The Prophet pt. 1 “The New and Everlasting Covenant”

I was born into the grand delusion of Mormonism.

It was very important that I was.

If I hadn’t, I would never have taken Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon seriously.

I would have wrote the whole thing off as a cult.

I left the LDS church in my teens and became an atheist. By the time I was 21, however, I began to believe in Jesus Christ, simply by reading the Gospels.

Because I found the Lord outside of the LDS corporation, I was able too look into Mormonism with an unbiased view.

I came to realize that Mormonism fulfilled many biblical passages.

One of the craziest realizations of all, was me figuring out that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Joseph Smith.

He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquity… and with his stripes we are healed.”

Many, if not all, Christians would call it blasphemy to suggest that the suffering servant is anyone other than Christ. But I am not trying to appease Christians, and I am not seeking to win Mormons over.

I’m calling things as I see them, or how they’ve been revealed to me.

Joseph Smith is an extremely important player. He is on par with Moses and Elijah.

This series will show proofs as to why I believe that Joseph Smith is who he said he was; and even more than he claimed, actually.

One thing that Joseph was… that he himself may not have even known… is this:

Joseph Smith is the embodiement of the new and everlasting covenant.

You already know that Joseph Smith holds the keys of the kingdom in this world and in the world to come (Section 90) but did you know that, he himself, is the new and everlasting covenant?

This is cryptically embedded into Section 45, but can only be understood by reading Isaiah, specifically Isaiah 42:

Behold my servant… I have put my spirit upon him… the isles shall wait for his law [law of the gospel, Section 42]”

I the LORD (Jesus) have called thee (Joseph Smith) in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.”

Now read Section 45:

9 And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me.

Section 45 refers to the everlasting covenant as a PERSON. A messenger. To prepare the way for the Lord.

Without Joseph Smith, there is no new and everlasting covenant, because he is the covenant.

When the Saints broke the new and everlasting covenant, they broke Joseph Smith. Hence, why he turned into a lying adulterer.

That’s what Sidney Rigdon understood perfectly well.

At the death of Joseph Smith, the keys of the kingdom were lost from the earth. That’s why he said there needed to be a guardian, not a new prophet. Sidney could have protetected the Saints from embracing false doctrine while they waited on Joseph Smith to return.

Even the Saints at the time understood that Joseph Smith had to return. They just put their trust into a jerk-off like Brigahm Young.

That’s what the song Praise to the Man is all about.

Millions shall know brother Joseph again… death cannot conquer the hero again…”

The grand delusion of Mormonism is that Thomas S. Monson has the same priesthood calling as Joseph Smith. Because Thomas S. Monson does not, the church is a cult that trusts in man and not God.

Does that make the LDS church any worse than a Christian church?

No – at least Brigham Young/Tommy Monson have had SOME mandated priesthood.

All Christian churches have put their trust in man. No one on earth has been truly called of God. All pastors are deceived if they honestly believe God has called them to the ministry.

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were the last true prophets. And even a true prophet like Sidney Rigdon knew the church was nothing without the new and everlasting covenant.


9 thoughts on “The Prophet pt. 1 “The New and Everlasting Covenant””

  1. Hey I enjoyed this post very much G.azelem.

    I agree that the literal, end times fulfillment of the passage in Isaiah 53 must be referring to Joseph Smith, even though Christ is a shadow fulfillment. The Book of Mormon informs us that all of Isaiah’s prophecies have a dual fulfillment.

    I love how you have addressed the topic and significance of the covenant servant by linking modern revelation and ancient prophecy. I have pondered this topic also and have vacillated on how literally I interpret it.

    Would you agree that the “everlasting covenant” that is mentioned Isaiah 24 is referring to the baptismal covenant of the gospel of Christ that makes us NEW CREATURES. It is the same covenant that was introduced in the beginning to Adam and his posterity. This New and Everlasting Covenant is also spoken of in Section 49-

    9 Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

    10 And that which I have promised I have so fulfilled, and the nations of the earth shall bow to it; and, if not of themselves, they shall come down, for that which is now exalted of itself shall be laid low of power.

    11 Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old, whose name was Peter:

    12 Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth, and is to come, the beginning and the end;

    13 Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins;

    14 And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church.

    I am wondering if the Covenant that is being mentioned in Isaiah 42 and Section 45 is exactly synomous with the the

    I have a few questions to pose.

    Is it possible that Joseph Smith was the “human covenant” that was established by God for the purposes of restoring the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism to the earth following the great apostasy?

    In other words, is it possible that the New and Everlasting Covenant of Baptism had to be reinstated after the grand apostasy, by and intercessory covenant servant, possibly making a distinction between God’s gospel covenant and his end times covenant servant who delivers and restored the ancient covenant?

    Just as we distinguish Moses the Lawgiver from the LAW is it possible that one could differentiate Joseph the restorer of the Everlasting Covenant from the Everlasting Covenant?

    It may be that this is just all semantics.

    Similarly, I find it interesting how the JST changes the KJV with regard to Jesus being the word, vs to being the preacher of the word. John 1:1


    In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God


    In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word and the word was with the Son and the Son was with God and the Son was of God.

    What think ye?


    1. Watcher,

      You bring up so many amazing points that get into some really deep theology. I know exactly what you’re inferring.

      If Joseph Smith was the new and everlasting covenant, that means he is also the Gospel, because the Gospel is the new and everlasting covenant, which is what makes men into new creatures; it’s the power to become the sons of God!!!!

      Joseph Smith was in the beginning. He was the gospel, the witness of the Son, with authority to baptize people with fire.

      Isaiah 55: “I will make an everlasting covenant with you… Behold I have given him for a WITNESS to the people.”

