I love this gospel, but it takes real Study

[Vort]

Well, I thought someone would at least respond to my last reply about Heber J. Grant and what happened to our priesthood.

I'll take you up on the offer.

Assuming you are correct, why do you think that any Priesthood ordinance done under explicit instruction of the senior apostle of Jesus Christ on the earth would be invalid?:

Do you likewise think Alma's baptism was invalid because he apparently baptized himself, rather than being baptized by someone else?

I often think that Gospel Doctrine classes should show Veggy Tail movies. Wish it was not so.

I have heard many people complain about the lack of depth in our adult Sunday School and quorum classes. Maybe I just happen to have lived in a series of exceptional wards (or maybe I'm one of those shallow people who would not recognize the deep, meaty doctrine if it bit me in the rear end), but I have never found this to be the case. On the contrary, we talk about important and meaningful things in all such classes -- though I will happily admit that the conversation rarely or never turns to eschatalogical predictions, the past or future apostasy of the LDS Church, or the positioning of ancient American airfields.

We just don't want the meat anymore, our bow is truly broken.

I don't know you, Hill-Billy, but my experience teaches me that those who moan the loudest about the lack of teaching "deep doctrine" are those who are involved in fringe movements or ideas and who simply wish to ride their gospel hobby horse to the exclusion of other doctrine. Hopefully, this bears no strong resemblance to present company.

[Vanhin]

Well, I thought someone would at least respond to my last reply about Heber J. Grant and what happened to our priesthood.

What you are talking about is the stance that many FLDS have on the LDS Church and priesthood authority.

The wording in priesthood ordinations during President Grant's term, were completely valid and accepted by the Lord as conferrals of the priesthood on individuals for two primary reasons:

1) That was the form of the ordination authorized by those holding the keys of the priesthood at that time, which ordinations the Lord will honor because of this fact alone. We have examples in scripture of both ways of priesthood ordination. John the baptist, when he appeared to Joseph and Oliver, conferred the priesthood of Aaron like this -

UPON you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. (D&C 13:1)

Moroni on the other hand, preferred the other method -

The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers— After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon them, and said: In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen.

And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them. (Moroni 3)

The only fixed method of conferring priesthood, is by the laying of hands by one having authority, as described in our articles of faith:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (AoF 1:5)

2) The second primary reason is the following:

All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 180-181.)

All are not called to be one of the Twelve Apostles, nor are all called to be one of the First Presidency, nor to be one of the First Presidents of all the Seventies, nor to preside over the High Priest's Quorum; but every man in his order and place, possessing a portion of the same Priesthood, according to the gifts and callings to each. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:89)

In other words, if during President Grant's term you were ordained to the office of elder by someone who held the priesthood, you received the priesthood as well.

So, I see no problem. It is more important for us to stay true and follow the directions of those who hold the keys of the priesthood.

For example, if a Melchizedek priesthood holder was not completely truthful in their temple recommend interview, or had compromised their worthiness, but kept it to themselves, yet the Stake President authorized that man to confer the Melchizedek priesthood on his son, his son would receive the priesthood, no question about it.

It is the loss of priesthood keys that marked the great apostasy, not the loss of priesthood generally. By the same token, it is the rejection of those who hold the keys of the priesthood that marks modern apostasy.

Regards,

Vanhin

[john doe]

I'm just wondering if that's supposed to impress us all.

You mean you're not? Then you need to do more homework. Study and compare the conference messages between 1945-55 and tell us how they are different from what was spoken between 1860-1871. It's right there in black and white.

[pam]

Can she find them online or must she go to the rare book section at BYU?

[john doe]

I would suggest starting in the personal writings of John A. Widtsoe, Harold B. Lee, and Matthew Cowley. Then compare those notes with the complete writings of Joseph F. Smith, James Talmage, and Willard Richards. If she doesn't find the patterns there, then she needs to look harder, the truth is out there, she just needs to search for it. I'm sorry, that's as specific as I can get. As a hint, pay attention to how the counsel on the use of wheat has evolved with the changes in church General Authorities. Very interesting stuff once you get into it.

[Wingnut]

You mean you're not? Then you need to do more homework. Study and compare the conference messages between 1945-55 and tell us how they are different from what was spoken between 1860-1871. It's right there in black and white.

Can she find them online or must she go to the rare book section at BYU?

I would suggest starting in the personal writings of John A. Widtsoe, Harold B. Lee, and Matthew Cowley. Then compare those notes with the complete writings of Joseph F. Smith, James Talmage, and Willard Richards. ... I'm sorry, that's as specific as I can get. As a hint, pay attention to how the counsel on the use of wheat has evolved with the changes in church General Authorities. Very interesting stuff once you get into it.

