All Activity

The church would have their revelations published so that others could read them. For D&C 22, we don't seem to have the original manuscript that was done. We have a copy in the "Revelation Book 1" but it appears to be a copy of either the published copy in Painesville or what ever is the original manuscript. You can see that version at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/16. To find additional versions on the Joseph Smith Papers, there is an "Additional Versions" drop down in there. I linked to the earliest version since you were asking for when the idea was introduced. I think the Civil War prophecy you are referencing is D&C 87 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-25-december-1832-dc-87/1. It was given in December 25, 1832. The Painesville Telegraph had run an article on December 21, 1832 about a cholera outbreak in India and the nullification crisis in South Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis). I don't believe the revelation was printed in the Painesville Telegraph. Joseph Smith Papers doesn't include that as one of the possible "Additional Versions". The white horse prophecy is different. The earliest evidence we have for that prophecy is at least a decade after Joseph has died. And there is a lot of debate on how much of it has been embellished. Some of the ideas in that prophecy are known to be Joseph's. For example, the idea that the nation will be on the brink of destruction and will be saved by the church is in a speech that Joseph gave in 1840 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-circa-19-july-1840-as-reported-by-martha-jane-knowlton-coray-b/4. But the full white horse prophecy is generally not accepted by the church. For most of the revelations to Joseph, he would dictate the words and a transcriber would write them down. D&C 35 was done that way. After Rigdon was baptized, he came to meet Joseph for the first time and Joseph received this revelation for him. The words would not have been Rigdon's. We don't know who transcribed the words so it could have been Rigdon. But we believe it is God's words through Joseph. Yes, it is quite a leap. But we believe that the revelation is from God, so it would be His words. Here's another attempt to explain our belief on proper authority. We don't believe the authority comes from the Church. We believe there is one authority, and it is God's. We generally call it priesthood. This priesthood is given to man by God. But it can only be given by the laying on of hands (see Article of Faith 5, Moroni 3:1-4, Alma 6:1, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, and we also assume the act of ordination involves laying on of hands). The ordinances (baptism, confirmation/Gift of the Holy Ghost, marriage, priesthood ordination) all have to be done by someone who has this priesthood, otherwise the ordinance is not binding. We believe that God can revoke the priesthood from someone even after they have been ordained (it is His authority after all, also D&C 121:37), but receiving it requires physical laying on of hands. This is why John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John had to visit Joseph and Oliver to restore the priesthood. At the time, only the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth with a valid priesthood, but for what ever reason, they weren't using it for ordinances. It is also why Elijah and Moses visited the Mount of Transfiguration (to give priesthood keys to Peter, James, and John). And why Moses, Elijah, and others visited Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple. So, anyone who has this authority can perform valid ordinances. But as of right now, we believe only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can show that they've received this authority through proper laying on of hands with a chain all the way back to Christ and with no apostasy of it (this is why we don't accept Catholic or Community of Christ or other break offs of the church).

It could work either way or both were influenced by something else. I think it’s a feedback system or whatever you call the back and forth of influences. Betty Eadie was a major voice in the NDE community for awhile. Drew quite a bit of criticism from more traditional Christians, but her book Embraced by the Light was extremely popular. She then modified her account to make it more palatable to nonLDS Christians. Then there’s Raymond Moody. I would love to collect accounts and map content and language in collected accounts against a timeline of the most highly publicized accounts over the decades, see what changes and what doesn’t. I had chat come up with others. Timeline of Major Bestselling NDE Books 1975: Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody The Impact: Coined the term "near-death experience" and set the modern standard for studying the phenomenon. It became a massive cultural bestseller and introduced NDEs to the mainstream public. [1, 2, 3] 1990: Closer to the Light by Melvin Morse The Impact: A pediatrician expanded the field by researching and documenting near-death experiences specifically reported by children, achieving significant bestseller status. [1] 1992: Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie The Impact: A deeply personal, widely read account that stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for years, becoming one of the most commercially successful NDE books ever published. [1, 2, 3] 1994: Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley The Impact: Detailed the author's dramatic account of being struck by lightning and clinically dead, capturing massive public attention and topping bestseller lists. [1] 2004: 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper The Impact: A Baptist minister's story of a horrific car crash and his subsequent heavenly experience, which sold millions of copies and spent years on bestseller lists. [1, 2] 2006: Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo The Impact: The extraordinary account of a 4-year-old boy's emergency surgery and trip to heaven, becoming a global publishing phenomenon and feature film. [1] 2012: Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander The Impact: Written by an academic neurosurgeon who experienced a severe case of bacterial meningitis, lending high-profile mainstream and scientific curiosity to the debate over consciousness. [1, 2] 2012: Dying to Be Me by Anita Moorjani The Impact: A profound personal recovery story detailing an NDE from end-stage cancer, which became a prominent international bestseller. [1, 2] 2016: Imagine Heaven by John Burke The Impact: Synthesizes hundreds of NDE accounts with scriptural parallels, remaining a top seller on digital audiobook and book charts. [1, 2] I do believe we should have evidence that such ideas first appeared independent of the most likely influences if the claim is independence.

You got me at Crime Writer. But then this: It's everything I could want in a Vulgate translator.

