Chapter 6

As I've mentioned in a previous post, I love ancient history. And no culture interests me more than that of ancient Rome. When I was younger, I wondered what the fascination was with Rome. So many TV shows, movies, books, politics, etc. seemed to be flavored with that culture. Once I dove into it myself, I understood why. Sometimes, I feel like Romans may as well be a blueprint to the rise (and inevitable fall) of the U.S. We're currently in our republic phase, but the foundation is being built for the Marius's, Sulla's, and Caesar's to come knocking soon and convert it to an empire. I guess with the increasing amount of executive authority each president claims, we may already be there, but I digress. That's not what this post is supposed to be about. What I want to talk about is the drift of the early church after the Lord's earthly ministry. Rome is an important player in this whole business of authority and succession. And like many hot topics of the day in ancient Rome (think immigration, rich vs poor, individual equality, land ownership), those topics very much apply to our time too. One particularly relevant topic today that I want to discuss is authority through a line of succession. Roman emperors, or at least those considered "good", would carefully craft out succession plans. Usually, it was to keep power within their family unit, but sometimes they would look for worthy successors, such as Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus. Like those emperors, the Papal line of authority used similar tactics to ensure succession from one pope to the next. This was so important to maintain power and control, propagandized as "peace" and "stability" by those in power.Now, be careful if you want to dive into history. Any history. If you think you know about a thing, chances are you really don't and it may shatter some closely held beliefs. My experience in studying history is that we're often fed incorrect, predetermined, and carefully crafted narratives in school, entertainment, books, and media regarding previous cultures, civilizations, events, and people. Why? To keep the status quo, of course. And that's why I brought up those Roman emperors and popes. You can't control people without strong, persistent propaganda keeping people in line. I don't like to church bash, but I'll need to in order to get my point across. The Catholic church claims its authority from Peter. We all know the story. After Peter testified that Jesus was indeed the Christ, the Lord said upon this rock I will build my church. This is then taken completely out of context to demonstrate that Peter was the first pope and all subsequent popes (including a donkey if memory serves) follow that line of authority. Strange comment to use as why would the Lord build His church on a flawed, imperfect mortal? Now we're here a couple millennia later and they claim to be the correct church because of that succession. Is that succession valid? I don't believe so, but that's up to you to find out for yourself.Having been raised in the LDS church, I was always taught that the line of prophets was a clear, orderly succession from Joseph Smith to Russell Nelson, the current one. The story goes something like this - in a meeting with the 12 apostles, Joseph passed his priesthood authority to them. All his authority, rank, etc. After he was murdered, since Young was the president of the quorum he became the next prophet. Problem is, none of that is true. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers project, diaries, and more access to original documents, we have the minutes of that meeting and nothing is mentioned of Joseph ever doing such a thing. In fact, we have journals from others there at that meeting and there's no mention at all. You'd think an important thing like that would have been recorded by someone. Also, it's kinda weird that Young waited how many years until finally becoming the head honcho? A bit suspicious, if you ask me. If you take the real history and then look at the actual structure of the early church with the first presidency, quorum of the 12, high council, and seventy all having power EQUAL in authority to each other (some sweet checks and balances there), then it makes more sense that Joseph never gave Young anything more than the QOTTA (quorum of the 12 apostles...that's too much to keep writing) charge. In fact, it was Oliver Cowdery who set apart the quorum. If succession was so orderly with the president of the QOTTA becoming president, why wasn't it revealed as such as instructions from the Lord, written down, and canonized? Seems like the leadership structure was clearly established throughout the Doctrine and Covenants so why such a huge omission?To be clear, I'm not opposed to the LDS church having an orderly succession of leadership. Seems like the proper thing to do for an earthly organization. And that's where I'm going with this. Joseph Smith was very much a prophet of God. Of that I have no doubt. And he was