Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[ST:DS9]

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray?

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 10:59 AM

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? 

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway.

I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves.

That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)).

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 4 2004, 12:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 4 2004, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 10:59 AM

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? 

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway.

I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves.

That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)).

I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray?

I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray.

So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 4 2004, 11:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 4 2004, 11:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 4 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 10:59 AM

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? 

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway.

I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves.

That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)).

I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray?

I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray.

So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray?

God let the church that Christ established be led astray. Why didn't he stop it then and force His will on everyone to keep it on the strait and narrow?

The answer is because God doesn't force us to follow Him or do His will. But, though it all, God will see that His will is done. Once the church was cleansed of the wrong that invaded it, and a group of faithful saints was found, He led His chosen successor to that group, and the restored church continued.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 4 2004, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 4 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 4 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 10:59 AM

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? 

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway.

I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves.

That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)).

I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray?

I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray.

So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray?

God let the church that Christ established be led astray. Why didn't he stop it then and force His will on everyone to keep it on the strait and narrow?

The answer is because God doesn't force us to follow Him or do His will. But, though it all, God will see that His will is done. Once the church was cleansed of the wrong that invaded it, and a group of faithful saints was found, He led His chosen successor to that group, and the restored church continued.

Ah, but why did the early church go astray? It wasn't because the Prophets (Peter, James, John, Paul, ect) led them astray. In fact, in the scriputes you would learn that there was no prophet that ever lead Gods people astray to believing in false teachings and in false practices, why do you think that is?

There is a difference between the general membership going astray because of no leadership from God through his chosen prophet( Early 1st century church), and going astray because of his chosen prophet(what the COC claims happened to Joseph Smith).

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 01:12 PM

Ah, but why did the early church go astray?  It wasn't because the Prophets (Peter, James, John, Paul, ect) led them astray.  In fact, in the scriputes you would learn that there was no prophet that ever lead Gods people astray to believing in false teachings and in false practices, why do you think that is?

Maybe it was a fallen Prophet that could have been responsible for the "apostacy" in the Church.

Maybe one of the earliest Popes...maybe even St. Peter...was a true prophet of God that misunderstood some of his revelations and created the Roman Catholic Church instead of the "true" LDS Church?

Also, it is possible that the apostles were led a little bit astray...that might explain why LDS Doctrine is not fully explained in their scriptures (New Testament), except for vague references that may or may not refer to such things as baptism for the dead, eternal marriage, etc.

[srm]

IF it was a spiritual event at the conference, then BY took advantage of that event by purposely furthering it by taking JS's horse and regalia for the parade.  Still not the most pleasant of thoughts.

Well we don't know that he did nor, if he did, why. JSIII wasn't at the parade, he only offers his opinion of why brigham borrowed the horse. The real question is was there such a spiritual manifestation at the conference...that many people wittnessed? If it did happen, what does it mean? Also, on a more personal note...if it did happen, does it change your view on the history of the Church? Why or why not?

BTW, on another issue. I recall reading years ago (in JSIII's biopgraphy I think) that Gurley was a high priest. Yet, on line I reat that he was a seventy. Do you which he was, and by whom he was ordained?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 4 2004, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 4 2004, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 4 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 4 2004, 10:59 AM

So you believe that God would allow his chosen prophet to fall and lead the church astray? 

What do the COC believe happens to people who never learn about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when they die?

I (we) believe that prophets are real people, just like you and me. They don't have magical abilities, they are just real people who have extraordinary faith and an openness that allows God to work through them. Look at some of the OT prophets, i.e.--Jonah or Moses, real people with real problems, and God used them anyway.

I, personally, believe that those who have heard the gospel and rejected it are not eligible for teaching in the prisonhouse, but those who never heard it are taught the gospel. And those who were good men (meaning mankind) during their lives will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just (as per Section 76), which I believe to be before (or during) the Zionic reign. They will then have that 1000 years to make the decision to be baptized themselves.

That is my belief, however, and the beliefs of the RLDS Restorationists. The RLDS/CoC don't really hold to restoration beliefs regarding that (and other) issue(s) anymore (for the most part (there are, however, some that do)).

I can agree with you there about Prophets being human and can make mistakes. But would God allow a prophet to lead the church astray?

I don't believe that God would have let Joseph Smith lead the church astray, he would have had Joseph Smith die before he could do any damage to the church and the saints that would lead them astray.

So, Why would God let a Prophet lead the Church astray?

God let the church that Christ established be led astray. Why didn't he stop it then and force His will on everyone to keep it on the strait and narrow?

