Exploring the Secret History of the Church

[_Watcher]

As a general rule, I will not be commenting, debating or arguing with commenters on this thread because it distracts from my focus and the flow of the series that I already don't have enough time to work on.

However, from time to time, some people make comments that are simply too resistible to not comment on and they pertain to the topic quite nicely. That is certainly the case with regard to someone who posted the vision Joseph Smith had which is partly canonized as section 137 in the current D&C.

His concluding statement was"

"As about 1/2 of it was not included in the canonized version (thus hidden), and is demonstrably false, does it make Joseph Smith a false prophet?"

Interestingly, I think he posted his comment while I was in the process of posting historical event #2.

As luck would have it, the topic of his comment had to do with revelations that were altered or not entirely canonized and that appear, at face value, to not be valid.

His comment is a great example of what the general topic #2 is about... go figure!

Clearly, either I was inspired to pick the next historical topic that I chose, or he was inspired to choose the comment he made, or Satan deceived one of us or we were both deceived by Satan or neither of us were inspired by anything other than coincidence.

You choose. LOL

When I do reply to comments it is because I think someone viewing the thread might want to hear both sides of the story... not because I think I am going to convert someone that has already made up their mind.

Anyway, my first observation regarding his comment is that to those who don't dig deeply into history and the scriptures, it certainly does appear as if the vision Joseph Smith had was "demonstrably false".

However, to those that understand that the ancient religion of Christianity that was restored through Joseph Smith is a mystical religion full of miraculous things and "strange acts", I would suggest that the vision is anything but "demonstrably false".

I suspect that the content appears to be demonstrably false to the commenter because he is not very familiar with the parable of the redemption of Zion in section 101 and all of the associated revelations and visions that are associated with it, and the fact that the Lords servants were to come back to redeem Zion "When I will", which upon further study, meant, from the dead after four generations... to complete the work that they had been assigned.

(I will not take the time to show all of the related documentation pertaining to this belief and doctrine but I have posts about it)

Apparently he was not familiar with the doctrine of "three watches" or the doctrine of the "second commission" that joseph spoke about.

Or the "2nd work" that David Whitmer testified was yet to take place, as documented in the Book of Mormon.

Apparently he is not aware of two patriarchal blessings Joseph received that alluded to his return from the dead to finish his calling.

Apparently the commentator is not aware that the Old Testament speaks about this very thing and explains that the Lords servant that stumbles in the last days initially fails to gather Israel and redeem Zion and then miraculously accomplishes his mission at a later time (See Isa 49 as just one example)

Apparently the commentator does not know what the definition of "renewing" actually means, when the Lord promises faithful priesthood holders that their physical bodies will be "renewed".

"For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. (It is not speaking of the general resurrection as all people will receive that)

(1828 Strongs "Making new again; repairing; re-establishing; repeating; reviving; renovating.")

There are countless revelations, visions, blessings and statements in sermons, some prior to Joseph's death, that spoke about the return of God's servants from the dead prior to the Lord's return.

They even sang about this doctrine for goodness sakes "millions shall know brother Joseph again..."

I don't expect a knowledgeable commenter to believe that this is possible or believable, but one who pretends to be knowledgeable about LDS history and doctrine should at least be familiar with the whole storyline of belief in context of the LDS restoration movement.

If he was, his comment would be something more along the lines of:

"As about 1/2 of it was not included in the canonized version (thus hidden), and is alluding to the ridiculous doctrine taught among the saints that Joseph Smith and his associates will someday return from the dead to gather Israel and redeem Zion, which, I, of course, do not believe...."

The commentator then ends by asking a clever question calculated to stump those that have been duped by the con man Joseph Smith-

"does it [a false revelation] make Joseph Smith a false prophet?"

The question the commentator poses is priceless because it demonstrates that he has been effected by the teachings of Protestantism, as well as modern day Mormonism.

The answer if NO.

Even if the revelation was false, which it wasn't, It still would not make Joseph a false prophet.

(In all fairness, Joseph did have some false revelations, Ie, the revelation to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon, the pesky angel with the sword and section 132, etc.)

A true prophet can stumble and have false revelations but that does not made previous or future true revelations any less true nor does it mean he is not a prophet.

God never taught that prophets were infallible.

This is a great example of the doctrinal disconnect that takes place with those that reject Joseph and the restored gospel before they have fully investigated the teachings of the church.

[_Fusion]

Albion, Bazooka, and Ludwigm-

I don't know if it's cynicism I smell in the air, but if you still think it's worth your precious time to be dealing with all of this, I am flattered enough to spend my time writing some thought lines.

