Jump to content

First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I thought they did contradict each other. One have God and Jesus together, another have only Jesus, another has just angels. All should have had God and Jesus. 

The fact that none of the accounts includes every last detail does not mean they contradict one another.

And if you want the account to include both the Father and the Son, then the official, canonized version is the one for you to hold to. It is the one that was prepared with careful deliberation -- and eventually included as part of the scriptural canon -- as a guide to the Latter-day Saints.

The fact that there were other, non-official versions, given on occasion that varied in accordance with circumstances and audiences does not detract from the official version and should not be a cause for worry on your part.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are contradictions.

 

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

Quote

The new apologist strategy is to say, "see all these differences. Isn't it marvelous that they all harmonize."

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you are not in that category, then, of course, the task would not apply to you.

But my point still stands. The Church is not trying to talk people into joining by an appeal to science, history or whatever. It is only engaged in inviting and encouraging people to seek a spiritual communication from God. I repeat: To do that, we need only keep the question open.

To frustrate that effort, on the other hand, detractors must do the very thing they insist the Church must do: to prove their argument through physical evidence. I maintain that they have thus far failed to do that, and are destined to continue to fail.

There's a risk we could go round in circles with a british pantomime "oh yes you do, oh no you don't."

You keep repeating that the detractors of the church must prove their argument through physical evidence? Why?

Suppose I was a detractor of the church... I could very easily take the exact same approach as the church does. I would need to at least demonstrate that it was plausible that Joseph wasn't a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was a modern fabrication. I don't have to prove it, I just need to show it's plausible. Then I could also do the exact same thing, suggest the individual pray about it. 

FWIW... that's the process I went through in concluding the church is not true. I do not claim to have absolute proof it is not true. Instead I have concluded that the arguments against the church's key truth claims are more plausible and convincing than the arguments in favour of those claims (in other words, I studied it out in my mind)... and then I prayed about those conclusions and had a confirmatory experience that I had reached the right conclusions.

If I were to be a detractor then I would suggest the exact same process to a believing Mormon. Study it and then pray about it.

I've asked you several times why a detractor is held to a different standard to an advocate of the church. You've repeated your position, but you've not really explained why the requirements are different. In light of what I've described above, why would a detractor not be able to use the exact same method for making the argument the church is not true as those wanting people to reach the conclusion that it is?

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

This has already been addressed in this thread.

In fact, HappyJackWagon brought up the same line of attack after it had already been addressed. That's what led to our lengthy back and forth about him re-launching attacks that have already been addressed as though there had been no rebuttal made.

And now you are doing the same thing.

Scroll back through the thread and look for a post or posts by Wiki Wonka. I'm not going to rehash it here.

Edited to add:

Here's a FairMormon treatment of that attack from detractors.

You'll probably ignore it though and be raising the same attack next week or six months from now or whatever, as though there had bee no answer made. That seems to be the typical modus operandi.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
43 minutes ago, canard78 said:

There's a risk we could go round in circles with a british pantomime "oh yes you do, oh no you don't."

You keep repeating that the detractors of the church must prove their argument through physical evidence? Why?

 

Because that's the only way they can nullify the message of the Church, which is this: an invitation to sincere seekers to ask God in prayer for a confirmation.

As long as the question is open, seekers can feel free to so ask.

In order to shut the door on such seeking, detractors must prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true. Until they can do this, they have not succeeded in their nefarious intent.

Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

Good. You caught that. Yes. It is incoherent but that's what the apologists claim.

The church claims knowledge of the Godhead, that Jesus and the Father are separate personages of flesh, based largely on this vision.

So we have another version where angels appeared with no mention of God or Jesus. Of course you probably don't see an inconsistency there. Joseph probably just forgot to mention the most important part of the vision that led to a foundational theological building block.

What I find funny about the efforts to harmonize all the different accounts, is I've never seen anyone yet suggest that the official account be updated to reference the full story that might look something like this.

 

~Jesus appeared to Joseph after he prayed for a remission of sins. Jesus confirmed to Joseph all the churches were wrong . (1832 account) Jesus exits stage left.

