What Do We Do About Callings, Missions, Endowments, and Temple Marriages, etc?

Several years ago, the LDS church president spoke of their ambition to make things less complicated in their church:

I need not tell you that we have become a very large and complex Church. Our program is so vast and our reach is so extensive that it is difficult to comprehend. We are a Church of lay leadership. What a remarkable and wonderful thing that is. It must ever remain so. It must never move in the direction of an extensive paid ministry. But we know that the administrative load is very heavy on our bishops and stake presidents, as well as some others. An awareness of that fact has led the Presidency and the Twelve to hold a number of meetings, some of them long and interesting, in which in effect we have taken the Church apart and then put it together again. Our objective has been to see whether there might be some programs we could do away with. But as we have analyzed these, we have not seen much that could be dropped. To drop one is like giving away one of your children. You haven’t the heart to do it. But I wish to assure you that we are aware of the burdens you carry and the time you spend. In this priesthood meeting I wish to mention a few of the items we have discussed. I think you will note that we have made some progress, although it may be small. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “To Men of the Priesthood,” October 2002 General Conference Priesthood Session).

When he said, “in effect we have taken the Church apart and then put it together again,” although outwardly a commendable notion, there is no consideration to the idea that programs could well be chosen and administered, or abandoned altogether, on the local level without central oversight.

Speaking to his twelve disciples of old, the Lord said:

The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. (Luke 22:25-27).

Perhaps it is for this reason that the only result of the LDS meetings to reorganize their structure was, “…that we have made some progress, although it may be small.” Progress towards what end? Perhaps it could be said, instead, that giving up one of their centrally correlated programs was like giving up one of their idols…which throughout history has been ironically difficult for mankind to do, despite the absurdity of worshiping vain things that cannot provide salvation. Without fail, religions that once thrived from direct blessings from heaven, have all eventually dwindled to the point of clinging to their buildings, programs, structures, and traditions when apostasy has set in.

It is evident from the scriptures that the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes sacred oral traditions replete with ceremony, ordinances, and consistency (see Alma 12:9-11). But, care should be taken with temple rites, as much mischief can be done by their misuse (consider Cain vs. Abel, Brigham Young’s polygamy and blood oaths, and see Helaman 6). But, in the proper context, correct rituals can be uplifting, and even essential for our exaltation:

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. (Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 308).

An altered form of the oral tradition that Joseph Smith began in Nauvoo is available in LDS temples or online for review (see caution below). Because it has been altered over the years, it stands in the category of apocrypha, along with many other works that give insight into the ancient oral tradition of the Gospel (see Masonic rituals, and The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, especially his work on the Lord’s 40 day ministry, and the Egyptian Endowment, etc).

I used to be a Free and Accepted Mason, and I can say I believe Joseph Smith translated Masonry and restored what principles were lost into the beginnings of a format for use by the Priesthood in the last days, much like he translated the King James Version of the Bible…but we have lost much of what Joseph has restored.

There are no “keys” that give any man authority to change ordinances instituted before the foundation of the world, for the Priesthood, that are not intended to be changed. Therefore, changes in the endowment ceremony by definition make the ceremonies, to the degree of change involved, apocryphal, and inclusive of “interpolations by the hands of men” (D&C 91). The word history/definition of the verb form of “interpolation” is:

interpolate (v.) 1610s, “to alter or enlarge (a writing) by inserting new material,” from Latin interpolatus, past participle of interpolare “alter, freshen up, polish;” of writing, “falsify,” from inter- “among, between” (see inter-) + polare, which is related to polire “to smoothe, polish.”  Sense evolved in Latin from “refurbish,” to “alter appearance of,” to “falsify (especially by adding new material).” Middle English had interpolen (early 15c.) in a similar sense. Related: Interpolated; interpolating. (see here).

Section 91 expresses principles revealed by the Lord on how to treat Apocrypha, and is worthy of a careful review before attempting to study any text about temple rituals, or to attend an LDS temple itself. In fact, because the rituals are intended to be transmitted in person with heaven’s approval, care should also be taken in reviewing online or written materials. For those who have already received ordinances with heaven’s approval, they can be a useful way to review, especially if the LDS Church has unjustly taken away your temple recommend.