When it comes to those quotes Bazooka posted about the Holy Spirit, and then says the church talks out of both sides of their mouth, you are correct in my opinion. That is specifically why I am extremely grateful for the Word of God contained in the Book of Mormon which tells us repeatedly NOT to put our trust in the arm of flesh, be it anyone McKonkie or Thomas Monson or J Fielding Smith who ironically himself said that if anything any man, even a president of the church says, that doesn't line up with the scriptures, it is futile to believe it. A new revelation doesn't and simply cannot contradict a former one- that is simple commonsense, not really something that is a revelation in itself.

I joined the church years ago as a former catholic with the feeling that I could care less about any man who holds supposed power (ie a pope), that Jesus & His Father whom He testified about so often were the only ones that were infused within me. The corporate LDS church likewise has a pope today who also supposedly holds power...and once again, I could care less about any such supposition. The Word of God is final. If a guy and his cronies come along and wins a shouting match in order to prove to people after Joseph Smith's death that he is the new leader, and then goes on to change so much of the original teachings, and people follow him/them blindly even though it is so clear that they have transfigured the Word of God, the problem and fault is the people's, not the Word of God. The people have a right to choose what they want, and are thus held accountable for their choice.

Why do I say this? Well, not so long ago, the early 1830's, the Restored Church had another book of scripture, which is no longer a part of the cannon. This incredible scripture was of course 'Lectures on faith' which was so pertinent as doctrine that it comprised the 'doctrine' part of the scriptures. I remember talking about this at church over a year ago, and some people got upset, saying Lectures was never part of our scriptures. Of course, they had absolutely no idea, and were parroting what was told them as it is clearly a fact 100%. I bring this up because in that amazing book it explains without compromise who God the Father and Jesus the Son are, and how they comprise TWO personages- the Father is of spirit and glory, and the Son is a tabernacle of flesh. The Holy Spirit is the 'mind and will' of God. Now, sometime later the wolves come along in sheeps clothing, and remove this book from the cannon about 100 years later...much after the fulness of the Gospel as Joseph had originally restored, was lost. And just like that, a church that is supposed to have an open cannon of growing scripture has become one that has lost 2/5 of their scriptures! The Joseph Smith Inspired version of the Bible being the other book- I am surprised that we use the King James Bible when we have a distinct mandate to use the Joseph Smith Version of the Bible. How's that for the arm of flesh twisting everything?!

Now, if the people don't want to find all these things out and are just happy to be spoonfed easily-digested slop, once again, it isn't the Word of God to blame. I never quote anyone after Joseph Smith- he was enough of an enigma- everyone else after him hold no interest for me whatsoever. NONE of them claimed what he did, so why would I be wasting my time? Leaders, programs, callings zzzzzzzzzzz....whatever. In the end, Joseph alone holds the truth to whether or not any of his claims were true, and that is why he gets my attention. And enough for me to solemnly inquire at the feet of God whether His Word ame through Joseph. When the mind and will of God, the Holy Spirit, attests respectively to my mind and heart that the Book of Mormon IS, unequivocally, the Word of God, then no matter what any man, 'the rotten arm of flesh' says, I take no notice whatsoever. The Holy Spirit has and continues to teach me astounding things, based on my personal santification of sincerity of desire to know, at any given time- to this I am boldly confident, of my truthfulness. And it matters not what anyone think.

If you haven't an idea of what the Spirit feels like or how the Spirit works, the answers are before you in the scriptures. Trying to describe it is like trying to explain to an Eminem or Rianna fan the feelings and enlightenment John Coltrane's saxophone or Debussy's music brings to the soul.

If you want to talk the talk, there is no other way than to walk the walk first. The template has already been set out for all who approach the scriptures- Adam's walk, Enoch's walk, Moses, Abraham, Enos and Alma, Nephi, the Brother of Jared...they talked after they walked.

Watcher, can't wait for more. Thank you so much, brother.
Fusion

[_Albion]

If have read a little of Cayce, but if I am correct he was not "inspired" by any kind of religious purpose in his readings. I think the promptings of the Holy Spirit as outlined in scripture and accepted by Christian believers is something quite different. I am sure Franktalk will correct me if I am reading his posts incorrectly but to me he presents the Holy Spirit as some kind of spiritual Google. Put a question in and up pops an answer.... just so long as you are able to understand it or fit it to your particular understanding. I think that much of this thinking comes, of course, from accepting the claimed experience of Joseph Smith..."If anyone lacks wisdom let him ask of God....." and so on. Yet I think that idea is a false interpretation of what James was talking about. I don't mean to trivialize the subject but it is not simplistically about asking a question: "What color socks should I wear today? Or, I lost my car keys, help me find them." Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is a guide and a comfort to the believer but his essential purpose is to reveal, testify, and remind the believer of his savior and to aid in the development of spiritual gifts and callings to exemplify Christ to the world. He is simply not a pocket Ask Google. Sleepyhead, I will try to find a copy of the book you mentioned.

