Mormons Holding the Keys Of Heaven?

[HojaVerde]

There was a succession crisis at Smith’s death. The Utah Mormons (LDS, “Brighamites”) believe Young was given the keys.

However, Smith anointed his son Joseph Smith III, more than once, as his successor. At the time of Smith’s murder, the boy was too young to lead. There were several claims to the position, and other Mormon groups do not believe Young was the rightful successor. Mormons at the time of this crisis followed the person who they believed was the successor.

Interesting enough, Emma Smith followed none of the claimants, until one of the groups (Strangites) came to JS III, when he was old enough to lead. Asking him to lead, at which point, Emma joined that group of Mormons. (Once called Reorganized LDS, now called Community of Christ.)

Smith also anointed his brother Hyrum, as his successor, but Hyrum was murdered at the same time/place as Joseph.

It seems like the “legitimate group” would be the RLDS one since there was a person anointed as a successor. It should have been more reasonable to have a “regent” until JSIII was 18-years-old, isn’t it?

From the Mormon perspective I would view a very big problem here, since BY would have been an illegitimate successor, occupying the leadership without authority.

Anyway, Mormon early history seems so weird, I think.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Do they use a specific rite to pass that kind of keys?

No, it is the same “rite” of setting someone apart in their calling, except that they also specifically state that they confer the keys pertaining to that calling on that person. In the LDS Church, when you receive a “calling” (whether it’s as Elders Quorum President, Relief Society President, Sunday School Teacher, Temple Trip Coordinator, Ward Clerk, Ward Pianist, etc), you are “set apart” to that office or position by someone that has the authority to do so (i.e. the Elders Quorum President must be set apart by the Stake President. Bishops, counselors, etc do not have that authority), where you are given the authority to function in that calling. It’s also considered a blessing.

Basically, they lay their hands on your head, says your full name, states that they’re acting by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, sets you apart to the calling (i.e. “I set you apart as Elders Quorum President in the Santa Monica YSA Ward in the Los Angeles California Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”), confers the keys if necessary (i.e. “and I confer all the rights, privileges, and keys pertaining to this calling” or something like that), gives words of blessing, then close in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[HojaVerde]

No, it is the same “rite” of setting someone apart in their calling, except that they also specifically state that they confer the keys pertaining to that calling on that person. In the LDS Church, when you receive a “calling” (whether it’s as Elders Quorum President, Relief Society President, Sunday School Teacher, Temple Trip Coordinator, Ward Clerk, Ward Pianist, etc), you are “set apart” to that office or position by someone that has the authority to do so (i.e. the Elders Quorum President must be set apart by the Stake President. Bishops, counselors, etc do not have that authority), where you are given the authority to function in that calling. It’s also considered a blessing.

Basically, they lay their hands on your head, says your full name, states that they’re acting by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, sets you apart to the calling (i.e. “I set you apart as Elders Quorum President in the Santa Monica YSA Ward in the Los Angeles California Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”), confers the keys if necessary (i.e. “and I confer all the rights, privileges, and keys pertaining to this calling” or something like that), gives words of blessing, then close in the name of Jesus Christ.

Oh, thank you for the explanation, I didn’t know it.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Oh, something interesting about
the Mormon interpretation of the
“Keys of Heaven”:

When Jesus told Peter that whatever he “binds and looses” on Earth will be “bound and
loosed” in Heaven , the Mormons say that it is talking about marriage, that is to “bind a
couple together in time and for all eternity.”

The comical part of this interpretation is that in the rabbinical language Jesus was using,
to “bind” is to FORBID and to “loose” is to PERMIT, and Jesus also said WHATever, not
WHOever, so the LDS church has it completely wrong there.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It seems like the “legitimate group” would be the RLDS one since there was a person anointed as a successor. It should have been more reasonable to have a “regent” until JSIII was 18-years-old, isn’t it?

From the Mormon perspective I would view a very big problem here, since BY would have been an illegitimate successor, occupying the leadership without authority.

Anyway, Mormon early history seems so weird, I think.

Joseph Smith Jr.'s brother, William, suggested that he should be regent.

The RLDS continued patrilineal succession until 1984, when Wallace B. Smith named W. Grant McMurray as his successor. They still continue the practice where the current leader designates a successor.

