LDS D&C 129 (again): "material that hadn't necessarily been given in revelation form, er, format..."

[dzheremi]

@drstevej has a good thread on D&C 129 (the 'handshake test') going right now, so I don't mean to steal his thunder, but when I was just considering asking a question in that thread, some of the background material I'd been looking at about it jumped out at me, including a little bit of phrasing I hadn't caught before from this roundtable discussion by BYU professors, presented by BYU Continuing Education (I'm still on my first run through it, but after watching a little bit I started to wonder if I had heard this properly). I think it passed by so quickly as part of the introductory material of the discussion that I just didn't fully notice it until now, but if you pay attention beginning at 2:07 in the video below, professor Randy Bott prefaces the discussion of the contents of D&C 129 by saying that "the prophet Joseph had gleaned just an absolute library of material that hadn't necessarily been given in revelation form, er, format, but he realized that his time on earth was becoming rather short, and he wanted to make sure that the saints were armed against the things they would be facing between there and the second coming." He then gives the example of an earlier verse, when the voice of Michael the Archangel helped Joseph to detect the devil when he was appearing as an angel of light, which must've helped Joseph to realize that the Mormons would be "outclassed" unless they were given "a little bit more information" regarding how to distinguish satanic apparitions from angelic ones.

And so D&C 129 is apparently that "more information", arrived at as a result of Joseph's own worries arising out of his realization that he himself would've been duped had "Michael" not come to his aid, rather than by revelation from God.

This raises all kinds of questions:

(1) Practical though it may have been in light of Joseph's supposed earlier experience, isn't everything in the D&C supposed to come via revelation from God, since it is, y'know, scripture in the Mormon religion?

(2) If that's not the case, then how can anyone be expected to know what comes from Joseph's own mind and concerns and what comes from God in the D&C, or for that matter in the BOM itself, or the POGP? Is there a "handshake"-type test for that distinction, too?

(3) Since the Archangel Michael was the helper of Joseph Smith in his discerning a devil from an angel, and this was apparently a part of the background that went into receiving the 'non-revelatory revelation' that is D&C 129, are Mormons supposed to look to JS himself as an Archangel Michael-level figure, who can guide them through any such encounters, either via his writings (because, again, this is not "revelation format" stuff...this came from JS himself) or perhaps through personal appearances?

(4) If JS couldn't determine without the help of the Archangel Michael if he was dealing with Satan or an angel on the banks of the Susquehanna River just a few verses earlier, what made him think he could distinguish between an angel and a devil a few verses later, particularly if the Archangel Michael was not around for the revelation of D&C 129 itself? (which it would seem professor Bott is saying that he was not, by saying that it wasn't given in "revelation format", unless that has some special meaning in the context of Mormonism)

(5) A partial answer of sorts to (4) is given by JS claiming that the man who had told him about his angelic vision had described the angel's dress incorrectly, as there are apparently no angels dressed that way in heaven (according to JS). If he knew that already in the process of giving the non-revelatory advice in D&C 129, why didn't he know that when presented with a devil disguised as an angel in the earlier verse? In other words, is it that some demons are allowed to dress in a way that would fool God's prophet (if he didn't have additional help from a real angel) while others aren't, or was JS given details from heaven about angels' wardrobes at some point between D&C 128:20 and 129, or...what?

(6) Come to think of it, if JS couldn't tell an angel from a devil without Archangel Michael's help, then how can we even know that it was Archangel Michael who appeared to him to warn him of the false angel to begin with? What if things were exactly opposite, or what if both were false? How would Joseph know? Wardrobe, again?

What a very strange thing for a Mormon professor to say in a religious education roundtable. Kinda makes one wonder just how many in such positions really believe in what they're trying to/paid to sell everyone else on, or if little statements like this are meant to be caught and pondered, since they can't just come out and say "Yeah, he made this all up" without risking their livelihoods.

 

[drstevej]

He should have asked to shake Michael's hand!

