New Video On Priesthood Restoration

[Dan Vogel]

Friends: I have posted a new video on priesthood restoration.

Description: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery announced in the mid-1830s that they had been ordained by John the Baptist in May 1829 and subsequently by ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, it was a surprising disclosure—even for those who had been followers from the beginning. My purpose here is to discuss Joseph Smith’s original authority claims, to reconstruct key changes, and to suggest why the stories of angelic ordination were introduced.

[cinepro]

I haven't watched the video yet, but it sounds interesting. It might be just the thing to show in our Gospel Doctrine classes this year as we study the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Darren10]

cinepro;

LoL. Watch the video before you say what you said.

[Stargazer]

cinepro;

LoL. Watch the video before you say what you said.

I think he is being funny, btw.

[onefour1]

From 1838 to 1848 Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and I would think that he would have renounced the restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John if it were not true during his time of excommunication. But as far as I know, I don't think he ever renounced that angels appeared to him and restored the priesthood.

[canard78]

Friends: I have posted a new video on priesthood restoration.

Description: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery announced in the mid-1830s that they had been ordained by John the Baptist in May 1829 and subsequently by ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, it was a surprising disclosure—even for those who had been followers from the beginning. My purpose here is to discuss Joseph Smith’s original authority claims, to reconstruct key changes, and to suggest why the stories of angelic ordination were introduced.

Is there a transcript anywhere? I tend to read at speed and would be interested to come back to this later.

FWIW we had a thread on this topic recently. D&C 27 apparently was revealed in Sep 1831 (adding to the sacrament wine revelation in Aug 1831). If it was indeed revealed and put in writing somewhere in Sep 1831, then it would stand as strong evidence of John/Peter, James & John being mentioned in 1831.

The final conclusion of the thread however is that there is no record of the 'additions' appearing anywhere in writing (or any reference to it) until 1835 (even though it was put into print in BoC in 1833).

Edited January 18, 2013 by canard78

[cdowis]

I haven't watched the video yet, but it sounds interesting. It might be just the thing to show in our Gospel Doctrine classes this year as we study the Doctrine and Covenants.

I understand that we are not to show videos in class not produced by the church. I remember a teacher showing a great video except it showed someone smoking in the background.

Edited January 18, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

I understand that we are not to show videos in class not produced by the church. I remember a teacher showing a great video except it showed someone smoking in the background.

I'm guessing cinepro's joking. Maybe you too though? It's hard to tell with that quirky american humour knocking about

[Saints Alive]

. I remember a teacher showing a great video except it showed someone smoking in the background.

oh travesty of travesties! How dare someone show a film that has someone smoking in it!

[daz2]

I don't know of any policy against showing non-Church produced videos, other than concerns about copyright violations. That is, fair use should allow segments of non-Church videos to be shown under copyright law. Or a person could get permission of the copyright owner. I imagine Dan might give a Sunday School teacher permission. :-)

[canard78]

oh travesty of travesties! How dare someone show a film that has someone smoking in it!

Wait, you mean he wasn't being ironic???

Edited January 18, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

I don't know of any policy against showing non-Church produced videos, other than concerns about copyright violations. That is, fair use should allow segments of non-Church videos to be shown under copyright law. Or a person could get permission of the copyright owner. I imagine Dan might give a Sunday School teacher permission. :-)

I'm sure someone else will find the actual link, but it does indeed say in one of handbooks that only church materials should be used.

But then the handbook's not doctrine

[Saints Alive]

Wait, you mean he wasn't being ironic???

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Saints Alive

[Tacenda]

I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

He could be from Utah?

[Dan Vogel]

From 1838 to 1848 Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and I would think that he would have renounced the restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John if it were not true during his time of excommunication. But as far as I know, I don't think he ever renounced that angels appeared to him and restored the priesthood.

Just because he was excommunicated by the high council doesn’t mean he would automatically confess to something that would impugn his own character. Besides, my position is that he may have been a sincere believer in the Book of Mormon, but was convinced by JS to lie for a good cause. It was a pious deception, and hence Cowdery would not want to hurt the church because he was still a sincere believer.

[Dan Vogel]

Is there a transcript anywhere? I tend to read at speed and would be interested to come back to this later.

FWIW we had a thread on this topic recently. D&C 27 apparently was revealed in Sep 1831 (adding to the sacrament wine revelation in Aug 1831). If it was indeed revealed and put in writing somewhere in Sep 1831, then it would stand as strong evidence of John/Peter, James & John being mentioned in 1831.

The final conclusion of the thread however is that there is no record of the 'additions' appearing anywhere in writing (or any reference to it) until 1835 (even though it was put into print in BoC in 1833).

http://www.mormondia...-to-priesthood/

D&C 27 is dated 4 September 1830, Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the Book of Commandments. This publication didn’t mention John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. This and other information was added for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Dan Vogel

[Calm]

I don't know of any policy against showing non-Church produced videos, other than concerns about copyright violations. That is, fair use should allow segments of non-Church videos to be shown under copyright law. Or a person could get permission of the copyright owner. I imagine Dan might give a Sunday School teacher permission. :-)

Unless things have changed, materials not distributed by the Church are not to be used in class unless produced by the teacher him/herself. This was instruction given to ward librarians and primary teachers during my time as both.

