Questioning Mormon Authority

May 2000

To the Latter-day Saints authority to speak for God is a very important issue. In their view one must have a tangible authorization from God to act on His behalf. It’s not just any Joe who can perform sacred ordinances. The Christian, too, believes one must have some authoritative basis for acting, or speaking, on His behalf. But for the Christian that authorization is a very different matter.

If a Mormon were asked where he got his authority to administer the ordinances of God he would point to the Aaronic and Melchisadec priesthoods. The Aaronic priesthood is the lesser of the two. The greater is the Melchisadec priesthood which carries with it the power to confer on another the “gift of the Holy Ghost.” Priesthood authority is like a “chain of command,” flowing in “apostolic succession” from Jesus to Peter, James, and John who then conferred it upon Joseph Smith. Smith then conferred it upon those under him who have passed it down to the present day by the “laying on of hands.”

Since Mormons believe in a total apostasy of the Church, the priesthood was lost and had to be restored by someone who legitimately held it. That meant someone had to come back from the dead. Therefore, Peter, James and John supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith to confer it upon him.

In Mormon teaching if one does not receive his priesthood legitimately then every ordinance performed by him is also illegitimate, including the conferring of the Melchisadec priesthood upon another. As James E. Talmage said in Articles of Faith (page 189), “No one may officiate in any ordinance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unless he has been ordained to the particular order of office of Priesthood, by those possessing the requisite authority. Thus, no man receives the Priesthood himself; That one must have obtained it from others previously commissioned; and so every bearer of the Priesthood today can trace his authority to the hands of Joseph Smith the Prophet, who received his ordination under the hands of the Apostles Peter, James, and John; and they had been ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ.” So if there is one break in the chain the priesthood authority of all who received their priesthood from that broken link do not actually hold the priesthood they think they hold.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, in their book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (page 179) quote the conversation between the missionary Elder and Mr. Brown in the Mormon Missionary Handbook. The Elder asks Mr. Brown why the priesthood is important. In the dialogue that follows the Elder sums up the position of the LDS church that, “…Though a minister might be sincere, unless he has the priesthood, will the Lord recognize a baptism performed by him?” Mr. Brown answers, “No.”

The Mormon man does not hold any biblical priesthood from God. But, further, LDS Church teaching also disqualifies all Mormon men from holding their own priesthood! And that is the case that will be made here.

How It All Began

Long, long ago, and far, far away near a planet called Kolob there was a war between Good and …Not Quite as Good. Elohim (God) had two sons who proposed plans of salvation for mankind here on earth. The plan of the firstborn son, Jesus, was accepted because it allowed man his free agency. However, the plan of the second born son, Lucifer, was rejected because it was not quite as good in that it did not allow free agency. This made Lucifer angry. He then led one-third of the children of Elohim in rebellion. He lost and all those with him were cursed by Elohim to become the Devil and his demons.

Those of Elohim’s sons who fought against Lucifer were blessed for their valor. However, some among them were not so valiant. These were not rewarded like the valiant who receive significant advantages here in mortality. These less than valiant were cursed from ever holding the Mormon priesthood. Since this all happened out of our sight in the spirit realm we had to have a means of identifying these people. Therefore, Elohim placed a mark on them beginning with Cain and that mark is the black skin. In other words Blacks and others of Cain’s lineage, according to official Mormon theology, were cursed because of their actions in Mormon pre-existence.

Noah’s Flood killed all but one of the descendants of Cain, almost eliminating the continuation of the “curse.” However, John Taylor, third President of the LDS Church, said that God “needed the devil and many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight.” Therefore, Mormons believe that God “suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth” (Journal of Discourses [JOD], Vol. 23. Page 336). This descendant of Cain, Mormons believe, was Ham’s wife, a Negro woman named Egyptus. Thus Mormons believe the descendants of Ham now continue the curse.

Brigham Young went further in his comments on the effect of the curse. He said anyone who mixed his blood with that of the cursed race of Cain should be put to “death on the spot” (JOD, Vol. 10, page 110).

The standard for who is of the lineage of Cain, and therefore cursed, is very strict. Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen said, “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood.” This view was repeated by Presidents Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and numerous other Mormon writers as cited in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? page 266, 267).

Mormons trace genealogies for the purpose of performing Temple ordinances on behalf of the dead. They need to trace the genealogy of Cain and Ham and apply what Mormon General Authorities have said about them in regard to the priesthood. If they did it would come as a shock to them.

The Genealogy of Cain and Ham

If Ham’s wife was of the lineage of Cain, which Mormons affirm (see Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304 and The Book of Abraham (1:21-26) in The Pearl of Great Price), then we can trace the lineage in the Bible. Ham’s genealogy is found in Genesis 10:6-20. The four sons of Ham include Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. A Bible atlas will tell you the nations and peoples descended from those four sons of Ham. Cush became the father of the Ethiopians and others. Mizraim became the father of the Egyptians and others. Canaan was the father of most of the “ites” of the Old Testament, including the Canaanites.

Let’s apply what we have learned so far to the genealogy of this Mormon “curse.”

Numbers 12:1 says, “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married….” The Ethiopians were descended from Cush, a son of Ham. According to Brigham Young Moses should have been put to death on the spot!

Genesis 16:1,3 says, “Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, and Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Brigham Young would have killed Abram on the spot!

I Chronicles 2:3 says, “The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess….” Brigham Young would have killed Judah on the spot! If Judah had been “killed on the spot” he would not have fathered Phares of Thamar (Matthew 1:3) through whom Jesus is descended.

Now It Gets Really Serious

Matthew 1:5 says, “And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab.” This is Rahab the harlot, spoken of in Joshua 2. Jericho was a Canaanite city and Rahab was a Canaanitess. This Canaanitess, according to Matthew 1, is in the lineage of Christ! So if the LDS priesthood is lost by the inter-mixing of Cain’s lineage then Christ could not have held any priesthood! Yet scripture calls Christ a “great high priest” (Hebrews 4:14), and according to Hebrews 5 He holds a priesthood “after the order of Melchisadec.” He only holds it and no Mormon, nor Christian for that matter, could ever qualify.

Genesis 41:45, and 50-52 say, “And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On…. And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh:… and the name of the second called he Ephraim….”

The significance of Joseph’s sons, and the half-tribes that descended from them, is that each Mormon, when he receives his Patriarchal Blessing, is told that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, or Manasseh. Since the mother of Joseph’s two sons was an Egyptian the curse of Cain’s lineage means that the Mormon has no claim to, and in fact is disqualified from, his own priesthood! This is according to the teachings about priestly qualifications of the LDS own General Authorities.

Conclusion

LDS Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.

“If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 188).

For the Christian, authority resides in the Person of Christ whose death on Calvary opened the way for every Christian to enter the presence of God on their own, and others, behalf. This is called the ‘priesthood of the believer’. His death for us, and our faith in Him, also “authorize” us (GR ‘exousia’, power, authority) to “become the sons of God” (John 1:12).

My Mormon friend, Where do you get your authority? If it is not because you have been born of God and become a son of God, then you are practicing priestcraft, are without any standing before God, and in need of His grace.

To the Latter-day Saints authority to speak for God is a very important issue. In their view one must have a tangible authorization from God to act on His behalf. It’s not just any Joe who can perform sacred ordinances. The Christian, too, believes one must have some authoratative basis for acting, or speaking, on His behalf. But for the Christian that authorization is a very different matter.