Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Amulek]

Jenda: 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 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 apologise. I can see that in my haste, I am not wording my questions very well. I did not mean "justified" in that way, but as "what was their reasoning for doing such . . . what was their justification?" The reasoning for the LDS Church for removing the section on Marriage could certainly be "justified" by them on the basis of the new commandment of Plural marriage. I gather you (they) feel justified because the Nauvoo temple was not completed on time, correct? Are there any other reasons? What was the "acceptable"or sufficient time frame to complete the Nauvoo temple in your opinion? I did not see the Lord in scripture give a specified deadline or timeframe, nor do I find one in Church history. Maybe you could help me out here.

Amulek

~

[Amulek]

Jenda: 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.

As I have read Church history, (and I will admit, I have not read extensively RLDS versions) I don't find BY all that "charismatic" in Nauvoo. Certainly you could say that about him afterwards, but it seems to me that when Joseph was around, he was pretty much a humble follower. Perhaps you can give us some historical evidence to support your assertion.

Section 43 (LDS) verse three says in speaking of Joseph, "And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me." Are you suggesting that since Joseph became a "fallen" prophet and was not abiding in the Lord, that the ability to "receive commandments and revelations" were taken from him and given to another? If so, who? If not, why not?

Jenda: 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.

Secret [sacred] temple ordinance do not, in and of themselves, seem "evil" Particularly with the research that is being conducted that seems to demonstrate that the Early Christians also had secret rituals that were given to the apostles and passed down to a select few. Why do you find these things "evil"

Jenda: 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).

Could you please provide me with a link to read more about the "Whistling Whittling Brigade". What "others," meaning blood-atonement practices did you have in mind?

Jenda: 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.

I think that perhaps you need to read more about the history of the Council of Fifty. May I suggest an article entitled, "The Council of Fifty and Its Members, 1844 to 1945" by D. Michael Quinn. If you cannot find a copy, email me and I will send you a copy.

Jenda: Polygamy (that's a given.)

Why do you find that a given. It was practiced in the OT apparently under the command and approval of God.

Jenda: Masonry (another given.)

I don't understand. Why do you find Masonry another "given"

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 01:21 PM

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?

The Nauvoo Temple was never completed. And the requirement in Section 107/124 states that that temple must be completed in order for the church not to be rejected, with it's dead.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 5 2004, 01:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 5 2004, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:04 PM

<!--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

Randy, I see a difference between "worldly" and "evil". Humanism is not "evil", murder is. (Man-made) world peace is not evil, secret societies are. Both are insidious, and need to be cleansed from the church, but some things are "evil" and some things are "worldly".

IMO.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek@Nov 5 2004, 03:40 PM

Jenda: 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 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 apologise. I can see that in my haste, I am not wording my questions very well. I did not mean "justified" in that way, but as "what was their reasoning for doing such . . . what was their justification?" The reasoning for the LDS Church for removing the section on Marriage could certainly be "justified" by them on the basis of the new commandment of Plural marriage. I gather you (they) feel justified because the Nauvoo temple was not completed on time, correct? Are there any other reasons? What was the "acceptable"or sufficient time frame to complete the Nauvoo temple in your opinion? I did not see the Lord in scripture give a specified deadline or timeframe, nor do I find one in Church history. Maybe you could help me out here.

Amulek

~

I agree, there was no specific time indicated, but I am sure the Lord meant before 2002.

I am sure He even meant before they left Nauvoo.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 06:09 PM

(Man-made) world peace is not evil, secret societies are. Both are insidious, and need to be cleansed from the church, but some things are "evil" and some things are "worldly".

IMO.

Jenda,

You are referring to sacred temple ordinances.

...and your full of manure.