Then a host of angels appeared to joseph, presumably singing the praises of God. (1835 account to Erastus Holmes)

Then an angelic being appeared in a pillar of fire. The angel told Joseph his sins were forgiven (didn't know angels could forgive sins), after which a host of angels also appeared. (1835 account to Jewish Minster)

After the angels left Satan appeared in a mist of darkness and bound Joseph's tongue. He felt that he would be destroyed, then a pillar of light descended until both God the Father and Jesus appeared to forgive joseph's sins (again) and told him not to join any church because they were all wrong, which thing he had never supposed. (1838 account) ~

 

The official "harmonized" account could be very interesting.

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because that's the only way they can nullify the message of the Church, which is this: an invitation to sincere seekers to ask God in prayer for a confirmation.

As long as the question is open, they can feel free to do this.

In order to shut down the question, detractors must prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true. Until they can do this, they have not succeeded in their nefarious intent.

Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Hmmm. I didn't realize anyone was trying to shut down the question. I've never heard anyone say they could "prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true." Most people recognize there's no "proof" one way or the other. As I said, I know the answer I received, and that's good enough for me. I don't begrudge someone else getting a different answer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good. You caught that. Yes. It is incoherent but that's what the apologists claim.

It's not the apologists who are incoherent, it is you in mischaracterizing them. When they say the accounts harmonize, the implication of that is that the accounts do not contradict one another. Which they do not, despite how many times you say they do.

Quote

 

The church claims knowledge of the Godhead, that Jesus and the Father are separate personages of flesh, based largely on this vision.

So we have another version where angels appeared with no mention of God or Jesus. Of course you probably don't see an inconsistency there. Joseph probably just forgot to mention the most important part of the vision that led to a foundational theological building block.

 

There may have been good reasons for not including that detail in certain circumstances other than "he just forgot." We are not compelled to accept your jaundiced interpretation.

 

Quote

What I find funny about the efforts to harmonize all the different accounts, is I've never seen anyone yet suggest that the official account be updated to reference the full story that might look something like this.

The essentials are in place for the canonized, scriptural account.

Meanwhile, the other accounts are easily accessible and are even highlighted these days in the newly renovated Church History Museum and cited elsewhere, such as in the "Gospel Topics" essay.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. I didn't realize anyone was trying to shut down the question. I've never heard anyone say they could "prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true." Most people recognize there's no "proof" one way or the other. As I said, I know the answer I received, and that's good enough for me. I don't begrudge someone else getting a different answer.

If you're not about trying to publicly discredit the Church of Jesus Christ, then good for you.

But thou "doth protest too much, methinks."

I remind you of the central point that the Church of Jesus Christ does not have to prove through physical evidence what it professes, because that's not its objective.

Detractors, on the other hand, must do that very thing if they are to be taken seriously.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not protesting anything other than the mistaken notion that I or anyone else thinks the church can be "proven" to be false, That's absurd.

No more absurd than to assert or imply that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes.

Again, the position of the Church is to "come and see." Go to God in prayer and seek a confirmation. There is no claim that what the Church teaches can be physically proven.

But to substantiate their claim that the Church is false, the detractors must do so with physical evidence. That is all they have available to them. And since they can't prove the Church false in that way, they are doomed to failure.

 

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No more absurd than to assert or imply that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes.

Again, the position of the Church is to "come and see." Go to God in prayer and seek a confirmation. There is no claim that what the Church teaches can be physically proven.

But to substantiate their claim that the Church is false, the detractors must do so with physical evidence. That is all they have available to them. And since they can't prove the Church false in that way, they are doomed to failure.

Again, I don't know anyone who has asserted or implied "that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes." Given that you say that I in particular am protesting too much, I can only assume you think that's what I believe, but evil anti-Mormon though I am, I have never once said anything like that. I've consistently said it's impossible to prove or disprove the claims of the church. In fact, I don't think I've ever said, even in passing, that "the church is false." I don't find the church's claims plausible, and as I said, I had clear answers to prayer, but I readily acknowledge that my conclusions may be wrong. If they are, I imagine I'll figure it out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I don't know anyone who has asserted or implied "that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes."

Then why demand physical proof of the Church's truth claims, especially when the Church itself professes that the truthfulness can only be ascertained through spiritual means?

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why demand physical proof of the Church's truth claims, especially when the Church itself professes that the truthfulness can only be ascertained through spiritual means?

Have I ever demanded physical proof of the church's truth claims? I don't recall ever doing any such thing, but that you think I have is pretty illuminating. Methinks thou perceivest my position to be much more rigid and unreasonable than it is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

There is a difference between addressing the contradiction and answering it.

It remains a contradiction.

