61 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
My first thought is that we have continuous revelation – we are simply very selective about entering the words of our prophets into our scriptural canon, so to speak. It might be a good thing – a quad can be expensive. |
“I’m curious what we “Utah Mormons†think of this revelation, and about the fact that our prophets don’t produce more live revelations.” Becaue the revelations of the Community of Christ are rejections of past revelations of Joseph Smith. Besides, they might have more sections of the D&C, but they are equally policy changes. Have any of them taught new things about Heaven and Eternity? If we were to put Proclomations of the First Presidency into the D&C there would be an equal amount of additions. |
Again, I don’t think that the issue is whether or not we have continuous revelation. The leadership has continued to receive revelation on an ongoing basis and they are constantly making adjustments, announcing new plans and programs, etc. In recent history I think of the reorganization of the quorums of the Seventy, the Perpetual Education fund, the new emphasis on building temples all over the world, etc. and etc. Just this past Sunday here in NY, we participated in a special kind of stake conference (a kind I’ve never witnessed before) where Elder Thomas S. Monson, Elder Eyring and Sister Tanner spoke to our stake and I think 33 other stakes on the East Coast (in NY, NJ and Boston) – by satellite broadcast. I’ve never before been in a stake conference where things were done that way. It appears the approach to stake conferences has been changed. I think modern revelation consists less of changing the overall doctrinal structure and instead has to do with improving the organization and the manner in which things are administered for the benefit of the membership and the benefit even of the world. |
I have a CoC D&C. The bulk of the more recent sections are pretty pedestrian, naming new people to the Qof12 and such. |
IMO: Only _after_ we more fully live up to the revelations in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, will we receive more doctrinal revelation from the prophet. As far as I know we are (and especially I am) under condemnation for treating lightly the Book of Mormon and the D&C. Be careful of seeking more light and knowledge, because he who sins against the greater light is under the greater condemnation. I’m with Danithew. I believe “operational” revelation is an almost daily thing with the General Authorities. From callings of new GA’s and Area Authorities, and where new temples are to be built, etc, all the way down to which mission a new missionary is assigned to. |
The bulk of the RLDS 20th Century additions to the D&C were administrative things and have been removed to the appendix. For example, there is Section 123: “This section is a report of the Joint Council held in compliance with the instruction of Doctrine and Covenants 122:13. It was included in the Doctrine and Covenants at the request of the Council of Twelve and concurred in by the General Conference of 1895. It is not a revelation. The Conference of 1970 ordered its removal to the Appendix.” [Text bolded by me.] One little item from this section: “Resolved that we advise that the colored members in Detroit, Michigan, be organized in a separate branch as soon as practicable.” |
Also, Sections 149 and 149a are unintentionally quite funny. 149 is dated April 1, 1968 and was accepted April 4, 1968. It contains the instructions to build a temple. 149a is dated April 5, 1968, though there is a real lack of clarity about whether it was actually received on April 4. In any case, 149a is basically saying, “I know a bunch of you are freaked out about a this temple stuff from yesterday. Don’t worry, it won’t be a temple like those people in Salt Lake have.” Well, actually it says:
I take that as a bit of a slap in the face to the LDS Church. |
The revelations in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants purport to be from God, not just a new teaching from the current leader. Our Conference Reports are filled with material similar to the RLDS Section 163. Having said that, I think that Section 163 is a great sermon and applaud the RLDS for adding it to their D&C. |
Jettboy, I think that’s a pretty defensive reaction. What do you see in the current revelation that repudiates Joseph Smith? arj and John Mansfield, I think it’s a bit odd to fault some of the 20th century RLDS/CoC revelations for being pedestrian. I mean, have you read the D&C? Sure, it has its moments, but there’s quite a of it that is given over to repetitive stuff. arj, that is a bit humorous from an LDS point of view. John Mansfield, that renunciation of previous scripture as “not a revelation” strikes me as analogous to our removal of the Lectures on Faith — the Doctrine portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Bookslinger, I don’t believe that we’re under any greater condemnation than the early saints were. |
DKL, In general they’ve taken the worst aspects of the D&C and turned them up to 11. We’ve taken another route and don’t even add the revelations themselves. We just put the press releases about them in the back. The real funny thing about the 149 thing is the need for a mulligan the next day. Ooops! Yesterday’s revelation is incomplete! Especially given that it freaked some of you out! |
2 Jettboy:
