Karen Strong & Her Husband's
Excommunication
Stake
Disciplinary Council Defense
Karen
Strong
April
11, 2017
You have brought us before this
council on the charges of apostasy. The grounds for apostasy which
President XXXXXX presented are derived from interpretation and
application of the church’s Handbook of Instruction.
But the scriptural meaning of the
original Greek word apostasy is DEFECTION FROM TRUTH, OR
FALLING AWAY FROM TRUTH. Christ defines Himself as the
Truth, as well as the words which He has declared in written
scripture. Thus, apostasy is a revolt against Christ and the truth
of the Lord’s word, as declared in the scriptural record.
The scriptures are binding upon
us, and they contain the words by which we shall ALL be judged.
They are the standard of truth, and the law upon which righteous
judgment is based.
THESE (scriptures) should never be
set aside in favor of Handbook rules established without divine
revelation, kept secret from the membership, and then imposed upon
the membership without the required vote of common consent. In
Christ’s day, the Handbook of Instruction would be akin to the
rigid commandments the Pharisees added to the scriptures, which
they then used as a basis to falsely accuse the Savior of having
committed sin. Christ rebuked the religious leaders for relying
upon their additions to God’s word and said, “JUDGE NOT
ACCORDING TO YOUR TRADITIONS, BUT JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT.”
Because you are accusing us of
apostasy, or straying from the truth; and thus, falling away
from Christ and His revealed word; THIS (scriptures hold up)
is the RIGHTEOUS standard of truth that you should use to
determine the legitimacy of your accusation against us.
Before I go further, I need to ask
you a question.
Was Martin Luther guilty of
apostasy when he pointed out the contradictions between the
Catholic Church’s practices and teachings compared to what the
scriptures actually taught? Or had the church wrongfully changed
the ordinances and doctrines while relying upon their claim to
authority as justification in making all the changes? Was
Luther’s loyalty supposed to be to the Church, or to God and the
truth found in God’s word? Whom will God vindicate in the
matter? Christ and his followers were also cast out and
charged with apostasy by the institutional church. It’s a
recurring pattern that large institutional religion strays off
course.
Those in power, then point to the
individuals who notice the shift away from scripture and accuse
them of apostasy claiming it is impossible for the institution to
ever go off course because of their authority, or keys. The
pattern has always been the same. The bottom line to all of this
is that we believe that it is the institutional Church that has
strayed from some significant foundational truths found within
God’s word.
A few examples of the serious
changes I am talking about are:
1. The
extensive changes made in 1990 to the temple ordinances. Followed
by additional significant changes in 2005 and 2016.
In addition to
the temple ordinances being changed, the ordinance of the
sacrament has been significantly modified contrary to Christ’s
instructions and example clearly given in three books of
scripture. Additions have been made to the doctrine of
Christ recorded in scripture, concerning qualification for
baptism. Any addition by anyone to the doctrine of Christ is
contrary to Christ’s explicit instruction.
Both Isaiah
and Joseph Smith specifically warned that God’s ordinances are not
to be changed or altered by man. No provision is given because
keys are held.
Joseph taught:
“Ordinances
instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in
the priesthood, for the salvation of man, ARE NOT TO
BE ALTERED OR CHANGED” (TPJS p. 308). (repeat
underlined)
“…the
ordinances must be kept IN THE VERY WAY God has appointed, otherwise
their
priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a
blessing.” (Joseph Smith, General Conference Tal, Oct. 5,
1840)
We teach as a
church that the changing of the ordinances by the primitive church
was a clear sign of their apostasy and was directly connected to
their loss of authority.
The Lord
confirms in Section 1 that this earlier changing of ordinances had
caused them to break the everlasting covenant, thereby requiring
the restoration through Joseph Smith.
But did you
know that Isaiah specifically warned that when the Lord
returns to burn the earth at His second coming, it will again
be because the earth has been defiled because the ordinances
have been changed and the everlasting covenant broken as a
consequence of those changes? Isaiah’s prophecy is not about
the change of the ordinances made by the Catholic Church mentioned
in Section 1. Instead, it is directly related to the breaking of
the covenant in the last days, by changing the ordinances
preceding Christ’s Second return. This is no small matter.
