same reason in 1846 (he being the one that we all know was receiving alleged revelations.) Lyman Wight deserted the Church and was ex'd in 1849. * note...in 1977 I worked for Lyman Wights grgrgrGrandson's and we talked much about Lyman's life. The family all concurs that he lost faith and deserted. 3) Regarding the "rebaptisms"....why cant you accept them for what they were...voluntary reaffirmations of their covenants with the Lord. Why must you try to villify everything? I guess as far as this issue goes..its a wash. Some say nay...some say aye. 4) Dawn....I am not "afraid" to read any book. I already have read much of "Enigma" (borrowed it from a friend). I already pointed out some information that pointed directly to the fact that some of Joseph's plural wive's were present at the viewing of the bodies....and that young Joseph was appreciative of their demeanor and discretion....meaning ...not openly showing the emotion and grief that a wife would. Not taking certain liberties because of their sealing to him. That is what JSIII was referring to. With respect to the "Enigma" book...it is obvious you are picking and choosing what you wish to believe and ignoring the facts that are contained in what you call an "authoritative" book. How come? I agree with you that the Church is much, much more than records...assets etc. But..the Leadership of the Church with the resident "keys of the priesthood" as well as the sustaining faith of the main body of the Saints IS the Church!! And they went West!! I bring that up only because around here I keep hearing the argument that the RLDS church in the Kirtland Temple court case was judged to be the "original" church as founded in 1830. Of course..the facts of the case state no such thing....and as most of us know there is no "Court" in the land that can litigate in ecclesiastical matters. No judge could ever hope to be able to make a ruling in such matters. He would be laughed off the bench. Note: in a fairly recent HERALD there was an article that finally admitted that the RLDS church did NOT win the Kirtland Temple suit and was NOT awarded custody of the Temple. The RLDS church was able to maintain possession SOLEY upon the law of "adverse possession". So..I guess it might depend on which aspects of history one might want to look to courts to for support. 4) Amboy and Lamoni are not Independence. The LDS got back eventually...when they could. They kinda had their hands full for awhile. We are back now...and stronger than ever. The work is progressing nicely here in Indep. Mo. Finally...as is almost always the case...the focus is always pointed toward BY and all the atrocities that he was able to commit right under the Prophets nose....and while he was at it...he was able to brainwash some 15-20 thousand people who evidently turned out to be mindless clones doing his bidding. Honestly Dawn...in your heart of all hearts you honestly believe BY was actually in position to do all these things...pull off these "stunts" as you call them, coerce thousands of people to do things they didnt want to do....or believe in doctrine that they did not have a testimony and witness of themselves? You artfully avoided my question about why there wasnt journal entries given by Willard Richards, John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff detailing the "designation" "setting apart" or "ordination" of young Joseph. How come ya think? By the way...of the three terms mentioned above...which was it? It has been referred to by all three...yet all three mean different things. These kind of discussions always seem to turn out like a referendum on BY. I want to talk about Gurley and Briggs specifically....and in particular Briggs 1851 "revelation" which is the actual beginnings of the Reorganization. Are ya up for it?

Dawn,1) still no name as to who should lead the church 2) we are to believe that every single man the Lord called into the Holy Apostleship through the Prophet Joseph fell into apostacy. 3) The urban legend about BY coercing the membership to be "rebaptized" is nonsense. BY allowed the Saints "if they chose to" to be rebaptized to reaffirm their covenants with Lord. From a practical view...many baptismal records were either destroyed during the persecutions of the saints...during the exodus west...or lost during the exodus. Some baptisms simply were not recorded...so this allowed a record to be made. Bottom line according to the Journals/Diaries I have read about these "rebaptisms" they were strictly voluntary. Am I allowed to believe these records? 4) Because you feel a particular book is "authoritative" doesnt necessarily make it so. 5) You say come back and talk..but all you have given is the standard RLDS talking points. We have not even investigated the likes of Gurley, Briggs, Newkirk, Rasey, White, and Blair. We will. 6) Many people have worked in Nauvoo..and have had access to the same materials you have....and have drawn different conclusions. I am not certain you have attained any kind "expert authority" status...although you seem well read. Many others are as well. 7) I believe on page 193 of "Enigma" it talks of Josephs other wives being at the Mansion House during the visitation of the bodies...and how young Joseph was appreciative to them for not making his mother even more distraught..by showing extreme discretion. How much of the book do you agree with? Dawn...the Church went west.....whether folks agreed or not...the Church as a legally organized, incorporated religous society went west with all the official records...assets...leadership...and the sustaining vote and prayers of the majority of the Saints. The history record is clear.