Kinda like the only significant additions to the LDS D&C over the last 100 years? (OD-1, rejection of a past revelation of Joseph Smith; and OD-2, a rejection of a teaching of Joseph Smith, if not a revelation.) What revelations have our “prophets, seers, and revelators” either prophesied, seen, or revealed to the church since the early 1900s? I’ll give you one, the priesthood ban on blacks being lifted, though there is no actual revelation in the D&C, just a little letter about how a revelation had been received, but we never get to see the revelation. Actually, now that I think about, the same holds true for OD-1, which is not a revelation either; it is a press release addressed “To whom it might concern”. |
7 arandomjohn:
You are aware, I am sure, that the biggest factor in the founding of the RLDS church was the rejection of Joseph Smith’s teachings on plural marriage, which tied in teachings on sealings and the endowment and temple work in general. In Joseph’s day, all of those doctrines were inextricably intertwined, and some people rejected them, such as Emma Smth, who encouraged JS3 to found the RLDS church, which would be pretty much like the LDS church prior to the revelations of Joseph on the mysteries of God. So I don’t think this statement is a slap in the face of the LDS church, but merely a reaffirmation of one of the premises the RLDS church was founded upon. |
Ben There, Not to threadjack, but to say that OD2 is a rejection of a teaching of Joseph Smith is at best a misrepresentation, and I think it could be argued that it simply wrong. There is substantial evidence that Joseph approved of blacks holding the priesthood (given that they did during his time and he was well aware of it) and only some hearsay that he did not. |
Ben There, you make a good point about OD1. For my part, I wish that more revelations began, “To whom it may concern.” Frankly, I get tired of long, Pauline introductions. The scriptures are way too full of things like, “HEARKEN, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together….” Blah, blah, blah. That is so 19th century. |
Ben There, I am well aware of the RLDS position on Nauvoo innovations. That is why section 149a strikes me as so funny. I can just imagine the confusion that ensued when they were told that they were to build a temple. |
DKL, your thought that much of the early sections of the D&C are repetitive and bureaucratic occurred to me also, but I agree with arJ’s “turned them up to 11″ comment; I can find more useful teaching in the seventh time that Joseph Smith sent out some missionaries then from the latest round of Wallace Smith calling some new apostles. My main point though was just that those RLDS sections mostly have the same sort of content that we get in the business section of conference, so the LDS church isn’t missing anything even if our D&C only goes up to 138. This Section 163 that you’ve brought to our attention is of a different quality, though. I should also step back a little from my previous comment. My RLDS D&C is at home and I just randomly looked up Section 123 online; there are some other sections designated as not revelations, but not the bulk of them. |
15 ARJ, Okay, I misread you. I agree, there probably was some potential for what you describe, and yes, it strikes me as amusing, as well :) |
14 DKL: Not to mention, if all revelations were addressed “to whom it may concern”, just think of the fun we could all have, deciding which revelations concerned any one of us. It’s be a veritable revelation buffet; a little of this, a lot of that, an extra heaping of something else that REALLY concerns me. |
13 ARJ, I am content to say that the evidence on either side of this question is underwhelming, and I would not begrudge someone who held an opinion different than mine. The facts are inconclusive. And I readily admit there is some evidence that JS himself ordained a black man, and that others may have been ordained as well. I will not go any further either, out of respect for the topic of this thread. |
Kinda like the only significant additions to the LDS D&C over the last 100 years? (OD-1, rejection of a past revelation of Joseph Smith; and OD-2, a rejection of a teaching of Joseph Smith, if not a revelation.)” I don’t see them as rejecting Joseph Smith’s revelations. If that is the case, it actually goes with Jacob in the Book of Mormon. Not to mention, the section about polygamy is still used as reason for Eternal Marriage. In the end, I see it as a policy change for this life. The early polygamist marriages were not repuditated. |
To be honest, the lack of any obvious revelations for almost 100 years has always kind of bugged me. And this “administrative revelation” stuff danithew is talking about… I’m sorry, but it seems like a fairly lame substitute. |
I’ve always thought of “continuing revelation” to reference personal revelation, not God-needs-to-give-the-church-regular-updates-to-remind-us-he’s-still-leading-it type of revelations. We were spoiled with an abundance of revelations in the first 20 years of our history that now we think we deserve a constant flow when biblical history would suggest they are much fewer and farther between than what we’re currently getting. |