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

 

Quote

 

Question: Did Joseph Smith decide that all churches were wrong before he received the First Vision?

Criticisms of Joseph's 1832 account compared to his 1835 account of the First Vision

In his 1832 history, Joseph Smith said:

I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

But in 1835 he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.”

  • It this a contradiction and is this evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time?
  • One critic of the Church states, "In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness of his sins. . . .In the official 1838 account, Joseph said his “object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join”…”(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)”"

If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one?

If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"

Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth. It had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.

 

And further:

 

Quote

 

Question: How could Joseph Smith come to the conclusion that all churches were wrong on his own?

Joseph was in doubt as to what his duty was regarding joining a church

The answer to this apparent contradiction lies in a detailed examination of relevant texts. It is important to first compare Joseph Smith’s November 1832 text (which is in his own handwriting) with a newspaper article printed earlier that same year which refers to the Prophet’s inaugural religious experiences.

1832 (February): “not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer” (Fredonia Censor).
1832 (November): “my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations . . . . by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament” (handwritten account by Joseph Smith).[2]

Joseph Smith concluded that none of the denominations with which he had acquaintance was built upon the New Testament gospel

When both of these texts are taken into consideration the following storyline suggests itself: Joseph Smith had come to the conclusion, through personal scripture study, that none of the denominations WITH WHICH HE HAD AN INTIMATE ACQUAINTANCE was built upon the New Testament gospel. He prayed for guidance because he was “in doubt what his duty was.” This doubt is obliquely referred to again in Oliver Cowdery’s February 1835 Messenger and Advocate partial First Vision recital where he said that because of the religious excitement the Prophet had “determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.”[3]

Doubt is present again in the Prophet’s November 1835 diary entry: “I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequences.”[4] So the conclusion this fourteen-year-old boy had reached through personal scripture study did not altogether solve his dilemma. In fact, in the May 1838 account he clarifies that because of his youth and inexperience in life he could not make an absolute decision with regard to this matter: “it was impossible for a person young as I was and so unacquainted with men and things to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong”; “I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right which is it, and how shall I know it?”; “if any person needed wisdom from God I did, for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had would never know.”

Joseph wanted to know which of the many hundreds of denominations on earth was the correct one

Orson Pratt’s 1840 First Vision account helps to explain why the ‘Joseph-decided-every-existing-church-was-wrong’ theory cannot possibly be valid. Elder Pratt reports, “He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations. The great question to be decided in his mind was—if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it?” This expansive view is reflected in the Prophet’s 1838 account. There he states, “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join.”

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

consiglieri said:
 

Quote

 

Hey, Scott, I used that line on you two weeks ago.

Get your own material, man! 

 

 

That line from Shakespeare is quoted far too commonly for one person to claim it as his own.

By the way,  I took pains to quote it correctly in my post; most people don't. (And yes, I realize yours was a paraphrase without quotation marks.)

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

 

And further:

 

 

of course there's contradiction, he's a person telling the story to different people at different times.  Such will nearly always result in some sort of contradiction.  How the explanation by FAIR works as saying it is not a contradiction is beside me, honestly. 

Quote

Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness of his sins. . . .In the official 1838 account, Joseph said his “object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join”…”(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)”"

So he knew there was no other true or living on the earth...Yet FAIR is suggesting he only knew of a few Churches so he couldn't have meant any Church on earth. 

Quote

Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith."

eh...some might find some hope in this explanation but it's much easier to accept that of course there's going to be some contradiction.  he was human. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

of course there's contradiction, he's a person telling the story to different people at different times.  Such will nearly always result in some sort of contradiction.  How the explanation by FAIR works as saying it is not a contradiction is beside me, honestly. 

So he knew there was no other true or living on the earth...Yet FAIR is suggesting he only knew of a few Churches so he couldn't have meant any Church on earth. 

eh...some might find some hope in this explanation but it's much easier to accept that of course there's going to be some contradiction.  he was human. 

The FairMormon analysis is quite compelling -- enough so that people like consiglieri -- and you -- can not go around asserting a priori that it is a contradiction -- not asserting it honestly, that is.

You know, if this is the best you or anyone else can come up with to show that the the First Vision accounts are contradictory, it's a pretty safe conclusion that they are not contradictory.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

Your FAIRMormon article is disingenuous.

It compares the 1832 language with the 1835 language, which is equivocal.

But for some reason, it completely ignores the 1838 version which contains the undeniable contradiction with the 1832 version.

