Deviations From The Original Truths - Part 5

[CaptainM]

Feeling a need to defend the original truth of 1827 - 1829, I will be stating herein some discussion points in piecemeal fashion. Rather than present all 30 plus at once, this will give anyone interested opportunity to absorb and research the ideas and comments if interested. These points are mainly from a gentleman named Richard Bauman taken from his series entitled "What Happened To The Church". (See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrywgxUo ... 1hbg%3D%3D)

Like most documentaries I add that the views of the author do not necessarily represent my views. However, I believe he demonstrates great scholarship. Many of the Book of Mormon references are given as the RLDS version.

I quote:

...the following documented statements should bring the reader to the realization that ... Joseph Smith
indeed "yielded to the persuasions of men". Consequently in just a very short time, the truths of the unchangeable God became so obscured that those whose job it was to bring forth and establish the truth became the enemy by concealing the truth!

15. It's interesting to note that this is the first time, Summer 1831, that the concept of a
physical temple becomes part of the "Restoration Philosophy"! Expecting God to come to a
physical temple IS AN ABOMINATION!!! God wants us to be His physical temple. This is
absolutely clear in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. See Alma, Helaman, Mosiah, 3 Nephi, Acts17:24, 1 Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6: 19, and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Where would this concept of physical temples come from then, seeing that neither the book
of Mormon nor the Bible support that concept for the latter day church? Once again, the
Masons are the great promoters of physical temples.

16. Oct. 25, 1831 The word "deacon" appears for the first time in official church records. Se
Ear West Record. (Note: "Apostle", "Deacon", and "Confirm" was first printed in the
Evening and Morning Star in June, 1832. While the Far West Record refers to the reading
of the articles and covenants in the first conference June 9, 1830, a footnote says these
conference minutes were put into the Far West Record in 1838! It is very doubtful, then,
that the Articles and Covenants, even before they were changed in 1835 were actually
available, much less in force, when the church was organized spiritually before April
6,1830, or at the time it was organized according to the laws of man. We do know this: The
word "Deacon" does not exist in the Book of Mormon. "Apostle" is only used in the Book of
Mormon when referring to the 12 special eyewitnesses of Christ, those who were with him
in the land of Jerusalem, they are the ones who will judge the 12 tribes.

"Confirmation" by the laying on of hands does not exist in the Book of Mormon. In case after
case after case in the Book of Mormon God says He will give the Holy Ghost after man
performs the physical baptism in water. The only, out of a great many references to the
giving of the Holy Ghost, reference that can be construed to mean giving the Holy Ghost by
the laying of hands after baptism is found in Moroni 2nd chapter. A close examination,
however, shows that there is no reference to baptism! And when taken in context with
chapter three we realize that it is referring to ordination. Baptism is not discussed until
chapter six. Note that in Moroni 2:1 Christ is ordaining the twelve; they were not being "confirmed", as
they themselves received the Holy Ghost directly from heaven after their baptism. As to the event where the people received the Holy Ghost (see 3 Nephi
12:10) it merely says "and as many as were baptized in the name of Jesus were filled with
the Holy Chost". (Note there was no mention of confirmation.)

Man baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost". What say ye,
Melchizedek & Aaronic priesthoods: Do ye divide God? Is not the Holy Ghost included in this
baptism, or do ye say. " baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son" and Later I
will baptize you in the name of the Holy Ghost"???

Does not the Lord Himself, in his own words in 3 Nephi, explicitly limit man's
power ot baptize with water, and he will give the Holy Ghost?

Does not Mormon 3:83 specifically state And If it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are
baptized, first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of
our Savior according to that which he hath commanded us, it shall be well with you in the
day or judgment."?

Is not that example specifically given in 2 Nephi? Does it not say clearly that we
"fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water"? Does it not say that the Holy Ghost
descended on him in the form of a dove? Does it not say that ...him will the Father give the
Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me
do"?

Does it not say "....It sheweth unto the children of men the straightness of the path, and
the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before
them"?

And thus we see that "confirmation" is not a Book of Mormon doctrine.

Ready for Part 6?

[Luke]

Moroni 2
1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

[TheDuke]

Feeling a need to defend the original truth of 1827 - 1829, I will be stating herein some discussion points in piecemeal fashion. Rather than present all 30 plus at once, this will give anyone interested opportunity to absorb and research the ideas and comments if interested. These points are mainly from a gentleman named Richard Bauman taken from his series entitled "What Happened To The Church". (See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrywgxUo ... 1hbg%3D%3D)

Like most documentaries I add that the views of the author do not necessarily represent my views. However, I believe he demonstrates great scholarship. Many of the Book of Mormon references are given as the RLDS version.

I quote:

...the following documented statements should bring the reader to the realization that ... Joseph Smith
indeed "yielded to the persuasions of men". Consequently in just a very short time, the truths of the unchangeable God became so obscured that those whose job it was to bring forth and establish the truth became the enemy by concealing the truth!

