Jump to content

First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What we can learn from the First Vision in the context of all that followed is certainly different from what young Joseph might have learnt from the First Vision.

From the linked lesson:

Emphasize that the visit of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is rich in doctrinal significance. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “I submit that in the few minutes that Joseph Smith was with the Father and the Son, he learned more of the nature of God the Eternal Father and the risen Lord than all the learned minds in all their discussions through all centuries of time” (Church News, 24 Oct. 1998, 6).

Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brother Brigham probably had it destroyed because it was a false version of Lucy Mack's history.  2001).

It was written (dictated) by Lucy Mack Smith beginning in 1844.  It was not a "false version", but a history as she remembered Joseph's life and the events up until his death:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother

.

From the Joseph Smith Papers:

"In June 1844, the church suffered the loss of its president and prophet, JS, and his brother, church patriarch Hyrum Smith. The Smith family, already devastated, endured another heartbreak a few weeks later with the death of JS’s brotherSamuel. That fall their widowed mother, Lucy Mack Smith, perhaps in part as a salve to her grief, began recording her family’s story. Writing to her only surviving son, William, on 23 January 1845, Smith informed him, “I have by the council of the 12 [Apostles] undertaken a history of the family, that is my Fathers Family and my own.” She added:

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—"

 

Lucy did not mention or write about what we now call the first vision in this history.  I'd have to read it again, but iirc, Lucy only wrote about the angel appearing to Joseph in his room for the first time. That was what I was pointing out, here.  We can discuss why she may have done this, but it's a fact that it was not in this history as first written. 

 

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'ALL of the visitations'? No, just one vision retold four times.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but to write off the harmonising of multiple accounts as an act of 'faith' reveals a significant lack of familiarity with the historical enterprise. As I pointed out earlier, multiple accounts of a single event by the same author have been common in my research, and harmonising such accounts is just what real historians do. I can only guess why you seem so much to want the existence of the four First Vision accounts to be seen as problematic.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

If all of those different characters (Lord, God, Jesus, many angels) appeared to Joseph in the first vision then a harmonized version of that vision would include all of these characters and likely a progression of events, (God appears- then God and Jesus in a pillar of light- but only after the angels appear in a pillar of fire). For the accounts to harmonize they must all be included as part of the vision which currently they are not.

It's like harmonizing the gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. We have angels, shepherds, wise men etc. even though Luke 2 doesn't mention wise men it's a standard harmonized portion of the nativity. We either harmonize or we don't but I don't see how you can say all of these first vision accounts are in harmony without including the details from all of them. All of those details, harmonized together,  present an expanded vision and theoretically would provide greater insight to God and His purposes in appearing to JS.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to post
10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Did this missionary visit the island once and then retell the story four different times? or did he visit the island four different times?

TBH, the Jesuit and European accounts I encounter in my research of Southeast Asian history drive me batty. Do you not struggle constantly trying to unravel the tangled mess of fantasy, reality and faith? My favorite is the explorer (Marignolli I think) who visited the East Indies in the 14th century and met the Queen of Sheba who gave him a golden girdle and told him that the Three Wise Men were living with Elijah at the top of a nearby mountain. Or the countless accounts of explorers like Marco Polo who claimed to have traveled through the hidden Christian Kingdom of Prester John. Are these multiple dissonant accounts true? Historians don't think so. Most likely they were attempts to convince the Pope to fund their missions. And then there are the Jesuit miracles:

"It was said that Francis Xavier was caught up in a storm as he was travelling to Malacca in the year 1546. With much faith, he threw his cross into the sea, asking God to make it an instrument to pacify the turbulent sea. God indeed came to his aid. The storm halted and the sea calmed down. But he lost his cross. According to the story, Francis Xavier, upon reaching the shores of Malacca, found a crab crawling towards him holding the missing cross in on of it's claws. This story was so important that it was depicted on the altar at the canonization ceremony and was one of four miracles represented on the banner that decorated St. Peter Church on that occasion."

Should we believe it? How do historians cut through the revisions to get at the truth? Which version of the Jesuit missionary story above do you believe is most accurate? 

Just clarifying here for the record that the quote Ralph Manchou gave with this post is actually from Hamba Tuhan, even though my name was placed on it mistakenly.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just clarifying here for the record that the quote Ralph Manchou gave with this post is actually from Hamba Tuhan, even though my name was placed on it mistakenly.

