Jump to content

Dc 77 - do We as Members Believe it?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't.  I would think that it is a very small fraction of Latter-day Saints who believe that.  I don't think there is a collective "we believe" here. 

But it is a revelation from God.  How can you not believe it?  Is there room for unbelief in the revelations from God?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

If it is in the D&C can you not believe it?  

Sure, you can choose to place a private interpretation of the scripture.  People do it all the time with all the scriptures.

Peter and Joseph were against it, but hey...

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, 2BizE said:

But it is a revelation from God.  How can you not believe it?  Is there room for unbelief in the revelations from God?

There is plenty of room for interpretation in the revelations. 

Link to post
52 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

If it is in the D&C can you not believe it?  

Yeah. The Church does not have a doctrine of scriptural infallibility.

  • Like 1
Link to post
47 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

But it is a revelation from God.  How can you not believe it?  Is there room for unbelief in the revelations from God?

Did Joseph declare it a revelation? I also have reservations about D&C 134. It is not that I disagree with the sentiments expressed generally. It is just not a revelation. It was written and published by the Twelve without Joseph's approval. It is also worth noting that the other piece the Twelve created at the same time and published ended up in the dust bin. It was about marriage and held monogamy as the "right way". This would prove problematic going forward for some reason. :vader:

Link to post
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did Joseph declare it a revelation? I also have reservations about D&C 134. It is not that I disagree with the sentiments expressed generally. It is just not a revelation. It was written and published by the Twelve without Joseph's approval. It is also worth noting that the other piece the Twelve created at the same time and published ended up in the dust bin. It was about marriage and held monogamy as the "right way". This would prove problematic going forward for some reason. :vader:

134 verse 12 is problematic🤔

Link to post
Just now, The Nehor said:

And also had a very specific goal and audience in mind. 

it wasn't the Smurfs was it?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

134 verse 12 is problematic🤔

134:12 expresses the same sentiment as Eph 6:5-9,  Col 3:22-4:2, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18, and similar exhortations to servants and masters in extra-biblical early Christian writings, although the type of servant/master relationship in Biblical times was vastly different than that in 1835 when Section 134 was written.  Paul's epistle to Philemon is believed by many to be an attempt by Paul to reconcile with Philemon and his runaway slave, Onesimus, who was taught the gospel by Paul.  I see 134;12 as an attempt to keep the peace and should not be understood as condoning the practice.

  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Did Joseph declare it a revelation? I also have reservations about D&C 134. It is not that I disagree with the sentiments expressed generally. It is just not a revelation. It was written and published by the Twelve without Joseph's approval. It is also worth noting that the other piece the Twelve created at the same time and published ended up in the dust bin. It was about marriage and held monogamy as the "right way". This would prove problematic going forward for some reason. :vader:

"Similarly, an explanation of passages in the book of Revelation, now Doctrine and Covenants 77, also arose directly from the Bible translation. Taking the form of a series of questions and answers, it was considered an inspired text and was included in an early revelation book." - quoted from "Joseph Smith's Bible Translation" in Revelations in Context.

 I have not found the specific revelation book and frankly don't feel inclined to right now. It appears Joseph considered it a revelation. Notably, however, Joseph never had it published in the Doctrine & Covenants/Book of Commandments. Even though it was received in 1832, Joseph did not include it in the 1833 Book of Commandments, nor the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and it was not included in the 1844 Doctrine & Covenants which was published after Joseph's death. It is possible that Joseph intended to publish the contents of D&C 77 as part of the finished Joseph Smith Translation, and thus he omitted to publish them in the D&C. Or, he may have considered it to be a "private revelation" of his own, not meant for canonization. 

However, it is unquestionable that D&C 88 was declared as a revelation, being published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. D&C 88:108-110 seems to participate in the "7000 years" paradigm.

Quote

108 And then shall the first angel again sound his trump in the ears of all living, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the mighty works of God in the first thousand years.

109 And then shall the second angel sound his trump, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the thoughts and intents of their hearts, and the mighty works of God in the second thousand years—

110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.