15. It's interesting to note that this is the first time, Summer 1831, that the concept of a
physical temple becomes part of the "Restoration Philosophy"! Expecting God to come to a
physical temple IS AN ABOMINATION!!! God wants us to be His physical temple. This is
absolutely clear in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. See Alma, Helaman, Mosiah, 3 Nephi, Acts17:24, 1 Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6: 19, and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Where would this concept of physical temples come from then, seeing that neither the book
of Mormon nor the Bible support that concept for the latter day church? Once again, the
Masons are the great promoters of physical temples.

16. Oct. 25, 1831 The word "deacon" appears for the first time in official church records. Se
Ear West Record. (Note: "Apostle", "Deacon", and "Confirm" was first printed in the
Evening and Morning Star in June, 1832. While the Far West Record refers to the reading
of the articles and covenants in the first conference June 9, 1830, a footnote says these
conference minutes were put into the Far West Record in 1838! It is very doubtful, then,
that the Articles and Covenants, even before they were changed in 1835 were actually
available, much less in force, when the church was organized spiritually before April
6,1830, or at the time it was organized according to the laws of man. We do know this: The
word "Deacon" does not exist in the Book of Mormon. "Apostle" is only used in the Book of
Mormon when referring to the 12 special eyewitnesses of Christ, those who were with him
in the land of Jerusalem, they are the ones who will judge the 12 tribes.

"Confirmation" by the laying on of hands does not exist in the Book of Mormon. In case after
case after case in the Book of Mormon God says He will give the Holy Ghost after man
performs the physical baptism in water. The only, out of a great many references to the
giving of the Holy Ghost, reference that can be construed to mean giving the Holy Ghost by
the laying of hands after baptism is found in Moroni 2nd chapter. A close examination,
however, shows that there is no reference to baptism! And when taken in context with
chapter three we realize that it is referring to ordination. Baptism is not discussed until
chapter six. Note that in Moroni 2:1 Christ is ordaining the twelve; they were not being "confirmed", as
they themselves received the Holy Ghost directly from heaven after their baptism. As to the event where the people received the Holy Ghost (see 3 Nephi
12:10) it merely says "and as many as were baptized in the name of Jesus were filled with
the Holy Chost". (Note there was no mention of confirmation.)

Man baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost". What say ye,
Melchizedek & Aaronic priesthoods: Do ye divide God? Is not the Holy Ghost included in this
baptism, or do ye say. " baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son" and Later I
will baptize you in the name of the Holy Ghost"???

Does not the Lord Himself, in his own words in 3 Nephi, explicitly limit man's
power ot baptize with water, and he will give the Holy Ghost?

Does not Mormon 3:83 specifically state And If it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are
baptized, first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of
our Savior according to that which he hath commanded us, it shall be well with you in the
day or judgment."?

Is not that example specifically given in 2 Nephi? Does it not say clearly that we
"fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water"? Does it not say that the Holy Ghost
descended on him in the form of a dove? Does it not say that ...him will the Father give the
Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me
do"?

Does it not say "....It sheweth unto the children of men the straightness of the path, and
the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before
them"?

And thus we see that "confirmation" is not a Book of Mormon doctrine.

Ready for Part 6?

What utter BS! And I QUOTE.

2 Ne 5

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Not sure where you get your understanding from?

I'll be the first to say this temple of Nephi's had to be small, and simple and for meeting Laws of Moses, but it is very plain that it was a physical temple. And we could go back to Moses, he called his a "tabernacle" but same-same. See his priority in building and caring for it.

Also, you've missed the entire concept of learning line-upon-line and grace-for-grace. Even Jesus learned that way. We have none of Jesus' earthly teachings prior to his ministry but it would definitely look like Joseph's according to John the Baptist's testimony. So, why would you compare 1920's early doctrines of JS with later ones and count the earlier above the latter? I guess to understand you fully, I need to toss out your latter posts and read your first 2 or 3? Then pick the one of the 3 I like most and ignore the rest?

[CaptainM]

Feeling a need to defend the original truth of 1827 - 1829, I will be stating herein some discussion points in piecemeal fashion. Rather than present all 30 plus at once, this will give anyone interested opportunity to absorb and research the ideas and comments if interested. These points are mainly from a gentleman named Richard Bauman taken from his series entitled "What Happened To The Church". (See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrywgxUo ... 1hbg%3D%3D)

Like most documentaries I add that the views of the author do not necessarily represent my views. However, I believe he demonstrates great scholarship. Many of the Book of Mormon references are given as the RLDS version.

I quote:

...the following documented statements should bring the reader to the realization that ... Joseph Smith
indeed "yielded to the persuasions of men". Consequently in just a very short time, the truths of the unchangeable God became so obscured that those whose job it was to bring forth and establish the truth became the enemy by concealing the truth!

