RevTestament Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Do you know when and how that verse made it into D&C 107? I have been looking at the JSPP and it appears that 107 is a combination of two or more different revelations received years apart, neither of which contain the verse you quote above. It might help to know how and when it came together in our current form to understand the RLDS/CoC positions. I am not a Church historian, so no I don't know. I do know that the section was approved by Joseph Smith, and officially accepted by the Church. Does it really matter if the revelation was compiled out of two separate revelations? That certainly makes it no less true. I would dare say that is true of a number of our present chapters or sections of D&C. Personally, I feel the Church has drifted somewhat from the spirit and intent of that section - need I say more? - but still it can be said that the body of the Church has selected Pres Nelson. The body of the Church never selected Joseph Smith III, and thus the Reorganized Church was clearly outside the bounds of our D&C as recorded in our history. Is the Church going to follow all the guidance and commandments of the Lord or not? If not, is it apostate? I think the reason the CoC is dwindling is because they built their house on sand. To have relevance they have to say Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but they choose not to follow all the commandments given through him in D&C. Yeshua said "without me, ye can do nothing." That is ultimately what is at issue here. They left the restored gospel. So I can see why they have suffered more offshoots recently as the central church continues to drift away - disavowing more of D&C, etc.
Calm Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Do you know when and how that verse made it into D&C 107? I have been looking at the JSPP and it appears that 107 is a combination of two or more different revelations received years apart, neither of which contain the verse you quote above. It might help to know how and when it came together in our current form to understand the RLDS/CoC positions. Maybe this can help, not sure if it has enough info. http://scottwoodward.org/scripture/DC_107_background.html
CA Steve Posted March 18, 2019 Author Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: and I am not a Church historian, so no I don't know. I do know that the section was approved by Joseph Smith, and officially accepted by the Church. Does it really matter if the revelation was compiled out of two separate revelations? That certainly makes it no less true. I would dare say that is true of a number of our present chapters or sections of D&C. Personally, I feel the Church has drifted somewhat from the spirit and intent of that section - need I say more? - but still it can be said that the body of the Church has selected Pres Nelson. The body of the Church never selected Joseph Smith III, and thus the Reorganized Church was clearly outside the bounds of our D&C as recorded in our history. Is the Church going to follow all the guidance and commandments of the Lord or not? If not, is it apostate? I think the reason the CoC is dwindling is because they built their house on sand. To have relevance they have to say Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but they choose not to follow all the commandments given through him in D&C. Yeshua said "without me, ye can do nothing." That is ultimately what is at issue here. They left the restored gospel. So I can see why they have suffered more offshoots recently as the central church continues to drift away - disavowing more of D&C, etc. Can you show me where the RLDS acknowledge that they believe in our section107 and that it applies to BY assuming leadership of the church? Edited March 18, 2019 by CA Steve
RevTestament Posted March 18, 2019 Posted March 18, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Can you show me where the RLDS acknowledge that they believe in our section107 and that it applies to BY assuming leadership of the church? I have said that I do not know what sections of D&C the RLDS accepted, and accept now - however, that appears to have changed over the course of their history. What I do claim is that they certainly knew about this section at the time of Joseph Smith's death. The verse in question was actually received by Joseph Smith no later than 5 years after the Church was formed - all members at Joseph Smith's death would have had access to it. Whether the RLDS members chose to follow it, I really have no way of knowing, except to say they obviously did not follow it upon Joseph Smith's death. All indications are they did not get the outcome they wanted, so they left the Church. If Sidney Rigdon had been chosen by the body, they probably would not have split off from the Church at that time. The preface to section 107: "Revelation on the priesthood, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, about April 1835. Although this section was recorded in 1835, the historical records affirm that most of verses 60 through 100 incorporate a revelation given through Joseph Smith on November 11, 1831. This section was associated with the organization of the Quorum of the Twelve in February and March 1835. The Prophet likely delivered it in the presence of those who were preparing to depart May 3, 1835, on their first quorum mission." Edited March 19, 2019 by RevTestament 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: .................... I don't read D&C quite the same as you. I find nothing in it about dissolving the quorum of the Presidency upon the death of the President. That seems to be some kind of later position the Church has taken. Do other quorums dissolve upon the death of their presidents? Does the quorum of the twelve dissolve? Quorum of the seventy dissolve? It seems to me that the counselors continue until a new President and counselors are confirmed by the body of the Church - having equal authority to that of the quorum of the twelve. I know that will not be accepted - I accept that. Anyway at the time it seems clear from the history I have read that the body of the Church chose BY to be confirmed as President. As such he was free to nominate new counselors, and replace Sidney Rigdon. It didn't really seem to happen quite that way, but nevertheless, as I see it, the body of the Church chose, and those who left and formed new churches were not following the will of the Lord as expressed in D&C. I guess I am just wondering if they have thought about that, or they just don't accept D&C. We might want to look at LDS/RLDS history in a broader biblical context. That context does not appear very legalistic, but circumstance driven, and the patterns followed vary widely, so as to negate any fixed notion of succession in the prophetic office, not to mention the fact that prophet and high priest are often held by competing figures. God seems willing to depose high priests whenever he pleases, and some high priests even become kings. In other cases, charismatic judges are raised up to lead Israel, including powerful women. Nearly anyone can be anointed. One gets the impression that God does what he likes and has his plans implemented by the Divine Council. Priesthood power is the only constant in the universe. 1