The best current resources for getting at the truth of what is contained in the Gospel’s oral tradition is to read the standard works, Joseph Smith’s teachings, and Denver Snuffer’s teachings (See Denver’s posts here and here where he says in part, “I’m acquainted with all the changes. I have found them all and studied them all. I know all of the many differences.”). Within their teachings are the Savior’s principles that must be applied first in order to prepare for higher, sacred knowledge. That is enough to build upon today. We cannot have more if we do not appreciate and live what we have already been given (see 3 Nephi 26:9 and D&C 88:33). In the chapter entitled “Preserving the Restoration” in Denver’s book of the same title, he says:

There is nothing special about us, but there can be. We do not need hundreds of temples, but will need one to which Christ can come. We will not need to perform endless work for the dead until there has been a covenant made by God with us. We must be first connected to the fathers in heaven. Only then can we do something to liberate the dead. (pp.526-527).

Having activities for youth are great and wonderful, but become an encumbrance and a hindrance to righteous living when idolatry is involved. Parents are not excused from their responsibility to be the primary teachers of the gospel to their children, so any other wholesome program for youth can be substituted for LDS Church programs as the parents supplement with Gospel teaching on their own. If you choose to wade through the idolatry included in LDS youth programs (that encourage youth to “follow the prophet” and to follow LDS leaders), then you face the challenge of contradicting their errors and persuading your children with truth from the scriptures to combat the evil influence of those programs. But, such a course may be worthwhile if you simultaneously want to take advantage of the good left in those programs. The choice is yours. Many parents organize activities for their youth with their friends in fellowships that are just as uplifting and productive. With many having served in LDS callings for years, it is easy to reproduce only the good parts of activities that are developed from wise, divinely inspired orderliness that the LDS have now commercialized and promoted to yield high tithing receipts and participation. It is perfectly OK to opt out of the LDS Church corporation’s versions of the programs and recreate them on your own, according to God’s will. Then you can pick and choose the parts that are the most uplifting and leave behind the dross.

Nothing needs to be chartered and officially sanctioned unless it involves more people than your immediate family. Follow wise principles and get heaven’s consent before important endeavors, and if you do involve a larger portion of the community, get their common consent and avoid getting trapped into false traditions and bureaucratic excesses. Be smart, be safe, be frugal, and be free. If you were once willing to put forth great effort for a calling and to get the praise of leaders, do it again for your family and for the Lord, where not much of your effort will get recognized publicly. This can include ordaining your young men (or old men) to the Priesthood outside of the LDS Church (see Denver Snuffer, Preserving the Restoration, pp. 509-515) and encouraging proper preaching, teaching, expounding, and exhorting (see 3 Nephi 14:6). The Lord may call them to service in good and worthwhile organizations that can take them on similar assignments paralleling LDS missionary service (see our post here). The Lord may inspire them to preach in ways more powerful than the limited approach of the LDS for their youth (see Denver Snuffer, Preserving the Restoration, pp. 519). Remember that this movement started with a 14 year old boy being visited by the Father and the Son, who became a 22 year old who began and finished the translation of ancient scripture.

Much of LDS missionary work is babysitting unconverted missionaries. It is an affront to the Lord and a compulsion for some who have no desires to serve God, but seek only to fulfill a family and cultural obligation. The notion that a mission is what a youth needs to get converted is a false and damnable idea. The pattern the Lord outlined is simple and profound: “If ye have desires to serve God, ye are called to the work” (D&C 4). If there is no desire, there is no call. That being said, there are still sincere, and miraculous efforts in the LDS missionary program from those who truly desire to serve the Lord, but remember, there was no MTC in Joseph Smith’s day, and what was likely Joseph’s sealing to Emma was outside of temple walls (see Denver Snuffer, Passing the Heavenly Gift, footnote 10, p. 18).

Although these are general guidelines, and not specific answers to some of the topics in the question, it should be evident by now in our posts that we do not seek to be the final answer on these questions, but to direct the learner to the scriptures and to the Lord. Hopefully you will see the spirit of the scriptures in these posts, and recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd when it has been evident, and be able to face God correctly in your journey forward.

Here are some other noteworthy resources, including a piece about sincere missionary work and inspired resources on how to conduct marriages approved by heaven, matching earlier practices of Latter-day Saints in Joseph Smith’s day:

(Rock Waterman, Where I Went Wrong On My Mission)

(Article on Marriage from the 1835 D&C, section 101)

(Keith Henderson, Marriage and Denver Snuffer, Comments on Marriage)

As other conditions arise that require direction from heaven on how to proceed, such as what to do about Patriarchal blessings, and other important items, heaven can be sought and revelation obtained as God grants it.

