All things were already written by 1829

[Shawn Henry]

Not sure if it's meant to be prophetic or revelatory, but explanatory.

It is explanatory for sure, and it is congruent with what has been revealed and it refutes section 130 entirely. Matter of fact, because it wasn't revelatory is why the church felt comfortable giving it the boot in favor of 130. Ironically 130 isn't revelatory either, it is listed as a teaching of JS.

The lectures on Faith was removed by a committee in1921, well after 130 was added to D&C

Yes, I know, but the addition of 130 is what directly necessitated their removal. They probably just didn't see at the time how big the discrepancy was.

[Shawn Henry]

This reminds me of the old evangelical anti-Mormon argument that everything after the New Testament is false because of Revelation 22:18.

Then again, the New Testament must also be false because of Proverbs 30:6! Wait no, everything after the Law of Moses is false because of Deuteronomy 4:2!

It can remind us of that, but we know that those references are to those books.

We can equally know that the Lord was saying that everything needed for his church is already written. Is not the English rather clear?

[AgeOfAquarius]

It is explanatory for sure, and it is congruent with what has been revealed and it refutes section 130 entirely. Matter of fact, because it wasn't revelatory is why the church felt comfortable giving it the boot in favor of 130. Ironically 130 isn't revelatory either, it is listed as a teaching of JS.

The lectures on Faith was removed by a committee in1921, well after 130 was added to D&C

Yes, I know, but the addition of 130 is what directly necessitated their removal. They probably just didn't see at the time how big the discrepancy was.

Well, it's only an issue when one is confused about the subject- which is understandable.
Does the Father have a body - YES, He is a Resurrected man (Body and Spirit)
Is the Father a Spirit- YES, the further He rises or Attains a Higher level His Resurrected "soul" becomes more refined to the point it appears to be more "Spirit "...

[Shawn Henry]

it is true. but it doesn't say "all things". It tells them what to do circa June 1829......... more to come. btw same thing in NT times yet the Lord wanted the BoM in our times! Same in Moses times yet he added Isaiah et al millennia later............

but, just for an administrative perspective what was acceptable administrative for 8 (PH holders and maybe 30 others) in one small collective in upstate NY wouldn't work well globally, but was ok for them. Further see how much god added after Jesus' death when the gospel went from just surrounding Jerusalem to the known world. He had to keep giving Peter revelations over and over, after his living sermons that you (Shawn) and others claim was all the doctrines of Christ needed..............

I didn't say it says, "all things". It says, "all things" "pertaining to my church" and "my gospel."

If you want more revelation, that is fine, but it can't be about the church or gospel. Maybe you can get a revelation about physics or something.

The NY pattern absolutely would work for a global church. Each church governs itself according to the BoM. No need to form a corporation or get tax exempt status.

The lord does not say this about the NT, so there's no need to reference it. Besides, we don't have what they had. We have what was left to us after the great and abominable church did its thing.

[Telavian]

So, answer me this. Does LoF even seem remotely prophetic. Don't you get just as board reading the lineage history as you do the OT? Why does it take so long to say so little? There are indeed some good nuggets in there and the doctrines do at least conform to the Bible and the BoM, but it is definitely not anything revelatory.

I like the LoF, however it does seem more like an exposition than a revelation.

[Telavian]

Right. The BoC was printed in 1833, but my point was: the revelation to not print them was given in 1829 (I believe). So, their printing in 1833 marks another indication of apostasy.

What was the revelation to not print them?

[Shawn Henry]

lost me but what does those verses have to do with 130?

None. Threads just sometimes deviate.

[Shawn Henry]

Actually it does and is revelatory.

So, you think it is revelatory, you think God is a spirit and the holy spirit is not a personage, but the mind of God?

[Telavian]

This reminds me of the old evangelical anti-Mormon argument that everything after the New Testament is false because of Revelation 22:18.

Then again, the New Testament must also be false because of Proverbs 30:6! Wait no, everything after the Law of Moses is false because of Deuteronomy 4:2!

There does seem to be a fine line between new revelation and using what you already have. I think we could have a very prosperous church based solely on the Book of Mormon though.

[Telavian]

Actually it does and is revelatory.

So, you think it is revelatory, you think God is a spirit and the holy spirit is not a personage, but the mind of God?

It doesn't have to be "revelatory" for it to agree with these points. The Bible and Book of Mormon mention nothing of God having a body or the Holy Ghost as being a separate entity. Therefore, assuming these points is already against scripture.