[ST:DS9]

The Nauvoo temple was completed in May 1846 and was publicly dedicated, and there were thousands who witnessed this. Baptisms for the Dead started in 1841 in the Temple, and endowments were done in 1845-1846. So why do you think that the temple wasn't completed? Because it was, Baptism was officiated in the Temple, and there are many places that have been dedicated for Baptisms for the Dead.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 5 2004, 08:05 PM

The Nauvoo temple was completed in May 1846 and was publicly dedicated, and there were thousands who witnessed this.  Baptisms for the Dead started in 1841 in the Temple, and endowments were done in 1845-1846.  So why do you think that the temple wasn't completed?  Because it was, Baptism was officiated in the Temple, and there are many places that have been dedicated for Baptisms for the Dead.

As the Nauvoo temple was being built, each room was dedicated as it was finished, so there were multiple little dedications as the work continued, but the temple was never finished. BY said so in the Journal of Discourses. If you have a set handy and want to check it out, the reference is vol. 18, page 303. He states that the temple at St. Georges is the first temple completed since the time of Adam that the ordinances can be performed in.

Also from this reference: Church History in the Fullness of Times, page 302

"Rooms in the temple were dedicated as they were completed so that ordinance work could begin as early as possible. General Conference convened in the partially finished ediface in October, 1845. Brigham Young "opened the services of the day by a dedicatory prayer, presenting the temple, thus far completed, as a monument of the saints liberality, fidelity and faith, concluding: 'Lord, we dedicate this house and ourselves to thee.'"

This reference made no mention of any other dedication service. Could you provide the reference? Thanks.

[Jenda]

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.

Since we were discussing the RLDS D&C, I used those verse references. But thanks for looking them up in your own D&C.

The whole church was the subject of those verses, not just baptism for the dead. Maybe you should read them again. It says that if the temple was not finished in sufficient time, the church would be rejected as a church with it's dead. The temple was never finished, therefore, the church was rejected as a church.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 5 2004, 07:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 5 2004, 07:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 06:09 PM

(Man-made) world peace is not evil, secret societies are.  Both are insidious, and need to be cleansed from the church, but some things are "evil" and some things are "worldly".

IMO.

Jenda,

You are referring to sacred temple ordinances.

...and your full of manure.

I wasn't necessarily referring to anything. And while you might have thought about temple ordinances, there were other things that were going on in Nauvoo that fall into that category, as I said before, masonry, and the Council of Fifty.

[Snow]

not necessarily?

Then let me qualify; to the extent you weren't talking about the temple, then whatever... you may have a point; to the extent you are talking about the temple, you're full of it.

[ST:DS9]

http://users.marshall.edu/~brown/nauvoo/nt-parent.html

Look at the Chronology for 1846. Also look at the main Nauvoo page from that site.

Also you have not answered my guestion about Jacob 2:30, What will the Lord command to raise seed unto him?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 07:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 5 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 01:04 PM

<!--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

Randy, I see a difference between "worldly" and "evil". Humanism is not "evil", murder is. (Man-made) world peace is not evil, secret societies are. Both are insidious, and need to be cleansed from the church, but some things are "evil" and some things are "worldly".

IMO.

Dawn,

You seem to be back peddling a bit my dear!!

So...tell me this....who do you think ultimately would be behind a movement whose goal is to cause people NOT to believe that accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior is the only way to salvation? Who do you think would be content to see the BoM deemphasized to the point its almost just a "good book" and nothing more?

Who do you think would enjoy seeing women ordained to the PH?

We both know the answer....Satan. Would you agree with this? If Satan would enjoy and condone such beliefs would they not be "inherently evil" given the fact that if a person were to believe such things they would not be able to return to God the Father? I ask you....what could be more inspired by evil than that......teachings that would thwart the very PURPOSE we came to this earth??!!!

No...the people in the CoC are good and honorable...but, the path they are on has been inspired and encouraged by him who is the "master deceiver"....and they are blinded to what lies ahead of them. These teachings go way beyond "worldly". So....to be clear....you believe that to succumb to "worldly appetites and passions, vanity...possessions...teachings" etc....is NOT inherently frought with evil? Hmmmm.

