What Does Dc 109:12 Mean?

[Duncan]

Section 110:12 "After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed".

I get the part about Moses giving the keys to gather gather Israel and I get Elijah's bit about the sealing of couples and families together but what does the part about Abraham mean?

Edited August 27, 2012 by Duncan

[halconero]

This is the doctrine according to my 1st mission president (we had a study guide for a while. The reward for finishing it was breakfast at the mission home, then a Q&A session where any question went (this meant it was a deep doctrine session), followed by 2 hours of reading any gospel book you wanted from this old member's library...examples included the Kolob Theorem, Joseph's Quorum of the Annointed...needless to say the next mission president slowly ended this practice) is that Elijah commited the keys for the sealing of CHILDREN to FATHERS, but that Elias commited the keys authorithing the sealing of COUPLES.

Not sure if that's right or not...just passing along what he said.

[CV75]

Section 109:12 "After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed".

I get the part about Moses giving the keys to gather gather Israel and I get Elijah's bit about the sealing of couples and families together but what does the part about Abraham mean?

The sealing keys that Elias committed pertain to the "gospel of Abraham" which is all about eternal families. See D&C 132:30-32

"30 ^aAbraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose ^bloins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the ^cstars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of ^aAbraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the ^aworks of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved."

[CV75]

Here's some more; I'm sure tehre is more recent stuff in Institute manuals

5. Elias. After Moses, came Elias. We know not who he was in mortality. There were many prophets who bore that name and title. One was Noah. Apparently this Elias lived in the day of Abraham, and may even have been Abraham himself. In any event he “committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham” (D&C 110:12)—not, be it noted, the gospel of Christ, for that had already been received, but the gospel of Abraham, meaning the great commission which God gave Abraham in his day. That commission dealt with families, those of Abraham and his seed, who were and are promised continuance “in the world and out of the world … as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them” (D&C 132:30).

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/04/this-final-glorious-gospel-dispensation

This was an Ensign artilce deom 1980

[Duncan]

sorry! it should be Section 110!

[Thunderfire]

(snip) ...and I get Elijah's bit about the sealing of couples and families together but what does the part about Abraham mean?

Can you help me by explaining more regarding how the concept of "sealing" comes from this passage?

When we look at Joseph Smith's testimony of his encounter with Moroni, he quoted the Malachi section differently than it is recorded in our Bible (Joseph even comments about the difference)

Here is how Joseph recorded the words of Moroni:

After telling me these things he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: 'For, behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble, for they that cometh shall burn them saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' And again he quoted the fifth verse thus: 'Behold, I will reveal unto you the priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.' He also quoted the next verse differently: 'And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.'

Even in the Malachi text as we have recorded it makes no reference to "sealing", rather just saying how when Elijah comes he will "turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the hearts of the children to their parents." (Malachi 4:5 NRSV). So again, I am at a loss with the sealing aspect of this passage and appreciate your insights!

[Duncan]

Can you help me by explaining more regarding how the concept of "sealing" comes from this passage?

When we look at Joseph Smith's testimony of his encounter with Moroni, he quoted the Malachi section differently than it is recorded in our Bible (Joseph even comments about the difference)

Here is how Joseph recorded the words of Moroni:

After telling me these things he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: 'For, behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble, for they that cometh shall burn them saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' And again he quoted the fifth verse thus: 'Behold, I will reveal unto you the priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.' He also quoted the next verse differently: 'And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers; if it were not so the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.'

Even in the Malachi text as we have recorded it makes no reference to "sealing", rather just saying how when Elijah comes he will "turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the hearts of the children to their parents." (Malachi 4:5 NRSV). So again, I am at a loss with the sealing aspect of this passage and appreciate your insights!

good question! I think that Elijah restored the sealing power and because of such both couples and families, and all gospel ordinances are sealed in heaven provided that the people live up to their covenants.

[Thunderfire]

Thank you for the response Duncan! I would like to read more regarding the "sealing" aspect you get from this passage.

For me, this verse (and Joseph's addition) more align with the counsel in Jeremiah 6:16 which speaks of people standing at the crossroads and the need for us to pray for the "ancient path." Meaning, when Elijah comes he will teach the children the promises God made to our ancestors and they will turn and believe in them. He will teach them the "Ancient path" and they will choose to walk in it.

The reference also speaks to me of the "fathers" also representing the church of the firstborn, the great cloud of witnesses. Anyway, just some ponderings here.

[Duncan]

Thank you for the response Duncan! I would like to read more regarding the "sealing" aspect you get from this passage.

For me, this verse (and Joseph's addition) more align with the counsel in Jeremiah 6:16 which speaks of people standing at the crossroads and the need for us to pray for the "ancient path." Meaning, when Elijah comes he will teach the children the promises God made to our ancestors and they will turn and believe in them. He will teach them the "Ancient path" and they will choose to walk in it.

