Types And Shadows: Children Of Esau Or Of Israel?

Esau and Jacob were twin brothers (see Genesis 25:25-26.)  They grew up together.  The scriptures inform us that Esau was a cunning hunter and because of this trait had favor with his father.  The scriptures also inform us that Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents (see Genesis 25:27)
Esau was born first and therefore merited the Birthright.  However, seeing little to no value in the Birthright, the scriptures tell us that Esau despised the Birthright and traded it for a pottage of lentils, but it might better be understood that he despised it in that he treated it lightly (see Genesis 25: 34.)
Thereafter, Jacob received not only the Birthright, but also the Blessing of the Firstborn (see Genesis 27:45-46).  This not only came to him by ordinance from his father however, but also by covenant from God (see Genesis 27:26-30; and also Genesis 28:10-15.)

In the commission that the Lord gave unto Joseph Smith, the covenant blessings reserved for the children of Abraham were once again offered to mankind by covenant from God (see D&C 124:58.)  However, the Lord warned those who would become the seed of Abraham through the Prophet Joseph, that they should not treat lightly (or in other words despise) the covenant He had given (see D&C 84:54-58.)

The idea then needs to be expounded: how are we the seed of Joseph Smith the Prophet or even the seed of Abraham? (see D&C 124:58)  You can argue that by process of multiplying out generations, essentially everyone on the face of the earth is more likely than not, somehow descended from Abraham at this point.  However, you can not make that same assertion about Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith taught about this concept when he said, "Acceptance of the gospel brings into an individual’s life the Holy Ghost: and “as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seeds of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually the seed of Abraham.” 

The idea then is that by accepting the teachings of Christ (The Gospel) which come from one of the messengers that Christ personally selects, makes you of the seed of that person.  The messenger -who proclaims to teach in the name of Christ- that you select to believe, (providing that he has actually been commissioned by Jesus, to do so) affords you the opportunity to come into the family of Abraham, and thereby the Family of God (see Romans 10:13-17).
However, invariably it is the case that when God has chosen to send a messenger in His name, the adversary to us all works in corrupting the message of that messenger by influencing both those who oppose and those who believe the teachings that come through that chosen servant of the Lord.  This is what is called 'apostasy.'
Thereby it becomes necessary as truth is lost with each new case of apostasy, a new messenger is sent to clarify and teach again the system of repentance which must be enacted by that generation, in order to come into the family of God.
That does not mean that God will always send a chosen messenger whenever one is not present, but rather that when apostasy has occurred and even one has presented himself to repent the Lord will work through him to try once again to reestablish the necessary truths that will be the foundational principles of the family of God.

The opposite is true.  If anyone, even -as in the case of Esau- one who is the firstborn, of the chosen, ordained and anointed family of God, treats lightly the truths that they receive: they apostatize from the truth, they rebel against God and His family and will not receive the blessings that could/should/would have been theirs had they proven faithful to the truth that the Lord had declared.
To us in the latter days, the Lord has not only pointed out the importance of the Book of Mormon as 'The Covenant' but that all of the teachings spoken by Joseph Smith, as he received them from the Lord, should be received as if from the Lord's own mouth, and that only by doing so, the gates of hell would not prevail against us (see D&C 21: 4-6.)
The Lord originally informed us of our condemnation that came by way of treating lightly the Book of Mormon.  (see again D&C 84:54-58)
Ask yourself, how do I treat the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith?  Do I treat them as a treasure that will defend me from the gates of hell?  Do I treat them lightly?  Do I trust someone else to search through the REALLY important parts and filter them to me?  Remember it is not so much that it was Joseph Smith who gave them, but rather the voice that gave them to Joseph.  It was Jesus Christ who spoke them to Joseph, so that when you receive them as a treasure, He then will also be speaking to you.  If or possibly when, we receive them as a light thing, to be borne as a burden, or despise them because they refuse to allow us to be accepted/popular in the eyes of the world; then we, like Esau, despise our birthright.
Both Jacob and Esau received a blessing by the power of the priesthood, through an ordinance.  However, it was only Jacob that received a confirmation of the Birthright Blessing by the will of Heaven.  Therefore it stands to reason that anyone can be the seed of Esau; but who then will be the seed of Israel but those who not only receive the blessing by ordinance but also by Heaven.
We, like the Jews in the days of Christ, can proclaim the blessings passed down to us in ordinances performed by the power of a key-holder but proclaiming such does not make it so (see Luke 3:7-9.)

Like Abraham, mathematically speaking pretty much anyone can prove to be of the seed of Esau at this point.  However, in order to be the seed of Israel (through whom the family of God will come) it takes more than genealogy or proclamations of men; but rather, like Israel, it will take the pronouncement of Heaven.  And that will come when we finally remove our condemnation.

A book by one who has been authorized by God to once again teach in the name of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 7:20
You can begin reading the contents of this book for free at:
http://denversnuffer.com/2010/06/cite-your-minds-forward/

A Thought Provoked By The French Revolution

People die; their ideas live on.
Few today are familiar with the names of Robespierre, Rousseau or Barruel; but nearly everyone is familiar with at least some small semblance of the ideas that they taught.

How better to impede the restoration of truth -which God had intended for a people to receive, grow and be blessed by-, than to keep the recipients of the seeds of that restoration unthinking or distracted?  By doing so, our adversary is permitted to continue to sow ignorance and we leave no truth behind to outlive us.
Effectively any truth that was passed onto us in the ideas we posses, die with us, because we refuse to learn, think and share.

Experiences Rich In Meaning

Recently, here in Utah, we have been having a good round of wet weather.  With this has come strong wind as high pressure systems get pushed around by the cooler low pressure systems.
I love nature.  I love it in all of its variety.  I love sunny days and I love the chaos inherently brought on in dark clouds and the accompanying ominous imagery.
As I sat at work the other day, I watched as a strong rain storm marched North from the South-West, over the Great Salt Lake.  From where I sat, I could watch in peace out at the dust and salt that had been kicked up by the power of the storm.  However within a few moments a circulating pattern emerged over the lake just due west of my location and the storm started heading directly my way.
Within 5 minutes a light breeze was felt.  Followed within a few seconds by stronger and stronger gusts, until the point came when the front of the storm was just mere minutes away.  The wind was so strong and frantic that the plum trees around my work, were all shaken violently at the presence and power of the storm.  They seemed absolutely terrified.
As I sat and watched all of the trees around me shaken in what seemed to me to be pure terror I began to notice something else.  The seeds from a nearby Elm tree had begun to float through the air.  First as a trickle but as the wind picked up, the seeds made it began to look more like a snow storm had come instead of a Spring rainstorm.