So, I think the "temporal continuance of 7000 years" needs to be contended with as an element of canon. However, we do not believe in scriptural infallibility, and in any case the 7000 years paradigm is in the context of the highly symbolic eschatology of the Revelation. Therefore, it's meaning in plain terms is totally up in the air.  Furthermore, there's good precedent for not taking it at face value, as I previously put forward. 

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure, you can choose to place a private interpretation of the scripture.  People do it all the time with all the scriptures.

Peter and Joseph were against it, but hey...

What are we to do with parables, then? What of the temple liturgy? Private interpretation has an essential role. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, Duncan said:

it wasn't the Smurfs was it?

I'd have to check the demographics to be sure. Not sure how many pro-slavery Smurfs there were in Missouri at the time but I am just gonna tentatively guess and say: "Yes."

  • Like 2
Link to post
10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

134:12 expresses the same sentiment as Eph 6:5-9,  Col 3:22-4:2, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18, and similar exhortations to servants and masters in extra-biblical early Christian writings, although the type of servant/master relationship in Biblical times was vastly different than that in 1835 when Section 134 was written.  Paul's epistle to Philemon is believed by many to be an attempt by Paul to reconcile with Philemon and his runaway slave, Onesimus, who was taught the gospel by Paul.  I see 134;12 as an attempt to keep the peace and should not be understood as condoning the practice.

I agree that was the intent but I think more than 'not condoning the practice' would be ideal.

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

"Similarly, an explanation of passages in the book of Revelation, now Doctrine and Covenants 77, also arose directly from the Bible translation. Taking the form of a series of questions and answers, it was considered an inspired text and was included in an early revelation book." - quoted from "Joseph Smith's Bible Translation" in Revelations in Context.

 I have not found the specific revelation book and frankly don't feel inclined to right now. It appears Joseph considered it a revelation. Notably, however, Joseph never had it published in the Doctrine & Covenants/Book of Commandments. Even though it was received in 1832, Joseph did not include it in the 1833 Book of Commandments, nor the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and it was not included in the 1844 Doctrine & Covenants which was published after Joseph's death. It is possible that Joseph intended to publish the contents of D&C 77 as part of the finished Joseph Smith Translation, and thus he omitted to publish them in the D&C. Or, he may have considered it to be a "private revelation" of his own, not meant for canonization. 

There are other revelatory explanations of scripture and other bits from the early days that never made it into the canon. I am not opposed to D&C 77 being in the canon but I would rate it below the direct revelation pieces. I still take it seriously for what it is worth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Peter and Joseph were against it, but hey...

But it feels so dang good not to be trammelled, doesn't it? :)

“I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled” (Joseph Smith).
 

  • Like 4
Link to post
On 7/27/2020 at 9:29 PM, JLHPROF said:

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Do we actually believe (leaving the creation out of it) that the temporal lifespan of this earth from Adam's time to the end is 7000 years?

And following on from that do we believe the last (seventh) thousand years will be with Satan bound and the Savior ruling personally?

If we believe both of these things, is there any historical or mathematical way of considering the Millennium to be very far off?

How close to Sunday is this Saturday night?

Bertram Russell - one of the world's greatest logicians-  famously said that there is no way to "prove" that the earth is NOT five minutes old and that all of our memories are not implanted illusions.

Of course he did not actually believe that, and his statement was about the nature of "proof" for such statements.

Perhaps we should consider even discussing such possibilities as irrelevant to real life. :)

 True or false?

 Take your pick.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Five-minute_hypothesis

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

But it feels so dang good not to be trammelled, doesn't it? :)

“I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled” (Joseph Smith).
 

Joseph said similar things several times.

Religious belief has nothing to do with science.

As Galileo taught, scripture is about how to go to heaven, not how the Heavens go.

We need to take scriptures in a spiritual context not in a scientific context.

