LDS Revelations

[twopekinguys]

The end of withholding the priesthood from blacks is included in their canon at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants. The ban comes from the Book of Abraham.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

So, that is the latest version of the doctrine and covenants. The lifting of the ban wouldn’t have been included in previous versions. Also, which version of the book of mormon are you going with since there have been many, many changes. One important one is the change from “**white **and delightsome”, to “**pure **and delightsome”

Also, the link you provided is less than trustworthy. It states “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” (emphasis mine)

Then you have this:

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could **no longer be ordained **to the priesthood” (bolding mine)

This quote can be found here.
lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

You will notice that both your link, and the one I provided are both directly from lds.org

Which one is right?

Getting back to the lifting of the ban. Timing is everything. I have heard a few ideas on how that happened.

1. The president at the time, Spencer Kimball supposedly went to the temple in SLC to pray, and told god that he was lifting the ban. He asked god for a “sign”. Evidently, he got the “sign” he needed.
2. At the time the ban was lifted, it was reported that several college athletic teams refused to play BYU, a mormon owned school, because of the ban.
3. Also at the time the ban was lifted, it has been rumored that the IRS was looking to revoke the mormon church tax exempt status because of their racial policies.

Take your pick on which one you want to believe. Either way, one of the “prophets” got it wrong. BY or Kimball.

Mormon theology and “doctrine” is a very fluid and elusive thing since it metamorphic properties that depend on prevailing opinion, and economic factors.

 

[dianaiad]

And I doubt that Noah ever proclaimed “LET’S GO SHOPPING!”.

Just sayin…

I imagine, given how old Noah was, and that he had a wife and kids, and that people sold things to other people even back then, that he did indeed say, at least once, “Let’s go shopping” or words to that effect.

But this suggestion never made it into scripture, because it had nothing to do with his role as a writer or subject of scripture.

There seems to be a fundamental misconception regarding prophets in general, and modern day prophets (if indeed they exist) in particular. It is as if all those prophets appeared only when they did whatever it is became scriptural, and then got put in some bit of stasis when they were simply being human beings.

It doesn’t really matter for the OT and even the NT prophets, because we don’t have a clue WHAT they did outside their roles as prophets, seers and revelators; that’s all we have of them. Yet we know that they had families, they worked for a living, they did other things in their lives besides write letters or preach or make proclamations. We know that they played, they argued, they conversed with others… all humans do. We simply do not have any records of that.

But the men who claim to be prophets today? We know pretty much everything about them, public or private. We know when they give talks…as themselves (like the rest of us and just as subject to bias or opinion or outright error) and as prophets of God, when a very different set of standards apply.

I have seen the comment 'God’s Kingdom is not a Democracy"…and this is true. It is not. I saw one reference to 'raising our hands to the square" when someone is proposed for a job. That’s…not precisely what happens. We are asked to ‘confirm’ a calling that has already been made and accepted. It is US promising to support and sustain the person in his or her calling; it is not a vote to see if that person is popular enough to get the job. If someone says ‘no,’ The question is asked: why can’t YOU support this person?" It’s about the one doing the sustaining/not sustaining, in other words.

…and if you say no, you can’t sustain someone, there had better be a VERY good reason.

As to revelations…

That’s harder. Yes, nothing goes into ‘scripture’ or is considered to be applicable to church wide use, unless that revelation is confirmed by the Quorum of the Twelve.

That’s because the Prophet is a man, and men are fallible. If he has a revelation, a true one, then of course God would confirm that with the Quorum. If he has what he thinks might be one, but it’s not? Then the Quorum is not going to get their own revelations confirming it. It’s not a vote; it’s a confirmation. From God. We firmly believe this.

I hope that my convoluted explanation is a bit more clear to you than it looks to me.

 

[SteveVH]

I imagine, given how old Noah was, and that he had a wife and kids, and that people sold things to other people even back then, that he did indeed say, at least once, “Let’s go shopping” or words to that effect.

But this suggestion never made it into scripture, because it had nothing to do with his role as a writer or subject of scripture.

