The Revelations of Jesus Christ - Mar 02,2011 - Hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ.Mormon | doctrine | theology... http://ow.ly/1byk2l

Join me LIVE hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ on BlogTalkRadio at http://ping.fm/qUFST or call 1 (718) 664-9754

Joseph Smith Taught Adam is God

Listening to "Joseph Smith Taught Adam Is God" hosted by Art Bulla on #BlogTalkRadio http://tobtr.com/s/1507269

 

Original Air Date: February 24, 2011

Joseph Smith Taught Adam Is God

He (Joseph Smith) taught us that God was the great head of the human procreation--was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies. (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs)

 September 4, 1860 Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized. * * * He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print, and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have never had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. (W. Woodruff's Journal)December 16, 1867 Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.)

Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City and was the son of Richard Horne and grandson of Joseph Horne, said--in reference to the Adam-God Doctrine--that when he first went through the Temple (Salt Lake) for his endowment in 1902 before going on his mission he was surprised to hear the teachings during the temple ceremony that "Adam was our God" and that "He came here with Eve, one of His wives." Also, it was taught that "Eve bore our spirits" (i.e., the spirits of all men). He asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed from the temple ceremony. He feels that they were left over from Brigham Young's influence, but that he himself (Brother Horne) couldn't believe such doctrine. He thinks perhaps Brigham just got off in his speculation. (From C. Jess Groesbeck's Elders Journal, Vol. 1, p. 291)

Joseph Taught Adam is God

Monday, August 17, 2009

4:44 PM

 

He (Joseph Smith) taught us that God was the great head of the human procreation--was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies. (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs)

 

September 4, 1860

Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized. * * * He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print, and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have never had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. (W. Woodruff's Journal)

 

December 16, 1867

Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.)

 

Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City and was the son of Richard Horne and grandson of Joseph Horne, said--in reference to the Adam-God Doctrine--that when he first went through the Temple (Salt Lake) for his endowment in 1902 before going on his mission he was surprised to hear the teachings during the temple ceremony that "Adam was our God" and that "He came here with Eve, one of His wives." Also, it was taught that "Eve bore our spirits" (i.e., the spirits of all men). He asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed from the temple ceremony. He feels that they were left over from Brigham Young's influence, but that he himself (Brother Horne) couldn't believe such doctrine. He thinks perhaps Brigham just got off in his speculation. (From C. Jess Groesbeck's Elders Journal, Vol. 1, p. 291)

 

 

Date:May 19, 1838

Place:Spring Hill, Daviess County, Mo

To:Joseph Smith

 

 

1 SPRING Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

 

(D&C  116:1)

 

 

Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God, and Joseph taught this principle. (Wilford Woodruff Diaries, Dec. 16, 1957)

 

The first article in this questionable publication "Gospel Problems" is in defense of the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. Was he, too, crazy? Was Joseph Smith crazy when he gave us the 116th section of the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the prophet Daniel as there referred to (Dan. 7, 9, 10) or do we hold Jesus Christ responsible for these revelations? Bishop Heber Bennion, Gospel Problems

 