Seth R., I was looking at “administer” (not sure that differs from “administrate” or “administration”) as meaning the means by which practical needs of people are met – which I don’t think is lame at all. In my mind, it’s what the priesthood is supposed to be about. I don’t feel that the leadership of the Church has gone for any significant period of time without receiving “obvious revelation” – certainly not as long as a year. If that is the case, then it may be our own fault. When President Hinckley had to speak out strongly against gambling and pornography (in recent conferences), it occurred to me that he would probably prefer to preach to us about other things. |
21 Seth R:
I feel your pain. Particularly uncomfortable is the fact that the latest additions to the D&C are merely retractions of former teachings and practices. One can debate till the cows go home whether these retractions were warranted or not, but the fact remains that many church members are disturbed by this lack of new revelation. The missionaries talk all about it, and point to the D&C, but if all you have is the D&C to go by, it looks like the heavens shut themselves up in the late 1800s. Press releases do not a revealtion make. I do not believe the Lord sends us revelations in the form of “To whom it may concern”. Also making me somewhat uncomfortable is Pres. Hinckley’s public statement on how he receives answers to his prayers; mostly by a still small voice. Apparently that still small voice hasn’t produced a whole lot of “thus saith the Lord”. While I agree that the brethren are inspired in their programmatic duties of administering the church and its functions, that hardly qualifies as “continuing revelation” in the spirit Joseph Smith taught about revelation. |
Maybe the reason we’re not getting a lot of those revelations about the nature of the universe is, we just don’t want them. I speak for myself in this regard; I would take an inspired pronouncement on preparedness or discipleship over a vast revelation on the nature of the universe, any day of the week. I think most of us in the Church don’t wake up concerned about the location of the Garden of Eden or the formation of the soul or some other abstraction. |
Ben There, I’m probably being repetitive here (see #10) but I agree with you about the press release issue. I think it would be fascinating to read the actual revelations that resulted in OD1 and OD2. That is assuming that there is such a thing. It is possibly that a decision was simply very powerfully confirmed with no text to go along with it. |
Dan: Excellent point! I’ve been thinking for a while that we are in something of a lull, revelation-wise, and wondered if it was intentional on God’s part (“not much to say right now–just live what I’ve already said”) or if it was our fault. Maybe the reality is that we are expected to seek additional light on our own and we are just too lazy to do it. Oliver Cowdery once said that we should never stop striving until we have seen the face of God. My guess is we should get to work on that. |
25 Dan: Joseph Smith would agree with you on the issue of personal revelation. And I do too. I believe Joseph said he would like to teach men correct principles and then allow them to govern themselves and receive personal revelation. But one of my contentions is that the missionary discussions (when they existed as actual discussions) as well as current correlated CES materials seem to emphasize the idea of a modern prophet who receives revelations from the Lord, for the church, and that this sets us apart from all the rest of Christendom. And not only that, but we sustain the President and the Quorum of the 12 as “prophets, seers and revelators”. But what (and don’t take this the wrong way) great prophesies or revelations has the Church as a whole been given through our prophets, seers, and revelators? Most of the teachings we hear in general conference and through the Brethren are really not all that different from what most of Christianity would be comfortable hearing and does hear from their own allegedly non-inspired leaders. I believe that maybe this is because we as a people have largely lost our way, and have barely become a pecuilar people, and therefore we are not worthy of much in the way of new revelation. Joseph Smith taught that much more was yet to be revealed to the Saints, and yet the truth is that very little more has been offered in the way of doctrinal teaching since he was martyred. So where is all of this “much more” that is yet unrevealed? Sorry if my thoughts seem somewhat disjointed. I am suffering the effects of terrible allergies right now and have a severe headache. |
MCQ: Amen to all of what you said. I think that those who are trodding the gospel path do in fact receive revelation for their own spheres, and that the current lull (current as in last century) has a lot to do with the saints being unworthy. Wasn’t it Pres. Kimball who said we were under condemnation for not heeding the teachings of the Book of Mormon? And yet we still have many members who have never read the Book of Mormon, and even new converts who join based on feelings rather than on personal revelation and a testimony of the BoM (many of these new converts stop coming to church within months, based on what I see). Maybe our missionary program is partly to blame for this, due to the pressure to baptise people before they are truly ready. Of all the converts into my ward over the last several years, I seriously doubt that more than one or two were truly ready to join the church, and at least several were specifically baptised just before a missionary went home. With the number of new baptisms not translating well into active members worldwide, maybe there is something to this as it relates to the worthiness of the Church as a whole. I don’t know, these are all just random speculations. |