 

[Peter1000]

@drstevej has a good thread on D&C 129 (the 'handshake test') going right now, so I don't mean to steal his thunder, but when I was just considering asking a question in that thread, some of the background material I'd been looking at about it jumped out at me, including a little bit of phrasing I hadn't caught before from this roundtable discussion by BYU professors, presented by BYU Continuing Education (I'm still on my first run through it, but after watching a little bit I started to wonder if I had heard this properly). I think it passed by so quickly as part of the introductory material of the discussion that I just didn't fully notice it until now, but if you pay attention beginning at 2:07 in the video below, professor Randy Bott prefaces the discussion of the contents of D&C 129 by saying that "the prophet Joseph had gleaned just an absolute library of material that hadn't necessarily been given in revelation form, er, format, but he realized that his time on earth was becoming rather short, and he wanted to make sure that the saints were armed against the things they would be facing between there and the second coming." He then gives the example of an earlier verse, when the voice of Michael the Archangel helped Joseph to detect the devil when he was appearing as an angel of light, which must've helped Joseph to realize that the Mormons would be "outclassed" unless they were given "a little bit more information" regarding how to distinguish satanic apparitions from angelic ones.

And so D&C 129 is apparently that "more information", arrived at as a result of Joseph's own worries arising out of his realization that he himself would've been duped had "Michael" not come to his aid, rather than by revelation from God.

This raises all kinds of questions:

(1) Practical though it may have been in light of Joseph's supposed earlier experience, isn't everything in the D&C supposed to come via revelation from God, since it is, y'know, scripture in the Mormon religion?

(2) If that's not the case, then how can anyone be expected to know what comes from Joseph's own mind and concerns and what comes from God in the D&C, or for that matter in the BOM itself, or the POGP? Is there a "handshake"-type test for that distinction, too?

(3) Since the Archangel Michael was the helper of Joseph Smith in his discerning a devil from an angel, and this was apparently a part of the background that went into receiving the 'non-revelatory revelation' that is D&C 129, are Mormons supposed to look to JS himself as an Archangel Michael-level figure, who can guide them through any such encounters, either via his writings (because, again, this is not "revelation format" stuff...this came from JS himself) or perhaps through personal appearances?

(4) If JS couldn't determine without the help of the Archangel Michael if he was dealing with Satan or an angel on the banks of the Susquehanna River just a few verses earlier, what made him think he could distinguish between an angel and a devil a few verses later, particularly if the Archangel Michael was not around for the revelation of D&C 129 itself? (which it would seem professor Bott is saying that he was not, by saying that it wasn't given in "revelation format", unless that has some special meaning in the context of Mormonism)

(5) A partial answer of sorts to (4) is given by JS claiming that the man who had told him about his angelic vision had described the angel's dress incorrectly, as there are apparently no angels dressed that way in heaven (according to JS). If he knew that already in the process of giving the non-revelatory advice in D&C 129, why didn't he know that when presented with a devil disguised as an angel in the earlier verse? In other words, is it that some demons are allowed to dress in a way that would fool God's prophet (if he didn't have additional help from a real angel) while others aren't, or was JS given details from heaven about angels' wardrobes at some point between D&C 128:20 and 129, or...what?

(6) Come to think of it, if JS couldn't tell an angel from a devil without Archangel Michael's help, then how can we even know that it was Archangel Michael who appeared to him to warn him of the false angel to begin with? What if things were exactly opposite, or what if both were false? How would Joseph know? Wardrobe, again?

What a very strange thing for a Mormon professor to say in a religious education roundtable. Kinda makes one wonder just how many in such positions really believe in what they're trying to/paid to sell everyone else on, or if little statements like this are meant to be caught and pondered, since they can't just come out and say "Yeah, he made this all up" without risking their livelihoods.

1) revelation can be given by God or Jesus or a representative sent by them.

2) If JS used his own words he would let you know he was doing that. Otherwise you can be comfortable knowing that he received his information from God or Jesus or a representative or Theirs.

3) Section 129 was an instruction given by JS to the church. This instruction was important enough that it was actually added to the D&C even though it was not in "thus sayeth the Lord" format.
You will notice that Section 128 was an epistle from JS to the church, and was also not in
"thus sayeth the Lord" format.
JS would have received this information by revelation (for any information from heaven is revelation) perhaps some time before, and at this time did not give a word for word format of the information, but simply gave instructions on what to do instead of a "thus sayeth the Lord", "word for word" format.

