Iron Rod 026 – More or less than this cometh of evil
Main

 
 
00:00 / 56:33
 
1X
 

Scripture teaches that the Gospel at its core is very simple. Jesus himself declared His doctrine to be faith, repentance and baptism (of water and fire) and then stated that “more or less” than this cometh of evil. In this episode we delve into the many scriptural evidences of the simplicity of the Gospel and begin to contrast these scriptural teachings with the complexity of  current LDS doctrine.  This episode is required listening in preparation for our next episode which will discuss the LDS temple endowment ceremony.

D&C 10:67-68

3 Nephi 11:35-40

D&C 39:5-6

3 Nephi 18:10-12

Mormon 7:8-10

Matthew 11:28-30

D&C 22

Mormon 9:23

2 Peter 3:15-16

Lectures on Faith 1:12

Galatians 3:6

Lectures on Faith 7:7

D&C 45:8

Alma 33:2

Ephesians 2:4

Romans 5: 1-11

2 Nephi 32:3-7

Jacob 4:14

Galatians 1:6-8

2 Nephi 28:14

2 Corinthians 11:3-4

D&C 42:12

D&C 66:2

D&C 124:28

Daniel 7:21-22

D&C 76:51-54

Moroni 10:7, 32-33

Leave a Reply to Jim Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 comments on “Iron Rod 026 – More or less than this cometh of evil

  1. I actually started a blog in December to share my thoughts on the Gospel of Christ vs. what I decided to call the Gospel/Law of Joseph which is what the church follows today. You can read my thoughts here: https://sauloftooele.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/the-gospel-of-joseph/
    I also have another post exploring the symbolism of the endowment and how it is our modern day law of Moses, hence I call it the law of Joseph.

    • Hi Paul:
      Thanks for your comment.
      We will touch on this next week, but I don’t see any support for the position that the LDS Temple Endowment represents a “Law of Moses,” or as you put it the law of Joseph. The Lord warned the Saints way back in 1829 that if they did not humble themselves and receive His Law then they would be turned over to Satan for a period of chastisement. Isaiah 28 affirms that we have “made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.” That chapter also talks of a covenant with death and hell that the Lord’s people claim will save them from the overflowing scourge of the last days but will be annulled. Those covenants will not save them. The only sure safety is in Zion where there will be a consecrated people.

      As hard as it is to admit that we believe lies and falsehoods, Scripture declares that we do, if we only believe the Word of God.
      Searcher

      • Yes, I agree with what you said. I simply believe that as latter day Israel we have been given a lesser law based on Satan’s false priesthood. I would recommend that you read what I wrote with an open mind and you’ll see I’m not defending the church at all. In fact I stopped going almost a decade ago. I simply believe that the Lord in his mercy gave us bits of truth to point us back to Him in our current beliefs. Just as ancient Israel was given pagan beliefs contained in the Law of Moses which had bits of truth pointing to Christ.

        • Paul,
          I appreciate and respect your thoughts and perspective. I see certain assumptions or doctrinal/logical leaps that I do not agree with, however.

          My first point of difference relates to Searchers earlier comment. In 1829 the Lord declared, “If this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto Satan…and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that [the sword of justice] must fall upon them” (Book of Commandments section 5). God has not given us a new law. Rather, we have rejected the law and have been placed within the “dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham” (D/C 110:12) but have adulterated even that. (Perhaps you were alluding to this in your initial comment? I am unsure).

          My second point:
          You say that latter day Israel has ‘been given a lesser law based on Satan’s false priesthood’. I find that problematic. We read in the Book of Mormon that “all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil” (Moroni 7:12). So we must ask: Is a ‘lesser law based on Satan’s false priesthood’ good or evil? It is based on Satan! Therefore it must be evil. It is not scriptural that God will incorporate any aspect of evil into his Law (whether a higher law or lesser law). In fact the scriptures teach specifically against that. If evil is ever ascribed to the law of God then it is the philosophies of men and “cometh of evil” (3 Nephi 11:40). Examples of this specifically regarding the law of Moses include the allowance of many wives and concubines, slavery, or divorce; they were NOT incorporated by God, they were simply tolerated in mercy.

          We need to be careful to delineate between what God declares as his Law and what he allows to occur because of wickedness, iniquity, stiffneckedness, and blindness (Isaiah 50:1, Isaiah 66:4, Jacob 4:14).

