Senate Mormonism

First off, a "peep" stone is what is used in the conjuring of spirits as in a seance or fortune telling, which is not at all what Joseph Smith had.

What you are referring to are "Seer Stones," which are completely different. They helped Joseph in the translation of the Book of Mormon (could you read reformed Egyptian?) and are now kept in the Salt Lake Temple in what is called the Holy of Holies, along with other sacred artifacts.

 

Darth-Horax

First, thanks for the answer.

Second, what sources do you have for them being kept in the so called Holy of Holies? This is solely conjecture on your behalf.

Third, you're wrong that Joseph Smith did not have a peep stone. He had something in addition to the Urim and Thummim, a chocolate colored stone through which was not used to translate the Book of Mormon. He referred to this as his "peep" stone in the History of the Church and modern LDS scholars have also referred to it as such.

 

Second, what sources do you have for them being kept in the so called Holy of Holies? This is solely conjecture on your behalf.

What sources do you have that I am wrong? This is conjecture on your behalf, as well.
Ask any leader in the church, and they will tell you the same, that these artifacts are kept in the Holy of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple.


Third, you're wrong that Joseph Smith did not have a peep stone. He had something in addition to the Urim and Thummim, a chocolate colored stone through which was not used to translate the Book of Mormon. He referred to this as his "peep" stone in the History of the Church and modern LDS scholars have also referred to it as such.

As far as referring to a stone as a peep stone, I would like to see evidence of that. Bruce R. McConkie, a noted church historian and member of the twelve apostles, stated that Peep stones are distinctly different than seer stones, which Joseph Smith used to help with the translation. Joseph Smith never tried to conjure spirits or see the future, which is what a peep stone is primarily used for. If I had a reference from you, I could get you a more specific answer.

 

The "peep" stone you speak of is still in the possession of the church. Bruce R. McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine states that this particular seer stone was last seen publicly at the dedication of the Manti Temple and that it rested on the altar of the Terrestrial room during the dedication. It is in the possession of the LDS church and is not in the possession of the RLDS or Community of Christ Church as some would have believed. Some say that Emma, Joseph's widow, kept the stone and passed it on to her husband, a Lewis Bidamon, and he then transferred ownership of the stone to Joseph Smith III. This assertion is simply erroneous. Joseph Smith's "peep" stone or seer stone is in the possession of the LDS church.

Darth-Horax's claim that it is kept in the Holy of Holies indicates that he has a greater knowledge than the other 11 million members of the church. There have never been such statements by the apostles or first presidency that such "artifacts" as he puts it are in the Holy of Holies. It is true that such a room exists and is accessible through the center alcove of the celestial room in the Salt Lake temple. It has a beautiful stain glass window portraying the First Vision and is a rather simple room, according to James E. Talmage's book The House of the Lord. It has a desk, altar, and chairs. The President of the Church alone has access to this room and alone has the key. Spencer W. Kimball's account of receiving the revelation that every worthy male should hold the priesthood states that he received it after spending much time in the "upper room" of the temple, which means the Holy of Holies. Other accounts of the receipt of this revelation make this belief entirely consistent.

Though there are "artifacts" in possession of the church, their location has never been made publicly known to the church at large. Any statement to the contrary is mere speculation. Some have claimed there's a vault in the SL temple where the sword of Laban lies unsheathed and the Liahona lies beside it. This is, of course, nonsensical and entirely conjecture. Nothing definitive can be said about the location or nature of these "other" artifacts. There's simply not enough information, consistent or otherwise, to give us any indication as to what they might be or where they are kept. Church leaders should only say that such artifacts are in the possession of the church and not that they are in the Holy of Holies because there has never been a definitive statement by the historical office or the other leaders of the church as to where such items are kept. This is a logical stance since declaring to the world where these artifacts are kept would be tantamount to a dare for zealots, apostates, and others to try and steal these items from their storage place. However, the church doesn't have some sort of warehouse like in Raiders of the Lost Ark where it keeps all these sacred and special artifacts in numbered boxes...at least I don't think the church has such a place.

Joseph had the peep stone to assist him in receiving revelation, not to translate the Book of Mormon. The Urim and Thummim accomplished that goal. How or what revelations were received through the stone has not been made known to the church generally and therefore your question falls into the category Kimball_Kinnison created a few pages back: We simply have no revelation or knowledge on the issue.

It might be a cop out answer as to the stone's nature, but the LDS church has the stone in its possession and we can rest assured that it's in a safe place.