I am interested in the Knox Bible. I was recently told it was the most Chesterton-like translation of the Bible and approved for use by Catholics. What are your thoughts about it? Thanks, Navidad

I am intrigued about the inclusion of the article from the Painesville Telegraph for documentation of LDS doctrine. Didn't they run the Civil war prophecy days before Joseph Smith came out with it? Is that the same as the white horse prophecy? It is early morning and I may not be remembering correctly. I quite honestly don't understand the LDS focus on "proper authority." I now of no Biblical basis for focusing on authority coming via a church. Any authority is Christ's and remains with Him. Humans might be a tunnel for it, but I worked too long in public schools to believe adolescents, especially adolescent males have any authority about anything other than girls. I mean no disrespect, but it seems like an authority with no visible or tangible evidence. I also notice the connection between the LDS church's belief and the assumption that God is the source of it. Your comment that "this is evidence that God sees differently" is quite a leap. Of course, faith is a series of leaps, is it not? Verse 7 of D&C 35 talk about the folly and abominations of the Gentiles. That sounds like human talk, creating onlys and others. I just can't get my head around God speaking that way. Just one more question . . . . who is it that is actually writing down D&C 35 and other such passages? It is spoken in the first person singular, but obviously God didn't write it down. Some human did. Is it Rigdon recording the words of God? The Campbellites were pretty harsh restorationists. Verse 7 of D&C 35 reads very Campbellitish (ha! not a word) even though it in a sense speaks against them. I find this kind of old LDS revelation intriguing more than evidentiary, especially the Painesville Telegraph reference on the same page with articles about cough drops and dogs. I would never try and convince you that "I" had the authority to baptize, except as authority from the specific denomination which is as to purpose, method, etc. The authority to do anything we do as Christian humans is Christ's. We are most likely simply the pipeline, not the agent. Of course that is my belief; I don't mean to make your's wrong. I just find it hard to grasp.

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? Well my brain state seems to be one of density... it sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, that extraordinary claims (such as NDEs and/or LDS folklore on pre-birth planning) require extraordinary proof... am I misunderstanding you?

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception. Testimony meetings are a great example of this, Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence. NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me. Certain ideas about ghosts likely never existed until film portrayals of ghosts were shown and then they became common. The floating immaterial ghost is a result of Victorian era technology…the artifacts of early cameras. https://www.boredpanda.com/origin-idea-ghosts-floating-translucent/ Pirates never were thought to talk that way until a certain actor did it in Treasure Island. https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/english-pirates-accent-west-country-blackbeard/ There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience). Exactly…. Added: I don’t have the years or intense interest that would drive this, so lazily resorted to Chat and asked if the idea of choosing to be born (present in many NDEs apparently, though not considered one of the universal or even more common themes) or an idea of a life planned by us were hinted at in any ancient or medieval likely NDE accounts (there were cultures who believed in a preexistence). Chat says no. I would be very interested if anyone (manol or anyone else) has come across possibles from non modern examples.

No. This is something I've always struggled with. If we understood then we wouldn't "need" it.

This is a topic on which quite a few near-death experiencers have weighed in. Their reports are pretty consistent. I come away with the impression that we are not victims; rather, we ourselves are intense experiencers of mortality and the unique opportunities for growth it offers us. I also come away with the impression that we simply do not have enough information to reliably sit in judgment. Here are two compilation videos wherein NDEers (and a few others) talk about planning our lives. While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence. Each video is cued up to a clip that stood out to me, but imo all of the clips offer valuable insights. I think we are now living in one of the most amazing times in all of human history, having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side and returned to report for the benefit of the rest of us:

I used to watch this guy on Sunday afternoons after football. But he has changed. If anything he is younger than his days on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those. When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’. Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting? Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

I can appreciate that perspective. For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview. My phrasing is admittedly pointed. But every way I tried to soften it, it wandered away from the reality that kids face. Which is that they had no say so in getting existed. I strongly believe we have no call to impose a debt on them for that; I feel it shifts the whole circumstance toward unethical territory.

The notion of "kids owing parents" is on the table somewhere here but I'm not ascribing it to you. I think you're maybe exploring the cave it happens to live in. And as long as we're here, I'd like to drag the notion into the sunlight and pummel it a bit.

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. I can appreciate that perspective. For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview. I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion. Sorry if I gave that impression. Thanks, -Smac

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness. This works.

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

Yep. Would you trust someone who insisted you agreed to pay them for a product you didn’t like or even hated when you don’t remember agreeing to buy it.

That's another interesting thought. What debt do you owe them? I don't know the name of my debt but I pay it by helping them achieve happiness. Secondarily, I strive to encourage my kids to help others achieve happiness (which enriches their world).

This is an interesting thought. Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation? How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?" Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me. There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence).

To you. Well, yes. We are all here sharing our opinions. I think I made it pretty clear: As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel. That may sometimes include saying something unpopular. I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior. I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there. We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear. We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews. And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts. I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion. I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if. That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things. The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints. Toe the line or shut up. I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs. We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it. We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems. I think it matters a bit. Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel. I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel. He is trying to influence people, and that matters. Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same. Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity. On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird. It's one or the other. Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity. I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence. Thanks, -Smac

To be clear, your sentiment is especially honorable. To address the OT sentiment, shouldn't there be a corresponding commandment - or at least shouldn't this one include the two-way obligation? I personally suspect that OT adults more comfortable (than I am) with seeing their children as material.

I wonder why they chose “Remnant”. It has for me an unfortunate connotation of some of the apostate groups. Great name otherwise.

I've thought about this. But that part of the Gospel is tied to the non-existence of any memory of those events. The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best. Binding my own children to it doesn't feel at all like good parenting to me. Personally, it feels like leverage and exploitation.

If it’s the noodles she doesn’t like, a good sauce is great on baked or roasted potatoes or rice.

I prefer using tomato paste with water rather than sauce. It’s more intense flavour with a nice sweetness. Canned tomato sauce is typically pretty bland.