Good book on Mormonism?

[majick275]

The section of the original D&C in question was written at a time when polygamy was not practiced. Read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon to see what the LDS doctrine about polygamy is, and always has been.

that is not correct. from 1835 to 1876 the Doctrine & Covenants section 101 stated that: “Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

during that same time period polygamy was not only being practiced but being openly promoted as essential to exaltation. Jacob 2:30 prohibits polygamy and only an extreme twisting of its wording can justify situational polygamy. actual practice by the LDS church as well as the direction provided by LDs leadership in general conference during those times indicates an extreme contradiction with both of those scriptures. interestingly enough it is the later edition in which section 132 (still canonized today) that indicates that is an essential doctrine. this seemingly contradicts jacob 2 in that it establishes polygamy as the “rule” which was originally planned for man and will exist in the celestial kingdom. Jacob on the hand states monogamy as the rule and only through some creative interpretation allows a possible exception for the sole purpose of procreation.

the position of the LDs position on polygamy (as well as a number of other things) is one that changes.

 

[BDawg]

that is not correct. from 1835 to 1876 the Doctrine & Covenants section 101 stated that: “Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

Hi Majick,

I said “when it was written” polygamy was not being practiced.

during that same time period polygamy was not only being practiced but being openly promoted as essential to exaltation. Jacob 2:30 prohibits polygamy and only an extreme twisting of its wording can justify situational polygamy.

I disagree. It seems like a very straightforward interpretation: polygamy is outlawed except when God commands otherwise. It specifically says that.

actual practice by the LDS church as well as the direction provided by LDs leadership in general conference during those times indicates an extreme contradiction with both of those scriptures. interestingly enough it is the later edition in which section 132 (still canonized today) that indicates that is an essential doctrine. this seemingly contradicts jacob 2 in that it establishes polygamy as the “rule” which was originally planned for man and will exist in the celestial kingdom. Jacob on the hand states monogamy as the rule and only through some creative interpretation allows a possible exception for the sole purpose of procreation.

It’s easy enough to harmonize all that.

1. At the time the declaration on marriage was written, the Church was not practicing polygamy, and did not teach that anyone should. It was an accurate statement.
2. Later, God commanded the practice.
3. Some LDS leaders were quite adamant about it, and preached it was necessary for exaltation. Well, if God commanded it, then you can’t go around rejecting God’s commandments whenever it suits you and expect to get a full reward, can you?
4. They removed that section of the D&C, because it no longer accurately reflected Church policy and teaching. But since the Book of Mormon said that God could sometimes command polygamy, what’s the big deal?
5. Jacob 2:30 does say that God might command polygamy “to raise up seed unto him.” And monogamy HAS been the rule among God’s people most of the time, because God hasn’t normally “commanded” it. So what?

the position of the LDs position on polygamy (as well as a number of other things) is one that changes

That’s true to some extent. We don’t believe in prophetic/scriptural infallibility, after all, and we do believe in “continuing revelation.” I just object when people try to exaggerate the degree to which we have changed.

 

[BDawg]

I was under the impression that you claimed that LDS scripture had been changed to fit a situation. Merely pointing out differences between the Book of Mormon and the D&C does not equate to that.

tortdog,

I’m a Mormon, too.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**BDAWG: **Abanes was clearly trying to dig out everything he could to put Mormonism in a bad light.
**RA: **Untrue. The contents of the book were VERY well summarized in a review of ONUG by Library Review, which stated: " In the process, he has created a chronological account of Mormonism that includes many things often intentionally suppressed by leaders of the Latter-day Saints (LDS). . . . He makes use of private journals and secular articles of the times as well as a wide range of scholarly writings. The resulting book gives a piercing historical overview of Mormon teachings and development.

BDAWG: But he didn’t come up with anything new–anti-Mormon authors had been screeching about that particular quotation for decades.
RA: No one, least of all me, has EVER said I found anything new. Another review summed this issue up well, saying: “There are many valid criticisms which have been leveled against Abanes’ book. One is that there is “nothing new” in it and that he is just recycling the same accusations which have been raised in the past. This is largely true - Abanes does not provide us with any radical new findings about Mormonism or new, creative arguments about the nature of Mormon beliefs.What he does do, however, is collect together valid and important critiques and questions into a single volume - and that in itself is a worthy accomplishment.”