It would be "revelatory" if it said God had a body or the Holy Ghost existed as a separate entity.

[AgeOfAquarius]

Actually it does and is revelatory.

So, you think it is revelatory, you think God is a spirit and the holy spirit is not a personage, but the mind of God?

Did you read my explanation?
Is God the Father Spirit- YES, His Resurrected "Body & Spirit " = soul as He attain a Higher position His Resurrected soul is more refined and appears more like a Spirit. Can He appear or look like a "Body" Resurrected soul - YES.
The Holy Spirit is light and truth which is an intelligence. D&C 93.
The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

[Shawn Henry]

It's still weird to me. The congregation should be privy to any revelations a supposed leader has that concern the congregation. The reason the congregation knows there should be no more revelation is because they have it in their hands and they can use it as a check against authority. Full transparency seems right and reasonable.

It also seems weird the the Lord would say he would no longer reveal, or speak. Doesn't make sense either.

It seems he only intended to speak via the BoM. If that message was received, he may have indeed given us more. When we come under condemnation for disbelief, why expect more?

Also, this is an 1829 revelation, so he is essentially saying right off the bat that the church isn't to be patterned after anything else than the BoM. Joseph easily could have simply said as much and in a way, he kind of did when he handed the seer stone to Oliver and told Oliver and David that his work was done.

I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

He does speak whenever he wants, but if we look at Jacob 5, his ministrations in the vineyard have intervals. He speaks, then sees if we listen. If we listen, he speaks again, but we rarely listen.

[Shawn Henry]

The lectures on Faith was removed by a committee in1921, well after 130 was added to D&C

Yes, I know, but the addition of 130 is what directly necessitated their removal. They probably just didn't see at the time how big the discrepancy was.

Well, it's only an issue when one is confused about the subject- which is understandable.
Does the Father have a body - YES, He is a Resurrected man (Body and Spirit)
Is the Father a Spirit- YES, the further He rises or Attains a Higher level His Resurrected "soul" becomes more refined to the point it appears to be more "Spirit "...

So, it's revelatory except when it says the Father is spirit and the Son is flesh. Got it!

[Shawn Henry]

What was the revelation to not print them?

I'll try to find it.

[Shawn Henry]

It doesn't have to be "revelatory" for it to agree with these points. The Bible and Book of Mormon mention nothing of God having a body or the Holy Ghost as being a separate entity. Therefore, assuming these points is already against scripture.

It would be "revelatory" if it said God had a body or the Holy Ghost existed as a separate entity.

Agreed.

[Shawn Henry]

Is God the Father Spirit- YES, His Resurrected "Body & Spirit " = soul as He attain a Higher position His Resurrected soul is more refined and appears more like a Spirit. Can He appear or look like a "Body" Resurrected soul - YES.
The Holy Spirit is light and truth which is an intelligence. D&C 93.
The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

These are contradictions to LoF, so you can't think it revelatory.

The HG is not "an intelligence", it is God's own mind, his intelligence. He is not described as having a body, but the Son is.

[AgeOfAquarius]

Is God the Father Spirit- YES, His Resurrected "Body & Spirit " = soul as He attain a Higher position His Resurrected soul is more refined and appears more like a Spirit. Can He appear or look like a "Body" Resurrected soul - YES.
The Holy Spirit is light and truth which is an intelligence. D&C 93.
The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

These are contradictions to LoF, so you can't think it revelatory.

The HG is not "an intelligence", it is God's own mind, his intelligence. He is not described as having a body, but the Son is.

Ummm, I said.. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

All of our Spirits are made from the intelligence that exists. The HG is the mind of God and the record of Heaven. The HS is different from the HG. I know you probably just want conversation about this subject but I bet this subject as well seen differs from each other. So bro. Thanks for the discussion

[Shawn Henry]

Is God the Father Spirit- YES, His Resurrected "Body & Spirit " = soul as He attain a Higher position His Resurrected soul is more refined and appears more like a Spirit. Can He appear or look like a "Body" Resurrected soul - YES.
The Holy Spirit is light and truth which is an intelligence. D&C 93.
The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

These are contradictions to LoF, so you can't think it revelatory.

The HG is not "an intelligence", it is God's own mind, his intelligence. He is not described as having a body, but the Son is.