Dawn....you seem conflicted regarding the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. It just seems to be something that simply cannot be reconciled within the RLDS/Restorationists thinking.

You say you dont believe it..yet you accept the revelations given through JS regarding it. You accept the fact that JS taught it and the church practiced it..yet, you do not believe it is necessary now....although the Lord sounded pretty adament about it. It seems to me...that if it was that important of a doctrine then....then why didnt the Lord....or I should say....why hasn't the Lord revealed his will again to the CoC/RLDS/Restorationists/Remnant church's to reinstitute the practice?

Certainly he would have by 2004...true? Or is your position that it was never really that important of a doctrine?

[Amulek]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 10:03 PM

Jenda: As the Nauvoo temple was being built, each room was dedicated as it was finished, so there were multiple little dedications as the work continued, but the temple was never finished.

Let me just say first of all, thank you Jenda for you willingness to answer our questions, even though some of them seem a bit discourteous. As has been pointed out, if you do a google search you will find that some workers were left behind and finished the temple and the final public dedication was on May 1-3, 1846, by Orson Hyde, the senior Apostle in Nauvoo at that time. There were various dedications held at the temple. See: http://users.marshall.edu/~brown/nauvoo/de...dedication.html

The dedicatory prayer by Elder Hyde was recorded as follows:

"Holy and Everlasting Father, before Thee this morning we present ourselves and acknowledge Thy mercy that has been extended to us since we have been on Thy footstool, and for this opportunity of dedicating this house. We thank Thee that Thou hast given us strength to accomplish the charges delivered by Thee. Forgive us our sins and the sins of thy people. Thou hast seen our labors and exertions to accomplish this purpose. By the authority of the Holy Priesthood now we offer this building as a sanctuary to Thy Worthy Name. We ask Thee to take the guardianship into Thy hands and grant that Thy Spirit shall dwell here and may all feel a sacred influence on their hearts that His Hand has helped this work. Accept of our offering this morning, and that soul that blesses this temple let blessings rest on his posterity to the latest generation, and that soul that shall practice evil against this temple and Thy House, set Thy face against him and let evil take the portion of his inheritance. Administer to Thy people and let Thy honor and glory fall on our heads, not in the eyes of men but in the day when the world shall become Thy dominion. May we have the honor to tune the lyre that Thou hast redeemed us from every nation and made us holy and pure and that we have washed our robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. It must needs be that offenses come, we offer it as the fruit of our labors and may the oppression under which they groaned be to our good. We ask that the angel of mercy may be round about this temple and that light may descend upon us and let us pass to the courts of the heavenly. Let Thy Spirit rest upon those who have contributed to the building of this temple, the laborers on it that they may come forth to receive kingdoms and dominions and glory and immortal power. Accept of us we pray Thee, inspire every bosom to do Thy will, cause that truth may lead them for the glorious coming of the Son of God when you come in the name of the King, the Lord of Hosts shall be the King. Gather us in Thy Kingdom through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen." (Thomas Bullock, Minutes of the Dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. Historic Sites File. Church Historical Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Jenda: BY said so in the Journal of Discourses. If you have a set handy and want to check it out, the reference is vol. 18, page 303. He states that the temple at St. Georges is the first temple completed since the time of Adam that the ordinances can be performed in.

What Brigham stated was that the St. George temple was the first one completed that the Saints could enjoy. They were driven from Nauvoo and never got the privledge of enjoying it.

I am looking forward to your replys to my posts yesterday. You partially replied to one which brought up the issue of the completion of the Nauvoo temple.

Thank you.

Amulek

~

[Snow]

I get a mental picture of Jenda posting on this topic, laughing to herself everytime she writes a word, finding it humourous that people actually think she believes what she is writing, which of course, she couldn't.

The revelation in question was received in January of 1841. By that time Jenda thinks the Church and Joseph had already apostacised so it wouldn't matter to Jenda what the revelation was, it would have been a false revelation.