The answer is because God doesn't force us to follow Him or do His will. But, though it all, God will see that His will is done. Once the church was cleansed of the wrong that invaded it, and a group of faithful saints was found, He led His chosen successor to that group, and the restored church continued.

Dawn,

See....this is what I have never been quite able to understand or get a concrete answer on.....the Restorationists believe the early Restoration church went into apostacy...it was disorganized....then through divine intervention it was "reorganized"...and eventually the Restored church was back on track again with JSIII at the helm. I have been told that at that point..."all was well in Zion".

Look at what has transpired in the RLDS church since its inception! Really...except for the JSIII years....there has always been varying degrees of chaos...be it doctrinally...financially....socially...you name it....there has been chaos surrounding it....at some point or other.

Now...if the Lord allowed the "early restoration church" under BY to be cleansed because if the iniquity that you feel invaded it....what about the RLDS/Restorationists/CoC of today???

There is confusion and chaos in both of them. The restorationists ie; CRE are now bickering over "this that and the other"..there is competition between branches...there is no unity in thought or belief (Price Publishing is not the sole authority of what Restorationists believe..is he?)......we both know first hand the kind of doctrinal apostacy the CoC is in....and it just goes on and on and on.

You know what I am saying is true.

So...I guess my basic question is.....What gives???!!!

I have been told a bazillion times that at some point "soon" the Lord will come and set his house in "order". Well...according to your beliefs (correct me if I am wrong on that)....he did that once in 1830 and again in 1860.....now he has to do it yet again????

Dawn......tell me .....through whom will he "set his house in order"? Do you believe it must needs be through the Restoration branch movement.....or through the CoC world church "somehow"?

We know already that the Remnant Church teach and believe that they are in fact the very organization that the Restorationists are praying and yearning for. They believe in all the "old time" RLDS doctrine....they believe the initial "reorganization" set the pattern....and that they have followed that pattern to the letter....and "poof" there ya go....the "true church" again set "in order" by the Lord.

Yet...you do not believe. Why? (just curious)

I know that most Restorationists believe that when the Lord "honestly and truly" sets his house in "order" that it will be done in a miracleous way....and with an accompaning spiritual manifestation that will testify of the truthfulness of it. The Remnant folks already are testifying that such has already happened. I suspect that the Restorationists will say the same type of things when they testify that the Lords house is once again "in order".....and so it goes!

Dawn.....tell me how it is the Restorationists will be able to organize the higher quorums of the Church. Lay out some sort of chronology of events in order for me to somehow get an understanding of what it is that Restorationists feel has to happen.

Thanks....

randy

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 3 2004, 10:47 PM

I would like to answer the "secondly" first, so.........

I believe that there were a number of factors influencing Joseph Smith, among them, his own ego. But also among them, I believe that he got caught up in the "charismatic" nature of BY, and by doing so, let (at least) one practice into the church that was not of God. So, having said this, with his eyes focusing more on men and their worldly pleasures, along with his own ego coming into play, I do believe that he became a "fallen" prophet. However, I believe that, right towards the end, that he recognized what was happening, and tried to free the church from the wickedness that had overtaken it.

Having said that, back to your "firstly"..........

Secret temple ordinances which started making their appearance in the late Kirtland era. These weren't bad, they were fairly limited, i.e.--washing of feet, and they were not intended to "exalt" one, they were for worship only. However, they paved the way for other secret temple ordinances--baptism for the dead, endowments, sealings, etc.

The use of blood-atonement practices, i.e.--the Whistling Whittling Brigade, among others, which started making their appearances in Missouri (Far West(?) I believe).

The Council of Fifty, which was a secret group of men that was supposed to lead the church/city when Joseph Smith was crowned king (or something like that (I have to read up on it more to understand it better)). They were the select ones that "pre-tested" the waters (so to speak) of things like polygamy, etc.

Polygamy (that's a given.)

Masonry (another given.)

If I come up with any more, I will add them to the list.

Thank you for your reply. I hope you don't mind a few more questions?

Is this the general view of RLDS (CofC, Restoration Branches) or yours personally?

I am curious as to what basis the RLDS felt that they could remove sections 107, 109 and 110 from the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants?

On the issue of Baptism for the Dead. It was obviously practiced durring Joseph Smith's lifetime. Was it wrong, was JS just mistaken (fallen)? What do you believe the reason for the cessation of this ordinance?

Thanks again.

