Fallen Prophet Or True To The End?

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I think the best way to gain a testimony of the LDS church is by listening to President Monson and reading his books. Because by doing so, you can tell he is a prophet of the Lord.

Nonetheless, I obtained a testimony of the chuch before even before I obtained one of the prophet, if I remember correctly. Still, all the same, it's a good step.

[Bart Burk]

This whole thread seems to be equivalent to Catholics rationalizing bad popes ...

Edited October 22, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Calm]

I relate to what you are saying on many levels. Your is not an easy path, but it is not a unique path either.

.......

You and yours will be in my thoughts and prayers.

very, very well said and insightful.

[rpn]

Have you read, "when your prayers seem unanswered?" by michael wilcox? It might be helpful.

I don't think it is by accident that when we are in the depths of our despair we cry out, "where art thou". When we are in those places, it can be very hard to hear or feel or recognize the spirit of the Lord, even when He is holding us close in His arms (as He no doubt is during this hard time).

Edited October 22, 2012 by rpn

[Thunderfire]

I'm so terrified if I stop believing that I'll be kept out of the Celestial Kingdom. I want to believe, I want that confirmation of the truth. Any ideas or anyone in the same boat that can throw some advice to me is more than welcome.

For me, it was far easier believing Joseph to be a flawed human being prone to error (like me), than a saint who was without sin (like no one I know except Jesus). But then I never pursued Joseph Smith. My heart was always on my first love, Jesus.

Recently I was blessed with a revelation to consider. It came in the form of some very timely verses, the first being: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is and walk in it, and you will find rest for your soul..." Jeremiah 6:16

It is the reality that God speaks to us the things he desires for us to pray. To ask what he wants for us that we may receive! For me, this ancient path he asks us to pray for is the one Jesus walked, the path Enoch walk as he abided in God and God in him.

Then he corrected me regarding fear. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love..." 1st John 4:18

I do not fear God in the sense that he will banish me from his presence. Because of my love for him I pursue Jesus with all my heart, might, mind, and soul. His promise is that he will never leave you or forsake you. So we claim this promise and pursue him all the more. Again, I find little value in pursing a long dead prophet or a church when I stand at the crossroads with the opportunity to abide in God and he in me.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No, but gaining a witness of the Doctrine and Covenants does verify the validity of the Church of Jesus Christ-LDS.

Might narrow it down, but still doesn't verify one particular church- we use the D&C in the Restoration Branches.

[Storm Rider]

This whole thread seems to be equivalent to Catholics rationalizing bad popes ...

Hello Bart, the Bible is also full of very weak men who do not act like men of God yet they were prophets and kings. God always uses humans with their vast weaknesses to accomplish his Will. I find that honest Catholics and honest LDS must come to the same conclusions about leaders. Some of the Popes were true men of God and yet sinners while there were others that were more sinners than being a man of God.

Do you find it surprising that we try to understand all of these men of God in relation to their humanity rather than place them on pedestals?

[freedom_of_religion]

Have you read, "when your prayers seem unanswered?" by michael wilcox? It might be helpful.

I don't think it is by accident that when we are in the depths of our despair we cry out, "where art thou". When we are in those places, it can be very hard to hear or feel or recognize the spirit of the Lord, even when He is holding us close in His arms (as He no doubt is during this hard time).

I have not, but I have listened to a couple of his talks. I'll have to look that one up and read/listen to it, I did enjoy the talks I did hear him give.

[MormonMason]

Might narrow it down, but still doesn't verify one particular church- we use the D&C in the Restoration Branches.

Different versions, though, with differing content in many instances.

Edited October 23, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bart Burk]

Hello Bart, the Bible is also full of very weak men who do not act like men of God yet they were prophets and kings. God always uses humans with their vast weaknesses to accomplish his Will. I find that honest Catholics and honest LDS must come to the same conclusions about leaders. Some of the Popes were true men of God and yet sinners while there were others that were more sinners than being a man of God.

Do you find it surprising that we try to understand all of these men of God in relation to their humanity rather than place them on pedestals?

Not at all. Part of my point is that we can't judge the validity of a religion based on the actions of the fallible men who have been called to serve within them. All you can really do is look at the scriptures and the teachings the religion professes. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is not based on the subsequent life of Joseph Smith. The LDS scriptures can be judged on their own merits.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Different versions, though, with differing content in many instances.

Which means the D&C is not proof itself. You must gain a testimony of individual revelation and determine whether it comes from God, man, or satan. I believe that D&C 132 (LDS) comes, at best, from man.

[MormonMason]

Which means the D&C is not proof itself. You must gain a testimony of individual revelation and determine whether it comes from God, man, or satan. I believe that D&C 132 (LDS) comes, at best, from man.

I have a testimony otherwise. I received my testimony of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants (including Doctrine and Covenants 132) before receiving a testimony of all else. Everything else fell into place after that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have a testimony otherwise. I received my testimony of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants (including Doctrine and Covenants 132) before receiving a testimony of all else. Everything else fell into place after that.

Guess we'll have to wait for the LORD to tell us which of us is right.

[MormonMason]

Guess we'll have to wait for the LORD to tell us which of us is right.

I don't have to wait. I already know.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't have to wait. I already know.

Back at ya.

[Kevin Christensen]

On discerning true and false prophets:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[MormonMason]

Back at ya.

Mine came from direct revelation and two-way, audible conversation with the Lord. You?

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Mine came from direct revelation and two-way, audible conversation with the Lord. You?

