An Address To All Believers In Christ

[Alan]

I have just read through this book again and found it very interesting. Much more so than when I first read it many years ago.

I would be interested in the observations of anyone else who has read this book.

I am particularly interested in David Whitmer's assertions regarding the:

1. Reliability of the D&C.

2. The Priesthood - especially the introduction into the church of the office of High Priest and it's connection with Rigdon.

3. The link he makes between Joseph's false revelation (declared so by God) regarding the sale of the BoM copyright in Toronto, and the revelation on plural marriage.

 

But feel free to comment on any of his observations you find interesting.

[jkwilliams]

It's been a while since I read it, but it left me with the distinct impression of a religion invented on the fly. Everything was in flux, doctrines changed, ordinances changed, scriptures were rewritten and repurposed, leading me to believe that our current need to set doctrine in stone did not apply in those days.

[Alan]

It's been a while since I read it, but it left me with the distinct impression of a religion invented on the fly. Everything was in flux, doctrines changed, ordinances changed, scriptures were rewritten and repurposed, leading me to believe that our current need to set doctrine in stone did not apply in those days.

 

Yes, I know what you mean.

[cdowis]

I understand that each of these issues have been researched thru the Joseph Smith Papers and other historical research.  I'm sure others on this forum are more competent in talking about them.

[Palerider]

It's been a while since I read it, but it left me with the distinct impression of a religion invented on the fly. Everything was in flux, doctrines changed, ordinances changed, scriptures were rewritten and repurposed, leading me to believe that our current need to set doctrine in stone did not apply in those days.

 

I think to some it did apply in those days (as it did for David Whitmer) and to others it didn't. There seems to be a bit of a wrestle in Christianity between dogma and revelation. It is even more heightened in the LDS faith.

 

When I was very young I remember quite an emphasis to show that there was complete harmony between the Bible and the BofM. But that supposed harmony only takes place with a Mormon interpretive twist on the Biblical scriptures. And sometimes that twist is quite a stretch. I think that was one of the reasons for Joseph's "re-translation" of the Bible.

 

The common refrain for why doctrines "change" in the LDS faith seems to be that we believe in an "open canon". Personally I have no problem with the concept of an open canon and on-going revelation. The real problem is distinguishing whether you are dealing with true revelation or priestcraft tap dancing.

 

When one declares at one point (as Joseph did in the Lectures on Faith) that there are only two personages in the Godhead; the Father being a personage of spirit, the Son a personage of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Spirit is simply "the mind" of the Father and the Son, and then you turn around some time later and re-declare three personages in the Godhead, Father and son with physical bodies and the Holy Ghost as a Spirit body.........you begin to test the boundaries of credulity. Especially when it seems to be a recurring phenomenon in your search for doctrine.

 

Wouldn't the wise thing be to just recieve the final revelation in the first place rather than having the Lord give you all those incorrect ones to begin with? That way you don't have to end up tacitly canonizing the Lectures on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants and then having to de-canonize them later.

 

Tap dancing..........  

[jkwilliams]

I think to some it did apply in those days (as it did for David Whitmer) and to others it didn't. There seems to be a bit of a wrestle in Christianity between dogma and revelation. It is even more heightened in the LDS faith.

 

When I was very young I remember quite an emphasis to show that there was complete harmony between the Bible and the BofM. But that supposed harmony only takes place with a Mormon interpretive twist on the Biblical scriptures. And sometimes that twist is quite a stretch. I think that was one of the reasons for Joseph's "re-translation" of the Bible.

 

The common refrain for why doctrines "change" in the LDS faith seems to be that we believe in an "open canon". Personally I have no problem with the concept of an open canon and on-going revelation. The real problem is distinguishing whether you are dealing with true revelation or priestcraft tap dancing.

 

When one declares at one point (as Joseph did in the Lectures on Faith) that there are only two personages in the Godhead; the Father being a personage of spirit, the Son a personage of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Spirit is simply "the mind" of the Father and the Son, and then you turn around some time later and re-declare three personages in the Godhead, Father and son with physical bodies and the Holy Ghost as a Spirit body.........you begin to test the boundaries of credulity. Especially when it seems to be a recurring phenomenon in your search for doctrine.