4) Once the information was given, he did not need Michael to be standing beside him to see if he followed through with his instructions, or to prompt him to put out his hand.

5) way over thinking about angels wardrobe.

6) That's right the instructions could have been given by satan himself and they are really the exact opposite. Yeah, maybe that it. I think I'm on to something that I can slam JS for. Yeah.

If the professor had said that he believes Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, you would have thought that a crazy thing to say too at a roundtable discussion. So think what you will.

Bottom line to all this: If you wish to follow JS's instructions that he received to detect a devil masquerading as an angel, then take the instruction kindly.
If you don't, then don't take his instructions. That is the end.

 

[Peter1000]

He should have asked to shake Michael's hand!

He probably did not know the test until after he received it. Then maybe he did? Do you have information to the contrary?

 

[BigDaddy4]

This seems more apt:

He probably did not know the test until after he made it up.

 

[Peter1000]

This seems more apt:

He probably did not know the test until after he made it up.

You can think what you wish. But I bet if an angel comes to you, you will remember this conversation and will test the angel, after you bow in amazement.

 

[dzheremi]

1) revelation can be given by God or Jesus or a representative sent by them.

Fine, but here you have a professor of your religion saying it wasn't a revelation to begin with (or wasn't received in "revelation format", whatever that is). So it's apparently not a revelation, according to your own scholars.

2) If JS used his own words he would let you know he was doing that. Otherwise you can be comfortable knowing that he received his information from God or Jesus or a representative or Theirs.

See above.

3) Section 129 was an instruction given by JS to the church. This instruction was important enough that it was actually added to the D&C even though it was not in "thus sayeth the Lord" format.
You will notice that Section 128 was an epistle from JS to the church, and was also not in
"thus sayeth the Lord" format.

Is "thus sayeth the Lord format" the "revelation format" talked about by the professor? If so, thank you for clarifying. This does run into a further problem, though, not related directly to the above video, but to the speech "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet", given by then President Ezra Taft Benson at BYU in 1980, which states explicitly the following: "Sixth: The President does not have to say 'Thus saith the Lord' to give us scripture." So we're still back to square one on this, unless the President of your religion was wrong and you are right (which would call into question his leadership, conflicting with several statements made by JS and subsequent leaders, and even other points made in the same talk). How can you know? Again, do you need a handshake test for this, too?

(Until proven otherwise, I would say this is a case of the quicksand of "Continuing revelation" claiming yet another proponent of it! )

JS would have received this information by revelation (for any information from heaven is revelation) perhaps some time before, and at this time did not give a word for word format of the information, but simply gave instructions on what to do instead of a "thus sayeth the Lord", "word for word" format.

But again, see directly above: Your own presidents, the holders of the highest office in your religion, have said subsequently that a "thus saith the Lord" declaration is not necessary for a prophet to give you scripture. So how do you know what you're even dealing with? Maybe the D&C is entirely made up, and with it the BOM and the POGP. How do you know, if the revelation of God is mixed in with other stuff that isn't that?

4) Once the information was given, he did not need Michael to be standing beside him to see if he followed through with his instructions, or to prompt him to put out his hand.

But now we are not talking about a situation in which Joseph would've done so anyway; we're talking about him flatly telling the man who told him he had seen an angel (not an angel that Joseph himself had claimed to see) that he was wrong because "angels don't dress like that" or whatever. How did Joseph know that, if just a few verses earlier he didn't know whether he was dealing with an angel or a devil without direct divine intervention from the Archangel Michael? What happened between 128:20 and 129 that suddenly made him an angel-identifying expert? The only thing he says to refute the man is about the "angel's" wardrobe.

5) way over thinking about angels wardrobe.

Is this an admission that you can't answer the question? Your prophet thought it important and authoritative enough to refute the other man's vision by talking about some angelic dress code. Why can't you address it as he did? Is another one of those 'too sacred' things that you won't talk about, or do you just not have the necessary info at hand...or did JS make it up...?

6) That's right the instructions could have been given by satan himself and they are really the exact opposite. Yeah, maybe that it. I think I'm on to something that I can slam JS for. Yeah.