The revelation called for the temple to be completed so that temple ordinances could be performed there else God would ultimately reject the temple and the Church and in the meantime ordinances could be performed elsewhere.

The temple had been completed enough that ordiances were performed in the temple, endowments and baptisms for the dead, and sealings.

The temple was dedicated.

Yet Jenda mantains that it was never completed. Since the temple was completed enough for temple work to be done and completed enough that it could be dedicated to God Jenda can't think that it is the temple work and the dedication are the important facets of temple construction. So what was left to complete? Some paint, a little covebase work, some carpentry, hanging some canvas.

...and this is the part where Jenda has to be laughing to herself as she types: God rejects the Church because they failed to fullfill a false prophecy by neglecting the cove base.

Good thinking Jenda.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amulek+Nov 6 2004, 07:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amulek @ Nov 6 2004, 07:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 5 2004, 10:03 PM

Jenda: As the Nauvoo temple was being built, each room was dedicated as it was finished, so there were multiple little dedications as the work continued, but the temple was never finished.

Let me just say first of all, thank you Jenda for you willingness to answer our questions, even though some of them seem a bit discourteous. As has been pointed out, if you do a google search you will find that some workers were left behind and finished the temple and the final public dedication was on May 1-3, 1846, by Orson Hyde, the senior Apostle in Nauvoo at that time. There were various dedications held at the temple. See: http://users.marshall.edu/~brown/nauvoo/de...dedication.html

The dedicatory prayer by Elder Hyde was recorded as follows:

"Holy and Everlasting Father, before Thee this morning we present ourselves and acknowledge Thy mercy that has been extended to us since we have been on Thy footstool, and for this opportunity of dedicating this house. We thank Thee that Thou hast given us strength to accomplish the charges delivered by Thee. Forgive us our sins and the sins of thy people. Thou hast seen our labors and exertions to accomplish this purpose. By the authority of the Holy Priesthood now we offer this building as a sanctuary to Thy Worthy Name. We ask Thee to take the guardianship into Thy hands and grant that Thy Spirit shall dwell here and may all feel a sacred influence on their hearts that His Hand has helped this work. Accept of our offering this morning, and that soul that blesses this temple let blessings rest on his posterity to the latest generation, and that soul that shall practice evil against this temple and Thy House, set Thy face against him and let evil take the portion of his inheritance. Administer to Thy people and let Thy honor and glory fall on our heads, not in the eyes of men but in the day when the world shall become Thy dominion. May we have the honor to tune the lyre that Thou hast redeemed us from every nation and made us holy and pure and that we have washed our robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. It must needs be that offenses come, we offer it as the fruit of our labors and may the oppression under which they groaned be to our good. We ask that the angel of mercy may be round about this temple and that light may descend upon us and let us pass to the courts of the heavenly. Let Thy Spirit rest upon those who have contributed to the building of this temple, the laborers on it that they may come forth to receive kingdoms and dominions and glory and immortal power. Accept of us we pray Thee, inspire every bosom to do Thy will, cause that truth may lead them for the glorious coming of the Son of God when you come in the name of the King, the Lord of Hosts shall be the King. Gather us in Thy Kingdom through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen." (Thomas Bullock, Minutes of the Dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. Historic Sites File. Church Historical Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Jenda: BY said so in the Journal of Discourses. If you have a set handy and want to check it out, the reference is vol. 18, page 303. He states that the temple at St. Georges is the first temple completed since the time of Adam that the ordinances can be performed in.

What Brigham stated was that the St. George temple was the first one completed that the Saints could enjoy. They were driven from Nauvoo and never got the privledge of enjoying it.

I am looking forward to your replys to my posts yesterday. You partially replied to one which brought up the issue of the completion of the Nauvoo temple.

Thank you.