          Again, the scriptures teach all good things come from God “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

          • Hello Q, thanks for your comments, apparently I haven’t been as clear as I thought I was being, or perhaps you didn’t read my blog posts where I address both of your points. Firstly, I agree that we were handed over to Satan as the endowment also clearly shows. For example, Satan is the one who tells us to put on the apron, and then Satan says if we don’t follow every covenant (including to live consecration which is impossible to do currently) then we are in his power. So, therefore we are agreeing in the endowment that we are in Satan’s power. My point about a new law of Joseph was simply a naming convention to draw an allusion to the law of Moses. Paul says that with the changing of law and priesthood are interrelated. Thus, I stated my belief that because we were downgraded in priesthood we must necessarily have been downgraded in law as well. So, once again, I decided to call it the law of Joseph to point out the fact that we like the Israel of Moses’ day had sinned been handed over to Satan and downgraded in both priesthood and law.
            Your second point is related. In Abraham we learn that the Pharaohs could not hold priesthood yet claimed to have it anyway, and corrupted the original priesthood ordinances within their pagan religion. The law of Moses similarly incorporates many practices that are similar or identical to non-Israelite religion. Even the whole book of Deuteronomy is written in a legalistic style drawn from ancient Mesopotamian culture wherein vassals would make a treaty to serve a sovereign. The only difference being that the sovereign in Deuteronomy is of course the LORD. Therefore, my point is that God has and I believe still is using evil for good, just as Satan uses what seems to be good for evil. The ultimate example of the Lord using evil for good is the lineage of the Saviour himself. Tamar played the harlot to conceive Phares by Judah. Rahab was a prostitute who repented and joined with Israel she was the mother of Boaz. Boaz married Ruth who was a Moabite and wasn’t even supposed to be married by an Israelite according to the law, then Solomon was born to Bathsheba with whom David committed adultery and had her husband killed. And yet from this corrupt line, God himself came down to save mankind. So God does in fact use what appears to be wickedness and evil to accomplish his good purposes. Therefore, I see nothing wrong at all with God handing us over into Satan’s power, but then within that Satanically inspired ordinance and covenant with death leaving enough elements of truth to point back to how we will be saved. We will be saved when the servants return bringing the fullness of the gospel and the fullness of the Melchezidek priesthood, which will allow us to break the bands off of our necks and return to the fullness which we have lost. And I pray that this will happen soon and that more of our fellow Mormons will awake to this fact. Thus, my point in starting the blog was to try and wake up some of them that they may see with horror the situation we are now in and the bands of the adversary which bind and blind us. But God in his mercy has allowed us to live this lesser law so that he will be able to bring us out of captivity and into the land of Zion when it is reestablished.

  2. I will go over every one of those scriptures because I can’t quite get it out of my head that no matter how hard I try I won’t ever qualify. It is the most basic thing in the gospel though and I read the book Believing Christ which supported this very concept. I struggled to believe that could apply to me. I figured, at some point, that a person has to be pretty arrogant to think that even though the promise of Christ’s healing power is there for everyone else I’m the one case beyond hope. I have met other people who feel that no matter how hard they try they won’t make it either. As you mentioned we have huge quantities of guilt. Thank you for the encouraging thoughts. I stumbled across Gospel Tangents and a 14 part you tube interview with historian Dr. Matt Harris about the process of lifting the priesthood ban for the blacks. What an eye opener and a glaring example of your comments about wresting the scriptures. Hugh Brown and Eldon Tanner wanted it lifted in 1962. President McKay had thought about lifting it in the 50s but had concerns about how it would affect the saints in the southern states. Research by Lowell Bennion, I believe, and others showed no scriptural basis for the ban. What was a hard and fast statement of doctrine presented by the first presidency in 1949 was later considered as only a policy. The original revelation and sustaining vote for the ban can’t be found, it seems. There was extended arm twisting on both sides of this. It was an insight into how revelation is hammered out and pressurized into existence.I would sure appreciate you doing a podcast on this topic. Thank you

  3. In comparing 66:2 with 124:28, the wording is different. The first talks about fulness of the GOSPEL, the second fulness of the PRIESTHOOD. Also, in verse 3 of Section 66 the Lord says McLellin is clean, but not all, indicating, perhaps, that there was something still to come additional to receiving the everlasting covenant of the fulness of the gospel. Could these discrepancies be significant?

    • Joy:
      Thanks for your careful observation of the two scriptures. I personally see the “Fulness of the GOSPEL” and the “Fulness of the PRIESTHOOD” as synonymous terms. I draw that conclusion primarily based on the fact that the fulness of the Priesthood is required to establish Zion, which is the Lord’s Law and his fulness. The Lord tells Mcllelin that he is “blessed for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel” on October 29, 1831. This was just 4 days after he had been ordained a high priest by Oliver Cowdery.

      Section 124 essentially tells the Saints that they have lost the fulness of the Priesthood, which is the ability to administer spiritual blessings. It also tells us that we have been rejected as a church with our dead because we failed to built the Nauvoo Temple in time, and it was never completed nor accepted by the Lord that anyone can honestly document. When you realize that the “apostle” administrators who stand at the head of the LDS Church today exhibit none of the miraculous signs of apostles of old, one can easily conclude that they don’t possess the priesthood they claim to hold. For more information you may find a blogpost I wrote some time back of interest. It is entitled “I am not a High Priest…” Here is the link:
      https://onewhoissearching.com/2015/08/10/i-am-not-a-high-priest/

The Iron Rod Podcast © 2019