Jump to content

blueglass

Members
  • Content Count

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

410 Excellent

About blueglass

  • Rank
    Scott Roskelley
  • Birthday 01/01/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scotts Valley, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,075 profile views
  1. blueglass

    Gender Roles

    When Nephi quotes Paul (NT wormhole intertexuality) he says in 2Nephi26:33, "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" [gay and straight]. Only male priesthood is allowed to lay hands on the sick today. In the outsourced to brave scholars essay with the best title ever, JS Teachings about P, T, and W. it says that "Church President Heber J. Grant affirmed that the First Presidency 'do not encourage calling in the sisters to administer to the sick, as the scriptures tell us to call in the Elders, who hold the priesthood of God and have the power and authority to administer to the sick in the name of Jesus Christ.' This reverses Joseph's more egalitarian teachings, from his lecture on Priesthood to the relief society, where it was written that "Prest. S. then offered instruction respecting the propriety of females administering to the sick by the laying on of hands— said it was according to revelation &c. said he never was plac’d in similar circumstances, and never had given the same instruction. "were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d" “Go ye into all the world” &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on." Eliza Snow explained that “Women can administer in the name of JESUS [through faith], but not by virtue of the Priesthood", which is confusing since the priesthood is the same thing, the "power and authority to act in the name of God" and it has zero power if not through faith in Jesus Christ. This shows the boomerang effect hinging on interpretations of Gal 3:28. In one sense it was confused and misunderstood, which resulted in reversing the power to ordain Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, William McCary, Josepht T. Ball, etc. Then the ban was implemented by a slew of terrible mistakes, then it was brought back through revelation to reverse a revelation to institute the ban which never existed. Then the same for women. First women had the gift to heal by the laying on of hands, then patriarchy took over this power as the essay states. Likely, in the next few years this will be reversed again to match up to Joseph's teachings as a part of the ongoing restoration of all things.
  2. blueglass

    New documentary on Book of Mormon witnesses

    Yes, I suppose. He really casts a lot of doubt on these angelic visitations. Regarding the restoration of priesthood keys (sec110), David Whitmer says in The Des Moines Daily News, Oct. 16, 1886 "The great heavenly 'visitation,' which was alleged to have taken place in the temple at Kirtland, was a grand fizzle. The elders were assembled on the appointed day, which was promised would be a veritable day of Pentecost, but there was no visitation. No Peter, James and John; no Moses and Elias, put in an appearance. 'I was in my seat on that occasion,' says Mr. Whitmer, 'and I know that the story sensationally circulated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was nothing but a trumped up yarn" Maybe he was misquoted? Or was this a tradition of the community of Christ (RLDS)? It's unfortunate that Emma and Joseph's own surviving family doubted this crucial restoration of keys (3-April-1836).
  3. blueglass

    New documentary on Book of Mormon witnesses

    Also from pg387 Foundational Texts of Mormonism, Barney writes of the appearance of Jehovah, Moses, Elias1, and Elias2 on 3-April1836 that "There is no extant record indicating that he, or Oliver Cowdery for that matter, ever thereafter referred to the event, privately or publicly—although Smith’s clerks later used his journals to draft his history and included the journal account in the history". Barney writes that it is important for believers to recognize Smith's "idiosyncratic disposition to conceal his personal experience with heaven".
  4. blueglass

    New documentary on Book of Mormon witnesses

    Here's a talk by Elder Oaks about Martin Harris. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/the-witness-martin-harris?lang=eng I'm not sure why Oliver lost his way and became a Methodist, but I'm glad he came back. I don't like that the latest book published by the church history dept says that David Whitmer doubted the Melchizedek priesthood ordination of Joseph Smith. It's wrong that he turned on the church that way. pg379 of Foundational Texts of Mormonism, "Gurley wrote that Whitmer told him: “I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[,] 5[,] or 6.”13 In other words, Whitmer believed that Joseph Smith made up the story in the mid-1830s; otherwise, Whitmer would undoubtedly have heard of it, given his early proximity to Smith."
  5. I found an Ensign which gives the full text of the 1832 from Dec, 1984. Looks like all the others until the JSP H1published in 2012 only included excerpts or pieces of the 1832 or referenced through footnotes. I don't think a conference talk has quoted from the 1832, but a few devotionals have. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12?lang=eng Joseph Smith Jr.—in His Own Words, Part 1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/12/joseph-smith-jr-in-his-own-words-part-1?lang=eng&_r=1 From 1965 to 1832 is 133 years. I am surprised not more prophets, apostles got a hold of such an important document and discussed it, or wrote about it in journals? Here's my off the wall guess for why the other 8 leaves were cut out of H1. My guess is that it goes into more detail about the angel and JS hand writing calls the angel Nephi, and this is why Joseph Fielding cut it out and hid it in a vault to this day 2019. Any other guesses what might merit cutting out all 8 pages? Not sure we can say the entire JSP project is complete until these 8pages are restored and analyzed/released to the public.
  6. blueglass