Eternal and unchanging truth can only exist in world taken to be eternal from the beginning. :)

 Science does not even admit that such a world is possible.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2
Link to post

All life has a spirit associated with it whether it be a dog or cat or horse.  Apes also have spirits.  None of these spirits are the sons and daughters of God.  I believe the spirit sons and daughters of God starting coming to the earth with Adam and Eve. Whatever "humans" lived before that were not the sons of daughters of God. They had spirits as well and are entitled to salvation as other live is but are not exaltation.  I see no reason to believe any temple work will ever be done for Neanderthals. They were not the sons and daughters of God.  The scriptures are not about the history of the earth but the history of man while on the earth.  I am sure many issues are simplified regarding the history of the earth, its creation, ect to keep us (the sons and daughters of God) focused on the important stuff.  We are way to easily distracted by all the trivia and God wisely is probably hiding a lot of this junk information to keep our eyes on the ball.  Knowing the history of dinosaurs or Neanderthals does nothing for us in terms of what we should be focused on and our salvation and exaltation. 

  • Like 2
Link to post

I believe JS (at least as quoted explicitly by Phelps) interpreted D&C 77 in light of the BoA where 1 day=1000 years:

… eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, jpv said:

I believe JS (at least as quoted explicitly by Phelps) interpreted D&C 77 in light of the BoA where 1 day=1000 years:

… eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758.

Back then "agreeably to" was their way of saying "according to"  And just because some people thought something before doesn't mean that what they thought was true.

Link to post
5 hours ago, jpv said:

I believe JS (at least as quoted explicitly by Phelps) interpreted D&C 77 in light of the BoA where 1 day=1000 years:

… eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758.

2,555,000,000 - the length of an eternity (creation) so I've heard attributed as a Joseph teaching.  Explained as something to do with the rotation or orbit of Kolob.  Interestingly the rotation of the milky way is estimated at exactly 10% of that.

Link to post
16 hours ago, jpv said:

I believe JS (at least as quoted explicitly by Phelps) interpreted D&C 77 in light of the BoA where 1 day=1000 years:

… eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758.

Was Phelps quoting explicitly from Joseph Smith? I'm not in the same state as my copy of the Times and Seasons right now, but when I read it a few days ago I thought that it was Phelps spitballing as opposed to explicitly quoting Joseph. Also, it was in December 1844, not January. 

Link to post
On 7/28/2020 at 12:29 AM, JLHPROF said:

Do we actually believe (leaving the creation out of it) that the temporal lifespan of this earth from Adam's time to the end is 7000 years?

I can't interpret 77:6 in another way than literal.

Link to post
5 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

I can't interpret 77:6 in another way than literal.

So then the question becomes "was it revealed by God"?

If God said the Earth's temporal existence is 7000 years then it is.  Period.  If God didn't say it then we can discard those verses as uninspired, much as Joseph said about the Song if Solomon.

Link to post
19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So then the question becomes "was it revealed by God"?

If God said the Earth's temporal existence is 7000 years then it is.  Period.  If God didn't say it then we can discard those verses as uninspired, much as Joseph said about the Song if Solomon.

The introduction to this section  says "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832"

Link to post
2 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

The introduction to this section  says "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832"

That's what the section introduction says, but Joseph didn't think to include it in any compendiums of revelation in his lifetime. It was only put into the canon in 1876 by Brigham Young, and even by then had been given non-prima facie readings by faithful and authoritative Saints like W.W. Phelps. 

The history of this revelation is somewhat garbled and as such its authority can be questioned, though I generally think it's authoritative. But I do think that we need to consider than numerical symbolism might be in play (for heaven's sakes, he gets it as a response to the Revelation of St. John, one of the most symbolically dense sections of scripture imaginable), or perhaps prophetic accommodation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

But I do think that we need to consider than numerical symbolism might be in play (for heaven's sakes, he gets it as a response to the Revelation of St. John, one of the most symbolically dense sections of scripture imaginable), or perhaps prophetic accommodation. 

“The book of Revelation is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written.” - Joseph Smith

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...