"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" (Moro. 3:3-4).
Anciently, the offices of priest and teacher were given to men, not according to age or duration of church activity, but according to the gifts and callings of God unto men. What if this is how ordinations were performed in the Church today? Would it diminish our ability to preserve order in the Church? Did the Lord intend things to be done differently in our day?
"Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him" (D&C 20:60).
In instructions to the Church in our day, we are taught to ordain men "according to the gifts and callings of God," just as Moroni recorded was done anciently (Moro. 3:4). Our ordinations are to be performed by "the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains," just as Moroni recorded was done anciently (ibid.). What do these things mean?
When man elects to alter the manner of operation prescribed by the Lord in the scriptures he runs the risk of falling into error. This is how, so often in history, the commandments of men replace the word of God. Traditions are eventually established in place of the revealed word of the Lord.
For example, when you insist that a teacher be between the ages of 14-15, you run into the problem of teachers not being mature enough to grasp (let alone fulfill) their duties as outlined in scripture (Moro. 3:3; D&C 20:53-56). A young man of 14 is commissioned to "see that there is no iniquity in the church" (ibid.)? Since they are unable to perform the tasks spelled out for them by the Lord, they are given other duties so they can "practice using the priesthood." We therefore employ our teachers and deacons to do a work they are not authorized in the scriptures (D&C 20:58). If adult men, however, were ordained to such offices, according to the gifts and callings of God unto them, they may be successful in comprehending and performing in faithfulness the responsibilities devolving upon them. This of course has been the tradition for many years, and we don't pay attention to what it says in D&C 20.
If we understood and taught "the duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ," we wouldn't need to make up callings to help folks feel useful (D&C 20:38). There are specific responsibilities tied to each of these offices in the church of Christ. We've all but discarded them and replaced them with programs, auxiliaries, callings, and sub-callings. Instead of being busy doing what is required of us by the Lord, we tend to be persuaded to get busy doing what is required of us by men.
We insist upon a progressive structure, through which each man is able to climb a ladder of leadership, responsibility, keys, office, and power. Today, a 45 year old priest would either be inactive, or a recent convert. It would be embarrassing to allow him to remain a priest for any longer than was absolutely necessary; that would imply he wasn't worthy of being an elder. In the present system there are many opportunities for priestcrafts, envyings, and strifes (3 Ne. 30:2). These all result from pride.
There are other similarities between the record Moroni left for us and what is revealed in D&C 20.
- It is clear that it was elders and priests who administered the sacrament anciently, "according to the commandments of Christ" (Moro. 4:1). This is consistent with the instructions that have been given to us in our day (D&C 20:38-50).
- "And they did kneel down with the church" during the blessing of the sacrament. This is consistent with the commandment in our own day (Moro. 4:2; D&C 20:76).
- They administered wine anciently, as has been commanded in our day (Moro. 5:1-2; D&C 20:78-79).
For those that don't know, this is how things were done in our church for many years - even long after the death of the Prophet. While still resembling the ancient practices, we've since veered from the instructions the Lord has given us.
These are small details. Yet, it's amazing how small details and small changes can effect a culture. I wonder, for instance, if we ever would have become lazy enough to decide it was no longer necessary to stand when making covenants before God and angels in our temples, had we continued kneeling as a church during the blessing of the sacrament as instructed by the Lord, and maintained greater reverence for that sacred ordinance. Then again, I may be missing something. Perhaps all these changes were not merely about convenience, as I suppose.
If we would like to understand how things were done anciently, we should trust the text of the Book of Mormon as it stands and not read interpretations into the text that are based upon our own experiences. Likewise, if we are to properly interpret the Lord's intent in "restoration," we should consider what he has given us in this ancient record. He intended to restore an ancient religion. The Book of Mormon should be a revelatory lens through which we can understand the revelations of the prophet Joseph.
The following letter was written
to local church leadership from an inactive member of the Church:
"In 1977, we purchased a set of
the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, and that purchase changed the entire course of our lives.
As you know, the JOURNALS consist mostly of conference reports and other
addresses by the General Authorities of the Church. Members of the Church are
encouraged to be concerned only with the reports of current conferences,
because, since it is only necessary to “follow the living prophet,” no one need
be concerned about the teachings of former prophets. Most members who buy the
26 volumes of the JOURNALS leave them unread on the shelf. Well, we not only
read them but studied them, and this has made all the difference.
