JOEL -
"And you must wait yet a little while, for ye are not
yet ordained" (D&C 5:17).
I think this was just added in to clarify that, since
the church had not been organized yet,
they needed to wait until they were properly ordained
as ministers from the Church before they could go out
and testify of the Book of Mormon.
TWIGGY - Do you think it is likely that the 1833 economic failure of the United Order of Enoch necessitated a change in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants from consecrate all thy properties (1833) to consecrate of thy properties (1835)?
JOEL -
"And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and
consecrate of thy properties for their support that
which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant
and a deed which cannot be broken.
And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the
poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid
before the bishop of my church and his fcounselors,
two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall
appoint or has appointed and set apart for that
purpose." (D&C 42:30-31)
I believe was a simple correction made to reflect the
general meaning of the whole revelation.
These scriptures are talking about helping those who
are poor. God didn't want them to give all they had to
the poor, but He did want them to help them.
I don't think this was about the United Order. In the
United Order members would have given all they had to
the church and then received back what they needed.
Verse 55 says:
"And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said."
So they only should give their excess to the church storehouse, not everything.
TWIGGY - Why do LDS always emphasise their testimony of Smith, yet never give as much attention, let alone more, to Christ? I have witnessed this in the few fast and testimony meetings I have attended.
JOEL - Your'e right. In fact we have been admonished by our
church leaders to remember that our testimonies should
first and foremost testify of Christ. Our Bishop
reminds us of this at least once per month. I think
it's mostly because LDS members like to testify of
things that are more peculiar to our religion, perhaps
because those outside the church find them hard to
believe.
All Christians believe in Christ; that is assumed. So
rather than state the obvious, LDS like to testify of
the things that make us different from the rest of the
Christian World.
TWIGGY - Why was the translation of the Book of Mormon pronounced as correct by God Himself, yet changes still occurred, often under prophetic sanction? (see History of the Church, volume 1 page 461).
JOEL - History of the Church, volume 1 page 461 just recites
part of D&C 101:47-60 which is a parable about a
nobleman and olive trees, so I'm not sure what that
has to do with your question. God pronounced the Book
of Mormon correct in reagrds to the doctrines and
teachings it contained, not about things like grammer
or spelling errors that were changed to make it read
better.
I have already discussed this topic at the following
two addresses:
http://www.mormonhaven.com/scriptur.htm#20
http://www.mormonhaven.com/mike.htm
TWIGGY - In the Book of Commandments, the original D&C 18 (section 15 in the Book of Commandments) read as follows - behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the hings which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock.
David Whitmer:
"The change in this revelation is of great importance,
the word them refers to the plates - the Book of
Mormon: We were commanded to rely upon it
in building up the church; that is, in establishing
the doctrine, the order of offices, etc. For in them
are all things written concerning my church,
my gospel, and my rock. But this revelation has been
changed by man to mean as follows:
that therein is not all things written concerning
the church, but only all things concerning the
foundation of the church - or the beginning of
the church: that you must build up the church,
beginning according to the written word, and add new
offices, new ordinances, and new doctrines
as I (the Lord) reveal them to you from year to year.
I want to repeat that I was present when Brother
Joseph received this revelation through the
stoneI know of a surety that it was changed when
printed in the Doctrine and Covenants" (An Address to
all Believers in Christ, pages 58-59).
From which revelation did Joseph Fielding Smith quote
when he said that The Book of Mormon contained all
things written concerning the foundation
of the Church?
JOEL - I am not sure I can answer your question properly. You
didn't give me a reference for the Joseph Fielding
Smith quote so I can see it in its context.
Here is the change David Whitmer was refering to:
"Behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock. Wherefore if you shall build up my church, and my gospel, and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."
Changed to:
"But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants it has been changed and reads thus: "Behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning 'the foundation of ' my church, my gospel, and my rock; wherefore, if you shall build up my church 'upon the foundation of ' my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."
Once again this is a simple change to clarify that the church is built from the foundation of the Book of Mormon scriptures. Whitmer's complaint was that the change made it so more doctrines and priesthood offices could be later added in addition to what was stated in the Book of Mormon. He believed this was wrong. But this opinion of his was inconsistant with the Church's belief in continuous revelation from God(something the Church has always believed in), who would need to provide further doctrine and instructions for a growing church. At the time Whitmer wrote these things he was quite antagonistic against the church, so consider the source.
TWIGGY - About the pre-existance in LDS teaching: If human
beings were at first spiritual (I.e. had a
pre-existence), we run into logical absurdities
- (1) Once a god and his goddess wife procreate
spiritual children in heaven (a spiritual entity - an
unorganised intelligence), then these children
are sent to an earth in physical bodies for their
probationary period and have the opportunity to
progress to godhood also.
When we look backward at this line of gods who were
once men and pre-existed as spiritual entities,
there is no end to the line, no beginning. A line of
succession had a beginning, then whatever lies beyond
the beginning is greater than the succession for its
existence. Since Mormonism does nor provide for
a God who exists beyond this circle, the succession
of pre-existent spirits who become god falls into the
logical absurdity of infinite regression.
JOEL - Most Christian religions believe that God has existed
eternally and is the one who created us and all we
ever have had, now have, or will have in the universe.
That scenario does not suffer the problems of infinite
regression, but does beg the question, how can a
being(God) exist forever without a begining?
People claim that infinite regression would ultimately
cause the universe to become full of people, spirits,
gods, etc. which has not happened.
But that wouldn't be a problem if the Universe itself
stretches out to infinity or if there are an infinite
number of universes. Finite human beings are the ones
who claim the "logical absurdity of infinite
regression". Perhaps to God it would not be so absurd.
Of course if we were to ask Him about it, He would
give us an answer that our finite mortal brains could
not comprehend.
To me it is just as easy to believe in an infinate
succession of gods as it is to believe in one God who
never had a beginning. But my brain is starting
to hurt now so I am just going to use a familiar quote
from our President Hinckley:
"That gets into some pretty deep theology that we
don't know very much about."
(SUNDAY INTERVIEW -- By Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion
Writer The San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday April 13,
1997)
TWIGGY - About 8 year olds being baptized - The alleged sinlessness of those under 8 is problematic - if sin and guilt is not passed on to the human race through Adam, and a person under 8 is innocent, then the person can be said to be innocent, sinless, pure and guilt-free. Why then, do LDS baptize under eight-year olds for remission of sins if there are no sins for which they need remission? If the subject is already pure, then he does not become better through the baptism since there is theoretically nothing in him to condemn him. Therefore, the baptism is valueless; it remits nothing since nothing was there to remit.
JOEL - Because of Adam's transgression, guilt and sin were
brought into the world but we are not held accountable
for what Adam did even though we may suffer the
consequences for it in this life. Regardless of
whether a person is baptized or not, when he stands
before God at judgment, he will only be held
accountable for his own sins.
Actually the 8 year-old children are not baptized for
remission of sins; or at least for them that's not the
primary reason. They are baptized to become members of
the Church and to "fulfill all righteousness" as the
sinless Jesus did when He was baptized(Matt. 3:13-17).
Also, children aren't baptized the exact moment they
turn eight. It can sometimes be a month or more later
depending on the circumstances. Since no one really
knows the exact moment a child becomes accountable for
sins, the baptism washes away any few sins that they
may have committed since becoming accountable. This
gives them a clean slate to start from. After baptism
they may then take advantage of the principle of
repentance and receive a remission of any sins they do
commit later on.
Return to top