NOM

Yobispo wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 10:39 am Blazer, you got my attention. Maybe I'm remembering the stories I was taught and not the real history, but now I have to dive in and find out!
Edit: that was quick - check out the header on section 110 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... g=eng#p7#7. That's where it comes from, now I have to find out the truth.

Moses and Elias each appear and commit their keys and dispensations; 13–16, Elijah returns and commits the keys of his dispensation as promised by Malachi.

blazerb wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:25 pm
Some things to note. It's written by Warren Cowdery, apparently. He wrote it in the third person, so he does not appear to be dictating from JS or OC. Also, there appear to be marks crossing out the pages on the original photos. Does that mean that it was rejected?

Palerider wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 9:57 pm Seems Mormon dialogue had a thread on this topic back in 2013. There may be info there. Haven't read everything yet. Take it with a grain of salt.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61 ... t-version/

ETA:

Apparently Joseph wrote a "version" of the D&C 110 vision which was contained in his personal papers but it is suggested that it differs significantly from what is currently in section 110.

Wonder how one would go about finding Joseph's version?

Though JS did not dictate or revise any of the text recorded in B-1, Willard Richards and Thomas Bullock chose to maintain the first-person, chronological narrative format established in A-1 as if JS were the author. They drew from a variety of primary and secondary sources including JS’s diaries and letters, minutes of meetings, the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, church and other periodicals, reports of JS’s discourses, and the reminiscences and recollections of church members. As was the case with A-1, after JS’s death, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, and others modified and corrected the manuscript as they reviewed material before its eventual publication.

The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. Joseph Smith’s history states: “In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us.”

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 7:30 am This experience was not canonized until 1880, after Brigham Young's death. This amazing event, second only to the First Vision, is the entire basis for the church's central focus on temples and genealogy, yet it was a late addition that didn't seem to be of great consequence at the time.

blazerb wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 4:18 pm I think that this event is the entire basis for the authority of the Q15. If this event never happened, as many restoration groups agree, the "keys" held by the apostles are very different from what is commonly taught. I'm not sure I'm ready to flesh this out too much, but I have long noticed that the CoC leadership is much less concerned with control and much more concerned with fellowship.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 8:01 am One thing this brings up is the idea of a confederate.

RFM talked about some tricks require the use of a 2nd person who is in on the trick/scam. They are called a confederate. They know what is going on and how the trick works, but play along and they are part of making the trick work.

Looking at these things from the stage magician's point of view, this drastically changes out view of early Mormonism. There are some events where it would either be much easier with help, or they had to be in on it to some degree. So now this opens whole new questions.

With Sec 110, Oliver Cowdrey was supposed to be invoked with the whole thing and witness this divine visit.

Lets start with the assumption that SOMETHING happened on that day. JS and OC went behind the curtain.The simple answer is that they made up the whole experience, or put on a show for the rest of the audience out side the curtain.

If they put on a show, then OC is either extremely gullible and is able to be talked into seeing something that wasn't there, or he is in on it and knew full well that they would be deceiving the audience. If they put on a show and OC was in on it at this point, that opens MORE questions. Was he in on things even earlier as a confederate?

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 10:28 am Since Oliver never even mentioned this "revelation" in his diary or writings of the time I doubt he was an accomplice. I don't think anything spectacular happened that day until numerous years later when somebody needed it to have happened.

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 4:57 pm So, it’s an apocryphal scripture?

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 4:57 pm So, it’s an apocryphal scripture?

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon May 11, 2020 1:48 pm I remember having an argument about this with someone years ago on this forum. In my opinion, Oliver had to be a confederate. He was involved in too many supposedly foundational events in the early Church. The translation of the Book of Mormon. The restoration of the Aaronic and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The purported events of D&C 110. To think he was gullible enough to be played by Joseph Smith during all of those events beggars belief.

Oliver was either 1) in on the charade when the events purportedly happened, or 2) went along with it when Joseph made them up later. Either way, he is an accomplice.

Maybe he didn’t write about the events of D&C in his journal because Joseph hadn’t made them up yet, or maybe since they were fabricated he didn’t find them worth recording in his journal. Who knows? But my vote is that Oliver was in the thick of it up to his eyeballs. He was an accomplice, no question.