Joseph Smith, Salvation, and Authority

[_mentalgymnast]

The main thrust of this thread seems to be that according to LDS Church doctrine Joseph Smith is the file leader of this last dispensation. If we don't accept his calling as prophet, seer, and revelator of the same then we are in a position where we will be at a disadvantage.

You are soft-pedaling here, mentalgymnast. If one does not accept Joseph Smith as Prophet, one has lost exaltation, period.

Well, I would say that losing one's exaltation may put one at a distinct "disadvantage". Where am I "soft-pedaling" here?

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

Does Utah Mormonism not teach that this will happen at some stage? I thought that was the whole "judgement bar of Christ" business in Alma. That's of course early Mormonism, and later Utah period (and Nauvoo presumably) Mormonism just adds an extra layer, an extra layer which once was clearly expressed but now is muddied by confusion and/or an indifference that serves the modern Church's desire to be accepted.

Beyond the speculative fancy of deep-doctrine hobbyists, I rarely heard anything about Joseph Smith being a judge but certainly in seminary and institute I was taught that Christ would be my judge, and if memory serves there was something about the apostles of this generation having a say in the whole process. But Richard G. Scott (presumably still lucid) certainly is under the impression that Jesus is our final judge.

Thank you for all of this, consul. Yes, it is an extra layer. Christ is the ultimate judge in Mormonism. And, one presumes that Joseph Smith, whatever his involvement in this process may be, is acting in accordance with the will of Christ. Does this mean that Joseph Smith is dispensable? I don't think so. And this is where it makes a difference: if one rejects or does not accept the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, as head of the final dispensation, one will lose exaltation. Now, again, one supposes this is because Jesus demands that people accept Joseph as such. But, still, this makes Joseph Smith highly significant in the process, if only in a passive sense. But is it only passive? I don't think so. He actively judges those who lived in the last dispensation.

It is, as you say, true that one will rarely hear of Joseph Smith being a judge. But, now that I have had time to reflect on it, I have heard this on occasion. I just never internalized it.

As you know, the entire concept of doctrine in Mormonism is slippery. Depending on time and place, one might hear that one thing is or is not "Mormon doctrine." So, can we say that this doctrine of the priesthood is not, in fact, doctrine because it is not in the discussions or Sunday School lessons? Maybe. Maybe functionally speaking, something ceases to be doctrine once it is ignored long enough. Bring it up sometime down the road, and one will be branded as an apostate. This could be the case with the doctrine I am discussing.

But, I don't think so. One might argue that the insertion of Brigham Young's statement into the endowment is actually a strengthening of the doctrine for endowed members. And this is consistent with the nature of the endowment. The endowment is as much about tying you to the Church as *the* kingdom of God through your covenants as it has anything to do with your individual salvation. Naturally, you are being reminded of your relationship to the priesthood on both sides of the veil throughout the endowment ritual. It is not a mistake that the first presidency of the earliest Christian Church plays a central role in forging the bond between Adam, Eve, and God in the endowment drama.

So, I am not sure how moribund this whole doctrine is. Look at mentalgymnast here popping in to tell me this sounds like good doctrine. I doubt he would do this if I were saying anything offensive or bizarre. No, I think it is implicit throughout the LDS Church but most strongly manifested in the endowment.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, I would say that losing one's exaltation may put one at a distinct "disadvantage". Where am I "soft-pedaling" here?

Regards,
MG

A disadvantage is a twisted ankle in a race. I think you know perfectly well what you were doing.

[_mentalgymnast]

The endowment is as much about tying you to the Church as *the* kingdom of God through your covenants as it has anything to do with your individual salvation.

I think we ought to remember, however, that the covenants made in the temple...the symbolism... tie us to Christ. If we are tied to Him then we are tied to the Church inasmuch as we will see it as an outgrowth of His love.

So, I am not sure how moribund this whole doctrine is. Look at mentalgymnast here popping in to tell me this sounds like good doctrine. I doubt he would do this if I were saying anything offensive or bizarre. No, I think it is implicit throughout the LDS Church but most strongly manifested in the endowment.

