LDS changing Doctrine, Part 3

Part 3 will show quotes from past LDS presidents and leaders Claiming polygamy is a law of God and that Blacks will never be able to hold the priesthood. Two more LDS teachings that have since changed.

Brigham Young preached, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses (JOD) 11:269).

On October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (first counselor to Brigham Young) declared, "You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives." (JOD 5:203).

In 1866, Brigham Young forcefully stated, "We are told that if we would give up polygamy--which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven and it is God and the world for it--but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them." Later in the sermon President Young asked, "Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No" (JOD 11:239).

That same year, John Taylor, Mormonism's future third president, accused those who opposed polygamy within the LDS Church as "apostates." He said: "Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God...When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom" (JOD 11:221).

In 1869 Wilford Woodruff, Mormonism's future fourth president, taught, "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past" (JOD 13:165 - p.166).

Even as late as 1879, Joseph F. Smith was insisting that plural marriage was essential for LDS exaltation. Speaking at the funeral of William Clayton, Mormonism's future sixth president, stated, "This doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become god..." (JOD 21:9).

During a message given in 1880, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, "...if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances, and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true." (JOD 21:296).


In today's world of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and many other well-known heroes of the Mormon faith would be promptly excommunicated from the LDS Church for their participation in practicing their view of celestial marriage. LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie declared, "All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness" (Mormon Doctrine, pp.579). No doubt, if Brigham Young were alive, he would rebut this by stating, "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be dammed..." (Journal of Discourses 3:266).

Now we read about Black skinned people.

Smith also stated that "there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).

For these reasons, Bruce McConkie would write, "The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom…" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).


In a sermon given on March 8, 1863, Young stated, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, 10:110).


On two separate occasions, third LDS President John Taylor stated that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304).

The following year, Taylor reiterated his former comment when he said, "Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336).




On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143).

President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106).

LDS Changing Doctrine, Part 2

Sorry it has taken a while to post my part 2. I will add more in a 3rd part.
For a review of Part 1 go here, part 1

Now lets look at what Brigham Young said about his teachings.

I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life...If there is any elder here, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason (Journal of Discourses 16:161).

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve (Journal of Discourses 13:95).


You have heard me say, a great many times, that there is not that man or woman in this Church, and there never was and never will be, who turn up their noses at the counsel that is given them from the First Presidency, but who, unless they repent of and refrain from such conduct will eventually go out of the Church and go to hell, every one of them (Journal of Discourses 17:159).

It seems really Clear to me, Brigham young sounds as if he is teaching what he believes to be fact and truth. I know many LDS claim that the Adam God Doctrine is false and maybe someone wrote it down incorrectly. Here is a few reasons why I do not believe it was taken down incorrectly. It was only two pages long at best, yet the King Follet discourse by Joseph Smith was 11 pages long, and LDS to this day claim, this was Joseph Smith GREATEST SERMON ever given.

So why would 2 pages by Brigham Young be written down incorrectly, yet the same guy writing what Joseph Smith taught, could write 11 pages with out error? Then the very first quote I give from the JoD by Brigham Young can be found in JoD volume 16. I happen to own the entire set of the JoD, so lets look at the time frame here, Volume one was written in January 1853. Volume 16 was written in April 1873, this is a difference of 20 years. I know that in that 20 year time frame their were people among the LDS who did not like Brigham Young's teaching of Adam God, So if he was in error, why did he not correct it, but go on to say what he did in volume 16? This is one Doctrine that has Changed.

For more on Adam God go here, Adam God And here, more Adam God

Now Brigham Young goes on to say,

We believe we have a correct idea of the character of the Son from the writings of the Apostles, so far as they learned it. But while he was tabernacling in the flesh, he was more or less contaminated with fallen nature. While he was here, in a body that his mother Mary bore him, he was more or less connected with and influenced by this nature that we have received. According to the flesh, he was the seed of Adam and Eve, and suffered the weaknesses and temptations of his fellow mortals (Journal of Discourses 6:95-96).

Here is a few problems with this and again shows changing Doctrine. LDS today teach Jesus was sinless, to examples are the teachings found in the Book, (True to the faith, a gospel reference) And (Mormon Doctrine) They claim Jesus was sinless, Jesus could not be sinless if he was (contaminated with fallen nature Then the Other problem is, LDS teach that (original sin) is a theory and false teaching. Well if Original sin is true, then the only way Jesus could have sin in Him was if He had and earthly father, But God is His father, So Brigham Young will later go onto say, Marry had sex with a mortal human to give birth to Jesus. So in effect Brigham Young teaches original sin by saying Jesus had our fallen nature, again another LDS doctrine that Changes. For more on Original Sin go here, original sin

Brigham Young goes onto teach Marry had sex with a mere human.

When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession (Journal of Discourses 1:50).

When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me (Journal of Discourses 4:218).

If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties (Journal of Discourses 1:51).

What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (Journal of Discourses 1:51).

The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers (Journal of Discourses 8:115).

In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and their was nothing unnatural about it(Journal of Discourses 8:211)

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife. (The Seer, 158)

But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to over shadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another. (The Seer ,158)

Read Gospel Principles pg 57, Doctrines of Salvation 1:18, Articles of Faith 466-467, and Mormon Doctrine pg 547 and 742.

Yet again, more changing Doctrine, as the LDS no longer teach this idea.



Now we read Brigham Young teaches a few things here, He teaches that Keeping the law cleanse us from Sin, and the Blood of Christ cannot clean all our Sin. then he goes on to teach, Blood atonement.

We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ, although its effects we still see in the diseases, distempers and every species of wickedness with which the human family as afflicted (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 153).


keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin (Journal of Discourses 2:4).