Concerning callings, the restraint and balance required of Hyrum Smith by the Lord in regards to preaching is noteworthy in D&C 11, but service to our fellowman is always commendable (See Rock Waterman, The Refiner’s Fire, and D&C 58:26-33).

Advertisements

If I’m Excommunicated Will I Lose My Temple Blessings and Break My Baptismal Covenant?

That depends. In many cases in today’s circumstances, no you will not.

Excommunication is an ordinance just like any other. In the Book of Mormon, the ordinance consisted of blotting out the names of those who would not confess their sins, and baptizing or re-baptizing those who confessed and returned again (see Mosiah 26). Since these actions are performed by ordinances, that means that excommunication and reinstatement through re-baptism take abstract intangible concepts and spiritual realities, and put them into physical rites by the use of symbolism. Being cut off from your community, after a church trial and conviction, is a type or symbol of being cut off from the presence of the Lord, or being cursed so as to be unable to achieve redemption for a time, and to be barred from seeing the Second Comforter. A revealed pattern for conducting the trial is contained in D&C 42 and D&C 102. The scriptures describe excommunication like so: “Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption” (D&C 104:9; see also D&C 78:12, D&C 82:21, and D&C 132:26).

In connection with excommunication being an ordinance, D&C 132 outlines how the Lord validates any action claimed to be performed by His priesthood:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. D&C 132:7.

Therefore, it follows that excommunication is only valid if it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Excommunication must be done in righteousness, or else it is an abomination on the part of the leaders who so take the name of the Lord in vain by falsely accusing and convicting innocent members. A faulty excommunication would be as bad as baptizing little children (see Moroni 8). Perhaps the Lord’s exclamation would be fitting for those who so profane his name: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2).

In fact, the Lord is more explicit in section 121 (and consider that “anointed” has no reference to general authorities in particular at all, but to any person upon whom the Lord has poured out His spirit because of their innocence and sincerity in believing His word; and meaning none of the general authorities unless they, too, have had His spirit poured out upon them, since a physical anointing is meaningless unless it, too, is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise):

Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house. Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them. They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea. Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell. D&C 121:16-23.

Ironically, the LDS do not believe that it is necessary to achieve an audience with the resurrected Lord in this life anymore, so the very ordinance they claim to have power to perform (see D&C 104:10) to cut people off from this possibility, has lost its symbolic meaning for them.

The Lord always has had veto power for all of the acts said to be done in his name. Furthermore, when a church loses it’s divine commission, excommunications from that institution become meaningless all the more.

If you are facing excommunication, or have been excommunicated by the LDS Church, how can you tell if you have really deserved that kind of treatment or not? In other words, how can you tell if the Holy Spirit of Promise has sealed a curse upon you because of sin, or how can you tell if someone you know has been excommunicated for the right reasons?

It all depends upon the manner of life that you or they live. King Benjamin said, “But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not” (Mosiah 4:30).

You shall know by the fruits of the Spirit, or absence of those fruits…Lehi observed that Laman and Lemuel were being excommunicated by the Lord Himself, as he feared they would be cut off from the presence of the Lord:

My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever; Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil. O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever. 2 Nephi 1:17-19.

Thankfully, it appears the Lord spared Lehi from performing the ordinance of excommunication for his own sons, but suffered Lehi to merely prophesy about it, and performed the excommunications Himself. In all cases of legitimate excommunication, it is the Lord who finalizes the act anyway.

Those who are legitimately excommunicated do not watch their thoughts, words, or deeds anymore; they do not observe the commandments of God such as the Ten Commandments; they do not continue in the faith of what they have heard concerning the coming of the Lord, nor of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith. In a word, they perish. And, as the Book of Mormon points out about the early stages of apostasy: they “dwindle in unbelief”. (This has nothing to do with disbelieving general authorities, and has everything to do with disbelieving scriptures and the Lord. We have gone over the difference in past posts such as this one, but on with the current subject…).

On the other hand, no matter how many people believe someone has been excommunicated legitimately, and no matter how much they may not like that person; or even, no matter how much they believe their leaders’ excommunication decisions are correct and honored by God, if the person who has been excommunicated has done no wrong according to the scriptures, and if they keep the commandments, and continue in the faith they have received, it is more likely that the LDS Church has lifted up their heel against one of the Lord’s anointed, and cried they have sinned when they have not sinned before the Lord. The Lord will not honor such gross misapplications of His “courts of love”, but will instead, according to His word (see 1 Samuel 2:30), honor the person who was unjustly persecuted and shamed by the priestcraft of false leaders (see also 3 Nephi 12:10-12, as well other scriptural examples that are just too numerous to list, such as the Lord’s whole mortal ministry in the New Testament, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the beginning of the Book of Mormon, and all the prophets in the Old Testament who fought against the established “Church” of their day).