I'm "popping in" to simply make it clear that you've done a good job outlining the doctrine of the priesthood in your opening post. It was objective and clear. Pretty much doctrinally sound. Say something offensive and/or bizarre and I'll either have something to say...or not.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

...there also appears to be teaching that it is not just Jesus that has to decide on your salvation after you die, but Joseph Smith.

I agree that there is a 'file leader' system in place by which folks are 'judged' in the afterlife. I think that we ought to emphasize that ultimately Jesus Christ and the Father are the final judges of mankind's sojourn here on earth. What seems to be the issue here is that there would be others involved in that systematic judging process after we die.

Regards,
MG

Look, even if we add on Jesus after Joseph Smith (something which Brigham Young signally failed to indicate in his very detailed statement quoted above), then the Pearly Gates are still operating as a logical AND gate:



Input A is "Joseph Smith approves" (True/False)
Input B is "Jesus approves" (True/False)

The output is "The gates will open" (True/False)

Where "True" = 1 and "False" = 0

Note that if Joseph Smith turns you down, it does not help if Jesus approves ...

[_Kishkumen]

I think we ought to remember, however, that the covenants made in the temple...the symbolism... tie us to Christ. If we are tied to Him then we are tied to the Church inasmuch as we will see it as an outgrowth of His love.

I'm not gainsaying that, mentalgymnast. The devil is, however, in the details.

I'm "popping in" to simply make it clear that you've done a good job outlining the doctrine of the priesthood in your opening post. It was objective and clear. Pretty much doctrinally sound. Say something offensive and/or bizarre and I'll either have something to say...or not.

Thanks, MG. Please do not hesitate to chime in when you see something amiss.

[_Kishkumen]

Very insightful post Kishkumen. Thanks for sharing.

I think there is another critical element to what defines apostasy within the church, that goes hand in hand with disobedience to leadership, one that is emerging to the forefront with social networking, and that is, a public expression of dissent. As an anonymous coward, I can say pretty much what ever I want on the internet or even within the confines of my own circle of friends. But dare I publicly express any opinion which challenges the authority of a leader or established protocol within the church hierarchy, I run the risk of excommunication. In every one of the recent excommunication cases each defendant was asked to just shut up as a primary condition of retaining their membership.

I agree, Fence Sitter. The public expression of dissent undermines the priesthood authorities. As such it is dangerous to the salvation of all of the members, as the leaders see it.

[_consiglieri]

One thing I find fascinating (and that I was hitherto unaware of) is Brigham Young's view that Joseph Smith is one of the "angels who stand as sentinels" one must pass, and whose approbation one must obtain, before entering through the veil into the presence of God.

Since there are multiple sentinels, are we to presume the rest are subsequent presidents of the LDS Church?

[_sock puppet]

One thing I find fascinating (and that I was hitherto unaware of) is Brigham Young's view that Joseph Smith is one of the "angels who stand as sentinels" one must pass, and whose approbation one must obtain, before entering through the veil into the presence of God.

Since there are multiple sentinels, are we to presume the rest are subsequent presidents of the LDS Church?

How many palms must be greased to get into Mormon heaven? Better take a lot of cash with you when you die.

[_Fence Sitter]

I agree, Fence Sitter. The public expression of dissent undermines the priesthood authorities. As such it is dangerous to the salvation of all of the members, as the leaders see it.

Well the problem, as your OP points out, is that "salvation" has an entirely different meaning in the modern church, one that is ultimately based on obedience to current church leadership. We have become a church that worships living priesthood authorities first and foremost. How is this not the very definition of priestcraft?

I also note that people like Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, and others are being defined as apostates based on a definition of apostasy which rests on obedience to authority, nothing more. These are not sinners in the usual sense of the word. They are people who lead lives very similar to all Mormons. What is their sin? Simply put, they dare to publicly disagree with living leadership on doctrine. It is stunning to think that in 2015 a church the size of the LDS church feels the need to excommunicate otherwise good people for voicing contrary opinions, especially with the church itself openly acknowledging that leadership has been wrong in the past about doctrine.