ehkape

hi forum, I have a question concerning Elder Packers talk, which I enjoyed listening to. He is relating the story of a young soldier who is about to leave for Vietnam. He is asking Pres. Lee for a Priesthood blessing before he would have to leave. Pres Lee answers that his father should give him the blessing, the boy says the father wouldn't know how. Pres Lee says to tell the father that he should place his hands upon the boys head and say whatever comes. I'm not sure if I understand the story correctly. Is the father a member/Priesthood Holder or can every father give a fathers blessings? (because of his fatherhood or whatever?) I have to admit I kind of like the idea... but am I on the right track??? Thanks for your answers, ehkape LDS.org - Media *edit: clarification on the story*

I agree. The church grew and we are adding different offices even today (take the several quorums of the 70s for example or different area authoryties) I think that is what a living and growing church has to do. But do we have to pretend that we had it all from the very beginning? Because thats what our current edition of the D&C does. Pretending* to have had High Priests, bishops etc from the beginning, when there were only Deacons, Teachers, Priests and Elders. (*I can't find a better word) BTW, has anybody else ever noticed that DC20 makes no difference at all between the aaronic and the melch. Priesthood? The names are not even mentioned. I wonder if the MP could have been restored some time after the church was organized. Could that be a possibility?

LOL But it looks good on the bookshelf

Thanks for the article Saguaro

Thanks for all your answers :) Most of you said that revelation can be changed because God continues to speak to us. Thats what I believe too. But honestly - that wasn't my question. Maybe I wasn't precise enough. If you have a look at my 2nd example (come on guys, how many of you did :) )you'll find that the revelation was well structured and complete in the manuscript. It talks about the church organisation, also known as "Articles and Covenants of the church". In it, the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons are explained. That was back in 1830 when the church was organized. A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from? Thats what I'm wondering about. If you read our D&C today, you get the impression, these offices have been there from the beginning. But they weren't. There was not a single High Priest at the organisation of the Church. Joseph and Oliver were Elders and that seemed to be the highest office available in 1830. Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

Do you feel revelations should be changed once the Lord has given them? Or should they remain in the exact same way they were received / recorded in the first place? I had a look at the newly released book "The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations" (Great book, I can only recommend it :)) I noticed that there are quite a few differences between our D&C and the original manuscripts / Revelation Books kept by Joseph and his scribes. Some are very minor, but some are real big ones. Example 1 :Joseph Smith Papers · Document Library minor changes in wording, prefixes etc. Example 2: 19th Century Mormon Publications : Compound Object Viewer whole sentences are "missing" in the early text respectively added in our D&C compare the 2nd column, 2nd paragraph with our D&C20: 62-68 Does anybody know when these extra verses were added? Who added them? Why isn't there a footnote that says "additional revelation received in SLC, 10.05.1899(or whenever it was) by..."? Thanks for your answers, ehkape

But how can you be sure? It happened before with the church that Christ and the apostles set up. Why not now? You gave a few scriptures saying the Lord wasn't pleased with the early Saints at some occasions. Well, at least he told them, or in other words was still speaking with them. I haven't heard of any revelation that was given by the last couple pf prophets. So how can we be sure? Its a big thing to put your trust in somebody else. If that somebody is human and bound to do mistakes it might not be the best idea... Is there anybody in this forum who thinks this might at least be possible? Has there ever been a guarantee that the church cannot be led astray? How was it possible for Brigham to teach about Adam being God? If the doctrine is false, then how could he teach it and remain the prophet?

Ok, this is getting interesting... Isn't that the exact reason why the true church had to be restored to the earth? Because all other churches fell away from the truth? Because their teachings changed over time? Because their prophets/leaders were fallen? Didn't the Lord say to Joseph in answer to his prayer:" How can you be thankful for a fallible church? I don't get it! The church of Jesus Christ was restored to overcome all the other fallible churches. Are you saying our church has fallen too? If so, why and how can it STILL be a church with wich the "Lord is well pleased"? Your comment about different churches that please the Lord intrigued me. Do you believe he could be pleased with a church at one time, and a decade or two later with another? Take the original church after Christs death. I bet God was pleased with Peter and his apostles. What about Christianity lets say 100 years later? Still pleased or not? Now, what about the early LDS times. He was pleased with the church in 1831 as he says. What about 1841, 1900 or 2010? The thought just came to my mind.