There seems to be a fundamental misconception regarding prophets in general, and modern day prophets (if indeed they exist) in particular. It is as if all those prophets appeared only when they did whatever it is became scriptural, and then got put in some bit of stasis when they were simply being human beings.

It doesn’t really matter for the OT and even the NT prophets, because we don’t have a clue WHAT they did outside their roles as prophets, seers and revelators; that’s all we have of them. Yet we know that they had families, they worked for a living, they did other things in their lives besides write letters or preach or make proclamations. We know that they played, they argued, they conversed with others… all humans do. We simply do not have any records of that.

But the men who claim to be prophets today? We know pretty much everything about them, public or private. We know when they give talks…as themselves (like the rest of us and just as subject to bias or opinion or outright error) and as prophets of God, when a very different set of standards apply.

I have seen the comment 'God’s Kingdom is not a Democracy"…and this is true. It is not. I saw one reference to 'raising our hands to the square" when someone is proposed for a job. That’s…not precisely what happens. We are asked to ‘confirm’ a calling that has already been made and accepted. It is US promising to support and sustain the person in his or her calling; it is not a vote to see if that person is popular enough to get the job. If someone says ‘no,’ The question is asked: why can’t YOU support this person?" It’s about the one doing the sustaining/not sustaining, in other words.

…and if you say no, you can’t sustain someone, there had better be a VERY good reason.

As to revelations…

That’s harder. Yes, nothing goes into ‘scripture’ or is considered to be applicable to church wide use, unless that revelation is confirmed by the Quorum of the Twelve.

That’s because the Prophet is a man, and men are fallible. If he has a revelation, a true one, then of course God would confirm that with the Quorum. If he has what he thinks might be one, but it’s not? Then the Quorum is not going to get their own revelations confirming it. It’s not a vote; it’s a confirmation. From God. We firmly believe this.

I hope that my convoluted explanation is a bit more clear to you than it looks to me.

Welcome back, Diana.

 

[LivingWaters7]

But the men who claim to be prophets today? We know pretty much everything about them, public or private. We know when they give talks…as themselves (like the rest of us and just as subject to bias or opinion or outright error) and as prophets of God, when a very different set of standards apply.

How do we know when the LDS prophets give talks “as prophets of God”? Are General Conference talks in that category?

 

[TexanKnight]

I imagine, given how old Noah was, and that he had a wife and kids, and that people sold things to other people even back then, that he did indeed say, at least once, “Let’s go shopping” or words to that effect.

Way to dodge the point!!!

There seems to be a fundamental misconception regarding prophets in general, and modern day prophets (if indeed they exist) in particular. It is as if all those prophets appeared only when they did whatever it is became scriptural, and then got put in some bit of stasis when they were simply being human beings.

huh?

It doesn’t really matter for the OT and even the NT prophets, because we don’t have a clue WHAT they did outside their roles as prophets, seers and revelators; that’s all we have of them. Yet we know that they had families, they worked for a living, they did other things in their lives besides write letters or preach or make proclamations. We know that they played, they argued, they conversed with others… all humans do. We simply do not have any records of that.

Yes…but, when they spoke about God, it was correct AND was as prophets…

But the men who claim to be prophets today? We know pretty much everything about them, public or private. We know when they give talks…as themselves (like the rest of us and just as subject to bias or opinion or outright error) and as prophets of God, when a very different set of standards apply.

What different standards apply?

I have seen the comment 'God’s Kingdom is not a Democracy"…and this is true. It is not.

Except in the LDS Church, where, if the “prophet” has a revelation, it is voted on by the 12…

…and if you say no, you can’t sustain someone, there had better be a VERY good reason.

Or what?

As to revelations…

That’s harder. Yes, nothing goes into ‘scripture’ or is considered to be applicable to church wide use, unless that revelation is confirmed by the Quorum of the Twelve.

like I said…a democracy

That’s because the Prophet is a man, and men are fallible. If he has a revelation, a true one, then of course God would confirm that with the Quorum. If he has what he thinks might be one, but it’s not? Then the Quorum is not going to get their own revelations confirming it. It’s not a vote; it’s a confirmation. From God. We firmly believe this.

