Re: Joseph in the Gap
Posted: September 18th, 2021, 6:20 am
The Kirtland Temple had Melchizedek Priesthood pulpits.
Have any temples since had them?
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
I love a lot of Eric’s work, he’s a good friend.
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.
That’s cool.Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 8:10 amI love a lot of Eric’s work, he’s a good friend.
I know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.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.
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.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:33 amI know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.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 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.
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.
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.Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:50 amThe 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.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:33 amI know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.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 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.
So 3+ years is a non-argument.
Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?Shawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 8:07 amYou'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.Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:50 amThe 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.Shawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:33 amI know I'm late to this conversation, but I'm a little confused about you saying Sydney was fed up with the confusion.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 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.
So 3+ years is a non-argument.
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.
Do you mind explaining why you feel the book is trash? And what crisis are you referring to?
Huh? Say what? Where did BY enter this conversation?Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 8:17 am Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?
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 revelationShawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 8:35 amHuh? Say what? Where did BY enter this conversation?Robin Hood wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 8:17 am Why did Brigham Young make changes to the church's name?
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.
ExactlyShawn Henry wrote: ↑April 7th, 2022, 7:54 amHe'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.
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.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?
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.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.
Thank you for typing out your response, it is appreciated.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.
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.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?
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.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.
I never said all were wicked, why do you insist on attributing to me things I haven't said?