Some of our friends say, "O, it is scriptural and reasonable enough, and truthful, but is out of harmony with the living oracles and therefore must be wrong." We answer, "If it is in harmony with the scriptures, the law and the prophets, truth and reason, who is to blame for its lack of harmony with the living oracles?" But, it is objected, what is the use of a head if you do not follow it? We answer, "What is the use of a neck if it is too stiff to turn the head? What is the use of a heart if it cannot soften and mellow a cold philosophical brain? Can one part of the body say to the other members of the body, "We have no need of thee." Rather, are all the members of the body necessary?"--Paul. Others protest, what is the use of leaders and praying for them if we are not going to sustain them? Does that mean we must uphold them in everything, right or wrong, as [4] though they were infallible? Is it inconsistent for us to vote and pray for them even though we differ with them? Should not Republicans pray for Democratic Presidents, and vice versa, a Democrat pray for a Republican President? These objections are so weak and purile that they tend to strengthen Gospel Problems rather than weaken them. It is further objected that "there is not one constructive idea in the book." We respond, "It does not claim to be a new revelation, direction or dictation of a new program for the church. If so it would be open to criticism as usurping the prerogative of the President of the church. The presumption would be that God had not revealed sufficient to the prophet Joseph Smith and other Presidents, but that some lay member must introduce something new. Gospel Problems do not aspire to anything new. "There is nothing new under the sun."--Solomon. It only presumes to defend, and contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints," and uphold the doctrine of Adam-God as taught by Brigham Young, revealed through Joseph Smith and the prophet Daniel; the correct and literal translation of the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. It is a defense of the constructive idea of the United Order, given to the Saints through the prophet Joseph Smith "for their temporal and spiritual salvation" in contrast with the present financial systems of Zion, which tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, the very antipodes of each other. It is a defense of the constructive idea of the revelation to Joseph Smith on plural marriage, providing for the temporal and spiritual salvation of the millions of widows and mateless maidens that mourn "because of the inhumanity of man to man." It is a protest against the laws of man in direct opposition to the laws of God as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon and the Bible. We maintain that these principles are all constructive and opposition to them is destruction--destructive of faith in God and the principles of eternal truth and righteousness as recorded in the holy scriptures. Declarations against these principles are being applauded in our great tabernacle. One of the imported speakers in the late Educational Convention said that private ownership of property was the very basis of civilization, and that any [5] abrogation of it was anarchy--the doctrine of the Reds, and the penalty deportation; and he was applauded to the echo. And yet God has said "And let not any man among you say that it is his own, for it should not be called his, nor any part of it." (Doc. & Cov. Sec. 104-70). And again, "It is not meet that one man should possess that which is above another; therefore the world lieth in sin." The Superintendent of Public Instruction declared in the tabernacle that the French was the most idealistic nation on the earth," and was most vociferously applauded. Surely the Lord must cut His work short in righteousness or there will be no flesh saved. Can we wonder that the Lord wondered "if He should find faith in the earth at His coming."

There is little doubt that God was offering man a chance to have his eyes opened, his understanding enlightened and to become as the Gods. This is the doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph--that it is possible for man to grow in wisdom and power until he becomes as God.

 

 

[185]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 13

 

FURTHER TEACHINGS ON ADAM

 

A multitude of people were acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith, but only a few did he trust with some of the deeper doctrines. To these closer friends, like those of Jesus who were entrusted with the "pearls" and the "meat" of the Gospel, Joseph taught some of the mysteries of the doctrines of Deity.

 

I do not say that you have not been taught and learned the principle; you have heard it taught from this stand from time to time by many of the elders and from the mouth of our beloved and martyred prophet Joseph.  Therefore my course will not be to prove the doctrine, but refer to those things against which your minds are revolting. Consequently, I would say to this vast congregation of Saints, when we enter into the temple of God to receive our washings, our anointings, our endowments and baptisms for the saving of ourselves, and for the saving of our dead, that you never will see a man go forth to be baptized for a woman, nor a woman for a man.  If your minds should be in any dubiety with regard to this, call to mind a principle already advanced, that when an infinite being gives a law to his finite creatures, he has to descend to the capacity of those who receive his law, when the doctrine of baptism for the dead was first given, this church was in its infancy, and was not capable of receiving all the knowledge of God in its highest degree; this you all believe.  I would keep this one thing in your minds, and that is that there is none, no not one of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, that ever received the fullness of the celestial law at the first of the Lord's commencing to reveal it unto them.

 

 

 

September 17, 1854: President Young preached this afternoon and spoke upon the law of consecration and had an interesting conversation in our prayer circle. The subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer and the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony. It was sacred and one of the last ceremonies attended to in the Endowments ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives, and its doctrine, was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrine taught in The Seer that God had arrived at that state whereby He could not advance any further in knowledge, power and glory was a false doctrine and not true. There never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of Eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience and glory. For if this were the case Eternity would cease to be and the glory of God would come to an end; but all of celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge and power worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us. We should never catch up with him in all Eternity, nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth; could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was, that He came from another world and made this, brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat [68] children and they were earthly and had mortal bodies. And if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning and get revelation from God to govern him and enlighten his mind more, and it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books and go into the canyons as some of the rest of us were doing and it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure. Many good things were said by President Young--that we should grow up in revelation so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph's death.