 

DH--

I will get some "scholarly sources" and post them, hopefully tomorrow; however, we're playing a semantic game. I could have just as easily called it a seer stone but I have read and heard it called a peep stone by Mormons before. The truth remains that Joseph had an additional stone that he would look into for revelation. Do all prophets have such a stone?

Thanks, OldMcDonald, for the answer.

 

A lot of the artifacts are definitely in possession of the church, and their whereabouts are known to the first presidency, in most cases. Whether in the SLC Temple or otherwise doesn't really matter, as McD was saying.

However, I think where we are missing the point is the actual terminology. Bruce R. McConkie states that a Peep Stone is used for conjuring spirits and trying to see the future. The power thereby coming from Satan. Joseph Smith did not try to do those things, so it could not have been a peep stone, but perhaps some other type of seeing stone as was talked about in the old testament.

 

As far as whether or not modern prophets have similar stones is unknown to me, to be honest.

 

OldMcDonald, that was an interesting read.

I never have really taken the time to follow up on these "artifacts" that were used by the prophet(s). It certainly is interesting subject material though.

 

DH--All of the sources I could find came from "controversial" sources about Mormonism that I am sure would have been discounted out of hand. I could find anything referring to it as a "peep" stone from anyone currently on faculty at BYU as a religion professor. That said, I don't concede the point that LDS scholars have never made reference to this stone as a "peep" stone, but nor can I prove it. Therefore I withdraw the labelling of the stone. Apologies.

Joseph Smith was apparently a grand man. He was charismatic, a dynamic speaker, amazing motivator, and apparently quite accomplished at city planning. He was also a proponent of Manifest Destiny, declaring that the United States should annex Canada, god forbid, and Mexico since the entirety of North America was, in his words, Zion. In Nauvoo, apparently his greatest achievement from a secular perspective, he organized a secret council, I believe, called the "Council of Fifty". This Council, apparently under Joseph's spell, pronounced him "King of the Kingdom on Earth". Is this true? What was the role of the Council of Fifty and does it play a role in the church governance today? Furthermore, have all subsequent prophets also been pronounced Kings of the Kingdom on earth by the LDS church? How does this jibe with Christ being the King of the kingdom?

I have other questions pertaining to this fascinating man but will wait to ask them once I receive more answers.

Cheers!

 

In Nauvoo, apparently his greatest achievement from a secular perspective, he organized a secret council, I believe, called the "Council of Fifty". This Council, apparently under Joseph's spell, pronounced him "King of the Kingdom on Earth". Is this true?

I've never heard that before, but will do some research on it and let you know.

As far as the stone deal, don't worry about it. Terminology isn't worth arguing over!


Furthermore, have all subsequent prophets also been pronounced Kings of the Kingdom on earth by the LDS church? How does this jibe with Christ being the King of the kingdom?

No they do not. Christ is the King of the Kingdom, so to speak. To proclaim oneself as a "king of the kingdom" would go against the very nature of what a prophet is...a mouthpiece for the Lord.

Now, the prophets do hold the keys to the kingdom, which are basically the right and authority to preside here on Earth in matters pertaining to God. Things such as performing ordinances, receiving revelation for the church, etc.

Could that have been what you heard? Maybe somebody misinterpreted it? Who knows...

Like I said, I will look that up tonight at home, and let you know what I find.

 

Perhaps it was merely a statement that Joseph said that he held the keys to the kingdom, but I was pretty sure that what I was being told was that he was pronounced King of the Kingdom on earth. Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to find an answer for me.

 

I went home last night and did some extensive research so I could answer your question, and lo and behold, I believe that I can!

I looked up the Council of the Fifty in "History of the Church." The HoC is a complete history of the early days of the church up until 1848. It is comprehensive and contains much of the personal writings of Joseph Smith and others, such as Brigham Young. It was interesting what I found.

If you are interested, the Council of the Fifty is discussed in Volume 7 of HoC, on pages 213, 379-381.

Brigham Young states on page 213, "Elders W. Richards and Geroge A. Smith met in council with Elder Taylor at his house. Bishop George Miller and Alexander Badlam wanted them to call together the Council of Fifty and organize the church. They were told that the Council of Fifty was not a church organization, but was composed of members irrespective of their religios faith, and organized for the purpose of consulting on the best manner of obtaining redress of grievances from our enemies, and to devise means to find and locate in some place where we could live in peace; and that the organization of the church belonged to the priesthood alone."

This shows that the Council of Fifty was actually not a church function, but a means for people of all religions to live in peace.

In a footnote on the bottom of page 379, Brigham Young states, "This Council of Fifty is the legislature of the kingdom of God which includes the church."