Elm seeds

 Flying through the air with incredible velocity, I watched as they just covered everything in front of them.  Within seconds of their passing, the rain began to fall.  This was no ordinary rain for Utah, though.  This was torrential!  It was conjoined by hail.  Big hail!  A couple of the blocks that I found were approaching marble size.  This all lasted for at least 5 minutes.  Yet in those few minutes, the road in front of my work began to look more like a river.
At the passing of the quick but strong storm, I noticed that the recently white colored elm, now had nearly no white on it.  It was all green.  Granted many of the leaves had been cut, sliced and sheared off, but many others were still remaining.  The ground below the tree was partly white from the seeds, but the still strong wind that remained after the rain and the hail had passed was making light work for the neighboring landowner to have to clean.
I wondered at what this tree had felt about the menacing storm. As I was pondering I sat and watched the still blowing wind carry the seeds around my work, spread over the ground, up in the air, across the road out into the field across the street and beyond my view.  To myself, I queried, "out of these many hundreds or even thousands of seeds, how many would ever be planted?  How many would ever get the chance to grow beyond a seed, into a sapling and perhaps even into a tree?"
Due to the age of the tree (very mature), and the low number of existing Elm trees around this locale, I surmised that less than 1% of these seeds would ever be trees, or even grow into saplings.  Yet in spite of these great odds, I couldn't help but think that this mother tree was pleased to have such a strong storm to come along and facilitate her in getting her seeds out to areas where they might have a better chance to grow to their fullest potential.
Where all of the trees had seemed to have shaken in terror of the storm, during the violent blowing this tree didn't seem much bothered at all.  In fact as I had watched, instead of being forced dramatically lower, this trees height seemed hardly moved.  Moreover, the branches of this tree were almost being blown in an upward motion.  It almost seemed -if nothing else, than in my mind's eye- as if this tree was welcoming the presence of the power of the storm.
I could see her raising her branches up to the heavens in what seemed to me to be an attitude of thanks and praise.  For in this wind, the seeds that she had produced and nurtured, now had the best chance of being carried wide and far to fertile places; where, when they landed, they would meet soft, moist dirt, and possibly even pushed down into the dirt, by the falling hail.
No.  Unlike the other trees that surround my work, which had not taken sufficient strength to their roots (See Jacob 5:48) as this big Elm had over many years of toil; this tree was not terrified by the storm, but rather found it to be a day of praise.
Depending on which tree I evaluated, I would say that this day was either a Great or a Dreadful Day.  (See Joseph Smith-History 1:38-39) 

Op-Ed By Harry S. Truman

30 days after President John F. Kennedy was shot, former President Harry S. Truman wrote an Op-Ed article for the Washington Post.
I want you to read this.  I want you to keep in mind the context of who wrote this; when he wrote it; and then consider why HE would write this THEN.
I am including the full text of the article as well as a digital image of the majority of the article as it appeared in that periodical for a limited time before it was removed from future prints.  Enjoy.

The Washington PostDecember 22, 1963 - page A11

Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role
To Intelligence

By Harry S TrumanCopyright, 1963, by Harry S Truman

---

    INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 — I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
    I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
    Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
    But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
    Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
    I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
    Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
    For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
    I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
    With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
    I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
    But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
    We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.

Dwight D. EisenHower

I recently watched a documentary on Dwight D. EisenHower.  As a Millennial I found myself fairly uninformed about the man and so thought it would be appropriate to spend some time trying to get a grasp for him.  
I do not believe that everything he did was good.  I believe that he had chosen to let those who ran the CIA be his marionettists.  I believe this single choice brought an evil into America unsurpassed by anything done previous to his administration since the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

I believe his choice to allow the CIA to engage in subversive wars was terribly wrong for American Foreign policy and has created much of the foreign policy issues that America has had to deal with ever since.  

I believe that he empowered some of the most wicked men to ever have governing influence over American politics.  This includes but is not limited to Richard Nixon and the Bush Family.

He turned his back on his good friend and mentor in order to score some political points.

Although at times useful, I believe that his subversive style of governing -through his hidden hand policies- was a wicked thing.

I think his executive orders were often inappropriate -as they usually are whenever they are employed.
I do not know, but fear that he might have played the part of an adulterer while leading the allied forces in Europe.  I believe that Providence was extremely kind to him.  

Yet in spite of all that, I am quite amazed at the good that he strove to cling to in his life.  

He was adept at down playing his own ego in order to soothe the ego's of both Patton and Montgomery.  

He seemed to desperately want to avoid war and sued for peace whenever possible.  His administration was marked by prosperity and his refusal to send American Soldiers to war.  Sensing no business in our being there- upon assuming the office of President, he immediately took action to put an end to the Korean War and get American Soldiers home.  

When faced with the option of throwing some subordinates under the bus (a la Reagan style with the Iran-Contra affair) he instead chose to take responsibility for the spying of Gary Powers over the USSR.  This choice ended his administration on a low note; but he knew that would be the case and chose to do it anyway, despite having the option -given to him by Nikita Khrushchev- to cast the blame elsewhere.  To him his personal integrity was worth more than the name given to him by historians.

He chose to stand up for what were the then hallmark American Principles of charity and pacifism.  Even though having been a soldier and earned his living in that profession he instead spoke up about the absurdity in costs incurred to build a single Destroyer when the same amount of money could build 5 hospitals, schools or shelters!  

He stood up against the war-mongering democrats (funny how things flip-flop back and forth isn't it) who cried for a build up in armaments -largely in their effort to pacify the Military Industrial Complex.  

Despite being members of the same party he chose to stand up against the absurd communist-witch hunts led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

All in all, in comparison to many of the politicians that I have seen in my life, I have to say: I like Ike.

Here are a few quotes from him that I found worthy of some thought. 

-A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

-I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

-Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

-In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.

-Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.

-May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

-We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

-History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.

-If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

-Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

Utah: A Flourishing Oligarchy

One of the things that get me riled up is when I see a process set up that takes power that was originally in the hands of the people and transfers it into the hands of the wealthy and powerful. Yesterday, a part in that process was ruled constitutional in the State of Utah.
Maybe I'm a sucker, but I always would like to believe that Utah with it's majority LDS population, (and the corollary effect that such a population seems to have in making those who are not LDS, more faithful in their own chosen religions) should have an additional tempering effect against elements that corrode the power of the people.  This because on top of being American's, with specific rights guaranteed to us by the constitution, Latter-Day Saints have it codified in scripture that God has given them the Constitution, through wise men, that He raised up for that purpose. (see D&C 101:80)

Yet on Friday, April 15th, that erosion; that corruption of the power intended for the people is exactly what got held up as being constitutional by a District Judge (Read the KSL article here) instead of the rights of the people.