Here is the language from the 1838 version.  It is in the Pearl of Great Price.  It is surprising it escaped the attention of FAIRMormon.

Quote

 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

This type of deception does no credit to FAIRMormon.

Link to post
25 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your FAIRMormon article is disingenuous.

It compares the 1832 language with the 1835 language, which is equivocal.

But for some reason, it completely ignores the 1838 version which contains the undeniable contradiction with the 1832 version.Here is the language from the 1838 version.  It is in the Pearl of Great Price. 

It is surprising it escaped the attention of FAIRMormon.

This type of deception does no credit to FAIRMormon.

Context, man, context.

It had never entered his heart that every single Christian sect on earth was wrong. There could be no way for him to conclude that, as he had not experienced each and every one of them.

And the FairMormon article did indeed cite and quote the 1838 account. You need to read it more carefully.

Again, if this is the strongest thing you can come up with to claim the accounts are contradictory, that doesn't present a very compelling argument.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

It is a contradiction at its base level.  Too bad Joseph is not around so we can ask for clarification.  For me I try to personalize this in how I do things.  I take positions on things that I believe to be correct or not correct but I always leave the door open, even if the opening in very small that I might be wrong.  I don't know everything or even 1/10th of everything.   So if I was in his position, I probably would have concluded from my study and visiting different churches that all the churches were wrong at least as far I as knew but I leave my heart open to the possibility that I might have missed something or the possibility that I have made a wrong conclusion.  Especially for a 14 year old, how dedicated are they really to the conclusions they make?  Joseph may have gone into the grove with some predisposition that the Churches were wrong based on what he knew  but went to pray for more clarification on the subject.  He left his heart open to the possibility that he was missing something.  It sort of pattern that God expects from us. God rarely tells people things they have not spent some time or thought on before hand.  He expects us to do some homework.  Arrive at some conclusions and then ask if such conclusions are right and instruction if we are wrong.  

