LDS and ancient record...

[ParkerD]

Parker,

First and foremost, the only holder of the keys was Peter, and none of the others. When Peter died, his successor took over and held the full authority of the keeper of the keys. Just as a ‘master of the house’ never gave his keys to any of his other servants, no matter how big the house was, Jesus only gave the keys of His authority to one man, Peter alone. Only one man, the chief steward, was ever given that kind of authority over the master’s house at any time. It had to be the one man that he knew he could trust with all of that responsibility. If anything went wrong in his house, there was only one man that could take responsibility for all of it, so the master didn’t have to try to figure out who was really at fault. When the chief steward died, only his successor received all of the keys to the master’s house.

As I said, there’s no such thing as ‘apostolic keys’ held by anyone but the chief ‘steward’. Even though the other appointed Apostles were given that title, I believe they were all actually eyewitnesses and followers of Jesus (Paul was a witness through actual visions). …

Telstar,

If you wish, you can present the Biblical passages that say Peter was the “chief steward” and that the other apostles didn’t have a role as having authority because they were apostles.

The Bible is clear that there is no such position as the “chief steward” in the New Testament church established by Jesus Christ. Jesus is the foundation, the rock of salvation, and the cornerstone with no need for Peter to have had the role you think he had.

Readers can read Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel, Daniel, and Malachi and will find out that the house of Israel still has an important role in the last days, and that it isn’t only the Jews–who were the house of Judah. There is a role of Ephraim described in an important way and it is being fulfilled, unbeknownst to the majority of people on earth and even unbeknownst to the majority of the Jews.

Peace to you and all.

 

[Leegal]

Leegal FYI RLDS = “Reorganized” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

1835 copy of Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101 states:
“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 case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” This was deleted from D & C 1876 edition when Section 132 was added allowing plural marriage.

Heavenly Father confused? This is SCRIPTURE TWISTING, MANIPULATION of good people in the NAME OF GOD by pompous, power-wielding, lustful “leaders”.

However, Fawn Brodie in her book “No Man Knows My History” spoke with Joseph Fielding Smith re: date of “revelation” of “doctrine” of plural marriage. He said it was revealed July 1831 but would not permit her to view it. Mormon Scholar, Michael Marquardt, learned from other Mormon scholars WHY the document had been SUPPRESSED - because the “revelation” commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a “white” and “delightsome” people. However, despite what sits in the vault at the Church historical dept. and in the Church Historical Dept., what was printed in the Ohio Star, December 8, 1831 is an eye-opener, written by Ezra Booth, published 5 months after the “revelation” was given:

 " In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should thy form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent.  It has been made know to one, who has left his wife in the state of N.Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take a wife from among the Lamanites...."

Any plural marriages involving 1 wife & multiple husbands???

Remember the GOLD STANDARD of the BIBLE: 1 Bridgegroom = Christ Jesus, 1 Bride = The Church, 1 Head = Christ Jesus, 1 Body = The Church. True Christian Marriage reflects that Bride/Bridegroom imagery - 1 man, 1 woman. Plural Marriage is shameful folly even now practiced by FLDS.

PS aren’t there over 50 breakoffs of the original LDS??? It fragmented almost from the very start and has continued to do so. (UNITY is one of the 4 Transcendentals)

Sorry – Reorganized it is. I lost the post and when I went back to retype it I typed Reconstructed. My bad.

If you believe I am advancing polygamy, you are mistaken. I just pointed this out because I found this to be an interesting part of the history of the Mormon faith – that there was this initial break. I did say somewhere that there were other schisms. No, I don’t know the number schisms. I wondered how many even knew that the Mormon Church had a break when JS died, with two claimants as his successor.