Temple blessings and baptismal covenants are untouched and in force in such cases of false excommunication. Who cannot see the logic in this? Little children can understand as much. Fear not. If you are excommunicated or are about to be, ask yourself, “Do I still have faith?” If so, then as Gordon B. Hinckley used to say, “Go forward in faith,” and continue to enjoy the blessings that a just God will never remove from those who are condemned by false brethren.

 

 

 

What is the Proper Manner for Confessing Sins?

It is one of the basic parts of the doctrine of Christ that the believer repents of their sins. Because it is so basic and common a part of the core of the gospel, it is also easily exploited by false leaders and incorrect policies. But first, let’s look again at the definition of repentance.
The Lord said in a revelation to Joseph Smith, “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them” (D&C 58:43). This accords with a translation Joseph Smith did of Mark 9:40: “Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell” (Joseph Smith’s additions in italics).
The first entry for “confess” in Webster’s 1828 Dictionary reads:

CONFESS‘, verb transitive [Latin , to own or acknowledge.]

1. To own, acknowledge or avow, as a crime, a fault, a charge, a debt, or something that is against one’s interest, or reputation.

The other entries are not much different than the first, so this definition will suffice.
The full entry for “forsake” is as follows:

FORSA’KE, verb transitive preterit tense forsook; participle passive forsaken. See Seek .]

1. To quit or leave entirely; to desert; to abandon; to depart from. Friends and flatterers forsake us in adversity.

Forsake the foolish, and live. Proverbs 9:6.

2. To abandon; to renounce; to reject.

If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments – Psalms 89:30.

Cease from anger, and forsake wrath. Psalms 37:8.

3. To leave; to withdraw from; to fail. In anger, the color forsakes the cheeks. In severe trials, let not fortitude forsake you.

4. In scripture, God forsakes his people, when he withdraws his aid, or the light of his countenance.

The word history for “forsake” reads:

forsake (v.) Old English forsacan “object to, oppose, refuse, deny; give up, renounce” (past tense forsoc, past participle forsacen), from for- “completely” + sacan “to struggle, dispute, wrangle; accuse, blame” (see sake). Related: Forsaking. Similar formation in Old Saxon farsakan, Dutch verzaken, Old High German farsahhan “deny, repudiate,” Danish forsage “give up, refuse.” Forsake is chiefly applied to leaving that by which natural affection or a sense of duty should or might have led us to remain: as, to forsake one’s home, friends, country, or cause; a bird forsakes its nest. In the passive it often means left desolate, forlorn. [Century Dictionary]

The reason we have gone to a greater length to lay out the definition of “forsake” will become obvious in a moment. If you look at the word history, the prefix “for-” means “completely”, and together with the suffix, the possible full definition includes “object to, oppose, refuse, deny; give up, renounce.” Each of these similar verbs and behaviors are still different enough as to lead to ambiguity over what it means to forsake one’s sins. Does it mean to completely “give up” and abandon the behavior, with no slip ups in the future? Or, does it simply mean to completely “object to” the behavior in one’s heart, even if you continue to make the same or similar mistakes throughout your life? This ambiguity has led to religious leaders holding sins over people’s heads so long as they continue to fall prey to temptation. They would likely have denied Nephi a temple recommend with the “completely abandon” definition, though, as he confessed:

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. (2 Nephi 4:17-19)

However, Alma’s example proves that forgiveness from repentance is immediate, and not a process over time:

Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more. And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain! (Alma 36:18-20)

