tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post1599490200938923554..comments2017-09-16T20:49:15.902-07:00Comments on LDS Essays: First Vision AccountsGaneshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-74746175845941801332017-09-16T20:49:15.902-07:002017-09-16T20:49:15.902-07:00Hey Ganesh.
I saw that you had some concerns a ...Hey Ganesh. <br /><br />I saw that you had some concerns a while ago about possible misrepresentations by the Church. Were you ever able to sort that out?<br /><br />Send me an email and let me know. I would love to hear your perspective and I may be able to shed a little light on the matter too!<br /><br />Sam <br />stmghowll @ hot mail . com<br />Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06954145046599182040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-66724230265804931232016-08-20T15:05:41.017-07:002016-08-20T15:05:41.017-07:00Too bad wishing the church to be true doesn't ...Too bad wishing the church to be true doesn't make all the deception and evidence go away. When we establish that the church lies to it's members, that's the exact moment we can rule out that it is true or even good. That much seems obvious, so let's ask the real question: why does the church lie? It's actually an easy one too. Because the church knows its not true, it has a lot to hide and doesn't want to lose tithing money.<br /><br />Ganesh, you have done a wonderful job in documenting the process of your critical thought. You seem to be very thorough. Does the church deserve you as a member when it doesn't respect you enough to fully disclose the basic facts of its history? It could be that you find yourself more effective from within, and that is for you to decide. For me, having my name on its records is a show of support I will not give any longer. I taught lies for 2 years on my mission. 2 important years that I fully dedicated. I cannot forgive that and it turns out that I don't need to. The buck stops here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868512253590347403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-7538876445731101982014-07-03T13:43:43.367-07:002014-07-03T13:43:43.367-07:00Last in a series of 3 posts on different threads o...Last in a series of 3 posts on different threads on the subject of whether the church 'hid' controversial aspects of Church History. Once again mainstream (e.g. Ensign) articles over the years on the subject of the differing accounts of the First Vision:<br /><br />* Dr. James B. Allen, "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision - What Do We Learn from Them?", Improvement Era, April 1970, 4-13<br />* Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign (January 1985), 8<br />* Keith Meservy, "Four Accounts of the Creation," Ensign (January 1986)<br />* Richard L. Anderson, "Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision," Ensign (April 1996)<br />* CES Manual 2003: Church Educational System, “The First Vision,” in Church History in the Fullness of Times: Student Manual (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2003), 29–36<br />Kiwi Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607313828969799943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-36218328619112782272014-04-09T12:35:14.015-07:002014-04-09T12:35:14.015-07:00Hi Sarah.... Yes definitely real. :)
You bring up...Hi Sarah.... Yes definitely real. :)<br /><br />You bring up a very interesting question, which deserves its own blog. <br /><br />One of the statements that comes up from well meaning members justifying believing without question is 'well if it is not true, we have still lead a good life'. This gets problematic very fast. Because we draw so many spurious lines between good and bad there is huge guilt in the church, and extreme behaviour that follows. Elizabeth Smart said the reason she did not try to escape is that because she thought she had lost her virtue she felt worthless and resigned herself. Some may say she did not understand, but quotes like you reference from Spencer W Kimball have created that feeling. <br /><br />I tried to address this a little in my blog, siting some self righteous behaviour because of something I had been taught. As you become aware you realise that these distortions are all over the place, its woven into everything we do. i.e We value marriage and marriage in the temple.... so everyone who is single at some point will question their worthiness and live with huge amounts of guilt and maybe even trauma. Those not 'worthy' to get married in the Temple will doubt their marriages validity, and single sisters will forgo a relationship in this life for a future post mortality sealing in a polygamous union.<br /><br />The Miracle of Forgiveness will I think just sink into the background, as we change some of our policies and hard lines, and it will get less relevant. Dont worry Deseret Books willl be working to publish a new palatable source for issues of Homosexuality and other challenges to our culture of guilt, and these will become the hope for LDS family services and Bishops all over the world. ;)Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-82355283750534929542014-04-09T07:26:21.559-07:002014-04-09T07:26:21.559-07:00And by the way, my name is Sarah, sorry, not famil...And by the way, my name is Sarah, sorry, not familiar with how comments work on blogger, I'm a wordpress girl lolesjayeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293479840064241452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-80378697030703799832014-04-09T07:18:04.201-07:002014-04-09T07:18:04.201-07:00Hi Ganesh,
