Just An Idea.

[Bikeemikey]

Well, if there are men on the Moon, they must be far too busy to speak to us. Perhaps it is best that I not know of some of the early writings.

Though it would be helpful to know them well (the early writings not the moon men) if you want to migrate back to that form of Mormonism.

[Bikeemikey]

I chuckle about the "men on the moon" aspect... again, the inspiration and/or revelation was undoubtedly not clearly understood. Can you imagine how preposterous the idea of men on the moon seemed in context of the times. People scoff that Joseph had such a thought and expressed it.

But think about it... here we are in our day talking about establishing permanent space stations on the moon, etc. After that, what? Permanent colonies on the moon? And after colonies what? Communities? I can see advances that could eventually increase populations that would dictate that missionaries be sent to the moon... Those concepts that everyone has scoffed at could very well come to fruition...

GG

This is the coolest idea!!! Joseph Smith the futurist.

Love it.

[omni]

I believe that some revelations were not clearly understood, and personal opinions and cultural aspects at the time could have played a role, i.e., blacks and the priesthood when you consider the place of blacks in society of that day.  I believe subsequent revelation corrected that error...

I chuckle about the "men on the moon" aspect... again, the inspiration and/or revelation was undoubtedly not clearly understood.  Can you imagine how preposterous the idea of men on the moon seemed in context of the times.  People scoff that Joseph had such a thought and expressed it.

 But think about it... here we are in our day talking about establishing permanent space stations on the moon, etc.  After that, what?  Permanent colonies on the moon?  And after colonies what?  Communities?  I can see advances that could eventually increase populations that would dictate that missionaries be sent to the moon... Those concepts that everyone has scoffed at could very well come to fruition... 

And as far as temple ordinances staying the same... our current ordinances are fundamentally the same... the basic principle is the same... the procedure for administering the ordinances may have been streamlined.  An example would be the ordinance of washing and annointing... it is my understanding from early journals of women that for the washing there was an actual tub and women sat in the tub naked and were literally washed.  I'm thankful that while the general purpose and doctrine of washing  remains the same, the revelation concerning the procedure has made the ordinance less intrusive and so much more spiritual and meaningful...

 

GG

Reminds me of a scene in the campy sci-fi film Starship Troopers where they show an LDS temple and missionaries on some distant planet.

[ERayR]

It was taught in the JoD, Joseph said it and Brigham backed it up. Joseph Smith Sr. even blessed Huntington that he would preach to those on the moon. Many in that day and age speculated things before they had evidence. I'm glad the LDS believe in current revelation, or we'd be stuck in a time warp. Many in the "nut job" polygamist groups believe that no man has been on the moon.

 

Quotation please.

[JLHPROF]

Quotation please.

 

 

Source 1 - Brigham Young

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the  inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized.  - Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 13:271

and

 

Source 2 - Oliver Huntington's Patriarchal Blessing - given by his own father William, not Jos Smith Sr. as often said.

I lay my hands on thee & bless thee with a father’s

blessing .... thou shalt be called to preach the gospel to

this generation .... before thou art twenty one thou wilt

be called to preach the fullness of the gospel, thou shalt

have power with God even to translate thyself to

Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or

planets, if it shall be expedient ...

and finally

 

Source 3 - Oliver Huntington's journal - but not his own recollections, 2nd hand recollection of Philo Dibble with no source or reference

Inhabitants of the Moon

The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform

size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet

in height.

They dress very much like the quaker style and are

quite general in style, or the one fashion of dress.

They live to be very old; coming generally, near a

thousand years.

This is the description of them as given by Joseph the

Seer, and he could "See" whatever he asked the Father in

the name of Jesus to see.

 

 

So yes, 3 references.  Only the Brigham Young reference could reliably be called a church teaching, and the traceback to Joseph Smith is 2nd hand and unrecorded at best.

[ERayR]

and

and finally

 

 

So yes, 3 references.  Only the Brigham Young reference could reliably be called a church teaching, and the traceback to Joseph Smith is 2nd hand and unrecorded at best.

 

Thanks.

[canard78]

and

and finally

 

 

So yes, 3 references.  Only the Brigham Young reference could reliably be called a church teaching, and the traceback to Joseph Smith is 2nd hand and unrecorded at best.

