Piecing Together Priesthood Restoration | Investigating Altered Priesthood Accounts

[@C-Tech24]

Love this insight. Pulling together multiple valid sources, and really helps put this portion of historical context into perspective.

[@NancyBrown-xw8hg]

It's really easy to make all of these conjecture with the scant information we have of the time before 1830. It wasn't until the April 1830 first conference that Joseph was commanded to keep a record. Before that they wrote down his revelation but not all the details so yes some things are back dated. The first version of the First Vision is from an 1832 unfinished rough draft of Joseph history and the church. The preamble was written in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams ... Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand firstly he receiving the testamony from on high" This would be his first vision "Seccondly the ministering of Angels" This would be the Angel Moroni and others he briefly mentions. " thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of-Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel- -the Law and commandments as they were given unto him- and the ordinencs," This would be John the Baptist, baptism " forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God .." This would be Peter, James and John giving them the Melchisedec priesthood.

[@NancyBrown-xw8hg]

Silly...Peter, James and John are angels. In Rev 22 John falls to the feet of the angel to worship him but is told; "See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." Angels are not some other kind of beings with wings but servants of God who served him here on earth as men. After death they sit at his throne to continue that service.

[@gusburton2371]

lol very one sided, quoting roughstone rolling, leading questions at the beginning? Interesting but definitely not unbiased

[@BehindTheVeilOfficial]

That is true. This was a one-sided video. Hopefully, I didn't mislead anyone by making people think this was a review of both sides. This was just a review of all of the changes in the story of the restoration of the priesthood and the concerns it brings up about the validity of the story. The purpose of those questions at the beginning was so the viewers knew what was going to be answered in the video. But I am glad you found the video interesting! I appreciate you making your opinion known!!

[@chuckturner7352]

Anytime anyone quotes rough stone, rolling I’m out total foolishness

[@gusburton2371]

@@chuckturner7352 100% hahaha not gonna convince anyone using that out of date trash lol

[@BehindTheVeilOfficial]

I am curious why you believe the book rough stone rolling is foolish.

[@gusburton2371]

@@BehindTheVeilOfficial Obviously the book is perceived as antagonistic to the LDS Church. While it’s acknowledged that some claims in the book may seem plausible, it’s generally regarded as lacking credibility in my opinion. Here’s why: 1. Biased Perspective: The author’s perspective may be biased, which can affect the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented. 2. Selective Interpretation: The book selectively interprets historical events or sources to fit a particular narrative, rather than presenting a balanced view of LDS history. 3. Debunked Claims: Many claims made in “Rough Stone Rolling” have been debunked or disputed by scholars and historians familiar with LDS history. 4. Questionable Sources: Some of the sources or evidence cited in the book may be questionable or unreliable, further undermining its credibility. 5. Limited Scope: The book may not provide a comprehensive or nuanced understanding of LDS history, as it may focus on particular aspects or interpretations that align with its agenda. Overall, while “Rough Stone Rolling” may offer some insights into LDS history, but usually when you’re trying to question the truth claims of the church it’s the equivalent of citing the CES letter… That’s why i liked some of the BYU studies (which I know are biased towards the church) but a much better representation or fair representation imo that still leaves room from plenty of criticism.