Fatboy--you need to read Emma's Biography "Enigma." It is meticulously documented with plentiful source material from both churches' archives, and public records. It's a wealth of information. Emma's decision was much more complex than most LDS people are told. One thing is very clear--All of Joseph Smith's "wives" were farmed out to Brigham Young and the other apostles. There is no way Emma would have anything to do with that. Also, Joseph Smith's assets were all tied up with the church's. If Brigham Young had his way, Emma would be left with all the debt, and the church would take all the assets with them to Utah. Even given the extreme circumstances of time, his treatment of her was absolutely horrid and inexcusable. This was made worse by an obvious personality clash and lack of communication. Emma tried to move on from it, but Brigham Young never got over it. This was a man who held a grudge and made the most of it. The book also contains some interesting information on the lives of Joseph and Emma's children. Their sons Alexander and David visited Brigham Young in Utah as missionaries, and years later, Joseph Smith III did as well. It's very interesting and thought provoking reading and is told from an objective point of view. Hi Curvette, The RLDS position has always been that JSIII was designated on three separate occassions by his father. These three are occassions were allegedly witnessed by James Whitehead, Lyman Wight and John H. Carter...respectively. My question is an obvious one. Why didnt ANYONE including Emma (whom I honor and respect btw) speak up during the August 8th meeting to firmly remind the Church that this designation had taken place? It seems to me to have been an absolute perfect time and place to do it. At no time during the approx 2 yrs after the death of the Prophet and the start of the exodus west was this "designation" brought up. I have always found that to be quite odd....especially given Emma's strong will. I do not believe she was a pushover by any means. To be honest...IMO....all the talk of JSIII being designated seems almost like an after-thought....given the fact that the testimony by James Whitehead and John H. Carter came many years after the fact....and Lyman Wight's testimony that a designation took place in Liberty Jail is suspect because no else who was there with the Prophet said it took place. Just some thoughts.... randy Randy, maybe you need to read up a bit more on that period of church history. Several people spoke up. One talked of someone being named the guardian of the church till young Joseph was old enough to assume his place, and BY shot that one out of the water. Brigham Young, on several occasions made allusions to knowing that Joseph had designated Joseph, III. Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, by Robert Bruce Flanders, has been the authority on that time period for many years, and contains all that information. I will post some of it for you. The occasions (of Joseph, III's designation) were when Smith was in Liberty jail early in 1830 and in Nauvoo sometime in 1843. Among the witnesses were Lyman Wight and James Whitehead, one of Joseph's scribes, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Alpheus Cutler, Reynolds Cahoon, George Adams, Ebenezer Robinson and Apostles John Taylor and Willard Richards. (This is found in the Memoirs of Joseph Smith, III, pages 13, 14 and Inez Smith Davis' Story of the Church, pages 288, 385, 386, 444, 445. One of the allusions made by BY regarding Joseph, III's, role came out of a discussion he had with George Miller and Heber Kimball. Miller raised the question of who would succeed Joseph, and BY answered with the innuendo "hush, brother Miller, let there be nothing said in regard to this matter, or we will have little Joseph killed as he father was". (From Correspondence, pp. 23, 30.) BY also made statements such as this: "Let no man presume for a moment that his (Joseph's) place will be filled by another", and "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", meaning, it seems, that the office of apostle is not interchangeable with the President of the church. (Apostolic Interregnum, p. 250.) Dawn, It precisely why I know that period of Church history..as well as the genesis of the RLDS church that I ask the questions I do. As you know...I have lived in Independence my entire life...and have been around this track many, many times with my good RLDS/CoC/Remnant friends. Now...you and I know the testimony of James Whitehead was given in the Indep. Temple lot case many many years after the fact. Lyman Wight testified years after the fact about the Liberty jail event. Of those inprisoned with them...why didnt they speak up? Of the event that supposedly took place above the Red Brick store in Nauvoo with that you mentioned present...almost all of them went west with the saints. You mention John Taylor and Willard Richards...both of whom were willing and ready to lay down their lives for the Prophet...and both of them...especially Willard Richards...wrote voluminously detailed journals....why is it they never wrote about it? Do you not think that if they had witnessed such an event..that a permanent record would have been made (i know...destroyed by you know who) ...and in addition would have detailed such a doctrinally important milestone in their journals?????!!!!!! Dawn...you really need to set aside for a moment your "why BY bad" set of talking points...and take a sincere look at all the evidence. You state...."several people" spoke up" and "one talked of someone being named guardian of the church etc".......who spoke up? Who was this "one" person? Now....having said all that....as has been said before....we do not know if young JSIII would have become President of the Church....he very very well may have. We dont know. But we do know the 12 were the duly authorized and recognized leaders of the Church...upheld by the Saints...and the scriptures. The Office of Apostle is not the same as President and Prophet of the Church. No one has ever implied such a doctrine. Dawn...again...you STILL have never answered the question....IF not the 12 or JSIII then who??? Who I ask...who???? Do you feel the Lord was going to leave the church destitute of strong leadership at the very apex of their trials and adversity??? Who do you feel should have led the Church at that moment in time???? Just give us a name...not a "if that..or if this" would have happened etc....just a name. randy