Inheritance of leadership to the first born son is a concept based on Old Testament tribal practices. I remember when the RLDS changed their practice, as a Mormon (Utah LDS), the news spread that the RLDS no longer had a legitimate successor.

The legitimacy of Young’s succession was never discussed among his followers when I was Mormon. People just assume he had it. There is an account by his followers, where he took on the likeness of Joseph Smith while giving a speech/sermon. I’ll see if I can find it.

 

[SteveVH]

I have a questions pertaining to the keys of heaven and Joseph Smith.

It is accurate to assume that the Mormon faith believes that the keys of Heaven were passed to Joseph Smith? If so, did he specify who they were to be handed to when he died? If not, what do they say happened to the keys of Heaven?

One important thing to keep in mind is that Jesus gave to Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”, not the keys to the Melchizedek or Aaronic priesthood as Joseph Smith claimed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

“Now when President Young arose to address the congregation his voice was the voice of Bro[ther] Joseph and his face appeared as Joseph’s face & should I have not seen his face but heard his voice I should have declared that it was Joseph”); William Burton Diary, May 1845. LDS Church Archives

 

[Boulder257]

Thanks everyone, this has been immensely helpful in understanding their history. Anything else you guys can add is much appreciated.

 

[onenow1]

I have a questions pertaining to the keys of heaven and Joseph Smith.

It is accurate to assume that the Mormon faith believes that the keys of Heaven were passed to Joseph Smith? If so, did he specify who they were to be handed to when he died? If not, what do they say happened to the keys of Heaven?

Hi, Boulder, I remember in the writings of St.Paul he said even if an angel should preach a different gospel I would not believe him. I do not recall which letter.

Our Father Jacob…John 4:12. He became the “Father of Israel” in Genesis 32:29, and he had twelve sons who became the “Father Figures” of each of the twelve tribes of Israel, Exodus 29-49.
GOD spoke directly to Jacob in Genesis 35:1, and in many other verses.

Moses was the “Father Figure” for GOD’s chosen people, the one who would lead them out of the bondage of Egypt. Exodus 1 to Deut 34.
GOD Spoke directly to Moses from the Burning Bush in Exodus 3:4-10, and in many other verses.

Our Father David…Mark 11:10, who was both King, 2Sam 6:16, and Priest, 2Sam 6:18, foreshadowed Jesus Christ who is both King and High Priest in the New Testament.
GOD spoke directly to David in 2Samuel 2:1 and in many other verses.

“Thus said the Lord, the GOD of David thy Father…”, 2Kings 20:5

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 16:15-17
In these verses it is shown that GOD had spoken through His “Father Figure”, Peter, and Peter only, revealing the truth to him. Why then do some say that GOD does not speak today through His “Father Figure” on earth, the successor to Simon Peter?

God Bless
onenow1

 

[gazelam]

What’s being referred to in this thread as “Keys of Heaven” are generally referred to by LDS as “Priesthood Keys”.

Here is a brief summary from the LDS Scripture Guide found at lds.org/scriptures/gs/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Keys are the rights of presidency, or the power given to man by God to direct, control, and govern God’s priesthood on earth. Priesthood holders called to positions of presidency receive keys from those in authority over them. Priesthood holders use the priesthood only within the limits outlined by those who hold the keys. The President of the Church holds all priesthood keys (D&C 107:65–67, 91–92; 132:7).

Peter received the keys of the kingdom. Matt. 16:19;

Michael (Adam) received the keys of salvation under the direction of Jesus Christ. D&C 78:16;

The keys of the kingdom belong always to the First Presidency. D&C 81:2;

The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the key of the mysteries of the knowledge of God. D&C 84:19;

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received keys concerning the gathering of Israel, the gospel of Abraham, and the sealing powers. D&C 110:11–16;

Special keys are held by the Twelve Apostles. D&C 112:16;

The First Presidency and the Twelve hold the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times. D&C 112:30–34;

Officers in the priesthood hold keys. D&C 124:123;

He who has keys can obtain knowledge. D&C 128:11;

The Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministering of angels and of the gospel of repentance and baptism:JS—H 1:69; ( D&C 13; )

I hope this helps.

