Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:19 PM

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

I am a member by virtue of the fact that I was baptized in the church in 1963, prior to all the changes that started to take place. But if I was converted in the last 20 years, I would have been baptized in an RLDS Restoration branch.

I also attend the CoC, but only because there are no restoration branches near me. But I do not believe what they teach (not that they teach much anymore) nor the ordinances that they have manipulated.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 12:25 PM

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.

Ray, Section 111 was accepted by the people (and voted on) as policy and scripture. If it wasn't to have been considered scripture, it would not have needed to have been voted on and wouldn't have been placed in the D&C. If it was just considered a "resolution" or something, it would have been placed in a different book, or maybe just mentioned in the Evening and Morning Star. You are just defending your church's actions without looking at what the saints of that time considered holy or scripture.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

Yes, and what is supposed to happen to people who die without ever hearing the gospel? Are they to forever remain without an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept it, along with all the ordinances that accompany accepting it? Jesus Himself said that nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are baptized, except for little children. Do you accept that teaching? If you do, then you must realize that everybody must be given the same opportunities, whether living or dead? What message of hope does the RLDS or the CoC give to people who believe they have relatives who died without ever hearing the gospel?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:25 PM

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.

I re-read the passages, and Jacob 2 says that polgamy is an abomination to him, but he then says this Verse 30 "For I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these sayings." So what will he command to raise seed unto him, if he was not meaning polygamy?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 5 2004, 12:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 5 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

Yes, and what is supposed to happen to people who die without ever hearing the gospel? Are they to forever remain without an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept it, along with all the ordinances that accompany accepting it? Jesus Himself said that nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are baptized, except for little children. Do you accept that teaching? If you do, then you must realize that everybody must be given the same opportunities, whether living or dead? What message of hope does the RLDS or the CoC give to people who believe they have relatives who died without ever hearing the gospel?

Ray, I answered this question in a post up above somewhere. But I will attempt to reiterate it.

Christ descended to the prisonhouse to teach prior to ascending to His Father in heaven. (So we know that there is a place set apart for that purpose.)

Section 76 states that the righteous and those who were good men but blinded by the craftiness of men (Celestial and Terrestrial) will resurrect in the resurrection of the just. The resurrection of the just will be accomplished before, or during, the Zionic reign. That will give those who have accepted the gospel in the prisonhouse 1000 years to be baptized by themselves without the need for proxy baptisms.

IMO.

[Ray]

Ray, Section 111 was accepted by the people (and voted on) as policy and scripture.

What is your evidence to support your belief that those people were voting on that information as scripture? Isn’t it also possible that they were voting on that information as policy only? Even your reference does not claim that the information should be regarded as scripture, otherwise it would not say that is was not a revelation.

If it wasn't to have been considered scripture, it would not have needed to have been voted on and wouldn't have been placed in the D&C.

Why do you say this? Why couldn’t they have been voting simply on policy?

If it was just considered a "resolution" or something, it would have been placed in a different book, or maybe just mentioned in the Evening and Morning Star.

Why do you say this? Do you know that the Lectures on Faith were also once contained in the Doctrine & Covenants, but were also later removed because they were not regarded as scripture? And that information was given by Joseph Smith Jr. himself.

You are just defending your church's actions without looking at what the saints of that time considered holy or scripture.

I don’t see any reason to believe the information in Section 111 of your Doctrine & Covenant collection should be regarded as scripture, and apparently the RLDS doesn’t either. Otherwise why are they stating that the information was not received by revelation?

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't.

I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 12:52 PM

Ray, Section 111 was accepted by the people (and voted on) as policy and scripture.

What is your evidence to support your belief that those people were voting on that information as scripture? Isn’t it also possible that they were voting on that information as policy only? Even your reference does not claim that the information should be regarded as scripture, otherwise it would not say that is was not a revelation.

If it wasn't to have been considered scripture, it would not have needed to have been voted on and wouldn't have been placed in the D&C.

Why do you say this? Why couldn’t they have been voting simply on policy?

If it was just considered a "resolution" or something, it would have been placed in a different book, or maybe just mentioned in the Evening and Morning Star.

Why do you say this? Do you know that the Lectures on Faith were also once contained in the Doctrine & Covenants, but were also later removed because they were not regarded as scripture? And that information was given by Joseph Smith Jr. himself.