Character development over time is indeed a legitimate teaching, but it is not what repentance is defined as. Denver Snuffer contrasted the two by saying, “The development of a godly character happens in stages, gradually. We are forgiven in an instant, suddenly” (See Denver Snuffer’s posts here and here).
It is for this reason that we think the scriptural definition of forsake is “to completely oppose a behavior in one’s heart”. A criminal may admit that stealing is wrong, for example, but he may still love doing it; but, if he has confessed it as wrong, and forsaken it in his heart, he may still be tempted and commit a crime if he were homeless and wanting bread, all the while hating what he is doing. In the latter example, the criminal has repented, but hasn’t developed the necessary character to sacrifice for principle’s sake.
Confessing to the priests is an extension of the Lord’s command to let your yea’s be yea and your nay’s be nay (3 Nephi 12:37). If, in your understanding, your culture commits you to certain agreements with your priests, then you are duty bound to make an accounting of your discharge of those duties. The duties, in and of themselves, however, may not be moral issues at all. What is at issue is your understanding of what you agreed to, your priests’ understanding of what you agreed to, and whether or not you truly broke that trust, and if that agreement between the two of you (or between you and the rest of your fellow congregation) is mutual. A bishop of an LDS Ward offers a convenient way to confess the breaking of that trust you owe to your congregation and your leaders.
However, if you gain correct insight into the meaning of the scriptures and the true requirements of the Lord, the truth shall set you free (John 8:32). There may be some moral issues you owe to your congregation to confess to if you cross certain lines, but certainly many traditional views on what needs to be confessed to another person go out the door the more you understand the scriptures. Most things are between you and the Lord, and reconciliation with others follows common sense principles that the scriptures often touch upon (see D&C 42:88-93). If no one else is offended by your actions, leave it between you and the Lord. However, if “thy brother hath aught against thee–Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother” (3 Nephi 12:23-24). A bishop need not be involved unless you’ve offended the Bishop with an actual offense (and not a made up one they are persecuting you about). If you’ve done something that affects your standing in society, like committed a crime worthy of jail time, you probably owe it to your Bishop to mention that fact so he can take the necessary precautions for the group he represents, and so that he can do his duty in removing any privileges you have among a congregation that you shouldn’t have, for as long as is necessary.
What is most important is to see that the Bishop is not a representative of the Lord in this role, with whom you must go to for spiritual absolution. There is no intermediary between you and God. The Bishop is merely a representative of a congregation appointed to hear confessions of crimes AGAINST THE GROUP ONLY, who mediates reconciliation efforts between you and that group…PERIOD. He does not, and never can, represent God’s absolution of your private sins against God. A church and church representatives only offer an official community confession forum. Other sins are not their prerogative. The same goes for Priesthood holders. Priesthood is a relationship with the heavens, and the only rank and file leader you need to be concerned about is God Himself. You take care of your own Priesthood stewardship, and if you are not worthy in the Lord’s definition of the term…which more often refers to procedural worthiness, like having the correct priestly qualifications, common consent, and most importantly, the Lord’s permission for every act in the Priesthood, then you meekly excuse yourself from service for the necessary time (see Mosiah 21:33). If you have done something serious that affects your standing in the community, like adultery, then you ought to confess to your community and relevant concerned groups.
We are far away from understanding what it means in the scriptures where some few are given power to retain or remit sins on earth and in heaven (see John 20:23 and D&C 132:46), and certainly the Bishop’s role as judge amongst the people (D&C 107:74) does not rise to this level of trust. It is merely a common place role of being a representative chosen by a group. This is the outward ordinance style of the Aaronic Priesthood, and the temporal labor appointed someone who should take caution not to go beyond their bounds in authority with the Lord. And, as the Lord has ended the priesthood claims of the leadership of the LDS Church (see here), there is certainly no Stake level or General Authority level leader with this power to absolve sins as a representative of the LDS Church.
When we were in the Church, we felt the obligation to confess to our leaders when we went contrary to the cultural expectations there, and we were not rebellious. We confessed every time our consciences told us we weren’t towing the line like it was expected of us. I was a lifelong member and my wife was a convert. From the days of my youth, when I needed to confess serious sins, I did so. As I got older and established a family, I kept pace with smaller concerns. My wife did as well. We had no serious transgressions needing confession at the time of our resignation and we have none now. We have clear consciences when it comes to the discharge of our duties and obligations as former members of the LDS Church, and we have “gone not only the second mile, but paused and considered what more we could’ve done” to paraphrase an injunction in my Patriarchal blessing that we both took very seriously as it concerned our work in every calling, and for me, as it concerned my Priesthood service. Anyone who knows us and our labors in the Church over the years can attest to this fact. We only mention it to qualify what we are saying concerning the true nature of confessing sins as the scriptures outline them, having faithfully jumped through the hoops, implied and explicit, that the LDS Church has set up concerning this topic. We know somewhat of the contrast, and we appreciate the plainness of the Lamb of God and His requirements for forgiveness, in comparison to the traditions within the LDS Church. That being said, we are always learning more about the Lord’s intended meanings and are astonished at His doctrine as the Atonement plays a role in our lives. We hope you find the same measure of peace that we have found in going directly to the Lord for forgiveness, and in reconciling with your neighbor in the way and manner He reveals to you when necessary.
The Lord invites: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18).
The scriptures talk about a godly conversation (1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 3:11; D&C 20:69). Perhaps confession to God is more about understanding the category of sin, than it is about the particulars He already knows about. Surely acknowledging the incident with God can play a part, but overall, do you think God would be more satisfied with the person who confesses that the time they stole bread was wrong, but then goes on to steal time from their employer, ignorant of the continuation of their stealing mentality; or with the person who recognizes how their desires and actions are contrary to His commandments in general, and forsakes the breaking of those commandments no matter how sin manifests itself? Like King Benjamin said, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29), and Jacob: “O be wise; what can I say more?” (Jacob 6:12).
Overall, what is important is that, as a part of our confession of faith, we acknowledge the law of God and confess which activities and behaviors really are sinful, showing a godly conversation in that we have the intelligence communicated to us about what is the wrong course for our lives, and we know how to articulate right from wrong. Besides, this gift is given freely (see Helaman 14:30-31, 2 Nephi 2:4 and 2 Nephi 26:27). Denver Snuffer mentioned how the Lord’s instructions for prayer benefited the person confessing sins: “In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ said prayer should be in secret. Matthew 6:5-8…When praying in secret, we do not need to consider what others may think of our vocabulary, content, sentence structure, dangling participles, or embarrassing confessions. It is between the individual and God” (Preserving the Restoration, p.382). The Lord articulated more in the law to the church in D&C 42:

If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her. D&C 42:92.

Embarrassing private sins can remain between an individual and the Lord. For the example the Lord set for how to pray, Denver mentioned, “John chapter 17 is the great intercessory prayer. Look at how He addressed His Father: ‘These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven.’ [He did not bow His head or fold his arms. He spoke aloud with His eyes lifted upward.]…How would you like it if someone spoke to you with his back turned? Look up. Speak to heaven above. as we reach up to Him in prayer, He will reach down to us….If receiving His fullness required a course in rabbinical reasoning, or an advanced theological degree, there would be almost none who are saved. But the Book of Mormon gives us account after account of encounters between mankind and God where the only qualification was a broken heart and a contrite spirit” [and we might add, there was no qualification to confess to a priest or bishop in these examples, only instances where the repentant endeavored to repair the wrongs they had done when their crimes warranted it…see Helaman 5:17] “Those who do not have the required broken heart and contrite spirit come away saying, ‘God maketh no such thing known unto us.’ Like Laman and Lemuel, their iron necks and brass brows prevent them from looking up to God to be saved” (Preserving the Restoration, pp.382-383).
We’ll end this post with a simple review of the story of the ten lepers who were cleansed by God who was with them, for He was the true Priest. Having leprosy made someone unclean under the Mosaic Law, much like many of the transgressions maintained by Latter-day Saints as warranting a need to confess to a bishop make someone “unclean” in LDS culture.
And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole. Luke 17:11-19.

To the cleansed leper that found the true Priest, even Jesus Christ, the Lord said “Go thy way,” as in, there was no need for him to go to see his ecclesiastical priests.

Can I Be Excommunicated From the LDS Church For Being Re-baptized?

Yes, you can.

It has been reported that Handbook 1(reserved only for use by Priesthood leaders, changed frequently, and not available for public consumption), Section 6.7.3, reads as follows concerning the LDS Church’s definition of apostasy:

[A]postasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear open and deliberate public opposition to the church or it’s leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as church doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those who advocate plural marriage) after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.
4. Formally join another church or advocate it’s teachings.
(see article here and here)

Many leaders interpret this to mean that no ordinance may be done without sanction from LDS priesthood authorities. Our various posts have proved, according to the scriptures, that such an interpretation of this policy is against Christ’s teachings, and that the definition of apostasy listed above contradicts the scriptural definition of apostasy (see Mosiah 26:36; Alma 6:3; and Moroni 6:7). The LDS Church does not have a monopoly on righteous priesthood use (see here). When they insist on such a notion, they prove they are exercising “unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39), since they only have jurisdiction on who performs Priesthood ordinances within official Church meetings only.