Heretofore, Utah has always had a lively, functional caucus system.  If you don't know much about the caucus system, here is a general breakdown:
-Every county in the State of Utah, is broken down into a number of smaller areas, called precincts.  (The area of your precinct is generally going to be your neighborhood.)
-Each registered political party will, once every other year, hold caucus meetings in those varying precincts (as long as someone from that political party actually exists within that precinct.)
-Those caucus meetings are participated by only those who live within the precinct.
-From among those who attend any of those caucus meetings, leaders and representatives (of that local area precinct) will be nominated and elected.
-Generally there will be positions of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, County Delegates and State Delegates.
-The first 4 positions fulfill a function of committing time and assistance to the Party and its representatives in that local area.
-The remaining 2 positions fulfill the function of being informed on and then carrying the voice of that precinct (into either the county delegate meeting or the state delegate meeting) regarding those people whom that precinct would like to elect.
-In those respective two delegate meetings, (county and state) men and women who would like to be nominated for public office will be heard, nominated and elected by the delegates, to represent the party in the general election.
-If one of those nominees gathers 60% or more of the delegate votes in their corresponding county or state positions, then they become the candidate for that party, in the general election for the respective office in which they have been nominated.
-If a candidate fails to gather 60% but is able to gather 40%, then their name is put on a primary against the other candidates who were also able to attain the 40%.
-If none of the candidates are able to gather the 40% then all go onto a primary election.
I submit that this process -although not perfect- is hard to beat, in the effect of establishing the will of those who are willing to take the time to educate themselves and perform their civic duty to the benefit of themselves, their communities, their counties, their state and their country; as a force in and of itself.

An alternative has been opened up, however.  That alternative is by way of a bill, that when as a initiative was titled, Count My Vote.  This bill has allowed politicians to circumvent the caucus system by gathering a large number of people, who are registered members of the party in which they belong, to sign a petition to put them on a primary ticket.
I submit that those who passed this bill (read: incumbent politicians already existing in office) did so in order to retain power in their hands and out of the hands of the people and especially to keep the elections away from those who would like to run for office, but who may not have the same financial means as the incumbent.
Let me explain how this works for the incumbent:
-The number of necessary signatures is placed at a high number (2% of the number of registered VOTERS [Not party members] in the respective voting district.  So for example in a district with 50,000 registered voters, a candidate would need to gather 1000 signatures of people who are registered members of their respective political party.)
-The incumbent can use their tax-payer-based salary to pay a company to gather the necessary signatures for them.
-This includes paying even more money to the party to find out the contact information of the registered party members inside the voting district.
-Anyone who can't afford to pay for these services, must go house-by-house seeking out registered members and petitioning them to sign.  (The difficulty of this really gets exacerbated in rural districts: of which 90% of Utah's area is composed.)
-All who gather the signatures are then automatically placed on a ticket in a primary party election; thus circumventing the will of any who participated in the political caucuses.

Now I want you to ask yourself: what do you personally do in the voting booth, when you are presented names of people with whom you are generally unfamiliar?  What do you think most people do in that voting booth situation?
If you are like most people, you will vote for the person with whom you feel 'most' familiar.  Now an old trick of the political trade, is that the voters don't REALLY need to be familiar with you.  They just need to have the idea that they are familiar with you.  This trick isn't only applied in the political realm.
For those who currently live, have lived or perhaps have even traveled through Utah, will be familiar with the name Larry H. Miller.  Larry H. Miller was the president of the LHM group.  That corporate amalgamation included companies across several industries.  It created an advertising scheme that was employed, wherein those who were subjected to the scheme would be shown a picture of an smiling, balding man with his arms folded.  Then they would be told that this picture was Larry H. Miller, and 'You KNOW this guy.'
This scheme was used to reinforce to the public that if you know the name of someone and a picture of what he looked like, then he (and vicariously the corporation of which he was president) would be worthy of your financial trust in a variety of ways.
The same idea follows in all of those signs that you see posted everywhere with a politicians name on it, billboard signs, TV and radio advertisements, etc., etc.  All of these are advertising schemes used to convey the idea that because you are seeing someones name, a picture of them and possibly even hearing their voice in a purported sincere tone, that you are now familiar with them and thus they are worthy of your political trust.
All of these schemes are employed because the fact of the matter is, that most people are not able to or perhaps do not want to care about anything beyond what they absolutely HAVE to: food, love, sleep and definitely entertainment.  The fact of the matter is that politicians, especially local politicians get very little scrutiny about the accountability of the ideas that drive them.  Rather than try to educate an uncaring mass of people about what they (the candidate) believes is important, it is far more easy to pay to have their name plastered everywhere in front of their neighbors and fellow countrymen and rely on the fact that when in the voting booth, most people lack a real familiarity with any of the candidates and therefore are going to vote for the name that they have they have seen the most.  This means that the person who pays the most amount of money -to put their name in front of the public- wins the election.

This is why those who were already in office wanted the signature gathering option guaranteed to them.  Because they know they will only have to rely on the power their money brings their name in a voting booth with a majority of people who will not take the time to educate themselves in a primary election.
With the signature gathering option, they know that they don't have to really be held accountable to the people who care to make themselves knowledgeable about the various political issues and candidates.  Those who will spend their precious time in caucuses and delegate meetings hearing the candidates and the issues being discussed.
They know that with it, all they have to do is have money (or at least be willing to sell themselves to someone else who does have money.)  Have money to pay someone else to gather signatures for them.  Have money to pay for an absurd amount of advertising.  Have money to shove their 'free' trinkets, buttons, shirts, pens, signs and fake handshakes in front of enough peoples faces: and they will win.
(I put 'free' in quotation, because their salaries -from which they are paying for everything- is coming from the taxes they collect from us.  Therefore it is, WE who are paying for all of this crap that appropriately ends up filling landfills.
Or perhaps if they can get some lobby interest to pay then they can pay even more money than the next guy.  But then it all comes down to those who are willing to sell themselves for filthy lucre, will be the only ones in office.)