president of a church. Two different things. When I have to judge if someone is what they claim to be (prophet in this case), I prefer the Lord's way. You know... the "by their fruits" thing. I know Joseph saw God the Father, Jesus Christ, earlier prophets, and numerous angels. He translated the Book of Mormon and helped restore much of the bible. He restored so much doctrine in the Lectures on Faith. The man was legit. A mortal can't produce much better fruit. He was the Lord's anointed. If he did not anoint Brigham to be the next prophet, who did? If the Lord did, then great, but Brigham never claimed such. In fact, he admitted to not receiving revelations like Joseph. In my view, those powers held by Joseph and Hyrum left the earth when they were killed. I do actually believe that some priesthood was passed down to us today. Young did hold a calling and the priesthood as did many at that time. As far as I know, the Lord never revoked that priesthood. I'm comfortable calling myself a priesthood holder. However, I don't see how we can call those in the FP (first presidency) and QOTTA as prophets, seers, and revelators. Those are a special group of people that the Lord himself calls and actually, you know, prophesy, translate, and/or reveal. Since those in power today and of recent times have outed themselves admitting to never seeing the Lord, we can safely assume they aren't actually anointed as such. Didn't the original charge to the QOTTA from Oliver Cowdery state that although they were set apart, they needed to seek the Lord's face and get his approval too before they were officially apostles? I wish the church would drop the claim of "prophets, seers, and revelators" and stick with just their office titles. If they want a large church with titles and wealth, then so be it. I would probably still attend each week to worship. But stop forcing members to call and sustain them as such just to get their temple recommends. By their fruits...So why did I start all this out with Rome? Well, for many years now, I've believed that our current priesthood leaders are like the Pharisees during the Lord's ministry. I would equate them to those in ancient Israel who professed to protect the law, but were empty spiritually. When's the last time you heard about a member of the QOTTA miraculously healing someone, raising the dead, or casting out demons? Isn't that their duty? Oh, and don't take anything with you, including money. They shouldn't be paid for their labors. Benjamin and Alma were perfectly clear about priestcraft. Let's just leave that one alone since many others online have covered that plenty. I now believe I was incorrect to apply the Pharisee label to them. I actually consider them more like the early popes and apostolic fathers during Roman times. The Pharisees were rooted in the Law of Moses and oral traditions. While they may have missed the mark spiritually, I'll give them props for being devout students of the bible. They spent their lives studying. Again, current leadership in the LDS church is primarily made up of doctors, lawyers, educators, and business executives. Who would you identify in those groups as doctrinal masters akin to Bruce McConkie, Harold Lee, or Hugh Brown? I can maybe see Jeffrey Holland, but that's about it. None of them stand out as deep thinkers in the gospel. They all feel more of the Heber J. Grant vein...business-oriented folks dressed up in church clothes.I think this leads me to two conclusions...1) spend time studying history and form your own opinion and 2) be cautious of power centers and the narratives that surround the line of succession/authority. The deeper you dig, the more you'll expose to light and discover that deception is rife in earthly organizations. I appreciate the LDS church and for the community it's meant to me and my family. I do believe there have been many good men trying to lead over the decades, but the institution itself is of man, not God. Remember, priestly leaders throughout the scriptures went from righteous to wicked back to righteous again. It's a cycle. As humans, they are no more immune to sin and apostasy than we are. Institutions don't guarantee righteousness. I also think the Mormon church as we know it was the best place to find more truths for a long, long time, but times are a'changin'. I'm starting to think that the Lord has led many people to the LDS church, including my parents, to prepare those He needs for His next phase of work. Maybe they needed a solid understanding of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's original teachings to bring people back to seeking Jesus Christ and to stop following people in authority (idolatry in its worst form). Those are my thoughts today. I'm sorry for the criticism of the Catholic and LDS churches. They both hold a special place in my heart for different reasons and I appreciate the good people in them who do their best to follow the Lord. It's the institutions of wealth, power, and status that I despise and reject.