I was directed to your blog from Pathe...Hi Ganesh,<br /><br />I was directed to your blog from Patheos.com where I read your guest post with great interest. Are you real? Sorry, you just never know who is who on the net these days.<br /><br />Anyway, I wondered if I could perhaps inspire some thought and maybe even a future blog post on some of the comments in Spencer W. Kimballs book The Miracle of Forgiveness.<br /><br />I was given that book to read as a teen many years ago and never quite recovered. My specific concern was that my virtue was of greater value than my life. It implied that I would be better off and that my parents would have preferred that I had fought to the death rather than succumb to sexual abuse as I had done. I remember feeling quite devastated at this notion. I remember at that moment looking at my father through different eyes. I remember vowing I would tell my future daughter to live, to always live, because I loved her.<br /><br />My other concern was regarding homosexuality as I had a close friend who was struggling with his homosexuality at the time. But it was a long time ago. I am sure if I were to read the book again today there would be many other things that would make me shudder.<br /><br />With all these essays, and with particular reference to the one regarding race and the priesthood, I find myself wondering if at some point the church will denounce or attempt to redefine President Kimballs comments about my life and my virtue, and the claim that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured? Will the book be edited, or perhaps even taken out of print. Will an essay be written stating that these comments were made by Kimball the man rather than Kimball the prophet? If this is the case, how are members to sustain any man as a prophet? How can they take guidance from the leaders if they at any time can change tack?<br /><br />I commented on your post in Patheos.com. Here is part of my comment: <br /><br />"Many members feel that officially changing or denouncing the teachings of earlier prophets is simply confirming the 9th article of faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." - but for many this simply raises questions as to the legitimacy of Mormon prophets, concerns over a god who seems to change his mind and fear that we may ourselves perpetuate a lie in good faith, only to be told we were given the wrong information, by a man who is supposed to be the mouthpiece of god."<br /><br />Anyway, I am prattling on a bit, but I really would like to know your thoughts on Spencer W. Kimballs book and specifically the issues mentioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-28086743927340203092014-03-11T16:01:03.869-07:002014-03-11T16:01:03.869-07:00Wobee K - enlighten us on the Kirtland Banking Soc...Wobee K - enlighten us on the Kirtland Banking Society please.Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-86616598656048826582014-03-11T16:00:19.624-07:002014-03-11T16:00:19.624-07:00I agree AlexH that it doesn't have to be the f...I agree AlexH that it doesn't have to be the founding event, and it certainly wasn't for Brigham Young and all others before 1840. But it is for us now. It is the thing we tell first about our history, and expect to define our testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration.<br />Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-84391845351403513372014-03-06T16:30:48.799-08:002014-03-06T16:30:48.799-08:00Is it really the founding event of our history? W...Is it really the founding event of our history? What does that mean exactly? You could draw on multiple events. Most people (including Brigham Young) were converted based on the Book of Mormon without even meeting Joseph Smith or possibly even hearing about the First Vision. AlexHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09185308567090835876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-20427816229297051302014-02-18T03:00:46.157-08:002014-02-18T03:00:46.157-08:00Thanks anonthistime! So basically there is no reco...Thanks anonthistime! So basically there is no record of any priesthood ordination by either John the Baptist or Peter, James & John prior to 1835. This seems consistent with 'First Vision Accounts' problems.... but not consistent with the story we tell about the restoration of the Priesthood.<br /><br />Very concerning!<br /><br />Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-73078141922851233752014-02-16T15:56:13.254-08:002014-02-16T15:56:13.254-08:00ps. Ganesh, my sincere best to you. I would ha...ps. Ganesh, my sincere best to you. I would have emailed this info but didn't think that would keep my anonimity. I have never made a church history comment on any site before, but felt something moved me on your blog. I got an impression that you are ready to hear this. May God bless you as he has me and my family (my wife and children left together with me). We have had nothing but blessings for the past 3 years and turn our hearts over to Him.anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-69021546661659040322014-02-16T15:47:04.251-08:002014-02-16T15:47:04.251-08:00(cont.)