I think that we can summarize the responses thus far along the following lines: (a) For some reason, we don’t deserve new church-wide, scripture-type revelation (e.g., we don’t use the scriptures we have) My responses to these are as follows: (a) What are the CoC doing right that they’re entitled to new revelation and we’re not? |
The CoC revelation seemed to me a bunch of nice thoughts, well-articulated. The fact that it was put forth in lofty language does not make it any more inspired or revelatory than emails that go back and forth in the Church Office Building that convey similar administrative teachings in plain language. |
Dan, you seem to be saying something like, “Add a story about when he used to be bishop, and it would make a great talk for President Monson.” But you seem to forget that the RLDS/CoC have their general conference every year, too, complete with talks and councils and the like. It’s not just a matter of saying pretty things in lofty language and where we record it. We can’t very well do away with the D&C in favor of conference talks. There was a time when the LDS church in England used to publish all General Authority talks, and the result was The Journal of Discourses — what a disaster! This isn’t bickering over the gravitas of our leaders language. I hope that it’s a discussion about the very nature of scripture itself. And this is scripture to the RLDS, same as (say) section 138 is to us. Maybe I should ask you exactly how Section 138 is different from something that might be recounted in our General Conference — for example David Haight’s recounting of his vision of divine manifestation or Bruce McConkie’s testimony before his death? |
I think there is such a world of difference between the inspired leadership that our church receives and the not-so-inspired leadership that other churches have. It’s amazing to see the arguments, schisms, problems, corruption, etc. that exists in so many denominations that are out there. I think sometimes people see the word “prophet” and they expect someone who will “prophesy” and that to them this word simply translates as “to predict the future.” But I don’t see that as the principal role of the scriptural prophets – nor do I see it as the role of the modern prophets and apostles. When they do prophesy in regards to the future, more often than not it is a warning or admonition such as “repent or you will be destroyed.” We also have to look a bit at the fact that we have books out called “the Teachings of ________ (insert name of apostle/prophet in the blank)” for just about every prophet we have had. It isn’t as if we don’t have the published words and writings of our leaders. While it’s true these writings haven’t yet been split up into numbered verses and printed on onion-skin paper, that doesn’t mean they can’t have any bearing or influence as scripture. |
33: The fact that I can count at least two dozen currently-active churches that trace their lineage and priesthood back to Joseph Smith indicates to me that apparently one can believe he was a prophet and still have nothing to do with the SLC LDS church. Just because our church happens to be the largest Restoration church does not mean we have never had arguments, schisms, etc. It’s just that those things are so far in our rearview mirror that most members never even know they happened. Nowadays, if you have arguments with the leadership, you get excommunicated, preserving the notion that we have no dissent in the church. But there are a lot of people who do dissent but don’t speak up for they have the sure knowledge that to do so is to risk their church membership and likely their families (bishops are well known to convince spouses of “apostates” to get a divorce). So yeah, when free thought and free discussion is pretty much stifled at every turn, I can see how you might think there is no dissent in our church. But appearance is only half the picture. |
33: When the leaders of other churches teach the same things our church teaches on so many things, how can you call them uninspired if our teachings of the same thing are in fact inspired? Believe it or not, but there were many preachers who taught their followers to abstain from tobacco and alcohol LONG before Heber J. Grant made those a condition for temple worthiness. And there are many preachers and churches who teach the importance of the Sabbath day as a day of rest from worldy cares. And likewise so many churches teach of the need to abstain from pre- or extra-marital sex, the need to build strong families, and such. I would say that our Proclamation on the Family would probably represent the majority of the beliefs for much of Evangelical Christianity. Same with our stands on gambling, pornography, and the like. Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and others taught the same thing we teach for many years with respect to these and other topics that generally fill the hours of our modern general conferences. So what makes our leaders more inspired than the others who say the exact same thing? |
DKL, The substance of this discussion seems to be embodied in your question in comment #30,
Which I would rephrase, “Why do the CoC need revelations phrased like Veazey’s, and we don’t?” |
DKL, I also am not rendering a judgment (I learned long ago not to judge the sincere beliefs of others), merely bringing up the question as something to ponder. |