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 5 2004, 08:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 5 2004, 08:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 3 2004, 10:47 PM

I would like to answer the "secondly" first, so.........

I believe that there were a number of factors influencing Joseph Smith, among them, his own ego.  But also among them, I believe that he got caught up in the "charismatic" nature of BY, and by doing so, let (at least) one practice into the church that was not of God.  So, having said this, with his eyes focusing more on men and their worldly pleasures, along with his own ego coming into play, I do believe that he became a "fallen" prophet.  However, I believe that, right towards the end, that he recognized what was happening, and tried to free the church from the wickedness that had overtaken it.

Having said that, back to your "firstly"..........

Secret temple ordinances which started making their appearance in the late Kirtland era.  These weren't bad, they were fairly limited, i.e.--washing of feet, and they were not intended to "exalt" one, they were for worship only.  However, they paved the way for other secret temple ordinances--baptism for the dead, endowments, sealings, etc.

The use of blood-atonement practices, i.e.--the Whistling Whittling Brigade, among others, which started making their appearances in Missouri (Far West(?) I believe).

The Council of Fifty, which was a secret group of men that was supposed to lead the church/city when Joseph Smith was crowned king (or something like that (I have to read up on it more to understand it better)).  They were the select ones that "pre-tested" the waters (so to speak) of things like polygamy, etc.

Polygamy (that's a given.)

Masonry (another given.)

If I come up with any more, I will add them to the list.

Thank you for your reply. I hope you don't mind a few more questions?

Is this the general view of RLDS (CofC, Restoration Branches) or yours personally?

They are my own beliefs, but generally held among many of the RLDS. The CoC/RLDS doesn't make anyone believe anything specific about anything.

I am curious as to what basis the RLDS felt that they could remove sections 107, 109 and 110 from the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants?

I am curious as to what basis the LDS felt that they could remove section 111 from the 1844 D&C. (Actually, I'm not, I know why, I just wanted to know who gave them the authority.)

On the issue of Baptism for the Dead.  It was obviously practiced durring Joseph Smith's lifetime.  Was it wrong, was JS just mistaken (fallen)?  What do you believe the reason for the cessation of this ordinance?

Thanks again.

Amulek

~

I am not following you. There was no cessation of the ordinance in the LDS church. The RLDS believe that there is no need for it, so why do it?

[ST:DS9]

What is contained in Section 111 of the 1844 Doctorine and Covenants? Why do you think that the LDS church took it out? Why did the RLDS take out those other sections?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Nov 5 2004, 07:18 AM

Dawn,

See....this is what I have never been quite able to understand or get a concrete answer on.....the Restorationists believe the early Restoration church went into apostacy...it was disorganized....then through divine intervention it was "reorganized"...and eventually the Restored church was back on track again with JSIII at the helm.  I have been told that at that point..."all was well in Zion".

Look at what has transpired in the RLDS church since its inception!  Really...except for the JSIII years....there has always been varying degrees of chaos...be it doctrinally...financially....socially...you name it....there has been chaos surrounding it....at some point or other.

Now...if the Lord allowed the "early restoration church" under BY to be cleansed because if the iniquity that you feel invaded it....what about the RLDS/Restorationists/CoC of today???

You can't even come close to comparing the COC of today with the LDS church of 1844 on. C'mon, Randy, there is nothing inherantly evil in the church today like there was back then.

There will always be disorder, or at least attempted disorder, in God's house because that is where Satan will be working overtime. So, it is not for me to say how many times the church will need to be cleansed to keep worldly lusts and desires out of the church.

There is confusion and chaos in both of them.  The restorationists ie; CRE are now bickering over "this that and the other"..there is competition between branches...there is no unity in thought or belief (Price Publishing is not the sole authority of what Restorationists believe..is he?)......we both know first hand the kind of doctrinal apostacy the CoC is in....and it just goes on and on and on.

You know what I am saying is true.

So...I guess my basic question is.....What gives???!!!

I have been told a bazillion times that at some point "soon" the Lord will come and set his house in "order".  Well...according to your beliefs (correct me if I am wrong on that)....he did that once in 1830 and again in 1860.....now he has to do it yet again????

Dawn......tell me .....through whom will he "set his house in order"?  Do you believe it must needs be through the Restoration branch movement.....or through the CoC world church "somehow"?

We know already that the Remnant Church teach and believe that they are in fact the very organization that the Restorationists are praying and yearning for.  They believe in all the "old time" RLDS doctrine....they believe the initial "reorganization" set the pattern....and that they have followed that pattern to the letter....and "poof" there ya go....the "true church" again set "in order" by the Lord. 