Alright there, smart guy. The question of how this is all supposed to work is not me attempting to hoist JS with his own petard, but rather to point out that as a system for identifying angels or devils or whatever, it is horribly incoherent, to the point that its 'revealer' (adviser, I guess, if it's not revelation) cannot function by it, and you have professors of your own religion outright denying the inspiration of your scripture (D&C is scripture in the LDS religion, is it not?). I'd say that's a wrap for the D&C then. Instructions to help or revelations from God, it doesn't help anyone do anything, and really reveals JS to be a man who can't separate revelation from his own thinking.

If the professor had said that he believes Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, you would have thought that a crazy thing to say too at a roundtable discussion.

What are you basing this accusation on?

So think what you will.

If you can't answer the questions, then what else am I left with? You're the one who thinks this stuff is from God, not me. I was just surprised to find such an admission from a BYU professor and believing Mormon, and hoping that someone here could answer how this is all supposed to work, where you have this book that is sometimes revelation and sometimes just good advice from Joseph Smith (that doesn't actually work and isn't actually followed by him), and there's no way to tell which is which. It's a mess.

Bottom line to all this: If you wish to follow JS's instructions that he received to detect a devil masquerading as an angel, then take the instruction kindly.
If you don't, then don't take his instructions. That is the end.

I don't think that's the bottom line here, Peter. The bottom line is that this book that is apparently filled with revelations from God to JS is also filled with other stuff that isn't revelation, according to the believing scholar of your religion, as stated in a religious education roundtable. That's not a question about JS' particular advice (since he couldn't even follow it himself, apparently), but about the basis of the entire Mormon edifice. If it's not revelation, but JS' own thoughts, and the two are conflated in your scriptures, then how can you seriously claim to be following God at all?

 

[BigDaddy4]

You can think what you wish. But I bet if an angel comes to you, you will remember this conversation and will test the angel, after you bow in amazement.

According to Hebrews 13:2, I may have encountered or possibly will encounter an angel. No handshake test required. No bowing down. In fact, bowing down to an angel is prohibited in the Bible.

So, yes, I will think what I wish, because I wish my thinking will align with what the Bible teaches.

 

[Peter1000]

Fine, but here you have a professor of your religion saying it wasn't a revelation to begin with (or wasn't received in "revelation format", whatever that is). So it's apparently not a revelation, according to your own scholars.



See above.



Is "thus sayeth the Lord format" the "revelation format" talked about by the professor? If so, thank you for clarifying. This does run into a further problem, though, not related directly to the above video, but to the speech "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet", given by then President Ezra Taft Benson at BYU in 1980, which states explicitly the following: "Sixth: The President does not have to say 'Thus saith the Lord' to give us scripture." So we're still back to square one on this, unless the President of your religion was wrong and you are right (which would call into question his leadership, conflicting with several statements made by JS and subsequent leaders, and even other points made in the same talk). How can you know? Again, do you need a handshake test for this, too?

(Until proven otherwise, I would say this is a case of the quicksand of "Continuing revelation" claiming yet another proponent of it! )



But again, see directly above: Your own presidents, the holders of the highest office in your religion, have said subsequently that a "thus saith the Lord" declaration is not necessary for a prophet to give you scripture. So how do you know what you're even dealing with? Maybe the D&C is entirely made up, and with it the BOM and the POGP. How do you know, if the revelation of God is mixed in with other stuff that isn't that?



But now we are not talking about a situation in which Joseph would've done so anyway; we're talking about him flatly telling the man who told him he had seen an angel (not an angel that Joseph himself had claimed to see) that he was wrong because "angels don't dress like that" or whatever. How did Joseph know that, if just a few verses earlier he didn't know whether he was dealing with an angel or a devil without direct divine intervention from the Archangel Michael? What happened between 128:20 and 129 that suddenly made him an angel-identifying expert? The only thing he says to refute the man is about the "angel's" wardrobe.



Is this an admission that you can't answer the question? Your prophet thought it important and authoritative enough to refute the other man's vision by talking about some angelic dress code. Why can't you address it as he did? Is another one of those 'too sacred' things that you won't talk about, or do you just not have the necessary info at hand...or did JS make it up...?



