tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post4111753635401483917..comments2024-01-07T12:38:39.465-06:00Comments on Clean Cut: My Take on Joseph Smith's King Follet SermonClean Cuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-71229507161264244572014-08-03T07:49:23.692-05:002014-08-03T07:49:23.692-05:00I love discussing and learning about the Gospel! I...I love discussing and learning about the Gospel! I don't enjoy back and forth conversations that have little to no support for what has been said. Everything I've said can be backed up to sure sources. I think it's awesome you are writing blogs on the Gospel! Keep it up!Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-9106628294837517592014-08-03T07:46:32.653-05:002014-08-03T07:46:32.653-05:00Another thing brought up is that God the Father sh...Another thing brought up is that God the Father should not be viewed as the creator, that Jesus Christ is the creator. It is true in the sense that yes Christ created under the direction of the Father, as the agent. In the book of Abraham, God the first (the Father) is the creator, God the second is the redeemer (Jesus Christ), and God the third is the testator (The Holy Ghost). That source comes from Joseph Smith, although you will notice it is not in the pearl of great price because Joseph didn't have time to put it in sadly, among many other things, But it was said.<br /><br />Now with all that said when it says the "Head God called together the gods" we can understand clearly that the Father of this eternity called all of us together. When this is all said and done, Christ will deliver up everything to His Father, and then take His place as a Father. God will always be progressing. Don't misunderstand me though. Not progressing in the sense of learning, but progressing in the sense of kingdoms, glory, and power. Jesus Christ was learning all the way up until He received a fulness.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-42694807368196022182014-08-03T07:44:52.242-05:002014-08-03T07:44:52.242-05:00Also the word eternity does actually have multiple...Also the word eternity does actually have multiple meanings, depending on how it is used. "From all eternity to all eternity" indicates forever and ever. But we live in an "eternity" meaning our galaxy, created by God. Our eternity has a beginning and an end. Then more "eternities" will spring up. Our eternity is 2,555,000,000 years old. The source I have comes from Lorenzo Snow where he states "I remember once being in the office in Nauvoo where the Prophet Joseph Smith and some other brethren got to talking about the length of an eternity." That would make no sense if we didn't understand eternity in that sense. He goes on and says says: "One of the brethren, possibly Phelps, went to work and managed to get the number of years that composed an eternity. President Smith said that was correct." There we go, the prophet sanctions it. Go listen to some talks by Bruce R. Mcconkie about the plan of salvation and you will hear him teach that there is only one plan, there is always a Firstborn Son who becomes the Only Begotten of the Father. Each eternity requires a Savior. If we become exalted and create our own eternities with our own spirit children then we will also need to have a Son, willing to atone for their sins. Other past eternities need to have their own atonement's made for them. How can they know a Savior whom they've never heard, seen or met. How can they love someone who atoned for them trillions of years later. No every eternity has a beginning and an end. We are at the end of ours, because we are in the last dispensation of the fulness of times. We are the wrap up of everything. Once this is done it will be finished. Christ's atonement covers other worlds in this eternity. I have sources for all of this too.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-1228488428862379762014-08-03T07:43:51.394-05:002014-08-03T07:43:51.394-05:00If you listen to talks from Apostles and prophets ...If you listen to talks from Apostles and prophets such as Bruce R McConkie, many of the comments back and forth will seem pointless. There is only one plan of Salvation. It is perfect and will always be perfect. Looking logically at the word "exalted", if God the Father is exalted, how did He exalt Himself? That's impossible. If it was possible then it would fit well with the sectarian belief that God created Himself. The truth is that God is God because He was exalted by someone above Him. His Father. And so on. Also if God the Father "had power to lay down His life and take it again" then why don't we ask ourselves why he was even able to lay down His life? The only reason Jesus Christ laid down His life was because of the fall. God the Father cannot lay down His life anymore. That's why He needed a Savior for us. He gave the Savior the power to take up His life again, but again it proves that there is a regression of God's, and that the plan of salvation is perfect and will always be used. Although different experiences in different eternities can happen, the plan works perfectly. There will always be a creation, a fall and an atonement. <br /><br /><br />Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-16720744607878103272014-02-05T18:32:35.293-06:002014-02-05T18:32:35.293-06:00http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-...http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermonClean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-68155578880221950482012-09-17T15:20:15.348-05:002012-09-17T15:20:15.348-05:00From http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/...From http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/<br /><br />'Things went pretty well. But right at the end of the final lecture, something peculiar happened. A member of the audience asked me a question. He said, “What you have been telling us this week about romanticism and the death of God where religion becomes art is premised on a certain understanding of God, namely that God is unitary and infinite. Would you agree?” “Sure,” I said, “At least two of the predicates of the divinity are that he/she/it is unitary and infinite.” Gosh, I was smart back then. “But what if,” he went on, “God were plural and finite?”