I happen to find this period in Mormon Church history – the first schism – to be particularly fascinating because it reappears during the 1980’s when the two factions vied for a number of significant Mormon documents which became the subject of two books on forgery. In competing, one of the documents assured the RLDS that JS, III was the rightful Prophet. On the other hand, it was in the interest of LDS to also get their hands on the document to keep it hidden. It was all fake and two people died as a result of this competition for documents that were forged. My fascination with the crime is to be in no way taken that I believe in polygamy at all. Nor have I ever been Mormon.

The LDS only “officially” rejected polygamy in 1890 because Congress would not admit them as a state until or unless they did. I have a secular interest in this subject, not a religious one.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Leegal

I never thought you endorsed polygamy. I just mentioned how the whole thing took a 180 turn at some point from early LDS documents later to take a dramatic u-turnl. LDS are loathe to share certain documents - I keep saying in my posts amongst the forums - things are locked up in the LDS vault & they are for a reason or it’s a different ballgame.

I bought the book on Mark _____ & how he fooled so many & people died indeed - a horrible story. He had a pretty good way of producing documents that fooled the experts. Wasn’t he selling a forged “Salamander Letter”? A tragedy all the way around.

Cora Evans, Lovely Rose of the Great Salt Lake Pray for Us

 

[TexanKnight]

Let’s see…a convicted con artist claims to have gold plates that cannot be proven because they were taken back up to heaven. They were allegedly seen by people, though they were all relatives or good friends of the man convicted of conning people. Later, one of the people, Martin Harris claims they were really only seen with their “spiritual eyes.”

It seems to be pretty far-fetched.

 

[ParkerD]

Let’s see…a “convicted con artist” …

Which goes to show how some beliefs can be traced not to the Bible and its teachings, but to the ways of humankind where “guilty until proven innocent” is the norm.

The idea “innocent until proven guilty” fortunately draws from the Bible, and Joseph Smith was not only not a “convicted con artist” but was not even close to that kind of description although sent to trial several times; however, he has been condemned by those whose heart says “guilty until proven innocent” or who listen to others so inclined, and then don’t bother to even read about his real story in an accurate historical way.

 

[RebeccaJ]

He was convicted of a misdemeanor in 1826. Glasslooking, which was a scam he had going where he said he could find buried treasure on a neighbors property using a seeing stone. After the neighbor paid him and he didn’t come up with the buried treasure, the neighbor turned him in. He was tried and convicted.

While not a legal proceeding there are also the Kinderhook plates, that shine a light on Smith’s propensity to make stuff up in the guise of giving out divine revelation via supernatural ability.

 

[TexanKnight]

Which goes to show how some beliefs can be traced not to the Bible and its teachings, but to the ways of humankind where “guilty until proven innocent” is the norm.

The idea “innocent until proven guilty” fortunately draws from the Bible, and Joseph Smith was not only not a “convicted con artist” but was not even close to that kind of description although sent to trial several times; however, he has been condemned by those whose heart says “guilty until proven innocent” or who listen to others so inclined, and then don’t bother to even read about his real story in an accurate historical way.

Actually, he was convicted of treasure hunting…which was a con. He also ran from the law several times. I have read the story. He was a con man. And, based on your responses, a very convincing one.

 

[TexanKnight]

Additionally, the peeper stone he used to find buries treasure was stolen from someone and became the alleged ummin and thumin he allegedly used to translate the book of Mormon

 

[ParkerD]

Actually, he was convicted of treasure hunting…which was a con. He also ran from the law several times. I have read the story. He was a con man. And, based on your responses, a very convincing one.

Dear TexanKnight,

I don’t personally know Joseph Smith. I do know I wouldn’t trust the legal system in 1826 in upstate New York, nor would I trust anyone who would base a remark about a person’s whole life on a misdemeanor that person had as a twenty-one year old–so, to each their own.

As far as the Book of Mormon, an accusation about Joseph Smith such as the one you presented shows all the more since I’ve read the Book of Mormon many times and am familiar with its authenticity and complexity as a text, that no country bumpkin could write such a book. Again, to each their own.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I wouldn’t use the word “rule” at all. “Bear witness of Christ”, and “see that the records pertaining to ordinances of the living and the dead are accurate” are how I would describe their function.