Alright there, smart guy. The question of how this is all supposed to work is not me attempting to hoist JS with his own petard, but rather to point out that as a system for identifying angels or devils or whatever, it is horribly incoherent, to the point that its 'revealer' (adviser, I guess, if it's not revelation) cannot function by it, and you have professors of your own religion outright denying the inspiration of your scripture (D&C is scripture in the LDS religion, is it not?). I'd say that's a wrap for the D&C then. Instructions to help or revelations from God, it doesn't help anyone do anything, and really reveals JS to be a man who can't separate revelation from his own thinking.



What are you basing this accusation on?



If you can't answer the questions, then what else am I left with? You're the one who thinks this stuff is from God, not me. I was just surprised to find such an admission from a BYU professor and believing Mormon, and hoping that someone here could answer how this is all supposed to work, where you have this book that is sometimes revelation and sometimes just good advice from Joseph Smith (that doesn't actually work and isn't actually followed by him), and there's no way to tell which is which. It's a mess.



I don't think that's the bottom line here, Peter. The bottom line is that this book that is apparently filled with revelations from God to JS is also filled with other stuff that isn't revelation, according to the believing scholar of your religion, as stated in a religious education roundtable. That's not a question about JS' particular advice (since he couldn't even follow it himself, apparently), but about the basis of the entire Mormon edifice. If it's not revelation, but JS' own thoughts, and the two are conflated in your scriptures, then how can you seriously claim to be following God at all?

You are not interested in the book for any good reason. You are reading it for only 1 reason, and that is to pick it apart. You know that if we all wanted to get serious about this picking process, we could pick the holy bible apart too. We can pick the church fathers apart, and we could pick the present day popes apart too. It all gets a little interesting that you live in a glass house, but insist on throwing stones.

I'm sure you can find a talk or roundtable from the last 100 years and have a heyday picking it apart, I could do the same thing, but what I am willing to do is glean from the message the import of the message. I act the same way with the bible and the church fathers. I do pick at the church fathers a bit because I believe they were less inspired than the bible writers, but have used them to provide support also to my belief system.

To be honest with you, I am not for sure what revelatory format is.

 

[Peter1000]

According to Hebrews 13:2, I may have encountered or possibly will encounter an angel. No handshake test required. No bowing down. In fact, bowing down to an angel is prohibited in the Bible.

So, yes, I will think what I wish, because I wish my thinking will align with what the Bible teaches.

Have you gone through every encounter of man with God or Jesus or angels in the entire bible and came up with the appropriate actions to be taken in the presence of heavenly beings? I would like to see that work.

But I will give you 1 appropriate action when you encounter an angel as the bible teaches.
Genesis 32:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Now, I will tell you, if there was a story of JS wrestling with a heavenly being, I am sure you would cry that this was proof positive of his evil nature and that satan would only wrestle with an angel.

Of course, not being aware that in our holy bible, one of our greatest fathers did in deed wrestle with an angel and demanded a blessing.

Would you call that standard bible operating procedure when visited by an angel????

So don't try to shake hands, or bow, but take a hold of that angel and wrestle him to the ground. Is that what you will do? Hey, it may work, it is a bible teaching you know.

But I think I will stick with a simple hand shake. Thank you.

 

[dzheremi]

You are not interested in the book for any good reason. You are reading it for only 1 reason, and that is to pick it apart. You know that if we all wanted to get serious about this picking process, we could pick the holy bible apart too. We can pick the church fathers apart,

Indeed we can, and they'll stand up to it.

and we could pick the present day popes apart too.

Why bother? They don't have anything to do with the D&C or the Mormon religion, and only Catholics consider their Pope infallible in the first place (and then only certain conditions). So what would that prove?

It all gets a little interesting that you live in a glass house, but insist on throwing stones.

Aside from the time you've spent rightfully blocked due to your insistence on making so many replies having to do with me being Coptic Orthodox when that has nothing to do with anything (I guess you're curious about us, then? Would you like to come to liturgy? We'd love to have you, even though we could not reciprocate), when have I ever shied away from answering any of your questions, or any Mormon's questions? Glass house, my foot. You're going to have to come up with some evidence for that claim. You and I both know that there are hundreds of hours worth of evidence to the contrary regarding just a few specific points of Christian theology by themselves. This is not a road you should want to go down, I'd think.

