On your last video I was wondering how we actually know about the visitations authenticity, due to the fact it wasn’t published until after Joseph’s death and wasn’t written in his handwriting, and many other documents have been posthumously accredited to Joseph after his death, especially at the time this was made public. But the fact it was written in warren cowderys handwriting is pretty convincing
I'm still cynical personally that the visitation happened in Kirtland, but this was a very insightful, even handed, and some good thoughtful pushback, very helpful. Thank you. That Warren Cowdrey account is pretty important information.
Thanks. It actually is very helpful to have Warren's handwriting. Today we think of all the early people, who had amazing visions and then left the church, as weak in the faith or something similar. However, they had to sacrifice so much to be part of the church at that time. Today someone who comes to church occasionally and really does nothing else is "strong in the faith". I think the many people who left around 1838 where incredibly courageous in their faith. The church was clearly wrong and off the rails compared to Kirtland.
When Hyrum claimed that Joseph claimed a sealing power in regards to monogamous eternal marriage, do you believe this was something they were incorrect about?
I think the whole concept of sealing got kind of out of control. Joseph and other missionaries were sealing up entire groups of people. How does that even work? If you are lucky enough to be at the right place at the right time then you are now guaranteed to be with God forever? Then the sealing concept changed to be related to marriage. How does this work then if you are eternally bound to a person, but that person doesn't make it or if they don't want to be with you forever? I think there may be an "ordinance" that seals couples together in the next life. However I doubt that it has any eternal power. It is God that ultimately seals up people or individuals so whatever men do I think is irrelevant. I also don't understand the point of marriage in the next life. I believe God doesn't have a body and I struggle with the idea of why I would want to be married in the next life. What is the purpose of advantage?
@@uncorrelatedmormonismI hope there is marriage in the next life. I am unsure of many of the things that have taken place in the Church's history, but I do sincerely hope that families are eternal. For me, I want my wife to be mine and I want to be hers. I want to be with her. I want to be the father to my children. Whether that will be or not, I do have faith that whatever God has prepared will be good.
@@freesaints This is a perfect answer. Yes, we can want what we consider good. However, we must always understand that what God has in store for us is the best there is. Marriage and family makes sense here, however if we lived here on earth for 1000's of years then marriage and family would quickly lose meaning. This would even get worse if we were infinite beings.
Why do you think it is Joseph almost never preached or taught from the Book of Mormon? I’ve heard a lot of critics claim it as a red flag, since you’re less likely to teach from something you “made up” since you typically teach what you’re fascinated with, and there’s nothing to learn from it and be fascinated with if you’re the one who wrote it.
That is a very valid point. I think there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that either Joseph was a super genius and made the Book of Mormon up, or it was inspired of God. I think Joseph didn't teach from the Book of Mormon because it doesn't really matter as much as we think. Certainly, I hold it as scripture. However its purpose is to testify of the Bible. If you have a correct understanding of the Bible then the Book of Mormon is totally secondary. If a future servant brings forth a future book then I doubt they will teach from it either. That book will align with the Book of Mormon and the Bible so we could teach from either and accomplish the same thing. I would however be really weary of someone that introduces new revelation and then immediately start teaching from it. This is a cyclical echo chamber where you believe something is true simply because you are discussing it as such. This is kind of what the LDS church is doing with conference talks. They teach from them exclusively in church and because they do that then they must be scripture. And since they are scripture then they can teach from them in class.
@uncorrelatedmormonism so Elias appeared to Joseph and Oliver, and then Elijah the prophet appeared after? The 'revelation' states them as different people, while they didn't realize or know, they are the same person.
@@zjco9344 I am not sure. Elijah/Elias is a name and a title. It is kind of confusing certainly. Joseph could have made it up, however he never referenced it once during his life.
@uncorrelatedmormonism I understand some call it a title, but it wasn't used in title form. Jesus, Moses, Elias, Elijah appeared. They were specifically named. It definitely appears made up. Whether Joseph referenced it or not, the church uses it as doctrine. It all falls apart if made up. It all falls apart if not.
@@zjco9344 What other evidence do you have that it was made up? This alone seems pretty flimsy. I showed pretty strong evidence that it was genuine however I am open to it being fake.