Yeah, apologies for that. Not sure what buttons I clicked, but Hamba already responded helpfully. Thanks Scott

Link to post
20 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I don't read Joseph's 1832 statement (written in Joseph's own hand and demonstrating his atrocious grammar and sentence structure) as being that he concluded that there was no true church upon the entire earth. He was only familiar with a few of them. He checked them out, and none of them seemed to conform to his understanding of the New Testament: so they were all " apostatized" in his opinion.

If I had the creator of the world standing in front of me, I'd ask the question of whether or not there was a true church somewhere on the earth, because the ones I was familiar with didn't seem to qualify. It would have never entered my heart that all of them were wrong.

Fair enough.  Do you also think you'd remember how old you were when you had the creator of the world standing in front of you?

Link to post
6 hours ago, ALarson said:

It was written (dictated) by Lucy Mack Smith beginning in 1844.  It was not a "false version", but a history as she remembered Joseph's life and the events up until his death:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845

Lucy did not mention or write about what we now call the first vision in this history.  I'd have to read it again, but iirc, Lucy only wrote about the angel appearing to Joseph in his room for the first time. That was what I was pointing out, here.  We can discuss why she may have done this, but it's a fact that it was not in this history as first written. 

 

It's possible she was conflating the First Vision with Moroni's visits.  On page 40 she writes:

 

 

Quote

 

About this The 3 harvest time had now arrived since we  opened our new farm and all the 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.

 

Since her account was written in 1844, nearly 6 years after Joseph Smith's account, we can only conclude that it is more accurate and reliable (since later accounts tend to be more reliable), so we should probably go with her version.

I would also point out that her book contains an insane amount of detail about people and events in the history of their family that took place in the late 1700s and early 1800s (many that had nothing to do with Joseph).  Just read the first 10 pages.  It is extremely odd that she would have clear recall of dollar amounts, distances between cities, or the price of a bushel of wheat, but forget about that time her son saw the creator of the universe in a nearby grove of trees. 

Especially odd in light of the fact that her objective in writing the book was to "write down every particular [of Joseph's upbringing and visions] as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure"

Edited by cinepro
Link to post
20 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said:

If I had the creator of the world standing in front of me, I'd ask the question of whether or not there was a true church somewhere on the earth, because the ones I was familiar with didn't seem to qualify. It would have never entered my heart that all of them were wrong.

Joseph said it never entered his heart that all of them were wrong, too.  He just admitted to needing some help figuring out which one of them he should join,  feeling like he didn't have enough wisdom on his own to be able to figure that out.  And seeing that people understood the same passages of scripture so differently that it an appeal to the Bible, alone, was just not enough for him to be able to figure that out.  So when he read what James said about asking God for more wisdom he thought he would try that out and see how that went.  And then he hit the jackpot, with our Father and Jesus both showing up to help him as well as the rest of us to know how to figure that out.

Link to post
21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Since her account was written in 1844, nearly 6 years after Joseph Smith's account, we can only conclude that it is more accurate and reliable (since later accounts tend to be more reliable), so we should probably go with her version.

I would also point out that her book contains an insane amount of detail about people and events in the history of their family that took place in the late 1700s and early 1800s (many that had nothing to do with Joseph).  Just read the first 10 pages.  It is extremely odd that she would have clear recall of dollar amounts, distances between cities, or the price of a bushel of wheat, but forget about that time her son saw the creator of the universe in a nearby grove of trees. 

Especially odd in light of the fact that her objective in writing the book was to "write down every particular [of Joseph's upbringing and visions] as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure"

All very true, IMO.  She also stated that she had repeated the details many times to people in order "to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible".   So, it appears that she knew the details well (and it seems she would have been corrected by Joseph if she was reciting them over and over incorrectly, especially regarding something as important as this.) 

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Joseph said it never entered his heart that all of them were wrong, too.  He just admitted to needing some help figuring out which one of them he should join,  feeling like he didn't have enough wisdom on his own to be able to figure that out.

Except for the earliest personal account (1832) where it reads...

Quote


… thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ

Kind of sounds like it had entered his heart and mind by this account.

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

Except for the earliest personal account (1832) where it reads...

Kind of sounds like it had entered his heart and mind by this account.

Well yeah by age 15 (1832) it should have since that's when the Lord had told him not to join any of them.  

With God's help we can all get better at putting 2 and 2 together.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Well yeah by age 15 (1832) it should have since that's when the Lord had told him not to join any of them.  

With God's help we can all get better at putting 2 and 2 together.

In the 1832 account he talks about being in his 16th year at the time of the vision. You might want to read the account. What I quoted occurred before the vision.

