Page 1 of 2
What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:36 am
by _jon
April 6th 1830 - The Church is restored
April 6th 1830 - Oliver Cowdrey is called by Joseph Smith as the second Elder of the Church
July 6th 1830 - The priesthood is restored
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:44 pm
by _zeezrom
Wait,
This says early June, 1829.
http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/in ... 5e340aRCRDWhat's up?
It doesn't appear either of your last 2 dates are known by anyone.
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:33 pm
by _harmony
jon wrote:April 6th 1830 - The Church is restored
April 6th 1830 - Oliver Cowdrey is called by Joseph Smith as the second Elder of the Church
July 6th 1830 - The priesthood is restored
There is no verifiable date for the priesthood restoration. No one can find it.
Kinda like the revelation on polygamy coming years after the incident with Fanny.
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:53 pm
by _zeezrom
It's interesting that the church is so gung-ho and meticulous about dates and records today when they used to be so willy nilly, forgetful, and vague in the early days. It seems mysteriously convenient for the lackadaisical methods to be employed right at the moment resurrected beings were cruising in from the other dimension/outer space to restore the human race from a world-wide, 1500 year long apostasy.
Does this strike anyone as just a little mysterious?
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:56 pm
by _zeezrom
On top of this, it appears the church sponsored website (my link above) is used as an attempt to make the dates seem very well set in stone. What is this? Would this hold up in a court of law? What about a celestial court? The judgment bar of God? Would God care that his website is involved in false advertising?
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:59 pm
by _Daniel Peterson
Actually, the Church's historical practices were strikingly meticulous from a very early date -- particularly in view of the uneducated character of its early members and leaders.
Latter-day Saint historians today have the benefit (and the curse) of a perfectly enormous collection of records.
There are holes here and there, but, overwhelmingly, it's a pretty impressive body of materials.
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:19 pm
by _madeleine
Daniel Peterson wrote:particularly in view of the uneducated character of its early members and leaders.
lol wut?
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:58 pm
by _zeezrom
Daniel Peterson wrote:There are holes here and there...
I guess it seems odd to me that the "here and there" which you refer to happens to be extremely important events. Could there be anything more important to the LDS Church than the restoring of the priesthood to the earth?
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:16 pm
by _Buffalo
zeezrom wrote:Daniel Peterson wrote:There are holes here and there...
I guess it seems odd to me that the "here and there" which you refer to happens to be extremely important events. Could there be anything more important to the LDS Church than the restoring of the priesthood to the earth?
Wasn't the narrative about the visitation from P J & J first given long after the supposed events?
Re: What is wrong with this timeline...
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:30 pm
by _just me
Buffalo wrote:Wasn't the narrative about the visitation from P J & J first given long after the supposed events?
I think so....right around the time they started to lose some members. If memory serves me right.