Joseph in the Gap

For non-mainstream, heterodoxical discussions. Request access to the Heretic Group here.
Post Reply
User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7034
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Image

The Kirtland Temple had Melchizedek Priesthood pulpits.

Have any temples since had them?

User avatar
Gadianton Slayer
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6109
Location: A Sound Mind

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Gadianton Slayer »

ransomme wrote: August 23rd, 2021, 7:32 am I think the view of these 3 is more genuine and, if I had to choose between the two, more accurate than the Joseph in the Gap bloke (whose stated version of things have already been left wanting, and well just see above rather than rehashing it).
I love a lot of Eric’s work, he’s a good friend.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7034
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Tom Pettit’s tale showed up in my email today.

Will he mention the downgrades and condemnations?

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7034
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by BeNotDeceived »

https://youtu.be/NTwiKfYO6GM?t=1300 is a timestamp where Denver recounts how the saints failed, much as described in Drake's book.

Snuffer, but not sole expositor. :mrgreen: dbnp

User avatar
jreuben
captain of 100
Posts: 896

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by jreuben »

Yuck. Those punks in that first video are entirely out of context and screwed up. That book "Joseph in The Gap" is trash also. That is not good especially within the crisis we're in today. Disgusting.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7034
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by BeNotDeceived »

jreuben wrote: December 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm Yuck. Those punks in that first video are entirely out of context and screwed up. That book "Joseph in The Gap" is trash also. That is not good especially within the crisis we're in today. Disgusting.
The third part maybe is trash, only because we all know or should know the identity of the OMAS or other identifier used to identify him.

Anyone that's read it: What's good, or not good about parts one or two?

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7034
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Gadianton Slayer wrote: September 18th, 2021, 8:10 am
ransomme wrote: August 23rd, 2021, 7:32 am I think the view of these 3 is more genuine and, if I had to choose between the two, more accurate than the Joseph in the Gap bloke (whose stated version of things have already been left wanting, and well just see above rather than rehashing it).
I love a lot of Eric’s work, he’s a good friend.
That’s cool. 😎

The thought just occurred to me, that Joseph was a lot like King David.

One of the greatest guys and magicians ever, but eventually fell from grace.

Maybe the Davidic Servant carries on in the place of both of them, or something like that.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

Robin Hood wrote: August 19th, 2021, 3:22 am This video is very lightweight.
To be honest, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
An example: he makes a big deal about some conference in which the church was named the Church of the Latter Day Saints. He claims this is evidence of the Lord taking his name off, and out of, the church. Clearly it wasn't the Lord doing it, it was Sidney Rigdon and the conference delegates. Remember, Sidney had been a minister in another church called the Church of Christ, so was probably fed up of all the confusion, let alone the legal implications.
But when it is pointed out to this guy that the name of the Lord was restored to the church, by revelation no less! (ie. Rigdon was overuled by the Lord himself) he brushes it off as not important.
Like all of the others who write a book and make a big deal about their "forthcoming disciplinary action" and court publicity in order to drive book sales, he doesn't really know a great deal about anything. He's full of hot air and bovine waste material.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.

I have heard apologists say that they changed the name to avoid confusion with all the other churches with the same name, but that makes little sense considering this meeting was in May of 1834. They had already gone about 3 1/2 years in Kirtland as The Church of Christ. They also are well aware of the Savior's words in 3 Ne about a church without his name. There's no way the entire council would do that on their own.

3 other points.

1. Joseph presided at the meeting. He owns it.

2. They published the 1835 edition of the D&C as The Church of the Latter-day Saints. It's right there on the title page.

3. On the Kirtland Temple, still to this day, is the name The Church of the Latter-day Saints.

Also, Luke already pointed out in his post that in section 109, the dedicatory prayer to the temple, Joseph asks the Lord to put his name on the church.

79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name

If Jospeh is asking the Lord to reinstate his name, then obviously it was the Lord who withdrew it.