[_ludwigm]

A bunch of uneducated farmboys...

The 1+2+12, that is.

I think you meant to write 1+2=12

No. I thought about the high 15 in SLC...

[_Franktalk]

Ludwigm,

So I was wrong. The numbers were a symbol and not an equation. It is so easy to see things that are not there. The mind fills in so much if you let it. That is why people love impressionistic paintings. I think the mind enjoys the filling in part. It explains so much.

[_Franktalk]

Albion,

The Holy Spirit is not like Google. Google feeds back man's idea and assumed knowledge. The Holy Spirit feeds back truth. Answers like keep doing what you are doing just means keep doing what you are doing. You may be learning false doctrine but you need to know it. So the interpretation of what is said may never come. But a command is a command. I have received many commands, some more clear than others. They have led me to where I am today.

It is when we add things to the message that we get it all screwed up.

[_Albion]

"It is when we add things to the message that we get it all screwed up." Couldn't agree more, Franktalk...absolutely couldn't agree more.

[_ludwigm]

That is why people love impressionistic paintings. I think the mind enjoys the filling in part. It explains so much.

I love paintings - in general.
And I love caricatures, because they are above spoken/written languages.
Not a wonder, the first endeavourings for write were drawings.


Please move all of the above into conditional mood.
I don't have the privilege of pictures...

[_Bazooka]

Albion, Bazooka, and Ludwigm-

I don't know if it's cynicism I smell in the air, but if you still think it's worth your precious time to be dealing with all of this, I am flattered enough to spend my time writing some thought lines.

When it comes to those quotes Bazooka posted about the Holy Spirit, and then says the church talks out of both sides of their mouth, you are correct in my opinion. That is specifically why I am extremely grateful for the Word of God contained in the Book of Mormon which tells us repeatedly NOT to put our trust in the arm of flesh, be it anyone McKonkie or Thomas Monson or J Fielding Smith who ironically himself said that if anything any man, even a president of the church says, that doesn't line up with the scriptures, it is futile to believe it. A new revelation doesn't and simply cannot contradict a former one- that is simple commonsense, not really something that is a revelation in itself.

Perhaps the two revelations on polygamy might constitute where a contradiction has occurred?
Maybe the one where Black people can now have the Priesthood etc? (Although even the Church recognises the doubt surrounding wether or not this was a revelation in the first place).
The temple ordinances were revealed via revelation and these have subsequently been changed.
Brigham Young 'revealed' that Adam was God and this has subsequently been contradicted.
Current Apostles have also stated that the current leaders 'Trump' past Prophets and even the scriptures themselves.
One of the uniques aspects of Mormonism is the claim of ongoing revelation, which undoubtedly leads to contradictory positions when compared to previous revelations.

I think there are lots of examples where Mormon 'revelation' has been contradicted by later revelatory pronouncements.

In fact, doesn't the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible in places?
Hasn't the Book of Mormon itself been changed, which in some cases means the current version contradicts the first version?

[_Franktalk]

Current Apostles have also stated that the current leaders 'Trump' past Prophets and even the scriptures themselves.
One of the uniques aspects of Mormonism is the claim of ongoing revelation, which undoubtedly leads to contradictory positions when compared to previous revelations.

I think there are lots of examples where Mormon 'revelation' has been contradicted by later revelatory pronouncements.

I have studied the scriptures for some time. Although it seems confused at times the confusion was always mine. So the scriptures have the ability to be more clear with time. This would indicate that the message is from God. When men like in the RCC took it upon themselves to change the scriptures they always made things worse. The LDS church looks to be stuck in that same trap. With the best of intentions they are using the ideas of men to convey a message of God. Or in some cases using the position they hold to pass along things of men in the name of God. It is our job to sort out the mess and seek the word of God. I think the attitude of Watcher is great. Turn over all rocks and see what truth lays beneath. And when you see something odd dig down and find out way. I always thought the God of the Old Testament did not match the New Testament God. But now after figuring out the message from Romans 1 - 9 I now know they are the same. So we must have patience. The unfolding happens over years not minutes. Any attempt by men to give the members a quick shot to understanding will backfire. It always has.