If as citizens of Utah, we allow this bill to stand, I believe we are assisting in establishing Utah as a de facto Oligarchy.  The Count My Vote bill, on a generality will not assist any outsider.  If you are a Democrat -or a member of any other political party- (I'm looking at you Libertarians and Constitutional Party members) then understand your ability (or one from your party) to gather 2% of the registered voters (who are also members of your party) in your voting district is greatly diminished if not extremely unrealistic.  Therefore this bill does not help you.
It does not help anyone with good ideas who may desire to fulfill their civic duty, but find themselves unable to compete on a financial level of those who are the super wealthy among us.  Simply put, the only ones who this bill helps are those who see themselves as possessing a right within an oligarchy!  Is it any wonder why those who sponsored this initiative include names like Mike Leavitt and Gail Miller (the wife of the guy that employed the advertising scheme referred to above.)
If you care about politics in Utah at all, then please let your State Representatives know that you are not willing to support such a dishonest and disenfranchising system.
I ask those of you who read this to please either respond in the comments with a statement to the contrary or at least pass this around.  The political environment in Utah needs to change.

Commentary on: The Secret Origins of the American Tea Party

In the 1960's the anti-war movement was originally membered by mothers and fathers who didn't want their sons going to war. The Military Industrial Complex, had no interest in having their golden war shot down; and so they infiltrated the anti-war movement with 'hippies' and communist backed-ideologues who were willing to shout louder and act more bizarre in order to grab headlines. This had the effect of forcing out the early protesters who wanted nothing to do with being affiliated with hippies and commies.

To say the Tea-Party was some Golem creation of the Koch brothers, denies the fact that the Average American has long been trampled on and robbed. The obvious fact is that neither political party is really interested in helping the Average American as they are in robbing them. At first this looting was wearily tolerated because, no one wanted to throw a baby out with some dirty bathwater.

However, the tipping of the economic scale -that was a result from all of this robbery- occurred in 2007-2008, and by 2009 the average American needed something to let up. Some Americans bought into Obama's bullshit message of 'change' and the other half realized that they had been left out in the cold by the late winter of 2008 on into Spring 2009.

I firmly believe that the Koch brothers and other billionaires saw this as an opportunity and seized to control and drive all of this hatred into their own interests. I believe that those who were motivated by the ideology that became labeled as 'The Tea Party' got suckered into this crap the same way that the anti-war protesters got overtaken by activist shills.

But unfortunately I believe that this piece by Jeff Nesbit denies the truth behind the anti-tax movement and instead continues the pantomimed drama between the left and the right. Read for yourself, and let me know your thoughts: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/ar-BBrrqQx?li=BBnba9J

Donald Trump As An Omen

I believe there is a coming political shift. Perhaps it has already arrived, and we just don't know it yet.

The conservative faction of American politics hasn't always been populated by those who were more religious. Case in point: up until the early 20th Century, the Republican Party was seen as a very progressive party, and largely the more religious populations of America were members of the Democratic Party.

Particularly after the Civil war and for a period of about 50 years thereafter, the Republican party came into disfavor with the religious majority of Americans due to the prevalent greed demonstrated by the party leaders.

So in the early 20th Century a push was exerted to court religious Americans, largely because the majority of Americans were very religious.

As the current generational swing continues to transition a majority of Americans from the Baby Boomer's to the Gen X's/Y's/and Millennials, there is an overwhelming swell of anti-religion rhetoric that comes with that swing and is growing more popular by the day.

With that anti-religious rhetoric has come also a more tolerant view on social issues, that currently tend to be opposed by the institutionalized religions of our day.

The Republican Party, being a secular organization, is unconsciously, slowly, quietly releasing its religious moorings due to the unfavorability of religion among the generations that are arriving/arrived to the age of voting accountability, and their social preferences.

This is most readily seen in the popularity of Donald Trump, as a candidate. Although the Republican Party Leaders, largely oppose Donald Trump, his popularity brings to the table a need for a very frank discussion regarding the identity of the Republican Party going forward.

Although Donald Trump has given a token lip service to court those who tend to be more religious, his focus has largely been to the Joe-Six-Pack/Bar-going-Americans; who in their own personal lives give mainly lip service to religion and that only as a label and not as a way of life.

Whether those who are religious recognize it or not, the day is coming when they will find themselves disenfranchised as a unified force. I believe this has largely come/will come because of our refusal to be a unified force. (see D&C 38:27)

As a result of this all being an involuntary/unconscious act, I predict that the Republican Party has arrived at a point where for a unspecified time they are going to become largely irrelevant in American Politics. This will continue until the party leaders wake-up and decide to reinvent the party after the image of Donald Trump's candidacy.

Another alternative (and in my opinion, the only good alternative) would be to repent and be one. However, I don't get the feeling that we (those who feel more religious inclinations in our personal lives) have many who are interested in that notion. It is apparent if to no one else but myself, that we are much more interested in hearing how we are chosen, noble and righteous. Therefore, it is my opinion that politicians -like Ted Cruz- would be wise to listen to and confer with those who are willing to extend any assistance they can give, from those whom they have traditionally opposed: such as Caitlyn Jenner. That is, if they insist on continuing to refuse to repent, and if they want to stay relevant in the political realm.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/caitlyn-jenner-offers-to-be-trans-ambassador-for-cruz/ar-BBqjFo4?li=BBnbcA1

Where has the idea that the 12 Apostles have SEEN Christ come from?

I recently saw a really good question on Facebook and decided that I would answer. My answer turned out to be quite lengthy, and so instead of leaving it on Facebook, I decided to turn it into my most recent blog post.  

Let me first state the question: "From listening to "The Boise Rescue", Elder Oaks mentioned D&C 107:23 that gave the definition of the 12 Apostles (emphasis added):

107:23:the twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the NAME of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling."

I found this scripture interesting...has this been misrepresented in the Church throughout the years?...has leadership over the years wanted the membership to believe that they have actually SEEN Christ? (perhaps to further supplant their authority)...where has the idea that the 12 Apostles have SEEN Christ come from?"

My best answer: Oliver Cowdery gave a Charge to the first 12 men called to the office in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints known as 'apostle' exclusively within the quorum of the 12. (There were men before that time who were called and ordained as apostles, but they were WAY more than 12 and it wasn't really an official organized group.) That charge instructed those men that their ordination to become apostles was not complete until after they had received a visitation with Christ while in the flesh. The foremost Mormon historian, Michael Quinn had this to say on the matter in his second book in the Mormon Hierarchy series,"Cowdrey told the new apostles: 'It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God.'  Then he continued: 'That is more than the testimony of an angel ... Never cease striving until you have seen God, face to face.'  Cowdrey acknowledged that most of the new apostles had depended on visions of others for their faith and suggested that some might even be skeptical of visions.  Thus it was not necessary to see Jesus to be chosen as an apostle.  However, once ordained each man had a lifelong obligation to seek this charismatic experience: a vision of deity.  Some apostles from 1835 onward reported having had such visions before their ordination.  Apostles in the nineteenth century referred publicly to their visionary witness."