      Yet even with those important remarks made about Joseph, Jesus still remains the Word, even in the JST. Verse 16: “For in the beginning was the Word, even the Son, who is made flesh.”

      The Son is of God the same way the Gospel is of God, the same way all of his true followers BECOME of God when they become new creatures in Christ.

      The difference between the ancient covenant and the new and everlasting covenant, in my opinion, is that the new and everlasting covenant = celestial kingdom, while the ancient covenant is the equivalent of the terrestial salvation.

      I like simplifying things best i can, so that’s how I dig that. All true Jews are heirs of terrestrial salvation.

      Those that accept the new and everlasting covenant, Joseph Smith, will be given the Melchizidek priesthood to receive a full baptism of fire.

      Though a few individuals did receive the baptism of fire during Joseph’s second watch ministry, it is mainly his third watch ministry where Christ’s followers will finally be restored from their lost and fallen state.

      In Isaiah 49, “I will perserve thee (Joseph in death) and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inheirit the desolate heritages.”

      We know that when Zion is redeemed, we will be building up the waste places. That’s what that verse is referring to.

      Thanks for visiting!



  2. I think the thing that will be difficult for most to accept is that if Joseph Smith was indeed that prominent and given for a covenant – then how could he knowingly commit whoredoms and get involved in ancient, babylonian mystery school rituals? I realize this is part of the Atonement Statute idea. I just think the LDS mindset of what they view as a prophet being pure and holy and never doing anything untowards keeps people from believing this. Snuffer believes anyone who accuses Joseph of adultery is speaking evil of the Lord’s annointed.


    1. Yes Snuffer does say it is a major doo-doo to accuse Joseph Smith as falling from his position.

      That’s why he has ppl following him. It’s the thing they want to hear.

      The revelations are clear that Joseph would stop abiding in the Lord.

      It wasn’t as bad as the story books say, but he did fall into sin. He either repented in his last days or went through hell. We are all sinners and no different than him.

      He will be redeemed and I pray I am as well. With the fullness of the gospel we will no longer sin. We just need to learn to fully repent in order to finally rend that veil of unbelief that keeps us under the bondage of sin.

      The Lord is preparing us.

      The atonement statute is one part of the picture. But the first thing anyone needs to realize is that Joseph fell from grace. Polygamy, masonry, council of 50 — all that was not of God.

      Once people get that far, then we can talk about the atonement statute.



  3. Is it possible, just possible, that Joseph didn’t commit lies and whoredoms?

    The LDS church has admitted (quietly in the essays) that Joseph took other wives and kept them secret from Emma. They “admit” Joseph taught one thing in public (monogamy) and practiced something opposite in private.

    We know that the church has changed many things (including canonized scripture) to fit their own narrative and agenda. Why does anyone believe this new story is true?

    Is it possible that there is yet another version, where Brother Joseph lived and taught that marriage should be between one man and one women? That he is innocent of these false accusations?

    I don’t believe that he was perfect. There is a clear pattern to the rise and fall of revelations that show his connection to heaven was closing. But we know very little (with definitive proof) about what he actually did. All of the accounts I have read were written in 3rd person, YEARS after the fact, or by people in favor of that lifestyle. We know that Section 132 is false, and there is enough speculation about it’s author to cast doubt a mile wide.

    I prefer to think him innocent until that proof is provided.


    1. Hey Janae,

      Good to hear from you always.

      You said, “I don’t believe he was perfect.”

      I think he was perfect!

      Not sinless, but perfect. He was a son of God.

      No matter what he did, it was a result of the Saints, not of his own self. I think it’s gonna blow people’s minds when they realize what a great man he was when he had the spirit of God (his whole life until 1835)–

      I responded yesterday to someone in regards to whether or not he committed whoredoms. I’ve played around with this idea for months, but ultimately have come to the conclusion that it was him who began the practice of polygamy. Was it all for show, though? Did he actually not sleep with these women… We will never know the details.

      What we can know for sure is that he is coming back to redeem Zion!!!!

      Here’s my response to someone who believes Joseph to be innocent:

      “I have studied mormon history seriously for four years and have certainly read Joseph Fought Polygamy by the Price’s. At one point I did believe that Joseph was completely innocent.

      I now believe that he simply had his eyes covered due to the iniquity of the people.

      I believe the testimony of William Marks, that he confessed to his crimes of polygamy and repented. That’s why he stopped taking wives during the last six months of his life.

      When he repented, there was a secret combination to overthrow him. Satan wanted polygamy to continue.

      The perspective that Joseph Smith was [completely] innocent of polygamy is frankly quite ridiculous.

      Why did William Law, Sidney Rigdon, and William Marks say he practiced polygamy when they had nothing to do with it??? They were in on it, too??? Why??? the polygamy revelation was read to the high council by Hyrum and Joseph and was rejected by Austin Cowles and Leonard Soby– what about them, were they in on it too??

      The curious thing about William Law is that he acknowledged Joseph received a revelation on polygamy, but that that revelation Joseph received is NOT what is Section 132.

      Joseph had a hand in the polygamy thing.

      but it was not his fault.

      Ezekiel 12 says that when people go to a prophet for questions, the Lord answered according the idols in their hearts. If the people wanted a license to commit whoredoms, the prophet must give it to them. That’s the biblical truth of prophets.”



  4. I 100% agree that everything that transpired was a result of what the people wanted. Section 132 starts off with “In as much as you have inquired…” or in other words “In answer to your question…”

    The people wanted polygamy. They were petitioning the Lord for it.

    But. Knowing that others lied about Joseph’s actions, and falsified documents seem to be everywhere, what is there to gain by condemning Joseph on so much circumstantial evidence?

    Mostly, I think there are too many doubts to state definitively.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s