15. It's interesting to note that this is the first time, Summer 1831, that the concept of a
physical temple becomes part of the "Restoration Philosophy"! Expecting God to come to a
physical temple IS AN ABOMINATION!!! God wants us to be His physical temple. This is
absolutely clear in both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. See Alma, Helaman, Mosiah, 3 Nephi, Acts17:24, 1 Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 3:16 & 6: 19, and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Where would this concept of physical temples come from then, seeing that neither the book
of Mormon nor the Bible support that concept for the latter day church? Once again, the
Masons are the great promoters of physical temples.

16. Oct. 25, 1831 The word "deacon" appears for the first time in official church records. Se
Ear West Record. (Note: "Apostle", "Deacon", and "Confirm" was first printed in the
Evening and Morning Star in June, 1832. While the Far West Record refers to the reading
of the articles and covenants in the first conference June 9, 1830, a footnote says these
conference minutes were put into the Far West Record in 1838! It is very doubtful, then,
that the Articles and Covenants, even before they were changed in 1835 were actually
available, much less in force, when the church was organized spiritually before April
6,1830, or at the time it was organized according to the laws of man. We do know this: The
word "Deacon" does not exist in the Book of Mormon. "Apostle" is only used in the Book of
Mormon when referring to the 12 special eyewitnesses of Christ, those who were with him
in the land of Jerusalem, they are the ones who will judge the 12 tribes.

"Confirmation" by the laying on of hands does not exist in the Book of Mormon. In case after
case after case in the Book of Mormon God says He will give the Holy Ghost after man
performs the physical baptism in water. The only, out of a great many references to the
giving of the Holy Ghost, reference that can be construed to mean giving the Holy Ghost by
the laying of hands after baptism is found in Moroni 2nd chapter. A close examination,
however, shows that there is no reference to baptism! And when taken in context with
chapter three we realize that it is referring to ordination. Baptism is not discussed until
chapter six. Note that in Moroni 2:1 Christ is ordaining the twelve; they were not being "confirmed", as
they themselves received the Holy Ghost directly from heaven after their baptism. As to the event where the people received the Holy Ghost (see 3 Nephi
12:10) it merely says "and as many as were baptized in the name of Jesus were filled with
the Holy Chost". (Note there was no mention of confirmation.)

Man baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost". What say ye,
Melchizedek & Aaronic priesthoods: Do ye divide God? Is not the Holy Ghost included in this
baptism, or do ye say. " baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son" and Later I
will baptize you in the name of the Holy Ghost"???

Does not the Lord Himself, in his own words in 3 Nephi, explicitly limit man's
power ot baptize with water, and he will give the Holy Ghost?

Does not Mormon 3:83 specifically state And If it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are
baptized, first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of
our Savior according to that which he hath commanded us, it shall be well with you in the
day or judgment."?

Is not that example specifically given in 2 Nephi? Does it not say clearly that we
"fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water"? Does it not say that the Holy Ghost
descended on him in the form of a dove? Does it not say that ...him will the Father give the
Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me
do"?

Does it not say "....It sheweth unto the children of men the straightness of the path, and
the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before
them"?

And thus we see that "confirmation" is not a Book of Mormon doctrine.

Ready for Part 6?

What utter BS! And I QUOTE.

2 Ne 5

16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Not sure where you get your understanding from?

I'll be the first to say this temple of Nephi's had to be small, and simple and for meeting Laws of Moses, but it is very plain that it was a physical temple. And we could go back to Moses, he called his a "tabernacle" but same-same. See his priority in building and caring for it.

Also, you've missed the entire concept of learning line-upon-line and grace-for-grace. Even Jesus learned that way. We have none of Jesus' earthly teachings prior to his ministry but it would definitely look like Joseph's according to John the Baptist's testimony. So, why would you compare 1920's early doctrines of JS with later ones and count the earlier above the latter? I guess to understand you fully, I need to toss out your latter posts and read your first 2 or 3? Then pick the one of the 3 I like most and ignore the rest?

Hi Duke, Glad to know you do look at the BOM. I guess the wording was a little ambiguous. IMO the author was pointing out that after Christ appeared to the Nephites, there was no more mention of temples because they were part of the old way of worshipping from the law of Moses. Albeit, glad you don't like eating BS. It must taste terrible.

Where would this concept of physical temples come from then, seeing that neither the book
of Mormon nor the Bible support that concept for the latter day church?

[CaptainM]

Moroni 2
1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

Looks like the *UKE club is in full force today...

See: viewtopic.php?t=71830

[InfoWarrior82]

I know of only four temples that were commanded by the Lord to be built in the latter days:

1. The preparatory Kirtland Temple.
2. The Nauvoo Temple
3. The Far West Temple
4. The New Jerusalem temple in Independence Missouri.