This was a well known and documented statement and idea maintained even outside of those who had been called into that quorum. Therefore the mainstream of the church had the expectation that, personal messianic ministrations were still occurring at least among that body of leaders.

That charge was recorded and subsequently given to each new member of that quorum -as they were called- until the early 20th century. At that time, due to feelings of inadequacy by an overwhelming majority of those who had been called to be apostles and yet never received any such audience with the Savior- that charge was dropped and new members of the 12 were from that point on referred to the scripture that you quoted in your OP.

However, publicly the dropping of that charge was never officially declared -in fact it has only been private journals from that time which have since been reproduced that revealed that this change even occurred.

What I have found is that little claim was made to that type of experience by the leaders of the church from Brigham Young down until the 1960's and 70's. In fact during the administration of Heber J. Grant, he was quite vocal that not only had he not received any such experience, he actually prayed not to have it, as he believed it would more than likely lead to deception and apostasy. (For a more in depth discussion on this matter, I would suggest reading Passing The Heavenly Gift, by Denver Snuffer, a local Utah attorney that has written quite extensively on both LDS church doctrine and history.)

What drummed the notion -that leaders were chatting with the Savior every Thursday- back into the mainstream thoughts of the church was, in my estimation something that is ultimately two fold:

#1-) The power grab by the David O. McKay administration, to not only be called the president of the church, but to be called "The Prophet." Before David O. McKay, the latter title was used only for Joseph Smith -but because Heber J. Grant was such an unpopular president, with whom many lay members (and even local leaders) disagreed and contended with, the McKay administration sought to subdue any resistance by laying hold on the title 'Prophet.' (The idea behind this addition is that one can argue and disagree with a president, but if you disagree with a prophet, then damnation is at stake! You can read more about this in David O. McKay And The Rise Of Modern Mormonism)

This obviously lead to the missionary propaganda that was spread forth wherein we boasted of having a 'Living Prophet' and it is pretty hard to assume that title without having the associated idea that a prophet receives messages from God. Thus leading to the idea that the president/prophet is speaking with God, and if speaking with Him, then of course at least occasionally He might drop in for tea and crumpets.

#2-) During the 60's and 70's the work that Jerald and Sandra Tanner (among others) stirred up began to really hit hard. A lot of stuff that had been partially buried for decades regarding a range of topics were brought out in order to try and combat much of what became labeled as 'anti-Mormon' information. That effort by the leaders of the church (specifically Bruce R. McConkie and his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith, who attempted to correlate church doctrine according to their own, personal views) to combat this 'anti' material, drug to light many teachings that had for quite some time been discarded. That is not to say that these teachings I am referring to had not been known, but just not in a uniformly digestible way that could be made to accommodate a religious organization as spectrally wide theologically as where the church had originated from. Among those were the teachings of Joseph Smith, that included having ones calling and election made sure, second anointing's and having a personal visitation with Christ.

At first, these teachings were paraded as a jewel from the King's closet, that once again could set us apart (read:above) from everyone else. Once the general membership got hold of such ideas there was a very positive reception that buoyed up the notion to further research and promulgate these ideas even further.

The love fest didn't last long however for these backward ideas, as leaders began to be barraged with questions every time an occasion presented itself of whether they had their calling and election made sure; what is that like; insight into how one could personally go about accomplishing that; what Jesus looked like; etc. In addition to those problems also came others (non-leaders) who began teaching regarding these ideas, and really made it seem like they (the non-leaders) were having these experiences. Which offended the leaders sensibilities because if a non-leader was speaking with Jesus, and the leader was not...what would that mean? (Which this is a whole other discussion.)

So in reaction to these new problems, the leaders attempted to slam the door on anyone speaking of these 'deep doctrines' and chastised any who did as being truer than true; looking beyond the mark; and even apostate.

However the damage had already been done, the teachings had spread wide enough that they couldn't be denied (which was heretofore the tactic employed anytime the administrators didn't want to address an issue.)

So they stopped talking about it hoping that it would go away...and largely it did. Except for the modern perception that General Authorities all have received their second anointings; thus they have had their callings and elections made sure and therefore regularly chatted with Jesus....or at least played in the annual Celestial Fall Equinox Golf For-Florida-Real-Estate-Charity Tournament that He sponsors each year...however this year, I have it on good word that He cancelled it due to the Shemitah. The only addition to those ideas is that, they are all to 'sacred' to even be acknowledged and so don't ask because they can't tell.

Evangelicals

So this picture is a little misleading for the content of my article...

The Evangelist

"An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham.  Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons, etc." (June 27, 1839) [5 years to the day of Joseph's martyrdom]

From November 1838 to April 1839, Joseph Smith was held captive in jail.  Charged with crimes of which he was innocent.  Suffering in this capacity largely as a result of the Latter-Day Saints inability to get along, (See D&C 101:4-7) Joseph gained resolve to do what had alluded him before.  To teach -not according to what men would pick and choose, but rather according to what God wanted done in the restoration that He had originally planned for the Latter-Day Saints.  (see Moses 6:3-7)

3 months after absconding from the Missouri law that had improperly held him prisoner, Joseph began teaching boldly.  In a council meeting with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph taught about Faith, and how one can only receive it by hearing the message given to a messenger sent by God!

He taught that repentance was not something that should be practiced daily as are our daily transgressions.  He taught that Baptism was the channel by which the Holy Ghost would be given.  He taught that one must be COMPLETELY (wholly/entirely/without exception, etc.) righteous in order to have the ability to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

He taught that the Gift of Tongues was not necessary to preach or practice to the church, because whosoever has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, can speak in his own language and accomplish the same thing as what is done by preaching with the Gift of Tongues!  (This would have been especially hard to stomach for many of the Christians they were preaching to, who accepted the gift of tongues as THE ONLY means by which one could know they had been Born Again.)  

He taught that Resurrection and Eternal Judgement were of the first PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL that should be preached when missionaries go out to exhort people.  

Then he started teaching things about which he had previously touched on but never had been very bold.  He taught of having ones calling and election made sure.  That not only was such a possibility but that after it occurred you then could have the opportunity if not only the obligation to have Christ come to you (Himself, in the flesh!) and minister to you.  That Christ would bring you to the Father and vouch for you there just as He said He would.  (See Matt 10:32; also Luke 9:26)

Joseph taught that the influence of the Holy Ghost, was not feeling felt through your emotions, but rather strokes of ideas that come to each and every one of us.  That by being obedient to these ideas, one would grow in light until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.

