JLHPROF

As I'm always told you're confusing presentation with the ordinance. Brigham's changes were presentation. Joseph's changes were presentation. But we've had this discussion ad nauseam. Each order of priesthood has signs and ordinances attached. Change ordination, change baptism, change the bestowal of signs and tokens of the priesthood, change the offices of the priesthood, and its unavoidable - you no longer have the same priesthood. That's what happened to the Early Christian Church. Not just a random end to the Apostleship.

I don't think it needs to be that complicated. The priesthood is directly connected to the ordinances. They changed the ordinances so they lost the priesthood. “If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood.” Joseph Smith They lost priesthood because they changed ordinances. Simple as that.

Doesn't answer the question. If the last Apostle never passed on the keys, never called more Apostles, the question remains why? What reason did the Apostle or even God have for allowing the faithful members of the Church to lose access to the sealing keys? Not to mention all the other priesthood holders alive at the time.

That's how apostasy happens. Step by step, one change at a time. So slowly nobody notices it until the change is the new normal. It's interesting the Church teaches it this way, that the priesthood authority was lost. But they never explain what led to priesthood being lost. Did they stop ordaining successors? Did God just stop acknowledging the ordinations without telling them? Did all the faithful believers become wicked? (Of course not). What actions or occurrences exactly removed priesthood authority from the early Christian Church? Perhaps we don't want to say.

This exactly. Without scripture we'd be no more accurate in our faith than an ancient culture praying to the sun in the sky or our ancestors for a good harvest. Scripture provides the record of who God is and how he operates with mankind. Without it we'd know nothing of Christ, the Holy Ghost, resurrection etc.

The most important principle, that Christ took upon him our sins, died, and was resurrected breaking the bonds of death would be unknown without scriptural history. Nor would we understand the necessity of the atonement without them. We would know nothing of any importance without the words of mortal men recorded in scripture telling us of their experiences with the Father and the Son. That's no parable.

That's because there's no such thing. At least not if you're using marriage in a gospel sense. It literally doesn't exist. God doesn't give revelation or ban the existence of every possibly imagined scenario.

The only thing you know about the Jesus Christ you want a relationship with is what you were told by men - Matthew, Mark, Paul, Moroni, Joseph Smith etc If you don't want men interpreting scripture for you it's still required to recognize that scripture is still the words of men.

We've been here before Tacenda. Everything we know about God comes from man's recorded dealing with him. I agree with you and Brigham that the Bible contains God's word and a lot of other words not from God at all. But without it the only God we know would be the one our imagination made up.

Makes me wonder how many have blocked me over the years...

I realize this. Repentance is a process and can take a lifetime. Accepting our Savior and desiring to follow him is the first best step and good for him for taking it. I am absolutely nobody and my opinion counts for nothing. But every member carries the same responsibility. D&C 20:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church. D&C 20:80 Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.

If he continues to have different partners he should be ex'd too. Just the same as if I had different partners. Chastity is not optional.

Yes

He absolutely had plural wives. Not gossip - historical records. Not the same because gay marriage runs contrary to God's work. It literally blocks God's plan for his creation.

Changing a teaching doesn't alter reality. It really doesn't matter who teaches what. It only matters what is. Just because the current teachings say one thing and the previous teachings said something else it doesn't impact how things actually are. Either or neither could be correct.