So back in 1983, the Lord completed the trials of sanctification with me and made my calling and election sure. He had talked to me about the fulness of the priesthood, commonly called the sealing power back in 1976, but it was not until 1985 that the Lord told me it was time for me to get the fulness of the priesthood. I asked him about how to go about doing that. The Lord told me of three ways. #1. was if my dad had the sealing power, like Abraham giving it to Isaac. My Dad did not have it. #2. is to get it from the President of the church. # 3. If the president of the church refused me then he, the Lord, would give it to me in the same way he gave it to Nephi son of Helaman as recorded in Helaman 10. Getting the fulness of the priesthood from the president of the church would not be easy and next to impossible, but I had to try. After three years of trying to get a conversation going with President Benson, nothing was working. Instead of getting an answer, I was censured by my Bishop. To make a long story short after a couple of meetings with the stake president, I said some things to him that offended him and he threatened to excommunicate me. I had one more meeting with the stake president and I apologized and he forgave me and canceled the high council court. After I went home, I was talking to the Lord and said, "Well, I dodged that bullet. What do I do now?" The the Lord said, "You have done enough,. I give you the fulness of the priesthood that whatever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven and whatever you loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven and I give you power to serve the people in whatever way serves them best." That was inn 1988. I have used this priesthood on occasion and it does work.
Why do you think you have this power when many hunger and thirst after a higher relationship with God, and receive nothing? Why do you think God would tell you to get the sealing power from the president of the church, when they don't have it? Why would being excommunicated from an organization that teaches false doctrines and claims things that are not true, be dodging a bullet? Why was sending letters to someone sufficient to get you the highest power available, when the scriptures speak of others being tested to the extreme? If God is bound by your actions, then are you greater than God?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I have asked the same questions, so let me answer them one at a time. I do not know why God has taken a special interest in me except for the fact that I remember being with them before I was born and Jesus gave me promises before I was born. I chose to have eternal life back then and Jesus promised me that he would make it happen. I do not know what choices others may have made with Jesus before being born, but for myself, I have also hungered thirsted for more relationship and little by little, I gained more relationship until I had a fulness. It did not happen over night. Just keep trying. You will get it. It takes years of waiting on the Lord.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The second question about dodging the bullet. You have to understand my upbringing. I was brought up to believe that being excommunicated from the church was a fate worse than death. It meant that if one were excommunicated he would go straight to hell, do not pass go and do not collect $200. It was a fear well in grained in my mind In those days. it is not true of course, but at that point in time, I thought they had authority to do that. I did not know about the infiltration of the leadership of the church by the secret combination of Jesuits and I trusted that even though I knew they were not sanctified, they were still honest men and would not use their authority inappropriately. I was wrong to think that to. What I said to the Lord about dodging a bullet, I was just being funny. But he did tell me that I t was just a matter of time and I would be excommunicated. That was in 1988. I was ex'ed in 1991.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The question about why get the power from the president of the church, I know you do not believe it, but the president does have keys and authority to do marriages,
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The question about testing, After being born again, there are the trials of sanctification. I am sure you are familiar with the trials of Job. Job had it so easy. Sure, he lost everything, but his trials lasted a few months and he got everything back. My trials went on for years and I have lost everything and I am still waiting to get everything back. When Job lost his children, supposedly they died loving their father. With me, I lost my family because of being excommunicated. They went away hating me and to this day, they hate me. Whose trial was greater? When I asked the same question about extreme testing, all the Lord said is that my day will come, but the tests are not necessary for receiving the power. It only requires a change of heart, to love God with all your heart and to overcome the lusts of the world, anger and fear. These I have overcome.
Thanks for the feedback. There is certainly some disagreement about that phrase. On the surface it certainly doesn't seem like it pertains to marriage at all. If you study it then to me it seems to be similar to the uses of the phrases in hebrew. In Hebrew, "to bind" means to forbid or pronounce as unlawful. "To loose" means to allow and declare lawful. This seems like God is saying to peter that he understands heaven enough to declare what is good or not on earth. Certainly, you could say this is the power to seal in marriage. However do we have any records that this is what Peter did?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism we also don't know all that happened on the Mount of Transfiguration or all that Jesus had done during his ministry in Palestine.
No faith in the church...considering the most meaningful claims to authority have little to no real historical documentation referring to the three priesthood "restorations" being 1. Aaronic, 2. Melchizedek, and 3. Sealing power. The only well documented event was the least of them as I believe the greater were meant to be more personal for the recipients and not general for the church body or the world. The greater things of heaven don't come passed down from man to man. We all need to receive these things inwardly by the true gift of the Holy Ghost which administers the priesthood authority. You can have an authority conferred upon you, but it has no real power without having been born of the spirit through immersion in fire and the Holy Ghost.
Being faithful doesn't mean being ignorant. The fact of the matter is that the history of the Church is messy. It's obvious that the Church has hid things. I believe many of our leaders have had good intentions, but that doesn't negate the fact that information has been hidden. It also doesn't negate the fact that we have eliminated doctrine that didn't fit the narrative of Brigham Young. It also doesn't negate the fact that we have added doctrine that may or may not have come from Joseph Smith. My personal belief is that we have overcomplicated the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe we have also allowed men and ordinances to take place of Christ's saving grace.