 

September 4, 1860: Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized; he believed in this work but wanted to close up his business in New York City first. Said when he was baptized that he should lay aside his practice of medicine, as he believed the Lord had provided means for the healing of his Saints without the practice of medicine. He is satisfied [140] that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham; for this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print, it would more than fill this room, but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.

 

December 16, 1867: At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel, and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and was our God and that Joseph taught this principle.

 

*Here, George Q. Cannon is recorded by Wilford Woodruff to have said that God revealed to Joseph that "Adam is our Father".  This is three witness to this: George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young.

 

Created with Microsoft Office OneNote 2003
One place for all your notes

• The Revelations of Jesus Christ: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3 
• "But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken?"  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Two 1834-37 Pg.60
•  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.365
     When a man goes about prophesying, and commands men to obey his teachings, he must either be a true or false prophet. 
•  Our website: http://www.artbulla.com
•  "All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God."  Joseph Smith; TPJS p. 376
• "He that can mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand wherever he can see it...." (T.P.J.S., p. 56)

·         10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (New Testament | Galatians 1:10 - 12)

Posted via email from The Redemption of Zion

Listening to "Joseph Smith Taught Adam Is God" hosted by Art Bulla on BlogTalkRadio http://ping.fm/YjKzj

Original Air Date: February 24, 2011
Joseph Smith Taught Adam Is God

He (Joseph Smith) taught us that God was the great head of the human procreation--was really and truly the father of both our spirits and our bodies. (Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs) September 4, 1860 Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized. * * * He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print, and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have never had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. (W. Woodruff's Journal)December 16, 1867 Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.) Brother Horne and I chatted again tonight about the Gospel and the Adam-God Doctrine, as we have done many times before. Brother Horne, who grew up in Salt Lake City and was the son of Richard Horne and grandson of Joseph Horne, said--in reference to the Adam-God Doctrine--that when he first went through the Temple (Salt Lake) for his endowment in 1902 before going on his mission he was surprised to hear the teachings during the temple ceremony that "Adam was our God" and that "He came here with Eve, one of His wives." Also, it was taught that "Eve bore our spirits" (i.e., the spirits of all men). He asked his father about it but he declined to give any opinion about it. After Brother Horne returned from his mission a few years later, in 1905, he noted these teachings had been removed from the temple ceremony. He feels that they were left over from Brigham Young's influence, but that he himself (Brother Horne) couldn't believe such doctrine. He thinks perhaps Brigham just got off in his speculation. (From C. Jess Groesbeck's Elders Journal, Vol. 1, p. 291)

The Revelations of Jesus Christ - Feb 28,2011 - Hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ.Mormon | doctrine | theology... http://ow.ly/1bvGjg

Join me LIVE hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ on BlogTalkRadio at http://ping.fm/g27dV or call 1 (718) 664-9754

Early Prophecies of Apostacy

Listening to "Early Prophecies of Apostacy" hosted by Art Bulla on #BlogTalkRadio http://tobtr.com/s/1503310

 

Original Air Date: February 22, 2011

Early Prophecies of Apostacy

Early prophecies of Joseph Smith on present apostasy of Mormons read. Wandal Mace, and Mosiah Hancock Journal.

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? (Morm 8:38)

 "The next day the Prophet came to our home and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. `I will show you the travels of this people.' He then showed our travels thru Iowa, and said, `Here you will make a place for the winter; and here you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake! You will build cities to the North and to the South, and to the East and to the West; and you will become a great and wealthy people in that land. *** You will live to see men arise in power in the Church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of;" (Mosiah Hancock Journal, p. 19)

5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. 6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. Isaiah 52:5 - 6)

 

 Revelation received 4/19/2004, Baja, Mexico.

Revelation received 4/19/2004, Baja, Mexico. 
 Therefore I the Lord God had a sure defense, or a wall erected for the defense of the kingdom .  But the wall was torn down and the enemy, saith the Lord, came and sowed tares amongst the wheat.  To wit The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field?  from whence then hath it tares?  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.  The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. These events are shown to be prophesied.