Amulek

~

Why do you (among others) insist on posting a website to something that bears no reference to the work that it is taken from. References. References. References. Without them, this website means absolutely nothing to me.

Why does the church history reference posted on your church's official website make no note of any official dedication for the temple?

Maybe some of you here can answer some of the questions I have raised before I go on to answer yours. After all, a discussion is give and take, not demand, demand, demand.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 6 2004, 10:49 AM

Why do you (among others) insist on posting a website to something that bears no reference to the work that it is taken from. References. References. References. Without them, this website means absolutely nothing to me.

Now I am sure you are laughing while you post although I would caution that not everyone knows your sense of humor and may think that you actually believe what you are writing:

For those of you who are too lazy to click the website and look for the references that Jenda jokingly claims are missing, the references are:

History of the Church

Henry W. Bigler, Autobiography, Lee library, BYU

Watson. Manuscript History of Brigham Young

Improvement Era

Manuscript Records of the Nauvoo Temple

Thomas Bullock, Minutes of the Dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. Historic Sites File. Church Historical Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Or I can add from my own library:

Brigham Young, American Moses, Leonard Arrington.

Good joke huh Jenda?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 6 2004, 11:12 AM

Good joke huh Jenda?

Actually, it is more like a Doh! moment. The moment when you realize that your bifocals have selectively filtered out the most important information.

Thanks, Snow.

[Snow]

You're welcome. I hope you are not taking my chiding too seriously. I am pretty sarcastic with you lately but generally speaking I have the same respect and appreciation for you as alway.

[speedomansam]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 5 2004, 10:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 5 2004, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -speedomansam@Nov 5 2004, 02:30 PM

<!--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.

Since we were discussing the RLDS D&C, I used those verse references. But thanks for looking them up in your own D&C.

The whole church was the subject of those verses, not just baptism for the dead. Maybe you should read them again. It says that if the temple was not finished in sufficient time, the church would be rejected as a church with it's dead. The temple was never finished, therefore, the church was rejected as a church.

I'm not sure as to how true Ray's statement about RLDS removing verses they didn't feel the need to be there is, but this seems eerily familiar to the early apostate church after christ--them removing "plain and precious truths from the Bible". in any case, as the verses you quoted in RLDS D&C started at 10 and 11, and our D&C has them at 30, that's 20 verses that have been deleted!! How can anyone expect to get an accurate understanding of scripture with 2/3 of it removed?

Jenda, thanks for humbling my natural, teenage cocky attitude of knowing it all. You suggested I go back and study the verse some more to understand it, so I did, with new understanding. Now, let me prove my point:

vs. 11/32: "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. "

You said that this is a reference to the church being rejected if they didn't finish the temple on time. Entirely not so! They would be rejected as a church if they didn't do "these things at the end of the appointment". What were these things? I'll point you back to the text to understand, but first let me be assured that you understand and cannot argue with what this "appointment" is. Vs 10/31-11/32: "... I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me...But, behold, at the end of this appointment..." --thus the appointment was clearly the time appointed to build the temple. Now, after this appoitment (after the saints had a temple built and a baptisimal font), if the saints didn't do certain things, they would be rejected with their dead. What were these things? Here's some context:"...your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things" --these things are clearly baptisms for the dead!

I don't know how I can prove it any more plainly that the LDS church has not been rejected as a church because we are faithfully continuing with baptisms for the dead, as commanded us. If you still do not believe me, then I'm tempted to give up proving things by scripture because faith is not intelectual. It's spritual.

And now I must go finish writing a compare and contrast essay on Heart of Darkness and The Birthmark.

[speedomansam]

hmm, somehow i missed all snow's posts before i posted. jenda, why are you questioning this section of the D&C if you don't believe it anyway? It seems impossible to question that which you don't believe; do you believe deep down?

My real question is this: if you don't believe it, why is it in your RLDS D&C?