This never made sense to me in combination with all the additional aids sold in DB for Primary and YW teachers and it was generally ignored in many wards, especially in Utah, I've found.

Found this for the library, am looking for teaching:

Only books and audiovisual materials produced and distributed by the Church may be stored in and circulated from the meetinghouse library.

https://www.lds.org/...stions?lang=eng

Looks like either they have loosen up OR my memory was projecting library requirements unto teaching:

21.1.5

Audiovisual Materials

Members may use audiovisual materials, such as CDs, DVDs, and computer presentations, in Church settings with the following restrictions:

1. They may not be used in sacrament meetings or in the general session of stake conference (however, appropriate recorded musical accompaniment may be used if a piano, organ, or accompanist is not available).

2. They may not be used if such use is restricted by copyright (see 21.1.12).

3. They may not be used if they contain material that is not suitable for Church settings.

Audiovisual materials that meet these criteria may be used in the chapel during meetings other than sacrament meeting or the general session of stake conference if they are an important part of the meeting.

also:

The laws governing creative works and their permissible use vary from one country to another. The Church policies outlined in this section are consistent with international treaties that are applicable in most countries. For simplicity, this section refers to a creator’s rights as “copyright.” However, certain of these rights may be known by different names in some countries.

Copyright is protection given by law to the creators of original works of authorship that are expressed in a tangible form, including:

• 1.
  Literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works.
  
• 2.
  Works of art, photography, and sculpture.
  
• 3.
  Audio and audiovisual works (such as movies and videos, CDs, and DVDs).
  
• 4.
  Computer programs or games.
  
• 5.
  Internet and other databases.
  

Church members should strictly observe all copyright laws. Generally, only copyright owners may authorize duplication (copying), distribution, public performance, public display, or derivatives of their work. Using a work in any of these ways without authorization from the copyright owner is contrary to Church policy and may also subject the Church or the user to legal liability.

A user of a work should assume that it is protected by copyright. Published works usually include a copyright notice, such as “© 1959 by John Doe.” (For sound recordings, the symbol is ℗.) However, a copyright notice is not required for legal protection. Similarly, the fact that a publication is out of print does not nullify its copyright or justify duplicating, distributing, performing, displaying, or making derivatives of it without permission.

The Church’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) assists in processing requests to use copyrighted Church materials or programs, including materials that are copyrighted by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IRI). IRI is a separate, nonprofit corporation that owns the intellectual property used by the Church. Additional information on requesting the use of Church-owned materials can be found by following the “Rights and Use Information” link on LDS.org.

The following questions and answers may help members understand and abide by copyright laws when using copyrighted materials at church and at home. If members have questions that are not answered in these guidelines, they may contact:

Intellectual Property Office 50 East North Temple Street, Room 1888 Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0018 Telephone: 1-801-240-3959 or 1-800-453-3860, extension 2-3959 Fax: 1-801-240-1187 E-mail:cor-intellectualproperty@ldschurch.org

Can I copy pictures from Church magazines? Pictures in Church publications may usually be copied for noncommercial Church, home, and family use. However, they may not be copied for commercial purposes without specific written permission from the IPO. If a picture is restricted from being copied, words such as “may not be copied” will appear in the credits for the image.

Can I copy published Church materials? Church publications may usually be copied for noncommercial Church, home, and family use. No commercial use may be made of Church materials without specific written permission from the IPO.

Can I copy music? Special copyright laws apply to music. A person may copy music from Hymns, the Children’s Songbook, and Church magazines for noncommercial Church, home, and family use except where a restriction is expressly noted on the hymn or song. Duplicating printed or recorded music without authorization from the copyright owner is contrary to Church policy. Music that has been duplicated contrary to this policy must not be used for Church purposes.

Can I alter, copy, or segment Church-produced audiovisual materials?Not unless such use is specifically authorized by the IPO. Church-produced audiovisual materials should be used in accordance with prescribed instructions in the manuals and on the packaging materials.

Can I copy materials that are not owned by the Church? Generally not. Copyright laws govern the use of privately owned materials. Usually there are restrictions that give the conditions the public must follow before copying non-Church materials. These restrictions are usually listed near the beginning of a publication. Members should strictly observe all copyright laws.

Can I show commercial audiovisual products at Church functions?Generally not. Church members should not violate warnings and restrictions that are placed on commercial audiovisual products. Using commercial audiovisual products at Church functions generally requires permission from the copyright owners.

Can I download or duplicate computer software and other programs for Church use? Generally not. Computer programs and other software may not be duplicated or downloaded unless all licenses have been appropriately purchased. As an exception, Church family history programs may be downloaded at no charge.

Can I download or distribute materials that I find on Church Web sites? The Church has created several Web sites, such as LDS.org,Mormon.org, and FamilySearch.org. Unless otherwise indicated, all material on Church-owned Web sites, including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information, may be viewed, downloaded, and printed for noncommercial Church, home, and family use only. Material from these sites may not be posted, transcribed, or distributed to other Web sites or computer networks without permission from the IPO.