If she doesn't find the patterns there, then she needs to look harder, the truth is out there, she just needs to search for it.

[Wingnut]

JD, when I posted that I had forgotten that your avatar used to be Skinner. I just read "the truth is out there" and thought "I have to find the poster on Mulder's wall!"

[FunkyTown]

I don't know you, Hill-Billy, but my experience teaches me that those who moan the loudest about the lack of teaching "deep doctrine" are those who are involved in fringe movements or ideas and who simply wish to ride their gospel hobby horse to the exclusion of other doctrine. Hopefully, this bears no strong resemblance to present company.

And Vort wins the thread.

This made me laugh.

[Hill-Billy]

Is your bow, broken?

My wife wonders why I get up at 4am or so to read and meditate on the gospel. It is because I have been hooked on the spirit and how it makes me feel. Sleep means nothing to that feeling.

Joseph Smith was baptized, received his priesthood and was a true prophet of God well before the Church was established. The Church was established to take the uneducated and teach them the basics of the gospel. So, I wonder, there must be a lot more to the gospel than what is taught in the Church.

It, the Church, is our Mother. Like the Sons of Helaman they were taught on their mothers lap and so are we in the Church. We are given milk, then a little bread and Gerber’s food. After we grow older we are turned over to our Father for instruction on the higher things of life, or should we say, the meat of the gospel.

Mother can bring us so far and then this body needs meat. If we look at the three most important people in the Churches beginning, namely Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor we have a pattern of what our life should be like. Yes, they helped the Church realize the basics and gave us a chance to eat a little meat.

Our Father Abraham gave us the chance to do the works of Abraham. How did he live his life? Then we also have the life of lot and his very large family. He and his wife and family all chose to leave the life of Abraham and go to the big city to live. Where they had markets, fine home, goods to buy and sell all kinds of stuff. Gratify all their wants of the flesh.

Another example is our Father Lehi and son’s who also were given the chance to a higher life by leaving the city life and all their possessions of gold, silver, homes, job etc. and go live in a tent out of the city. They lived on what they brought with them for a time and then needed to have more. They needed the meat of the gospel.

Once out in the desert they found that the oil in their lamps was not enough to guide them further. As the virgins found out many of them didn’t have any oil and in this Lehi’s case, Nephi broke his bow. The whole family suffered for lack of meat. Until Nephi could make a bow out of wood and then he asked God where to go to obtain meat.

So, I ask you children-Is your bow broken?

[Hill-Billy]

President Taylor "I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the Melchizedek priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that there would be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly conferred upon them." (Pamphlet, 1886 Revelation, p. 8.)

Under the present practice of the Church - [Heber J. Grant administration policy, 1918-1945] there are many in the Church who are supposed to receive the Priesthood but who do not get it. These in turn pretend to confer it upon others, who likewise fail to receive it. And these pretend to perform baptisms which cannot be valid for lack of Priesthood authority, and thus the gambled up condition pyramids. One can understand in the light of these facts, how Temple ordinances may be deficient, and in the end, all authority may justly be questioned as for decades Latter-day Saint Elders have questioned the authority of sectarian priests.

offices in the Church and not the Priesthood. They have been and are now on missions, converting people and attempting to baptize them and ordain them to the Priesthood. But if they haven't the Priesthood themselves what value is their baptisms or ordinations? Some of these sons have been working in the Temple, being baptized for the dead, and receiving the Priesthood for them; yet they themselves have not received the Priesthood. How is such work to be effective? The faithful father may have the Priesthood, he may be effective. The faithful father may have the Priesthood, he may be a High Priest, or an Apostle, while his sons haven't any Priesthood at all, and yet they are officiating in positions that only Priesthood can qualify them to do.

This deplorable condition has arrived. Our missionaries in the field; those acting as Priests, Elders and High Priests at home, operating without the Priesthood produces a serious and tragic problem, that, as we see it, only the "One Mighty and Strong" (D.&C. 85) can unravel and bring order out of the chaotic condition the Church finds itself in.

We are informed that Charles W. Penrose had the ordinance (of Priesthood conferral) changed after the death of President Joseph F. Smith. President Smith, discovering Brother Penrose was teaching the new method during his presidency, forbid him to do so any more, "or I will have you tried for your fellowship." After Heber J. Grant came to the presidency, Brother Penrose's theory was adopted; the change came in 1921. President Grant stated publicly, "I know nothing concerning the Gospel; I am a financial man; when I want information I go to President Penrose, James E. Talmage or Joseph Fielding Smith." Brother Penrose held that when "We give the men the Priesthood, we give them all we have; and if we cut them off later, not being able to take their Priesthood away from them they still have all that we have."

