Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn,Yes, I know that..hence the question!!!!If James, the Lord's brother was the Presiding Apostle, it would seem the "he" would be the one Presiding at the Ordination of Joseph and Oliver.Why do you suppose "Peter, James and John" were the ones to come back as resurrected and tranlated beings to take care of the Restoration of the PH? randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn, I am sorry...I didnt pay attention to the question mark.No...the "James" that came back with Peter and John was NOT James "the Lord's brother". randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn,Just a little background on the "James" of Peter, James and John fame....that "James" is the brother of John.This James, brother of John was killed during Passover in 44 A.D.So, that was what prompted my question with respect to James, the Lord's brother....if he was the Presiding Apostle he would have out of necessity been the one to come back and restore the MP and ordain Joseph and Oliver, given the fact that the Lord respects and honors his PH authority..all things are done in order in his house. Would you agree with that? If not...how come? randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 19 2005, 06:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 19 2005, 06:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn,Yes, I know that..hence the question!!!!If James, the Lord's brother was the Presiding Apostle, it would seem the "he" would be the one Presiding at the Ordination of Joseph and Oliver.Why do you suppose "Peter, James and John" were the ones to come back as resurrected and tranlated beings to take care of the Restoration of the PH? randy Because they were the dispensational holders of the keys, collectively. They all three had to be present to bestow them on the next dispensational holder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 19 2005, 06:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 19 2005, 06:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn,Just a little background on the "James" of Peter, James and John fame....that "James" is the brother of John.This James, brother of John was killed during Passover in 44 A.D.So, that was what prompted my question with respect to James, the Lord's brother....if he was the Presiding Apostle he would have out of necessity been the one to come back and restore the MP and ordain Joseph and Oliver, given the fact that the Lord respects and honors his PH authority..all things are done in order in his house. Would you agree with that? If not...how come? randy I don't believe so, Randy. Why would that James, who was a relative nobody, have been the dispensational holder? Some proof is needed for you to make that remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 19 2005, 08:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 19 2005, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 19 2005, 06:53 AM <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 07:35 AM James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"? Dawn,Just a little background on the "James" of Peter, James and John fame....that "James" is the brother of John.This James, brother of John was killed during Passover in 44 A.D.So, that was what prompted my question with respect to James, the Lord's brother....if he was the Presiding Apostle he would have out of necessity been the one to come back and restore the MP and ordain Joseph and Oliver, given the fact that the Lord respects and honors his PH authority..all things are done in order in his house. Would you agree with that? If not...how come? randy I don't believe so, Randy. Why would that James, who was a relative nobody, have been the dispensational holder? Some proof is needed for you to make that remark. Dawn,All you need to do is look at the chronology of events.James, the brother of John was with Peter and John when those three...which basically constituted the First Presidency of the Church, received the "keys of the Kingdom" from the Savior, Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration.Act 12:2 tells us this James, brother of John was killed by Herod.It is generally understood by scholars that James, "the Lord's brother" became converted sometime "after" the resurrection of Christ. Also, it is about ACTS 21 where James, "the Lord's brother" is apparently called into the Apostleship.My question though is this...."if" James "the Lord's brother" was the Presiding Apostle....dont you suppose he would be named first as in James, Peter and John? The reason I ask that question is that according to those links you gave me...the listing, positioning or order of mention of the names is supposed to give a clear indication on the order of rank..if you will.Obviously....Peter is always mentioned first. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Randy, I posted that question on another board, in case you want to follow the answers and reasoning (if anyone choses to answer and reason ). I had never believed that any of the other James' were even considered in the running, but I will see what others say. I might also say that this red herring discussion, while interesting, does not change the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, became head of the church, just as was proper, following the law of lineage, as was decreed to the restoration church to follow, also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 09:45 AM Randy, I posted that question on another board, in case you want to follow the answers and reasoning (if anyone choses to answer and reason ). I had never believed that any of the other James' were even considered in the running, but I will see what others say. Dawn, Fair enough.In Matt 10:2 it tells us that "James and John" were brothers---sons of Zebedee. It is this James that the Lord first called into the Apostleship. I think it is interesting that during three very sacred events the Lord only took these three...the First Presidency...with him. They were:1) the Mount of Transfiguration when he and Peter and John received the "keys of the kingdom".2) Raised Jairus's daughter from the dead (see Mark 5:37-42...this tells us clearly that this "James" is the brother of John)3) When Christ suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt 26:37-39)Upon further study this morning...it appears that upon the death of James, the brother of JOHN....this vacancy in the 12 was filled by James, the Lord's brother...according to Pauls writing in Galatians. This event occurred about A.D. 56 randy3) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 On the contrary, Randy. According to all the information given in those articles, it appears to have happened directly after Jesus died. Not 25 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 09:45 AM Randy, I posted that question on another board, in case you want to follow the answers and reasoning (if anyone choses to answer and reason ). I had never believed that any of the other James' were even considered in the running, but I will see what others say.I might also say that this red herring discussion, while interesting, does not change the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, became head of the church, just as was proper, following the law of lineage, as was decreed to the restoration church to follow, also. Dawn,Everything seems to be a red herring!Your reasoning is not consistant. There is no question but James the Lord's brother held a prominant leadership role. There is no doubt about that. But there is no doubt that Peter numerous times throughout the NT is without doubt, regarded as the Chief Apostle and the one the other Apostles and the church in general turned to for counsel and guidance.The fact that Peter, James, brother of John, and John came back as resurrected and translated beings to restore the MP and eventually bestow the "keys of the Kingdom" which ONLY they had, it is obvious that they were the First Presidency of the Early Church.No where that I have found..yet, has the Prophet Joseph made any declaration that James, the Lord's brother....was President of the Church after Christ.Contrast that with numerous quotes about Peter specifically....and also about Peter, James and John....and their coming to earth to restore the MP...etc.I will always defer to latter day revelation with respect to this issue.I will ask you this though.....It is clear that Peter was the Senior Apostle when Christ was alive. It stands to reason he was still the Chief Apostle ie; President of the Church after the Resurrection of the Savior. We know that James, the Lord's brother became converted sometime AFTER the resurrection....and then after a significant period of time after that was called into the Apostleship. So...it stands to reason, just looking simply at the chronology...that at some point you must believe that Peter was released.Show me in the NT, or at least share with me your thoughts on when and why Peter was "released" from that calling. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Randy, it is all beside the point. You are really questioning what the Lord gave as His will in at least 2 sections of the D&C (as well as everything He did in the OT)(and NT). I am not the right person to answer your questions. Ask Him. Ask God why he gave the instructions He did in Section 43. Ask Him why he said that through his seed, Joseph Smith would bless the earth in the same ways Abraham did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 10:32 AM On the contrary, Randy. According to all the information given in those articles, it appears to have happened directly after Jesus died. Not 25 years later. Dawn,My sources come from "New Testament Apostles Testify of Christ, a guide for ACTS through REVELATIONS".The author and their credentials are:D. Kelly Ogden. Holds Master degree in:Hebrew Language and Historical geography of the Bible, from The Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem.Holds Ph.D in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Utah.He is a Professor of Ancient scripture at BYU.He lived for more than a decade in the Holy Land.Andrew Skinner. Holds Master's degrees from Iliff School of Theology and Harvard University in Hebrew Bible and theology and Ph.D in history from the University of Denver.He pursued graduate studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and has taught several years at the Jerusalem Center.He serves as Chair of the Ancient scripture dept at BYU. He is also a member of International editorial group working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He and his family have lived in the Holy Land many years.Both of these authors have traveled extensively and done research in other lands of the early Apostles, including Turkey, Greece and Italy.So....these guys aint rookies. They know what they are talking about. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 They also approach the subject with a built-in bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 10:52 AM Randy, it is all beside the point. You are really questioning what the Lord gave as His will in at least 2 sections of the D&C (as well as everything He did in the OT)(and NT). I am not the right person to answer your questions. Ask Him. Ask God why he gave the instructions He did in Section 43. Ask Him why he said that through his seed, Joseph Smith would bless the earth in the same ways Abraham did. Dawn,I have explained it in detail before! It all goes back to what was happening at that particular place in time. The church was in its infancy. The Church was still in the process of being restored.Line upon line, precept upon precept, the Lord revealed to the Prophet how things should be. At certain times he made allowances if certain things were to happen. They didnt. The church organization continued to be unfolded by the Lord to the Prophet....specifically as it relates to church government and the importance of Temple work. Section 43 was given in Feb, 1831!! You know what was going on at that time...with others supposedly receiving revelations etc. The Lord was making it clear who should receive them for the Church as a whole. (oddly enough, this basic rule was forgotten in 1851).It was necessary during this time that some provision be made for the perpetuity of the PH..with its keys and powers, as well as the Prophetic office, in case Joseph did not prove faithful. He did prove faithful...thus after the Lord restored the Quorum of the 12 wherein the Prophet Joseph bestowed upon these 12 all the "keys, powers and authorities" in order that the work would always go forward...hence...these particular safeguards were not necessary any longer.This is attested to by Josephs own words to the 12 which I know you have heard before.Is your Section 43 the same as ours? Our section 43 talks about "there is none other appointed unto this gift" and "except through him, shall another be appointed in his stead".....are we talking about the same section? I am thinking the one you are referring to is our section 107...I shall investigate.No...Dawn, none of this is beside the point. I am thinking that all this time you were under the impression that the "James" in the Presidency of Peter, James and John was the Lord's brother. You have found out that is not correct. There are some serious ramifications that come from that bit of knowledge.Dawn, I know the RLDS church claims authority for "lineal descent" when the Lord told Joseph...."In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed". I have read this...and read this...and have searched in vain for any hint that the Lord here was referring to the Presidency of the Church. Nothing. Has this scripture been fulfilled in the RLDS/Restorationists movement? If so...how? If not, why and when will it?That Joseph's seed was to be blessed (if they remained faithful, like any of the rest of us) but that was a blessing, conditioned upon being faithful and obedient, and had nothing to do with any one of his seed being selected to preside over the church.Of course...there are several direct descendants of JSjr in the LDS church who hold the MP...and thus they are a blessing to the church and to the world in which they live! So...to that extent...that scripture has been fullfilled. randy.....and btw...I have asked the Lord about this. I have received my answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 11:12 AM They also approach the subject with a built-in bias. Dawn,When you share your testimony of the Restoration with your friends...and you go to the scriptures and other good books.....to share with them what you know to be true....could they not say the same thing about you?When I teach the truths of the restoration...I let the spirit go before me. I let the Holy Ghost testify of the truth. If thats being biased...then call me guilty!I dont need to go to other uninspired writers...writers who do not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to lead and direct them. Writers...who no doubt, if asked if they believed in the Restoration gospel would almost to a man would say they did not. The ironic part about that is they would probably go to these same source documents to try to prove the Restoration false!!No....when it comes to these types of issues....these NT "shades of gray" as I said...I will always defer to latter-day revelation on the subject. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 10:52 AM Randy, it is all beside the point. You are really questioning what the Lord gave as His will in at least 2 sections of the D&C (as well as everything He did in the OT)(and NT). I am not the right person to answer your questions. Ask Him. Ask God why he gave the instructions He did in Section 43. Ask Him why he said that through his seed, Joseph Smith would bless the earth in the same ways Abraham did. Dawn,I am thinking you are avoiding answering my questions!! randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 11:12 AM They also approach the subject with a built-in bias. Dawn,On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration".Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 19 2005, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 19 2005, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 11:12 AM They also approach the subject with a built-in bias. Dawn,On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration".Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy No, I didn't say it just evolved. We have always believed it. At least, I was taught that years ago when I was but a wee lassie. It is a newer concept in the rest of Christianity, but even with that, I don't think new means just a couple of years old, maybe 20-30 years, or so. I don't know. A lot of it came with the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so that is probably when it started. But just because the concept was recently discovered doesn't mean it wasn't true all along. It just meant that there was no way to find out that information prior to 40 or 50 years ago, but it was true, never-the-less. Truth is truth.Maybe God revealed the truth to Joseph Smith, and the LDS chose not to embrace it because it did not fit the design they chose for themselves. I don't know. I just know that it has been around in our church a lot longer than it has been in mainstream Christianity.Let me ask you a question. Why don't you ask these questions on the other board where there are much more studied people than I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 19 2005, 01:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 19 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 19 2005, 11:06 AM <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 11:12 AM They also approach the subject with a built-in bias. Dawn,On the other board you said that this notion of "James, the brother of Jesus" being President of the Church after Christ died is a "foundation of the Restoration".Show me where....anywhere, that the Prophet Joseph..either in his writings, or the Lord in the D&C has taught that doctrine. It is NOT a foundation of the Restoration. You yourself said in effect...that this idea has just fairly recently evolved. randy No, I didn't say it just evolved. We have always believed it. At least, I was taught that years ago when I was but a wee lassie. It is a newer concept in the rest of Christianity, but even with that, I don't think new means just a couple of years old, maybe 20-30 years, or so. I don't know. A lot of it came with the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so that is probably when it started. But just because the concept was recently discovered doesn't mean it wasn't true all along. It just meant that there was no way to find out that information prior to 40 or 50 years ago, but it was true, never-the-less. Truth is truth.Maybe God revealed the truth to Joseph Smith, and the LDS chose not to embrace it because it did not fit the design they chose for themselves. I don't know. I just know that it has been around in our church a lot longer than it has been in mainstream Christianity.Let me ask you a question. Why don't you ask these questions on the other board where there are much more studied people than I? Dawn,Trust me...I would, but I cant seem to receive an account to post.Bradly Barnhart has touched up the exact question I have posed to you. It is clear that Peter was President of the church. This position is supported throughout the NT, particularly before ACTs and through the first half of ACTs.In the 2nd half of ACTs it is clear the emphasis is on Paul and to a lesser extent James, the brother of the Lord. Since Bradley accept the position that James, the Lord's brother, was President of the Church in Jerusalem...well after the resurrection of the Lord, at what point was Peter "released" from his calling as Chief & Senior Apostle?My position is that he wasnt, of course. But what are your thoughts? randyplz post my questions on the other board for me...if you would. thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenda Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Randy, you have to understand that what we now have as the canon of scripture was developed by what became the RCC. It is what they accepted to support their belief. That left a lot of stuff out, reduced to "non-scripture" standing. That is why what you read in the Bible minimizes James contribution. It is spelled out clearly in the articles I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 08:16 PM Randy, you have to understand that what we now have as the canon of scripture was developed by what became the RCC. It is what they accepted to support their belief. That left a lot of stuff out, reduced to "non-scripture" standing. That is why what you read in the Bible minimizes James contribution. It is spelled out clearly in the articles I posted. Dawn,Please...answer my questions though...ok? randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Johnson Posted March 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 19 2005, 09:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 19 2005, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 19 2005, 08:16 PM Randy, you have to understand that what we now have as the canon of scripture was developed by what became the RCC. It is what they accepted to support their belief. That left a lot of stuff out, reduced to "non-scripture" standing. That is why what you read in the Bible minimizes James contribution. It is spelled out clearly in the articles I posted. Dawn,Please...answer my questions though...ok? randy Dawn,I hope you are not going to let my questions go without an honest attempt at an answer are you??Looking at the responses from the other board....it would appear that your position is certainly not held up by the others. Bradley was middle of the road with qualifications.Plz...scroll back through my last few posts...and try to answer may questions. randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.