• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HappyJackWagon last won the day on October 17 2016

HappyJackWagon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,208 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    6 foot 5. Actually 6 ' 8" with his afro
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,468 profile views
  1. Isn't it the presidency of the 70 who have this authorization and access to keys?
  2. Are you sure? I've understood temple sealers to exercise the keys of binding on earth and in heaven. A sealer doesn't have a different priesthood office and I don't think it is merely a calling. It seems to me that they hold the keys to perform those ordinances, yet still follow the direction of the temple president who follows the direction of the Q12, kind of how a bishop holds keys, yet still follows the direction of the SP, because they have higher keys. Someone can hold keys yet still be limited in the way they exercise those keys because someone with higher keys can direct them.
  3. I don't know why they wouldn't but I certainly don't think it's a given that they do. Temple sealers hold those keys, so why not 70's who administrate on behalf of the 12? It's a little bit of an aside regarding keys, but the transfer of keys is pretty interesting. I had learned, and always believed that keys were transmitted via the laying on of hands, and in most cases today that is still the way it is done. That is why a bishop must set apart an Aaronic priesthood president, or the SP must set apart an EQ Pres. One key holder places hands to confer keys on another. However, when our stake was split and the new stake was organized a few years ago by a member of the 70 I asked him about his keys to set apart a new Stake President. He said as a 70 he didn't have those keys but since he was acting under the direction of the Q12 he could perform the ordinance. His answer stunned me. I asked him if he received some kind of "temporary keys" by the laying on of hands from the Q12 prior to coming to organize our stake. He said "no." He explained that he received his assignment to come and organize the stake via letter and that letter authorized him to call, set apart, and bestow keys on the stake president. I'd never heard of anything like this before. He claimed that a letter gave him authority to transfer keys to a new SP even though he did not possess the keys himself. I believe he referred to it as "vicarious keys".
  4. It's a great question. The great apostasy is central to the church's claims of a restoration, yet, like you say, there really isn't any information about it beyond the claim of apostasy. Did the ancient apostles simply stop ordaining new apostles and other priesthood holders at some point? I often hear it said that "all the apostles died off" as if they were too stupid or incapable to ordain new apostles. Was the apostasy due to administrative failings and lack of organization? All we really know is that there was an apostasy...because there was an apostasy.
  5. Originally the office of Teacher was held by grown men. It was an office with responsibility to ensure proper teaching was taking place in the church and in the home. Over time that shifted to YM. There is an interesting podcast on Mormon Discussion that reviews the evolution of Aaronic Priesthood offices from an adult to a youth priesthood. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/09/men-to-boys-development-of-the-priesthood/ ETA- of course you have D&C 20 which reads
  6. Look, this is getting ridiculous. What is the purpose of a CFR? It is a call for reference so that the person making an assertion backs it up with a reference. It keeps us all honest and provides an opportunity to correct erroneous information, like you presented. If the person doesn't have a source, they can retract the statement. No big deal. I've done it. I've been wrong about something I thought I remembered and I've retracted. That is a responsible way to handle this. But digging in your heals because you really think you are right, as if that makes a difference. You said, "Don't forget the fact that I'm staking my ground because I am very certain what I cited is there. I'm stubborn like that." Provide a reference or retract. It wouldn't be a big deal at all if you retracted and I can't understand why you refuse to do so when you admit that you don't currently have a reference to provide. Trust you? What for? A CFR provides evidence and doesn't require me to just "trust" you. No. I don't think so. You've done nothing to earn it. Think about what you're asking. By your logic I could make any claim about Joseph Smith I wanted citing a source like Rough Stone Rolling. A CFR would likely be issued. Would it be acceptable for me to say, "Trust me bro, I'm certain I'm right." OR "I REFUSE TO RETRACT MY STATEMENT OR PROVIDE A SOURCE until I have time to reread RSR." You're being absurd and I stand by my previous statement that you are acting as a poor communication partner. I hope that can change, especially on an issue like this. It's not a hill to die on so I'm not sure why you are being so obstinate and disrespectful to the process.
  7. I agree with you. But in this case Darren is acting as a poor actor in this discussion. This is the kind of situation when a CFR needs to be answered. He stated a fact and couldn't back it up. He was provided alternative sources and quotes showing how he is likely wrong, yet he refuses to answer the CFR, claiming he may do that in the future if he realizes he's wrong. A better plan would be to retract a statement that cannot be backed up. If he finds his evidence later, he can repost. The CFR policy seems to be one that promotes responsibility for the claims we make. If it feels like Darren has been bludgeoned with the CFR it's only because he has repeatedly refused to answer it. That is a sign of a poor communication partner.
  8. Who are you to give him a kick in the pants? Like I said, patronizing.
  9. Of course it comes across that way. Your tone is very patronizing. You are preaching at him. Some day I hope "faithful" members will recognize the deleterious impact their tone and words have on those who are struggling to stay engaged with the church at some level. Preaching at them will rarely work.
  10. Thanks for the research Calm. If I remember correctly, the range war/grazing conflicts were exacerbated because there were no lines of demarcation of lands between the Indians, Mormons, and any others who may have purchased land from Mexico after US government surveyors were murdered. So any emigrants passing through with large herds would have inevitably run into some conflicts with locals who were trying to defend their grazing pastures from others, let alone emigrants passing through. Also, there would naturally have been friction between anyone passing through and the Mormons after BY declared martial law and restricted entry into the territory. Of course Mountain Meadows happened on September 11, so martial law wasn't even publicized until afterwards, even though it had been declared in mid-August.
  11. George A Smith, Lee, Haight?
  12. Yes, that too. This wagon train had significant wealth including money and cattle. After the massacre the bodies were stripped of clothing and everything of value was taken from the wagon train. Theft could have been part of the motivation for both the Indians and the Mormons.
  13. In a nutshell, my understanding is that the Mormons put them up to it. The Indians were allied with the Mormons because of the threats from the US Government. You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, kind of philosophy. The atmosphere in Utah at the time would have been extremely hostile and paranoid of any outsiders. Utah had been a supply hub for many emigrants but BY had ordered the members to cease trading with the gentiles. Rumors of an army invasion must have been frightening. News of the Parley Pratt Murder had just reached Utah a week before the Fancher party arrived from the same general area of the country. The Mormons were scared. Leaders enflamed the paranoia with harsh rhetoric and so they enlisted the Indians to help them with the dirty work as their part in the anti-government alliance.
  14. I truly hope you're ignorant of the KKK's ideology and practices and not trying to justify those things by comparing them to a non-violent group like BLM. Numerous beatings, murders, and lynchings can be attributed to the KKK. Can the same be said for BLM? No. That's a pretty major difference.
  15. I think the responsibility lies with the person making a claim of wrong-doing. If there was wrong doing there will be evidence. If there is not wrong doing, there will not be evidence. I've read this in many places, however for ease I'll link to the Wikipedia page for the Baker-Fancher party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker–Fancher_party There are many cited sources you can review as well. OK Darren- I'm still waiting on your CFR. If you can't provide one, you can always retract your erroneous statements.