Dan, I also am not rendering a judgment (I learned long ago not to judge the sincere beliefs of others), merely bringing up the question as something to ponder. |
Sorry for the double post. Thought I hit cancel “in time” when I realized I had addressed my comments to the wrong poster. Please accept my apologies for not paying attention! |
Ben There, I disagree with your characterizations of the LDS Church in comments #34 and #35 … you make a lot of points but I feel in general your expressed views are skewed and exaggerated or that they leave out crucial points that should be considered. |
danithew, Do you see how the position that we’ve had all the “groundbreaking” or “momentous” revelation a long time ago and don’t need any more, looks an awful lot like “a Bible, a Bible! We have got a Bible and we need no more Bible!”? However, I am willing to entertain your suggestion that we may indeed have been having revelation for some time without recognizing it as such. But doubts remain. |
Seth – I’m definitely not trying to say is that “we don’t need anyore.” Quite the opposite. I believe revelation is absolutely necessary and that it is happening all the time, daily – with the leadership and also with much of the membership of the Church. |
Why are LDS folks concerned at all over what the RLDS/CoC church says or does? They aren’t God’s official church. I’m not saying their revelations are inspired, uninspired, or other. It’s just… why care at all? It’s none of our business what God says to their president, if indeed it is God who is talking to him, or whether their president is just imagining it, or even making it up. Does God speak to the Pope? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? That’s his business, and the business of Catholics. The important things are: 1. Does God speak to Gordon B. Hinckley? (Answer: yes.) 2. Does God speak to you (us)? 3. And if #2 is “yes”, then: Are you (we) listening, and obeying? |
DKL, I might be misunderstanding you but there seems to be significant substantive difference between the LDS section 138 and the RLDS section 163. In section 138 we have the LDS prophet giving literal revelation in the form of an actual vision from God. As I noted in my comment # 8, although I applaud the RLDS initiative to vote that section 163 should be added to their D&C (was it voted on to be accepted as “revelation”?), the section is substantively more similar to LDS General Conference talks that are published in our Conference Report Ensign rather than in our D&C. I really like Veazy’s sermon in section 163 — the sentiment behind it serves as guidance to Latter-day Saints and creedal Christians alike in addition to providing direction for the intended audience, the CoC/RLDS. But take an Elder Holland talk, add a little Eyring and Scott in and perhaps a few paragraphs from a President Hinckley Sunday afternoon conference address and you have something substantively similar — even if doctrinally somewhat different — to Veazy’s statement. (It’s too long to claim that it is simply like a single conference talk.) |
I probably could learn a lot more about Doctrine and Covenants. My view of it in general is that it is, in effect, the Book of Joseph Smith – with some revelations/declarations of a few other modern day prophets thrown in at the end. I’m not even sure that Doctrine and Covenants was initially intended to be the place where we tack on additional modern-day revelations – though that has happened a few times. |
john f, I think that you’re right that it’s not fundamentally different in character from one of our conference talks. It’s probably not different in character from one of their conference talks either — though I’ve never heard one. What’s fundamentally different is that they’ve made it a scripture. If you look into the textual history of the Doctrine and Covenants, you see than many of them were letters that Joseph’s assistants converted. arj, I think that the amendment to the revelation that clarifies that there should be no secret services in the temple is not different in character from the changes that occurred in Revelations between their printing in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Commandments, or even between the various editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. The difference is that in this day and age it’s a lot more difficult to slip stuff like that under the radar screen. I’m surprised that nobody has brought up the Proclamations. |
DKL, I’m surprised that nobody has brought up the Proclamations. I’m guessing that almost nobody remembers the proclamation previous to The Family. I believe it was late 70s or early 80s. I don’t know if it was referenced frequently after it was issued, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside now. The Family seems to be quoted more in general conference and in sacrament meetings more than any passage of scripture. Because of this I think many expect it to be cannonized. I’m not sure if it will be, but it strikes me as something that doesn’t belong in the D&C. Maybe in the Pearl of Great Price? However this brings up a subject similar to the CoC 149a. If you are going to put it the PoGP you’d better not be planning on removing it, because that raises questions. We’ve been a bit crafty in how we remove things, in that once they are gone, they’re gone and we don’t mention them much. The CoC D&C has a big chart at the start of their D&C that shows exactly what was in and what has been removed from the 1835, 1864-1896, 1906, 911, 1952, 1970, 