I'm curious how we can harmonize the detail of JS having previously decided that all other churches were in apostasy and his statement that it had never entered his heart. This is a minor example of how these contradictions do not build a stronger story. The conflicts do not harmonize.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Well yeah by age 15 (1832) it should have since that's when the Lord had told him not to join any of them.  

Joseph wasn't 15 years old in 1832.  He was born in 1805.

Link to post
32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Joseph wasn't 15 years old in 1832.  He was born in 1805.

Good catch.  So he wrote that account long after the actual event didn't he.

Link to post
41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In the 1832 account he talks about being in his 16th year at the time of the vision.

Meaning he was 15 when it happened.

Interesting thing about birthdays is that the one you're celebrating is a celebration of your last year.

Like when you celebrated your 1st one that year is then already over and you are then at the beginning of your next year.

So on his 15th birthday he was then beginning his 16th year.

 

Link to post
47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious how we can harmonize the detail of JS having previously decided that all other churches were in apostasy and his statement that it had never entered his heart. This is a minor example of how these contradictions do not build a stronger story. The conflicts do not harmonize.

Timing plays a part.  It never entered his heart until it did and he then talked about how it didn't until it did.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Meaning he was 15 when it happened.

Interesting thing about birthdays is that the one you're celebrating is a celebration of your last year.

Like when you celebrated your 1st one that year is then already over and you are then at the beginning of your next year.

So on his 15th birthday he was then beginning his 16th year.

 

Joseph got a couple of dates wrong in the 1832 account.

- You are correct...by stating "16th year of my age," he was saying that he was 15 years old. The phrase "in the 16th year of my age" was added in between the lines of Joseph's handwriting by Joseph's scribe Frederick G. Williams. Joseph apparently asked Williams to add it in later. However, the age was wrong - it should have been the "15th year". Two years later, in 1834 when Oliver began writing a history of the Church, Oliver stated Joseph's age as 14. Oliver appears to have had a copy of Joseph's 1832 history that he was using as a basis for this, which, as we know, said "16th year" (age 15) . However,  Oliver plainly stated that Joseph was 14. How did he know this? He only could have gotten that corrected information from Joseph himself. Also, if you look at the actual text itself, it's actually pretty hard to tell whether or not it is actually a "16" or a "15" because of an overwrite of another character. Looks like "16" to me.  Check it out - An image of that writing is located here: "in the 16th year of my age" 

- Joseph also got the date of Moroni's visit wrong by one year. The 1832 account says that he was seventeen years old when Moroni came on " 22d day of Sept. AD 1822". Joseph would have been 16 years old on that date, and he would have turned 17 in December 1822. However, Moroni's visit was actually on 22 September 1823. Joseph stated his correct age, but he got the year wrong.

So, Joseph messed up on dates and ages. When Joseph wrote in the 1832 history that " I was merely instructed in reading and writing and the ground <rules> of arithmetic which constituted my whole literary acquirements," he wasn't kidding. 

Edited by Wiki Wonka
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

Joseph got a couple of dates wrong in the 1832 account.

- You are correct...by stating "16th year of my age," he was saying that he was 15 years old. The phrase "in the 16th year of my age" was added in between the lines of Joseph's handwriting by Joseph's scribe Frederick G. Williams. Joseph apparently asked Williams to add it in later. However, the age was wrong - it should have been the "15th year". Two years later, in 1834 when Oliver began writing a history of the Church, Oliver stated Joseph's age as 14. Oliver appears to have had a copy of Joseph's 1832 history that he was using as a basis for this, which, as we know, said "16th year" (age 15) . However,  Oliver plainly stated that Joseph was 14. How did he know this? He only could have gotten that corrected information from Joseph himself. Also, if you look at the actual text itself, it's actually pretty hard to tell whether or not it is actually a "16" or a "15" because of an overwrite of another character. Looks like "16" to me.  Check it out - An image of that writing is located here: "in the 16th year of my age" 

- Joseph also got the date of Moroni's visit wrong by one year. The 1832 account says that he was seventeen years old when Moroni came on " 22d day of Sept. AD 1822". Joseph would have been 16 years old on that date, and he would have turned 17 in December 1822. However, Moroni's visit was actually on 22 September 1823. Joseph stated his correct age, but he got the year wrong.

So, Joseph messed up on dates and ages. When Joseph wrote in the 1832 history that " I was merely instructed in reading and writing and the ground <rules> of arithmetic which constituted my whole literary acquirements," he wasn't kidding. 

I looked at that manuscript, and I can't make either a 15 or a 16 out of that. It's too illegible.

 

Link to post
14 hours ago, Ahab said:

Timing plays a part.  It never entered his heart until it did and he then talked about how it didn't until it did.