He continues on page 382, "...for a man may be a legislator in that body which will issue laws to sustain the inhabitants of the earth in their individual rights and still not belong to the Chruch of Jesus Christ at all. And further though a man may not even believe in any religion it would be perfectly right, when necessary, to give him the privilege of holding a seat among that body which will make laws to govern all the nations of the earth and control those who make no profession of religion at all; for that body would be governed, controlled and dictated to acknowledge others in those rights which they wish to enjoy themselves. Then the Latter Day Saints would be protected, if a kingdom of this kind was on the earth, the same as all other people."

This tells us that the Council of Fifty was a type of government to oversee the Kingdom of God, which is believed, by Mormons and others, to be present on the Earth today. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is believed to be a part of that kingdom. The Council of Fifty was set up to protect all churches and people of any belief under the Kingdom of God. It really had no ties to the church other than some of it's members would be sitting on the Council, as described above. It was a means of living in peace with everybody, and everybody's beliefs being protected, as was originally brought up in the Constitution of the United States.

I hope this answers your question. If not, let me know, and I'll do my best to clarify.

EDIT: It is important to note that these quotes of Brigham Young's (1845) happened three years after the death of Joseph Smith (1842).

 

Darth Horax is correct. The Council of Fifty you inquired about was merely a secular, governing body established for the governance of Nauvoo. Since the church acted as the organization establishing the Council it is easy to associate it as an exclusive organization within the church superstructure. It simply does not exist today and filled its purpose once the Saints left Nauvoo. This was partially because the Saints, at the time, were striving to establish a sense of openness and understanding with their neighbors. Their experience in Missouri, with the Missourians believing that the Mormon voting block was too powerful and impossible to work with, certainly played a role in Joseph's decision to establish the Council of Fifty. It was a real, ancillary organization for the church, but it was not "under the umbrella of the First Presidency" so to speak. Joseph did not control it, and as I understand the machinations of the Council, all acted as equals. Kind of a "Knights of the Round Table" sort of thing.

When the Saints removed themselves to the Salt Lake valley they were completely alone. They had moved outside of the United States and into Mexican territory and were basically a nation apart in the Salt Lake valley. There was no need for the Council to continue because the church, or kingdom of God, was the government for them. They were not subject to any other earthly rule at the time by virtue of their location and therefore the Council's purpose became obsolete and it was extinguished.

There is something that does need to be clarified about one of Darth Horax's answers. The President of the Church can be called the King of the Kingdom on Earth. To quote Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine:

The Church (or kingdom) is not a democracy; legislation is not enacted by the body of people composing the organization; they do not make the laws governing themselves. The Church is a kingdom. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal King, and the President of the Church, the mouthpiece of God on earth is the earthly king. (Emphasis added)

This statement should be taken literally. The church is literally a kingdom and as such has to be headed by a king. Christ is the rightful king, but has designated the president of the church as his plenipotentiary on earth. This is both symbolic and literal if we, as members, truly believe the church to be the kingdom of God on earth. It does not fly in the face of restored religion to believe that the prophet is the earthly king, for he is not displacing Christ as the rightful ruler of the kingdom. Rather, LDS theology teaches that Christ will return to the valley of Adam Ondi-Ahman, there all of the stewards of the kingdom (no LotR references please) will give an accounting to Christ and he will assume both earthly and heavenly rule of the Kingdom. As for now he has merely granted such authority to the mortal leader of the church, his prophet.

Therefore, Joseph Smith's being ordained the king of the kingdom on earth is not a surprise. It is entirely consistent with the doctrine that the church is literally a part of the kingdom of heaven on earth. Joseph's place as king of the kingdom does not displace Christ, but is a further testimony that the fulness of the gospel has been restored, Christ's church and kingdom are on the earth today.

Remember what Pilate asked of Christ, "Art thou a King then?" He was. He is. He shall return to rule on earth as in heaven.

 

I have a question...

Yesterday, I attended an LDS church. My friend was speaking in front of the congregation, for he's leaving on his missions trip to Mexico City.

During it all, they had what my church calls communion (I forget what my friend Stephanie, a LDS, called it), and they use water. I know Catholics use wine, and my Christian church uses grape juice... but why water?

 

During it all, they had what my church calls communion (I forget what my friend Stephanie, a LDS, called it), and they use water. I know Catholics use wine, and my Christian church uses grape juice... but why water?

This is actually answered in Doctrine and Covenants 27:2-4. In August of 1830, Joseph Smith was trying to procure wine to use for the sacrament (Communion/the Lord's Supper/etc) when he was stopped by an angel, warning him that enemies of the Church (who happened to be the only source for wine in the area) were planning to use that to attack the Church. He then instructed Joseph:

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory?remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the fremission of your sins.
Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;
Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father?s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

In short, it doesn't matter what is used to represent the body and blood of Christ. What is important is the symbolism of it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Gotchya

 

Trolling is not a good idea.