You are just defending your church's actions without looking at what the saints of that time considered holy or scripture.

I don’t see any reason to believe the information in Section 111 of your Doctrine & Covenant collection should be regarded as scripture, and apparently the RLDS doesn’t either. Otherwise why are they stating that the information was not received by revelation?

I think you are confusing "revelation" and "scripture". Are you stating that all the words written in the BoM are "revelation"? or the Bible? Yet they are considered scripture. The body of Christ decides what is scripture, and to this day, the CoC votes on all things that are to be inserted into the D&C. IMO, the last few are not "revelation" in any sense of the word, but are they scripture? They are considered scripture because the people believe they are God's words. Just as not all scripture is revelation, not all revelations are scripture. I think you should consider this "revelation", Ray.

Sorry, couldn't resist. B)

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 12:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 5 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

Yes, and what is supposed to happen to people who die without ever hearing the gospel? Are they to forever remain without an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept it, along with all the ordinances that accompany accepting it? Jesus Himself said that nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are baptized, except for little children. Do you accept that teaching? If you do, then you must realize that everybody must be given the same opportunities, whether living or dead? What message of hope does the RLDS or the CoC give to people who believe they have relatives who died without ever hearing the gospel?

Ray, I answered this question in a post up above somewhere. But I will attempt to reiterate it.

Christ descended to the prisonhouse to teach prior to ascending to His Father in heaven. (So we know that there is a place set apart for that purpose.)

Section 76 states that the righteous and those who were good men but blinded by the craftiness of men (Celestial and Terrestrial) will resurrect in the resurrection of the just. The resurrection of the just will be accomplished before, or during, the Zionic reign. That will give those who have accepted the gospel in the prisonhouse 1000 years to be baptized by themselves without the need for proxy baptisms.

IMO.

Then why would anyone ever have been or ever be baptized for anyone who is dead? Do you disregard all scripture that refers to baptism for the dead?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 12:52 PM

Ray, Section 111 was accepted by the people (and voted on) as policy and scripture.

What is your evidence to support your belief that those people were voting on that information as scripture? Isn’t it also possible that they were voting on that information as policy only? Even your reference does not claim that the information should be regarded as scripture, otherwise it would not say that is was not a revelation.

If it wasn't to have been considered scripture, it would not have needed to have been voted on and wouldn't have been placed in the D&C.

Why do you say this? Why couldn’t they have been voting simply on policy?

If it was just considered a "resolution" or something, it would have been placed in a different book, or maybe just mentioned in the Evening and Morning Star.

Why do you say this? Do you know that the Lectures on Faith were also once contained in the Doctrine & Covenants, but were also later removed because they were not regarded as scripture? And that information was given by Joseph Smith Jr. himself.

You are just defending your church's actions without looking at what the saints of that time considered holy or scripture.

I don’t see any reason to believe the information in Section 111 of your Doctrine & Covenant collection should be regarded as scripture, and apparently the RLDS doesn’t either. Otherwise why are they stating that the information was not received by revelation?

I think you are confusing "revelation" and "scripture". Are you stating that all the words written in the BoM are "revelation"? or the Bible? Yet they are considered scripture. The body of Christ decides what is scripture, and to this day, the CoC votes on all things that are to be inserted into the D&C. IMO, the last few are not "revelation" in any sense of the word, but are they scripture? They are considered scripture because the people believe they are God's words. Just as not all scripture is revelation, not all revelations are scripture. I think you should consider this "revelation", Ray.

Sorry, couldn't resist. B)

Here is the official LDS definition of the word "scripture".

The word scripture means a writing, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22: 29; John 5: 39; 2 Tim. 3: 15). For an account of the process by which the books of the O.T. and N.T. came to be recognized as scripture, see Canon. Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68: 1-4).

And yes, all the words written in the Bible and Book of Mormon are scripture.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't.

I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple?

10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

(This is all in your section 124.)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 5 2004, 01:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 5 2004, 01:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 12:57 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 12:52 PM

Ray, Section 111 was accepted by the people (and voted on) as policy and scripture.

What is your evidence to support your belief that those people were voting on that information as scripture? Isn’t it also possible that they were voting on that information as policy only? Even your reference does not claim that the information should be regarded as scripture, otherwise it would not say that is was not a revelation.