There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world (Journal of Discourses 4:53).

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.385).

I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit (Journal of Discourses 4:53-54).

I will take the Government of the United States, and the laws of Missouri and Illinois, from the year 1833 to 1845, and if they had been carried out according to their letter and spirit, they would have strung up the murderers and mobocrats who illegally and unrighteously killed, plundered, harassed, and expelled us. I will tell you how much I love those characters. If they had any respect to their own welfare, they would come forth and say, whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not, "We shed his blood, and now let us atone for it;" and they would be willing to have their heads chopped off, that their blood might run upon the ground, and the smoke of it rise before the Lord as an incense for their sins. I love them that much. But if the Lord wishes them to live and foam out their sins before all men and women, it is all right, I care not where they go, or what they do (Journal of Discourses 2:186).

Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom of our God and our Father, and being exalted, one who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man of woman in this house but what would say, 'shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?' All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant (Journal of Discourses 4:219-220).

I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force...This is loving our neighbour as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it (Journal of Discourses 4:220).

LDS no longer Teach Blood Atonement, and the Bible does not teach, keeping the entire law will remove our Sins, the Bible teaches only the Blood of Christ will do this. Rick B

Jesus versus Joseph Smith videos.

Please watch the videos and post your thoughts. I know the LDS Church is really upset about this video, Must hate the truth. Rick b

DVD, Jesus verses Joseph Smith.

Sorry about taking so long to get my part two posted, I have been really busy, Then I recived an Email about the newest DVD being handed out to LDS members. I want to put up what was posted by LDS leaders and what was said by Bill McKeever.

I am Putting down the LDS website, but also what they said. lds responce



SALT LAKE CITY 29 March 2007 Several news reports have appeared over the past few days in Utah and Arizona about a Christian activist group that has been distributing anti-Mormon DVDs throughout Utah and in some other states.

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League in Phoenix promptly condemned the distribution, saying that “hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has weathered such attacks throughout its history. At a time when the Church is growing strongly throughout the world, it’s not surprising that some groups try to curb that growth in such ways.

Throughout the history of the United States, the rights of free speech and freedom of religion have been pre-eminent. Groups opposed to the Church have a perfect right to distribute their materials in ways that are legal.

The issue is not one of rights. Rather, it is that one religious group chooses to target another with a DVD full of distortions of its doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of the producers.

When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths. They do not attack and they do not condemn. Instead, they declare their own message honestly and openly and allow people the freedom to choose. Above all, they encourage each person to find out for themselves through personal research as well as prayer.

That will continue to be the Church’s approach, not just because honest and open dialogue is what most people want, but because in our view it best represents the spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bill Replies with, Bills reply

Open Letter to the First Presidency Regarding the Charge of Hatred

April 4, 2007

The First Presidency
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0002

Dear Sirs,

As a Christian living in the Salt Lake Valley, I wish to express my indignation at your church’s tacit approval of the Anti-Defamation League's accuastion of hatred towards Christians who were involved in a recent DVD distribution. It is one thing to disagree with the content of the DVD, but it is quite another to accuse them of being motivated by hate. I will try to temper my outrage by asking the following questions:

* How many people involved in the distribution did you actually speak to who exhibited hatred as their reason for participating?
* What phrase or statement in the DVD resembled anything close to “hate speech”?
* If there is no evidence that the participants were motivated by hatred, are you not guilty of bearing false witness when you make that accusation?
* Isn’t it also duplicitous of you to make such an unfounded accusation of hatred and then retreat to your 177th General Conference to talk about forgiveness and speaking “with the (peaceful) voice of angels”? Jesus talked about such hypocrisy in Matthew 7:1ff.
* You insist that the DVD did not include official sources. It did. However, if official sources really concern you, why did you hide behind an unofficial rebuttal? Why should anybody consider FAIR’s response authoritative since this organization claims it does not officially speak for the LDS Church? Why doesn’t the LDS Church have the courage to offer its own response?
* LDS.org states, “When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths. They do not attack and they do not condemn”? Are you really unaware that your present missionary manual clearly states on page 36, “Investigators must be told that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a Restoration. As a diamond on black velvet appears more brilliant, so the restoration stands in striking contrast to the dark background of the Great Apostasy. As guided by the Spirit, teach investigators about the Great Apostasy at a level of detail appropriate to their needs and circumstance” (Preach My Gospel, p.36). Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
* Over the years I have listened politely to numerous missionaries tell me about Joseph Smith’s alleged First Vision. Do you really think Christians such as I should not feel criticized when we are told that our churches are wrong, our creeds are an abomination, and that Christian “professors” are corrupt?
* At your 177th General Conference, it was stated, "I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of manmade doctrines concerning the Godhead." Is this not a criticism directed at millions of Christians?
* If the LDS Church had its people place information on doors in neighborhoods and Christians made a concerted effort to remove this information (as Mormons have bragged they did), wouldn’t that be called stealing? Why is it that the Mormons who did this do not see it as such?
* If the Christian community responded to an evangelistic effort by the LDS Church with the loud, angry voices exhibited recently by Latter-day Saints, wouldn’t your members accuse the Christians of persecuting them? Why should these actions not be considered persecution against Christians?

Please bear in mind that I am not saying that Mormons do not have the right to believe whatever they wish; in fact, I have often strongly supported their right to do so. I would only ask that you, as leaders of this church, be honest with the media and the general public when it comes to the subject of criticism and the charge of hatred.

With all of the talk of repentance at your last conference, I think you need to lead by example and offer an apology to the thousands of Christians you have offended with this false accusation.

Sincerely,

Bill McKeever

Director, Mormonism Research Ministry