5 MORE Things the LDS Church No Longer Teaches

here are five more things the LDS church changed and if you missed our first video be sure to check that out link is down below in the description number one the removal of section 101 and the addition of section 132 did you know that Doctrine and Covenants section 101 was removed in 1876 and was replaced with the very controversial Doctrine and Covenant section 132 here's actually what it says I have here a uh an addition of Doctrine and Covenants from 1850 4 this is actually the 1844 Edition so it's section 109 here not 101 but the text is the same it says in as much as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife and one woman but one husband except in the case of death when either is at Liberty to marry again this section is a bit curious especially given the LDS Church's pra practice of polygamy Mary Elizabeth Rollins one of Smith's wives said that an angel commanded Joseph to practice loral marriage in 1834 but there are indications actually that Smith received Revelation about polygamy as early as 1831 which is 4 years before this section found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants a letter written from one of Joseph's scribes ww Phelps to Brigham Young recounts this 1831 Revelation qu you should take unto you wives of the lamanites and Nephites that their posterity may become White delightsome and just about 3 years after this was given I asked Brother Joseph privately how we that were mentioned in the Revelation could take wives from the natives as we were all married men he replied instantly in the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and coutura and Jacob took Rachel BHA and zilpa by Revelation the Saints of the Lord are always directed by Revelation the LDS Church's gospel topics essays actually acknowledge that it was probably in 1831 when Smith first received Revelation about plural marriage Smith likely married Fanny elar sometime between 1833 and 1835 though we're not exactly sure when in either case Joseph knew about and was potentially even practicing plural marriage when this section was added to the DNC now it is worth noting that Oliver cowry wrote section 101 and that this edition of the Doctrine and Covenants the 1835 Edition was approved while Joseph Smith was out of town some people have used that fact to try and claim that Smith Never Would Have approved of this section since it was ultimately untrue even though Smith wasn't at that meeting he did oversee the creation of the index prior to the 1835 Edition being approved and the index references section 101 being about marriage multiple times so Smith clearly knew about the contents of the section prior to it being approved in 1835 and in fact it was Smith himself who helped call the meeting in order to approve of uh this addition what's more 9 years later the 184 for edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was approved and that retained section 101 though as I mentioned earlier it was uh then titled section 109 and that Edition was prepared by Smith just prior to his death in 1844 so Smith absolutely knew about the contents of section 101 and he approved of it and even retained it in the next edition of the DNC decades after latterday saints had moved to Utah and were publicly practicing polygamy latterday Saints scriptures formally denounced the practice of plural marriage this inconsistency eventually caught up with them and the section was removed in 1876 and as I said was replaced with Section 132 section 132 says things like this if any man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another and the first give her consent and if he espouse the second and they are virgins and avowed to no other man then he is Justified he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else and if he have 10 virgins given unto him by this law he cannot commit adultery for they belong to him and they are given unto him therefore he is Justified DNC 101 said that this Church of Christ does not practice plural marriage and then DNC 132 says here is how this Church of Christ is to lawfully practice plural marriage in 1835 all 12 Apostles released a statement of about the truthfulness of the 1835 edition of the DNC to include section 101 here's what they wrote We therefore feel willing to Bear testimony to all the world of mankind that the Lord has borne record to our souls through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us that these Commandments were given by inspiration of God and are profitable for all men and are verily true now that's actually retained in modern editions of the Doctrine and Covenants despite the fact that section 101 has actually been removed second change the book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papy the rediscovery of the Joseph Smith papi in 1966 caused some challenging problems for those who believed in the Divine authenticity of the book of Abraham a century after the source document that Smith had presumably used to translate the book of Abraham had been lost it was rediscovered in New York in the Metropolitan Museum of Art since that time latterday Saints have come up with a number of theories to explain why it is that the Papi we have do not match with the text of the book of Abraham one of the more popular theories is that the bits that we have are not actually the relevant segment of text that the book of Abraham was translated from but a great number of Latter-day Saints do not believe that the book of Abraham needs to be a literal translation of the papiery in order to be genuine the LDS Church website talks about this it says alternatively Joseph's study of the Papi may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham this view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation according to this view Joseph's translation was not a literal rendering of the papay as a conventional translation would be rather the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation reflection and Revelation they catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a Revelation about the life of Abraham even if that Revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papy in this view Joseph used the papy as a catalyst to receive Revelation from God but this is just not what latterday Saints historically thought the relationship between the papy and the Book of Abraham actually was one evidence of this is that Joseph claim he was translating the Egyptian characters on numerous occasions on one occasion he said with ww Phelps and Oliver kria scribes I commence the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics and much to our joy found that one of the roles contained the writings of Abraham another the writings of Joseph of Egypt Etc a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them so notice here he's talking about the translation of characters or hieroglyphics uh so he's talking about the actual documents and the actual markings on the page and and translating them now I will say that some Latter-Day Saints believe in a broader definition of the word translation that's even what the gospel topics essay I read earlier referenced they think of translation as more akin to Revelation and this would seem to explain that a bit but I would argue it's just not what the word translation means Additionally the existence of the Kirtland Egyptian papers demonstrates that Smith or his associates were trying to link the particular characters on the Egyptian papy to the specific text of the book of Abraham they really were considering the characters and grammar Oliver cryy recorded upon the subject of the Egyptian records rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph I may say a few words this record is beautifully written on Papyrus with black and a small part red ink or paint in perfect preservation again notice that he's referencing the ink it's black it's red he's talking about the specific characters it doesn't seem like they were thinking that this was an act of Revelation but rather an act of actual translation one also wonders why Joseph Smith was so eager to purchase the original set of papaye if it was just revelatory I mean they didn't have a lot of money at that time and they spent around the modern equivalent of $90,000 it was $2,400 at that time in order to purchase Michael Chandler's entire exhibit of mummies and papy because he thought this would be very valuable well why if it was just the work of re ation why such the emphasis on the originals additionally in 1912 there was an Episcopalian Pastor named Franklin Spalding and he questioned the accuracy of the fa similes and their interpretations and he actually got eight egyptologists to comment on this all eight of them said that the fax similes should not have been interpreted the way Joseph interpreted them but one thing that latterday St apologist said at that time is essentially we need the entire Source document in in order to actually ascertain whether or not the book of Abraham was a translation I have here the uh Improvement era from February 1913 I'm going to read you a quote out of this uh that sheds light on this exact point it says Bishop Spalding submits to eight egyptologists the three similes in the book of Abraham with explanations by the Prophet Joseph Smith for the purpose of getting their opinions as to whether they were translated correctly the scholars answer substantially that they were not correctly translated that is the fact what is the inference drawn from the fact well that the book of Abraham as a whole was not translated correctly is this leap in The Logical process warranted before they would be warranted in saying that the entire book of Abraham was not properly translated they would have to examine the original Papyrus or a copy of it from which the book of Abraham was translated now as a matter of fact the hieroglyphics submitted to the scholars constitute less than 17th of the book of Abraham and that only un accompaniment of the text so basically what they're saying is we don't have the original so we can't tell from the fact Sim if the book of Abraham was actually translated correctly or not that was in 1913 this was written well 1966 the papy are rediscovered we do have some of the original and in fact it still does not match up the language of that indicates that latterday Saints believed and in church official Publications that Joseph Smith actually translated that the translation was a literal translation of the characters on papy but by and large if you talk with Latter-Day Saints today they will argue a lot of times for The Catalyst Theory and there are some other theories in there but yeah I I think that this is a substantial change in perspectives about how the book of Abraham came to be third on our list is the removal of the lectures on faith the earliest additions of the Doctrine and Covenants actually began with seven lectures on theology called the leur on faith they were in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants up until 1921 when they were removed from that Edition and all subsequent editions in effect the lectures on faith were decanonized what are the lectures on faith well in 1834 to 1835 there were a set of lectures given to the school of the elders Joseph Smith said uh in January of 1835 in its Journal I was engaged in the school of the elders and in preparing the lectures on theology for a public publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants there's been speculation that Joseph himself wasn't actually the one who wrote These lectures which is very possible but he was at least involved in their preparation that year they were canonized and included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and uh that edition of DNC titled their lectures the doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints in fact I think I have it right here yep I have right here Doctrine and Covenants it has the lectures on faith it's hard to see I'll get a better shot it says on