**BDAWG: ** So even if he were approaching the subject from a particular point of view, a responsible “journalist” would ask himself, “How do the Mormons typically answer this objection?” And he would have easily found these Biblical passages quoted by any number of LDS authors.
RA: You are not talking here about ONUG, which is a historical book – not a doctrinal book. What you just mentioned is EXACTLY what I do in my doctrinal volume on the LDS Church tite "Inside Today’s Mormonism, which I previously mentioned in the thread.

**BDAWG: **What would a responsible journalist do at that point? One of two things. If he were a little bit stupid, though still honest, he would have reported what the Mormons had to say in response.
**RA: **As just noted, ONUG is NOT a doctrinal book. Moreover, exactly how long do you want ONUG to be 2,000 pages? It already weighs in at 651 pages – that is the absolute edge of how long a popular-level non-fiction should go (if not beyond). And when possible and needed, I gave the Mormon side of things. You write your books, I’ll right mine.

**BDAWG: **If he were both intelligent and honest, he would have said to himself, “Gee, it doesn’t make sense for Christians to object about Mormons thinking that judgment of certain groups would be given to their prophets and Apostles, when Jesus clearly said the Apostles would be given judgment of certain groups. Maybe I should just drop that line of argument, and focus on substantive issues.”
**RA: **That would be a a book in defense of Mormonism. Feel free to go write it.

BDAWG: But Abanes didn’t do that, because he isn’t very intelligent or honest.
**RA: **Darn.

tortdog: [one example would be the D&C that has JS words denouncing polygamy and stating that LDS did not practice that (even though they did at the time). this was later removed by a different “prophet”.] Any cites or references to this assertion?
**RA: **This is a reference I believe that majick is making MIGHT be to when Smith and certain high-ranking Saints were practicing polygamy in secret, while lying – yes, I said, deliberately, lying – about it not only to the general public but also the Mormon community. LONG before the polygamy revelation (D&C 132) was released to the LDS general public, Smith and others brought it into the church, practiced it secretly, and lied publicly about it when defectors said that it was being done. Please see my paperback version of One Nation Under Gods – Chapter 13, “Unholy Matrimony.” It’s documented.

FLAME: Smith was a very complex character and Richard’s sole intention was to paint him and other LDS characters exclusively in the blackest of all possible terms.
RA: IMHO, Joseph Smith wrote his own pages in history. He was a remarkable man with remarkabale talents that lived a very fascinating life plagued by some rather ducious deeds before and after his rise to Mormon Prophet. The material is there for all to read and decide for themselves.

FLAME: I do not want to give the impression that I think most of the quotations and so on in Abanes’s book are false, or anything like that. (Some are doctored, but most probably aren’t.)
**RA: **Just FYI, NONE are doctored. The most extensive review has been by FAIR, which lists 27 so-called errors-mistakes. I will haev a complete rebuttle soon. I’ll let you know when it’s up. You can decide for yourself.

RA

 

[flameburns623]

FLAME: I do not want to give the impression that I think most of the quotations and so on in Abanes’s book are false, or anything like that. (Some are doctored, but most probably aren’t.)
**RA: **Just FYI, NONE are doctored. The most extensive review has been by FAIR, which lists 27 so-called errors-mistakes. I will have a complete rebuttal soon. I’ll let you know when it’s up. You can decide for yourself.

Head’s up: you ‘quoted’ me when in fact that citation was from BDawg. The colorized portion of my response caused the quotation option to malfunction. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Head’s up: you ‘quoted’ me when in fact that citation was from BDawg. The colorized portion of my response caused the quotation option to malfunction. Sorry for any confusion.

Oooohhhh, kk. so ALL of that is BDAWG?

RA

 

[flameburns623]

Oooohhhh, kk. so ALL of that is BDAWG?

RA

Here’s how it should have broken down:

flameburns623:

Smith was a very complex character and Richard’s sole intention was to paint him and other LDS characters exclusively in the blackest of all possible terms.

BDawg:

I do not want to give the impression that I think most of the quotations and so on in Abanes’s book are false, or anything like that. (Some are doctored, but most probably aren’t.)

BDawg:
***Would you agree with that assessment? ***

flameburns623:

Pretty much.