Because of the persistence of this overreach, and for other reasons we’ve outlined (see here), the LDS Church has lost all rights to claim it is collectively led by the Priesthood of God. They have a fellowship among themselves, but to use scriptural language, they have cut themselves off from the presence of the Lord (2 Nephi 5:20) inasmuch as they have rejected his servants, the prophets (D&C 124:8), the chief among those they have rejected being Joseph Smith and the Lord’s teachings through him in their own scriptures (D&C 64:39). They shall be their own condemners out of their own mouths. Joseph Smith described such a situation as the definition of hell:

The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers. (History of the Church, 5:425; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 11, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards)

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone [see Revelation 21:8]. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man. (History of the Church, 6:314, 317; punctuation modernized; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Apr. 7, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton.)

If My Temple Recommend is Revoked, How Do I Worship?

The scriptures about the ancient kingdoms of Israel are illustrative for answering this question. They were originally one kingdom through the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, but after Solomon’s reign, they divided into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

The Kingdom of Judah, who governed the temple of Solomon and had official priests and a line of authority, were idolatrous by worshiping their leaders. Jeremiah proclaimed that Jehovah himself pointed this out and said that when they prophesied, pretending it was from Him, it was more like it was from Baal instead:

The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit. (Jeremiah 2:8).

The Kingdom of Israel rebelled against Solomon’s royal line and worshiped in high places and in groves.  They were idolatrous by worshiping the hosts of heaven instead of God alone:

And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. (2 Kings 17:16-18).

Eventually, the Kingdom of Judah gave up all pretenses, and after an insincere and feigned return to Jehovah worship during King Josiah’s reign, they became involved in full blown idolatry by worshiping the hosts of heaven as well:

¶The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. (Jeremiah 3:6-11).

In both cases, God rejected them when they got it wrong, including the Jews when their temple worship missed the mark (you only have to skim Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel and other prophets to catch that theme). But, He also supported them both when they got it right, even though the Deuteronomists and King Josiah’s reformers in the Southern Kingdom of Judah modified the sacred record to reflect a condemnation of all worship in high places outside of the central temple in Jerusalem (see this scripture search for “high places” to notice the parenthetical insertions with the pattern: “But the high places were not taken away” throughout the book of the 2 Kings, for starters). The hypocrisy of Judah condemning Israel for worshiping outside of the temple manifested itself by Judah turning fully to idolatry themselves. They were just as bad, and eventually they stopped covering it up with the cloak of the official religion laid down by Moses.

The fact that God called prophets in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, most notably Elijah with his worship at an altar out in the open at Mount Carmel (see 1 Kings 18), proves that God recognizes worship outside of the temples built by religious establishments and the priestly class. The Kingdom of Israel had no temple, so all of its prophets were unofficial in terms of “authorized” temple worship.

Joseph Smith explained how both forms of worship–in a temple and on the mountain top–could be appropriate:

I preached in the grove on the keys of the Kingdom, Charity &c The keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed–The rich can only get them in the Temple–the poor may get them on the Mountain top as did Moses. The rich cannot be saved without Charity, giving to feed the poor when and how God requires as well as building. There are signs in heaven, earth, and hell, the Elders must know them all to be endowed with power, to finish their work and prevent imposition. The devil knows many signs but does not know the sign of the Son of Man, or Jesus. No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something, and this can only be in the Holiest of Holies. (Manuscript History of the Church, 1 May 1842, Sunday Morning, Grove, Ehat, Andrew F., and Cook, Lyndon W., Words of Joseph Smith, pp.120-121)

Furthermore, Alma in the Book of Mormon asserts:

Behold thy brother hath said, What shall we do?—for we are cast out of our synagogues, that we cannot worship our God. Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only? And moreover, I would ask, do ye suppose that ye must not worship God only once in a week? I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble. (Alma 32:9-12).

So therefore, the LDS are much like the Kingdom of Judah, and the residue that have left the LDS Church to worship on their own are much like the Kingdom of Israel. Both scenarios can have excesses and insincere, unaccepted worship, as well as sincere and true worship. So, contrary to the prejudices of many active Latter-day Saints, non-members can legitimately worship outside of LDS temples, and still worship appropriately in the spirit of the temple.

On February 22, 1844, the Prophet Joseph Smith mentioned worship on the mountaintops when he instructed concerning an exploration of the West for a settlement of the Saints. He said:

I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountains he may want to talk with his God (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 224).

The Lord cuts a path between the extremists of the two by seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (see John 4:23), whether they be in the temple or on the mountains, or at a home altar. In “spirit” because His word is spirit, as the mind of God lays an unseen path before the believer to follow; and in “truth” because the faith and action of the believer brings the realities of the spirit (or the mind of God) into existence in the natural world when they elect to follow His commands. The realities of the spirit are only real if God has truly ordained it as opposed to it coming from a frenzied mind and heated imagination, and only if the believer has followed God’s words and guidance correctly.