If it wasn't to have been considered scripture, it would not have needed to have been voted on and wouldn't have been placed in the D&C.

Why do you say this? Why couldn’t they have been voting simply on policy?

If it was just considered a "resolution" or something, it would have been placed in a different book, or maybe just mentioned in the Evening and Morning Star.

Why do you say this? Do you know that the Lectures on Faith were also once contained in the Doctrine & Covenants, but were also later removed because they were not regarded as scripture? And that information was given by Joseph Smith Jr. himself.

You are just defending your church's actions without looking at what the saints of that time considered holy or scripture.

I don’t see any reason to believe the information in Section 111 of your Doctrine & Covenant collection should be regarded as scripture, and apparently the RLDS doesn’t either. Otherwise why are they stating that the information was not received by revelation?

I think you are confusing "revelation" and "scripture". Are you stating that all the words written in the BoM are "revelation"? or the Bible? Yet they are considered scripture. The body of Christ decides what is scripture, and to this day, the CoC votes on all things that are to be inserted into the D&C. IMO, the last few are not "revelation" in any sense of the word, but are they scripture? They are considered scripture because the people believe they are God's words. Just as not all scripture is revelation, not all revelations are scripture. I think you should consider this "revelation", Ray.

Sorry, couldn't resist. B)

Here is the official LDS definition of the word "scripture".

The word scripture means a writing, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22: 29; John 5: 39; 2 Tim. 3: 15). For an account of the process by which the books of the O.T. and N.T. came to be recognized as scripture, see Canon. Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68: 1-4).

And yes, all the words written in the Bible and Book of Mormon are scripture.

So, are you suggesting that because it wasn't received as a "revelation" by Joseph Smith, that it was not "inspired" by God, or given under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

[Ray]

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

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't.

I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple?

10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

(This is all in your section 124.)

Our Lord didn't say anything about not appointing other times in which He would accept baptisms for the dead, so don't go putting words in His mouth. And given the fact that He did appoint a time in which this work could be done, it also seems strange for you to say and believe the idea that all of this work can wait until the Millenium.

[Ray]

So, are you suggesting that because it wasn't received as a "revelation" by Joseph Smith, that it was not "inspired" by God, or given under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

Would you please be more specific in what you are asking? What “it” are you talking about? The Bible and Book of Mormon were written by prophets other than Joseph Smith, and each one of them wrote as they were “moved upon” by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 01:11 PM

Our Lord didn't say anything about not appointing other times in which He would accept baptisms for the dead, so don't go putting words in His mouth. And given the fact that He did appoint a time in which this work could be done, it also seems strange for you to say and believe the idea that all of this work can wait until the Millenium.

Maybe you could show me another scripture where it does say that another time is appointed. I just know that in that scripture, it states that if the temple is not completed, the church would be rejected as a church, with it's dead. (Which is another reason why I believe that the church in Nauvoo was not acceptable to God.)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 01:14 PM

So, are you suggesting that because it wasn't received as a "revelation" by Joseph Smith, that it was not "inspired" by God, or given under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

Would you please be more specific in what you are asking? What “it” are you talking about? The Bible and Book of Mormon were written by prophets other than Joseph Smith, and each one of them wrote as they were “moved upon” by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The "it" was section 111 in the 1844 D&C.

So, why couldn't anyone else be moved upon by the power of the Holy Spirit? If it had been a problem, I am sure Joseph Smith would have corrected the situation immediately, as he did when others misused the "powers of the Spirit" in the past (church history-wise.)

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@ Nov 5 2004, 01:15 PM

Maybe you could show me another scripture where it does say that another time is appointed. I just know that in that scripture, it states that if the temple is not completed, the church would be rejected as a church, with it's dead. (Which is another reason why I believe that the church in Nauvoo was not acceptable to God.)

Scroll back up a few posts and click on that link I gave you to scriptures concerning baptism for the dead. You quoted a scripture from Section 124, but there are a few after that.

[Ray]

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--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 01:14 PM

So, are you suggesting that because it wasn't received as a "revelation" by Joseph Smith, that it was not "inspired" by God, or given under the influence of the Holy Spirit?