The saints had just rejected the building of Zion, they didn't do the works of the Lord and the Lord is clear in 3 Ne that it's his church if they are built upon his works.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11192
Location: England

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Robin Hood »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:33 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 19th, 2021, 3:22 am This video is very lightweight.
To be honest, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
An example: he makes a big deal about some conference in which the church was named the Church of the Latter Day Saints. He claims this is evidence of the Lord taking his name off, and out of, the church. Clearly it wasn't the Lord doing it, it was Sidney Rigdon and the conference delegates. Remember, Sidney had been a minister in another church called the Church of Christ, so was probably fed up of all the confusion, let alone the legal implications.
But when it is pointed out to this guy that the name of the Lord was restored to the church, by revelation no less! (ie. Rigdon was overuled by the Lord himself) he brushes it off as not important.
Like all of the others who write a book and make a big deal about their "forthcoming disciplinary action" and court publicity in order to drive book sales, he doesn't really know a great deal about anything. He's full of hot air and bovine waste material.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.

I have heard apologists say that they changed the name to avoid confusion with all the other churches with the same name, but that makes little sense considering this meeting was in May of 1834. They had already gone about 3 1/2 years in Kirtland as The Church of Christ. They also are well aware of the Savior's words in 3 Ne about a church without his name. There's no way the entire council would do that on their own.

3 other points.

1. Joseph presided at the meeting. He owns it.

2. They published the 1835 edition of the D&C as The Church of the Latter-day Saints. It's right there on the title page.

3. On the Kirtland Temple, still to this day, is the name The Church of the Latter-day Saints.

Also, Luke already pointed out in his post that in section 109, the dedicatory prayer to the temple, Joseph asks the Lord to put his name on the church.

79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name

If Jospeh is asking the Lord to reinstate his name, then obviously it was the Lord who withdrew it.

The saints had just rejected the building of Zion, they didn't do the works of the Lord and the Lord is clear in 3 Ne that it's his church if they are built upon his works.
The RLDS went 100+ years using the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints name and constantly having to fend off comparisons and confusion with us. The eventually changed it to Community of Christ in 2001.
So 3+ years is a non-argument.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

ransomme wrote: August 18th, 2021, 2:58 pm He also had a brain fart or didn't know enough to better answer the question about the Endtime restoration of all things.
He's a firm believer that Joseph Smith will return to finish his work. Basically, the restoration resumes when Joseph and the servants return. I'm not sure how you meant the polygamy portion of your post, but he believes once the saints rejected the building of Zion the sins of Israel were placed upon Joseph and that he acted as an intercessor just as Moses did and thereby staved off judgement buying more time for the saints to repent with the result of the eyes of the Seers being closed and the saints being tried or tested with polygamy.

2 Ne 27:5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

Robin Hood wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:50 am
Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:33 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 19th, 2021, 3:22 am This video is very lightweight.
To be honest, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
An example: he makes a big deal about some conference in which the church was named the Church of the Latter Day Saints. He claims this is evidence of the Lord taking his name off, and out of, the church. Clearly it wasn't the Lord doing it, it was Sidney Rigdon and the conference delegates. Remember, Sidney had been a minister in another church called the Church of Christ, so was probably fed up of all the confusion, let alone the legal implications.
But when it is pointed out to this guy that the name of the Lord was restored to the church, by revelation no less! (ie. Rigdon was overuled by the Lord himself) he brushes it off as not important.
Like all of the others who write a book and make a big deal about their "forthcoming disciplinary action" and court publicity in order to drive book sales, he doesn't really know a great deal about anything. He's full of hot air and bovine waste material.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.

I have heard apologists say that they changed the name to avoid confusion with all the other churches with the same name, but that makes little sense considering this meeting was in May of 1834. They had already gone about 3 1/2 years in Kirtland as The Church of Christ. They also are well aware of the Savior's words in 3 Ne about a church without his name. There's no way the entire council would do that on their own.