Wrong. Look at Adam-God…look at Cumorah…look at blacks and the priesthood…and the list can go on

I hope that my convoluted explanation is a bit more clear to you than it looks to me.

it wasn’t. Nor was it accurate

 

[JamesCollins]

So, that is the latest version of the doctrine and covenants. The lifting of the ban wouldn’t have been included in previous versions. Also, which version of the book of mormon are you going with since there have been many, many changes. One important one is the change from “**white **and delightsome”, to “**pure **and delightsome”

Also, the link you provided is less than trustworthy. It states “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” (emphasis mine)

Then you have this:

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could **no longer be ordained **to the priesthood” (bolding mine)

This quote can be found here.
lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

You will notice that both your link, and the one I provided are both directly from lds.org

Which one is right?

Getting back to the lifting of the ban. Timing is everything. I have heard a few ideas on how that happened.

1. The president at the time, Spencer Kimball supposedly went to the temple in SLC to pray, and told god that he was lifting the ban. He asked god for a “sign”. Evidently, he got the “sign” he needed.
2. At the time the ban was lifted, it was reported that several college athletic teams refused to play BYU, a mormon owned school, because of the ban.
3. Also at the time the ban was lifted, it has been rumored that the IRS was looking to revoke the mormon church tax exempt status because of their racial policies.

Take your pick on which one you want to believe. Either way, one of the “prophets” got it wrong. BY or Kimball.

Mormon theology and “doctrine” is a very fluid and elusive thing since it metamorphic properties that depend on prevailing opinion, and economic factors.

I don’t really know what you are asking. The priesthood ban ended in 1978 and the section in the Doctrine and Covenants began appearing when he next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was printed. Obviously it couldn’t have appeared before the change was made. The LDS Church had always indicated black men would at some point receive the priesthood. This was made clear to me when I joined the church in the early 70s. In that sense I really don’t have to choose between Brigham and Spencer because it was always a given that at some point blacks would receive the priesthood. I don’t think the LDS Church was inspired to withhold it in the first place because I don’t believe in the LDS Church. I’m not here to argue their position, but at least you have to get the history correct. There is a question as to whether or not Joseph Smith forbid blacks from holding the priesthood after the Book of Abraham was created. In this light it is interesting to know the RLDS Church felt it necessary to receive a revelation in the early 1860s clarifying the issue of blacks and the priesthood. There was obvious a question in their minds regarding the practice which seems to have been left over from earlier times:

[Sec 116:1a] Hearken! Ye elders of my church, I am he who hath called you friends. Concerning the matter you have asked of me:

[Sec 116:1b] Lo! It is my will that my gospel shall be preached to all nations in every land, and that men of every tongue shall minister before me:

[Sec 116:1c] Therefore it is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me, of every race who receive the teachings of my law, and become heirs according to the promise.

[Sec 116:2a] Be ye very careful, for many elders have been ordained unto me, and are come under my condemnation, by reason of neglecting to lift up their voices in my cause, and for such there is tribulation and anguish:

[Sec 116:2b] haply they themselves may be saved (if doing no evil) though their glory, which is given for their works, be withheld, or in other words their works are burned, not being profitable unto me.

[Sec 116:3a] Loosen ye one another’s hands and uphold one another, that ye who are of the Quorum of Twelve, may all labor in the vineyard, for upon you rests much responsibility;

[Sec 116:3b] and if ye labor diligently the time is soon when others shall be added to your number till the quorum be full, even twelve.

[Sec 116:4a] Be not hasty in ordaining men of the Negro race to offices in my church, for verily I say unto you,

[Sec 116:4b] All are not acceptable unto me as servants, nevertheless I will that all may be saved, but every man in his own order, and there are some who are chosen instruments to be ministers to their own race. Be ye content, I the Lord have spoken it.

The revelation can be found here:

centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdc-116.htm

I do think it is very likely that traditions in 19th century America were the main drivers of withholding the priesthood from blacks. It was unusual in some places in America to even have integrated congregations of any denomination. This is not a defense of Mormonism, but simply a recognition of the way things worked. I would dare say there may have even have been Catholic congregations in the South which discriminated against blacks as well in the 19th century.