Upon you my fellow servants, In the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness; (D.& C. 13.)

Conferring the Priesthood. To prevent disputes over this subject that may arise over the procedure presented on page 136, we draw attention to the fact that until recently, from the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ordinations to the Priesthood were directly to the office therein for which the recipient was chosen and appointed, in form substantially as follows:

As to the Melchizedek Priesthood---"By authority (or in the authority) of the Holy Priesthood and by the laying on of hands, I (or we) ordain you an Elder, (or Seventy, or High Priest, or Patriarch, or Apostle, as the case may be), in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you all the rights, powers, keys and authority pertaining to this office and calling on the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen."

As to the Lesser Priesthood---"By (or in) the authority of the Holy Priesthood I (or we) lay my (or our) hands upon your head and ordain you a Deacon (or other office in the Lesser Priesthood) in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you All the rights, powers, and authority pertaining to this office and calling in the Aaronic Priesthood, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen." In reference to the form of procedure mentioned on page 136, and that set forth in this addendum as adopted by the leading authorities of the Church from the beginning, our beloved and departed President, Joseph F. Smith, when questioned concerning them, decided, as of record, "It is a distinction without a difference," and "Either will do."

Heber J. Grant

Anthon H. Lund

Charles W. Penrose

(Gospel Doctrine, by Joseph F. Smith, Addenda A.)

[Hill-Billy]

These changes in Priesthood Ordinations started in 1921 and continued until 1951 that is 30years without Priesthood conferred in the church. That is very disturbing to me, you might want to deny this, start with your usual mud slinging over typo’s, spelling etc. in trying to discredit the truth by killing the messenger and that’s fine, I don’t care if you believe it or not. Either now or later you will have to deal with it.

This tread is very thread bare and worn. This case is perma fascia as evidence to the fact that millions in the church don’t have Priesthood and that all the work by Priesthood since 1921 must me done over again.

When you have been properly baptized and given Priesthood a peace falls over you and you are not in the state of mind were you have to tare down in order to build yourself up.

BY said, that there will always remain enough Priesthood in the church to carry it off triumphantly. I believe that!

[ryanh]

Wow. This is a great example of what "looking beyond the mark" will do to a person.

[MarginOfError]

Both methods of ordination are found in the scriptures:

Conferral Then Ordination

Upon you my fellow servants, In the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness; (D.& C. 13.)

Direct Ordination

The manner which the disciples, who were called the Elders of the Church, ordained Priests and Teachers---

In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a Priest, (or, if he be a Teacher) I ordain you to be a Teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen.

And after this manner did they ordain Priests and Teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them. (Moroni, 3:1-4.).

Recall also, that the Nephites, not being of the tribe of Lehi, did not possess what we know as the Aaronic Priesthood, so the offices that they are talking about here are entirely different than what we know them to be today.

First Presidency Letters on the topic

November 14, 1905

Elder Maynard E. Nelson

Boise City

Dear Brother:-

It is our understanding that when a person is ordained a Deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood, with all that pertains to that office sealed upon him, it is tantamount to conferring upon him the Aaronic Priesthood and ordaining him to the office of a Deacon.

Of course all ordinations are not worded alike, and it may be true also that some ordinations may be somewhat defective in fully expressing their full scope and meaning; but the fact remains nevertheless that when a person is ordained a Deacon, for instance, even in the language said to have been used by the Elder on the occasion referred to by you in your letter, the ordination is lawful and valid. In this connection we refer you to the third chapter of the Book of Moroni.

Your Brethren,

Joseph F. Smith

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency

January 5, 1906

Elder James R. Moffett

Smoot, Wyoming

Dear Brother:

This is in answer to yours of the 1st inst. The Lord has given us no particular form for ordination to the Priesthood, and the Church recognizes none. Moroni in the first three verses of the third chapter of the Book of Moroni, gives the manner which the disciples on this continent ordained Priests and Teachers; and we may add that the same simple manner would apply to all the other offices in the Priesthood.

It is our understanding that when a person is ordained a Deacon, with all that pertains to that office sealed upon him, it is tantamount to conferring upon him the Aaronic Priesthood, and ordaining him to the office of Deacon. And so also in regard to the ordination of an Elder. When a man is ordained an Elder it is understood that the Melchizedek Priesthood is conferred upon him whether the officiating Elder expresses that fact or not in the ordination; and it is by virtue and authority of this Priesthood that the Elder performs the duties of his office.

Brethren have been criticized for using this language "we lay our hands upon your head to ordain you, etc.," because the language fails to express the full intent of the officiating Elder, and for that reason brethren have been instructed to use the word "and" in that connection instead of the word "to."

