Only a Righteous Descendant of the Smith line...

[Durzan]

I recall something the Spirit whispered to me in my mind one time. What was said was this: "Only a righteous descendant of Joseph or Hyrum Smith can bring the Church out of condemnation."

In other words, the church will only be redeemed when a righteous man with the blood of Hyrum or Joseph Smith running through his veins is called of God and legitimately anointed as President of the Church.

Twice, possibly 3 times, this has happened in church history, all before the days of Ezra Taft Benson, who emphatically spoke on how the church was remained under condemnation.

I know the story of Joseph Smith III being viewed as the legitimate heir by a majority of the apostles... but he is long dead by now, and instead became one of the founding members of the Community of Christ faith. So the question is... why? Why would the Lord require a Smith to be at the head of the Church before it is brought out of condemnation? Why would I receive this prompting... and on multiple occasions as well?

[AI2.0]

As a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith, I'm afraid I disagree with you and question the impression you received.

First, the church is not under condemnation and second, I don't believe the Lord works that way.

But, if it makes you feel any better, Elder Ballard is a direct descendant of Hyrum and he's in line to be Prophet if that is the Lord's will that he serve in that capacity. Elder Oaks is married to a direct descendant of Hyrum.

Edited to add; He didn't say the church 'was still' under condemnation. It was not. It was under condemnation 'again' and I hope that the effort made by the members has raised that condemnation.

[Durzan]

As a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith, I'm afraid I disagree with you and question the impression you received.

First, the church is not under condemnation and second, I don't believe the Lord works that way.

I am also a direct descendant of Hyrum on both sides of my family... one through Joseph F Smith's line... though I think there is a daughter in there somewhere, as my last name isn't Smith.

As for us being in condemnation. Actually, we are... if we are to believe Ezra Taft Benson:

If you know of a Prophet or Apostle revoking that condemnation, then I will eat my hat.

But, if it makes you feel any better, Elder Ballard is a direct descendant of Hyrum and he's in line to be Prophet if that is the Lord's will that he serve in that capacity. Elder Oaks is married to a direct descendant of Hyrum.

Well then, I'm kinda glad about that... I am definitely not suited to be a Prophet. While I have long been gifted with a strong connection to the Spirit, I have always had trouble doing just the basics of regular sincere prayer and scripture study.

[Durzan]

I also do not recall reading anywhere that said the condemnation given when D&C 84 was given was ever originally lifted. Though I admit I may be wrong on this one. Benson's talk could be interpreted as either a reminder about a condemnation still in effect, or a new condemnation of the church for the same reason given in D&C 84... either way, there is no clear evidence one way or another that we have been brought out of condemnation.

Although I do see a lot of good within the membership, I also see a certain degree of pride and stiff-neckedness there as well... including myself. If I know one thing, that if there is anything that would keep us in condemnation, it is pride; and I also know that the Book of Mormon tells the tale of a very prideful and stiff-necked people... the nephites. Since the condemnation is for not paying attention to the Book of Mormon, Pride is the root of all sin, and the Book of Mormon was written in part as as type of our day, then it stands to reason that we are also prideful, and therefore condemned.

[gangbusters]

I think a lot of people take the condemnation thing way further than it's meant to be taken. As far as our devotion and commitment to the BOM, yes I agree that we're still under condemnation, but that doesn't mean the church is some poisonous tree that only brings forth poisonous fruit. It means we need to be better at appreciating the BOM.

As far as your inspiration about a descendant of Joseph Smith running the church, I'd be concerned if I received "inspiration" that went so far beyond my stewardship in the church. The Lord just wouldn't tell a lay member how his church should be run.

[Ashleyyyy]

I recall something the Spirit whispered to me in my mind one time. What was said was this: "Only a righteous descendant of Joseph or Hyrum Smith can bring the Church out of condemnation."

In other words, the church will only be redeemed when a righteous man with the blood of Hyrum or Joseph Smith running through his veins is called of God and legitimately anointed as President of the Church.

Twice, possibly 3 times, this has happened in church history, all before the days of Ezra Taft Benson, who emphatically spoke on how the church was remained under condemnation.