 

Huntington's quotes were partially used in a Young Women's publication (I referenced it a couple of pages back), so could partially be called a teaching by a church department at the very least. But it's of little consequence... The Ensign taught that Noah's flood covered the entire earth and I don't believe that either. I apply Elder Uchtdorf's advice in both directions:

 

And it is always good to keep in mind, just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated, or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.

 

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

[MormonMason]

There was considerable speculation about life on the moon as a result of newspaper articles published in 1835, in what was called the "Great Moon Hoax."  I also can see Joseph Smith joking around about something like this and people briefly overhearing him doing this taking his remarks seriously.  That and taking certain passages literally would have led to such a thing circulating around for a bit.

 

But, Joseph was prone to joking around about certain things, and sometimes he could be a bit of a smart alec, as were some of the other early Brethren.  Some people years later people took what originally were jokes seriously and thought that they were teaching certain things they actually weren't teaching.

 

One time Joseph was accused of stealing a horse.  The fellow making the accusation demanded to know where he had gotten a gray-colored horse he then had.  Joseph's reply? (Paraphrasing) "Well, you see that gray cloud up there in the sky? It touched down right over there (pointing to the place), and when it lifted, there was this horse."

 

President Young talked about keeping a Bowie Knife under his pillow to keep devils away.  He also spoke of Heber C. Kimball as his revelator.  The context of that was concerning his ability to make up passages of scripture on the fly to embarrass ministers of other faiths who were looking for a fight.  Heber C. Kimball talked about gospel study popping the hairs out of his head by his expanding mind. (He had gone bald by the time he made the remark).  These were anything but literal teachings but people later took them and other like statements as teachings because they were spoken from the pulpit during conferences.  I recall something the Tanners themselves thought was an odd teaching because they saw it in the Journal of Discourses.  But, then again, the Journal of Discourses was never an official publication of the Church, either.

 

Did Brigham Young think the Sun was inhabited? He thought it was but he still was speculating, as the context and structure of the remarks shows.  A literal interpretation of a passage or two in the Bible also would have contributed to that.  One passage was in Isaiah concerning the fact that the earth wasn't created in vain but to be inhabited.  A logical extension to a literalist understanding of such a passage would be that other worlds in this solar system, including the moon and even the Sun, also would have been inhabited because God doesn't create worlds in vain.  Add to that the passage in Revelation about an angel standing in the Sun and just about anything becomes possible.

Edited September 30, 2013 by MormonMason

[cinepro]

This is just an idea. There is lots of talk about the church adapting to change; several um liberalizations in the past, and now there is talk of women having the priesthood, later SSM, later even people like me will get Temple Privileges.  Maybe we are all thinking in the wrong direction?

 

Maybe the church should roll back to the time of Brigham Young, or even the time of Joseph Smith?  Perhaps What Heavenly Father created in the first place was what he wanted and still wants? So perhaps increasing liberalization of the church is not what Heavenly Father wants for his church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

 

Just having a pain driven brain storm.

If someone thinks that such a "roll-back" is a good idea, there are several existing groups who feel likewise and would be glad to accommodate them.

[omni]

There was considerable speculation about life on the moon as a result of newspaper articles published in 1835, in what was called the "Great Moon Hoax." I also can see Joseph Smith joking around about something like this and people briefly overhearing him doing this taking his remarks seriously. That and taking certain passages literally would have led to such a thing circulating around for a bit.

But, Joseph was prone to joking around about certain things, and sometimes he could be a bit of a smart alec, as were some of the other early Brethren. Some people years later people took what originally were jokes seriously and thought that they were teaching certain things they actually weren't teaching.

One time Joseph was accused of stealing a horse. The fellow making the accusation demanded to know where he had gotten a gray-colored horse he then had. Joseph's reply? (Paraphrasing) "Well, you see that gray cloud up there in the sky? It touched down right over there (pointing to the place), and when it lifted, there was this horse."

President Young talked about keeping a Bowie Knife under his pillow to keep devils away. He also spoke of Heber C. Kimball as his revelator. The context of that was concerning his ability to make up passages of scripture on the fly to embarrass ministers of other faiths who were looking for a fight. Heber C. Kimball talked about gospel study popping the hairs out of his head by his expanding mind. (He had gone bald by the time he made the remark). These were anything but literal teachings but people later took them and other like statements as teachings because they were spoken from the pulpit during conferences. I recall something the Tanners themselves thought was an odd teaching because they saw it in the Journal of Discourses. But, then again, the Journal of Discourses was never an official publication of the Church, either.