Oh, come on. Think about it. Her husband had just been murdered. She was pregnant. Her husband had left her with a huge debt. She was trying to figure out what to do with the uncompleted mansion house. It's amazing she had the wherewithall to get out of bed every morning! Brigham Young arrived back in Nauvoo on August 6th, and didn't even visit Emma and her family for another six weeks! If you find it "odd" that a woman in those circumstances didn't go storming into a meeting and face off with a bunch of powerful men then you have a very poor understanding of human beings. Curvette, My more pointed question was why NO ONE came forward...who was supposed to have witnessed it ....not JUST Emma.....during the time before the Saints went west. This whole notion of a designation does not just lie in Emma's lap....there were others who said it took place. Who are they and why didnt they come forward and make it known to the church?

Fatboy--you need to read Emma's Biography "Enigma." It is meticulously documented with plentiful source material from both churches' archives, and public records. It's a wealth of information. Emma's decision was much more complex than most LDS people are told. One thing is very clear--All of Joseph Smith's "wives" were farmed out to Brigham Young and the other apostles. There is no way Emma would have anything to do with that. Also, Joseph Smith's assets were all tied up with the church's. If Brigham Young had his way, Emma would be left with all the debt, and the church would take all the assets with them to Utah. Even given the extreme circumstances of time, his treatment of her was absolutely horrid and inexcusable. This was made worse by an obvious personality clash and lack of communication. Emma tried to move on from it, but Brigham Young never got over it. This was a man who held a grudge and made the most of it. The book also contains some interesting information on the lives of Joseph and Emma's children. Their sons Alexander and David visited Brigham Young in Utah as missionaries, and years later, Joseph Smith III did as well. It's very interesting and thought provoking reading and is told from an objective point of view. Hi Curvette, The RLDS position has always been that JSIII was designated on three separate occassions by his father. These three are occassions were allegedly witnessed by James Whitehead, Lyman Wight and John H. Carter...respectively. My question is an obvious one. Why didnt ANYONE including Emma (whom I honor and respect btw) speak up during the August 8th meeting to firmly remind the Church that this designation had taken place? It seems to me to have been an absolute perfect time and place to do it. At no time during the approx 2 yrs after the death of the Prophet and the start of the exodus west was this "designation" brought up. I have always found that to be quite odd....especially given Emma's strong will. I do not believe she was a pushover by any means. To be honest...IMO....all the talk of JSIII being designated seems almost like an after-thought....given the fact that the testimony by James Whitehead and John H. Carter came many years after the fact....and Lyman Wight's testimony that a designation took place in Liberty Jail is suspect because no else who was there with the Prophet said it took place. Just some thoughts.... randy