Yet...you do not believe.  Why?  (just curious)

I know that most Restorationists believe that when the Lord "honestly and truly" sets his house in "order" that it will be done in a miracleous way....and with an accompaning spiritual manifestation that will testify of the truthfulness of it.  The Remnant folks already are testifying that such has already happened.  I suspect that  the Restorationists will say the same type of things when they testify that the Lords house is once again "in order".....and so it goes!

Dawn.....tell me how it is the Restorationists will be able to organize the higher quorums of the Church.  Lay out some sort of chronology of events in order for me to somehow get an understanding of what it is that Restorationists feel has to happen.

Thanks....

                                                            randy

You are asking me, not only to know God's agenda, but to provide it for you as well. I can't do that because I don't know it. The closest I can come to knowing the future is to predict what the CoC will do in the not to distant future (and that's really not too awfully hard to guess.) So, sorry.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 5 2004, 11:30 AM

I am curious as to what basis the LDS felt that they could remove section 111 from the 1844 D&C. (Actually, I'm not, I know why, I just wanted to know who gave them the authority.)

Heh, first I find out that the RLDS don’t accept all of the Doctrine & Covenants of the Church, and then I find out that they have renumbered the ones they accept, and now I’m hearing someone say that the LDS have removed one of them?

So tell me, what does your D&C 111 say that ours does not say?

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 111

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. HC 2: 465—466. At this time the leaders of the Church were heavily in debt due to their labors in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim, along with preaching the gospel. The brethren transacted several items of church business and did some preaching. When it became apparent that no money was to be forthcoming, they returned to Kirtland. Several of the factors prominent in the background are reflected in the wording of this revelation.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 11:51 AM

What is contained in Section 111 of the 1844 Doctorine and Covenants? Why do you think that the LDS church took it out? Why did the RLDS take out those other sections?

Go here http://www.computercontrolsystems.com/Scri...ures/search.asp and read Section 111.

[Amulek]

Jenda: They are my own beliefs, but generally held among many of the RLDS. The CoC/RLDS doesn't make anyone believe anything specific about anything.

Interesting. Thank you.

Jenda: I am curious as to what basis the LDS felt that they could remove section 111 from the 1844 D&C. (Actually, I'm not, I know why, I just wanted to know who gave them the authority.)

I could get into a discussion of why, but that would distract from my question that you did not answer. Why do you believe that the RLDS/CofC felt they could remove these sections from the D&C?

Jenda: I am not following you. There was no cessation of the ordinance in the LDS church. The RLDS believe that there is no need for it, so why do it?

Sorry for not being clear. There was not cessation of the ordinance within the LDS Church, but there was in the RLDS. Why do the RLDS feel that there is no need for Baptism for the Dead, when apparantly Joseph Smith did?

Thanks again.

Amulek

~

[ST:DS9]

I can see why it is not in the Doctorine and Covenants now, because it was not given by revelation.

If i remember right, my Uncle when he was a Bishop, used those same words when he afficiated in the marriage for my Aunt to her now husband. My guess is that section is now part of the polices of the church, perhaps in the General Handbook.

So, why do you think that the LDS has taken it out?

Why have the RLDS taken out those other sections?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 11:51 AM

What is contained in Section 111 of the 1844 Doctorine and Covenants? Why do you think that the LDS church took it out? Why did the RLDS take out those other sections?

You have to understand that I differentiate between the RLDS and the CoC.

The RLDS is the fundamental gospel, BoM believing church that was reorganized in 1860. The CoC on the other hand, is the liberal church that is seeking to rid themselves of their restoration heritage. It was the liberal church that morphed into the CoC that got rid of sections 107, 109 and 110. I disagree with that action, and still view them as revelations that belong in the D&C.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:16 PM

I can see why it is not in the Doctorine and Covenants now, because it was not given by revelation.

If i remember right, my Uncle when he was a Bishop, used those same words when he afficiated in the marriage for my Aunt to her now husband. My guess is that section is now part of the polices of the church, perhaps in the General Handbook.

So, why do you think that the LDS has taken it out?

Why have the RLDS taken out those other sections?

It wasn't taken out because it wasn't a revelation, it was taken out to make room for Utah Section 132. And it doesn't need to be a revelation to be considered church policy. The fact that it was voted on by the members as what they believed was the mind and will of God is what is important.

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:03 PM

[T]here is nothing inherantly evil in the church today like there was back then.

That reminded me of another question I was going to ask. What was this supposed "inherant evil" you keep speaking of?