 

[dianaiad]

Welcome back, Diana.

Thank you, Steve. I’m very glad to be back.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t really know what you are asking. The priesthood ban ended in 1978 and the section in the Doctrine and Covenants began appearing when he next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was printed. Obviously it couldn’t have appeared before the change was made. The LDS Church had always indicated black men would at some point receive the priesthood. This was made clear to me when I joined the church in the early 70s. In that sense I really don’t have to choose between Brigham and Spencer because it was always a given that at some point blacks would receive the priesthood. I don’t think the LDS Church was inspired to withhold it in the first place because I don’t believe in the LDS Church. I’m not here to argue their position, but at least you have to get the history correct. There is a question as to whether or not Joseph Smith forbid blacks from holding the priesthood after the Book of Abraham was created. In this light it is interesting to know the RLDS Church felt it necessary to receive a revelation in the early 1860s clarifying the issue of blacks and the priesthood. There was obvious a question in their minds regarding the practice which seems to have been left over from earlier times:

The revelation can be found here:

centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdc-116.htm

I do think it is very likely that traditions in 19th century America were the main drivers of withholding the priesthood from blacks. It was unusual in some places in America to even have integrated congregations of any denomination. This is not a defense of Mormonism, but simply a recognition of the way things worked. I would dare say there may have even have been Catholic congregations in the South which discriminated against blacks as well in the 19th century.

The point I am making, and I think I even said in the last line is that mormon theology is every changing and fluid, and ever changing.

Also, did you check out the link I provided? It was also from lds.org, and gave an entirely different view on the ban. Yours basically showed where they had no idea where it came from, and mine showed it came from BY.

Both statements came from the official church website. If they can’t get their story straight on this one issue that was taught as doctrine, what makes you think that anything they have canonized as “scripture”(including the book of abraham) is correct?

 

[KathleenGee]

Welcome back, Dianaid.

Back to the thread, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation, Logos, the Living Word of God, and likewise the summation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[dianaiad]

Welcome back, Dianaid.

Back to the thread, Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all revelation, Logos, the Living Word of God, and likewise the summation of Sacred Scripture.

Thank you for the welcome back, Kathleen.

As to the “Christians believe…” some Christians do, certainly. BTW, Mormon type Christians also believe that Jesus Christ is the 'living Word of God, the fulfillment of all revelation regarding the coming of the Savior…and I might even say ‘Logos,’ if I were certain of your definition of that term…but…Jesus never wrote a single word Himself, unless you count some writing in the dirt, about as impermanent a form of communication as one can get unless you try writing in water.

If there were to be no prophets after Him, no revelation after He lived and died, how then do we know anything about Him?

Mormons do not believe that modern day prophets are the equal of Jesus (in spite of some anti-rhetoric to the contrary). We claim, and believe, that they are like Peter…and like Paul. In fact, a great deal like Paul in the way he became who he was. We don’t have any evidence that Paul walked with Jesus during His lifetime, nor was He a witness to His death and resurrection. He DID, however, receive revelation, and wrote about it, and his writings are accepted as scripture as surely as the writings of Peter are.

I am not making a claim that Mormons are correct here. I’m simply pointing out that your argument for why they aren’t isn’t logical. There is nothing in the NT, anywhere at all, that states that there would be no revelation after Christ, and that’s a very good thing, or else we wouldn’t know anything about Him.

No…I can accept a logical argument that LDS prophets might be false; that’s arguable. I can accept that they are off base as a logical approach, even if I might not agree with you.

But that they cannot be prophets because 'there weren’t any after Jesus Christ?" That simply doesn’t work, since, quite obviously, there were.

 

[LivingWaters7]

How do we know when the LDS prophets give talks “as prophets of God”? Are General Conference talks in that category?

