I was asked about the difference between my explanation regarding the timing of the visitation of the risen Lord to the Nephites in The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil
, and the timing proposed by Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith. I put the visit at the end of the thirty-fourth year, they put it immediately following Christ's resurrection. I responded as follows:
, and the timing proposed by Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith. I put the visit at the end of the thirty-fourth year, they put it immediately following Christ's resurrection. I responded as follows:I won't respond or rebut the argument. I don't think it is important to resolve the matter. It is only important to understand the issue. From the things these men wrote, it is clear that Elders McConkie/Smith reason how it could have been immediate, despite the fact that the text says it was the difference between the beginning and end of the thirty-fourth year. The anchor of their argument is that the people were showing each other the great changes which took place during the destruction. They reason that this would have been immediately after the destruction, otherwise there would be no reason to be pointing it out.
I account for this by recognizing that the festival season caused a migration later in the year. At that time their presence at the Temple site would have introduced them to the destruction for the first time, despite the fact the great quaking and tempests had ended eleven months earlier. I also account for the various appearances of the Lord to "other sheep," as well as the forty-day ministry at Jerusalem in my reckoning.
However, I do not think it important for someone to disbelieve McConkie/Smith. It is only important how one decides to read the scriptures. Borrowed opinions are just that. People need to read the scriptures and decide what they mean for themselves.
I account for this by recognizing that the festival season caused a migration later in the year. At that time their presence at the Temple site would have introduced them to the destruction for the first time, despite the fact the great quaking and tempests had ended eleven months earlier. I also account for the various appearances of the Lord to "other sheep," as well as the forty-day ministry at Jerusalem in my reckoning.
However, I do not think it important for someone to disbelieve McConkie/Smith. It is only important how one decides to read the scriptures. Borrowed opinions are just that. People need to read the scriptures and decide what they mean for themselves.
In the book I refer to the "ceremony of recognition." This ceremony has a specific order. It begins with an embrace. The headnote (written by Elder McConkie) says "hands, feet and side" as the order. The text, however, refers to the side, then the hands and feet. That ceremony, so far as it is appropriate to do so, is explained in the text of The Second Comforter.
Another issue:
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding only the Presiding High Priest (PHP)/Prophet/ President of the Church can declare Official Church Doctrine.
If this is true, could you please tell me: during what time period was Bruce R. McConkie the PHP/Prophet/President of the Mormon Church?
Once a man becomes the PHP/Prophet/President, is it OK to quote things he said before he was sustained as PHP/Prophet/President as if he were already sustained as such?
Was Bruce R. McConkie the PHP/Prophet/President at the time he wrote and published the definitive work on Mormon doctrine entitled "Mormon Doctrine?"
I might have a lot more questions for you depending on what your response is because there seem to be a lot of incongruencies surrounding Mormon Doctrine.
(Personal note.) Hi Denver, Please delete all or part of this inquiry at will. I'm not even sure if I'm doing it right or if my slightly sarcastic tone is welcome here. This is my first blogging attempt ever. I'm just seeing if it works. :-) LouN
Could you please tell us where in The Second Comforter you've discussed the "ceremony of recognition" -- page numbers of both editions. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteLouN said:
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding only the Presiding High Priest (PHP)/Prophet/ President of the Church can declare Official Church Doctrine.
If this is true, could you please tell me: during what time period was Bruce R. McConkie the PHP/Prophet/President of the Mormon Church?
Once a man becomes the PHP/Prophet/President, is it OK to quote things he said before he was sustained as PHP/Prophet/President as if he were already sustained as such?
Was Bruce R. McConkie the PHP/Prophet/President at the time he wrote and published the definitive work on Mormon doctrine entitled "Mormon Doctrine?"
_______________________________
I agree with your understanding. And Bruce R. McConkie was never a President. A lot of people quote what was said before a man became Church President as if it had been said while President, but the distinction remains both unclarified and important. Until the Church resolves how to treat prior teachings of a President everyone is left to decide for themselves what significance to attach to them.
You know Elder McConkie wasn't President when he wrote Mormon Doctrine, and that the President had Elder Peterson review it for errors only after it had been published. Elder Peterson came up with a number of errors - in excess of a thousand - which resulted in changes between the first and later editions of the book.
I thought I'd drop a note in here, since I am the one that prompted this post, at least indirectly. I recently found out about you (Denver Snuffer) and your blog through our mutual acquaintance, who forwarded the email. I enjoy the posts and they have made me think.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, I have not had the chance to read any of your books, so I do not have your full explanation of the matter. Yet. I was just trying to understand the timing of the event, since I had never noticed it before. My email was meant to be thought-provoking and I was delighted by your response.
I agree with your response. Understanding, thinking, and pondering are more important than resolving.
As I responded later in the email chain, to someone who was confused about the differing answers:
"Allow it to be unresolved, while you continue to build your understanding and testimony in other areas. Maybe someday it will be revealed to you, or it won't. But questions like these are one of Satan's favorite snags. He hooks people on them and they destroy themselves on an insignificant detail (at least, that is how I view this issue), rather than allowing it to be and also allowing their existing testimony to stand and grow."
In context of the previous comments, I skipped McConkie's quote, which was also found in the reference that I came across and provided in the email, for the reasons you have already stated. My email only referenced Joseph Fielding Smith's quote. (which honestly had more of an opinion vibe than a doctrine-declaring vibe)
Kwatki:
ReplyDeleteThis is the "comment goddess" responding. I will try and find this reference for you. However, anybody out there know right off hand where it is - be sure and let us know. Thanks.
Ceremony of Recognition is referenced on page 169, 1st edition, and 170, 2d edition.
ReplyDelete