Church-owned sites and any information on these sites, including the names and addresses of those who have submitted information, may not be used for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

For additional information, see the rights and use information associated with the Web sites.

What permission is needed to present musical and theatrical productions? Productions that are owned by the Church or IRI may be performed in Church settings without permission from Church headquarters. If a copyrighted production is not owned by the Church, members must obtain the copyright owner’s permission to perform all or part of it in a Church setting. Usually the copyright owner requires fees or royalties even if no charge is made for the performances. All presentations should have the approval of local priesthood leaders.

Edited January 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

New video: not so new material: but it should be said often. The entire truth is part of the story, not just selected bits and pieces, as the Church insists on doing....

[theplains]

cinepro;

LoL. Watch the video before you say what you said.

I watched the first part of the video. He might be coming from the angle that the said appearance

of John the Baptist to Joseph/Oliver and subsequently of Peter/James/John were never in the

original Book of Commandments, but were later introduced in the Doctrine and Covenants. I can't

say for sure because I don't have access to the original BOC. But on the other hand, some of the

information could be verified by going through all the General Conference talks that were nearest

the said events.

Just a thought.

Jim

[canard78]

From 1838 to 1848 Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and I would think that he would have renounced the restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John if it were not true during his time of excommunication. But as far as I know, I don't think he ever renounced that angels appeared to him and restored the priesthood.

I hear this one a lot. "He must have seen the plates/seen the angels, there's no way he'd have kept it secret. The probability is very low."

But here's the thing... if he didn't see those things, the probability is immaterial because if he didn't see it then he did indeed keep a lie secret.

I'm not saying he did, but just that he could have. There are many of people who go to their grave with secrets. Affairs, dodgy business deals, knowledge of murder or other crimes. Humans have the ability to rationalise all sorts of things.

I'm not saying Oliver made it up. I'm saying he could have both made it up and stayed silent about it. If he had lied, better to knowing he was a liar than to be known as a liar.

Having said all that... this last testimony does not sound like a liar:

"Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know,' said he, 'that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real".

[canard78]

D&C 27 is dated 4 September 1830, Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the Book of Commandments. This publication didn’t mention John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. This and other information was added for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

Sorry yes, '30 not '31. And yes, I'm aware of the rest of that, we discussed it at length in the thread I mentioned.

[canard78]

I watched the first part of the video. He might be coming from the angle that the said appearance

of John the Baptist to Joseph/Oliver and subsequently of Peter/James/John were never in the

original Book of Commandments, but were later introduced in the Doctrine and Covenants. I can't

say for sure because I don't have access to the original BOC. But on the other hand, some of the

information could be verified by going through all the General Conference talks that were nearest

the said events.

Just a thought.

Jim

Yes you do:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-commandments-1833

[onefour1]

Just because he was excommunicated by the high council doesn’t mean he would automatically confess to something that would impugn his own character. Besides, my position is that he may have been a sincere believer in the Book of Mormon, but was convinced by JS to lie for a good cause. It was a pious deception, and hence Cowdery would not want to hurt the church because he was still a sincere believer.

I believe that Cowdery never spoke evil of the church after being deeply hurt by his excommunication because he actually experienced the visitations of angels. He never denied this and wanted back into the church because he knew without doubt that what he experienced was true.

[bdouglas]

I have always found it interesting that, knowing he was going to die or was about to die, Oliver Cowdery went to the home of his fellow witness David Whitmer. (It is also true that he was married to Whitmer's sister.) Everything he did in the last days of his life is consistent with his testimony as one of the Three Witnesses, also as the recipient of the priesthood along with J.S., and I wonder at critics who see in him deception, subterfuge--I, at least, don't see anything remotely like any of that. I see a man who, in a fit of pique, braved the prophet (J.S.), left the church, paid the price, and then later returned a thoroughly humbled man.

The following quote is from Dostoyevsky's The Possessed. When I read it I think of Oliver Cowdery:

“He was one of those idealistic beings…who are suddenly struck by some overmastering idea which seems…to crush them at once, and sometimes for ever. They are never equal to coping with it, but put passionate faith in it, and their whole life passes afterwards, as it were, in the last agonies under the weight of the stone that has fallen upon them and half crushed them.”

Edited January 19, 2013 by bdouglas

[cdowis]

Dan muses

Just because he was excommunicated by the high council doesn’t mean he would automatically confess to something that would impugn his own character. Besides, my position is that he may have been a sincere believer in the Book of Mormon, but was convinced by JS to lie for a good cause. It was a pious deception, and hence Cowdery would not want to hurt the church because he was still a sincere believer.

While I disagree, your logic is certainly sound. I find it unlikely, however, based on the elaborate nature of the "lie", where he sees the plates, hears the voice, and beholds an angel with multiple witnesses confirming the story. More likely would just be a voice, but a "pious deception" that includes an angel?

Again, it is possible but I personally don't buy it. There are too many elements unexplained, especially the production of the text of the BOM, the multiple witnesses to visions, and the plates being witnesses by at least eleven individuals.

We cannot find such an elaborate deception among any other claiment/pretender to the prophetic gift. Can you give us just one other "real" example outside the scriptures?