I'm sure you can find a talk or roundtable from the last 100 years and have a heyday picking it apart,

Sure, but this thread is about a very specific part of one video, and the questions it raises. You can either answer them or not, but simply saying "I could do the same thing" doesn't answer them, so this is essentially a non-reply to the parts of this thread you have yet to address.

I could do the same thing, but what I am willing to do is glean from the message the import of the message. I act the same way with the bible and the church fathers. I do pick at the church fathers a bit because I believe they were less inspired than the bible writers, but have used them to provide support also to my belief system.

Anyone can use anything to support or negate anything. That's why I'm asking about the reasoning behind this stuff, how it's supposed to work relative to other things Mormon leaders have said and done (e.g., the "14 fundamentals" speech and its sixth claim vis-a-vis some standard for what's a revelation and what isn't). Any time you'd like to talk about that -- i.e., be on-topic in this thread -- I'm interested.

To be honest with you, I am not for sure what revelatory format is.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Would it be fair to say that many Mormons must have the idea that it must be accompanied by the phrase "thus saith the Lord", or else it wouldn't make sense to have the contrary stated in the "14 reasons" speech? And if the 14 reasons speech is accurate, how then can you tell the difference between JS' instructions from his own brain and things the Lord actually said?

 

[Peter1000]

Indeed we can, and they'll stand up to it.



Why bother? They don't have anything to do with the D&C or the Mormon religion, and only Catholics consider their Pope infallible in the first place (and then only certain conditions). So what would that prove?



Aside from the time you've spent rightfully blocked due to your insistence on making so many replies having to do with me being Coptic Orthodox when that has nothing to do with anything (I guess you're curious about us, then? Would you like to come to liturgy? We'd love to have you, even though we could not reciprocate), when have I ever shied away from answering any of your questions, or any Mormon's questions? Glass house, my foot. You're going to have to come up with some evidence for that claim. You and I both know that there are hundreds of hours worth of evidence to the contrary regarding just a few specific points of Christian theology by themselves. This is not a road you should want to go down, I'd think.



Sure, but this thread is about a very specific part of one video, and the questions it raises. You can either answer them or not, but simply saying "I could do the same thing" doesn't answer them, so this is essentially a non-reply to the parts of this thread you have yet to address.



Anyone can use anything to support or negate anything. That's why I'm asking about the reasoning behind this stuff, how it's supposed to work relative to other things Mormon leaders have said and done (e.g., the "14 fundamentals" speech and its sixth claim vis-a-vis some standard for what's a revelation and what isn't). Any time you'd like to talk about that -- i.e., be on-topic in this thread -- I'm interested.



Oh, okay. Thank you. Would it be fair to say that many Mormons must have the idea that it must be accompanied by the phrase "thus saith the Lord", or else it wouldn't make sense to have the contrary stated in the "14 reasons" speech? And if the 14 reasons speech is accurate, how then can you tell the difference between JS' instructions from his own brain and things the Lord actually said?

As I have said, Randy Bott used a term that is not a standard term used by most Mormons. The word 'revelation format' is not a word I am familiar with. Even if it is instruction by JS or an epistle by JS, the content has to have been given him by the Lord or a representative of the Lord at one time. If it is in the D&C, I would call it revelatory. I could be wrong, and someone may show me an example and prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.

So to say that JS had a large library of stuff that was not given in 'revelation format', did not make sense to me. I would like to find Bott and ask him what he meant by that statement. I would like to know what the difference is between instructions and epistles and revelation formatted sections. I will actually try to find out by contacting him. If I can, I will let you know what I found.

BTW, we do not think JS was infallible either.

 

[dzheremi]

As I have said, Randy Bott used a term that is not a standard term used by most Mormons. The word 'revelation format' is not a word I am familiar with. Even if it is instruction by JS or an epistle by JS, the content has to have been given him by the Lord or a representative of the Lord at one time. If it is in the D&C, I would call it revelatory. I could be wrong, and someone may show me an example and prove me wrong, but I would be surprised.