(let me preface this by saying that this is a harsh post, but it is what I believe) There were several reasons. 1. Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when his father died, and was too young to lead the church. 2. Because Brigham Young was very charismatic. As a missionary, he brought a lot of people into the church, and they probably felt obligated to follow him. 3. Whistling Whittling Brigade. 4. He excommunicated all those who spoke otherwise. 5. He pulled off an excellent charade when he posed as Joseph Smith. Even going so far as to take JS's horse for the day. Those are the ones off the top of my head. If more come up, I will add them. Dawn, 1) As of Aug 9th, 1844...if not JS III OR the 12...then who? If the Twelve weren't already practicing "illegal" ordinances, then there wouldn't have been a problem following them. But we all know that what was happening in Nauvoo was not part of the church that the Lord restored. That is quite a jump, Randy. I was merely responding about those that came into the church through BY. But I would say that if others were brought in by the men who favored BY, then that is who they followed. And don't speak to me about the saints being led around by a ring through their nose if you don't know the way things were back then. They were, indeed, led around as if they had a ring through their nose. The did nothing that the leaders of the church didn't tell them to do first. They were told how to vote. They were told where to live. They were told whether to gather or to stay put. So, yes, I do believe that this is a very likely scenario. And by this time, it was in the hands of BY. But don't take my word for it, read all the testimonies of the people who tried to return from Utah only to be threatened, chased, and, often, killed by the Avenging Angels. And don't you dare brush off these testimonies again as "just stories made up by disgruntled members". That was very insulting when you did that before. William Smith was excommunicated while on a mission. What, exact, apostacy did he commit? Please tell me, because I just read church history, and no evidence was provided, even though Bro. Pratt stated he had this vast knowledge about the goings on. What else was stated in that conference was that they decided that the Twelve needed to be united, and that they should excommunicate any who disagreed. How convenient that the ones who disagreed were not there to either defend themselves or vote against the motion. However, I am sure that had they been there, that motion wouldn't have even been made. Oh, please, Randy. Look at things with both eyes. The whole stunt was done to gain as many supporters as he could. If he could appear in the likeness of Joseph, it would swing the majority of the saints his way, even if people were not totally for him to begin with. Dawn, I will give you some feedback on your other comments in a bit...but, if you would please....to build a foundation....please give the following: 1) The dates and locations of the three "designations" of JSIII 2) Please offer up the historical records to support the three separate events. Then we can go from there. randy

(let me preface this by saying that this is a harsh post, but it is what I believe) There were several reasons. 1. Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when his father died, and was too young to lead the church. 2. Because Brigham Young was very charismatic. As a missionary, he brought a lot of people into the church, and they probably felt obligated to follow him. 3. Whistling Whittling Brigade. 4. He excommunicated all those who spoke otherwise. 5. He pulled off an excellent charade when he posed as Joseph Smith. Even going so far as to take JS's horse for the day. Those are the ones off the top of my head. If more come up, I will add them. Dawn, 1) As of Aug 9th, 1844...if not JS III OR the 12...then who? 2) What about the thousands of converts brought in by Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball....do you feel they also were compelled to just follow who baptized them? This attitude...to me quite frankly tends to be a slap in the face to those Saints who accepted this gospel and sacrificed all they had to join with the main body of the Saints. To infer that they were being led around by the nose down a primrose path is to me....making a mockery of their testimony. 3) The whistling whittling brigade was not an invention of BY. Those activities were already in progress during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph. 4) There is no evidence that BY excommunicated ALL who spoke otherwise. This is an urban legend..with no basis in fact. The 12 did excommunicate those who were in apostacy. It also must be remembered who all had been excommunicated under the Prophet Joseph and take a look at the reasons why. We must be fair and balanced. LOL! 5) Now Dawn....you are telling us that BY was a real David Copperfield? I dont think Joseph and BY were alike in appearance at all ...do you? The indistputable evidence given in personal diaries and journals that bear witness to the event to which you infer...attest that there was a marvelous and miracleous transformation of BY where he took on the appearance and VOICE of the Prophet Joseph. There is no disputing that this event occured. The Saints were not looking for a sign...but the Lord in his mercy...and knowing what lay ahead of the Saints..blessed them with this wonderful testimony. It gave them tremendous faith and courage...and a perfect knowledge where the the true leadership of the Church resided...that being in the Quorum of the 12. Dawn....I have been told by restorationists and others...that the ENTIRE Quorum of the 12 were in a state of apostacy even prior to the martyrdom. Do you personally believe this? randy

Hi Dawn,Well..uh yes...I am still there...although it would appear the Moderator board is about to slap me with a two week time out for being a bad little boy. For the life of me...I cant figure out what I did or said. I know I speak in a plain and straightforward way....like you just did in your last post here....which I personally appreciate....oh well....and so it goes! Ok...regarding the verse you cited in LDS D&C 90:3-5. We all must remember that when the Prophet was given the MP by Peter, James and John..they sealed upon him every power, and all authority belonging to the Apostleship, qualifing him to act as the messenger and representative of our Lord in all that pertains to his Church on earth. This is what is meant by the "keys of the Kingdom". "Keys" stand for "authority" to act. This authority would never be taken away from the Prophet. He still holds them today. Now...respecting "Oracles"...the word in the singular is used to indicate the place where God reveals himself, as an example...."the Mercy Seat" in the Temple. In the plural it means the revelations given by God. In D&C 90:3-4 when it speaks of "Be given to another, yea, even unto the church"...we must remember that in Feb 1831 the Lord declared that Joseph Smith was the only one appointed to receive revelation and commandments for the Church.."until he be taken, if he abide in me," but should the Prophet fail this gift would be taken from him and given to another. (D&C 43:3-4) Now...in March, 1833, after the Prophet had been tried and proved, the Lord said that the "keys", through which direction, commandment and revelation come, "shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come." Yet...when the Prophet should be taken the "oracles" would be given to another, "even unto the church". Therefore...after the martyrdom the keys remained and were in possession of the Church and exercised through the Presiding council, which at that time was the Quorum of the 12, and in the Church the oracles (living Prophets) are found and will continue unto the end of time. Bottom line is we have always held the belief that the Prophet Joseph still holds the "keys of the Kingdom"....we proclaim that every time we sing "Praise to the Man"....and that through the Prophet Joseph, others might also be appointed to receive revelations. I know you are very aware with the Prophets teaching as found in his personal writings as well as those of Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards when Joseph spoke of "bestowing all of the keys of the Kingdom upon the heads of the 12" that even if they kill me...the work will continue to roll forth." So..although there may be some similarities between the terms "keys" and "oracles"...suffice it to say...that we believe they both are found in the LDS church. randy