Let’s see if Richard weighs in and blasts me outta the water.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Majick,

I said “when it was written” polygamy was not being practiced.

It was. JS married Fanny Alger, his 16 year old live-in housekeeper c.1835. In 1838 Emma Smith kicked her out of their home. Fanny moved to Indiana. Later, BY asked her to marry him. She declined, later married another man, and left the Mormon Church.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am sure it does; as much as the Catholic belief (or joke) of Peter at the pearly gate does.

Where does it come from then? It sounds like good doctrine to me. Didn’t Jesus promise his Apostles that they should “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”? (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30.) And didn’t Paul say that “the saints shall judge the world”? (1 Cor. 6:2.) If they are going to judge them, then they will be deciding who will go to heaven and who won’t, right? So if Peter, the Apostles, and even the Saints can do it, can you tell me a good reason why Joseph Smith Can’t?

zerinus

I don’t take it to mean that “judging” in these cases means the Apostles or saints will be deciding who goes to heaven or hell. That is up to God alone. Frankly, I’m not sure how these verses will play out in the end, but there is no Catholic teaching that says saints or anyone else will be deciding who goes to heaven or hell. And since they aren’t going to be doing it, I certainly don’t think Joseph Smith will have anything to do with it either.

Plus, again, even if someone were promoted to a position like that by God, would it really be Joseph Smith? This goes to becoming aware of his character, teachings, and actions while he was alive.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hi Brennan,

What do you think of the Bible passages Z referenced? Jesus clearly said the Twelve Apostles would judge the 12 Tribes of Israel. Given that, why would it be so weird for Mormons like Brigham Young to have believed that Christ would have Joseph Smith (who was an Apostle, in our view) judge the people of his time?

This is one reason why I don’t think much of Abanes’s book, or your judgment about literature on Mormonism, frankly. Abanes was clearly trying to dig out everything he could to put Mormonism in a bad light. But he didn’t come up with anything new–anti-Mormon authors had been screeching about that particular quotation for decades. So even if he were approaching the subject from a particular point of view, a responsible “journalist” would ask himself, “How do the Mormons typically answer this objection?” And he would have easily found these Biblical passages quoted by any number of LDS authors.

What would a responsible journalist do at that point? One of two things. If he were a little bit stupid, though still honest, he would have reported what the Mormons had to say in response. If he were both intelligent and honest, he would have said to himself, “Gee, it doesn’t make sense for Christians to object about Mormons thinking that judgment of certain groups would be given to their prophets and Apostles, when Jesus clearly said the Apostles would be given judgment of certain groups. Maybe I should just drop that line of argument, and focus on substantive issues.”

But Abanes didn’t do that, because he isn’t very intelligent or honest.

Now what about you, Brennan? I know nothing about you, except what you have posted on this thread. Does it really bother you that Brigham Young thought JS would be given judgment over those who lived in his time? Is that really a substantive issue? Or are you just another person who wants to come up with whatever ammo you can against another group, paying little attention to fairness in argumentation?

Hi BDawg,

See my above post for what I think about the verses regarding judging.

The primary thing that bothers me about Brigham Young’s statement or anyone considering Joseph Smith a true prophet is that they are ultimately banking their soul on the idea. Because Mormonism really stands or falls on the testimony of Joseph Smith. Thus, again, this goes to Joseph Smith’s actions, teachings, and character as he is the one who said he saw the visions of the Father and the Son.

The book was primarily focused on history, not doctrinal arguments. Now if Richard Abanes did things like used source material poorly then I will pay attention to that of course. That we are spending so much time on what I regard as a minor quibble tells me that there must not be any real factual mistakes Richard Abanes has made otherwise they would be brought up.

Having read ONUG and some of his posts the idea that Richard Abanes isn’t intelligent is a joke. I don’t think you can write a book like ONUG without being intelligent. Further, his responses here have made perfect sense. And I don’t think there is any basis for saying he is not honest.

 

[tortdog]

tortdog,

I’m a Mormon, too.

Well, my question remains. I guess I am unaware of this changed scripture. Anything to point me to?

 

[zerinus]

I don’t take it to mean that “judging” in these cases means the Apostles or saints will be deciding who goes to heaven or hell. That is up to God alone. Frankly, I’m not sure how these verses will play out in the end, . . .