<br />...<br />For Joseph Smith, it is turtles all the way down. There is an endless regress of Gods which beget one another, but which do not beget the universe. '<br /><br />I am not trying to state that an infinite regress of Gods is correct. Only that it is interesting that this has made the NY Times. That many people will end up seeing this as orthodox Mormon belief. <br />Richard Algerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08921970283086332560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-87943641476798313842012-05-18T08:49:00.907-05:002012-05-18T08:49:00.907-05:00Are you the same "Anonymous" as above? ...Are you the same "Anonymous" as above? Do you mind using a different handle/name? I'd be happy to have a conversation, but it's hard to keep anonymous people straight. Also, is that your own blog to which you linked?Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-64069927561945435412012-05-17T22:12:45.791-05:002012-05-17T22:12:45.791-05:00I would argue that there is not a more comforting ...I would argue that there is not a more comforting doctrine than the idea that even us, in our sinful state, can eventually be perfected and become like our Father in Heaven. Abraham's covenant is our covenant (see D&C 132) and where is Abraham? He is where we hope to be: exalted with the Father and a joint heir with Christ and therefore a God preparing to reign over worlds without end the same way that our Father does. (see D&C 132 and pay particular attention to verses 20, 29-31). See also latter-dayladder.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-20936897260712312122012-04-26T10:58:58.910-05:002012-04-26T10:58:58.910-05:00Anonymous, I appreciate the question. However, it...Anonymous, I appreciate the question. However, it is clear you have not read further into the comments when I do indeed address the Sermon in the Grove. In light of my careful reading of that sermon, I must politely, but strongly, disagree with you.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-39025096106295254172012-04-26T10:15:35.314-05:002012-04-26T10:15:35.314-05:00Have you ever read the Sermon on the Grove? You h...Have you ever read the Sermon on the Grove? You have to do some real mental gymnastics to not interpret the KFD in the traditional sense, in light of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-53436854543197373552010-01-29T20:23:17.163-06:002010-01-29T20:23:17.163-06:00Wow! Quite the discussion on here, and some good p...Wow! Quite the discussion on here, and some good points brought up, especially I thought from our fundamentalist friend.<br /><br />I have to say that this post caused somewhat of a paradigm shift for me. Personally, I really like your view on the KFD, from what we have recorded. It's not something I'll struggle many a night over, but I appreciate what seems to be taught clear enough in it and that we can see it in such a positive light while others may call it heresy.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960519151863517265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-34055976105252235992010-01-28T18:39:27.248-06:002010-01-28T18:39:27.248-06:00Hi--I just found your blog from Mormanity. Great ...Hi--I just found your blog from Mormanity. Great post, I really enjoyed it. I wish there were more such well reasoned, thoughtful explanations of doctrinal issues out there.C.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08086277404490573891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-70302903989164687952009-07-15T00:40:04.506-05:002009-07-15T00:40:04.506-05:00I think that's a great suggestion Greg. From ...I think that's a great suggestion Greg. From all I've heard, Ehat and Cook's "The Words of Joseph Smith" is much more comprehensive than say, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" by Joseph Fielding Smith, which are only selections that JFS personally wanted to include. <br /><br />Serious scholarly work of Joseph Smith's writings can't only depend on "Teachings" but rather on all the scribes' individual writings. Apparently it's really hard to find Ehat and Cook's book now, and it seems to be very expensive. However, I've been told by a friend that <a href="http://www.ldsaudio.com/shop/physical_item.aspx?id=67&name=LDS+Library+2009+version+7.0" rel="nofollow">LDS Library 2009</a> has hundreds of books and a huge selection of writings of Joseph Smith, including "Words of Joseph Smith". I'm strongly considering ordering this resource. It seems invaluable.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-58759348385895962952009-07-15T00:23:04.799-05:002009-07-15T00:23:04.799-05:00As a follow up to my last comment, here is an exce...As a follow up to my last comment, here is an excerpt from a footnote to this discourse in <i>The Words of Joseph Smith</i>, p. 394, n. 1:<br /><br />Traditionally considered the Prophet's greatest sermon, the King Follett discourse was delivered at a time when both anti-Mormon and apostate sentiment was intensifying. "Accusations were repeatedly being made," notes B. H. Roberts, "that President Smith was a fallen prophet." On this occasion he coolly claimed that this single discourse would vindicate his prophetic calling. Although the sermon contains no new doctrine, never before had Joseph Smith so thoroughly, eloquently, and with such power presented what by now had become the very life-blood of Mormon theology. B. H. Roberts added that "The Prophet lived his life in a crescendo. From small beginnings, it rose in breadth and power as he neared its close. As a teacher he reached the climax of his career in this discourse (<i>Teachings</i>, pp. 355-56). Joseph Fielding, one who knew all that the dissenters knew of the Prophet's private teachings, including plural marriage, the endowment, and the Council of Fifty, had "evidence enough [from the discourse] that Joseph [was] not fallen." So affected was he by this sermon that he asserted "any one that could not see in him the Spirit of Inspiration of God must be dark. They might have known that he was not a fallen Prophet even if they thought he was fallen."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-386305009379744922009-07-15T00:17:21.517-05:002009-07-15T00:17:21.517-05:00Clean Cut:
May I make a suggestion? If you have a...Clean Cut:<br /><br />May I make a suggestion? If you have a chance you may want to get a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Words-Joseph-Smith-contemporary-discourses/dp/0884944190/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247634366&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo discourses of the Prophet Joseph</a> which may help put this discourse into a doctrinal and historical context. It is one of the Prophet's "public sermons [which] would serve us well in the quest for preparation" for the endowment - <a href="http://www.believeallthings.com/2700/endowment" rel="nofollow">What is an Endowment?</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-41028384619748799232009-07-12T11:20:07.155-05:002009-07-12T11:20:07.155-05:00Jim, don't feel bad at all. It sparked a very...Jim, don't feel bad at all. It sparked a very profound (IMHO) comment by Thomas Parkin. <br /><br />Thomas, I think that your last comment is excellent. I really appreciate the insights.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-6546521484281428642009-07-11T15:39:42.150-05:002009-07-11T15:39:42.150-05:00Thomas,
Good points, and I agree. One of my favor...Thomas,<br />Good points, and I agree. One of my favorite aspects of the gospel is that of continuous and even eternal progression. It does sometimes seem as though there is a point of diminishing returns, but perhaps that is my own cycnism mixed with natural-man laziness/excuses.<br /><br />I also do love the concept of line upon line, but again, it is the natural man that becomes impatient and only wants to be "done"- to check off the box and have reached the goal instead of loving the process of becoming.<br /><br />As you alluded to, our compassionate and loving Father does give us more knowledge, but only as we are prepared for it. With knowledge comes accountability, and He will not allow us to be accountable until we are prepared for it.<br /><br />Also, I think the law of the harvest is applicable- sometimes we want things (such as greater knowledge), but we can't expect blessings without the effort required to achieve them.<br /><br />Finally, I love this quote from you: "...real knowledge is always at least partially experiential. It is not just a collection of ideas. We do not know the love of God because we can say interesting things about it - but only as we've experienced it and it has begun to underlay our character."<br /><br />Sometimes I have gained this type of experience through reading and seeing things in a new way that I hadn't considered. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that true knowledge is gained through not just study but by fully living the gospel. I do think that my experiential knowledge is somewhat weak. But I suppose this comes with time, effort, and patience.<br /><br />Sorry, Clean Cut, if this was a blogjack. Thank you again, Thomas, for your thoughts.Jimhttp://benotweary.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-43844260677687055342009-07-11T09:32:01.113-05:002009-07-11T09:32:01.113-05:00Jim,
I don't think we should ever be content....Jim,<br /><br />I don't think we should ever be content. (Think of the man with one talent). But I also don't think it is necessary to understand all these things we've been talking about. I think you start from where you are, and live the basics, and learn how to receive revelation, and get where you are receiving revelations regularly. And then I think it is good to remember that this is stuff that Joseph was concerned about a long time after virtually everything we have canonized from him. I'm certainly very much still working with the 1830 stuff, not the 1844 stuff - in terms of my personal life.<br /><br />A couple of my favorites are these:<br /><br />Alma 12<br /><br />9 ... It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.<br /> 10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receivables the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.<br /> 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.<br /><br />So, if we don't harden our hearts, we will receive more of the word (in studying, praying, church attendance, everything) until we understand God in full. Also, it is interesting to me that to know nothing of the mysteries of God is hell. Great stuff.<br /><br />And this from D&C 50:<br /><br />"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. "<br /><br />So, I think the answer is be grateful for what you have, but not content. Living the gospel is an expansive process, though which we are slowly embiggened (one of my favorite non-words) - but in which we never get to rest on our laurels. <br /><br />Another thought: real knowledge is always at least partially experiential. It is not just a collection of ideas. We do not know the love of God because we can say interesting things about it - but only as we've experienced it and it has begun to underlay our character.