Again, I don’t view it as “ruling”. I view it as having received delegated authority to bind on earth what will be bound in heaven, and to** keep accurate records through delegated authority** also.

.

I don’t see any use for all this record keeping nor for the importance placed on by the LDS. What, God can’t remember this stuff and so needs a bureaucracy to keep track of it all

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t see any use for all this record keeping nor for the importance placed on by the LDS. What, God can’t remember this stuff and so needs a bureaucracy to keep track of it all

Z,

That’s an interesting question, since Moses and the children of Israel kept records including of the names of the people, and since if I’ve understood correctly (having not researched first-hand but having heard about it and knowing first-hand about records kept of christenings and marriages in the Church of England, for which I am very grateful) there are records kept about the baptisms of infant children of Catholics. I suppose you could ask those who first started those actions “what, God can’t remember this stuff?”–to each their own.

 

[mtolympus]

I am confused. The sealing in the temple for your wedding is to help you achieve exaltation. Yes?

Temple work for the dead is so the deceased have the necessary ordinances performed and are now eligible for exaltation. Yes?

If the answer to both questions is yes, why on earth would Mormons work so hard in this life when all they have to do is wait until death and a TBM will come along and do the necessary work for them?

In fact for a non-Mormon it would be quite the deal. (If Mormonism is true, which it is not)

Why on earth would we work so hard on temple work for our ancestors is a very good question! The answer is simple. We are commanded to do so.

When Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith he quoted several scriptures from the Bible about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He quoted (with some variation) the thrid and fourth chapters of Malachi. The last two verses in the Old Testament give the reason we are working so hard in the temple:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malichi 4:5-6)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z,

That’s an interesting question, since Moses and the children of Israel kept records including of the names of the people, and since if I’ve understood correctly (having not researched first-hand but having heard about it and knowing first-hand about records kept of christenings and marriages in the Church of England, for which I am very grateful) there are records kept about the baptisms of infant children of Catholics. I suppose you could ask those who first started those actions “what, God can’t remember this stuff?”–to each their own.

From the conversation you and Telstar were having it seemed you were talking about the “work” of apostles in the next life not the work they do here and now. What else is the point talking about the original 12 and your dozens of deceased apostles.

 

[Miriam1947]

**Why on earth would we work so hard on temple work for our ancestors is a very good question! The answer is simple. We are commanded to do so. **

When Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith he quoted several scriptures from the Bible about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He quoted (with some variation) the thrid and fourth chapters of Malachi. The last two verses in the Old Testament give the reason we are working so hard in the temple:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malichi 4:5-6)

If you are commanded to do temple work for your ancestors, then why do you baptize priests, John Paul II (SIX TIMES) and Jewish Holocaust victims?

 

[campeador]

Dear TexanKnight,

I don’t personally know Joseph Smith. I do know I wouldn’t trust the legal system in 1826 in upstate New York, nor would I trust anyone who would base a remark about a person’s whole life on a misdemeanor that person had as a twenty-one year old–so, to each their own.

As far as the Book of Mormon, an accusation about Joseph Smith such as the one you presented shows all the more since I’ve read the Book of Mormon many times and am familiar with its authenticity and complexity as a text, that no country bumpkin could write such a book. Again, to each their own.

Yes, by all means address the arguments that are, in your view, the easiest to defend or explain away. Well done.

Those not so easily explained away… ignore them and maybe they’ll go away:

Words of Stephen Burnett, in a letter written April 15, 1838 to Lyman E. Johnson:
I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it—loth to give it up—but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell [in] a heap of ruins.

 

[mtolympus]

If you are commanded to do temple work for your ancestors, then why do you baptize priests, John Paul II (SIX TIMES) and Jewish Holocaust victims?