I know the story of Joseph Smith III being viewed as the legitimate heir by a majority of the apostles... but he is long dead by now, and instead became one of the founding members of the Community of Christ faith. So the question is... why? Why would the Lord require a Smith to be at the head of the Church before it is brought out of condemnation? Why would I receive this prompting... and on multiple occasions as well?

Hmm...

It could be about polygamy. JS III didn't like it, he goes to UT after he's a grown up, believing his daddy never practiced it because Emma wouldn't admit to it. Then the polygamous wives come out of the wood work in UT, submitting affidavits stating he did practice it because of his questioning. That, plus the Manifesto, formed the basis for all kind of books LDS historians write, including the gospel topic essays about it ( the Nauvoo and the Utah one), it is a hot mess. It pretty much splintered the Church. And it still does. Its mostly about the validity of sec132. I suppose JS III decided it was BS, because his version of the D&C didn't have it---wasnt inserted til 1876. JS Jr. was murdered in 1844. That's 32 years later before sec132. A community of Christ, is that such a bad thing belong to?

[AI2.0]

I recall something the Spirit whispered to me in my mind one time. What was said was this: "Only a righteous descendant of Joseph or Hyrum Smith can bring the Church out of condemnation."

In other words, the church will only be redeemed when a righteous man with the blood of Hyrum or Joseph Smith running through his veins is called of God and legitimately anointed as President of the Church.

Twice, possibly 3 times, this has happened in church history, all before the days of Ezra Taft Benson, who emphatically spoke on how the church was remained under condemnation.

I know the story of Joseph Smith III being viewed as the legitimate heir by a majority of the apostles... but he is long dead by now, and instead became one of the founding members of the Community of Christ faith. So the question is... why? Why would the Lord require a Smith to be at the head of the Church before it is brought out of condemnation? Why would I receive this prompting... and on multiple occasions as well?

Hmm...

It could be about polygamy. JS III didn't like it, he goes to UT after he's a grown up, believing his daddy never practiced it because Emma wouldn't admit to it. Then the polygamous wives come out of the wood work in UT, submitting affidavits stating he did practice it because of his questioning. That, plus the Manifesto, formed the basis for all kind of books LDS historians write, including the gospel topic essays about it ( the Nauvoo and the Utah one), it is a hot mess. It pretty much splintered the Church. And it still does. Its mostly about the validity of sec132. I suppose JS III decided it was BS, because his version of the D&C didn't have it---wasnt inserted til 1876. JS Jr. was murdered in 1844. That's 32 years later before sec132. A community of Christ, is that such a bad thing belong to?

This post is a bit of a hot mess.

I'm not sure what point you are making.

Joseph Smith III was approached by men who wanted him to lead their church. Eventually he agreed to and yes, he believed his father was not a polygamist. Those who wanted him to head their church was mostly disaffected from the original church, who refused to follow Brigham Young and the 12. The RLDS church disavowed polygamy so this was appealing for Joseph III and those who joined it because they weren't fans of the practice. I'm just not sure what you are getting at and what this has to do with the OP.

[AI2.0]

I also do not recall reading anywhere that said the condemnation given when D&C 84 was given was ever originally lifted. Though I admit I may be wrong on this one. Benson's talk could be interpreted as either a reminder about a condemnation still in effect, or a new condemnation of the church for the same reason given in D&C 84... either way, there is no clear evidence one way or another that we have been brought out of condemnation.

Although I do see a lot of good within the membership, I also see a certain degree of pride and stiff-neckedness there as well... including myself. If I know one thing, that if there is anything that would keep us in condemnation, it is pride; and I also know that the Book of Mormon tells the tale of a very prideful and stiff-necked people... the nephites. Since the condemnation is for not paying attention to the Book of Mormon, Pride is the root of all sin, and the Book of Mormon was written in part as as type of our day, then it stands to reason that we are also prideful, and therefore condemned.

The 'condemnation' in D&C 84 was for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. The Condemnation Pres. Benson said the church was under was also for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. I would say that as a church, we are no longer guilty of that.
But, on this forum, claiming the church is 'under condemnation' is a constant. The problem is, those who say it have an agenda--many are disaffected from the church and have gone their own way, either alone or in 'communities'.