Of course all ordinations are not worded alike, and it may be true also that some ordinations may be somewhat defective, grammatically or otherwise, in fully expressing their full scope and meaning but while it is true that the Lord accepts of the intent, it is nevertheless true also that officiating elders should learn to express themselves as fully and clearly as possible in ordaining to the Priesthood as well as in the performance of every other duty or labor.

Your Brethren,

Joseph F. Smith

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency

February 26th, 1909

President Alma Merrill

Richmond,(Utah)

Dear Brother:

This is in answer to yours of the 16th inst., also in answer to a letter of the 17th from Elder Andrew Morrison of your town on the same subject, in substance as follows: In ordaining to the Priesthood which form should be followed, that of John the Baptist bestowing the Priesthood, and then (in order to accommodate our conditions to it) ordain to the offices, and confer all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto, or to ordain directly to office in the Priesthood...

Brother Morrison's letter indicates a difference of opinion existing in Richmond on this subject, some failing to see that any Priesthood is bestowed by ordaining to the offices.

In considering this subject it is important that we have in mind these thoughts:

1. In ordaining there is no set form revealed for us to follow, and therefore it is proper that the party officiating use his own language as appropriately and concisely as he can.

2. That the intent of the ordination, whether the language used by the ordainer [sic] is strictly appropriate or not, validates the ordination.

With these thought in mind we will briefly consider the two ways referred to, in the understanding however that both ways are recognized by us as legitimate and proper, according to the intent of the person officiating.

The ordination of Joseph and Oliver by John the Baptist's appropriate, concise and comprehensive. Its intent was to bestow the Aaronic Priesthood in its fullness, with the keys thereof, meaning the Aaronic Priesthood with its rights of Presidency in all the world. After this was done Joseph, as President and head, possessed all the authority, and all the jurisdiction in the exercise thereof, that John himself possessed while on the earth.

It is thought by some that in ordaining to the offices no Priesthood is bestowed, and therefore John's mode of ordaining should be followed, and then (in order to accommodate our present conditions to it) the candidates for ordination should be set apart to the offices. Where this is the case in the brethren officiating in ordinations, they are at liberty to confer the Priesthood and ordain to the offices.

But where brethren officiating in ordinations feel otherwise, they may consider themselves at perfect liberty also to follow the method you say is practiced in the Temple, namely, that of ordaining to the offices, which was the method practiced by the Nephites, as recorded in the third chapter of Moroni. And we may here add that although we have no record of any direct instruction having been given by the Prophet Joseph on this subject, from the fact that in ordaining others he himself did not pattern after John's language, but on the contrary ordained to the offices, it is only fair for us to assume that the subject had been considered by him; and from the fact that the practice of the Church from his day to the present time has been to follow his example in this respect, it is consistent for us to assume that he did give instruction accordingly. And this assumption is emphasized in the fact that if by ordaining to the offices the argument be true that no Priesthood is bestowed, then the Church itself would be without authority, a thing so untenable as to be unworthy of a moment's consideration.

No contention therefore need be indulged in on this subject, as both ways are recognized by the Church as being correct, and it is therefore a matter of choice which of the two methods shall be followed.

Your brethren,

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

On behalf of the First Pres.

Ordaining to the Priesthood. We have been asked by several persons whether in ordaining a brother, it is right to confer the Priesthood first and then ordain him to the particular office to which he is called, or to directly ordain him to that office in the Priesthood. That is in ordaining a man an Elder, should the one officiating say: "I confer upon you the Melchizedek Priesthood and ordain you an Elder," or "I ordain you an Elder in the Melchizedek [Priesthood]" or whatever the office conferred may be?

So far as we know, the Lord has revealed no particular form or words to be used in the ceremony of ordination to the Priesthood as he has done in the rite of baptism, neither has he given any direct instructions on the point presented by the inquirers. Certain it is that both forms have been and are being used by those officiated, ordained in either way. Consequently, we are of the opinion that both are acceptable to him, and will be until it pleases him to give the Church further light on the subject, either by direct revelation or by inspiring his servants of the First Presidency of the Church to direct exactly what shall be said. (George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor, 29:114.)

What I find extremely peculiar is that President McKay reverted back to the policy of conferral before ordination with almost no fanfare at all. I can't find a single statement from him about why. He just changed it with no explanation and no call at all for ordinances to be performed again. It looks like he did his reading and had learned from earlier church leaders that the Lord doesn't care.