I am, because the scriptures tell us. They tell us, firstly, that everyone will be judged “according to their works,” and they will end up in heaven or in hell depending on how their judgment goes:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

So it is the judgment that decides who will go to hell and who will go to heaven. And the Lord has further revealed that God will not Himself in person sit in judgment on everyone; but judgment is given “to the Saints”:

Daniel 7:

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

So it is the “judges” who decide who goes to heaven or hell; and the judges are the prophets, Apostles, and Saints.

. . . but there is no Catholic teaching that says saints or anyone else will be deciding who goes to heaven or hell. And since they aren’t going to be doing it, I certainly don’t think Joseph Smith will have anything to do with it either.

In that case then there is something wrong with Catholic teaching, because it is not in agreement with biblical teaching.

Plus, again, even if someone were promoted to a position like that by God, would it really be Joseph Smith? This goes to becoming aware of his character, teachings, and actions while he was alive.

That is a different question entirely. If you have a problem with the character Joseph Smith, that is the subject of a different discussion. Don’t try to change the subject when you find that you are losing the argument. The answer to your original question is that Peter could be standing at the Pearly Gate (figuratively speaking) and deciding who goes to heaven and who doesn’t; and so could potentially be Joseph Smith, assuming that he is a true prophet and Apostle, like Peter was. So that side of your argument against Joseph Smith (or Brigham Young) does not hold. You will have to think of a different one.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Hi Majick,

I said “when it was written” polygamy was not being practiced.

so canonized scripture can be “outdated” yet left in the canon? and I am not convinced that polygamy wasn’t already being practiced by JS then anyway. (fanny alger in 1833)

I disagree. It seems like a very straightforward interpretation: polygamy is outlawed except when God commands otherwise. It specifically says that.

no it doesn’t. it says:
(Jacob 2)
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be bone wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

It’s easy enough to harmonize all that.

1. At the time the declaration on marriage was written, the Church was not practicing polygamy, and did not teach that anyone should. It was an accurate statement.

not exactly and why then wouldn’t scriptures be “updated”? there is a big difference (even taking your stance on Jacob 2) between the original BoM teaching and the subsequent teachings of BY, John Taylor, etc. they didn’t teach polygamy as a temporary exception, they taught it as essential. current section 132 seems to back them up.

1. Later, God commanded the practice.

so JS claimed.

3

. Some LDS leaders were quite adamant about it, and preached it was necessary for exaltation. Well, if God commanded it, then you can’t go around rejecting God’s commandments whenever it suits you and expect to get a full reward, can you?

they went into much greater detail than that and taught that it was the norm.

1. They removed that section of the D&C, because it no longer accurately reflected Church policy and teaching. But since the Book of Mormon said that God could sometimes command polygamy, what’s the big deal?

i still disagree with you on that. and if they thought it necessary to remove that section then why leave in 132 today? we are back to my original contention that mormon canonized scripture changes in doctrinally significant ways.

1. Jacob 2:30 does say that God might command polygamy “to raise up seed unto him.” And monogamy HAS been the rule among God’s people most of the time, because God hasn’t normally “commanded” it. So what?

because BY taught the opposite of that. see above for my comments on jacob 2

That’s true to some extent. We don’t believe in prophetic/scriptural infallibility, after all, and we do believe in “continuing revelation.” I just object when people try to exaggerate the degree to which we have changed.

i think the change significant. if you don’t believe in prophetic/scriptural infallibility then why “living prophets”? you are telling us that even when these “prophets” have their “revelations” CANONIZED that those scriptures can be wrong! Yet you want to claim that as the advantage of living prophets? (that they can later correct those mistakes) how do we know that what they have added or removed isn’t the mistake? you apper to be on very unstable ground there.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I am, because the scriptures tell us. They tell us, firstly, that everyone will be judged “according to their works,” and they will end up in heaven or in hell depending on how their judgment goes:

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
So it is the judgment that decides who will go to hell and who will go to heaven. And the Lord has further revealed that God will not Himself in person sit in judgment on everyone; but judgment is given “to the Saints”:

Daniel 7:

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
So it is the “judges” who decide who goes to heaven or hell; and the judges are the prophets, Apostles, and Saints.