God’s
ordinances because we believe keys allow such changes to
be made; this is no different than the logic and reasoning made by
the historic church. If changing of ordinances defined their
apostasy, why do we excuse ourselves in the same thing we use to
condemn them?
Continuing
with the list of changes made by the Church:
2. There have
been changes in what is taught as doctrine.
First, Joseph
Smith clearly taught that all who have repented, been baptized and
received the Holy Ghost were to go on and seek to receive their
calling and election made sure and receive the Second Comforter;
Christ taught the same truth to His disciples in the Gospel of
John, as did Peter.
This true
doctrine is no longer taught and encouraged in the church. Quite
the opposite. In 2015, Elder Oaks even went so far as to say that
those who seek this are falling for a familiar tactic of the
adversary. His teaching is a direct contradiction to the words of
Christ, Peter, and Joseph Smith found in the scriptures. And a
changing of saving doctrine.
Two additional
examples of changed doctrine pertain to the Adam-God doctrine
taught by Presidents Young, Taylor and Woodruff; and the doctrine
on blacks and the priesthood taught by the Church all the way into
my lifetime, and confirmed in modern scripture.
Pertaining to
the Adam-God doctrine, President Kimball rightfully declared that
this doctrine taught by earlier prophets was false doctrine and
denounced it. But Bruce R. McConkie went further and called it a
heresy and said any who believe it are not worthy to be saved.
Yet, Brigham Young taught this doctrine in the St. George Temple
as the lecture at the veil and condemned members who did not
accept it as truth. Did McConkie mean Brigham and those who
believed him as their leader do not deserve to be saved? Why
would a living prophet need to denounce the teachings of a
former prophet if prophets cannot lead us astray, in the first
place?
The same
conundrum manifested itself in the official church essay written
to explain the former church presidents’ teachings on blacks and
Priesthood. The church stated previous presidents of the church
were LACKING REVELATION FROM GOD ON THE MATTER, disavowed their
teachings, and excused them as being products of their time. Enoch
and Abraham were likewise discredited by the essay, as the essay
contradicted what is taught in the Pearl of Great Price by these
prophets.
We were told
through the official essay that previous prophets lacked
revelation and that scripture is wrong. We can’t have it both
ways. We can’t be told to trust our current leaders because they
can’t lead us astray; and yet justify them disparaging and
contradicting former prophets of all ages, in an attempt to
appease the public. This reveals inconsistency in teaching and
contradiction in purported truth.
The church
applies a standard of infallibility to the current leaders
that they do not give to former leaders when the former leaders’
teachings are unpopular in today’s culture.
3. The original
1835 Doctrine and Covenants contained a series of Lectures on
Faith that were included as the “doctrine” portion of that book of
scripture. These were voted upon by common consent and accepted as
scripture in Joseph’s day. In 1921, a committee of six apostles
voted to remove this doctrine from our scripture, without a
required vote of the members; again changing, or removing
“doctrine” from the scriptures. This constituted an elimination of
important truths about the process of how one attains to the faith
required to literally know the Lord face to face.
4. Section 101
and 134 have very detailed teachings about the Constitution and
the types of laws we should support. The Church has recently
engaged in promoting and passing legislation that contradicts
these revelations, but they exempted themselves from complying to
the laws on moral grounds in the process; thereby compelling
through legislation others to live laws that they find morally
objectionable. When you advocate others doing something you refuse
to do, this is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the worst offenses
named by Christ in the scriptures and it was always directed at
the religious leaders. (LGBT)
5. The church
has disregarded the scriptural teachings concerning wealth,
riches, costly apparel, and seeking the fine things of the world.
The decision to surround the Salt Lake Temple with the very image
of Babylon in all its glory, namely the City Creek Mall, teaches
loud and clear that it is perfectly fine for all of us to attempt
to serve two masters. This is counter to everything taught in the
scriptures by Christ.