3 other points.

1. Joseph presided at the meeting. He owns it.

2. They published the 1835 edition of the D&C as The Church of the Latter-day Saints. It's right there on the title page.

3. On the Kirtland Temple, still to this day, is the name The Church of the Latter-day Saints.

Also, Luke already pointed out in his post that in section 109, the dedicatory prayer to the temple, Joseph asks the Lord to put his name on the church.

79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name

If Jospeh is asking the Lord to reinstate his name, then obviously it was the Lord who withdrew it.

The saints had just rejected the building of Zion, they didn't do the works of the Lord and the Lord is clear in 3 Ne that it's his church if they are built upon his works.
The RLDS went 100+ years using the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints name and constantly having to fend off comparisons and confusion with us. The eventually changed it to Community of Christ in 2001.
So 3+ years is a non-argument.
You're comparing Christ's church with actual Seers to a church that never had Seers? Wanna throw in the catholic church and the Zoramites as well. I noticed you didn't respond to Joseph presiding.

Let's set that aside though because here is the smoking gun, Section 109. Why would Joseph ask the Lord to reinstate his name if the Lord wasn't the one to withdraw it? If Joseph and Sydney took it off, they could put it back. They wouldn't need to ask permission. If they did it on their own, they could undo it on their own.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11192
Location: England

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Robin Hood »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 8:07 am
Robin Hood wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:50 am
Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:33 am
Robin Hood wrote: August 19th, 2021, 3:22 am This video is very lightweight.
To be honest, I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
An example: he makes a big deal about some conference in which the church was named the Church of the Latter Day Saints. He claims this is evidence of the Lord taking his name off, and out of, the church. Clearly it wasn't the Lord doing it, it was Sidney Rigdon and the conference delegates. Remember, Sidney had been a minister in another church called the Church of Christ, so was probably fed up of all the confusion, let alone the legal implications.
But when it is pointed out to this guy that the name of the Lord was restored to the church, by revelation no less! (ie. Rigdon was overuled by the Lord himself) he brushes it off as not important.
Like all of the others who write a book and make a big deal about their "forthcoming disciplinary action" and court publicity in order to drive book sales, he doesn't really know a great deal about anything. He's full of hot air and bovine waste material.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.

I have heard apologists say that they changed the name to avoid confusion with all the other churches with the same name, but that makes little sense considering this meeting was in May of 1834. They had already gone about 3 1/2 years in Kirtland as The Church of Christ. They also are well aware of the Savior's words in 3 Ne about a church without his name. There's no way the entire council would do that on their own.

3 other points.

1. Joseph presided at the meeting. He owns it.

2. They published the 1835 edition of the D&C as The Church of the Latter-day Saints. It's right there on the title page.

3. On the Kirtland Temple, still to this day, is the name The Church of the Latter-day Saints.

Also, Luke already pointed out in his post that in section 109, the dedicatory prayer to the temple, Joseph asks the Lord to put his name on the church.

79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name

If Jospeh is asking the Lord to reinstate his name, then obviously it was the Lord who withdrew it.

The saints had just rejected the building of Zion, they didn't do the works of the Lord and the Lord is clear in 3 Ne that it's his church if they are built upon his works.
The RLDS went 100+ years using the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints name and constantly having to fend off comparisons and confusion with us. The eventually changed it to Community of Christ in 2001.
So 3+ years is a non-argument.
You're comparing Christ's church with actual Seers to a church that never had Seers? Wanna throw in the catholic church and the Zoramites as well. I noticed you didn't respond to Joseph presiding.

Let's set that aside though because here is the smoking gun, Section 109. Why would Joseph ask the Lord to reinstate his name if the Lord wasn't the one to withdraw it? If Joseph and Sydney took it off, they could put it back. They wouldn't need to ask permission. If they did it on their own, they could undo it on their own.
Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: December 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm Yuck. Those punks in that first video are entirely out of context and screwed up. That book "Joseph in The Gap" is trash also. That is not good especially within the crisis we're in today. Disgusting.
Do you mind explaining why you feel the book is trash? And what crisis are you referring to?