What do you mean? Almost fell off my chair when I read this. Help! Let me see if I get you right: The LDS church - which we belong to - is not infallible but the church of the Firstborn is the place to be. So why don't we all belong to that one then? I don't get it... "true" can be "useful"... Sure, truth is always useful, but if I claim to belong to the "only true and living church" then "true" can't just be useful. It has to be true in the sense of "correct". Just imagine being asked "Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?" and the answer would be "Oh, its quite useful." To me thats saying I don't believe in it a for a second as the word of God, but the stories are nice and I like the pictures "be more "flexible" - What? You mean bend the truth? Thats the worst advice I've ever heard... tough words.I was always taught at sunday school that we shouldn't lower our standards if our performance is poor just to have the impression to still be in line. I feel you are lowering the standard of the churches self-definition of being the only "true and living" church big time!

The Bible Dictionary says: "Where there is true faith there are miracles, visions, dreams, healings, and all the gifts of God that he gives to his saints." I believe if a prayer is offered in true faith, we can heal through that prayer. Ask and ye shall receive...

That will be the usual picture presented by the missionaries or members. Usually not because they want to fool anybody, but because thats how they believe it happened. When I was a missionary 9 years ago, that was the only story I knew. Whenyou grow up in the church, you see all the pictures of Joseph and Oliver sitting at the table, plates in front of them, etc. and nothing else - so you just believe thats how it worked. That there were other tools involved (besides the Urim and Thumim) like his hat and peepstone or that the plates were not present during parts of the translation is part of the story that didn't make it into the regular Sunday School manuals. So most members won't know. ( And some won't believe it, when they hear it) I agree. It doesn't really matter HOW it was translated, IF the translation is correct. I don't think anybody paints the wrong picture on purpose, but the question has to be asked when looking into a church.

I would say so too. Do you want the returned missionary only because because he served a mission. ben there, seen it, done it? I served a mission 10 years ago and I wouldn't recommend all of the guys I saw there To me, "RM" says nothing about a persons qualities for a relationship. Do you want a pristhood holder just for the priesthood? Just because someone holds the priesthood, he doesn't have to be fit for a relationship with you I could go on with that for ages. What matters is the persons heart! Is he kind, gentle, full of love, does he treat you right, is he fun to be around with etc. I would look for these personal attributes rather than for some "office titles". BTW, even though I am a RM, was EQP and had other callings people would say my faith in some parts of our church has been weakened over the last years for different reasons. There have been brothers and sisters at church who asked my wife how on earth she could handle that. She only said: he is still the same husband to me that I married. Same love, same kindness, same respect, same fun, etc. Its not his character that changes, but his testimony of some church doctrines and events. Maybe somthing to keep in mind

hi gwen, thanks for your thoughts. I like your example. I have no issues with the translation. Do a bit of it myself and know how difficult it is. Sometimes even impossible to do it "word perfect". I was just wondering about the question we're supposed to ask and if it makes a difference. It's one thing to ask "I'm not sure about this book, please let me know if its true" or if you ask "I feel this book is inspired and could be your word, please let me know if its not" You're mindset is different, isn't it? but still, to me the best way to ask would be "I feel its good and inspiring and tru, please confirm that it is your word"

Hi bytebear, I like your thought. But I also like Haendels "Messias". One of my favorite lines is "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Please, don't quote it wrong, it's too beautiful

I think so too. Since I'm not a native speaker, I've always wondered about the wording though... Should I really ask something like: I Believe its true, tell me if its not? The German translation of the BoM translates into "ask if these things are true..." Somebody out there who can shed some light on it? thx

I get your message. Prophets are human but they are called by god. Fair enough. But how do I know what to believe and what not to if it turnes out that not everything is correct? It doesn't help to believe in their divine calling if there is still incorrect doctrine coming out of their mouth. Even if most of it is correct. By their fruits ye shall know them. If 90% is good or correct and the rest incorrect, how does it help? Didn't Jesus give a parable of a good tree, that cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree that cannot bring forth good fruit? Didn't Jesus warn us about false prophets or wolves in sheepclothing? Not saying any of our prophets are such, but don't we HAVE to be a bit more suspicious or investigative some times with what is being said? Can I put so much blind trust in somebody else? Just questions that are on my mind when I read your position.

