Helen Whitney and the Princeton panel presentation

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Please pardon the interjection, but there are a few historical points relevant to the discussion of authority that some might be interested in.

In Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, there is a chapter on Priesthood Restoration. There are two journal entries referenced, one by Lucy Mack Smith and another by David Whitmer.

Neither entry mentions an "angel" or three Apostles as present at the baptism of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey.

Excerpt from Chapter 7, entitled Priesthood Restoration:

Like the early narratives about how the Book of Mormon came to be, the early accounts of priesthood restoration are more nuanced and fascinating than the simple, unified story that is told today. The earliest reference to priesthood authority appeared in the 1833 Book of Commandments, the earliest version of, and precursor to, the Doctrine and Covenants. According to a revelation received in June 1829, Oliver Cowdery was "baptized [one month earlier on 15 May] by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith], according to that which I have commanded him." Lucy Smith, the prophet's mother, explained the circumstances and medium by which she understood that this command from God had come to her son:

One morning however they sat down to their usual work [Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water & each of them be baptized[. T]hey immediately went down to the susquehanae river and obeyed the mandate given them through the Urim and Thummin[. As they were on their return to the house they overheard Samuel [Smith] in a secluded spot engaged in secret prayer [.] They had now received authority to baptize ... and they [then] spoke to Samuel who went withe them straightway to the water and was baptized.

At this early date the view was that the commandment received through the urim and thummim is what gave Joseph and Oliver the authority to baptize.

In 1885 David Whitmer, another New York church member and one of the three special witnesses to the Book of Mormon, told a similar version of how Joseph and Oliver received their authority:

I moved Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to my father's house in Fayette, Seneca County New York, from Harmony, Penn. in the year [June] 1829 [so they could finish translating the Book of Mormon]. On our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Joseph presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command ... I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[, 183]5[,] or [183]6--in Ohio. My information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revealment through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception.

There are timeline problems associated with the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as well.

[_Mary]

Charity hi!

For me, Helen Whitney hits the nail on the head on almost every point she makes, from a 'non-mormon' perspective.

To take polygamy as a case in point, though we might want to take Lorenzo Snow's couplet also.

Do you believe that both these subjects are an integral part of Mormon theology.

For instance would I be correct in arguing that:

1) It is an integral part of Mormon theology that polygamy will be a facet of the celestial kingdom
2) It is an integral part of Mormon theology that God was once a man, and that man can become a God.

Do you believe that this is deep doctrine or do you think that investigators have a right to know this information from the offset?

Mary

[_harmony]

There are timeline problems associated with the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as well.

One of the "timeline problems" was that Joseph organized the church before he had the required authority. And nowhere can the revelation be found that restores the Melchizedek priesthood (and yes, we've had this conversation before).

[_truth dancer]

One of the "timeline problems" was that Joseph organized the church before he had the required authority. And nowhere can the revelation be found that restores the Melchizedek priesthood (and yes, we've had this conversation before).

In addition, If I recall correctly Joseph Smith's whole "sealing" himself to young women, happened long before he supposedly got the authority to seal. Hmmm... ;-)

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

I'm still waiting to see if charity can provide a straightforward answer.

Did Joseph Smith lie?

[_charity]

I'm still waiting to see if charity can provide a straightforward answer.

Did Joseph Smith lie?

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no.

Until you can grow up and accept that there can be questions which take more than a one word answer, we can't have a discussion.

[_dartagnan]

ROFL, I knew it.

You say you guys give straightforward answers, but you don't. You just proved it. This is a simple yes or no question, and it isn't a loaded question like "Did you beat your wife." The answer doesn't require more than a yes or no. You just can't stand to give one because you feel you're responsible for leading people to the conclusions you would have them believe. So you cannot let people have the facts alone and trust them to use their brains. You have to condition them.

When people want straightforward answers you come up with this of crap to excuse yourself. That's fine, just don't pretend you're willing to give straightforward answers, because everyone knows you don't. The Church missionaries don't, the apologists don't, and the First Presidency doesn't either.

It is a joke to insist you do.

[_charity]

ROFL, I knew it.

You say you guys give straightforward answers, but you don't. You just proved it. This is a simple yes or no question, and it isn't a loaded question like "Did you beat your wife." The answer doesn't require more than a yes or no. You just can't stand to give one because you feel you're responsible for leading people to the conclusions you would have them believe. So you cannot let people have the facts alone and trust them to use their brains. You have to condition them.

When people want straightforward answers you come up with this of crap to excuse yourself. That's fine, just don't pretend you're willing to give straightforward answers, because everyone knows you don't. The Church missionaries don't, the apologists don't, and the First Presidency doesn't either.

It is a joke to insist you do.

Anyone who thinks above about a 4th grade level knows that straightforward doesn't mean one word. If that is beyond your comprehension, go ahead and throw spitwads. They don't hurt, and just make the spitter look juvenile.

[_dartagnan]

Anyone who thinks above about a 4th grade level knows that straightforward doesn't mean one word.

Nor does it mean two paragraphs of apologetic fluff. A yes no question is a yes no question. Whatever "straightforward" answer you provide, one of these two words must be found therein somewhere. But you don't provide the straight truth. You can't. You have to revert to apologetic mode and obfuscate.

We know Joseph Smith lied. Historians know Joseph Smith lied.

He lied. It is a fact.

We can say it because it is truth. Are you afraid of the truth?

If not, then just say it.

You can't bring yourself to do it because your veneration of Smith is more important to you than the truth.

Just look at how you're acting here. So scared to state a basic truth.

[_charity]

Anyone who thinks above about a 4th grade level knows that straightforward doesn't mean one word.

Nor does it mean two paragraphs of apologetic fluff. A yes no question is a yes no question. Whatever "straightforward" answer you provide, one of these two words must be found therein somewhere. But you don't provide the straight truth. You can't. You have to revert to apologetic mode and obfuscate.

We know Joseph Smith lied. Historians know Joseph Smith lied.

He lied. It is a fact.

We can say it because it is truth. Are you afraid of the truth?

If not, then just say it.

You can't bring yourself to do it because your veneration of Smith is more important to you than the truth.

Just look at how you're acting here. So scared to state a basic truth.

I guess you didn't read my post. "When God had told Joseph not to tell anyone about the newly revealed doctrine, and he was backed into a corner between answering and obeying God, he chose to obey God. Which is considered a lie by those who don't understand the requirement to obey God first."

I have to go away, Kevin. Or else I will be temped to beat up on you for not even reading my post before you comment. I guess you had that all typed up to cut and paste in, not matter what I said.