Book Of Mormon Question

[Volcanogrills]

In 3rd Nephi, Nephi, while Sam. the lamanite preaches, is baptizing. Soon after Christs advent, he is authorized to baptize again. Same thing occurred in Act 19 (1-6) I think that it was because the baptism of John pertained to the Old Covenant and the later baptism was to A:Give the gift of the holy ghost. (Gift didnt come till after Christs death) and to give admission to the New covenant.

any thoughts?

[Traveler]

In 3rd Nephi, Nephi, while Sam. the lamanite preaches, is baptizing. Soon after Christs advent, he is authorized to baptize again. Same thing occurred in Act 19 (1-6) I think that it was because the baptism of John pertained to the Old Covenant and the later baptism was to A:Give the gift of the holy ghost. (Gift didnt come till after Christs death) and to give admission to the New covenant.

any thoughts?

It is interesting to note that when the Mormons migrated to the west they were "rebaptized". It appears to me that in times of great change the L-rd may ask that his people recommit through baptism. I am not such what bring such things about or if baptism under such conditions is really 100% necessary.

If we were asked to be rebaptized for whatever reason pleases G-d; I would do so without question.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

In 3rd Nephi, Nephi, while Sam. the lamanite preaches, [Nephi? --JAG] is baptizing. Soon after Christs advent, he is authorized to baptize again.

If you're referring to Nephi: There are two different Nephis here. The one who baptized Samuel the Lamanite's converts was Nephi, son of Helaman and brother of Lehi. The Nephi who met Christ was the son of the previous Nephi.

But I agree with your larger point.

[Man_on_the_Hill]

Why do you ask?

Another good question is... Was Abraham's baptism incongruent with scripture and history? How did baptism evolve?

[mnn727]

In 3rd Nephi, Nephi, while Sam. the lamanite preaches........

any thoughts?

Yeah, the name is Samuel.

You sound just like the anti's who call Joseph Smith - Joe

Just a thought, you have 3 posts here, not enough for people to know you, its time for your best behavior.

[TheAngelPalmoni]

In 3rd Nephi, Nephi, while Sam. the lamanite preaches, is baptizing. Soon after Christs advent, he is authorized to baptize again. Same thing occurred in Act 19 (1-6) I think that it was because the baptism of John pertained to the Old Covenant and the later baptism was to A:Give the gift of the holy ghost. (Gift didnt come till after Christs death) and to give admission to the New covenant.

any thoughts?

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ which isn't the Light of Christ but can be considered part of the Holy Ghost. However a Fulness of the Holy Ghost is much more than the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Volcanogrills]

Yeah, the name is Samuel.

You sound just like the anti's who call Joseph Smith - Joe

Just a thought, you have 3 posts here, not enough for people to know you, its time for your best behavior.

I have three posts because I just started. I abbreviated Samuel the Lamanites name (and title) because I was in a hurry. I was trying to find an answer to my question and get a consesus of opinions from those of you who have more experience.

[xenic101]

Yeah, the name is Samuel.

You sound just like the anti's who call Joseph Smith - Joe

Just a thought, you have 3 posts here, not enough for people to know you, its time for your best behavior.

Joseph Smith's friends and family called him Joe all the time.

[Just_A_Guy]

Joseph Smith's friends and family called him Joe all the time.

Interesting. Do you have a primary historical source for this?

[xenic101]

Janet Thomas, "What Did Joseph Smith Really Look Like?", New Era, Dec. 2005, 28

To everybody he was known as ‘Young Joe Smith,’ to distinguish him from his father, who was ‘Old Joe Smith.’”(John Henry Evans, Joseph Smith: An American Prophet (1946), 37. (what I could find of this book online begins at page 40ish...))

October 1979 Sessions, The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith, N. Eldon Tanner

New York Sun of 4 September 1843 stated:

“‘This Joe Smith must be set down as an extraordinary character, a prophet-hero, as Carlyle might call him. He is one of the great men of this age, and in future history will rank with those who, in one way or another, have stamped their impress strongly on society’” (History of the Church, 6:3).

April 1984 Sessions, The Magnificent Vision Near Palmyra,

James E. Faust

The New York Sun in the late summer of 1843 said:

“That Joe Smith, the founder of the Mormons, is a man of great talent, a deep thinker, an eloquent speaker, an able writer, and a man of great mental power, no one can doubt who has watched his career. That his followers are deceived, we all believe …

“Few in this age have done such deeds, and performed such apparent miracles. It is no small thing, in the blaze of this nineteenth century, to give to men a new revelation, found a new religion, establish new forms of worship, to build a city, with new laws, institutions, and orders of architecture,—to establish ecclesiastic, civil and military jurisdiction, found colleges, send out missionaries, and make proselytes in two hemispheres: yet all this has been done by Joe Smith, and that against every sort of opposition, ridicule and persecution.” (History of the Church, 6:3.)