[CaptainM]

I know of only four temples that were commanded by the Lord to be built in the latter days:

1. The preparatory Kirkland Temple.
2. The Nauvoo Temple
3. The Far West Temple
4. The New Jerusalem temple in Independence Missouri.

I understand you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. IMO he only had one gift to translate the BOM.

If I am right, none of those temples came from the Lord's mind.

[InfoWarrior82]

I know of only four temples that were commanded by the Lord to be built in the latter days:

1. The preparatory Kirkland Temple.
2. The Nauvoo Temple
3. The Far West Temple
4. The New Jerusalem temple in Independence Missouri.

I understand you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. IMO he only had one gift to translate the BOM.

If I am right, none of those temples came from the Lord's mind.

I guess it just depends if you think these D&C passages are indeed the literal words of the Lord or not. And that's fine if you don't think so, I'm just pointing out that we only have written commands for these four temples. All the rest were done without direct, written, instructions in scriptural form.

[Shawn Henry]

I guess it just depends if you think these D&C passages are indeed the literal words of the Lord or not. And that's fine if you don't think so, I'm just pointing out that we only have written commands for these four temples. All the rest were done without direct, written, instructions in scriptural form.

There are 4 issues with the D&C that I think are fair and even wise to bring up.

1. An 1829 revelation and the BoM say JS will only have one gift.
2. The original revelations said that they should not be published.
3. The D&C was produced by a church from whom Christ removed his name.
4. The Lord did not provide witnesses for it.

I think it is a mixed bag.

[Shawn Henry]

Moroni 2
1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

From the scriptures we see that the reception of the HG typically is upon baptism and without hands like Jesus' baptism, but sometimes it can fall on people before baptism and it also can be bestowed with hands.

I think God is saying he is flexible.

[Luke]

Moroni 2
1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

From the scriptures we see that the reception of the HG typically is upon baptism and without hands like Jesus' baptism, but sometimes it can fall on people before baptism and it also can be bestowed with hands.

I think God is saying he is flexible.

I agree—I’ve argued that many times on the forum—but OP essentially said that the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost is a false doctrine, when it’s clearly spelled out in the BoM.

[Shawn Henry]

I'm definitely seeing the case for not having a physical temple.

The evidence is definitely against the office of deacons.

As far as apostles go, I go back and forth. There are 1829 revelations that used the word apostles which is hopefully before any corruption was allowed to enter the church. One could make the case that Jospeh started yielding to the persuasions of men with the Martin Harris incident, but most of the BoM is after that point.

I suppose we can say that the Lord gave him one gift and therefore any revelations are suspect because they are outside the parameters of that one gift.

The baptismal language is definitely against the laying on of hands. It's a good point, why baptize in the name of the HG if baptism doesn't give you the HG?

[CaptainM]

Moroni 2
1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—
2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

From the scriptures we see that the reception of the HG typically is upon baptism and without hands like Jesus' baptism, but sometimes it can fall on people before baptism and it also can be bestowed with hands.

I think God is saying he is flexible.

I agree—I’ve argued that many times on the forum—but OP essentially said that the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost is a false doctrine, when it’s clearly spelled out in the BoM.

Luke, I understand where you are coming from, and I agree; except for one thing. You use the term gift of the Holy Ghost. The words of Christ just simply state give the Holy Ghost. Nephi states quite clearly that:

17)And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God-and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come-I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.
18)For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19)For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round. (1 Nephi 10)

As stated in another post, my opinion is that the true disciples have the power to cause the Holy Ghost to come upon a person so designated by inspiration from the Lord. I may be wrong, but IMO the term GIFT has been twisted and contorted in these latter days. My belief is that which Nephi gave us as stated above.

[CaptainM]

From the scriptures we see that the reception of the HG typically is upon baptism and without hands like Jesus' baptism, but sometimes it can fall on people before baptism and it also can be bestowed with hands.

I think God is saying he is flexible.

I agree—I’ve argued that many times on the forum—but OP essentially said that the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost is a false doctrine, when it’s clearly spelled out in the BoM.

Luke, I understand where you are coming from, and I agree; except for one thing. You use the term gift of the Holy Ghost. The words of Christ just simply state give the Holy Ghost. Nephi states quite clearly that:

17)And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God-and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come-I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.
18)For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19)For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round. (1 Nephi 10)

As stated in another post, my opinion is that the true disciples have the power to cause the Holy Ghost to come upon a person so designated by inspiration from the Lord. I may be wrong, but IMO the term GIFT has been twisted and contorted in these latter days. My belief is that which Nephi gave us as stated above.

I came across this in my studies, and thought that it was pertinent to the discussion.

36)Now it came to pass that when Alma had said these words, that he clapped his hands upon all them who were with him. And behold, as he clapped his hands upon them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. (Alma 31:36)