Karen Strong and her husband were
recently excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints on April 11, 2017. After reading her defense, I asked her if she would be
willing to share her testimony with others on a public blog.
In sharing Karen's testimony, it is my
hope that believers in Christ will be given strength and courage to
face the persecution and challenges in their own world. It is also
important to raise the warning voice to as many as possible.
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.