1. Though in the outward church below,
The wheat and tares together grow;
Jesus ere long will weed the crop,
And pluck the tares in anger up.
For soon the reaping time will come,
And angels shout the harvest home.
2. Will it relieve their horrors there,
To recollect their stations here;
How much they heard, how much they
knew,
How much among the wheat they grew?
3. No! this will aggravate their case,
They perish'd under means of grace;
To them the word of life and faith
Became an instrument of death.
4. We seem alike when thus we meet,
Strangers might think we all were wheat;
But to the Lord's all-searching eyes,
Each heart appears without disguise,
5. The tares are spared for various ends,
Some for the sake of praying friends;
Others the Lord, against their will,
Employs his counsels to fulfil.
6. But though they grow so tall and strong,
His plan will not require them long;
In harvest, when he saves his own,
The tares shall into hell be thrown.
7. Oh! awful thought, and is it so?
Must all mankind the harvest know?
Is every man a wheat or tare?
Me, for that harvest, Lord, prepare.

(A Collection of Sacred Hymns, selected by Emma Smith )

Joseph Smith Was Revealed before His Death the Current State of the Church
or
How the Church would be Hijacked by the Wicked Priests of King Noah
(Rich Monogamous Businessman, Bankers Etc.)

Keys of the Priesthood Illus., Lynn L. and Stephen L. Bishop, Draper Utah

 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

(D&C 88:118)
 

Please click on thumbnails below--Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated by Stephen L. Bishop. (please see below explanation of how I was led by the Lord to this "best book" ***):

If the thumbnails below do not function properly, click here:

 

 

5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.
6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. (Old Testament | Isaiah 52:5 - 6)

A Financial Man--Heber J. Grant.

"I know nothing concerning the Gospel; I am a financial man; when I want information I go to President Penrose, E. Talmage or Joseph Fielding Smith.''(Truth 8:325)

Spencer Wooley Kimball was the appointee of Heber J. Grant.  Spencer Wooley Kimball was a real estate man and banker.  A man after Heber J. Grant's own heart.  Spencer Wooley Kimball, for carnal security, saith the Lord, gave the Negro the priesthood.  These half-converted apostates were predicted to be more concerned with carnal security than living the laws of the celestial
kingdom.  These are facts that have to be faced if persons are to free themselves from delusion and inherit the celestial kingdom, even Zion, saith the Lord.

This was predicted in the book of Mormon.  If there's anything that proves the book of Mormon is true it is that it accurately predicted the current state of the Mormon Church.  There could be no stronger anti-Mormon work than the Book of Mormon as it applies to the current apostate state of the Mormon Church.  As proof I give the following:

2 Ne  28:21
 21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into CARNAL SECURITY, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

For those who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon, the wicked priests a King Noah were legitimate priesthood holders of the one true Church on the American Continent.  They became out of order and corrupt and the Lord raised up a prophet named Abinidai to preach to them.  How do I. know that they were legitimate priests?  Alma the elder was one of them.
He heard the words of Abinidai and repented, and baptized in the wilderness because he had the legal priesthood conferred upon him.  He needed nor did he received any further ordination. Alma the younger was his son.  This theme surrounding Alma the Elder and Younger is central to the book of Mormon and it is a hidden truth of the latter-days illuminated  and revealed through the agency of the Lord's anointed.  The Lord has revealed to me that Abinidai is a type of the One Mighty and Strong, and the wicked priests of King Noah are a type of the rich monogamous bankers and businessmen who have hijacked the Church today.  Joseph Smith also saw these affairs and communicated them right before
he was martyred.

 "The next day the Prophet came to our home and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. I went and got my map for him. `Now,' he said, `I will show you the travels of this people.' He then showed our travels thru Iowa, and said, `Here you will make a place for the winter; and here you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake! You will build cities to the North and to the South, and to the East and to the West; and you will become a great and wealthy people in that land. *** You will live to see men arise in power in the Church who will
seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the true followers of our Lord and Savior will be cast down because of their poverty.'" (Mosiah Hancock Journal, p. 19)

The Church had become snappish and unruly, and several of the members in high standing were actually trying to have Joseph Smith killed, and for this reason many of the greatest doctrines ever revealed were hidden from the Church and and revealed in secret to a few men, among whom was Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball in connection with a secret Council. The Reorganized Church of Latter-Day Saints is proof of this, for it stems from Emma Smith, who was not party to the secret rituals of endowment, plural marriage and others.  Some of these doctrines were concerning the Political Kingdom of God i.e. the Council of 50, the Adam-God doctrine, and plural marriage. The Reorganized Church today therefore denies that these practices are legitimate and teach that Brigham Young invented them after the exodus Utah!  Joseph Smith knew that the Church would get out of order even more and become ever more disobedient to the Lord.  What was his consolation?  The doctrine of the One Mighty and Strong who should come would have the keys of the Priesthood by lineage and by right, wresting the Kingdom from the Mormons as John did from the Jews,  counting his lineage from both David and Ephraim.  The Lord would deal with this snappish and unruly people by thrashing them by the power of his spirit through his anointed son whom they were prophesied to turn aside as a "thing of naught":

