Comments on: A Textual History of the KFD, Part II

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:33:09 +0000

Me too, Stephen.

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:58:21 +0000

I’ve been hoping for new posts here, but it is good to revisit some of the old ones.

By: Nathan Sorenson

Nathan Sorenson — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:01:32 +0000

It matters that The Pearl of Great Price specifically states that spirits have no beginning – only because the truth is a great defense against those who accuse God of having made them the way they are, by which accusation they justify themselves for sin.

If the word of the Lord in Abraham were not true, those self-justifiers would be right. Because the word of the Lord in Abraham is true, the self-justifiers are not. It’s that simple.

Regardless of whatever errors various leaders have held on the matter, I’m glad the Church printed the truth in the current Priesthood/Relef Society Manual.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:39:31 +0000

J. Stapley,

That first paragraph from MoDoc that you quote in #25 is positively Orwellian. i.e. quote the best evidence contrary to your position, and then pretend that it means the exact opposite of what any plain reading would indicate. In this case implying that the term “self-existent” means exactly the opposite of its dictionary definition.

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:09:35 +0000

It hit me that your argument is not that little children need baptism, it is that they need to live long enough to qualify for baptism … which makes an interesting introduction to the KFD.

Clark, Ultimately the issue is whether intelligence before spirit organization was a full mind or not. But even if it wasn

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:08:09 +0000

Thanks for the heads-up. Searle went with the T&S as source as well. That is the pamphlet with all the Phelps ghostwritten stuff in it. BYU has it in their digital collection, so if I were really dedicated I’d go back and do a textual comparison…maybe not in the immediate future (grin).

The text comparison was fairly painless, much of it being automated by the new version of MS Word. It is definitely the way to go, though (as compared to column comparison).

By: stan

stan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:21:42 +0000

J: I really like the textual comparisons you have done–that is a really helpful way of comparing texts.
I think the assumption that Grimshaw used the T&S text for his new amalgamation in 1856, though it seems like common sense, is erroneous. (Because it seems so obvious, past researchers such as Van Hale and others, have simply assumed that Grimshaw used T&S.) But there is textual evidence that he actually used John Taylor’s 1845 text titled “Joseph Smith’s Last Sermon,” published in a booklet called A Voice of Truth. Taylor’s text introduces the salutary phrase “Beloved Brethren,” which Grimshaw reproduced, and gives an abbreviated first paragraph which I believe lines up quite closely to your comparison.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:02:44 +0000

Hamilton!!

By: J.Hamilton

J.Hamilton — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:24:29 +0000

J.Stapley my Amiens friend. Great work.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:53:41 +0000

SC, I don't think has a clear cut statement on the topic except to say that we are spirit children of Heavenly Parents. I take an adoptive view and typically follow Joseph Smith's explication. I would check out this post's comments to see how things are kind of ambiguous with different General Authorities taking different positions. Most however, appear to have tended to believe in a literal or viviparous spirit birth.