I'd have to see your research, Fatboys. I have never seen anything that stated the Marks and Gurley approached Emma after JS,Jr., was killed about JS,III, taking over then. But in the meantime, he was faithful to the church that was restored (had to be, I'm sure, with Emma as his mother B) ), and lived his life. He became a lawyer, practiced law for a while till he felt the call to present himself to the church in Amboy. "They" did not convince him to lead the church. "They" just bided their time. God is the one who convinced him to approach the church. I think you are mistaken about the keys of the church. The keys are not passed on. They belong to Joseph Smith, Jr., through the whole dispensation. What is passed on is the oracles. D&C 87:2a-b (RLDS);(Utah D&C 90:3-5) 2a Verily I say unto you, The keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come; nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another; yea, even unto the church. 2b And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them, lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby; and stumble and fall, when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house. Dawn, The "keys of the Kingdom" are the power, right and authority to preside over the Kingdom of God on earth and to direct all its affairs. In their fullness...only the Prophet of the Church holds all of the Keys. He may delegate any portion of that power to others...but they would only hold the keys to that particular labor. Basically...revelations given through God through his prophets are Oracles. The First Presidency are appointed "to receive the oracles for the whole church". It should also be remembered that men who receive revelations or oracles for the people...are themselves called oracles...see 2 Sam. 16:23 The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12..because they are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators to the church....are known as the "living oracles". But...again...the "keys of the Kingdom" are bestowed upon the each member of the Quorum of the 12 by the President of the Church....the President being the ONLY one on earth who can exercise all of the keys. The Twelve are delegated portions of the those keys in order to direct the affairs in their particular area of labor. So...you are correct....there is a difference between the "Keys of the Kingdom" and "Oracles".....but, the "keys" are such they can be passed on and/or delegated to others. randy

I'd have to see your research, Fatboys. I have never seen anything that stated the Marks and Gurley approached Emma after JS,Jr., was killed about JS,III, taking over then. But in the meantime, he was faithful to the church that was restored (had to be, I'm sure, with Emma as his mother B) ), and lived his life. He became a lawyer, practiced law for a while till he felt the call to present himself to the church in Amboy. "They" did not convince him to lead the church. "They" just bided their time. God is the one who convinced him to approach the church. I think you are mistaken about the keys of the church. The keys are not passed on. They belong to Joseph Smith, Jr., through the whole dispensation. What is passed on is the oracles. D&C 87:2a-b (RLDS);(Utah D&C 90:3-5) 2a Verily I say unto you, The keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come; nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another; yea, even unto the church. 2b And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them, lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby; and stumble and fall, when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house. Hi Dawn! This is Randy Johnson..how are ya? Well, I know we have discussed this before...but I will ask again to build a foundation. Lets suppose for a moment that we could all agree that JS III was in fact "designated" by his father to be the next President. We know from the August 8th special meeting that was convened that the 12 were upheld and sustained as the duly recognized and presiding quorum of the church..with BY as president. Dawn...do you feel that the saints as a body were duty and honor bound to follow the Quorum of 12 until such time as young Joseph was able to come into his own? If you do...then why do you believe Marks, Gurley, William Smith and others didnt follow the Quorum of 12 and the main body of the Saints west? If it was because of alleged iniquity on the part of members of the 12...do you feel this was reason for them not to go? Do you feel all the 12 were in a state of apostacy immediatly following or even BEFORE the death of the Prophet? You know me....thousand questions.....take your time!! LOL! randy