Book of Commandments Chapter 28 was origin...(cont.)<br />Book of Commandments Chapter 28 was originally a 193-word revelation explaining what could be consumed for the sacramental wine. The heading to Section 27 of the D&C states that “In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine for the occasion. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time, and the remainder in the September following.” In 1835, Smith and Cowdery added 456 additional verses to that chapter! Did a heavenly messenger really state all 649 words which Joseph miraculously remembered later, or did Joseph take liberties with the text for his own purposes?<br /><br />Most notable among the additions is the only canonical reference up to that point (1835) of the elusive visit of Peter, James, and John to Smith and Cowdery:<br /><br /> 5 . . . marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni . . . 7 And also John . . .<br /> 8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron . . .<br /> 12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;<br /> 13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom . . . (D&C 27:5-13. See A Comparison of BofC 28 and D&C 27)<br /><br />It must have seemed convenient to now have a revelation mentioning the priesthood restoration events, making the priesthood restoration claims seem smooth and coherent.<br /><br />Will our salvation depend upon trusting the authority of a man who felt at liberty to quietly change revelations he'd formerly “received” from God?Why doesn't the church inform members of the changes Joseph Smith made to his revelations?<br /><br />Is it possible that having faith in Jesus Christ is the reason the Saints receive blessings and not due to the "authority" of someone praying over them? This makes a lot of sense when taken into context of other Christians who experience the blessings of healing and answers to prayer who are not of the Mormon faith. anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-32030724021019522352014-02-16T15:35:07.206-08:002014-02-16T15:35:07.206-08:00(cont.)
B. H. Roberts, faithful church historian, ...(cont.)<br />B. H. Roberts, faithful church historian, admitted in 1902: “. . . there is no definite account of the [Melchizedek Priesthood restoration] event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals…” (History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 40 footnote). Grant Palmer notes in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins:<br /> In 1829 Joseph said he was called by the Spirit; in 1832 he mentioned that angels attended these events; in 1834-35 the spiritual manifestations became literal and physical appearances of resurrected beings. Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened.<br /><br />Oliver Cowdery remarked in 1848 about his attendance at the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood: "I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel on high.This Priesthood, we then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God" (recorded by Bishop Reuben Miller and quoted in History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 40 footnote). Despite Joseph's 1838 claim that three angelic personage, Peter, James, and John, had come, why did Oliver forget and refer to them as “the” holy angel?<br /><br />There is a brief mention of the event in Oliver B. Huntington’s journal, which places the Melchizedek ordination on a night after Joseph and Oliver had been on trial in Colesville, New York (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, 13 January 1881). Joseph Smith dated this incarceration in mid-to-late June of 1830 (History of the Church 1:84-85, 92-94). Wesley Walters located the court bill for this trial, which was dated “July 1st 1830” (Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials, p.125). That date is several weeks after the Church was organized. But LDS sources are emphatic that Smith could not have legally organized the Church unless he had received the Melchizedek priesthood first. That creates an irreconcilable problem for the LDS claim of authority. (Lane Thuet, “Priesthood Restored or Retrofit?'” http://www.mrm.org/priesthood-restoration.<br /><br />It appears from historical records that before 1831, specific males in the church were called to “church offices—elders, priests, and teachers—given authority, and licensed without reference to a bestowal of priesthood” (Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Lyman Bushman, pp. 157-158).Even at the April 1830 meeting in which the church was formally organized, Joseph Smith ordained Oliver Cowdery as “elder” and then Cowdery ordained Joseph as “elder,” with no mention made of these ordinations being tied to “priesthood” authority.<br /><br />Many of the elders present at the conference of elders in June 1831 wrote personal accounts of the lengthy meeting, a pentecostal-like event during which Joseph Smith and others laid their hands on one another to confer upon each the “high priesthood” for the “first time”. That Joseph received the high priesthood himself under the hand of Lyman Wight (Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman, p. 158) indicates that he did not believe he had received the high priesthood before that time (1831).What does that say about the alleged visit of Peter, James, and John?<br /><br />Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of earlier revelations when they compiled the 1835 D&C, adding verses about the appearances of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John AS IF those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelations, WHICH THEY WEREN'T. (continued below)<br /><br /><br /> anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-11119460535035662482014-02-16T15:27:02.200-08:002014-02-16T15:27:02.200-08:00(cont.)