By the way, I agree Bill Reel and RFM are screwed up.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

Robin Hood wrote: April 7th, 2022, 8:17 am Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?
Huh? Say what? Where did BY enter this conversation?

The 1838 revelation (section 115) reads..
And also unto my faithful servants who are of the high council of my church in Zion, for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world

This is the foundation for our current name, well before BY's tenure.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11192
Location: England

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Robin Hood »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 8:35 am
Robin Hood wrote: April 7th, 2022, 8:17 am Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?
Huh? Say what? Where did BY enter this conversation?

The 1838 revelation (section 115) reads..
And also unto my faithful servants who are of the high council of my church in Zion, for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world

This is the foundation for our current name, well before BY's tenure.
You missed my point. The D&C has been changed because originally section 115 named the church as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That is what was given by revelation
But Brigham changed it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why? In order to try to avoid confusion with the Strangites.
So what I'm saying is that Brigham was clearly doing the same thing Smith/Rigdon et al did in Kirtland, and for the same reason. There was precedent to what he did.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1490

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by ransomme »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 7:54 am
ransomme wrote: August 18th, 2021, 2:58 pm He also had a brain fart or didn't know enough to better answer the question about the Endtime restoration of all things.
He's a firm believer that Joseph Smith will return to finish his work. Basically, the restoration resumes when Joseph and the servants return. I'm not sure how you meant the polygamy portion of your post, but he believes once the saints rejected the building of Zion the sins of Israel were placed upon Joseph and that he acted as an intercessor just as Moses did and thereby staved off judgement buying more time for the saints to repent with the result of the eyes of the Seers being closed and the saints being tried or tested with polygamy.

2 Ne 27:5 For behold, the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep. For behold, ye have closed your eyes, and ye have rejected the prophets; and your rulers, and the seers hath he covered because of your iniquity.
Exactly

User avatar
jreuben
captain of 100
Posts: 896

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by jreuben »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 7th, 2022, 8:21 am Do you mind explaining why you feel the book is trash? And what crisis are you referring to?
Joseph Smith repeatedly made it clear in the last years of his life that he was not a fallen prophet. This book presupposes that Joseph essentially lost the Priesthood in 1834. This is a very strange conclusion, given that Joseph and the scriptures he wrote repeatedly denied such claims.

For example, on May 12, 1844, he gave a discourse in which he stated the following: "It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers--just at the time when some men think that I have no right to the keys of the Priesthood, just at that time, I have the greatest right." (Words of Joseph Smith, 366)

In another discourse on August 27, 1843, he said: "I prophecy that all the powers of Earth & Hell shall never be able to overthrow this boy, for I have obtained it by promise." (Words of Joseph Smith, 245)

This appears to be a strong allusion to his calling and election being made sure, which incidentally was recorded in D&C 132:49 just a month earlier. I know that some folks have a hard time with section 132, but there are strong arguments in favor of its historicity, regardless of one's opinions about it, that extend far beyond Brigham Young's locus of control. Some of these were touched upon in a recent podcast here. In any case, regardless of section 132, it's likely that Joseph Smith received some sort of promise regarding his exaltation as indicated by this statement, which makes it hard to imagine how God subsequently revoked the Priesthood from him.