The reference also speaks to me of the "fathers" also representing the church of the firstborn, the great cloud of witnesses. Anyway, just some ponderings here.

good, good stuff! "Joseph Smith said that “the word turn here should be translated bind, or seal” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 330;)"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/the-spirit-of-elijah?lang=eng

from a conference talk from Elder Nelson

[Cobalt-70]

Joseph Smith was a bit confused. "Elias" is just a Romanized spelling of "Elijah." Joseph Smith apparently did not know this, and taught that Elijah and Elias were two different people. However, Smith's view of the roles of each of them are quite similar. Smith thought that both "Elias" and "Elijah" had "preparatory" roles prior to the coming of the Messiah. Smith taught that the "spirit of Elias" is a role to "prepare the way for a greater revelation of God (which would come from "Elijah," which was itself a preparation for the Messiah). Thus, John the Baptist had the "spirit of Elias" (D&C 27:7) after "Elias" visited his father Zachariah. Then, the apostles had the "spirit of Elijah."

Why Smith named Elias as the angel that restored the Abrahamic covenant is not spelled out, but evidently Smith thought that the Abrahamic covenant, restored by "Elias," was preparatory to the "keys of this dispensation" restored by "Elijah" in the next few verses of D&C 110.

I don't think that the "sealing power" has anything to do with D&C 110, except to the extent that an association was retroactively added by later commentators. When the Kirtland temple was dedicated in 1836, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith or anybody else associated Elijah's power "to turn the hearts of fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers" with temple sealings, or even baptisms for the dead. Temple sealings hadn't even been introduced yet, and came much later in the 1840s. The baptism for the dead doctrine was not introduced until October 1840. In D&C 110, all that Elijah restored were the "keys of this dispensation." It was not until 1842 (D&C 128) that Joseph Smith associated Elijah with baptism for the dead, on the theory that the act of doing baptism for the dead ties us with our ancestors, and vice versa, because we both need each other for salvation.

The 1842 D&C 128 did refer to a "sealing power," but did not say that this power came from Elijah. In fact, it basically said that this sealing or binding power was part of the Mormon priesthood long before the Kirtland temple dedication, even going back to 1829. This is because D&C 128:9, says that any time a man or group of men get the priesthood by revelation, they receive the power to bind in heaven that which is bound on earth. That the sealing power existed in Mormon theology as early as 1831 is confirmed by D&C 1:8-9 and 68:12. It was only much later that a "sealing power" was attributed to Elijah, and that it was associated with temple sealings and baptisms for the dead.

[Erin15]

Joseph Smith was a bit confused. "Elias" is just a Romanized spelling of "Elijah." Joseph Smith apparently did not know this, and taught that Elijah and Elias were two different people.

Given how little scriptureal records survived from that era, it is perfectly possible that there was actually an ancient prophet named Elias that we simply have no other record of. Categorically labeling Joseph Smith as being confused is prejorative and unfair.

[longview]

Remember the three-fold mission of the Church?

1- redeem the dead (Elijah, sealing powers)

2- proclaim the Gospel (Moses, gathering of Isreal)

3- perfect the saints (Elias, covenants and Temple work)

[The Nehor]

It means Elia was feeling left out so Moses and Elijah sighed and said he could come too and made up something for him to say he was giving.

[blackstrap]

It means Elia was feeling left out so Moses and Elijah sighed and said he could come too and made up something for him to say he was giving.

So like a younger brother!

[rameumptom]

The gospel of Abraham goes beyond sealing of families. That is what Elijah's work and keys do. The gospel of Abraham is the key and power to unite men with God in the divine council. This is done through the priesthood (Abr 1) and the faithful seed of Abraham that all the children of earth will be blessed with the opportunity to return back to the presence of God and be like him.

The Melchizedek priesthood holds the keys to the mysteries of godliness (D&C 84:19-26). It is through the ordinances and covenants of the MP, particularly those in the temple, that we become sanctified through the Holy Ghost and the blood of Christ, so we may return back into God's presence and be like Him. We are invited to join the Divine Council of heaven, over which the Godhead presides.

When we study Abraham 3, we do not read of families being sealed together. We see the noble and great ones of the Divine Council surrounding God. We see a plan put forth, wherein mankind is tested to see if they will embrace the atonement and the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood, becoming sanctified and holy, so they may keep their second estate and have glory poured out upon them for ever. In essence, it is the key to man becoming a literal son of God and a divine being in the great council in heaven.

[rameumptom]

BTW, Joseph Smith taught that Noah was also known as Gabriel and Elias, and that later people who came with an important revelation of salvation were also known as Eliases. Given that ancient texts have Abraham dwelling with Noah and Shem for a time, it is possible that Noah is the Elias that came with keys to deliver.

[pmccombs1]

Joseph Smith was a bit confused. "Elias" is just a Romanized spelling of "Elijah." Joseph Smith apparently did not know this, and taught that Elijah and Elias were two different people.

According to Denver Snuffer, the historical evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith was unaware of the Elijah visit that allegedly happened to him and others at the Kirtland temple. Apparently all claims about Elijah originate in a 3rd-person account written by Warren Cowdery, which was later edited into the 1st-person and made into section 110. Snuffer cites as his source for this none other than The Joseph Smith Papers, which contains photostatic copies of the original documents. The numerous records that Joseph Smith himself left never mention anything about the event, and he continued to teach (well into the Navoo period prior to his death) that the coming of Elijah was to be a future event.