So to say that JS had a large library of stuff that was not given in 'revelation format', did not make sense to me. I would like to find Bott and ask him what he meant by that statement. I would like to know what the difference is between instructions and epistles and revelation formatted sections. I will actually try to find out by contacting him. If I can, I will let you know what I found.

Thank you, I would really appreciate that. The questions in this thread turn on that statement, which I definitely grant could've been made extemporaneously without much forethought (I included the "er" pause in there for accuracy of quoting, and it does show him probably 'thinking on his feet', as the saying goes), but still...it must mean something, right? Like even if I have it completely wrong and whatever you can find answers every single question it caused me to have, I really doubt the utterance was just a random sequence of words that fell out of his mouth by accident or coincidence. I just don't know enough about Mormonism to know what "revelation format" means, how it differs from "non-revelation" format, how something that is "not in revelation format" came to be in the D&C and why, etc.; basically all the questions that are already in the OP.

Thanks again. I look forward to reading whatever you can find.

BTW, we do not think JS was infallible either.

That's good to know.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Have you gone through every encounter of man with God or Jesus or angels in the entire bible and came up with the appropriate actions to be taken in the presence of heavenly beings? I would like to see that work.

But I will give you 1 appropriate action when you encounter an angel as the bible teaches.
Genesis 32:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Now, I will tell you, if there was a story of JS wrestling with a heavenly being, I am sure you would cry that this was proof positive of his evil nature and that satan would only wrestle with an angel.

Of course, not being aware that in our holy bible, one of our greatest fathers did in deed wrestle with an angel and demanded a blessing.

Would you call that standard bible operating procedure when visited by an angel????

So don't try to shake hands, or bow, but take a hold of that angel and wrestle him to the ground. Is that what you will do? Hey, it may work, it is a bible teaching you know.

But I think I will stick with a simple hand shake. Thank you.

Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Big difference. Your D&C only talks about angel encounters. Please try to stay on task and not go down rabbit holes.

As for the "work", a simple Bible word search for "angel" should be easy enough for you to do, right? That's what I did and did not see any references to a handshake test.

 

[Rescued One]

1) revelation can be given by God or Jesus or a representative sent by them.

2) If JS used his own words he would let you know he was doing that. Otherwise you can be comfortable knowing that he received his information from God or Jesus or a representative or Theirs.

Your other prophets don't say, "I'm only giving my opinion."

D&C 21

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.

3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

 

[Rescued One]

Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Big difference. Your D&C only talks about angel encounters. Please try to stay on task and not go down rabbit holes.

As for the "work", a simple Bible word search for "angel" should be easy enough for you to do, right? That's what I did and did not see any references to a handshake test.

That's partly because the temple ordinances aren't in the Bible.

 

[Peter1000]

Your other prophets don't say, "I'm only giving my opinion."

D&C 21

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.

3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

You say other prophets and then quote what JS said. Not sure what you are getting at.

I agree some time it is a little tricky to know when a prophet is giving his own opinion in his writings. A little like Paul and women in the bible.

 

[Peter1000]

That's partly because the temple ordinances aren't in the Bible.

How did you go from Jacob wrestling with God, and something to do with temple ordinances?

 

[Peter1000]

Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Big difference. Your D&C only talks about angel encounters. Please try to stay on task and not go down rabbit holes.

As for the "work", a simple Bible word search for "angel" should be easy enough for you to do, right? That's what I did and did not see any references to a handshake test.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but to get out of the angel problem, you said that Jacob wrestled with God. IOW God has a body of flesh and bone so he could actually wrestle with Jacob.

I know it is a side issue, but this declaration is not what I would have expected. Good going to recognize that JS is right and God the Father does have a body of flesh and bone and can actually wrestle with mortals. Wow.

 

[dzheremi]

You say other prophets and then quote what JS said. Not sure what you are getting at.

I agree some time it is a little tricky to know when a prophet is giving his own opinion in his writings. A little like Paul and women in the bible.

It's not hard to understand. St. Paul was inspired of God to write his epistles. JS...well, according to at least one of your scholars (who is not corrected by any of the others in the video, as far as I can remember), not everything he received was in "revelation format", and we still don't know what that means.

Now that's tricky!