the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of latterday saints originally delivered before a class of the elders in Kirtland Ohio so the lectures on faith were the doctrine part of Doctrine and Covenants that's why it's Doctrine and Covenants and the sections that today we think of as the DNC were actually titled the covenants and Commandments of the Lord so ironically after 1921 I think the do Doctrine and Covenants probably should have been renamed just Covenants cuz the doctrine section had actually been removed because these lectures were given in 1835 they represented more primitive Theology of Joseph Smith he hadn't really developed his Theology of God to the point that it would be at right before his death especially in represented in things like the book of Abraham the king fallet discourse or the sermon in the Grove the most controversial of all these lectures was lecture number five which is titled the godhead it had some controversial statements which is almost certainly why it was removed here's one of those sections there are two personages who constitute the great matchless governing and supreme power over all things they are the father and the son the father being a personage of spirit the son who is in the bosom of the father a personage of Tabernacle made or fashioned like unto man and is called the son because of the flesh possessing the same mind with the Father which mind is the holy spirit now these statements differ a bit from Modern LS teaching the lecture says that there's two personages in the godhead the father and the son it says that the father is a personage of spirit and that the son is called the son because of his flesh and it also says that the mind that the father and the son share is the holy spirit in fact the catechism questions at the end of the lecture make this even more explicit how many personages are there in the godhead two the father and son this seems to me a bit more like binitarianism than it does really either trinitarianism or the modern LDS Church's view of God and the godhead it certainly is a more primitive form of Smith's thinking the Theology of God again way more so than uh what he would eventually articulate in the king fallet discourse sermon in the Grove even the book of Abraham and things like that even later sections of the DNC seem to teach something different consider what section 130 which is written in 1843 uh consider what it says the father has a body of Flesh and Bones as tangible as man's the son also but the Holy Ghost has not a body of Flesh and Bones but is a personage of spirit were it not so the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us evidently LDS leaders in the early 20th century agreed that the Theology of these lectures was a bit at odds with LDS teaching because they completely removed all seven lectures back in 1921 these leaders effectively decanonized the doctrine in the Doctrine and Covenants the intro to the doctrine and Covenant says they were never presented nor accepted by the church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons now when asked why the lectures on faith were removed Joseph Fielding Smith gave four reasons he would go on to become the 10th president of the alas church here were his four reasons first they were not received as Revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith second they are only instructions relative to the general subject of Faith they are explanations of principles but not Doctrine and that one's weird to me because they were literally called the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the in the label on the I just showed it to you on this edition of the DNC calls them the doctrine of the alas Church nonetheless reason number three they are not complete as to their teachings regarding the godhead I assume that's really a premier reason and fourth it was thought by Elder James E Tage chairman and other members of the committee who were responsible for their Omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief I.E on the godhead it would be better not to have them Bound in the same volume as the Commandments or Revelations which make up the doctrine in covenants as late as the 1970s there were still LDS church leaders who considered the lectures on faith to be inspired and even scripture LDS Apostle Bruce makoni said it was written by the power of the Holy Ghost by the spirit of inspiration it is in effect Eternal scripture it is true number four on our list is the complete abolishment of the office of presiding patriarch in the early days of the LDS church Joseph established the office of presiding patriarch or patriarch to the church now it's not an office that many Latter-Day Saints have heard of and a lot of latterday saints confuse it with the local stake Patriarchs but originally the office of presiding patriarch was meaningfully distinct from the local Patriarchs that gave patriarchal blessings the presiding patriarch was to preside in authority over a quum of local Patriarchs and he would give patriarchal blessings to all those who didn't have access to any of the local Patriarchs the very first patriarch to the church was Joseph Smith Senior the father to the founding prophet of Mormonism now Joseph Smith actually made clear that the presiding patriarch was the New Testament office of evangelist he said uh an evangelist is a patriarch even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the Seed of Abraham and in fact the ls church still maintains that an evangelist is a patriarch because Joseph saw this as restoring an essential office in Christ's Church he declared in 1839 whenever the Church of Christ is establish lished in the earth there should be a patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints Joseph Smith Jr said that Oliver cowy Joseph Smith Senor hyram Smith and Uncle John Smith and the three in the first presidency quote are to be considered the heads of the church so this wasn't an insignificant role in Mormonism it was a very Central role