Jean-Luc Picard Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, pogi said: Thanks for sharing, that is interesting. Does anybody know if there are many congregations here in Utah? They would probably do well to have more of a presence here to capitalize on disenfranchised members here. I think there are two congregations in the Valley. I went to the Millcreek/Holladay congregation. It is a small group and the meeting had a similar feel to an LDS service, except more laid back (t-shirts, polo shirts etc.). Similar music and noise from kids. I saw one girl pass the sacrament/communion to what seemed to be her dad. That was nice to me. I talked with the associate pastor, he was born and raised RLDS/CoC. He told me about half the congregation is former LDS. My wife and I tried out about a dozen churches this last year. We ultimately decided that we aren't really "church people." If we do go to church it is at our ward, we love our friends and the Bishop. For the big holidays we really like the Presbyterian Church by our house. Their Easter and Christmas programs are really well done. Most of the churches altogether seem to be older (just like my ward). I think most of the churches around the East Bench are trying to keep the numbers up and when they saw my little family, their eyes lit up. The only church that seemed to be really full was a conservative Evangelical church. Lately I have been going to a secular group called Oasis. I look at their calendar and attend when I see a topic or good speaker pop up. It is almost entirely former Church members. Afterwards we do something as a family. It seems to work for the Picards. I seem to have my foot in lots of doors. Edited March 19, 2019 by Jean-Luc Picard
RevTestament Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We might want to look at LDS/RLDS history in a broader biblical context. That context does not appear very legalistic, but circumstance driven, and the patterns followed vary widely, so as to negate any fixed notion of succession in the prophetic office, not to mention the fact that prophet and high priest are often held by competing figures. God seems willing to depose high priests whenever he pleases, and some high priests even become kings. I'm sure you are thinking of someone specific, but I cannot pinpoint a high priest who became king. Example please? I agree that the biblical prophets were often not the high priest. That seems to have been the case beginning in the Davidic era when the prophet was of the line of Judah. For whatever reason the law was prophesied to come out of Judah. Of course, Yeshua combined the two again.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 33 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I'm sure you are thinking of someone specific, but I cannot pinpoint a high priest who became king. Example please? I agree that the biblical prophets were often not the high priest. That seems to have been the case beginning in the Davidic era when the prophet was of the line of Judah. For whatever reason the law was prophesied to come out of Judah. Of course, Yeshua combined the two again. Samuel the Ephraimite combined all three: prophet, high priest, and judge (warlord), at the same time there were groups of ecstatic prophets who functioned independently. Prophets during the Classical period could be approved royal court prophets like Isaiah, or opposed to the royal court like Nathan, Jeremiah (an Aaronide) and Lehi (Manassite). The status of high priest-king-warlord of the Hasmonean Dynasty included Simon, John Hyrcanus, et al., all of whom were Aaronides.
jpv Posted March 19, 2019 Posted March 19, 2019 21 hours ago, RevTestament said: Actually, BY himself seemed to believe this notion that he designated his son to be the next President. Nevertheless, see the section above that a President must be a high priest. The Church needed a president in the meantime and D&C provides that a president will be chosen by revelation - not wishes of Presidents. From a legal standpoint, if they accept D&C, they don't have a leg to stand on. They were apostate. But then I don't know if these sections are included in the CoC's D&C. They left the Church, and have continued on their path away from the restored gospel. It is not surprising to me if they reject these sections. After all, they plainly ignored them for years - instead following their desire to select a president by lineage. I am by no means aiming to disparage Emma', but it does seem to me that according to our D&C she had become apostate. This is not a comment upon her current condition, nor meant to be a comment of persecution about the CoC nor its offshoots. I am just wondering how they rationalize their position. I know you are commenting as a faithful LDS, but I will say that personally I don't read D&C quite the same as you. I find nothing in it about dissolving the quorum of the Presidency upon the death of the President. That seems to be some kind of later position the Church has taken. Do other quorums dissolve upon the death of their presidents? Does the quorum of the twelve dissolve? Quorum of the seventy dissolve? It seems to me that the counselors continue until a new President and counselors are confirmed by the body of the Church - having equal authority to that of the quorum of the twelve. I know that will not be accepted - I accept that. Anyway at the time it seems clear from the history I have read that the body of the Church chose BY to be confirmed as President. As such he was free to nominate new counselors, and replace Sidney Rigdon. It didn't really seem to happen quite that way, but nevertheless, as I see it, the body of the Church chose, and those who left and formed new churches were not following the will of the Lord as expressed in D&C. I guess I am just wondering if they have thought about that, or they just don't accept D&C. I believe Andrew Ehat accepts your view of the D&C in his thesis, but recognizes JS creating quorums and keys and authority above those mentioned in the D&C.
Recommended Posts