In that case then there is something wrong with Catholic teaching, because it is not in agreement with biblical teaching.

That is a different question entirely. If you have a problem with the character Joseph Smith, that is the subject of a different discussion. Don’t try to change the subject when you find that you are losing the argument. The answer to your original question is that Peter could be standing at the Pearly Gate (figuratively speaking) and deciding who goes to heaven and who doesn’t; and so could potentially be Joseph Smith, assuming that he is a true prophet and Apostle, like Peter was. So that side of your argument against Joseph Smith (or Brigham Young) does not hold. You will have to think of a different one.

zerinus

Well, I suppose it is nice that you are supremely confident in your own personal interpretation of scripture . However, as far as I know, the idea that anyone other than God will decide who goes to heaven or hell is not particularly scriptural (though I understand where you are coming from). Nor, from what I understand, was the idea was handed down as part of Tradition from the early Church Fathers. I could be wrong on that but I have never heard of it. Hence I can understand why the Church does not teach it.

Also, the meaning of judging can be more expansive than deciding who goes to heaven or hell. I tend to think that it is the witness of the people who did follow Christ that will speak against (or judge) those who did not. So Jesus told Corazin and Bethsaida that it would go badly for them on judgment day because if the same miracles that were done in Sodom and Gommorah were done in them they would have repeneted long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Further, when people are being judged as to whether they go to heaven or hell, Jesus seems to be at the center of that. So we have Jesus addressing the sheep and the goats in the book of Revelation. Or we have Jesus telling people he had judged to depart from Him into hell (I don’t have the ability to look up the exact scripture references right now so I apologize, I hope you recognize what scriptures I am referring to.

And even in the jokes about St. Peter it seems as if he is checking a list (the Lamb’s Book of Life, perhaps) to see who gets in and not passing judgment himself.

God bless.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**POLYGAMY
**

I think it’s important to get something straight when it comes to polygamy, Joseph Smith, it’s introduction in practice (secretly), and its introduction publicly (to non-Mormons and LDS community at large).

Smith and certain high-ranking Saints were practicing polygamy in secret as early as 1832/1833 with Smith’s taking of 16-year-old Fanny Alger as his first polygamous relationship.

He took her by approaching her uncle, Levi Hancock, and offering him a bargain. If Hancock could convince Fanny to join herself to him, then Smith would allow Hancock and his sweetheart, Clarissa Reed, to marry. Hancock succeeded in convincing his niece of Joseph’s offer, and in a secret ceremony married Smith and Alger were wed. Then Smith had Fanny move with him and his wife under the pretense of Fanny being a maid-servant and an adopted daughter. She got kicked out of the house when Emma caught them…well…in the barn.

This was the beginning.

As polygamy continued with Joseph and other high-ranking members who the Lord called into polygamy, former members defected and told the public what was going on. But Smith and the other leaders lied blatantly – yes, I said, deliberately, lied – about it. They lied not only to the general public, but also the Mormon community.

As the years went by, Smith took more and more wives (the youngest being 14-years-old). Finally, Smith received a “revelation” wherein God commanded polygamy and basically told Emma’s wife to shut up and stop complaining – i.e., Doctrine and Covenants 132. But even this revelation was kept secret until 1852, while LDS leaders continued to publicly lie about it to the world.

To keep things quiet, church leaders actually set up a place in Iowa (about a dozen miles or so from where the Mormons lived in Nauvoo), where impregnated plural wives were sent to be shielded from inquisitive non-Mormons. It’s really kind of a sordid tale that gets even more offensive as you look at the wife-swapping and other things that went on, like marrying sisters, and mother/daughter pairs… (no comment).

RA

 

[Mike_Reed]

The best book on Joseph Smith’s polygamous practices *by far *is Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.” Very balanced (in my view) and extremely thorough. Interestingly enough, Todd Compton remains a believer. Another good book about Mormon polygamy in general is Richard Van Wagoner’s “Mormon Polygamy: A History.”

Unfortunately, several Mormon critics, for sensational purposes, have been too selective in their quoting Todd Compton’s “Sacred Lonliness.” The following link gives Todd Compton’s reaction to this kind of unballanced approach to Mormon history: geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html

 

[Richard_Abanes]

The best book on Joseph Smith’s polygamous practices *by far *is Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.” Very balanced (in my view) and extremely thorough. Interestingly enough, Todd Compton remains a believer. Another good book about Mormon polygamy in general is Richard Van Wagoner’s “Mormon Polygamy: A History.”