Focal Point

All of that leading to his final point: Evangelists...?

This may surprise you, as it did me.  However, there is a wise reason that I had never noticed to this, and in order to understand it, you must take in the topic in its entirety.  

In order to do just that, you must first understand that our best interpretations of the word Evangelist simply means a preacher.  Which is no doubt important.  But Joseph didn't emphasize that point AT ALL!!  He instead seems to create his own definition for that word, by changing it to mean a Patriarch...bold teaching, indeed?

Furthermore this is not the first time that the idea came up.  I won't pretend that I know when it first arrived in the teachings of Joseph, but I do know it landed before June 1839.  In fact my first finding of the teaching is nearly 4 years earlier!  However, when revealing it Joseph didn't overtly point out what was being taught at all.  

As a result of this indirect teaching, I have always glossed over the teaching as if it was just some random thought that had nothing to do with the context that followed.  So as to give you a more clear understanding to what I refer, I will quote some of the revelation (see D&C 107:39-57) that came to Joseph about the matter.

 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.  This order was instituted in the days of Adam...

What follows is a relation of what that order of priesthood (evangelical) looks like in a practical, real world application.  It starts with Adam.  He ordains his son (Seth) to this order of priesthood, (when Seth is 69 years old) and later blesses him just three years before his [Adam's] death.  

Which should cause us to wonder: what does the blessing of Seth by Adam 3 years before Adam's death have to do with the ordination by Adam of Seth, when Seth is 69?  

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we have grown accustomed to receiving what we call 'blessings.'  These blessings can and are given for any number of reasons.  Sickness, preparation, callings, insight, strength, etc.  However in the modern church they are only given by one who has been set apart, (by another who has been duly authorized to do so) to hold priesthood.  

So if you interpret Adam's blessing of Seth as what is practiced in the LDS church, you may not get how it relates to [the evangelical] order of the priesthood.  So going out on a little bit of a ledge I am going to borrow what I believe are the ideas contained in that blessing to demonstrate that what actually happened was something different than what is generally practiced today.  

Just after relating the fact that Adam blessed Seth just three years prior to Adam's death, the account we receive from Joseph says, "[Seth] received: the promise of God, (by his father.)  That his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth"

The night that Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, to relate to him the location and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he gave to him a reworded prophesy originally found in the Book of Malachi.  That prophesy states that because there is some group that is coming; when they come they shall burn up everyone on the earth.  That is however, if there is not a group who has the hearts of the fathers turned to them and they to their fathers.  (See Joseph Smith History 1:37-39)  

What is worse, however than being burned up when this group comes, is that as a result of the burning; those who are burned shall have neither root nor branch left to them!  

For many this may seem as if it is a scare tactic to get what few who will believe to fall in line.  However, what we find here is that it is an integral part of the Lord's promises that He invariably gives to those whom He blesses.  This is what we find in the account of Adam's blessing to his son Seth, regarding his posterity being found on the earth, at its end.  He shall not be one left without root nor branch.  

Such a promise is not made by some hope that Adam has that such should be the case.  It is a prophecy made by Adam, while under the administered comfort of the Lord which was given to him at that time (three years previous to Adam's death.) 

As an aside I have heard that that comfort, administered by the Lord to Adam, was that he was made young instantly so as to be able to prophesy all that should befall his posterity even until the very end.  The account doesn't state that.  As I understand that comfort it is not youthfulness, but rather the comfort that comes from gaining a promise from the Lord regarding ones own salvation and the salvation of those whom you love (i.e. Adam's posterity.)

So returning to the order of priesthood that Joseph described as evangelical, what we find is that this order of priesthood consisted in Adam's ability to ordain and then bless his son with promises given to him by God regarding his son's posterity.  

What follows from there is a relation of how there was at least one in each succeeding generation from Adam down to Methuselah, that also were ordained, and then blessed.  What is unique about this, is that each generational head from Adam, was blessed and ordained by Adam instead of by his natural (biological) father.  That is down to Lamech.  

Lamech received his ordination from Seth.  That is probably because Adam had already died when Lamech was thirty-two years old and was ready to be ordained.  That made Seth the next in line to perform the ordinations.  Despite the presence of 7 other priests, -one of which was Lamech's very own father- who had been ordained, blessed and given the promise of God, Seth was the one to whom this duty fell. ( See D&C 132:7, also re-read the quote at the top of this post.)  

Law Of Witnesses

So we find once that Joseph testifies of this order of priesthood in the which he associates it with Evangelists.  Then we find the Lord testifying of it in another revelation given through Joseph.  But what about the origin of the word?  Evangelists were discussed by both Luke and Paul in the New Testament, but in our best translations we don't find either author giving that word anything relating to something touching patriarchy.  

Or do we?  Let's look at the examples.

2 Timothy 4:2-6  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.  For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."

Here we find Paul first exhorting Timothy to Preach the word; and to exhort with...doctrine.  Later giving the commendation to do the work of an evangelist, Paul seems to correlate more with our interpretations of evangelism than what is contained in D&C 107.  

I am going to show how Paul's use of the word evangelist and Joseph's really isn't different.  It will be through the process of examining each use of that word and the context around it, but before we get to that point I want to show how the qualities of an evangelist exhorted by Paul here is of one who possesses already sound doctrine.  Which is opposite to those who heap to themselves teachers who satisfy their itching ears.  Which teachers, turn away their ears from the truth and unto fables instead.

It is for this reason that Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.  This because Paul's time is at hand.  He seems to be saying that because he is no longer going to be able to do this work, Timothy needs to step up.  What is extra interesting to consider is the exhortation to Timothy to make FULL PROOF of thy ministry.  How is it that one can make FULL proof of their ministry as a preacher, if that is all that is meant by the term evangelist?

Next citation:

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This can be a fast examination.  Paul is demonstrating that evangelists are an important part of the church.  That they are given in addition to the other officers, for the perfecting of the saints.  

In other words, that perfecting of the saints can not be had without anyone of the body parts listed.

Otherwise we are still as children(?) tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.  By the sleight of men and cunning craftiness.  Whereby the enemy to our souls lies in wait to deceive...

Next citation:

Acts 21:8  

And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

This seeming small verse contains a fairly difficult to understand teaching.  Is Philip an evangelist as a result of being one of 'The Seven?'  Or is he an evangelist and also one of 'The Seven?'