1978, and 1992 editions including how sections were numbered for each edition. For example, the revelation to build the temple and the Nauvoo House used to be their section 107. It was moved to the Appendix in 1978 and the Appendix was removed in 1992. Their section 113 was the announcement of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum. I assume this is the same as our section written by John Taylor. It was also moved to the Appendix and then removed entirely. Their equivalent of OD2 is Section 116, given in 1865. While today it comes across as blatantly racist, I wish our own leaders were merely this racist during this time period. There is no Pearl of Great Price attached to the book. I don’t know if they’ve ever had one and I’m curious about that now. I would guess that Moses and JSM are simply part of the Inspired Version of the Bible, which I understand they use more than we do. I don’t know where JSH, the AofF, or even Lectures on Faith fall in their scriptures if at all. Also, one more thing about 149a. I’m not opposed to the idea of a clarification. I just think this specific clarification is pretty funny. I also think the use of the derogatory term “secret” is interesting. I would guess that they had a pretty good idea of what goes on in LDS temples. At the very least I would think that some that had been endowed in Nauvoo (Emma perhaps?) were early members of the RLDS. It also seems like an intentional dig at the sacred/secret distinction that we always make. While I’m at it, I think sacred/secret is a false dichotomy. Clearly something can be both sacred and secret, sacred and not secret, secret and not sacred, and neither sacred nor secret. I’m happy to say that our temple ceremonies are secret because they are sacred. |
47 ArJ:
You are correct. Not only do they use it “more than we do”, they use it and it alone. It is their official Bible translation, unlike the LDS church whose official translation is the KJV. I have an RLDS-published Bible, and it called the Inspired Version. All those footnotes and appendices that we have in our LDS KJV are in the main text of the RLDS IV Bible. What makes me sad is that so many LDS don’t even realize their is an Inspired Version, translated and correct by Joseph Smith, and that is likely because the significant changes he made are consigned to footnotes and tiny print in the appendices way at the back of the Bible. |
arj, there’s a great article in Dialogue 20:1, p71-77 that uses the history of the Lectures on Faith as a basis to discuss a brief history of LDS scripture canonization. It’s a quick read that’s well worth it. Regarding the RLDS and the dropping of the Lectures on Faith, they started excluding them in 1897 for unspecified reasons. This article by Jon Tandy gives a summary of the RLDS point of view. I own an RLDS D&C from 1985. I’ve read it start to finish, but it’s been ages since I opened it. |
Ben There, it’s also worth noting that Joseph’s revisions of the Bible are not canonized and not scripture in the LDS church. In my opinion, most of them aren’t even based on revelation or inspiration, but are just notes that Joseph made to help clarify the text as he was in the process of trying to iron out a more doctrinally consistent and correct version of the Bible. His work went through several revisions, and he sometimes reversed earlier revisions. For example, it’s my understanding that during the period wherein Joseph believed in one God, he revised the portions of the text that implied a plurality of Gods so that they were more clearly exclusive. When he began to believe in a plurality of Gods, he began changing passages that implied exclusivity to indicate a plurality of Gods. To my knowledge, the two foremost experts on this topic are Robert Matthews and Kevin Barney. As luck would have it, Kevin Barney is an active blogger here in the bloggernacle, and I invite his clarification. I think that the way that the LDS church handles Joseph’s annotations with footnotes makes it easier to read the Bible than having a version that’s whole given over to Joseph’s revisions. I own an RLDS Inspired Version of the Bible, and it gets confusing when the chapter/verse divisions end up different due to Joseph’s work. In any case, people trying to use the JST/IV in order to end discussions in Sunday Schoolis one of my pet peeves. |
DKL: I understand many of the objections to the JST, and its status as possibly having been unfinished. And other times, I scratch my head when I read the JST/IV and wonder how JS arrived at the conclusion he did for a particular passage. Unlike you though, in my SS classes no one ever seems to bring up the JST footnotes, and they are completely ignored, even when they could provide additional insight. I was under the impression that the main reason the SLC LDS church did not choose to use the IV was because the RLDS were not willing to license it to the LDS church for publication. More a pragmatic reason than theological. Once again, though, the whole issue of the JST is not a question with a clear cut answer. |
I thought this was relevant to the discussion here: From the RLDS D&C 1990 Preface:
|
Yesterday, I published a post about the recent revelation received by Stephen Veazy, the CoC/RLDS prophet. I was surprised to see how many responses attacked the legitimacy of the revelation [...] |
It doesn’t have the “flavor” of Scripture. The work of man. A poor substitute. Nice generalities and such, but no impact. It’s nice to have the real thing. |