As pro-LDS historian Richard Bushman admit...(cont.)<br />As pro-LDS historian Richard Bushman admits in his landmark biography on Joseph Smith (Rough Stone Rolling, 75): “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication”—even though he doesn't draw that conclusion himself.Many thinking Mormons do raise that possibility, however.In a nutshell, they believe that there are good reasons to doubt the restoration of the priesthood actually happened in the church, despite Joseph Smith's later descriptions of the events in his 1838 History of the Church.The actuality of those angelic events and the exclusivity of power/authority which such events would denote, are highly questionable.<br /><br />PART 2- What Critics Have To Say:<br /><br />Were the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist recorded in the church prior to 1833, it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments somewhere between Chapter IX and Chapter XII (based on the currently named date of 15 May 1829).It's not there, nor anywhere in the BofC.Were the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hand of Peter, James, and John recorded prior to 1833, it would have appeared somewhere between Chapter XII and Chapter XVII (the first of the revelations recorded on the day of the church's organization, April 6, 1830).It's not there, nor anywhere in the BofC.<br /><br />The church's converts heard nothing of the appearance of the ancient apostles to restore priesthood power and authority to Joseph and Oliver, were not taught that the offices in the church to which they were ordained were “priesthood” conferrals, heard nothings of two distinct orders of the priesthood in the early years of the church, per Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer and early apostle William McLellin: see (Whitmer, quoted in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel, 5:137). see (Whitmer, An Address To All Believers in Christ: , pp. 32, 33, 64) see (McLellin, quoted in Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, pp.224-25).<br /><br />The early revelations of the church set no precedence for one's need for “priesthood authority” in order to be called of God, ordained (accredited) to an ecclesiastical position within the church, engaged in the work of preaching repentance and baptizing for the remission of sins, nor to ordain (set apart/accredit) others within the church. Book of Commandments 3 states, “If ye have desires to serve God, ye are called to the work . . . and faith, hope, charity, and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualifies him for the work” (D&C 4).No priesthood requirement mentioned!<br /><br />In Book of Commandments 15, the revelation states that Jesus Christ (not John the Baptist) had commanded Joseph to baptize Oliver (D&C 18).In that same revelation, it states that having the desire to take upon them the name of Christ is the only requirement for the calling of the Twelve disciples.<br /><br />Even Joseph's own family heard nothing from him concerning the two priesthood restoration events. D. Michael Quinn noted that when Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, wrote a letter in 1831 to her brother to tell him about the new church, she made no reference to the angelic visits of Joseph's later telling (Origins of Power, p. 19). As Grant Palmer has noted, “Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s” (Grant Palmer, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins", pp. 223-224).<br /><br />Modern church documents purport that the restoration of the two priesthoods were necessary prerequisites for Joseph to organize the Church of Jesus Christ again in these latter days: “With this authority [conferred by the ancient apostles], the Prophet Joseph Smith was able to organize the Church of Jesus Christ in this dispensation and begin to" establish the various priesthood quorums as they are known in the Church today ” (Our Heritage) . (continued below)anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-76799551230119158222014-02-16T15:21:20.473-08:002014-02-16T15:21:20.473-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-63919183207627071242014-02-16T15:10:36.696-08:002014-02-16T15:10:36.696-08:00(Cont.)
John A. Tvedtnes, senior resident scholar ...(Cont.)<br />John A. Tvedtnes, senior resident scholar at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, wrote for the Meridian Magazine:<br /><br /> In the restored Church, we often identify the term “priesthood” as “the authority to act in the name of God.” This accurately describes its function, but the dictionary meaning of the term is “the office of priest,” and that is precisely how it was used in Joseph Smith’s day.<br /><br /> Thus, in early Latter-day Saint records, including the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Commandments, “Aaronic priesthood” or “lesser priesthood” referred to the office of priest of the Aaronic order, while “Melchizedek priesthood” or “high(er) priesthood” referred to the office of priest of the Melchizedek order. This is especially clear when one looks at earlier versions of the history (e.g., Times and Seasons and manuscripts) and revelations, which indicate that so-and-so was ordained “to the high priesthood,” which was later changed to read “to the office of high priest” or “as a high priest.”<br /><br /> In Joseph Smith’s day, deacons and teachers were not considered to hold the “Aaronic priesthood,” nor were elders considered to hold the “Melchizedek priesthood.”Rather, as we read in D&C 84:29-30, “the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood. And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.” ...The history kept by Church historian John Whitmer, describing the ordination of the first high priests in June 1831, says that Joseph Smith “laid his hands upon Lyman Wight and ordained him to the High Priesthood (i.e. ordained him a High Priest), after the holy order of God” (History of the Church 1:176, note). The words in parentheses were added by B. H. Roberts when he edited the history for publication, and were necessitated by the fact that the use of the term “high priesthood” to denote the office of high priest had changed by his time. "<br /><br />(THE POINT: There were no ordinations to the Aaronic or M. priesthood around the early 1830's and any references to high priesthood were to offices.)