To gain some clarity I will demonstrate what is being referenced by this group of Seven

Acts 6:1-7

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.  Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.  But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.  And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

So what we find is that there was a murmuring among the disciples.  The poor among them were being neglected.  In this their conundrum, they believed that the God appointed method they should follow was appointing seven among them, by the voice of the people, who were full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom to this business.  Now beyond their being dedicated to this caring for the poor and needy, something else happened.  The word of God increased.  The number of disciples multiplied.

A GREAT company of priests were obedient to the faith.

Why seven?  How does God's Word increase?  Why were the numbers of disciples multiplied?  Why did those who were priests suddenly decide to be obedient?  These milestones may certainly have been accomplished by the unburdening of the Apostles of the Lord to go out teaching instead of 'waiting on tables.'  But to me the text denotes a direct corollary with the laying on of hands on the Seven, and the increasing of the word of God, the multiplying of the disciples and the priests being obedient to the faith.

So why did they choose seven of these ministers to their poor and needy?  This is where I want to make the connection with Joseph's revelation of the Seven High Priests who are associated with being Evangelists or evangelical ministers (See D&C 107: 39, 53)  Certainly the ancient scriptures which were at most 4,000 years removed from their time, were more plentiful to the New Testament Church than they are to us, being 6,000 years removed.  Were they attempting to duplicate the same thing which they saw in scripture?  Did they understand what Joseph understood?

If you interpret that Philip was such a great preacher that he was known as an evangelist and just happen to also be one of this group called The Seven, then I would like to ask you why, when the Apostles recognized the need for preaching among the people, did they remove one who was known as such a great preacher, to instead go, 'wait on tables?'

Were the apostles acting out of jealousy?  Seeking to put up their own authority so as to keep people from hearing the word of God, from one who was known to preach it so plainly, so boldly that he had a title affixed to his name of PREACHER?

Or as common sense lies in the low, green valley, should we let the text inform us that these seven were now called to a position that in and of itself was what they understood to be evangelical?  That would mean that #1 they could preach the word of God, because as Paul stated to the Romans, they had been sent by God (see Romans 10:14-16); and #2 an evangelist is one who has an assigned duty to care for the poor among the people of God.

Connecting The Dots

Rightly, you may like to see some more evidence to support this line of thinking.  If the 7 High Priests that were called together by Adam, three years prior to his death, were the original priests after this (evangelical/patriarchal) priesthood, then we begin to get a glimpse of what Abraham was after when reading his account in the Book of Abraham.  

Abraham living on the other side of the flood from these original priestly fathers, and as a result he grew up in a world of apostasy.  He desired to reach back to the rights of that generation so that he, -like them- could continue this same priesthood lineage that had been promised by God to Adam, through his posterity.  This is what we find in the revelation that Joseph gave regarding The Book of Abraham, that has been so widely rejected as of late, by many.  

Abraham said, "finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right where unto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the first born, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.  I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.  

As many as the sand on the seashore?

A father of many nations.  Why that is a very similar expression to the one promised by Adam to Seth that we read earlier.  If Seth is promised that his seed shall last to the end of the earth, then certainly that will encompass many nations.  Yet, beyond the confines of this mortal realm, I get the feeling that the many nations being expressed here has more celestial boundaries.

Abraham wanted to be one of these fathers that he read about, but which are not available to him for some reason.  So he saw that he had to find a new residence so as to make that connection with the fathers possible.

Which is what he did next.  He set out, following the voice of God that the Lord would fulfill to him this desire to be a greater follower of righteousness.  On his journey he seeks out a man known to us as Melchizedek.

The bible doesn't contain much of the proceedings of that meeting, only that we know Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.  Joseph though, after the experience with Liberty Jail felt it necessary to reveal a portion of the rest of the story:

JST Genesis 14: 36-38 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.  And he lifted up his voice, and he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, (being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God; him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.)

Now, most of Historic Christianity either has no idea who Melchizedek was, or they accept that Melchizedek was Shem.  Among Latter-Day Saints, there is dispute.  I believe Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.  Having lived 98 years on the other side of the flood, Shem would have been acquainted with these fathers that Abraham wanted to be associated with.  Which is why Abraham looks him up.

Shem/Melchizedek having this connection from the fathers through his father Noah, (the son of Lamech discussed above, see D&C 84:14)  was the last remaining of the group, known as the father's, on the earth.  This is why Abraham can state that he received the rights conferred to the fathers -by God- from the fathers.

He was not posing.  He was not feigning.  He was not claiming something about which he had no knowledge.  He sought out the fathers and received his rightful appointment to that order of the priesthood.

What I find indicative is that Melchizedek, being one of the fathers, was in charge of the storehouse of God, in behalf of the poor.  Because of this, Abraham saw it proper to pay tithes to him.  Furthermore he was called the king of heaven, BY HIS PEOPLE.  You would think that such a title would need to come from God.  Yet it his people that we find laying on him this title.

But why king?  A king is one who governs.  But if Melchizedek and his people were taken into heaven, then shouldn't their king be The King of Heaven?  Why are they not condemned for the same idolatry later exhibited by the Israelites in the time of Samuel?

What is peace?  What makes peace?  Is it that they were able to have no poor among them?  Does this only mean poor in the sense of temporal things or does this mean poor in righteousness as well?
I am persuaded to believe that Melchizedek's being called the King of Heaven has more to do with those things than an idea that he is some ruler to whom his people bowed and gave obeisance by rule of a monarch.

In other words it was by the voice of the people in the days of Melchizedek that he was called king and this because he was able to justly have no poor among them.  This because of the way in which he administered the storehouse of God, the tithes for the poor,  It just so happens that this is the same pattern we find being emulated by the New Testament church in Acts chapter 6.

I was going to use a picture of Joel Osteen ™ but figured I'd
probably get sued...so here's this 'evangelical' ministry.

 Evangelical Ministry

I have demonstrated that Philip became an evangelist to the church, when he became part of 'The Seven' chosen by the people.  Let each find it as persuasive as she chooses.  I have demonstrated that the duty of an evangelist is to take care of the poor by assignment.  Let each find it as persuasive as he chooses.

What I have not yet done is demonstrate why they chose a name for that office that has as its root definition: preaching.  For this let us go back to what I had quoted from Joseph when he was in council with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.   

Remember that in that discourse Joseph had brought up election.  In that he declared that it was possible to elicit from God a promise, "son, thou shalt be exalted.  When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazard. then the man will find his calling & Election made sure..."

Among Latter-Day Saints, it has been assumed by many that this would be the end-all, be-all.  Rather, from Joseph it seems to be far from the end.  After hearing this promise from God, "then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the saints as is recorded in the testimony of St John in the 14th chapter from the 12th to the 27 verses :

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses. 