 

Wouldn't the wise thing be to just recieve the final revelation in the first place rather than having the Lord give you all those incorrect ones to begin with? That way you don't have to end up tacitly canonizing the Lectures on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants and then having to de-canonize them later.

 

Tap dancing..........  

 

Putting on my LDS hat, I'd say that early church history indicates that God may not operate the way we think He should. Maybe instead of giving us the "final revelation" he lets us figure things out, and we sometimes make mistakes.

 

Putting my apostate hat back on, it just tells me that Joseph Smith had no qualms about revising and repurposing his teachings, no matter how contradictory they might be. Heck, he even undertook significant revisions of the Book of Mormon twice, suggesting that he didn't consider it to be the definitive last word. For someone like David Whitmer, who apparently wanted consistency and finality, it must have been maddening. But since that time, we in the church have looked back to those revelations-in-process as being the final word when perhaps they were never intended to be set in stone. In a way, the church looks more like David Whitmer than Joseph Smith these days, at least it does to me.

[thesometimesaint]

Articles of Faith # 9:

 

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[jkwilliams]

Articles of Faith # 9:

 

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

That's not what I was getting at, but then maybe you aren't responding to me. If not, disregard this post.

[thesometimesaint]

That's not what I was getting at, but then maybe you aren't responding to me. If not, disregard this post.

 

Not in response to you.

[Ahab]

Putting on my LDS hat, I'd say that early church history indicates that God may not operate the way we think He should. Maybe instead of giving us the "final revelation" he lets us figure things out, and we sometimes make mistakes.

Putting my apostate hat back on, it just tells me that Joseph Smith had no qualms about revising and repurposing his teachings, no matter how contradictory they might be. Heck, he even undertook significant revisions of the Book of Mormon twice, suggesting that he didn't consider it to be the definitive last word. For someone like David Whitmer, who apparently wanted consistency and finality, it must have been maddening. But since that time, we in the church have looked back to those revelations-in-process as being the final word when perhaps they were never intended to be set in stone. In a way, the church looks more like David Whitmer than Joseph Smith these days, at least it does to me.

You sound more intelligent with your LDS hat on.

Basing what it is like to receive revelation from God on my own experiences of receiving revelations from God, I know that when I first got a new (to me) idea from God I tended to just incorporate that idea with some of my own ideas, which may or may not have been what God wanted me to conclude, rather than to just keep listening (spiritually) to God until he told me, through a continued conversation, how to use the new information. I still sometimes get wrapped up in my own thoughts when I get an idea from God, even though it always works out better for me when I just continue to listen and ask more questions. It just seems like more fun sometimes when I try to figure things out on my own, while just using the ideas I get from God.

[jkwilliams]

You sound more intelligent with your LDS hat on.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that as an insult, so I won't.

Basing what it is like to receive revelation from God on my own experiences of receiving revelations from God, I know that when I first got a new (to me) idea from God I tended to just incorporate that idea with some of my own ideas, which may or may not have been what God wanted me to conclude, rather than to just keep listening (spiritually) to God until he told me, through a continued conversation, how to use the new information. I still sometimes get wrapped up in my own thoughts when I get an idea from God, even though it always works out better for me when I just continue to listen and ask more questions. It just seems like more fun sometimes when I try to figure things out on my own, while just using the ideas I get from God.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Joseph Smith made it all up. What I was getting at (with both hats) is that I don't think Joseph Smith believed in static revelation. I'll try to be clearer. We tend to see the scriptures as set in stone, as being the final word Heavenly Father gave to Joseph Smith, probably because they haven't been (substantially) revised since his death. Based on how Joseph treated the scriptures during his lifetime, revising and sometimes completely rewriting them, I think that for him, "continuing revelation" wasn't a series of set revelations but rather a work in progress all along that could and should be revisited and even repurposed. I like that attitude toward scripture, as it's much more attractive than viewing things as final and rigid and certain. That approach is one of the things I like about Joseph Smith.