because the leaders taught blacks held the curse of cain (dark skin) and were not allowed the blessings of the priesthood Because he said god commanded him to practise it yeah, why? Who knows? Maybe thats their interpretation of things. Why are there so many different christian groups? Catholics have a whole different approach to worship than born again christians might have. very brief answers, but really, its all out there to be looked into

Amen! Let me think. Why am I a member of this church? 1st because I believe in Christ as my Saviour 2nd because I believe in God as my Heavenly Father and want to return to his presence 3rd because I believe God has called prophets to teach his will etc. What if I find out that I can't rely on these prophets 100%? Somebody posted he believes in 90+% of what they say. Thats odd to me. A prophet either speaks the will of God or he doesn't. What am I supposed to believe when he starts mingling the word of god with ideas of man? Can I start to pick what I like? Something like "...oh, the ten commandments are great, but the part about not commiting adultery must have been Moses own idea...":rolleyes: That would still be 90% correct. Nobody would ever come up with a thought like that. So to me it's possible to lose a testimony in a church if you find out that things were done under the mantle of a prophet that shouldn't be done. Or that prophets taught stuff that other prophets denounced as false doctrine. So the trust or faith in a church as an organisation can fall, the faith in Christ still remains firm. So for what reason do I have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints? Because I not only believe in Christ and Heavenly Fathers plan, but also in the prophets.

Yeah, it baffled me too... Maybe I wasn't precise enough in my post. I lost confidence in my church as an organisation after looking into the history in detail. It didn't change my testimony of Christ as my Savior or of God in general. I'd rather say it strengthend my faith in deity. But I lost confidence in men and what they do and say (or pretend to do or say or prentend not to have said or done) So by saying "stick your head in the sand" I wanted to be a bit sarcastic... You either want to know the truth - or you don't. If you don't, don't search. I like your picture with the fingers in the ears... you pretty much nailed it. Hope this post won't be deleted by some eager defender of the "faithpromoting"posts

sd22 - thats so true! I spent the last 4 years or so with our church history stuff. I was called as Elders quorum pres. when one of my elders asked me for advice on the Adam-God-Theory by B.Young. I never heard about it before, even though I served a full time mission. Well, trying to answer just 1 concern, plenty of new ones came up for myself. I wrote a list of questions a few years ago. There are at least 50 q's I have. Some smaller ones, but also some major problems with the church and the doctrine. After a few months of study I asked to be released as e.q. president. My wife doesn't want to know about all the odds I found because she saw how quick they changed my feelings towards the church. I am still attending and yes - I am still trying to find a way to put our claim to be the only true church together with our messed up history and some very odd doctrines. But my advice to the op would be as well: If you want to keep your faith in the LDS church don't start digging. If you want to know the truth about the LDS church, dig into it, but be prepared to find things you don't want to find

found it. Thank you

I'll take both. I think the truth is somewhere in between...

Thats what I'm looking for. Thanks. How can I read the online version? I could only find links to amazon and others to buy the books.

Hi folks, there used to be an online version of the "History of the Church" but I can't find it any more? Does anyone know where they moved it to? Thanks ehkape :) I think it used to be part of byustudies

Well, it used to be the "old" D&C, or at least the manuscript of the then called book of commandments. I got it as a christmas gift and and started looking into it. Very well done edition. To those of you who have the book: I was reading (todays) section 20, (p.75), the Articles and Covenants of the church. It describes the rise of the church, Josephs visitation by an unidentified angel (not the first vision I guess, rather Moroni appearing), the translation of the Book of Mormon etc. That is followed by a "statement of faith", i.e. we believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, one has to be baptized etc. Now the different priesthood offices are explained: Elders, Priests, Teachers, Deacons and different duties of the members. Not a single word distinguishing between the "aaronic" or "melchisedek" priesthood... Not a single word concerning High Priests, bishops, high councilors etc... Our modern D&C adds the following verses, which are completely missing in the original text: I was thinking about this for some time. Is there a chance, that the church was organized without the Melchisidek Priesthood? We don't have an exact date for the restoration by Peter James and John. Could it possibly have been after 1830?