<br /><br />D. Michael Quinn writes in The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power,<br />...Book of Mormon scribe Oliver Cowdery, who recorded the minutes about the “high priesthood” in 1831, did not use the term “high priest” or “office of high priest” because he was following the Book of Mormon's equation of “high priesthood” with the office of high priest.In fact, everyone in 1831 would have understood that Sidney Rigdon even spoke “to those who were ordained to the Highpriesthood [sic] last evening . . . [about] their indifference to be ordained to that office . . . setting forth the power of that office” (Sidney Rigdon statement, 26 Oct. 1831,Cannon and Cook, Far West Record, 26, qtd in The Mormon Hierarchy, 29).<br /><br />On the delay in recounting the restoration events: ( Correction to my statements that Joseph never gave a reason)<br /><br />“In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood.”—JS-H, 1:74<br /><br />(COMMENTARY /QUESTION: Does this make much sense given that the Book of Mormon narrative was not withheld from the Church or Public at that time? How much more would the revealing of visitations by angels holding Priesthood keys have added to the persecution? I don't imagine it could have been a concern since the visit by Angels bringing the golden plates had put a target on his back by the critics. Nothing he would have added by stating the Priesthood restoration facts would have made any marginal difference in the degree of persecution. If he was so afraid of persecution he wouldn't have published the Book of Mormon.<br />(continued below)anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-15051044596816548352014-02-16T15:04:53.314-08:002014-02-16T15:04:53.314-08:00(Please note: The following treatment of the Pries...(Please note: The following treatment of the Priesthood keys may have some commentary which was cut/pasted from non referenced resources on the internet)<br /><br />PART 1- What we know from Church sources:<br /><br />Larry C. Porter of BYU's Department of Church History and Doctrine writes:<br /><br /> Reflecting back on the development of the priesthood and its offices in 1861, President Brigham Young outlined the course of priesthood restoration in a set of sequential steps:<br /><br /> "How came these Apostles, these Seventies, these High Priests, and all this organization we now enjoy? It came by revelation. Father Cahoon, who lately died in your neighbourhood, was one of the first men ordained to the office of High Priest in this kingdom. In the year 1831 the Prophet Joseph went to Ohio. He left the State of New York on the last of April, if my memory serves me, and arrived in Kirtland sometime in May. They held a General Conference, which was the first General Conference ever called or held in Ohio. Joseph then received a revelation, and ordained High Priests. ...When he received this revelation in Kirtland, the Lord revealed to him that he should begin and ordain High Priests; and he then ordained quite a number..."<br /><br />The priesthood thus conferred by holy Apostles Peter, James, and John embraced all of the offices of the priesthood from higher to lesser. The keys of presidency contained within the apostleship conveyed on that occasion represented the highest authority conferred upon men in the flesh. By virtue of these keys of priesthood, the Prophet Joseph Smith proceeded to ordain and set in order the various quorums as they are known in the Church today.<br /><br />(Larry C. Porter, "Restoration of the Priesthood," Religious Studies Center NewsletterVolume 9, No. 3, May 1995 )<br /><br /> the anonymous author of a FAIRwiki article on “Priesthood/Restoration/Melchizedek/Date” affirms:<br /><br />"Knowing that the prophet already had the Melchizedek priesthood prior to the organization of the church we can look at the following clues of the May 15 to 30, 1829 ordination window in order of progressively narrowed parameters:<br /><br />Year 1829: There is a manuscript in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting recording part of D&C 18: saying, “Written in the year of our Lord & Saviour 1829.”<br /><br />June 1829: In D&C 18:9 we read “And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called.”<br /><br />Before June 14, 1829: Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to Hyrum Smith. The letter has some wording that quotes and refers to section 18 in the D&C." (continued below)<br />anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-78147293528829697682014-02-14T20:28:41.224-08:002014-02-14T20:28:41.224-08:00Thanks Tom - I clearly have much to read! :)Thanks Tom - I clearly have much to read! :)Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-25740846158680755202014-02-14T20:27:59.621-08:002014-02-14T20:27:59.621-08:00Yes Anonthistime.... I suspected there might be pr...Yes Anonthistime.... I suspected there might be problems with the preisthood restorations especially considering we do not have a date for the melchizedek Priesthood. Could you give us an overview and some references please. Much appreciatedGaneshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-65476419411876041642014-02-14T20:24:24.083-08:002014-02-14T20:24:24.083-08:00Nice work John I like what you did there! and yes ...Nice work John I like what you did there! and yes it does read much more faith promoting. <br /><br />I once read John Bytheway's almagamation of the gospels was also very faith promoting. <br /><br />My only challenge with this is that while lovely it still doesn't explain that this pivotal event from our history was not available till 1840. It is either not pivotal as we believe or it was constructed.Ganeshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13228642689409743386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-31898201810468063932014-02-13T08:56:51.776-08:002014-02-13T08:56:51.776-08:00I had something written out and internet deleted i...I had something written out and internet deleted it all. Oh well. In short now i would just like to second John Chase message. Even offer to buy the book.