Again, during the King Follett Discourse, he stated: "Hence the responsibility, the awful responsibility, that rests upon us in relation to our dead; for all the spirits who have not obeyed the Gospel in the flesh must either obey it in the spirit or be damned. Solemn thought!--dreadful thought! Is there nothing to be done?--no preparation--no salvation for our fathers and friends who have died without having had the opportunity to obey the decrees of the Son of Man? Would to God that I had forty days and nights in which to tell you all! I would let you know that I am not a 'fallen prophet.'" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 355)

Again he refuted this accusation shortly before his death with the following humorous remark: "My enemies say that I have been a true prophet. Why, I had rather be a fallen true prophet than a false prophet. When a man goes about prophesying, and commands men to obey his teachings, he must either be a true or false prophet. False prophets always arise to oppose the true prophets and they will prophesy so very near the truth that they will deceive almost the very chosen ones." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 365)

Two weeks later, he stated: "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl!" (Words of Joseph Smith, 373)

Yet again, 11 days before his death, he stated: "Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry--"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen." It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus--"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 369-370)

Throughout this entire discourse (which was his last public doctrinal discourse), he repeatedly refuted the claim that he was a fallen prophet.

In D&C 13 and D&C 90:2-3, it was promised that both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood would never be taken away from Joseph Smith. We know this because the Aaronic Priesthood was restored on May 15, 1829 (see Joseph Smith History), and the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in early July, 1830. We know this because the account written by Addison Everett in 1881 explicitly identifies the circumstances of the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as being at a time when Joseph and Oliver were fleeing from a mob. It reveals that the reason why Joseph and Oliver were "in the wilderness" on the banks of the Susquehanna River, at the time when Peter, James and John appeared to them and restored the Keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood was because they were advised by their lawyer, that it was best for them to crawl through a window and run for their lives, rather than being beaten by a mob and unjustly imprisoned for the sake of their religion.

Joseph never explicitly wrote of this event in his history likely because he would have compromised the confidence of his lawyer, jeopardized a friend, and perhaps even furnished evidence for his own imprisonment. However, today it has been verified through court records that Joseph was fleeing from those trying to arrest him at this date by his subsequent appearance in court that same July. In D&C 27:12 and D&C 128:20, this event is alluded to although no date is given. In any case, we know that D&C 90 was written several years after July 1830, so the Melchizedek Priesthood was most definitely the Priesthood being referred to as, "the keys of this kingdom which shall never be taken from Joseph."

These facts indicate to me that this book is an attempt to put a seductive veneer over a two-centuries old lie that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. If you believe Joseph's own words, and you believe the words of the scriptures he revealed, you simply cannot believe the premise of this book.

I also find the whole idea to be a logical fallacy. Why would God send a prophet in this last dispensation, arguably the most important one yet, right before Christ comes, and then deliberately (and confusingly) transform this prophet from His mouthpiece into a satanic stumbling-block for His people? Has this pattern ever appeared in the Book of Mormon, which was written for our day? Not that I can remember.

The argument is apparently that on the one hand, God commanded the people to obey Joseph's voice (D&C 5:10), yet on the other hand He confusingly made Joseph into a satanic deception. This frankly seems like a cruel joke rather than a "moral test." I'm sure that the Jews could make a similarly convincing argument about Jesus Christ, saying that what He did was fine until he started claiming to be the Son of God. This whole argument simply falls flat on its face.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

Robin Hood wrote: April 7th, 2022, 9:36 am So what I'm saying is that Brigham was clearly doing the same thing Smith/Rigdon et al did in Kirtland, and for the same reason. There was precedent to what he did.
I see what you're saying, but I'm saying it can't be Joseph and Sydney removing Christ's name because they wouldn't be petitioning the Lord a year and a half later to put his name back on the church.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: April 8th, 2022, 5:12 pm I also find the whole idea to be a logical fallacy. Why would God send a prophet in this last dispensation, arguably the most important one yet, right before Christ comes, and then deliberately (and confusingly) transform this prophet from His mouthpiece into a satanic stumbling-block for His people? Has this pattern ever appeared in the Book of Mormon, which was written for our day? Not that I can remember.