[Cobalt-70]

Given how little scriptureal records survived from that era, it is perfectly possible that there was actually an ancient prophet named Elias that we simply have no other record of. Categorically labeling Joseph Smith as being confused is prejorative and unfair.

Since Elias and Elijah are exactly the same name, it would be more like that there were two great prophets named Elijah: Elijah and Elijah.

[volgadon]

Since Elias and Elijah are exactly the same name, it would be more like that there were two great prophets named Elijah: Elijah and Elijah.

Which is why Elias is a convenient convention in English for telling them apart.

[Duncan]

According to Denver Snuffer, the historical evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith was unaware of the Elijah visit that allegedly happened to him and others at the Kirtland temple. Apparently all claims about Elijah originate in a 3rd-person account written by Warren Cowdery, which was later edited into the 1st-person and made into section 110. Snuffer cites as his source for this none other than The Joseph Smith Papers, which contains photostatic copies of the original documents. The numerous records that Joseph Smith himself left never mention anything about the event, and he continued to teach (well into the Navoo period prior to his death) that the coming of Elijah was to be a future event.

debatable and who or what is "Denver Snuffer"?

[volgadon]

debatable and who or what is "Denver Snuffer"?

A very touchy and self-important gospel hobbyist.

[pmccombs1]

debatable and who or what is "Denver Snuffer"?

I suppose volgadon has a suitable epithet to describe Brother Snuffer: A "gospel hobbyist." Quaint. Although accurate, I think the label is an ad hominen, presented in the absence of legitimate argument, designed to cast doubt on the veracity of any claims by the so-labeled. I believe Denver Snuffer is a Mormon convert and lawyer. His research abilities are non-trivial and the evidence he uncovers, if legitimate, presents some difficult questions with respect to section 110.

[volgadon]

I suppose volgadon has a suitable epithet to describe Brother Snuffer: A "gospel hobbyist." Quaint. Although accurate, I think the label is an ad hominen, presented in the absence of legitimate argument, designed to cast doubt on the veracity of any claims by the so-labeled. I believe Denver Snuffer is a Mormon convert and lawyer. His research abilities are non-trivial and the evidence he uncovers, if legitimate, presents some difficult questions with respect to section 110.

No, it is not present in the absence of a legitimate argument, it was a snarky, off-the-cuff remark.

I fear that Snuffer's analysis of the evidence regarding D&C 110 doesn't really support his conclusions. Where was the revelation found, and who was Warren Cowdery? Answering these two questions puts a remarkably different complexion on the issue.

[volgadon]

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary?target=JSPPJ1_d1e42347

The journal ends with two entries penned by Warren Cowdery, a scribe who had been writing history for JS. Unlike Warren Parrish and other scribes in this journal, who referred to themselves in the third person and JS in the first, Warren Cowdery referred to JS in the third person. Cowdery’s work on JS’s 1834–1836 history also produced third-person accounts. In that endeavor, he had before him a first-person text (the earlier entries of this journal), which he changed to third person as he copied them into the history.

The first of Cowdery’s entries and the opening of the second read as if Cowdery were an observer of what he described. The account of the 3 April vision of Jesus Christ, however, reports details and a long direct quotation that only the two participants—JS and Warren’s younger brother Oliver Cowdery—could have known. For this material, Warren Cowdery must have relied on another original text—no longer extant—or on oral reports from either or both of the participants. If Warren Cowdery was working from a prior text, that would directly parallel the method that produced the third-person 1834–1836 history. This account of the vision was later recast in first person as part of the history JS began in 1838, and in that form it was incorporated into the published Latter-day Saint canon (D&C 110) in 1876.

[Duncan]

According to Denver Snuffer, the historical evidence strongly suggests that Joseph Smith was unaware of the Elijah visit that allegedly happened to him and others at the Kirtland temple. Apparently all claims about Elijah originate in a 3rd-person account written by Warren Cowdery, which was later edited into the 1st-person and made into section 110. Snuffer cites as his source for this none other than The Joseph Smith Papers, which contains photostatic copies of the original documents. The numerous records that Joseph Smith himself left never mention anything about the event, and he continued to teach (well into the Navoo period prior to his death) that the coming of Elijah was to be a future event.

odd conclusion on Snuffer's part. Certaintly W.W. Phelps knew about it, he even wrote a letter to his wife the very day the vision happened-see "Opening the Heavens:Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844, pg 332. Certaintly Joseph Smith knew about Elijah and his return, see "Letter no. 8" Messenger and advocate 1 (june, 1835), 130 written by Phelps under the direction of Joseph Smith, also DC section 2. Again from W.W. Phelps in a series of letters to his wife before 1836 he knew about the return of Elijah such as his letter of May 18, 1835 and Phelps journal Sept. 9, 1835, p 20.

I will grant it wasn't publicly taught until the early 1850's if it was publicly taught it wasn't written down or hasn't survived. It seems like it was privately taught

Edited August 29, 2012 by Duncan