 

[Miriam1947]

What’s being referred to in this thread as “Keys of Heaven” are generally referred to by LDS as “Priesthood Keys”.

Here is a brief summary from the LDS Scripture Guide found at lds.org/scriptures/gs/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Keys are the rights of presidency, or the power given to man by God to direct, control, and govern God’s priesthood on earth. Priesthood holders called to positions of presidency receive keys from those in authority over them. Priesthood holders use the priesthood only within the limits outlined by those who hold the keys. The President of the Church holds all priesthood keys (D&C 107:65–67, 91–92; 132:7). Not a valid source.

Peter received the keys of the kingdom. Matt. 16:19; This is a valid source. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Michael (Adam) received the keys of salvation under the direction of Jesus Christ. D&C 78:16; Not a valid source.

The keys of the kingdom belong always to the First Presidency. D&C 81:2; Not a valid source.

The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the key of the mysteries of the knowledge of God. D&C 84:19; Not a valid source.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received keys concerning the gathering of Israel, the gospel of Abraham, and the sealing powers. D&C 110:11–16; Not a valid source.

Special keys are held by the Twelve Apostles. D&C 112:16; Not a valid source.

The First Presidency and the Twelve hold the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times. D&C 112:30–34; Not a valid source.

Officers in the priesthood hold keys. D&C 124:123; Not a valid source.

He who has keys can obtain knowledge. D&C 128:11; Not a valid source.

The Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministering of angels and of the gospel of repentance and baptism:JS—H 1:69; ( D&C 13; ) Not a valid source.

I hope this helps.

It helps a lot. D&C is not a valid source.

 

[superwimp]

It seems like the “legitimate group” would be the RLDS one since there was a person anointed as a successor. It should have been more reasonable to have a “regent” until JSIII was 18-years-old, isn’t it?

From the Mormon perspective I would view a very big problem here, since BY would have been an illegitimate successor, occupying the leadership without authority.

Anyway, Mormon early history seems so weird, I think.

Hello HojaVerde,

Since I am still a member of the Church of Christ (temple lot) (one of the many Mormon offshoots) I felt I should comment on your claim with regards to who is legitimate. In order for clarity I am going to respond to the question of legitimacy as I would have responded 40 years ago when I was still a believing member of the church.

What the LDS call the D&C was first published as the Book of Commandments. This book contained all of the revelations up until about 1833. In one of the revelations JS is called to translate the BOM and that is all. He is not called to be the leader of the church. When the BOC was rewritten as the D&C the revelation was changed giving JS control of the church. The BOM contains many warnings against Priestcraft, which is the promotion or some individual as a special representative of God.

At about this time JS changed the name of the church to the church of LDS. It wasn’t until a few years later that the name was again changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. The BOM clearly teaches that the name of his church should be the Church of Christ, therefore, the LDS church discontinued being Jesus’s church because it wasn’t called by his name.

The Church of Christ(temple lot) would be the **legitimate** continuation of the original 1830 church because:

1. They accept the original BOC and reject the D&C.
2. There name is the Church of Christ as instructed in the BOM
3. They don’t have a special individual (priestcraft) heading the church.
4. Gotta go now but there are probably other reasons

 

[LivingWaters7]

It helps a lot. D&C is not a valid source.

Except if he’s explaining his church’s views on the matter .

 

[LivingWaters7]

Hello HojaVerde,

Since I am still a member of the Church of Christ (temple lot) (one of the many Mormon offshoots) I felt I should comment on your claim with regards to who is legitimate. In order for clarity I am going to respond to the question of legitimacy as I would have responded 40 years ago when I was still a believing member of the church.

What the LDS call the D&C was first published as the Book of Commandments. This book contained all of the revelations up until about 1833. In one of the revelations JS is called to translate the BOM and that is all. He is not called to be the leader of the church. When the BOC was rewritten as the D&C the revelation was changed giving JS control of the church. The BOM contains many warnings against Priestcraft, which is the promotion or some individual as a special representative of God.

At about this time JS changed the name of the church to the church of LDS. It wasn’t until a few years later that the name was again changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. The BOM clearly teaches that the name of his church should be the Church of Christ, therefore, the LDS church discontinued being Jesus’s church because it wasn’t called by his name.