Creative history.

In the 1832 account Joseph states that all denominations are in apostasy so he goes to the grove and prays. He has his vision where the Lord appears to him. OK.

Later, Joseph says it had never occurred to him that other churches may be wrong, but he goes to the grove and prays and finds out all other churches are in apostasy.

It doesn't matter if he was in his 14th year or in his 16th year like the different accounts indicate but significant changes to his story like whether he already supposed all churches to be apostate or whether God told him all other churches were apostate, seems important and further damages his credibility.

Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Creative history.

In the 1832 account Joseph states that all denominations are in apostasy so he goes to the grove and prays. He has his vision where the Lord appears to him. OK.

Later, Joseph says it had never occurred to him that other churches may be wrong, but he goes to the grove and prays and finds out all other churches are in apostasy.

It doesn't matter if he was in his 14th year or in his 16th year like the different accounts indicate but significant changes to his story like whether he already supposed all churches to be apostate or whether God told him all other churches were apostate, seems important and further damages his credibility.

I think Wiki Wonka has already given a good response to this concern:

Quote

 

I don't read Joseph's 1832 statement (written in Joseph's own hand and demonstrating his atrocious grammar and sentence structure) as being that he concluded that there was no true church upon the entire earth. He was only familiar with a few of them. He checked them out, and none of them seemed to conform to his understanding of the New Testament: so they were all " apostatized" in his opinion.

If I had the creator of the world standing in front of me, I'd ask the question of whether or not there was a true church somewhere on the earth, because the ones I was familiar with didn't seem to qualify. It would have never entered my heart that all of them were wrong

 

I don't know whether or not  you've read it already. Doesn't seem like it. If you have, it seems you are intentionally choosing to ignore rather than address it.

 

Link to post
19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Fair enough.  Do you also think you'd remember how old you were when you had the creator of the world standing in front of you?

Maybe, maybe not. 

For some memorable events in my life, I don't remember my precise age. For some I had thought I was a certain age, but when I associate them with other events that had to have happened at the same period of time I realize I have been off by a year or more. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Wiki Wonka has already given a good response to this concern:

I don't know whether or not  you've read it already. Doesn't seem like it. If you have, it seems you are intentionally choosing to ignore rather than address it.

 

I didn't see it, but it's not a particularly strong argument. The argument is essentially that Joseph didn't know all of them were wrong. Some of them, sure, but not ALL. So we can choose to interpret words as we like. I'm not opposed to finding alternate possibilities but like Wiki said, he reads it a different way than I do.

Joseph wrote that mankind had apostatized which certainly fits the current church narrative of total apostasy. There was "no society or denomination" that hadn't apostatized.

Quote

 by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ

I understand the desire to make sense of it by suggesting that he didn't claim ALL denominations were in apostasy, but that's not what he wrote. Maybe he was writing hyperbole. That's possible. But it would call into question the other parts of the vision. Were they accurate/literal or hyperbolic symbolism.

 

 

Link to post

For heaven's sakes..if I had a vision even at the age of twelve, I would remember that every day of my entire life!  I would fear for my life if there was any discrepancy at all in retelling.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For heaven's sakes..if I had a vision even at the age of twelve, I would remember that every day of my entire life!  I would fear for my life if there was any discrepancy at all in retelling.

The fact that Joseph recounted it the next day (or soon thereafter) to a minister indicates that did not initially think he had any particular reason to fear for his life.

And I repeat, I can't always fix a specific time frame to memorable events in my life -- I don't believe that everyone necessarily can.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't see it, but it's not a particularly strong argument. The argument is essentially that Joseph didn't know all of them were wrong. Some of them, sure, but not ALL. So we can choose to interpret words as we like. I'm not opposed to finding alternate possibilities but like Wiki said, he reads it a different way than I do.

Well, at least you're addressing it now rather than ignoring it altogether, which seems to be a pattern with you -- to repeated arguments that have already been answered.

I disagree that it's not a strong rebuttal. I find it more than reasonable.

Quote

 

Joseph wrote that mankind had apostatized which certainly fits the current church narrative of total apostasy. There was "no society or denomination" that hadn't apostatized.

I understand the desire to make sense of it by suggesting that he didn't claim ALL denominations were in apostasy, but that's not what he wrote. Maybe he was writing hyperbole. That's possible. But it would call into question the other parts of the vision. Were they accurate/literal or hyperbolic symbolism.

 

I don't believe hyperbole has anything to do with it. I think it's a matter of your misunderstanding a frame of reference.

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&amp;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...