The argument is apparently that on the one hand, God commanded the people to obey Joseph's voice (D&C 5:10), yet on the other hand He confusingly made Joseph into a satanic deception. This frankly seems like a cruel joke rather than a "moral test." I'm sure that the Jews could make a similarly convincing argument about Jesus Christ, saying that what He did was fine until he started claiming to be the Son of God. This whole argument simply falls flat on its face.
Thank you for typing out your response, it is appreciated.

I think where you, the author, and I agree is that Joseph definitely holds the keys in this world and the next and they will never be taken from him.

Also, just because the Lord removed the higher priesthood and caused the lesser priesthood to remain just as the church under Moses, it doesn't have to mean that the Lord removed it from Joseph and others.

I agree that he is wrong to use the term "a fallen true prophet". If, like he claims, Joseph became an intercessor to stop judgement from coming down on the people and had the sins of the people placed upon him just as Hezekiah, Moses, and Aaron did, then he was not a fallen prophet, but rather descended even lower to ascend higher. This intercessory atonement statute that is a type for Christ isn't taught at all today, but it was understood in old testament days.

It's interesting you use in your last paragraphs the terms, satanic stumbling block, and satanic deception. In the Book of Commandments, the Lord warns the saints fi they harden their hearts against his word, he will deliver them up unto Satan.

4:5 And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priestcrafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old.4:6 And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto Satan

If you look at all the times the Lord uses condemnatory language against the Saints, it is clear they hardened their hearts against his word.

His word teaches monogamy, which they rejected for polygamy.

His word condemns secret works, which they rejected for masonry and the danites.

His word condemns blood oaths and swearing by ones head, which we accepted in the temple endowment.

Worst of all, we rejected building Zion.

Is it so hard to believe it happened just as the Lord forewarned?

User avatar
jreuben
captain of 100
Posts: 896

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by jreuben »

Shawn Henry wrote: April 10th, 2022, 4:50 pm
Thank you for typing out your response, it is appreciated.

I think where you, the author, and I agree is that Joseph definitely holds the keys in this world and the next and they will never be taken from him.

Also, just because the Lord removed the higher priesthood and caused the lesser priesthood to remain just as the church under Moses, it doesn't have to mean that the Lord removed it from Joseph and others.

I agree that he is wrong to use the term "a fallen true prophet". If, like he claims, Joseph became an intercessor to stop judgement from coming down on the people and had the sins of the people placed upon him just as Hezekiah, Moses, and Aaron did, then he was not a fallen prophet, but rather descended even lower to ascend higher. This intercessory atonement statute that is a type for Christ isn't taught at all today, but it was understood in old testament days.

It's interesting you use in your last paragraphs the terms, satanic stumbling block, and satanic deception. In the Book of Commandments, the Lord warns the saints fi they harden their hearts against his word, he will deliver them up unto Satan.

4:5 And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priestcrafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old.4:6 And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto Satan

If you look at all the times the Lord uses condemnatory language against the Saints, it is clear they hardened their hearts against his word.

His word teaches monogamy, which they rejected for polygamy.

His word condemns secret works, which they rejected for masonry and the danites.

His word condemns blood oaths and swearing by ones head, which we accepted in the temple endowment.

Worst of all, we rejected building Zion.

Is it so hard to believe it happened just as the Lord forewarned?
There is nowhere in the D&C or teachings of Joseph Smith in which he states his role is to act as an "intercessor" as a result of the alleged "sins of the saints." He was indeed a type of Christ to this generation, and especially to the Saints--but not because he gave them a "lower law." By Joseph's own statements, he was trying to teach the Saints the highest laws possible, even Celestial Laws and a Perfect Law of Theocracy (see D&C 131; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 322, 331, 366). This doesn't sound like a Moses situation where the 10 commandments were given in place of higher laws. Rather it sounds like the Restoration and fulfillment of the higher laws written on the tablets which Moses had to break because the Israelites were engaged in a massive orgy of idol worship when he started back down the mountain. This is in perfect alignment with the Restoration which occurred in the Kirtland Temple as recorded in D&C 110. W.W. Phelps also corroborated this event in a letter to his wife in April 1836.