Would you please be more specific in what you are asking? What “it” are you talking about? The Bible and Book of Mormon were written by prophets other than Joseph Smith, and each one of them wrote as they were “moved upon” by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The "it" was section 111 in the 1844 D&C.

So, why couldn't anyone else be moved upon by the power of the Holy Spirit? If it had been a problem, I am sure Joseph Smith would have corrected the situation immediately, as he did when others misused the "powers of the Spirit" in the past (church history-wise.)

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Lots of people have been moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost since the days of Joseph Smith Jr.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 12:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:24 PM

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.

I read section 107. From what I have read, God had appointed a time where he will except Baptisms for the Dead. But what makes you think that time has already ended?

The temple in Nauvoo had to have been completed in a specific amount of time, and it wasn't.

I am ignorant about this part of church history. Can you show me where the Temple had to be done in a certian amount of time, and that it wasn't done? Can you show me where this time appointed for the baptisms of the dead was linked to the time appointed to building the temple?

10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

(This is all in your section 124.)

But it is stated in Section 124:36

" For it is ordained that in Zion and in her stakes, and in Jersalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for the dead."

The Navaeu Temple was the first to be built for Baptism for the dead. God had ordained other places for this ordinace to be done. The Temple was completed and the ordinance was officiated. Everything is happening that is stated about Baptisms for the Dead, though Jerusalem is a future place for Baptism for the Dead.

So I am still not seeing how the time for Baptism for the Dead is over? Can you please be more clear?

[Ray]

Great catch. I neglected to think about the other scriptures in Section 124.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 01:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 01:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

Dawn!!!

You say there is nothing "inherently evil" in the CoC today"....I ask...."Where have you been"??? Now....you and I both know that on the Center Place discussion board....there is MUCH spoken about what is inherently evil in the CoC today.....namely that the CoC teaches that Jesus Christ is not the ONLY way salvation can be received. Ask Lois for source document for that. She has posted it numerous times.

Now....if questioning the very core of Christs divinity and message is not inherently evil...what would be?

Say what you will about the doctrine that came from JS during the Nauvoo period....but ALL of what JS taught the saints (from our perspective) keeps Christ's divinity and his message at the very core of all we do and teach!

No....you and I both know...what the CoC teaches today...and all the underlying "unwritten" beliefs paint a perfectly clear picture of the direction the CoC is heading...and its not to the "mountain top"!!!

Do not the Restorationists believe that the CoC is in apostacy? Yes or no? If yes...is that not "evil"? If the CoC is NOT in apostacy...then the Restorationists withdrew from the world church....once again without sufficient reason.

You are correct...there is no comparison.

Dawn...as far as the "chronology of events"....try not to by to coy about it....you and I both know we dont have all the answers....God's ways are not man's ways....etc. I am simply asking you....in your opinion....when you contemplate what needs to happen....what runs through your mind? I am curious what YOU feel needs to happen.

randy

[speedomansam]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 02:03 PM

10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

(This is all in your section 124.)

first of all, those verses are 31 and 32, not 10 and 11.

secondly, your taking this out of context. verse 29 says:

"For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for their dead".

Accordingly, God granted time that the saints could do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple, since they didn't have one. This was the appointment. If the saints continued to do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple after the appointed time, then they would have been rejected as a church. Thus, as randy said, after this appointment baptisms would only be accepted in the temple, but they would always be accepted. the period didn't just end.

[Ray]

Originally posted by speedomansam+Nov 5 2004, 02:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (speedomansam @ Nov 5 2004, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 02:03 PM

10f But I command you, all ye my Saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

11a But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

(This is all in your section 124.)

first of all, those verses are 31 and 32, not 10 and 11.

secondly, your taking this out of context. verse 29 says:

"For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for their dead".

Accordingly, God granted time that the saints could do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple, since they didn't have one. This was the appointment. If the saints continued to do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple after the appointed time, then they would have been rejected as a church. Thus, as randy said, after this appointment baptisms would only be accepted in the temple, but they would always be accepted. the period didn't just end.

"out of context"

Yah, that's the ticket. I wish all problems could be solved that easily.

And btw, it's in verse 10 and 11 of the RLDS collection of Doctrine & Covenants. Apparently they renumbered the ones they had remaining after removing the ones they felt didn't deserve to be in there.