 15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.
18 But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof.
19 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;
20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.
21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

(2 Ne 28:15-21)
 

This is  a prophecy, saith the Lord, of how the Lord's second born son should be handled and treated by the Latter-Day-Saints! Nothing could have been a clearer description of such men as Van Hale who sets himself up as a light unto the world, to practice priestcraft to get the honor and praise of the world and perverts the right way of the Lord through his learning, which is not revelation, saith the Lord and who mocks and condemns the son and crucifies the Lord afresh because of his worldly learning and pride..

 6 Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
 7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;
 8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

   (D&C  85:6-8)

  How did the devil do this (raise up these Priests of King Noah)? By half-converted, monogamous bankers, businessmen, apostates, wolves: doctors, lawyers, tares sowed by businessmen high priests who became popular with the foolish of the Church, blind who follow the blind, there also being a few humble followers of Christ, shoved in the background, these businessmen know
little or nothing of the truth, except for the basics, so that the balance of power in the Church shifted from a spiritual foundation to a money-making, money grabbing, corrupt institution, whose main carnal security and being friends with the world, which is a goal which is near and dear to the hearts of these bankers and businessmen.  As for the Redemption of Zion, they deny that this will be fulfilled. Francis Michael Darter wrote his book, Zion's Redemption during the reign of the wolf, Heber J. Grant in protest of this policy.

Actual pages of chapter "A Mighty and Strong One" of Zion's Redemption by Francis Michael Darter, another "best book"--click on thumbnails below.

 

*** I might give here, an explanation of my coming in contact with the book mentioned above,

Keys to the Priesthood Illustrated by Lyn L and Stephen L.
Bishop of Draper, Utah. One day in Spring of 1974, while attending Brigham
Young University I took a required class on the Book of Mormon taught by
George W. Pace, held in the Joseph Smith auditorium. George, whom I admired
greatly at the time, used this classroom as an opportunity to instill in
young attendees, what is known as a "testimony" of the precepts and
principles of the Gospel. He at this class meeting had a "question and
answer period" in which students were encouraged to ask questions on
theology which puzzled them or otherwise mystified them. After several
questions had been asked and answered by Bro. Pace, a returned missionary
stood up in the back of the auditorium, which had an echo, and asked in the
loud voice, "While I was on my mission in ___________ (I can't remember the
place) some anti-Mormons gave us literature which quoted Brigham Young
teaching that Adam was God. Would you please tell me if this is true, and if
Brigham Young taught this, was he wrong?" Bro. Pace paused a moment before
replying and answered: "The documents are in Special Collections on the
fifth floor of the Harold B. Lee Library (which was right next door to the
Joseph Smith auditorium). I urge you to go up and read the documents for
yourself and make your own judgment." This created a hue and cry of
astonishment from the class, and this was only my second time that I had
heard the Adam-God theory mentioned. I waited for everyone to file out of
the auditorium and was left to myself, alone, I raised my voice to God asking
Him on the subject. Whereupon I was seized upon by the almighty Power and
Spirit of God which descended upon me, and I was almost physically picked up
and literallyl wafted and carried by the Spirit to the Harold B. Lee library, to the fifth floor,I think it was, but right over to the bookshelf where this book Keys to the Priesthood Illustrated by Lyn L and Stephen L. Bishop of Draper, Utah was
located. I immediately checked it out, carried it home and began to read. A
spirit of fear then came upon me, that I was being deceived, so I took the
book back and to the librarian on that floor I protested that such "apostate
literature" could be had in this of all libraries! Later I have been
revealed in too numerous instances to mention the veracity of almost every
detail of the book. So when I borrow from it you can have my recommendation
that these things are verily true and no twisting of the facts have occurred
by these authors, whom I thank gratefully for their labor and sacrifice in
bringing these things to light. There is one severe caveat, as per
revelation to me that the conclusion of this book, that there is an "Indian
Prophet" who will set in order the house of God is completely inaccurate and
is false doctrine, saith the Lord. So, even out of the "best books" one must
have revelation to guide him or he will fall into grievous errors and
perish. "The hand, the eye, the senses may all be deceived, but the spirit
of God cannot be deceived, and when a man is filled with that spirit, he
knows that which is beyond the power of any man to controvert." Brigham Young.