Did Brigham Young think the Sun was inhabited? He thought it was but he still was speculating, as the context and structure of the remarks shows. A literal interpretation of a passage or two in the Bible also would have contributed to that. One passage was in Isaiah concerning the fact that the earth wasn't created in vain but to be inhabited. A logical extension to a literalist understanding of such a passage would be that other worlds in this solar system, including the moon and even the Sun, also would have been inhabited because God doesn't create worlds in vain. Add to that the passage in Revelation about an angel standing in the Sun and just about anything becomes possible.

Wow Mormonmason, you really are a deep well for obscure quotes from church history. I'd love to see your library. Edited September 30, 2013 by omni

[MormonMason]

Wow Mormonmason, you really are a deep well for obscure quotes from church history. I'd love to see your library.

I'd love to see my library, too!  It's been a long time--far too long!

[canard78]

Or, MormonMason, Joseph and Brigham were simply mistaken. They saw through a glass (or telescope) darkly.

[MormonMason]

Or, MormonMason, Joseph and Brigham were simply mistaken. They saw through a glass (or telescope) darkly.

On Brigham Young, probably.  On Joseph Smith, uncertain.  There is nothing concrete tying such a teaching to him but speculative accounts by people who weren't actually there to hear the remarks.  There are three accounts in the CoC Archive that show that several of the Saints were speculating on the idea. We know the reason for that by looking at the newspapers of the day.  In 1835, a hoax was perpetrated nationwide that life had been seen on the moon.  The "six-foot quaker men on the moon" comment sounds an awful lot like the kind of jokes, and smart-alecky and half-serious comments that Joseph Smith was known to make when he was kidding around about various subjects.

 

But, we have no official source tying such a teaching to Joseph Smith.  There also are accounts of Joseph's running around the streets of Nauvoo drunken.  We know where those claims originated, however.  Joseph Smith was playing around at being drunk to test the new Saints that sailed in on the Maid of Iowa.  One such test was recorded for our amusement.  The rumors took off from there.  Until I see an official source, that is firsthand, that ties that teaching to Joseph Smith, I will continue to treat it as uncertain.

[Tacenda]

On Brigham Young, probably. On Joseph Smith, uncertain. There is nothing concrete tying such a teaching to him but speculative accounts by people who weren't actually there to hear the remarks. There are three accounts in the CoC Archive that show that several of the Saints were speculating on the idea. We know the reason for that by looking at the newspapers of the day. In 1835, a hoax was perpetrated nationwide that life had been seen on the moon. The "six-foot quaker men on the moon" comment sounds an awful lot like the kind of jokes, and smart-alecky and half-serious comments that Joseph Smith was known to make when he was kidding around about various subjects.

But, we have no official source tying such a teaching to Joseph Smith. There also are accounts of Joseph's running around the streets of Nauvoo drunken. We know where those claims originated, however. Joseph Smith was playing around at being drunk to test the new Saints that sailed in on the Maid of Iowa. One such test was recorded for our amusement. The rumors took off from there. Until I see an official source, that is firsthand, that ties that teaching to Joseph Smith, I will continue to treat it as uncertain.

How about the revelation of Zelph the Lamanite. Some say Joseph was playing around, what do you think? Since it might put BoM lands back to the NY area.

[MormonMason]

How about the revelation of Zelph the Lamanite. Some say Joseph was playing around, what do you think? Since it might put BoM lands back to the NY area.

From what I know about Zelph, he post-dated the Book of Mormon.  The original versions of the writings that mention the Zelph story do not mention Cumorah or Nephites in connection therewith.  These were added to the History of the Church later.  So, I'd say that it has little to no actual bearing on the locations of Book of Mormon events.

 

Much of it sounds like rumor accounts that circulated after the initial comments were made, in addition, with large differences in details depending upon the person's diary read.

 

What other significance it might have is uncertain to me at this point.  I'd have to have access to my books and notes to say much more on the subject.