If you have a testimony of the restoration and an understanding of what Joseph Smith Jr. organized, you won't be looking for a person (such as a smith descendant) to save us. That smacks of wanting a 'strong man'--an earthly savior to fix everything. We have a prophet at the head of the church and we have succession, so we will always have a prophet to lead and guide us. It doesn't matter if he's a Smith or a Jones, as long as he's the Lord's choice to lead the church and that will mean he comes through the ranks of the leadership.

And what was said earlier--the apostles did not want Joseph III to lead the church, if they had, they wouldn't have gone west--but they did--they followed Brigham Young and the 12. However, if history had been different, if Emma had taken her children west and they'd been raised in the church, Joseph III very likely would have been the prophet eventually. But she didn't so that did not happen.

Blood and lineage do not earn you the right to lead--though I will testify that it does carry with it the responsibility to serve in the church our ancestors gave their lives for, in whatever capacity required to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

[drtanner]

"Prophet bore testimony of the Book of Mormon and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, he almost never incorporated passages from them into his sermons. Instead, he taught out of the Bible.” Here are the Bible books he quoted and the number of times:

Matthew (41)
John (14)
I Corinthians (13)
Isaiah (11)
Luke (10)
Genesis (26)
Revelation (14)
Hebrews (12)
Acts (11)
Malachi (8)

Kent Jackson, Joseph Smith: Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet, Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner,

[Ashleyyyy]

This post is a bit of a hot mess.

I'm not sure what point you are making.

Joseph Smith III was approached by men who wanted him to lead their church. Eventually he agreed to and yes, he believed his father was not a polygamist. Those who wanted him to head their church was mostly disaffected from the original church, who refused to follow Brigham Young and the 12. The RLDS church disavowed polygamy so this was appealing for Joseph III and those who joined it because they weren't fans of the practice. I'm just not sure what you are getting at and what this has to do with the OP.

Yep, it's a hot mess.

[lemuel]

Only a Smith speaks in absolutes.

[gardener4life]

Have you considered that there's bloodline and priesthood line? They are both a type of descendant. Priesthood line is always more important to the Lord than blood, though it serves his purpose to use blood because its related to family. Think of how many quotes there are in scriptures and talks about the importance of the priesthood.

[Z2100]

I also do not recall reading anywhere that said the condemnation given when D&C 84 was given was ever originally lifted. Though I admit I may be wrong on this one. Benson's talk could be interpreted as either a reminder about a condemnation still in effect, or a new condemnation of the church for the same reason given in D&C 84... either way, there is no clear evidence one way or another that we have been brought out of condemnation.

Although I do see a lot of good within the membership, I also see a certain degree of pride and stiff-neckedness there as well... including myself. If I know one thing, that if there is anything that would keep us in condemnation, it is pride; and I also know that the Book of Mormon tells the tale of a very prideful and stiff-necked people... the nephites. Since the condemnation is for not paying attention to the Book of Mormon, Pride is the root of all sin, and the Book of Mormon was written in part as as type of our day, then it stands to reason that we are also prideful, and therefore condemned.

The 'condemnation' in D&C 84 was for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. The Condemnation Pres. Benson said the church was under was also for taking the Book of Mormon lightly. I would say that as a church, we are no longer guilty of that.
But, on this forum, claiming the church is 'under condemnation' is a constant. The problem is, those who say it have an agenda--many are disaffected from the church and have gone their own way, either alone or in 'communities'.

If you have a testimony of the restoration and an understanding of what Joseph Smith Jr. organized, you won't be looking for a person (such as a smith descendant) to save us. That smacks of wanting a 'strong man'--an earthly savior to fix everything. We have a prophet at the head of the church and we have succession, so we will always have a prophet to lead and guide us. It doesn't matter if he's a Smith or a Jones, as long as he's the Lord's choice to lead the church and that will mean he comes through the ranks of the leadership.

And what was said earlier--the apostles did not want Joseph III to lead the church, if they had, they wouldn't have gone west--but they did--they followed Brigham Young and the 12. However, if history had been different, if Emma had taken her children west and they'd been raised in the church, Joseph III very likely would have been the prophet eventually. But she didn't so that did not happen.

Blood and lineage do not earn you the right to lead--though I will testify that it does carry with it the responsibility to serve in the church our ancestors gave their lives for, in whatever capacity required to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

Amen!