So, the only question I have for you, Hill-billy, is why you didn't come across any of these things in the rare books at BYU? Surely they have a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, which demonstrate the appropriateness of both methods. Why didn't you read into those texts? I'd like to know what references you've been reading to come to your conclusions. You haven't, by chance been reading the works of Joseph Musser have you?

[Hill-Billy]

Yes, it was J. Musser.

Truth is everywhere you find it. He had a lot of really good thought. I didn't think anyone here would know him or want to hear what he said.

I first went to the Rare Book collection at BYU and looked up the missionary hand book to find what I had heard. It was true. Yes, I understand how it was supposed to be.

This is a problem of massive complications.

What do we do now? Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood

[FunkyTown]

Yes, it was J. Musser.

Truth is everywhere you find it. He had a lot of really good thought. I didn't think anyone here would know him or want to hear what he said.

I first went to the Rare Book collection at BYU and looked up the missionary hand book to find what I had heard. It was true. Yes, I understand how it was supposed to be.

This is a problem of massive complications.

What do we do now? Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood

Trust that the prophet knows better than you?

[MarginOfError]

Yes, it was J. Musser.

Truth is everywhere you find it. He had a lot of really good thought. I didn't think anyone here would know him or want to hear what he said.

I first went to the Rare Book collection at BYU and looked up the missionary hand book to find what I had heard. It was true. Yes, I understand how it was supposed to be.

This is a problem of massive complications.

What do we do now? Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood

Amazing! For one that wants so badly for everyone to read and do more study, you seem to have not ready a single thing I put up there. The items I posted were all from Church authorities making the case that there is no problem at all, that all of the ordinations performed between 1921 and 1951 have all the force and validity of any other ordination. That is, it doesn't matter if you are ordained directly to an office, or if you have the priesthood conferred first--they are equally binding.

So in answer to your question "What do we do now? Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood" I say we do absolutely nothing. We don't suspect that millions of church members don't have the priesthood. I just gave you the statements of Church Authorities, INCLUDING JOSEPH F SMITH stating that you don't have to confer the priesthood before ordaining to an office.

This not a problem of massive compilcations. It isn't even a problem.

And for the record, if I have a choice between Joseph F. Smith's statement--remember, you're having a cow about his policy being reversed by President Grant--that it doesn't matter which of the two methods is used to give priesthood to another, and the statements of Joseph Musser, I'll take President Smith any day.

Some background on Musser, for those who don't know the name: He was a seventy in the earlier part of the 20th century, but was excommunicated in 1921 for performing polygamous marriages. Shortly after his excommunication--which he claims was only because he became a fall-guy for other Church leaders--he became a critic of the Church. It wasn't long after his excommunication that President Grant changed the language of ordination to not use conferral, and Musser latched onto this as evidence that the Church had apostatized.

So, we can take the word of Musser that the ordinations between 1921 and 1951 were invalid, or we can take the word of George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and David O. McKay that they were valid.

I love this gospel, but it takes real study. When are you going to start studying it?

[pam]

Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood

When you use the term "we" please don't assume that I am in that collective "we."

[Dravin]

When you use the term "we" please don't assume that I am in that collective "we."

I don't know Pam, there are million of members who don't hold the priesthood and surely you are aware of this. Of course the large majority of them are female or under the age of 12. :) Not sure that any action needs to be taken though.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Dravin

[pam]

I have to ask this straight out. Are you a member of the FLDS? While many doctrines might be similar it would help me understand where some of your thought processes are coming from.

[Wingnut]

I have to ask this straight out. Are you a member of the FLDS? While many doctrines might be similar it would help me understand where some of your thought processes are coming from.

From another thread:

I just have to ask, Hill-Billy, are you currently a member in good standing of the LDS Church? Do you believe in ongoing revelation through modern LDS Prophets?

And to our illustrious head monitor, The answer is yes, since the early 50's and a High Priest for longer than you have been. You deserve the wish crack for your wish crack.

[pam]

Thanks..How could I have forgotten that? That just leaves me at a loss now.

[Hill-Billy]

Ya, if we only had one to rely on instead of an office as one.

Their are certain requirements to the job and just calling someone a profit is the same as calling Warren Jeffs a prophet. He Aint!

[pam]

Are you saying that we have or have had Prophets that really aren't Prophets?

[rameumptom]

Are you saying that we have or have had Prophets that really aren't Prophets?

No, he said they really aren't Profits. Big difference.

[Wingnut]

Ya, if we only had one to rely on instead of an office as one.

Their are certain requirements to the job and just calling someone a profit is the same as calling Warren Jeffs a prophet. He Aint!

This completely baffles me. I can't understand how you can claim to be an active LDS member in good standing, yet not believe in prophets, lines of authority, or continuing revelation.

It must be my tiny incapable brain.