 

[LivingWaters7]

In discussions about revelation and prophets, it is always important to remember that Catholicism is a faith where God is active in our lives, and the Heavens are open. For Catholics, God has never stopped speaking, and our Catholic history is literally filled with miracles, healings, Heavenly visions, visitations, etc. Reading the stories of many of our canonized saints is essentially reading about Catholic prophets and prophetesses, people not only living their lives with the guidance of the Spirit, but also many times receiving miraculous apparitions and messages from Heaven (those involving Mary being the most well known). The Church itself is believed to be guided by the Spirit into all Truth, and our leaders are guided by that same Spirit in Councils (as well as the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, individually), with the declarations and definitions of those Councils on par with the Bible, being binding on the faithful. I’m grateful to know that God’s involvement in our lives never stopped.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Deja Vu

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6707264&postcount=432

 

[dianaiad]

---

My Blog: From the Latter-day Saints to the Communion of Saints
Matthew 16:18- And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Reply With Quote

I put your sig file in the ‘quote’ section, because I want to talk about something I found in your blog; a book called 'Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest."

You can have no idea how sad I am to see it. I had no idea that it existed. I’m sorry that it does.

On one hand, it proves something I have said many, many times: never, EVER get information about any belief system from a non-member or an ex-member. I haven’t read the book, of course, and I won’t. Just the fact that an ex-Catholic is attempting to explain the Catholic faith and compare it to Mormonism makes me want to avoid it. Then, reading the reviews, I see that many Catholics are pointing out where the authors get Catholic beliefs wrong. The authors are inaccurate. They are called ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ and not ‘catechized well.’ I have no reason to doubt that. While I think that the authors made the right decision to switch religions (well, I am a Mormon, after all), I think they did themselves, AND their new belief system, a grave disservice by writing that book. I do appreciate that (again, according to the Catholic critics) they don’t seem to have been mean spirited, just wrong…but that’s bad enough.

That said, I can use this book as an example of why it’s a very bad idea to write stuff like this, or to READ stuff like this; if you want to know about Mormonism, ask a Mormon. If you want to know about Catholicism, ask a Catholic, Do not ask either one about what the other believes, because sure as you are reading this, they’ll get something wrong.

Perhaps this is one of those 'if you can’t be anything else, be a bad example?" (sigh)

But here’s the ‘on the other hand,’ and the real reason I’m not happy. I’ve been able to say, up until now, that Mormons simply don’t DO that sort of thing…and now I can’t. I can still say that the church doesn’t condone it, or publish anti-other belief system stuff. No ‘Maze of Catholicism’ out there.

But there shouldn’t be a “Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest” out there, either.

I HAVE read a couple of books that compare Mormonism and Catholicism, but they were in the form of questions answered by a Mormon for the Mormon stuff, and by a Catholic for the Catholic perspective.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Deja Vu

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6707264&postcount=432

I enjoyed that posters responses, since it’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along about “public revelation” (a technical phrase which is often used incorrectly by many LDS when discussing what Catholics specifically believe ended with the Apostles), God’s continued guidance of the Church, and Heavenly manifestations. Thanks.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dianaid…

So so true Christ never wrote except that unknown in the sand…the finger of God writing mystery…

Yet this is so much what Catholicism is about…Oral Tradition…dependent on the Holy Spirit working through the apostles and their successors, to bring us to today the reality of Jesus Christ…present to us as He was then 2000 years ago in Liturgy of Word and Eucharist…the Word Made Flesh.

Jesus did not pass out bibles to people…and likewise the majority of people could not read hundreds of years beyond the Reformation.

The Church did not print out more bibles…instead the Roman Missal…where we encounter the Word Made Flesh was made universal to all Catholic churches throughout the world, the Roman Missal used from the Council of Trent all the way up 1965.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’ve been able to say, up until now, that Mormons simply don’t DO that sort of thing…and now I can’t. I can still say that the church doesn’t condone it, or publish anti-other belief system stuff. No ‘Maze of Catholicism’ out there.

The whole LDS missionary program is anti-other belief including published manuals for missionaries. The first thing a missionary has to do is destroy the “church” that the non -member believes in, if they can’t destroy that belief there is no reason for someone to convert.