Thanks

Amulek

~

[ST:DS9]

So you are not a member of the COC at all? You do not see the COC prophet as a prophet at all?

[Jenda]

Jenda: I am curious as to what basis the LDS felt that they could remove section 111 from the 1844 D&C. (Actually, I'm not, I know why, I just wanted to know who gave them the authority.)

I could get into a discussion of why, but that would distract from my question that you did not answer. Why do you believe that the RLDS/CofC felt they could remove these sections from the D&C?

You asked why the RLDS felt justified removing a couple sections from the D&C, I asked why the LDS felt justified doing the same exact thing. How is that different?

Jenda: I am not following you. There was no cessation of the ordinance in the LDS church. The RLDS believe that there is no need for it, so why do it?

Sorry for not being clear. There was not cessation of the ordinance within the LDS Church, but there was in the RLDS. Why do the RLDS feel that there is no need for Baptism for the Dead, when apparantly Joseph Smith did?

Thanks again.

Amulek

~

I guess that maybe God didn't feel it was needed. It seems, from reading church history, and Section 107, that Joseph had petitioned God more than once regarding this issue, and never received confirmation that it was something God wanted him to pursue. Finally God gave Joseph permission to practice it, but clearly stated that at the end of the designated time, the church would be rejected, with it's dead. That seems clear enough to me.

[Ray]

Oh, I think I see now. This information, which you designate as D&C 111, was once included in an earlier D&C collection of the Church, much the same way as the Lectures on Faith were also once included in the D&C collection of the Church, but was later removed. Given the fact that this information was not given through a revelation, and no such claim was ever made, I don’t think it should be contained in a collection we now reserve only for scripture.

That’s not the same was what the RLDS Church has done, though. Sections 107, 109 and 110 have all been proclaimed as scripture, which is why the LDS Church includes those in our collection. The RLDS Church simply refuses to acknowledge that information as scripture.

Edit: sorry, that is what the CoC has done and what the CoC refuses to do. It's good to hear that the RLDS also considers that information to be scripture.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:16 PM

I can see why it is not in the Doctorine and Covenants now, because it was not given by revelation.

If i remember right, my Uncle when he was a Bishop, used those same words when he afficiated in the marriage for my Aunt to her now husband.  My guess is that section is now part of the polices of the church, perhaps in the General Handbook.

So, why do you think that the LDS has taken it out?

Why have the RLDS taken out those other sections?

It wasn't taken out because it wasn't a revelation, it was taken out to make room for Utah Section 132. And it doesn't need to be a revelation to be considered church policy. The fact that it was voted on by the members as what they believed was the mind and will of God is what is important.

It would make sense that the early church would have that policy then, but then the lord commanded polygamy. Polygamy could only be constituted by God, as stated in the Book of Mormon. So when he constituted polygamy, that policy had to change somewhat (as in only having one spouse). But when he commanded it to not be practice anymore that policy then can become full in effect. Remember polygamy could only be practiced when God commands it to be.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 5 2004, 12:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 5 2004, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:03 PM

[T]here is nothing inherantly evil in the church today like there was back then.

That reminded me of another question I was going to ask. What was this supposed "inherant evil" you keep speaking of?

Thanks

Amulek

~

I listed them in the one post I answered that you asked me earlier.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 5 2004, 12:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 5 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:18 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:16 PM

I can see why it is not in the Doctorine and Covenants now, because it was not given by revelation.

If i remember right, my Uncle when he was a Bishop, used those same words when he afficiated in the marriage for my Aunt to her now husband.  My guess is that section is now part of the polices of the church, perhaps in the General Handbook.

So, why do you think that the LDS has taken it out?

Why have the RLDS taken out those other sections?

It wasn't taken out because it wasn't a revelation, it was taken out to make room for Utah Section 132. And it doesn't need to be a revelation to be considered church policy. The fact that it was voted on by the members as what they believed was the mind and will of God is what is important.

It would make sense that the early church would have that policy then, but then the lord commanded polygamy. Polygamy could only be constituted by God, as stated in the Book of Mormon. So when he constituted polygamy, that policy had to change somewhat (as in only having one spouse). But when he commanded it to not be practice anymore that policy then can become full in effect. Remember polygamy could only be practiced when God commands it to be.

Yes, God can command anything because He is God. But God won't command that which He has declared an abomination in the past because He doesn't change. Mormon 4:82 (RLDS) And behold I say unto you, He changeth not; if so, he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

You need to read the meaning of that passage (the one you referenced), not just the words.