 

The Revelations of Jesus Christ: http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3 

• "But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken?"  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Two 1834-37 Pg.60
•  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.365
     When a man goes about prophesying, and commands men to obey his teachings, he must either be a true or false prophet. 
•  Our website: http://www.artbulla.com
•  "All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God."  Joseph Smith; TPJS p. 376
• "He that can mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand wherever he can see it...." (T.P.J.S., p. 56)

·         10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (New Testament | Galatians 1:10 - 12)

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from The Redemption of Zion

Listening to "Early Prophecies of Apostacy" hosted by Art Bulla on BlogTalkRadio http://ping.fm/kaOmF

Original Air Date: February 22, 2011
Early Prophecies of Apostacy

Early prophecies of Joseph Smith on present apostasy of Mormons read. Wandal Mace, and Mosiah Hancock Journal. 38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? (Morm 8:38) "The next day the Prophet came to our home and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. `I will show you the travels of this people.' He then showed our travels thru Iowa, and said, `Here you will make a place for the winter; and here you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake! You will build cities to the North and to the South, and to the East and to the West; and you will become a great and wealthy people in that land. *** You will live to see men arise in power in the Church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of;" (Mosiah Hancock Journal, p. 19) 5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. 6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. Isaiah 52:5 - 6) Revelation received 4/19/2004, Baja, Mexico. Therefore I the Lord God had a sure defense, or a wall erected for the defense of the kingdom . But the wall was torn down and the enemy, saith the Lord, came and sowed tares amongst the wheat. To wit The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also...He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.

The Revelations of Jesus Christ - Feb 25,2011 - Hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ.Mormon | doctrine | theology... http://ow.ly/1btsI5

Join me LIVE hearing The Revelations of Jesus Christ on BlogTalkRadio at http://ping.fm/PFnPU or call 1 (718) 664-9754 8pm PST

Mormons Live Deliciously with Babylon the Great

Listening to "Leaders of Mormons Live Deliciously with Babylon the Great" hosted by Art Bulla on #BlogTalkRadio http://tobtr.com/s/1500008

 

Original Air Date: February 20, 2011

Leaders of Mormons Live Deliciously with Babylon the Great

Call from Bob Edwards. Severed from the ordinances for blasphemy and open rebellion. David O McKay attempted to get Church back on track after travesties of Heber J. Grant, but prevented redoing ordinances done under improper authority instituted by Grant by some of the Twelve. Revelations of Jesus Christ read pertaining to being allied with Babylon (living deliciously).

Section 2: 129-132, Revelations of Jesus Christ:

129 For did I the Lord God not speak through the mouth of my servant as he known among men, Ezekial, that if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, that I may take the House of Israel in their own heart, saith the Lord, because they are all estranged from me through their idols, in the which they do live, saith the Lord, deliciously with Babylon the Great, and seek even the praise and honor of the world?

130 And this is recorded in the 14th Chapter of the Book of Ezekiel, the ninth verse.For did I the Lord God not also grant unto Israel, through Samuel, my servant, who saw much affliction because of the wickedness of the Children of Israel in his days, that they also should have a king like unto other nations, which wast the desires of their hearts? 131 And did this also not prove to be a snare and a curse unto them, for how oft was Israel led astray through the wickedness of her kings?

132 And did not Utah, saith the Lord, desire to become a state like unto all other states, and for this cause ye did forsake my law, even that of Abraham, O ye Latter-Day-Saints, yea, even that which ye, O ye Gentiles call polygamy, even as Israel hath forsaken my statutes and my judgments in all ages of the world and have even gone whoring after strange gods?