The Book of Commandments passage you cited is totally true, but it never says, "I will deliver them up to Satan by turning my servant Joseph into a fallen prophet." That's a totally ridiculous idea. This nation and the church today has indeed fallen under that condemnation. But it was not referring to Joseph or whatever else you are trying to construe it to mean.
If you look at all the times the Lord uses condemnatory language against the Saints, it is clear they hardened their hearts against his word.
Condemnatory language occurs throughout the Book of Mormon, New Testament, and Old Testament. Not everyone to whom these harsh words were written was wicked. Many people use D&C 84:55 to claim the church was under condemnation. That is true. But D&C 84:60 clarifies that individuals who listen to God's voice will be blessed. It's clear from Joseph's words that he intended to entirely lift this condemnation by building the Temple. This means he felt the people were finally getting ready. The church, throughout all ages of time, has always been condemned because of unbelief--because those in the Church of Christ refuse to make their way into the Church of the Firstborn. There's really nothing new here. But it sounds sensational to those who have no idea of how the Church of God is really structured.

By your same logic, you could say that all of the Nephites, Israelites, and those who heard the Savior's Sermon on the Mount were wicked and evil. "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Heb 12:6

It doesn't hold water to say that this means that all the saints at that day were wicked because the Lord chastened them. Joseph was often chastened in his revelations as well--that doesn't mean he was wicked. It means the Lord was refining him and making him the best person he could possibly be.

As to your other points, there is a lot of context that has to be internalized to understand these other issues. Polygamy is mentioned and approved of God in numerous instances throughout the Bible. Many people try to claim that God "winked at" polygamy or merely "permitted" it, but the fact is, God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance (D&C 1:31). He vociferously condemned adultery throughout the Old Testament and strictly forbade His people from following the traditions of the Canaanites, yet He in no way condemned polygamy in and of itself when it was practiced by His foremost prophets and patriarchs. Christ Himself descended from Solomon, the son of a plural wife of David.

The only scripture that people can really point to where polygamy is condemned or "forbidden" by God is Jacob chapter 2. But that is evidently a distinct situation, with special instructions. Even so, Jacob 2:30 clearly provides a caveat. In this statement we have a direct affirmation from the "Lord of Hosts," that at some future time, He might countermand His former directive and "command His people" to have "more than one wife," and perhaps even "concubines." But then the question forces itself into mind: "How is it possible that the 'Lord of Hosts' could command His people to enter into a practice which He has declared to be an 'abomination?'" The only answer to this is that there must be another context in which having plural wives and concubines is not an "abomination."

Many people have fussed over the punctuation or semantics of this verse, but the punctuation remained the same throughout Joseph Smith's lifetime, throughout all of his printings of the Book of Mormon. He never complained about the way it was punctuated, or its meaning. In fact, the only mention of what Joseph Smith thought of this verse comes from Mary E. Lightner. She claims that when an angel appeared to him, he quoted this scripture to exempt himself from the commandment to enter plural marriage. Yet evidently, the angel eventually clarified to him, that this was a direct commandment from God, and thus a direct fulfillment of this verse.

Temple ceremonies are not "secret" but "sacred." Christ Himself commands that we "cast not our pearls before swine." Joseph was the one that taught the temple ceremonies and gave them to the saints. Lyman Wight performed very similar forms of the Endowment in his Texas colony, yet he left Nauvoo before Brigham Young took up the leadership, and he totally rejected Brigham's reign. He never had the chance to receive and Endowment from Brigham, and all his ceremonies must have come from before Joseph died. There are historical records of his Endowment which show substantial similarity with the Utah Endowment. Many others who broke with Brigham performed very similar Endowment ceremonies and testified that they came from Joseph. You can say all day long that temple ceremonies were "secret" or "evil," but they originated with the same man who brought forth the Book of Mormon.