Although I'm not sure those count as primary sources. I know I've read dozens of time non-hostile references to him as "Joe", but looking now with google, I'm not able to locate any. For the most part those who believed he was a prophet of God gave and give him the respect of using his full name and most of the 'history' we have has been passed through the church which followed suit, "correcting" it to Joseph where needed. "Joe Smith" was often used by those hostile to him or the church, and those instances abound, however "Joe" is a perfectly acceptable substitute for "Joseph" and was used often enough in informal conversation. Probably because of the church's early persecution complex, derogatory use of "Joe" was left intact, where as familial use of Joe was corrected, because we respect him by using his full name. I suspect the places I've read "Joe Smith" are on the bookshelf in the other room, and that most online search results are either hostile or neutral because those are the ones used most often.

Regardless, "Joe" is not innately a derogatory form of "Joseph" and I will not seek out offense over something so idle as someone who doesn't believe him to have been a prophet of God not giving him the respect I do. Had his name been Richard Smith, I might feel differently.

Edited December 2, 2010 by xenic101

[mnn727]

I have three posts because I just started. I abbreviated Samuel the Lamanites name (and title) because I was in a hurry..

Thats the same answer the Anti's give.

Use peoples names correctly even if it takes you 2 whole seconds more to type it. Its shows respect both for the person whose name it is and also to the people reading the post.

[mnn727]

Joseph Smith's friends and family called him Joe all the time.

Makes no difference, he himself requested to be called Joseph -- End of story; Joseph it is.

Also the four references you gave does not equal "ALL the time"

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, xenic. Yeah, I'm not sure I'd count any of those except Thomas (citing Evans, citing a neighbor) as approaching "primary source" territory, though that does seem good evidence that Smith was known as "Joe" at least in his youth.

I did check They Knew the Prophet, and two of the Smiths' Palmyra neighbors refer to Smith as "Joe" as well. After Palmyra, though, I don't see any of his close associates referring to him by anything other than "Joseph".

[RipplecutBuddha]

Wow. I never knew so many people were so accomplished at advanced hair-splitting, much less at the expense of the larger point of the thread.

Such thin skins these days....tsk, tsk, tsk.......

[slamjet]

I wouldn't say it's thin skinned, but cautious. To come out with a question regarding the Book Of Mormon in a tone that can be taken as looking for fault brings up red flags. It kind of goes against the unwritten rule of general forum decorum: lurk to see what the forum is about, dabble a bit to build re-pour, then ask away.

[Volcanogrills]

I don't think I am either a lurker.. or an anti or anything else that would place me contrary to the Gospel. I TRULY cannot believe that there has been ALL this brouhaha over an abbreviated name.

I totally agree with defending the Church and the Gospel. That is how it should be.. However, all of us who are members of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a responsibility (Check out your baptismal convenants) to HELP one another. The church and its members gets enough Criticism..

I had always supposed that the idea behind this forum was to add to the gnosis of those who ask questions. If the question is a stupid one.. It still deserves a kind answer.. or, perhaps a re-direction.

I come to this forum to ask questions that I DONT have the answers to.. To some of you Gospel Scholars, they might seem simple or stupid or mis-spoken. Perhaps some of you have a lifetime of studying the Book of Mormon.. Perhaps you were blessed with being better taught in your youth than I was.. perhaps you've had angels minister to you.. But, if all of those things are true, or any of them are, it is incumbent on you to help me get home to my Heavenly Father.. To know the Book of Mormon and its doctrines.. My reading of the book makes it pretty plain that good comes from God.. Anything else comes from the other realm.. and I believe that the Lord does NOT promote contention (3 nephi 11:29)

[pam]

You beat me to it. Can we please just get back to the original question that was asked? Just because a name was shortened doesn't mean that the question was not sincerely asked.

Would be so much more beneficial if people would stick to the questions instead of automatically trying to find fault with a post. Which I will admit am guilty of quite often. But I found nothing in the OP that would make me question sincerity.

[slamjet]

But I found nothing in the OP that would make me question sincerity.

You know, using OP may be inappropriate. It could be taken to mean Ocean Pacific, Other Properties, Others Property, Old Person, Obnoxious Person, Order of Preachers, Out of Power, Observing Platitudes, Etc.

[pam]

You know, using OP may be inappropriate. It could be taken to mean Ocean Pacific, Other Properties, Others Property, Old Person, Obnoxious Person, Order of Preachers, Out of Power, Observing Platitudes, Etc.

Didn't I just ban you yesterday?

[slamjet]

I'm sorry dear, I'll try harder to behave