Comments on: Losing the Priesthood

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:34:08 +0000

Like Joseph F. Smith said “how can you posess an apendage to the priesthood without possesing the Priesthood itself” (I don’t know if that is the “exact” wording but close enough). I noticed that Brian Hales seems to overlook this or just classify it as a “policy” not doctrine. He says that when you are given an office you recieve the Priesthood “automatically”.

I find this hard to believe because, when Joseph first recieved the Aaronic Priesthood he did not recieve any office at all. He was just given the Aaronic Priesthood.

Therefore we see that Brian Hales is the one who doesn’t understand Priesthood not brother Musser.

By: Bruce Johns

Bruce Johns — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:38:16 +0000

That certainly makes sense to me. Since Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey were given the priesthood, and the church hadn’t even been restored yet, priesthood obviously exists with/without the church and with/without an office/calling.

By: truthsoughtandfound

truthsoughtandfound — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:49:08 +0000

As the article points out – Woolley’s recollects a similar prophecy as the ones given by George Q. Cannon, of course this could also be interpreted as a) John Taylor paraphrased Cannon, b) Cannon and Taylor being moved upon by the same Spirit to make similar prophesies.

If Canon’s prophecies are true – and this series (of which there are 5 parts) cites several other prophecies by other Apostles and Prophets, and shows several areas besides conferral in which this result came to pass – then it presents a problem for most modern Latter-day Saints, nomatter who originally made the prophecy.

By: Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:20:27 +0000

Nevermind. I hunted down the years.

The priesthood conferral change came in 1921. Woolley’s signed statement came in 1929. So, the Taylor statement as recited by Woolley isn’t very impressive. As a skeptic, I would say it could very easily have been an ad hoc story made up after the fact to prey on those who had issues with the change.

By: Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:14:23 +0000

As a skeptic, I wonder if Woolley’s reciting of John Taylor’s (supposed) statement that “I would be surprised if ten percent” etc happened BEFORE the changes under Pres. Grant or AFTER?

Did Woolley quote Taylor before the changes occurred under Grant, or after? If after, how do you know he wasn’t making it up? If before, it would seem more credible.

So, could you provide some dates for those things?

Thanks.