<br /><br />As to the basics, I don't believe we ever leave them behind but that they continue to be principals that propel us forward as we advance in understanding and being. <br /><br />The following from Hebrews interests me ... the author has been talking about having much to say of Christ, but that he can't because his audience is unprepared, that they still have need of milk and are not prepared for meat. Then he say this, in Cp 6<br /><br />"1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,<br /> 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.<br /> 3 And this will we do, if God permit. "<br /><br />Joseph Smith translates "...not leaving the principals..." He says, how can we be saved in them if we leave them behind. That is right - but the message is partly the same, either way. That there are things beyond the first principals which are involved in being perfected, and that the author of Hebrews, as well as Joseph Smith, found that they wanted to communicate them.<br /><br />Cool. ~Thomas Parkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11050265376350194876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-57969900631260974502009-07-10T20:59:40.260-05:002009-07-10T20:59:40.260-05:00Bruce,
I'm don't mean to say that we shoul...Bruce,<br />I'm don't mean to say that we shouldn't try to understand the nature of God. Certainly that is something we should strive for. I only question at what point we should be content or satisfied with the knowledge that we have.<br /><br />And if people such as Clean Cut and Thomas Parkin, for example (obviously there are many others), that have dedicated much time and effort to better understand God, have studied many of the same materials, etc., and still reach different conclusions, it makes me wonder if my efforts are better spent elsewhere. Is that a copout?<br /><br />I think I understand the basics- that God is the father of our spirits, we are his children, he loves us and prepared a plan for us to progress to be like Him, etc. I am sure that I could add a few other similar fundamental doctrines. I do not know all there is to know and am happy to learn more, but are these basics not sufficient?<br /><br />I liked one of Thomas' earlier comments that the things of the spirit are discerned and learned by the spirit and not necessarily through sheer effort and research (my paraphrase). But the spirit can't teach one truth to one person and an opposing truth to someone else, right?<br /><br />So, what is the course to take?Jimhttp://benotweary.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-63250191185553871212009-07-10T19:26:43.192-05:002009-07-10T19:26:43.192-05:00Well stated Jim...thanks.
I would only take mild i...Well stated Jim...thanks.<br />I would only take mild issue with the idea that trying to understand the exact nature of God is somehow an area that isn't beneficial. <br />With respect..Joseph Smith taught us that "the first principle of the Gospel is to know for a certainty the Character of God.”<br />Correct me if I'm wrong but that says to me that the knowledge of who God really is is as important, or more so, than understanding things like the atonement.<br />(if I'm reading something into what you said that you didn't mean, I apologize)<br />I don't see an exchange of ideas, if it's kept civil, to be anything detrimental. <br />We don't have to come out agreeing but the exchange keeps us from getting "set in our ways" and close-minded IMHO. At least it does for me.Bruce in Montanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08480425208723630243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-16375977751717363042009-07-10T16:46:25.042-05:002009-07-10T16:46:25.042-05:00I don't mean this as a "knock" again...I don't mean this as a "knock" against anyone- I often am in awe at the insights and knowledge that others have as I read different posts around the 'nacle- many of which I don't fully understand. But I wonder if there is a fine line where we sometimes begin speculating in areas where it isn't really beneficial and potentially detrimental.<br /><br />In contrast, I like these quotes from Elder Causse (General Conference, Oct. 2008): "...our Heavenly Father is always available to us. He adapts to our level of understanding. “If He comes to a little child, He will adapt himself to the language and capacity of a little child” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 3:392)."<br /><br />"...our knowledge of God does not depend on the amount of information we accumulate. After all, all the knowledge of the gospel which is meaningful for our salvation can be summarized in a few points of doctrine, principles, and essential commandments, which are already there in the missionary lessons we receive before baptism. Knowing God is a matter of opening our hearts to gain a spiritual understanding and a fervent testimony of the truth of these few fundamental points of doctrine. Knowing God is having a testimony of His existence and feeling in one’s heart that He loves us. It is accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior and having a fervent desire to follow His example."<br /><br />As with many things in life, I think the trick is finding the right balance between being content with what we have and striving for improvement.Jimhttp://benotweary.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-12089965909084080142009-07-10T16:42:05.313-05:002009-07-10T16:42:05.313-05:00"one Head God among the gods, more intelligen..."one Head God among the gods, more intelligent than all the rest. "<br /><br />One head God in charge of the council that convened before the 'foundations' of this 'world.' Our Father. This reconciles the idea of a head God, and the numerous quotes from both Joseph and others, regarding the fact that, for instance fathers were always once sons.