I didn’t do it. Seriously, I am a strong believer of only doing temple work for those with a family connection and I believe this is Church policy. I know in the case of the Holocaust victims the LDS Church has apologised. Duplication, (which of course is a waste of time), was a serious problem before new computer programs were developed.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, by all means address the arguments that are, in your view, the easiest to defend or explain away. Well done.

Those not so easily explained away… ignore them and maybe they’ll go away:

Campeador,

I don’t read every post, but having now read that statement, here is your answer about it:

1. Of course Martin Harris would say he didn’t see the plates with his “natural eyes”. When first asked if he would be one of the Three Witnesses, he was not spiritually ready to receive the visit of the angel or to see the golden plates. This is because he was unfamiliar that one’s heart must be spiritually attuned, including be free from personal sins through having repented of any sin and through having no ulterior motives, no thought of “what the world will think” or “what my wife will think”. So he needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer.

When he did change his heart, he was then in a spiritually prepared frame of mind and heart, and would of course not say he had seen the plates with his “natural eyes” because the natural eyes have to do with “fallen man”, “carnal man”, the kind of “wisdom of men” that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2.

1. Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery both had a period of not being faithful and participating members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but neither ever denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and both came back into activity in the church and were active members of it when they passed away. David Whitmer left church activity but never denied his “witness” that the Book of Mormon was true. Anything any of them wrote about “spiritual eyes” would have to do with 1 Corinthians 2 in being able to be understood as to what the words “spiritual eyes” mean.
2. I don’t personally know Mr. Burnett, nor have any knowledge of his literary background nor how many times he had read the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

My knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and is from God is based on having read it and read the Bible many times, and having a literary background such that I am familiar with authenticity and complexity within literature, and with “truth” because of experience of having lived life and lived by principles of truth and having seen how doing so brings blessings as promised by the Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[NewSeeker]

I’ve read the Book of Mormon many times and am familiar with its authenticity and complexity as a text, that no country bumpkin could write such a book.

JS didn’t write BoM. He dictated it to scribes. All that takes is a vivid, storyteller’s imagination, which JS had in spades. That approach easily explains the BoM and is much more believable than the official story of gold plates taken into heaven by either Nephi or Moroni (it’s unclear which, JS changed his story).

 

[ParkerD]

JS didn’t write BoM. He dictated it to scribes. All that takes is a vivid, storyteller’s imagination, which JS had in spades. That approach easily explains the BoM and is much more believable than the official story of gold plates taken into heaven by either Nephi or Moroni (it’s unclear which, JS changed his story).

NewSeeker,

In the first place, a storyteller certainly tries to create believability, but that doesn’t create authenticity.

In the second place, for one to “dictate to scribes from imagination” the kind of complex story with dozens of distinctly different personalities including distinct word usage patterns and word use, even in translation, and with the kinds of foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, flashbacks, and all that with complete literary tightness, would take more than any literary genius the world has seen.

In the third place, the truths to be found in the Book of Mormon stand on their own as truth, but are authenticated by living life and practicing the living of the truths and receiving the promised blessings plus seeing those blessings in the lives of others.

 

[tskrobacz]

NewSeeker,

In the first place, a storyteller certainly tries to create believability, but that doesn’t create authenticity.

In the second place, for one to “dictate to scribes from imagination” the kind of complex story with dozens of distinctly different personalities including distinct word usage patterns and word use, even in translation, and with the kinds of foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, flashbacks, and all that with complete literary tightness, would take more than any literary genius the world has seen.

In the third place, the truths to be found in the Book of Mormon stand on their own as truth, but are authenticated by living life and practicing the living of the truths and receiving the promised blessings plus seeing those blessings in the lives of others.

2000 years of the brightest theologians, Saints and mystics have not embraced the Book of Mormon as part of the ascended truth. Who are the Saints and Mystics of the Mormon Church? Where is the deep time tradition and body of truth that members are asked to ascend to?