6. The church
changed the organizational structure of its’ highest quorums
revealed in Section 107 without revelation to do so. The quorums
of the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy and the Stake
High Councils were all established to be equal in authority for
the very purpose of eliminating the possibility of centralized
top-heavy control and power over the church. The Lord even made
the Quorum of the Twelve subordinate to the Stake High
Council when they were visiting and were only allowed to preside
where there was no organized stake. We have completely altered and
ignored the Lord’s design for how the church was to be governed
and eliminated their equality.
More examples could be added.
Everyone one of the above matters is rooted in a contradiction or
change from what is given by the Lord in the scriptures.
Over the years these changes became
a troubling matter to us because of our deep love for the Lord,
His church, and His gospel. We have never been rebellious. But as
we observed contradictions and serious changes that countered
the scriptures, we also began to wonder if this is exactly
what Nephi and Moroni were witnessing when they saw our day.
Nephi saw that ALL the churches in
the last days have gone out of the way and become corrupted. (2 Ne
28:11)
And Moroni lamentingly asked when
he saw us, “Why have ye polluted the holy church of God?”
After years of pondering and
wondering how such changes could be occurring within the Lord’s
church; we found our answer in Section 124.
In 1841, after a decade of failed
attempts to establish Zion, the Lord gave Section 124 and
commanded the Saints to build the required temple in Nauvoo. In
verse 28, He reveals exactly WHY that temple was required.
“For there
is not a place found on earth that he [the Lord] may
come to and restore again
that which was lost
unto you, or which he hath taken away,
even the fulness of the priesthood.”
Did you get that?
The Lord told the Saints in 1841
that they did NOT actually have the required fulness of the
Priesthood anymore. He confirms that they had previously had it
restored, but that they had lost it through disobedience, and
therefore, the Lord had taken it away from them and so He had to
restore it again. Additionally, the Lord directly states that it
is He that must personally come and return it to the
Saints in a completed temple.
Had you ever realized that was the
case? The point to take note of is that it’s not a question of
whether they lost it. The Lord clearly
states the church did NOT have the fulness of the priesthood in
1841.
The Lord then tells them that they
only have a certain amount of time allotted for them to complete
the temple. Whereupon, He then warns them that if they fail to
complete it within the designated time,
THEY WILL BE REJECTED AS A
CHURCH WITH THEIR DEAD. He says:
“I command
you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant
unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me…
and if you
do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be
rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God”
(v. 31-32)
The Lord promises them that if they
succeed in building this temple in the time permitted, then
they will not be moved out of their place. In other words,
they would remain in Nauvoo as a cornerstone of Zion. But failure
would mean cursing, wrath, indignation, judgement, and not
receiving the blessings they expected at His hand.
So the question is, did they
succeed within the allotted time to build the temple? Did the Lord
ever come to the Nauvoo Temple, and did He restore to them again
the fulness of the priesthood? Or did they fail and become
rejected as a church, remain without the fulness and get moved out
of their place?
Time does not permit a proper
examination of the facts, but in short, Joseph and Hyrum, who was
the revealed and appointed successor to lead the church, were
killed 3 ½ years after this revelation. At the time of their death
the temple was still only built up to the exterior walls of the
second story.
But the Saints were fully aware of
the requirements given in Section 124, as Joseph had admonished
them repeatedly that they were in jeopardy of failing. So after
the Quorum of the Twelve won the vote of the members to lead the
church, they anxiously worked to try to complete the temple.
But God allowed the wrath of their
enemies to be upon them, and they were forced out of Nauvoo in the
dead of winter before the temple was complete. The endowments they
performed were done in the attic of the unfinished temple.
Two apostles and a handful of saints remained behind to finish and
dedicate the temple months later. But there is no record of the
Lord appearing in this temple and accepting it as He promised, or
of the Lord bestowing again the fulness of the priesthood as
stated was the very purpose for building it.
Instead, the temple was abandoned
by the Saints due to their forced exodus, and it was left to
eventually burn, be destroyed by a tornado, and remain with not
one stone upon another. A complete loss, mirroring the pattern of
Biblical temples that were destroyed.