<br /><br />This thing you keep saying ... I do not think it means what you think it mean. *wink*<br /><br />"the mental effort"<br /><br />What is really required in spiritual effort. If all that was required was mental effort than everyone who expends x amount of mental effort would come to the same conclusions, and clearly that is not the case. Spiritual effort will not bring us to the same conclusions instantly, but will over time. <br /><br />One thing for sure, this effort, while it can and should be augmented by interacting with others, is ultimately an individual endeavor. ~Thomas Parkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11050265376350194876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-27959560137612408972009-07-10T16:25:39.713-05:002009-07-10T16:25:39.713-05:00Another thing I learned through personal experienc...Another thing I learned through personal experience is that we can gain new insight by reading his sermons in one sitting. I think we lose so much just with isolated quotes here and there. It's simply impossible to gain a deep and full appreciation of his teachings without reading it from start to finish.<br /><br />This was especially helpful with the <a href="http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/16Jun44.html" rel="nofollow">Sermon in the Grove</a> and seeing the emphasis shift away from an infinite regression of gods to one Head God among the gods, more intelligent than all the rest. <br /><br />Rich asks a good question about the quote: "where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor?" If this was the case, I would point out that Joseph Smith is the one who taught that spirits are uncreated and co-eternal with God, and do not have a progenitor. This might be why Blake Ostler believes Joseph Smith must be talking about mortality. A tree having a progenitor is something that happens in earth life. But according to Joseph, there is no creation to spirits. It makes sense. It's logical. The transcript says "every thing comes in this way" but apparently not everything comes in this way because spirits are co-eternal with God and in the beginning with God and there is "no creation about it" (Joseph's words). So this just can't seem to be referring to spirits but to earth life--according to Joseph's own teachings.<br /><br />When we have several like sermons where Joseph is trying to show there is a Head God and when he says over and over that spirits are not created, to take one sentence of a sermon that has gaps in it, it doesn't make sense to overturn everything Joseph has taught just because of one sentence. And yet, I feel this might be what is happening. But obviously I don't presume to have the final word.<br /><br />My own view is that given the whole sweep of the sermon and Joseph's other sermons and the scriptures, I'm not at all clear we have all the information in the Sermon in the Grove. We only have the Bullock report, no other reporters, and he misses things. There are a lot of incomplete sentences. The sentences stop in the middle and start in the middle. It isn't a complete transcript. I'm not comfortable overturning Joseph's views by focusing on one cryptic sentence and ignoring everything else.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-11685679019920007012009-07-10T16:19:26.544-05:002009-07-10T16:19:26.544-05:00These are not deep complex questions. It is simpl...These are not deep complex questions. It is simply a matter of wanting to know what Joseph Smith taught. Either we want to know or we don't. I've had an interest in knowing for myself.<br /><br />I personally believe we can let Joseph speak for himself. I think it's a bit lazy to conclude that we can't really figure out what he was teaching and its all speculation; therefore it's not worth the mental effort. No, my point was to separate the speculation from what Joseph was actually teaching.<br /><br />I've spent a lot of time trying to understand the Bible. I simply disagree that we can't understand the Bible by reading the Bible. Yes it's very helpful to seek help from those with more understanding and yes, there will still be parts we may not understand. But I still have an obligation to read the Bible if I want to understand the Bible. If I want to understand a book, the best way is to read that book. We may still come to various interpretations of those verses based on the different lenses we read with, but I don't think that is an excuse NOT to study the actual source and let it speak for itself.<br /><br />There are many Christians that can understand the Bible and do understand the Bible by reading the Bible. Similarly, I think it's possible, despite the gaps, to understand Joseph Smith by reading Joseph Smith. Let's focus on what we DO have, rather than what we don't have, and not just the amalgamated version (which contains interpretation) but also the <a href="http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.html" rel="nofollow">notes of the scribes</a>. For me, that's the next best thing to time travel and being there in person. Reading them in one sitting made me feel like I was almost there, and wishful that I could have actually seen and heard the Prophet speak in person. <br /><br />In this post I desired to discuss what IS written and what the text actually says, as opposed to traditional interpretations that require bringing a previous assumption into the text but which Joseph never actually teaches.Clean Cuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383123314458721660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3920640965536781054.post-30170277240017085452009-07-10T14:05:14.359-05:002009-07-10T14:05:14.359-05:00Yeah I think I like the church better when I stick...Yeah I think I like the church better when I stick to the basics. Some of that far out doctrine just makes my head spin.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08851361429948616077noreply@blogger.com