(16.vs) ...I will pray the father & he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; 

(17) Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you & shall be in you. 

(18) I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you 

(21) He that hath my commandments & keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. & he that loveth me shall be loved of my father & I will love him & will manifest myself to him 

(23) If a man Love me he will keep my words. & my Father will love him. & we will come unto him, & make our abode with him.

¶ Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more or less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself & this is the sum & substance of the whole matter, that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time." 

So receiving Calling and Election, is not the same as seeing, and meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ.  Rather that meeting is after the promise, as sequences go.  However, there is yet more.

"even [Jesus, our Lord] will manifest the Father unto him & they will take up their abode with him, & the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him & the Lord will teach him face to face & he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, & this is the state & place the Ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious vision Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St Paul in the third heavens, & all the Saints who held communion with the general Assembly &Church of the First Born &c."

Calling and Election made sure, receiving our Lord, being introduced to the Father by our Lord.  Three degrees, Three heavens, and it is tied in with St. Paul's description of something referred to as the Third Heavens.  It has something to do with the General Assembly and Church of the First Born which is said to inhabit the Celestial world described by Joseph in Doctrine and Covenants 76.

Do you see something important to our discussion in that last quote, though?

Lets look at something related to that first and then come back to that.  Paul said, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?  And how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent?  As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

In the same discourse we have been discussing, Joseph stated, "Faith comes by hearing the word of God through the testimony of the Servants of God, that Testimony is always attended by the Spirit of prophecy & Revelation."

Can a man call upon himself to be sent?  Can a group of people confer upon a man that he will always be attended by prophecy and revelation?  Do you think that being taught by the Lord face-to-face and having a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God would be at all involved with this?  Would this make a person full of the Holy Ghost and of Wisdom?  How can we know that one is full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom?  Does prophecy and revelation have anything to do with that?

Modern Application

Before The Church of Christ (the original name of the Church) was organized, there were already missionaries going out and preaching the gospel.  Hyrum Smith, -Joseph's brother- wanted to know if this is what the Lord would have him do.  Instead of the preaching, the Lord exhorts Hyrum to first obtain His Word.  He was told that after that, he would then have his tongue loosed, then he could have the Lord's Spirit, even the Power of God unto the convincing of men.  

Hyrum didn't go out on a mission.  He faithfully served the Lord by attending to the needs of the church, those of his younger brother and applied himself to learn the Lord's will.  In January of 1841, the office of priesthood AND PATRIARCH was given to Hyrum.  Even the Sealing Power about which the Lord had stated only one could hold on the earth at a time, was given to Hyrum.  (see D&C 124:91-96)  He was to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, as Joseph was!

After his decease, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continued the practice as commanded by revelation, of conferring this priesthood from son to son, in each subsequent generation down from Hyrum; that is until 2013, when the final descendant to hold that office (Eldred G. Smith) from Joseph Smith Sr. (the original holder of that office) passed away, and those who had been commissioned to fill the office, refused to do so.  

The Lord declared that after having 'obtained' His word, then a person would be duly enabled and authorized to declare His word.  Whatever you might interpret to be contained in this word 'obtained' used by the Lord, you have to concede that this is what Paul had reference to when he said that in order for people to believe, they needed to hear the word of God from a preacher who was 'sent.'  

These evangelists, were precisely what was being described by both Paul and Joseph.  Having obtained the Word of God, they could preach to others about how to do so for themselves.  And following the truth ascribed to have fallen from the mouth of St. Francis of Assisi: they preached the Gospel at all times, and sometimes they even used their words.

The widow throwing her two mites into the storehouse of God

  Conclusion

I have attempted to teach -according to my understanding- what an Evangelist is.  This is according to the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the Holy Scriptures.  Being that I am not sent by God to preach to you as were those who have obtained the Word of God for themselves, I can only leave you with what I believe and you get to choose how persuasive you find it to be.  I do not have the power to convince men, other than by that persuasion.  Sometimes persuasion is enough.

To all the world, I ask: Where are your Evangelists?  Where are your Patriarchs?  Where is your priesthood passed down from The Fathers to the Children after the Order of the Son of God?

To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I ask: Where are our Patriarchs possessing the Priesthood of the Patriarchs, passed down from Father to Son?  Lets read D&C 107:40, and then kindly teach me where that order that God established exists among us.  

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

For a time we maintained this.  It was had in the form of the descendants of Joseph Sr., through Hyrum.  Whenever there was one not able to fill the responsibility the next closest kin would fill in, but it was always maintained.  

This has now been discontinued in the fourth descendant from Hyrum.  (John Smith, Hyrum F. Smith, Hyrum G. Smith, Eldred G. Smith)

An Evangelist is a Patriarch... Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints...

We have maintained the office of Patriarch, but we have not maintained it from father to son as it was confirmed to be so.  

That priesthood was given to Hyrum.  Hyrum and Joseph were to share the gifts accepted by the church of prophesy, seership, and revelation.  However no such mention of sharing is made, and indeed per the conditions set forth in D&C 132:7 such a mention can not be made regarding the office of priesthood that Hyrum received, because only one could posses that office at a time on the earth anyway.

It could be claimed that D&C 132:7 flat out states that Joseph is the one that possesses this power, and being that D&C 132 wasn't transcribed until 1843 it seems to show that this power was still being held by Joseph as of 1843, which is after the revelation in 1841 that confers that same power on Hyrum.  

A few things that I would point out:

#1- despite being transcribed in 1843, there is no dispute now that Section 132 was actually received long before 1841.  (see the heading to Section 132)

#2- If you want to argue that the revelation states that only Joseph was the one to hold this power in the LAST DAYS, then you must ask yourself if that is the case, how would we have it now?

#3- If you want to claim that Joseph still holds the power, but that it is perpetuated by some mystical virtue of his office in the church, then we must ask, why wasn't that the case with Adam after he died?  Remember after he died it was no longer held by him but rather was held by the oldest living descendant of Adam from the chosen line: Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph.

Is there a way to reconcile this?  Only if you allow for the fact that Joseph originally held this power, and then in 1841 it was transferred to Hyrum, by the will of God and the desire of Joseph.  Remember that the Lord had stated to Joseph that he would have power to appoint another in his stead (See D&C 43:3-4).  He did that.  It was Hyrum.  

Does this have anything to do with The Fathers, mentioned in the prophecy of Malachi, reiterated by Moroni?  Perhaps the purpose of an Evangelist/Patriarch in the church is to secure the heart of The Father's to be turned to us.  Without that, we are going to be burned; left without root, nor branch.