<br /><br />Christ lives, joseph smith is a prophet of God and he still is. No matter what church history entails, and there will be many more forth coming "problems" I am sure.<br /><br />If you want to talk offline,<br />onethatislazy@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04308090460950163510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-48193260069726174142014-02-13T07:32:28.961-08:002014-02-13T07:32:28.961-08:00Denver snuffer who is referred to by the commenter...Denver snuffer who is referred to by the commenter above is a neighbor of mine. I have read his denversnuffer.blogspot.com and can tell you he is very interesting. Unfortunately, his cerebral approach to the Gospel can miss the mark as often has it may hit it. He was ex'd recently for being too critical of all the brethren past and present in his books. <br /><br />I will say that Denver is trying to bridge the cognitive dissonance that is the present cracking of the foundation for the Mormon church. He is the ultimate example of the remaining thinkers in the Church who know the issues with the historicity yet they find a way to stay in (in his case out, but still believing in the book of mormon).<br /><br />I would recommend you check out another brother's post who is known around the Wasatch front as "Bishop Earl". He is a genuine prototype former Bishop who has left the Church due to the foundational issues. Earl just exudes integrity and love. He is the real thing. (and it isn't Coke). He has posted a video of the core issues he found as misleading or untrue with church history. See his 17 minute video at exmormonfiles.com/episodes/17_minutes.htm .<br /><br />I have not had any contact with the church for 3 years. The issue for me that broke the "shelf" (or the camel's back), was the lack of reasoning given for the 2-4 year lag between the 2 priesthood visitations and their publication. We don't even have the exact date for the Melk restoration by Peter, J and J. There is no mention about these visions/experiences being taught until several years after the fact, maybe 1832. If you were visited by such persons, would you not think the entire church membership would know about that experience immediately and the date which it occurred? Check it out, the membership didn't know of these keys. And why not? No reason is given, not even a hint like he could have said they told him to keep it to himself. He never asserts this. Joseph just wove it into the fabric later. Was he ever the master weaver!<br /><br />Anon this time. (must stay low profile) My family is not aware of my apostacy.anonthistimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08040346492520549121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8588001183490136526.post-43431948047641040082014-02-13T01:04:24.245-08:002014-02-13T01:04:24.245-08:00Hi Ganesh,
I read your post on the Patheos Blog s...Hi Ganesh,<br /><br />I read your post on the Patheos Blog site as well has this blog site, and I wish to make a hopeful coment, as one who has let go of many of the traditional tellings of our history. The study of Mormon history has been a wonderful experience for me. Awakening to a more faithful understanding of our history has greatly increased my gratitude for the restoration and has actually given me greater hope in receiving the promises of the Lord. One book I recommend reading is "Passing the Heavenly Gift" by Denver Snuffer. You can get it from Amazon. Snuffer suggests there is another, less glossy way to see Mormon history, apart from the traditional reading, and more in line with the prophecies found in the Book of Mormon. Yet upon reading it, one can come away with an increased belief in God and the restoration. Snuffer was eventually excommunicated for writing the book even though it brought people back into church activity and he remains true to his faith. His written other books that I have really liked, dealing with coming into the presence of the Lord, Their is no reason to losse hope in the whisperings of the Spirit that accompanies your experience in the Mormon church. There are so many wonderful doctirnes that can be learned outside the coorelated materials found in the church manuals. I really hope you will consider reading Snuffer's book.<br />As for your comments about the four church essays, I think you are spot on about much of what you said. Just as a possible interest to you, I posted an amalgamation of the 11 contemporous tellings of the first vision. You can find it at "waxingportion.blogspot.com". The First Vision is an interesting subject, but through doing the amalgamation, my belief increased in its reality, rather than decreased. There is so much cool and idifiying stuff that can be awakened to when a new set of glasses are put on. I felt your concern that you had from the things you discovered but in reality, such an awakening is part of the process that brings not abondonment, but embracing of the wonderful blessings found in the words and records restored through Joseph Smith.<br />By the way, Denver Snuffer also has a blog you may be interested in at "denversnuffer.blogspot.com".<br /><br />John ChaseJohn Chasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489530861052355080noreply@blogger.com