I am not going to argue with what you believe is a spiritual experience with God- but, I will say many people believe they have had direct two-way conversations with God telling them what to do.

I have received several experiences I believe have showed me to be where I am now- but, many people believe they have had experiences telling them they need to be where they are at.

I can only trust in what I believe the LORD has shown me, and how I read the scriptures concerning a teaching.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I would mention also that I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything with the text of the document contained in LDS 132.

[Bart Burk]

I would mention also that I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything with the text of the document contained in LDS 132.

What would be your evidence for that?

[MormonMason]

I would mention also that I don't believe Joseph Smith had anything with the text of the document contained in LDS 132.

Too many actual eyewitnesses and the manuscript evidence put the lie to that belief. But, there is more. You might be interested to note that there are several kinds of analyses that can be used to determine authorship and even to determine likelihood of someone being a translator and/or literary conduit of a particular work.

I and others have done tests on Section 132--unpublished and preliminary at present but nonetheless relevant-- that assigns this revelation to Christ as primary author and to Joseph Smith as the one whose vocabulary was used to put it together. I recently ran a chi-square vocabulary richness test on 1,000-word blocks from Section 132 and from Sections 127 and 128 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, and that methodology matched Section 132 "highly significantly" with the same person who wrote both Sections 127 and 128. We know that the author of most of the text of Sections 127 and 128 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants is Joseph Smith, and were letters written to the Church. It did not match with Brigham Young at all.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bart Burk]

Too many actual eyewitnesses and the manuscript evidence put the lie to that belief. But, there is more. You might be interested to note that there are several kinds of analyses that can be used to determine authorship and even to determine likelihood of someone being a translator and/or literary conduit of a particular work.

I and others have done tests on Section 132--unpublished and preliminary at present but nonetheless relevant-- that assigns this revelation to Christ as primary author and to Joseph Smith as the one whose vocabulary was used to put it together. I recently ran a chi-square vocabulary richness test on 1,000-word blocks from Section 132 and from Sections 127 and 128 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, and that methodology matched Section 132 "highly significantly" with the same person who wrote both Sections 127 and 128. We know that the author of most of the text of Sections 127 and 128 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants is Joseph Smith, and were letters written to the Church. It did not match with Brigham Young at all.

I think it would be difficult to prove that Christ was the primary author.

[MormonMason]

I think it would be difficult to prove that Christ was the primary author.

Stylometric analysis would seem plausibly to say otherwise. One can take the words of Christ that we have recorded in the various biblical texts, such as the Gospels and the first three chapters of Revelation. One can examine the usage of contextual words. The interesting thing is that this even can be seen through translations into English using a computer. One can then run the same and/or similar tests on the Book of Mormon texts citing Christ and also on the Doctrine and Covenants and cluster match them all together as a single likely author. I and others have done this.

Some of these studies have been published, such as Hamson's The Signature of God. In that work, he takes several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, writings of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith III, Mary Baker Eddy, and several others, and runs tests against all of them using the Gospels and Revelation, finding significant matches of the Doctrine and Covenants to the Christ of the Bible, whereas the personal writings of Joseph Smith cluster together with other 19th century authors and a 20th Century ghostwriter.

He then takes the revelations of Joseph Smith III and finds that none of them match Christ but all cluster within the 19th century region, as did several others from the period who claimed to have had revelations--all their revelations clustering with modern writers and the revelations of Christ from Joseph Smith that were tested clustering with the Bible Christ.

Brigham Young's revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants also was tested using the same methodology. His personal writings match the 19th century cluster whereas what is Section 136 in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants matches the cluster pattern of the 1st Century Christ.

Can this actually prove that Christ was the original author of what is attributed to him in the Doctrine and Covenants? That would depend upon what your interpretation of "proof" would be, which methodology you consider is more or less valid than others, and how far one is willing to move the goalposts to debunk such studies that give supporting evidence of this nature.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

From the William Clayton Journal:

Wednesday 12th This A.M, I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines &c. After it was wrote Prests. Joseph & Hyrum presented it and read it to E. who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. J told me to Deed all the unincumbered lots to E. and the children He appears much troubled about E.

(Nauvoo Diary, 27 April 1843 through 24 September 1844, CHL)

It should be remembered that William Clayton was a scribe for Joseph Smith at this time. In a later affidavit sworn before Joseph T. Caine, a notary public, on February 16, 1874, William Clayton further recounted in more detail the same events recorded in his contemporary journal:

"On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the 'brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.' Joseph smiled and remarked, 'You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

"Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present.

"Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger.

"Joseph quietly remarked, 'I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did' Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.

"The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.

"The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney, and but few knew of its existence until the temporary location of the Camps of Israel at Winter Quarters, on the Missouri River, in 1846."

(William Clayton Affidavit, in Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Vol. 6, [salt Lake City: Andrew Jensen, 1889], pp. 225-226).

This same affidavit account can be read online at the following URL.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Is1LAAAAMAAJ&vq=on%20the%20morning%20of&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q&f=false

We have the Kingsbury manuscript in LDS possession in the Church History Library, along with one other copy. Clayton's original Nauvoo Diary 2 account was relatively short compared to this affidavit account but enough detail remains in the Nauvoo Diary account to tie it together with the information contained in the affidavit and to the revelation itself.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What would be your evidence for that?

Doesn't matter.

I have shared many times before and it doesn't make a lick of difference. I came to the conclusion about 5-6 months ago that arguing the issue or any issue is a waste of time. I just share what I believe and move on.