And frankly after reading many current and former LDS members discussing the speakers in LDS sacrament meetings I will never ever believe that the LDS church does not preach against or poke fun at other religions. Why? Because many have described exactly such situations when they attended LDS services, men talking about their priesthood meetings stand out particularly. That and the general rule that everyone has to participate in giving talks in the LDS church. Given the variety of people you will find in any congregation/parish/ward you are bound to find someone who is not quite PC or even uncharitable in their view towards others, combine this with the everyone gives a talk protocol and you are going to get anti, what ever.

There is a very strong anti-Catholic thread that runs through the former Mormon folks, much stronger than the anti-Fundamentalist Evangelical one. I find this rather surprising since I don’t know of a single instance where a Catholic group has done the ugly protesting outside LDS events that the Fundamentalist/Evangelicals have done. They also have in common misrepresentations of Catholic teaching and beliefs, while some are the standard Protestant claims and accusations even more are specific misrepresentations used in order to bolster LDS beliefs. These people got their understanding of and attitude toward Catholicism somewhere, and the only thing that they have in common is participation in the LDS church.

 

[TexanKnight]

Thank you for the welcome back, Kathleen.

As to the “Christians believe…” some Christians do, certainly. BTW, Mormon type Christians also believe that Jesus Christ is the 'living Word of God, the fulfillment of all revelation regarding the coming of the Savior…and I might even say ‘Logos,’ if I were certain of your definition of that term…but…Jesus never wrote a single word Himself, unless you count some writing in the dirt, about as impermanent a form of communication as one can get unless you try writing in water.

If there were to be no prophets after Him, no revelation after He lived and died, how then do we know anything about Him?

Mormons do not believe that modern day prophets are the equal of Jesus (in spite of some anti-rhetoric to the contrary). We claim, and believe, that they are like Peter…and like Paul. In fact, a great deal like Paul in the way he became who he was. We don’t have any evidence that Paul walked with Jesus during His lifetime, nor was He a witness to His death and resurrection. He DID, however, receive revelation, and wrote about it, and his writings are accepted as scripture as surely as the writings of Peter are.

I am not making a claim that Mormons are correct here. I’m simply pointing out that your argument for why they aren’t isn’t logical. There is nothing in the NT, anywhere at all, that states that there would be no revelation after Christ, and that’s a very good thing, or else we wouldn’t know anything about Him.

No…I can accept a logical argument that LDS prophets might be false; that’s arguable. I can accept that they are off base as a logical approach, even if I might not agree with you.

But that they cannot be prophets because 'there weren’t any after Jesus Christ?" That simply doesn’t work, since, quite obviously, there were.

Actually, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that there WILL be prophets after Christ. Christ left the organization He wanted. And Christ knew there would be people like JS, and Jim Jones, etc who would confuse people. better not to have ANY prophets, so false ones are easy to spot, than have a prophet and people never know.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[Porknpie]

If there were to be no prophets after Him, no revelation after He lived and died, how then do we know anything about Him?

There is nothing in the NT, anywhere at all, that states that there would be no revelation after Christ, and that’s a very good thing, or else we wouldn’t know anything about Him.

Hi Diana,

Jesus says on the cross “It is finished”. What is finished? His life, yes. His drinking the forth cup of the Passover meal, yes. The fulfillment of the OT, yes. But also, he told us all that we need to know for our salvation. The mission of God’s public revelation is finished. In this new covenant, he gave us a Church on earth that he promised to guide to all truth until the end of time. So important is this Church that he call it his bride and he promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. On faith and morals it can not error. That is Christ’s guarantee. What kind of spouse would he be if he failed to keep his promise to his bride?

We know about him because of his life and testimony, passed on to his Church. His Church has been protecting and passing on the faith for 2,000 years. Central to this faith is the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No matter where the apostles went to evangelize, the communities of Christian faith that they established - from Spain, to Italy, to the Middle East to India, all believed that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Eucharist is prophesied in Malachi 1:11. A perfect offering, 24 hours a day, world-wide … with incense as common in the Catholic Mass (and Jesus’ words are explicitly clear in John 6)
11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

If LDS were true (many protestant denominations as well), one needs to explain how such an apostasy could occur. How could the 12 apostles immediately go out and evangelize the world and be so wrong - every single one of them - on this point?

PnP