I think the Danites are somewhat of a hilarious issue that people make a tempest in a teapot over. For one thing, they were never accepted by the saints at large. Most saints didn't even know of their existence or operations. Even Joseph himself later disavowed them. But the fact is, the saints were heavily and unjustly persecuted from one community to the next, so having a body of men to defend themselves, even as vigilantes, was far better than nothing. If you had lived there, I'm sure you would be grateful that at least someone was fighting off your tireless and merciless persecutors and tormentors. But you have no context to understand this. You've probably never been tarred and feathered, never forced out of your home at gunpoint, and never seen your city burned down behind you. You've probably never seen your children die in your arms, or had to bury them. That there were Danites is really not so strange. There are far more extreme examples of vengeance and retribution throughout the scriptures, even in the Book of Mormon. Yet somehow, everyone thinks the Danites were the greatest villains of all time. Joseph's cherished friend, Porter Rockwell, was a known Danite. Joseph pronounced amazing blessings upon him and even wrote his name in the "Book of the Law of the Lord."

"Swearing on one's head" has never been in any form of the Endowment ever. There are "blood oaths," but nothing involving "swearing on one's head." Presumably, you have been to the temple, and you know this. You are creating a false equivalence with what Christ said in the New Testament and what is said in the Endowment. You should try reading Hugh Nibley's writings to understand that these exact same oaths were also practiced in ancient Israel, as well as by early Christians. They were meant to represent a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten. Nibley wrote about this in "Temples of the Ancient World."

While the saints attempted to build Zion, their efforts were continuously thwarted by internal dissension and external persecution which never ceased until they decided to conform with Babylon, thus fulfilling Isaiah 28. This same pattern was given throughout the Book of Mormon. It falls upon our shoulders to come to terms with accepting the reality of these doctrines of the Father which will be an intrinsic part of Zion, which were rejected by former generations because of ignorance and worldliness.

Given your tone, I fear my remarks will sail right over your head, but that choice is upon you.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: April 10th, 2022, 8:03 pm by turning my servant Joseph into a fallen prophet." That's a totally ridiculous idea.
That's not fair, I specifically said he was not a fallen prophet.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: April 10th, 2022, 8:03 pm There is nowhere in the D&C or teachings of Joseph Smith in which he states his role is to act as an "intercessor"
Nor could there be or else we never would have been deceived into polygamy and thinking all is well in Zion.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: April 10th, 2022, 8:03 pm but not because he gave them a "lower law."
Compare the two peoples. Under Moses they were given a law of performances and ordinances.

What do we do? A long to-do checklist of weekly responsibilities and endless temple ordinances.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

jreuben wrote: April 10th, 2022, 8:03 pm It doesn't hold water to say that this means that all the saints at that day were wicked because the Lord chastened them.
I never said all were wicked, why do you insist on attributing to me things I haven't said?

I'm simply saying the Lord always has consequences when his people refuse to enter into his presence once the offer has been extended, whether by seeing him up on the mount or seeing him in Zion.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Joseph in the Gap

Post by Shawn Henry »

Here's something I typed elsewhere about this alleged exception for polygamy. Follow the key words used.


But what about Jacob 2:30? Isn't it the exception?

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

What does "raise up seed unto me" mean and when does the Lord command it?

In 1 Ne 7:1-2 the Lord commands the Nephites to take wifes (monogamously) so that they can "raise up seed unto the Lord".

If you do keyword searches for raising up seed, the scriptures reveal that this is through monogamy. Monogamy is how the Lord raises up righteous seed.

What are "these things" that the people will otherwise hearken to? In verse 34 we learn that "these things" are things they ought not to have done.

So, at first read, one might conclude that verse 30 is the exception but when you study it and see the context in which Jacob is using these words, it will read as follows:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people (to have one wife); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things ( the things they ought not to have done).

Post Reply