DKL, |
Zion has come. Zion is here. I have seen it. |
The seeds of resolve and reconciliation exist in the DNA and course through the viens of many of the decendants of the participants of the 1838 Missouri ephisode. Many of those who have this strain will be pushed quietly and carefully by an inner voice to find thier way back and finish and make right the past. How will this be manifest? It will surely be a strange act. Our destiny and path is through Joseph. He has my honor and respect even though I have been cut from the tree. The return to Missouri is happening carefully and quietly, with the chess board being set up as planned. It is surely not our game, but it will produce an amazing sequence of events, that will be known to those who have ears to hear its call. No man or organization holds the plan to bring about the growth of the human spirit the way that is written in the hearts of the people. The call is laid for those who have eyes to see, and many are seeing it. May we respect and honor each other who each hold a place in the chess game of the future of Missouri. It will truely be a gathering for those who make covenants to work together and respect those who might be different. The feast and table are being set. Bring your own special dish and share in the feast. It is a great day. Please consider that there are those who played the roles of opposition that will also engage with us once again. This time, where much is given, much is expected. We need to be excpecially carefull, tolerant, and sensitive to the ideas and feelings of others. This plan is much bigger than just our redemption, but has the ability to bless the entirety of the human race. We are no better than others, but must play our part. A special kind of person is being created within our souls, to work together with source. |
I will continue to support the church where I can, and wish to be an allie as much as possible I will not however, be a yes man to the seeming voice of infallability. Having graduated from BYU in 1989, served an 18 month mission in the Texas Dallas Mission in 1983-1984 under Grant Barton, and having married an angel in the Logan Temple, I could never have imagined that the Prophet would threaten my membership if I did not do as he said in the political arena. I respect the bretheren, however, there is a bounds to thier jurisdiction that they believe does not exist. They have given away thier ability to do such things when they asked for tax exempt status for tithing funds. I would never have voluntarily taken myself out of the church, but since my excommunication, I can only thank them for doing me this favor. I have grown more than I did in all my years in the church. I would not trade what I have gained. I have grown up in Missouri, and have yearned to qualify for Zion all of my life. The needed healing has begun. I now will work on the side of the Missourians, to prepare this beautiful State for the return of the Saints. May you saints who return, soften your hearts and pledge your ultimate loyalties to the ways Jesus taught. Whether you are lamb, or lion, prepare to lay down together at the wedding feast of the bride groom. I owe the church much for the good they have given me, and may we seek resolution to the mistakes and brutalities of the past. Those on both sides need to learn to appreciate diversity and goodness in all its forms. |
Heaven (ZION) or hell (BABYLON) exist right in front of us in the same space and either is there for our choosing. They are both accessed in different vibratory frequencies. This might be greek to many. Former Mayor of Chillicothe, Missouri |
New movie about Chillicothe/Mormon history being released 9TH LDS FILM FESTIVAL 2010 |
24 arJ,I’m not particularly inettrseed in arguing the merits of any particular claim to keys or priesthood authority, but I do stand by my original statement that such persons as were involved in that arrangement hold the priesthood . Just as does anyone in any of the other Restoration churches that has a correct priesthood lineage back to Joseph Smith, who of course received the priesthood at the hands of John the Baptist. I however, do not and cannot sanction those who claim to have received their priesthood from some other source, such as a newer angelic restoration, as do some fundamentalists and other fringe Mormons. I also believe that the priesthood can be lost as a result of commiting priestcrafts, and so I would be very uncomfortable saying that I think Warren Jeffs, for example, holds true priesthood, given his wicked and abominable practice of priestcrafts in the name of the Lord.The 1886 accounts will be in dispute just as will be the legitimacy of anyone who claimed to be Joseph Smith’s rightful successor. The mere fact that Brigham Young did not ascend to be president of the church for three years after Joseph’s death, and that a public vote of church members was held to choose between the leadership claims of the Qo12 and Sidney Rigdon, is a clear indicator that once again everything was not always clear cut and easy to sort out. And none of this should imply that someone with a competing successor claim did not possess true priesthood.I think even the LDS church might be willing to be somewhat charitable in this arena, as I have never heard them explicitly state that Emma apostatized by joining the RLDS church as led by her son. Even as late as 1860, BY stated that he believed JS3 would come forward to take his father’s place at some time. |