And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified? Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong. . . . And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? If it be some other way it is not of God. (D&C 50:15-16,19-20). And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. (D&C 93:24).

Do I Have to Have an LDS Bishop’s Permission to Bless the Sacrament in My Home?

No, you do not need the Bishop’s permission to bless the Sacrament outside of church.

If you are going to represent the Ward in blessing and passing the Sacrament to a Ward member or members, the LDS Church requires that you get permission from the Bishop.

If you are visiting family or a friend, you don’t need permission from the Bishop at all, if you are a worthy holder of the Priesthood according to the scriptures (D&C 50:34). The Bishop has no jurisdiction beyond what people give him by common consent (D&C 26:2). Anything that LDS leaders claim otherwise is an example of unrighteous dominion, because it represents a prideful claim to a domain they have not been given authority over (D&C 121:39). Those who request the ordinance without any reference to the Bishop have not given him consent to preside over their individual request, and the Lord has not stifled all Priesthood use within the confines of church jurisdiction, either. You can use the Priesthood outside of church according to God’s will, but within the Church everything is governed by the consent of those within that group.

It is false to assume that the Bishop has control over everything within the Ward boundaries. He only has consent from those who are members who apply to the Bishop for member benefits, including member-based Sacrament services. Members can and do request Priesthood benefits outside of their role as members, which also includes the Sacrament and baptism, etc.

Don’t give up your liberties as a Priesthood holder. Give unto the Bishop the things that are the Bishop’s, but also give unto God the things that are God’s (see Mark 12:17).

If someone asks you to perform an ordinance, and doesn’t refer to their Bishop for permission, pray and get permission from the Lord and proceed (2 Nephi 32:9).

If they ask you to perform an ordinance as a representative of the Ward, explain to them the difference and only proceed if they understand you are using your Priesthood independently as a representative of God. God can and does recognize righteous Priesthood use outside of church jurisdiction. If he didn’t, then Joseph and Oliver’s baptisms would be invalid and John the Beloved would also be condemned (JS-History 1:68-75, D&C 7).

If you perform the Sacrament outside of church jurisdiction, be sure to take advantage of the opportunity to do it more accurately with wine (or grape juice if you have a medical reason not to drink alcohol), because the Lord said in scripture, “For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins” (D&C 27:2). Therefore, the LDS Church cannot restrict you from using wine to better remember the blood of Christ and the transforming effect that the Atonement has on our lives. Additionally, wine is prescribed for sacraments in the Word of Wisdom and you can still answer that question truthfully when asked in temple recommend interviews (D&C 89:5).

The time has come that Family Home Evenings and other family activities should be more authoritative and full of Priesthood power than LDS Ward meetings (see https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/the-power-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng). This should include Sacrament and baptisms as well.

Why This Site?

This site is intended to be mainly a question and answer format concerning the use of the Priesthood outside of a church structure. It is intended to answer questions about jurisdiction and alleviate concerns about following the Lord’s commands in modern-day scripture, despite what policies men implement in handbooks or otherwise in their churches or societies.

We understand this may put others at odds with their ecclesiastical leaders, or with other family members, so we have tried to develop answers from the scriptures that may help avoid contention and disharmony. We realize not all conflicts can be avoided, and if there is a greater need to maintain a relationship and avoid stirring up arguments and disagreements, than this information is probably best left for another time. Go and serve others and serve God.

But, if you already believe there is more to be gained from the scriptures than what you currently are being taught, and struggle to find ways to approach difficult subjects, than this site may be a worthwhile resource for you.

In any event, this site is also to help facilitate publishing the good news of God’s ongoing work, and to connect the people of Cache Valley, Utah (or anyone else, for that matter), to authoritative baptism or re-baptism according to the doctrine of Christ, by proper authority from those who hold the Priesthood of God and are willing to perform the ordinances according to the Lord’s prescribed way in the scriptures (3 Nephi 11:21-30).

If you have any questions that you feel would be good to have answered, or have a good answer to a difficult problem regarding baptism and re-baptism, then feel free to send in a comment. If there is value enough for a post to address the concern, we will try our best to respond, but most, if not all, answers can be found in the standard works and the Prophet Joseph Smith’s teachings.

This site is not an attempt to cover all of the bases and we don’t pretend to have all of the answers either, but firmly believe the resounding declaration of the Restoration itself, “if anyone lack wisdom, let him ask of God” (James 1:5).