 

The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 2:

117 And he that will harden his heart against these things, and go on in the blindness of his mind, must perish, saith the Lord, with them who are wise and prudent and lifted up in the pride and cares of the world, even your merchants, your doctors, and your lawyers and your scribes, and pharisees, and your teachers, and your politicians, and all those who do uphold that which is known as Babylon the Great, who are mine enemies, saith the Lord, who are pillars which uphold the kingdoms of this world, which are of the devil, and who did take mine Only Begotten to the top of the Temple and say unto him, all these are kingdoms and they are mine, and who did crucify mine Only Begotten in that day because of his so-called offense against their order, and to which my people Israel are enslaved, even Zion and are trodden under foot by them at this time, saith the Lord God of Israel.

118 For would not the wicked and ignorant of the children men trod under foot the very God of Israel if in their power?

119 And for this reason they shall be ground, even into powder by my warriors, who are full of honor, saith the Lord.

120 For is thy slavery, O my people, not worse than that of Pharoah?

121 And did I not prophesy these things through the mouth of my servant Moses, in the Book of Deuteronomy in that day?

122 And these, servants of the world, if they retreat not from their stand, shall suffer the second death, for who shall withstand the Holy One of Israel, who is a consuming fire of those who are mine enemies as in the days of Pharoah.
123 And this hath been my gosple, saith the Lord, in all ages of the world upon which thou standest.

124 And now as I said concerning your Presidencies, saith the Lord, that if it should be that they should wholly depart from my counsels unto them, in the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds, which thing hath afflicted almost all of your authorities from the time of Joseph Smith, that they shall not have power to appoint another in the stead thereof.

125 For there is an end to their priesthood, if they should cause themselves to be severed from the heavens.

126 And it was that even my servant Joseph did plead long and hard unto me concerning the manuscript, in the which I did grant unto him that which did prove to be a snare and a curse instead of a blessing, saith the Lord.

127 And in this day, saith the Lord, them who ye unlawfully sustain as your Presidencies, did also plead long and hard, even as my servant Joseph, for that which was not right, and I the Lord God did grant that which should be a snare unto their souls, ven in these things, yea, even unto their destruction.

128 And how much greater was my servant Joseph, than them whom ye sustain as your presidents, saith the Lord?

129 For did I the Lord God not speak through the mouth of my servant as he known among men, Ezekial, that if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, that I may take the House of Israel in their own heart, saith the Lord, because they are all estranged from me through their idols, in the which they do live, saith the Lord, delisciously with Babylon the Great, and seek even the praise and honor of the world?

130 And this is recorded in the 14th Chapter of the Book of Ezekial, the ninth verse.For did I the Lord God not also grant unto Israel, through Samuel, my servant, who saw much affliction because of the wickedness of the Children of Israel in his days, that they also should have a king like unto other nations, which wast the desires of their hearts?

131 And did this also not prove to be a snare and a curse unto them, for how oft was Israel led astray through the wickedness of her kings?

132 And did not Utah, saith the Lord, desire to become a state like unto all other states, and for this cause ye did forsake my law, even that of Abraham, O ye Latter-Day-Saints, yea, even that which ye, O ye Gentiles call polygamy, even as Israel hath forsaken my statutes and my judgments in all ages of the world and have even gone whoring after strange gods?

133 And your presidencies, saith the Lord, have hearkened unto the voices of them whom I did not send, they did bow unto the clamor that those who call themselves Latter-Day-Saints should become in the abominations thereof like unto all other nations who in their wisdom know not God, and his righteous decrees concerning the nations and their boundaries and habitations which were before set by me and councils of the Sons of God before the world was made, even by them, saith the Lord God of Israel.

134 And it is for this reason that I the Lord God of Israel have raised up my servant,as he is known among men, Art Bulla, that he shall call down that which shall destroy mine enemies, even in times of old, yea even that of Elijah, my Son. 135 And ye shall hearken unto his words, saith the Lord, unto my people who are called Latter-Day-Saints, or ye shall be cut off, yea forever and cast into the fire, saith the Lord God, who is mighty to the consuming of those who fight against me as in the days of Pharoah. The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 2.

 

Concerning the leftist assassination of the text in Daniel (http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html):

 

 
[Introduction: Critics on Daniel] [Placement in Canon] [Jesus Ben Sirach] [Historical Issues] [Linguistic Issues] [Indications of Early Date] [The 4 Kingdoms Issue] [Conclusion]

Outside of the Pentateuch, no book of the OT has been subjected to as much scrutiny as the Book of Daniel. The detailed and accurate prophecies contained in that book have motivated many, Skeptic and professed believer alike, to subscribe to the theory of a late date of composition for Daniel in the time of the Maccabees.