We realized that what had happen to
our early church, followed the same pattern that was exemplified
by the children of Israel with Moses. The Saints in Joseph’s day
had been given two opportunities to come into the presence of the
Lord, Missouri and Nauvoo. But they failed to rise to the
invitation. Their first failure resulted in the Lord
removing the fulness of the priesthood, and their second failure
left that priesthood still out of their possession.
Section 84 talks about the
ramifications of what it means to a people when the Lord invites
them into His presence, but they fail to receive the invitation.
Such people are always left with a lesser portion of the
priesthood than the fulness that is required to see Him face to
face.
But a lesser priesthood does NOT
mean the Lord isn’t still working with us. It doesn’t mean He
doesn’t love us. It doesn’t mean we can’t obtain the spirit. It
doesn’t mean there isn’t a work for the body of believers to
accomplish. It doesn’t mean much truth isn’t possessed. It doesn’t
mean God’s plan was thwarted or that it failed.
It merely means, that we, as a
people do not have what we could have had had we risen up. It
means that God has eternal laws that He obeys and when we fail, He
is bound to enact certain consequences upon us. He calls those
consequences a curse because the consequences prohibit us, as a
people, from entering into His literal presence. For us, the
latter-day saints, that consequence resulted in 4 generations, or
160 years, of operating with a lesser portion of priesthood that
has made obtaining Zion impossible. But the cursing was never
intended to be permanent. The Lord always intended to set His hand
again the second time to make the offer to us again when
sufficient time had passed to satisfy the blood spilt by Joseph
and Hyrum’s death because of the Saint’s failure.
But it does not change the fact
that during this condition of cursed probation since Joseph’s
death, lacking the degree of priesthood Joseph possessed, we have
slowly drifted further and further from what Joseph originally
intended and restored as a religion. If you don’t like our saying
so, then will you accept the words of Joseph Fielding Smith on the
matter:
“It is a
VERY APPARENT fact that we have traveled far and wide
in the past 20 years. What the future will bring I
do not know. But if we drift as far afield from the
fundamental things in the next 20 years, what will
be left of the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph Smith? It
is easy for one who observes to see how the apostasy
came about in the primitive church of Christ. ARE
WE NOT TRAVELING DOWN THE SAME ROAD? (Joseph Fielding
Smith Journal, entry for 28 December. 1938)
Joseph Fielding acknowledges that
the church has traveled far and wide in just the 20 years he had
observed while in leadership. He admits that the drift had been
from fundamental things that were part of the foundation
laid by Joseph Smith. He sees what has happened and admits he can
see how the primitive apostasy occurred and then stunningly
acknowledges we are traveling down the very same road. Did you
notice that he began by admitting that it was very apparent
to see this fact? That was 80 years ago. What would he say
and observe today? You are asking us to not observe and
acknowledge a very apparent fact that even a former prophet
admitted. You are asking us to turn a blind eye to changing
of ordinances, the elimination and changing of doctrine, and
institutional disregard for teachings found in scripture as
outlined previously.
I declare to you that we have not
apostatized. We have not fallen away or defected from Christ
or His truth. We have been faithful and loyal to Him. We
serve Him and Him alone and fear no man, nor council of men who
consider themselves beholden to a handbook of instructions over
the word of God.
If you cast us out, you cast out
innocent people and you cast out those whom God has approved. We
admonish you to think seriously before you do so. Do not use the
traditions of a religious culture and Handbook to judge us. With
what judgment you mete against us, it will be meted unto you by
the Lord in a coming day. Let us go in peace worshiping God
according to the dictates of our conscience and according to
His written word which the church has refused to keep
intact. The scriptures inform our beliefs and they vindicate
everything we think and everything we have done.
If I were Martin Luther, you would
be asking me to deny the word of God to protect the church that
has made clear changes to ordinances and changes in doctrine
against the word of God written in scripture. Because of the
obvious parallel, I close with the words of Luther when asked by
the church in his trial if he would recant his statements to save
himself.
“Unless I am convinced by the
testimony of the Holy Scriptures and by plain reason and not
by popes and councils alone, who have so often contradicted
themselves---I consider myself convicted by the testimony of
Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to
the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor
safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand; I can do
no other. God help me.” In the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
Amen.
|