"As we continued studying the
JOURNALS, they led us to other sources of information about the teachings and
practices of the Church and its leaders in the 19th Century. Over the months
and years, it gradually dawned on us with an ever increasing awareness that the
Church we belonged to as mid 20th Century Mormons was not the same Church as
that founded by the Prophet Joseph Smith and perpetuated by Brigham Young. In
spite of the constant reassurances by contemporary Church leaders that, only
procedural matters of “form and policy” have changed, we began to realize that
the changes have been much more extensive and profound. In fact, there have
been drastic doctrinal changes, including total reversals of official Church
position. How could this occur in a system based on the revelation of absolute,
unchanging and unchangeable “truths” to prophets of God? Could one of the
“prophets” have been wrong? Or both? Or maybe all?
"For years we attempted to work it
all out so that it all made sense. The more we studied and prayed, the less the
pieces of the puzzle seemed to fit, and the greater became our concern and our
dismay. Eventually, however, we came to realize that the reason the pieces did
not fit was because they were pieces to different puzzles. The Church had
changed so much from its 19th Century origins that it was no longer the same.
"To list the changes of which I
speak and to document them would lengthen this epistle into a volume of
unwieldy size. Some of the more outstanding areas of concern, however, include
the identity of and nature of Deity (“Adam God”); Jehovah of the Old Testament
and Christ; consecration, united order and tithing; the nature of eternal
progression; the temple endowment; eternal marriage, polygamous and monogamous;
Negro and priesthood; the priesthood garment; priesthood offices, particularly
that of Seventy; blood atonement; preaching by the spirit vs. written speeches;
method of missionary work; trusting our salvation to human leaders; world and
national politics, government and friendship with the world; infallibility of
the President of the Church; the nature of revelation; gathering of Israel;
rebaptism; adoption; laws of God and laws of man; establishment of the Kingdom
of God; sacrament; and more. In all of these areas, the present teachings of
the Church are not the same as they were before the great transition in Mormonism
which occurred just after the turn of the century" (Anonymous letter, fall of
1997).
Though it includes firesides, funeral sermons, etc., the 26-volume Journal of Discourses is essentially a compilation of Conference
addresses. Latter-day Saints once accepted these addresses as the word of the Lord "through God's anointed," and as "standard works" or scripture, when they were given. They were at least encouraged to accept them as such (see George Q. Cannon's preface to the Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, and Albert Carrington's preface to vol. 15, for just two examples).
The Church now calls those teachings "speculative," and good for "practical advice," but certainly "not an authoritative source of Church doctrine" (see here).
There seems to me to be a constant fluctuation over what the truth of different matters
is. What man or woman is there among you who considers this kind of guess-work more important
than the scriptures? The unnamed family who wrote the letter left the Church because of their discovery that the leaders of the Church have taught for doctrine different things at different times. Doctrines changed, ordinances changed, attitudes changed. The only constant they found was change.
In a recent
statement from the Church about previous teachings on race we were taught we
can't be sure previous leaders spoke by revelation and that their statements do
not represent doctrine:
"'The origins
of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with
respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and
references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These
previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine'" (Mormon
Newsroom article, emphasis mine).
What happens when in twenty or
thirty years the Church tells you the instruction you received in the October
2012 general conference isn't to be understood as
doctrine, that it was merely opinion and speculation, and that what matters
is what the current leaders are teaching? At what point does this
eventually stop? Where do you draw the line? Is it your right to question the truthfulness of what is taught? Since we are asked not to
accept everything 19th century leaders taught, should we be so quick to
accept all the teachings of today's leaders? If previously they spoke "in the absence of direct revelation," though many times they claimed to be speaking the mind of God, how much more are we to believe that today they speak by the power of revelation, though they do not claim to do so?
This makes me think of Elder Benson's point that the most important reading you can do is in Church magazines. Do you believe that? If you do, how much time do you spend reading those each
day? "Beware of those who would tell you the scriptures and canonized
revelations of Joseph Smith and the other dead prophets are more important to you than our Ensign articles." Is the Spirit of the Lord in that?
You must not believe that kind of thing. Do not believe it though a man in office may teach it. I think that anybody willing to engage in such
thoughtless obedience to their leaders shouldn't claim rank among intelligent
beings (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595). But don't take my word for it.