The Church of Christ(temple lot) would be the **legitimate** continuation of the original 1830 church because:

1. They accept the original BOC and reject the D&C.
2. There name is the Church of Christ as instructed in the BOM
3. They don’t have a special individual (priestcraft) heading the church.
4. Gotta go now but there are probably other reasons

That is very interesting, thanks for sharing. Does the CoC (Temple Lot) share many of the uniquely LDS beliefs and practices, such as plurality of gods, exaltation, temple endowment, baptism for the dead, etc?

Also, what’s the verse in the BoM on the name of the church? It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t remember specifically.

 

[superwimp]

That is very interesting, thanks for sharing. Does the CoC (Temple Lot) share many of the uniquely LDS beliefs and practices, such as plurality of gods, exaltation, temple endowment, baptism for the dead, etc?

Also, what’s the verse in the BoM on the name of the church? It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t remember specifically.

Hello livingwaters,

 They have apostles.  They don't have any of the above stuff though.  I was a convert to LDS and then I left them and joined the CoC because of some teachings in the BOM.  I think it was a mistake on my part because I didn't remain active very long.  They only have congregations in certain areas of the country.  They hold reunions several times a year.  I should have thought it through better than I did but I still believed in the historicity of the BOM so I wanted to be a member of a BOM church.  While I don't now believe in the historicity I now view the question of historicity as unimportant.  What's important is whether it provides a value to the life of the individual reading it.  If your interested here's their website.

churchofchrist-tl.org/

I don’t know if either of these are the one your referring to.
“3 Nephi 26:21”: 21 And they who were baptized in the name of Jesus were called the church of Christ.

“3 Nephi 27:3”: 3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.

“3 Nephi 27:8”: 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

 

[Porknpie]

Anyway, Mormon early history seems so weird, I think.

Hoja, what makes you think that?

 

[twopekinguys]

I have a questions pertaining to the keys of heaven and Joseph Smith.

It is accurate to assume that the Mormon faith believes that the keys of Heaven were passed to Joseph Smith? If so, did he specify who they were to be handed to when he died? If not, what do they say happened to the keys of Heaven?

They may have the keys, but, we changed the locks!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Whoa, easy! I teach catechism so I know it pretty well. I am asking about the Mormon belief of where the keys now reside and if they were passed down. I am trying to refute a Mormon with whom I am having lunch with today and want to be sure I understand THEIR position before we discuss. As a rule I typically try to understand first and then I try to be understood.

I’m not sure if you meant it this way, but your post came off to me as condescending.

And I am saying that the best way to counter his argument is to stress your own beliefs. How could that be condenscending.

You did not make the situation clear. We get a lot of kids here who are arguing with someone on Face Book, etc and who don’t even know their own Catechism. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

Linus2nd

 

[Miriam1947]

Except if he’s explaining his church’s views on the matter .

Which means they accept the ECF teachings and Tradition if that is what we use to explain our faith?

Or is it only valid their way?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Which means they accept the ECF teachings and Tradition if that is what we use to explain our faith?

Of course. The point isn’t to accept a religious or authoritative text as what it claims to be. We certainly don’t believe that the Doctrine and Covenants is a true scriptural compilation of true revelations from God. We also don’t believe that the Bhagavad Gita is a true scriptural text documenting a real incarnation of the god Vishnu as Krishna. But, there is nothing wrong with a Mormon citing the D&C in explanation of their beliefs, or a Hindu citing the Bhagavad Gita, just like how there is nothing wrong with a Catholic citing the ECFs or the Catechism in explanation of our beliefs to a non-Catholic, even if they don’t believe they are “valid sources”. For me, things like the D&C, Qur’an, Vedas, etc are “valid sources” in explaining the beliefs of those that find them authoritative. They aren’t “valid sources” in the sense that I believe that they are what they claim to be, Divine in origin, or that they should convince me to believe something I don’t.

Gazelam was providing an explanation of the usage of the word “keys” in a LDS context (from the LDS Guide to the Scriptures), so naturally the D&C would be cited.

Or is it only valid their way?

I don’t believe I claimed or implied such a thing.