I agree. These are two excellent books.

RA

 

[zerinus]

Well, I suppose it is nice that you are supremely confident in your own personal interpretation of scripture . However, as far as I know, the idea that anyone other than God will decide who goes to heaven or hell is not particularly scriptural (though I understand where you are coming from). Nor, from what I understand, was the idea was handed down as part of Tradition from the early Church Fathers. I could be wrong on that but I have never heard of it. Hence I can understand why the Church does not teach it.

Maybe the reason why I am so confident is because I have more of it than you do. I know something that you don’t. Modern LDS scripture has something to say about that. When Jesus visited the Book of Mormon people after His resurrection, he ordained twelve ministers to minister among those people (like the Twelve whom He chose in Palestine); and the Book of Mormon tells us that they will judge that branch of the house of Israel; and they in turn will be judged by the Twelve whom Jesus chose in Palestine:

1 Nephi 12:

9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

And the judgment with which they will judge will be the Lord’s judgment; therefore no one needs fear that their judgments will be unjust:

3 Nephi 27:

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

And in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has revealed that the Twelve Apostles whom He called during His ministry will indeed judge the twelve tribes of Israel—but only the righteous among them! We all have to be judged, the righteous and the wicked. The original Twelve Apostles will only judge the righteous, and they in turn will be appointed to judge the rest:

D&C 29:

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

And furthermore, the Lord has revealed that the faithful Latter-day Saints will be appointed to judge the wicked of this generation—just as Paul, Daniel, and other biblical prophets and Apostles testified that they should:

D&C 75:

19 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house.

20 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.

21 And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them;

22 And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and ye shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.

So it does help, when you know something that somebody else doesn’t know!

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Maybe the reason why I am so confident is because I have more of it than you do. I know something that you don’t. Modern LDS scripture has something to say about that. When Jesus visited the Book of Mormon people after His resurrection, he ordained twelve ministers to minister among those people (like the Twelve whom He chose in Palestine); and the Book of Mormon tells us that they will judge that branch of the house of Israel; and they in turn will be judged by the Twelve whom Jesus chose in Palestine:

1 Nephi 12:

9 And he said unto me: Thou rememberest the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb? Behold they are they who shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, the twelve ministers of thy seed shall be judged of them; for ye are of the house of Israel.

10 And these twelve ministers whom thou beholdest shall judge thy seed. And, behold, they are righteous forever; for because of their faith in the Lamb of God their garments are made white in his blood.

And the judgment with which they will judge will be the Lord’s judgment; therefore no one needs fear that their judgments will be unjust:

3 Nephi 27:

27 And know ye that ye shall be judges of this people, according to the judgment which I shall give unto you, which shall be just. Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.

And in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord has revealed that the Twelve Apostles whom He called during His ministry will indeed judge the twelve tribes of Israel—but only the righteous among them! We all have to be judged, the righteous and the wicked. The original Twelve Apostles will only judge the righteous, and they in turn will be appointed to judge the rest:

D&C 29:

12 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, by the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else.

And furthermore, the Lord has revealed that the faithful Latter-day Saints will be appointed to judge the wicked of this generation—just as Paul, Daniel, and other biblical prophets and Apostles testified that they should:

D&C 75:

19 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you, leave your blessing upon that house.

20 And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.

21 And you shall be filled with joy and gladness; and know this, that in the day of judgment you shall be judges of that house, and condemn them;

22 And it shall be more tolerable for the heathen in the day of judgment, than for that house; therefore, gird up your loins and be faithful, and ye shall overcome all things, and be lifted up at the last day. Even so. Amen.

So it does help, when you know something that somebody else doesn’t know!

zerinus

ooh secret knowledge… The Lord didn’t reveal any of this and there is no evidence to support it. Joseph Smith made it up. Jesus called apostles in the bible and they carried on his work successfully. the church that jesus built exists today and has never died out or left the earth. repent and be baptized

 

[zerinus]

ooh secret knowledge…

Nope. Nothing secret about it at all. It is there for everyone to see.

zerinus