and central office in the life of the church especially after hyram Smith Joseph Smith's brother became this second presiding patriarch it was under hyram Smith's tenure that the millennial star which was a a publication of the Latter-Day Saints in England actually stated that the presiding patriarch was a part of the first presidency it said the first presidency of the Mormon hierarchy which consists of four dignitaries to wit a principal Prophet a patriarch and two counselors the importance and centrality of this office was recognized well into the 20th century B Roberts wrote that there should always be a quote presiding patriarch over all the Patriarchs of the church and he is known as the presiding patriarch of the church holding the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of the Lord's people and he presides over instructs and directs the labors of all the Patriarchs in the church in October 1979 Eldred G Smith who was the eth presiding patriarch was summoned to the office of 12th president Spencer W Kimble in downtown Salt Lake City for more than 30 years Eldred G Smith had served in the capacity of the presiding patriarch he spoke occasionally in general conference he had given tens of thousands of patriarchal blessings and he even served alongside the apostles in various capacities around the world president Kimble informed patriarch Smith that he would be designated a patriarch ameritus and that there would be no replacement for this office in effect Eldred G Smith was the last presiding patriarch to the LDS church Eldred Smith retained ameritus status until he died in 2013 at the age of 106 no replacement to that office was ever called and he was the last presiding patriarch even though Joseph Smith said it was one of the most essential parts of the restoration and wherever the Church of Christ was established on the earth there should be a presiding patriarch last on our list are the major Temple ceremony changes that occurred in 1990 before I even get to the specifics I just want to acknowledge that uh this is a very sensitive topic latterday Saints believe that these are so sacred that they ought not be talked about I'm not trying to be needlessly disrespectful or contentious but I do think that these things need to be discussed in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the ls Church in 1990 the endowment ceremony underwent major changes I'm only going to focus on two for this video uh the first is Christian pastors were prior to 1990 portrayed as the hirelings of Satan in the endowment ceremony and the second is that all reference to penalties for revealing the the uh signs and tokens of the endowment ceremony were removed after the 1990 changes for those who aren't aware what the endowment ceremony is it's uh one of the central rituals performed in LDS temples and if you've ever gone through a temple or been through an open house it's performed in the room with the Altar and the curtain prior to 1990 the ceremony referenced all Christian pastors as essentially being on the payroll of Satan I'm just going to read for you the script and show you what it was prior to 1990 Lucifer have you been to college and received training for the ministry sec Minister certainly a man cannot preach unless he has been trained for the ministry Lucifer do you preach the Orthodox religion sectarian Minister yes that is what I preach Lucifer if you will preach your Orthodox religion to these people and convert them I will pay you well sectarian Minister I will do my best skip forward sectarian Minister I am glad to know that you are calling upon father do you believe in a God who is without body parts and passions who sits on top of a topless Throne whose Center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere who fills the universe and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace not for any Act of theirs but by his good pleasure do you believe in this great being Adam I do not I cannot comprehend such a being notice the mockery of Christian doctrine there skip forward Peter do you know who that man is he is Satan sectarian Minister what the devil Peter he has said this to deceive you and I would advise you to get out of his employee sectarian Minister your advice is good but if I leave his employee what will become of me Peter we will preach the gospel unto you with the rest of Adam's posterity sectarian Minister that is good he turns to Lucifer I would like to have a settlement I want you to pay me for preaching Lucifer I am ready to keep my word and fulfill my part of the agreement now the details of this ceremony are really among the most sacred elements of the LDS faith and some of their elements actually find their origin in Freemasonry one of the elements that finds their origin in the Masonic rituals are the penalties for revealing the secrets of the ceremony those who go through the ceremony promise to never reveal those details and if they do break that promise break that oath then the penalties are supposed to befall them the temple ceremony script that I'm reading from here was recorded in the 1930s and it has Adam saying we and each of us Covenant and promise that we will not reveal R any of the secrets of this the first token of the ironic priesthood with its accompanying name sign or penalty should we do so we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by the roots then they would execute the sign of the penalty and executing the sign of the penalty the right hand palmed down is drawn sharply across the throat then dropped from the square to the side in 1894 a first presidency letter affirmed that this was indeed part of the script for the endowment ceremony they said they were fixing uh the language here they said the words that my tongue be torn from its roots in my mouth were substituted for from the ru of my mouth a second penalty is also stated later on at the altar people make an oath to quote have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field if they revealed things they