    Missionary work during the priesthood ban

    Marcus Martins (son of Helvecio) speaks about the "long lasting influence of those pseudo-doctrines that supported the priesthood ban function as a welcome mat to prejudices". https://professor.byuh.edu/martinsm/martins.htm
  7. Here's a good quote from the 1985 Backman Ensign article, "When he listed his educational attainments, he did not mention spelling. A comparison of the spelling in the 1832 account with forms recommended in the popular grammars of the age indicates that by that time Joseph (like most of his contemporaries) had not learned to spell a number of words as prescribed by some secular authorities. Moreover, some of the sentences in that recital were not complete. Others were not in the best literary form, and there was little punctuation in the manuscript. Such natural mistakes, however, take nothing from the powerful, spiritual, and uplifting tone of the 1832 account. In fact, in some ways the 1832 account is the most powerful and convincing of all the accounts." I think it definitely ranks in the top5 as most important documents in Joseph Smith's writing which the church has in its possession. Which makes the mysterious (still missing as of 2019), 8 leaves from H1 all the more intriguing.
  8. I suppose in 1965 you could just walk over to byu and ask to make a photocopy of Paul Cheesman's thesis. The machines were available but pretty expensive. How would you get a tip that such content was available in a student archive somewhere? Today the vast majority of full time missionaries I speak to have never heard of such a thing. When a new set arrives I copy the 1832 and hand it to them as a welcoming gift..
  9. These articles are good overviews, but they don't actually include the text of the 1832 version. Dean Jessee's 1969 byu studies article is the first I believe to actually publish the 1832 version, but what if as a member of the church you were not subscribed to byu studies at the time (print availability only)? When was the full text of the 1832 account actually made available for the first time to the general church through the ensign, lds.org, gospel library or the jsp site?
  10. I think it was wise for Elder Oaks to prioritize gaining a testimony of Jesus Christ and then placing the church, joseph smith, polygamy, temples etc as secondary ("all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it"). Sister Wixom shares a story about her friend who lost her faith and then built only the essential pieces back again. Her friend said, "My testimony had become like a pile of ashes. It had all burned down. All that remained was Jesus Christ.”
  11. Here are a few suggestions on how deal with these issues over the last few years. 1) Don't study church history too little! “I would offer you the advice of our Assistant Church Historian, Rick Turley, an intellectually gifted researcher and author, whose recent works include the definitive history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He says simply: ‘Don’t study Church history too little.’ sept 2013, Elder Christofferson https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng 2) Give Brother Joseph a break! "For example, questions concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith are not new. They have been hurled by his critics since this work began. To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break!" Oct 2015 Elder Anderson https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/faith-is-not-by-chance-but-by-choice?lang=eng 3) research is not the answer! Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues. “I suggest that research is not the answer," https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng 4) Stop playing Church history whack-a-mole! https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-and-sister-renlund-tell-young-adults-to-let-faith-not-doubt-drive-questions?lang=eng
  12. "Three weeks ago, the Church completed a series on the topic of plural marriage (polygamy), which has recently been the subject of a large number of media stories. Below is additional context for those essays. Much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians, and Church leaders for many years. The Church has now gathered this information into a single location as a convenient means of placing these resources in the hands of all members. The fact that Joseph Smith had plural marriage relationships is not new, of course." At that point there were no active latter day saints which I spoke to in leadership positions that would say that they were surprised to learn that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I would then ask what they thought of Fanny Alger, and would get confused looks on their faces. "Who is Fanny Alger?" Absolutely no one with a temple recommend serving in leadership positions or visible callings would ever admit to not being a "long-term and well-read member".
  13. blueglass

    Masonry essay on the church website

    Here are Matthew Grow's (director of publications at Church History dept.) statements from the Trevor Haugen interview. Grow: My question is if we don't believe in an endowment ordinance process produced through creation ex-nihilo then why with each successive revision do more of the masonry elements get discarded? Are we getting closer to the pure truth with each successive revision?
  14. blueglass

    the women's quorum - can you find a way?

    At least the RS had a credit score back then. Today, there are no assets to speak of managed by the RS, or direct revenue generation activities to allow for the greater opportunity to influence. I can go to my father and ask to borrow $100k, and he very well may entertain my request with a detailed plan of how it will be used and the benefits derived from the investment same for women as for men. However, it is something else entirely to show up with a detailed cash flow statement divided by gender with rapid growth activities for females, and rapid decline for male contributions over a 5-year forecast and say that with a net present value of $2.5B annually, she (Bingham) as general RS president absolutely must have more influence over how these funds are spent. We can't demand anything from a presiding quorum comprised of all men, but we hope for changes to representation - if anything grounded in a hope that by adding women to the apostolic Junia cohort, the general intelligence performance scores will skyrocket.
  15. blueglass

    the women's quorum - can you find a way?

    An 11 year old deacon and a 13 year old teacher can now become president of a quorum of young men and become 2 of the 4 in a ward which hold priesthood keys. Do we have an equivalent responsibility for the presidents of the beehives and MIA maids classes? If we called the young men quorums: 11 - 13, the "Ants", the 13-15y/o the "Silver coders", and the 15 - 17 y/o the "Asteroids" how would this fly when trying to portray equality in how we perceive young men and young women?
×