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Fair Dinkum
      While I'll assume no one in this board is unfamiliar with this subject, I'll still offer a short synopsis just in case. Back Story:  In 1985 the family of B.H. Roberts allowed a collection of his personal papers, still in the private hands of family members, to be published into book form.  The collection was published as "Studies of The Book of Mormon"
      In his papers were discovered notes of a special meeting that was held in early 1922 involving all member's of the First Presidency, The Quorum of the Twelve as well as the 7 Presidents of the Seventy, of which Robert's was a member.  Robert's had been given the assignment by Heber J. Grant to answer questions that had been sent in a letter to the church from a member seeking answers. 
      The questions were quite straight forward:
      when the Jews landed in the New World (600 B.C.) is not enough time to explain the diversity of native Indian languages. Horses were introduced to the Americas by the Spaniards, thus their appearance in the Book of Mormon is an anachronisms. The use of steel in the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. The use of scimitars (an arabian sword) in an anachronism. The use of silk was unknown to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon
      Roberts concerns went unanswered by church authorities which caused him to try and resolve the difficulties himself.  The book represents his attempt to resolve those questions, he was unsuccessful in doing so. 
      Now a new master thesis has been written exploring secret meetings that took place following Robert's failed attempt to find satisfaction from his fellow church authorities.  Robert's formed this band of LDS intelligentsia in a further attempt to resolve his concerns and find answers to Book of Mormon problems.  While I've only just started to read it, this thesis is a fascinating behind the scenes look into the pre-correlation church.
      https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/6712
      Despite his failures to resolve his concerns, we owe much to Roberts attempt, for it was from many of these questions that much of today's apologetic theories of a limited footprint, duel Cumorah's and acknowledgement of a pre-populated Asian immigrant America, to name just a few, have emerged.  Since the emergence of the internet, modern day apologetics has completely re-framed how the Book of Mormon is viewed from how it was interpreted in 1922. The problem is that much of the church still views the book in much the same way as it was seen in 1922.
      Mormon historians have debated whether the manuscript/book reflects Roberts's doubts or was a case of his playing a devils advocate. One interesting fact remains, per his instructions, his headstone has a Christian Cross on it, which was even unusual for that time and even more so for a former General Authority of the Church.
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By blueglass
      Really impressed with Kate Holbrook's interview with Terryl Givens.  She's thoughtful, candid, and inspiring as she speaks about her persistence to get a PhD and work full time for the church as a manger of church history.  She's working on a project with Lisa Tate on the history of the young women's organization.  
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2G7k1ggz7k&feature=em-uploademail
      One thing I caught that I hadn't heard before was when Terryl asks her about whether she felt a sense of loss and a sense of jubilation when studying the history of the RS.  Joseph envisioned a more collaborative relationship with the male priesthood, more autonomy, abundance of spiritual gifts, authority to administer ordinances including healing by the laying of hands.  Kate responds that she understands the hyperfocus on this time period, but she feels there is a lost opportunity in recognizing the accomplishments of the women of the 20th century - she then backtracks a bit and says:
      "I don't want to say that their isn't a difference, between - a time when a woman was able to say I have this terrific idea she's say the General RS president and she goes and talks to the president of the church about it.  That is certainly different than now, when she goes and talks to someone in the presiding bishopric, and it has to go through several levels to even get to the president.  There is a loss, and there is a difference."
      I had no idea that the General RS president did not have direct access to the quorum of the 12, and first presidency?  Why in 3 heavens does the general RS president still have such an auxiliary level of access to the presiding apostolic quorum, access to financial influence through Pres Bishopric perhaps, but no real budget to work with?  No seat on the correlation committee?  
      Kate has a great story about how Ardeth Greene Kapp (General YW president 84-92') while receiving a downpour of revelation would use innovative, clever ways and technology to push the ideas upward through the hierarchy.  
    • By blueglass
      A number of church historians recently published a book through Oxford entitled "Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources” (Oxford University Press, $74, 448 pages.)
      In the last chapter (13) pg 390 the historian Ronald Barney quotes Donald Enders, the senior curator at the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City where he states, "There is no evidence, that Joseph told his mother that he had talked face-to-face with God. Certainly his mother never claimed to have heard such a declaration."
      I knew that very few had heard about Joseph's first vision in the earliest days of the church, I didn't know his own mother was unaware. Then I was digging through the JSP where they have Lucy Mack's original 1844 - 1845 history draft, and I found a first vision account similar to the 1835 account in which the unnamed personage testifies that Jesus is the Christ in the 3rd person.  Also compare with Lucy Mack Smith's letter to her brother Solomon Mack, Waterloo, New York, 6 January 1831
      https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/40
      "our sons were actively employed in assisting their Father to cut down the grain and storing it away in order, for winter One evening we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the subject of the diversity of churches that had risen up in the world and the many thousand opinions in existence as to the truths contained in scripture Joseph who never said many words upon any subject but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious nature This After we ceased conversation he went to bed <and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one.> an but he had not laid there long till <he saw> a bright <light> entered the room where he lay he looked up and saw an angel of the Lord stood <standing> by him The angel spoke, "I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is the true church there is not a true church on Earth No not one Nor <and> has not been since Peter took the Keys <of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God> into the Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches."
    • By mfbukowski
      There is a fascinating podcast recently published by Interpreter of an interview with Sharalyn D. Howcraft about early foundational documents of Mormonism in which the difference between "what really happened" and how history is recorded.
      For those like me who do not like podcasts, there is also a transcript which is a pretty short and totally fascinating read.
      I highly recommend both.
      "What really happened" as I have said forever is virtually unknowable, so all we are stuck with are historical accounts which may or may not be "true representations"
      I say this often to underscore the necessity of being guided by the Spirit in all matters, regarding virtually every document we read as "HIS-STORY" rather than necessarily "what really happened" which in a historical sense is unknowable in most cases.  Observed recorded events like the assassination of Lincoln of course are "facts" and those are another case.
      But when it comes to hearsay, questions of motivation, how ideas evolved or what ideas were developed by whomever, we just have to be cautious and in my opinion,  regard everything as a story written by a human being and all human beings have a point to make, prejudices to expose or hide, and in some cases the "truth" is simply impossible to know.
      So especially in religious matters, we must follow our "gut" or in more regular Mormon parlance, "follow the Spirit".
      This podcast and transcription illustrate these points extremely well.
      http://interpreterfoundation.org/a-closer-look-at-the-foundational-texts-of-mormonism-with-sharalyn-d-howcroft/
      This link goes directly to the transcript
      http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/d/c/6dcfab4b17c23c6a/LDSP_Sharalyn_D._Howcroft.pdf?c_id=20782383&expiration=1525899791&hwt=88c7d8ed9c3cfaf190629e1f5f8ac493
       
×
×
  • Create New...