shouldn't have and then the sign is made by placing the Le left arm on the square ing the right hand across the chest with the thumb extended and then drawing it rapidly from left to right and dropping it to the side and a third penalty was to agree that our bodies be cut aunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out in 1984 the language of these penalties was removed kind of softened there's still a reference to the penalties and they still did the signs but then in 1990 all reference to the penalties for violating this oath were completely removed from the endowment ceremony which I think was a legit imely good thing even though I strongly oppose everything that the temple has to do do with I I do think that those changes were good things uh here's what the new version said after 1990 uh they are most sacred and are guarded by solemn covenants and obligations made in the presence of God angels and these witnesses to hold them sacred and under no condition will you ever divulge them except at a certain place in the temple that will be shown you and so on and so forth now this is a huge problem it's a huge problem because the endowment ceremony was said to be received by Revelation to Smith consider what president Ezra Benson wrote prior to the changes in 1990 he said the endowment was revealed by Revelation and can be understood only by Revelation the laws and ordinances this is the endowment is an ordinance the laws and ordinances which cause men and women to come out of the world and become Sanctified are administered only in these holy places and they were given by Revelation and are comprehended by Revelation Beth sheas Smith a Latter-Day Saint who lived in navu from 1840 to 1846 testified in 1903 quote the endowments were given under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith there has been no change to my certain knowledge in these ceremonies they are the same today as they were then so the question is if they were revealed to the prophets prior to 1990 then why did they have to be changed in 1990 now latterday seems like to appeal to the fact that they have modern Revelation that God is guiding them in these modern ages and that's why things change and change and shift but I would argue that if God really is the same yesterday today and forever as my missionary friends are so uh fond of telling me then these changes are evidence that either God is a very mutable changeable being or prophets aren't really receiving Revelation one of the things that God condemns false prophets prophets for is for speaking the inventions of their own mind Ezekiel 13 says son of man prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are prophesying and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts and then he gives the prophecy thus says the Lord God woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing he says in Ezekiel 13:17 and you son of man set your face against the daughters of your people who prophesy out of their own hearts and God is fiery against them because they're not speaking on behalf of the Lord they are speaking the inventions of their own hearts and their own minds Jeremiah 23 also says something very similar says thus says the Lord of hosts do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you filling you with vain hopes they speak visions of their own minds not from the mouth of the Lord they say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord it shall be well with you and uh so on and so forth so part of the indictment against false prophets is that they speak the creation and invention of their own minds why are the Latter-Day Saint prophets not in that same category either they spoke of their own mind then or they're speaking of their own mind now but you can't have all of these changes both the ones we listed in this video and in previous videos you can't have all these changes and say that they're always speaking on behalf of God I hear latterday Saints tell me that the words of the prophets are correct when they are speaking for the Lord but sometimes they're just speaking as men but according to this if a prophet speaks as a man speaks his own mind that's part of what makes him a false prophet now notice one of the other things that God indicts the false prophets for is for saying that it shall be well with you who say for saying peace peace when there is no peace in that day the prophets were saying Jerusalem you'll be at ease you'll you'll have peace because God is for you and whatnot and there's no danger but the true prophets were saying God is going to destroy you because of your wickedness and your sin and your Covenant unfaithfulness he's going to annihilate you these false prophets are giving you false Assurance of peace and there is no peace I think in a similar way modern Latter-Day Saint prophets tell not only Latter-Day Saints but the whole of the world peace peace when there is no peace they tell the LDS people that the Jesus that you believe in he has a a a universal atonement that will cover over everyone uh the gospel is one where everyone will be slotted into one three one of three degrees of Glory uh they say that what you need to do is be worthy to be exalted by following the Covenant path I would argue that that is the same as saying peace peace when there is no peace when you read the Bible and you read the New Testament we're told that the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men and if you are unrighteous or ungodly but you are then you are under the wrath of God and what you need is peace with God Romans 51 says this therefore since we have been Justified declared righteous by faith not by worthiness by Covenant keeping but by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ so if you want real peace not the fraudulent peace that LDS prophets and apostles have historically offered and offer now if you want true peace with God then you must be justified by faith not by obedience not by performing of certain ordinances but rather by faith