[srm]

Originally posted by srm@Nov 4 2004, 10:40 PM

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?

jenda?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Nov 6 2004, 03:00 PM

I'm not sure as to how true Ray's statement about RLDS removing verses they didn't feel the need to be there is, but this seems eerily familiar to the early apostate church after christ--them removing "plain and precious truths from the Bible". in any case, as the verses you quoted in RLDS D&C started at 10 and 11, and our D&C has them at 30, that's 20 verses that have been deleted!! How can anyone expect to get an accurate understanding of scripture with 2/3 of it removed?

Maybe if you did a side-by-side comparison (instead of jumping to conclusions) you would see that they are the same, the versification is different. The RLDS D&C keeps the paragraph form of the original revelations while the LDS D&C breaks it down differently.

Jenda, thanks for humbling my natural, teenage cocky attitude of knowing it all. You suggested I go back and study the verse some more to understand it, so I did, with new understanding. Now, let me prove my point:

vs. 11/32: "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. "

You said that this is a reference to the church being rejected if they didn't finish the temple on time. Entirely not so! They would be rejected as a church if they didn't do "these things at the end of the appointment". What were these things? I'll point you back to the text to understand, but first let me be assured that you understand and cannot argue with what this "appointment" is. Vs 10/31-11/32: "... I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me...But, behold, at the end of this appointment..." --thus the appointment was clearly the time appointed to build the temple. Now, after this appoitment (after the saints had a temple built and a baptisimal font), if the saints didn't do certain things, they would be rejected with their dead. What were these things? Here's some context:"...your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things" --these things are clearly baptisms for the dead!

31/10f 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.

32/11a 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.

I highlighted the important phrases of those verses. The highlighted portion is verse 31/10f makes it clear that the time frame is the sufficient amount of time to build a temple. During that "sufficient time" the baptisms in the river would be acceptable, but once that time is over, they are no longer acceptable, AND the church is rejected.

I don't know how I can prove it any more plainly that the LDS church has not been rejected as a church because we are faithfully continuing with baptisms for the dead, as commanded us. If you still do not believe me, then I'm tempted to give up proving things by scripture because faith is not intelectual. It's spritual.

And now I must go finish writing a compare and contrast essay on Heart of Darkness and The Birthmark.

Have fun writing your essay! B)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm+Nov 6 2004, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Nov 6 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Nov 4 2004, 10:40 PM

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?

jenda?

Sorry, srm, it got lost in all the other posts I had to answer.

I have never read JS,III's, biography, but my history book says Zenos Gurley was a seventy. Is it possible what you might remember reading could have come from a later period of time when it was more than likely he was ordained to a higher office?

I would have to read some of the personal accounts, but, IMO, Brigham Young, whether at the conference or at the parade, pulled a charade that fooled many innocent people. From everything I have read, it seems clear that his ultimate goal was to become leader of the church.

BTW, when did you say those personal accounts were written? Were some written just after the experience and some written years later? Or was it someone else who remarked about the personal accounts regarding that experience?

[srm]

Sorry, srm, it got lost in all the other posts I had to answer. 

yes, they have been comming at you hard and steady...

I have never read JS,III's, biography, but my history book says Zenos Gurley was a seventy.  Is it possible what you might remember reading could have come from a later period of time when it was more than likely he was ordained to a higher office?

Is there a reference in your history book? i'd like to know when and by whom he was ordained a seventy.

I

would have to read some of the personal accounts, but, IMO, Brigham Young, whether at the conference or at the parade, pulled a charade that fooled many innocent people.  From everything I have read, it seems clear that his ultimate goal was to become leader of the church.

OK. This is at odds with the many witnesses...from the conference at least. These people who had spiritual experiences in the past and they recognised this as a spirirtual experience. I think that they knew what they were seeing and what they were talking about

BTW, when did you say those personal accounts were written?  Were some written just after the experience and some written years later?  Or was it someone else who remarked about the personal accounts regarding that experience?

As far as I'm aware, all known accounts were written years later.