 

Don't troll. This thread is here to promote understanding, not to attack others' beliefs.

 

before i believe if mormonism is christianity or not answer these questions about mormonism:
Is there one God
Why did Jesus die on the cross
how do u get to heaven
do u believe the bible to be absolute truth
is satan real
does god love us
does god forgive any one who asks

Those r questions i must know the answer 2

 

I don't have much time right now, as I've been sick and I'm a bit out of it, but I'll try to answer you as best I can right now.

Is there one God

Yes. We believe in and worship God, the Eternal Father, and no one else.

Why did Jesus die on the cross

Christ died in order to fulfill the Atonement, saving us from Death and Sin. He did this by paying the price for our sins in the Garden and on the Cross, and then by breaking the bonds of Death in the Resurrection.

how do u get to heaven

Only through the grace of Jesus Christ. He is the only person who is worthy to enter heaven through obedience alone, as He is the only perfect man ever to have lived. While we are still commanded to be obedient, it is only through His Atonement that we are saved.

do u believe the bible to be absolute truth

Be believe in and accept tha Bible as the Word of God as it was originally received by His prophets. However, many errors may have (and did) creep into many man-made translations and transcriptions.

is satan real

Most definitely, yes.

does god love us

Last I checked? Yes, He does. After all, isn't that what it says in John? "For God so loved the world that He gave his Only Begotten Son..."

does god forgive any one who asks

Those who ask God with a sincere heart, yes. This sincere heart is shown through repentance and obedience to God's commandments.

I hope that helps clear those up for you.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Be believe in and accept tha Bible as the Word of God as it was originally received by His prophets. However, many errors may have (and did) creep into many man-made translations and transcriptions.
that's the only thing i'm not sure of so far, i'll research some more, feel free to post some more mormon theology for me to look at

 

that's the only thing i'm not sure of so far, i'll research some more, feel free to post some more mormon theology for me to look at

What's so hard to believe about that? Haven't you ever seen how there are so many different translations of the Bible, and no two of them perfectly agree? There are also minor differences between many of the older manuscripts that we have (likely caused by transcription errors).

As God originally gave the revelations to man, the Bible is perfect. However, as other men get involved in the process, some errors occur. No serious biblical scholars will tell you to rely on translations to determine the original meaning of scripture, because of those errors.

For an example of trnascription errors, there are two different sets of manuscript for the Old Testament, one in Hebrew and one in Greek (the Septuagint). If you look in Isaiah 2:16, the KJV reads

And upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures.

That was translated from the Hebrew version. However, the Greek version is a little different. It translates as

And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all pleasant pictures.

Both cannot be the original phrase in its entirety. One (or both) of them has to be incorrect or incomplete (as it's possible that the original contained both phrases). We simply believe that the original was exactly what God intended, and that any errors in it have come since then.

Kimball Kinnison

 

We simply believe that the original was exactly what God intended, and that any errors in it have come since then.

interesting. do you believe that the original versions still exist in complete form in the present day? do you make any assumptions about which version is correct based on age or language (e.g. defaulting to the Hebrew version when necessary)?

 

interesting. do you believe that the original versions still exist in complete form in the present day? do you make any assumptions about which version is correct based on age or language (e.g. defaulting to the Hebrew version when necessary)?

They may, but at this time we don't know where they are (if they do).

However, this is not a problem for us as we have other sources that have equal authority to the Bible. For example, there is the Book of Mormon, which was translated into English by Joseph Smith with the direct help of God, making it about hte most reliable translation possible. We also have prophets living today who are authorized to speak in the name of the Lord, just like Moses, Elijah, and the other prophets in biblical times.

Modern-day prophets are important for two reasons. First, they help us to know and apply God's word for us today. Second, they have the authority and knowledge from God to definitively interpret scripture according to God's will (although this does not limit personal iterpretation or revelation through the Holy Ghost).

This is the area where we have the most disagreement with other CHristians. Where most Christians believe that the heavens are closed, that God's interaction with men is limited to pesonal direction, we believe that He has continued to interact with us as He did in ancient times, through prophets who are called to be His representatives on the earth.

Kimball Kinnison

 

What's so hard to believe about that? Haven't you ever seen how there are so many different translations of the Bible, and no two of them perfectly agree?
actualy, they say the same basic thing, only worded differently, but don't u believe Jesus returned to Earth, in America