 

In the meantime, here is a link to the 1904 edition of the History of Joseph Smith/History of the Church.  You can read that here.  Start reading on page 79 and on the following page.  Notice what is missing?

Edited September 30, 2013 by MormonMason

[thesometimesaint]

From what I know about Zelph, he post-dated the Book of Mormon.  The original versions of the writings that mention the Zelph story do not mention Cumorah or Nephites in connection therewith.  These were added to the History of the Church later.  So, I'd say that it has little to no actual bearing on the locations of Book of Mormon events.

 

Much of it sounds like rumor accounts that circulated after the initial comments were made, in addition, with large differences in details depending upon the person's diary read.

 

What other significance it might have is uncertain to me at this point.  I'd have to have access to my books and notes to say much more on the subject.

 

In the meantime, here is a link to the 1904 edition of the History of Joseph Smith/History of the Church.  You can read that here.  Start reading on page 79 and on the following page.  Notice what is missing?

 

I can't tie it directly to JS either. We just don't have enough of his own first hand accounts to be definitive.

 

That being said; Every one of us, including prophets, are entitled to our own opinions, and those may or may not comport with whatever scientific theory is popular during their day. So they can believe Pi is equal to exactly three, you can stand on a high mountain just outside Jerusalem and see the entire globe, the earth is just 6-7 thousand years old, or that the moon and the sun have people on them, that men will never get into space let alone land the moon.

 

Take what is good and true. Discard the rest.

[cdowis]

JLFPROF,

 

Ok, these are "doctrines", these are "revelations", these are the "teachings" of BY.

 

I guess you missed these phrases:

++++++++++++++++

 

I rather think so.  Who can tell....

 

Do you think it is inhabited.  I rather think it is.

+++++++++++++++++++

 

I think, I suppose, who knows

 

Is this what you call doctrines?  Are these direct revelation?  

 

You and I see things very differently.  You see revelations, doctrines, teachings.  I see someone who is speculating, making suppositions.  BY once told us how he liked his bread baked -- with a thick crust.  I suppose that is also church doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

JLFPROF,

 

Ok, these are "doctrines", these are "revelations", these are the "teachings" of BY.

 

I guess you missed these phrases:

++++++++++++++++

 

I rather think so.  Who can tell....

 

Do you think it is inhabited.  I rather think it is.

+++++++++++++++++++

 

I think, I suppose, who knows

 

Is this what you call doctrines?  Are these direct revelation?  

 

You and I see things very differently.  You see revelations, doctrines, teachings.  I see someone who is speculating, making suppositions.  BY once told us how he liked his bread baked -- with a thick crust.  I suppose that is also church doctrine.

 

Ok, first, I never said this was official church doctrine, I only said that this was the only quote on the subject that could in any way be called church doctrine - the rest, esp. Joseph Smith quote were unreliable.  Also, it was in response to a request for where the idea came from.  I was just responding to that request, not supporting the teaching.

 

To be clear, I also think Brigham was only making suppositions.  However, it's important to note he made them to the Church, across the pulpit in the tabernacle.

Edited October 2, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Damien the Leper]

This is just an idea. There is lots of talk about the church adapting to change; several um liberalizations in the past, and now there is talk of women having the priesthood, later SSM, later even people like me will get Temple Privileges.  Maybe we are all thinking in the wrong direction?

 

Maybe the church should roll back to the time of Brigham Young, or even the time of Joseph Smith?  Perhaps What Heavenly Father created in the first place was what he wanted and still wants? So perhaps increasing liberalization of the church is not what Heavenly Father wants for his church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

 

Just having a pain driven brain storm.

I favor the Kirtland church. Nauvoo church was and will always be a disaster.

[JLHPROF]

I favor the Kirtland church. Nauvoo church was and will always be a disaster.

 

Kirtland Church was so incomplete - it was only slightly better than the Christian Sects of the Day and focused on temporalities.  But once the visitation of D&C 110 occurred the gospel truly began to be restored.

The Nauvoo church had its view on the things of the eternities, and brought about the things necessary to become like Christ and God.  I don't think there is really a comparison.

[MormonMason]

...

 

To be clear, I also think Brigham was only making suppositions.  However, it's important to note he made them to the Church, across the pulpit in the tabernacle.

He did that because he felt that was the best place to speculate among the Saints at home rather than in the open with non-members.