Ummm, I said.. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

All of our Spirits are made from the intelligence that exists. The HG is the mind of God and the record of Heaven. The HS is different from the HG. I know you probably just want conversation about this subject but I bet this subject as well seen differs from each other. So bro. Thanks for the discussion

I know exactly what you said and I know what LoF says. It says it is NOT a personage, LoF specifically says there are only two personages in the Godhead. Therefore, you don't think it revelatory.

By the way, the holy spirit and the holy ghost are the same thing.

[Shawn Henry]

What was the revelation to not print them?

It's the March 1830 revelation that is chapter 16.

22 And I command you, that you preach naught but repentance; and show not these things, neither speak these things unto the world, for they cannot bear meat, but milk they must receive:

I don't think this is inside the window of reliable revelations, however, so I'm going to stop using it. I don't like how self-serving it is that Joseph makes it seem like Martin owes his farm to the cause. Plus, the whole "eternal damnation" change, as if endless and eternal no longer mean that.

[AgeOfAquarius]

These are contradictions to LoF, so you can't think it revelatory.

The HG is not "an intelligence", it is God's own mind, his intelligence. He is not described as having a body, but the Son is.

Ummm, I said.. The Holy Ghost is a Spirit personage, which is why when or if we receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit personage can dwell in us.

All of our Spirits are made from the intelligence that exists. The HG is the mind of God and the record of Heaven. The HS is different from the HG. I know you probably just want conversation about this subject but I bet this subject as well seen differs from each other. So bro. Thanks for the discussion

I know exactly what you said and I know what LoF says. It says it is NOT a personage, LoF specifically says there are only two personages in the Godhead. Therefore, you don't think it revelatory.

By the way, the holy spirit and the holy ghost are the same thing.

I agree with the first thing you said....

But not the second and that's okay that we see things differently- bound to happen.
dude- loved the discussion- sorry if I got exasperated...

[Telavian]

What was the revelation to not print them?

It's the March 1830 revelation that is chapter 16.

22 And I command you, that you preach naught but repentance; and show not these things, neither speak these things unto the world, for they cannot bear meat, but milk they must receive:

I don't think this is inside the window of reliable revelations, however, so I'm going to stop using it. I don't like how self-serving it is that Joseph makes it seem like Martin owes his farm to the cause. Plus, the whole "eternal damnation" change, as if endless and eternal no longer mean that.

Book of Mormonism wrote an article which showed pretty convincingly that JS received a lot of revelations which directly benefited himself.

[Telavian]

What was the revelation to not print them?

It's the March 1830 revelation that is chapter 16.

22 And I command you, that you preach naught but repentance; and show not these things, neither speak these things unto the world, for they cannot bear meat, but milk they must receive:

I don't think this is inside the window of reliable revelations, however, so I'm going to stop using it. I don't like how self-serving it is that Joseph makes it seem like Martin owes his farm to the cause. Plus, the whole "eternal damnation" change, as if endless and eternal no longer mean that.

Have you done any research into the text of the revelations before they were put into the Book of Commandments?
For instance, BoC 30 (D&C 28) says that Zion was to be "on the borders by the Lamanites", however the original text says "among the Lamanites".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ts-1833/72
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -book-1/25

[Shawn Henry]

Book of Mormonism wrote an article which showed pretty convincingly that JS received a lot of revelations which directly benefited himself.

Yeah, that Matt Lohrke does good work.

[Shawn Henry]

Have you done any research into the text of the revelations before they were put into the Book of Commandments?
For instance, BoC 30 (D&C 28) says that Zion was to be "on the borders by the Lamanites", however the original text says "among the Lamanites".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ts-1833/72
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -book-1/25

No, but only because I don't know where to find the originals. I've been wanting them because I know there are 1833 changes from the 1829 originals that bother me. Are those links where you go to read the original?

[Telavian]

Have you done any research into the text of the revelations before they were put into the Book of Commandments?
For instance, BoC 30 (D&C 28) says that Zion was to be "on the borders by the Lamanites", however the original text says "among the Lamanites".

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ts-1833/72
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -book-1/25

No, but only because I don't know where to find the originals. I've been wanting them because I know there are 1833 changes from the 1829 originals that bother me. Are those links where you go to read the original?

The second link is from the Book of Revelations which is the original. However, that seems to be a place the revelations were copied to so I think even before that there was possibly different text.

I don't think some revelations like D&C 18 where copied to the Book of Revelations. I don't know why honestly.