Generally, the Maccabeean theory holds that the Book of Daniel was written around 168-165 BC. Most modern radical critics hold that the book was completed in its final form at that time, but some allow for parts of Daniel (mainly chapters 1-6) to have an earlier date prior to 168-165. Some say the editor in the 2nd century used certain traditions to compose the final form of Daniel.

Others have said that the book has many authors (one scholar says that there were six authors). All of them agree, however, that the final form of the book was completed around 165 BC. We will show that such late date hypotheses are NOT indicated by the evidence.

A word to begin, relative to the state of the question at hand. In many cases we shall cite an argument originally used by a critic who wrote at the beginning of this century, S. R. Driver. Since Driver first wrote, the arguments about Daniel have barely changed (Eccl. 1:9) - indeed, some of the arguments that Driver later retracted are still in use by some critics.

We shall see especially that, even as some liberal scholars slowly come to a more traditional outlook on some aspects of Daniel, Skeptics of the lower rank like Bernard Katz, and most recently Tim Callahan, continue to use long-refuted arguments against this important book.

Limitations of this Study

We will focus here upon arguments relative to the historicity and dating of Daniel, and as related, the fulfillment of its political prophecies. We will not be looking at the seventy weeks prophecy or anything having to do with prophecies commonly thought to be in our own future. On that issue see here.

Canon Fire: A Fair Prophet?

Our first set of arguments relates to the placement of Daniel in the OT canon.

First, a technical objection is sometimes made that Daniel was placed in the "Writings" and not the "Prophets." Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 1; see also DilHart.BDan, 25] writes:

The Hebrew canon consists of three divisions, the 'Law', the 'Prophets', and the 'writings', and Daniel is included in the third and last division. This suggests that the book was not known by 200 B.C. , about the time when the collection of prophetic writings was assembled.

And Driver [Driv.BD, xivii-xiviii] said earlier:

...there are strong reasons for thinking that the threefold division represents three stages in the collection and canonization of the sacred books of the O.T.,--the Pent. being canonized first, then the 'Prophets' (in the Jewish sense of the expression), and lastly the Kethubim. The collection of the 'Prophets' could hardly have been completed before the third century B.C.; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, and been believed to be the work of a prophet, it is difficult not to think that it would have ranked accordingly, and been included with the writings of the other prophets.

In response to this objection, Archer [Arch.DEx, 7-8] writes:

As for the placement of Daniel in the Masoretic arrangement of the canon, this is completely without evidential force. Writing in the east first century A.D. Josephus made the following statement concerning the Hebrew canon (Contra Apion I, 38-39 [8]): 'We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.' He then broke these twenty-two books down into three categories: five books of Moses (ie., the Pentateuch), thirteen books of the Prophets, and the remaining four books that 'embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of life.' The four books of poetry and wisdom were unquestionably Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. These four constituted the entire third division of the canon---the Writings---in Josephus's day, rather than the thirteen assigned to it by the Masoretes of the late first millennium A.D.

As for the thirteen books of the Prophets, as recognized in the first century A.D., they were apparently the Former Prophets, including Joshua, Judges-Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (which were classified by the second century B.C. LXXs Major Prophets), the Twelve Minor Prophets as one volume (since they could all be included in one large scroll), Song of Solomon, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther. There is no possibility that Josephus could have regarded Daniel as belonging to the Writings. Very clearly he included it among the Prophets, along with Solomon's prophetic parable of love (S of Songs) and the exilic and postexilic books of history, all of which were composed from a prophetic perspective. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the Masoretic division of the canon, coming as it did six or seven centuries after Flavius Josephus, has no bearing whatever on the date of Daniel's composition or on its status as a truly prophetic work.

And Whitcomb [Whit.BD, 15-6] adds:

Most conservative Old Testament scholars believe that Daniel was not placed among the prophets in our present Hebrew Bible because he served in a foreign court, did not prophesy directly to the people of Israel, and included much historical material in the book. But, significant evidence is available that Daniel was originally counted among the prophets and was only shifted to another category of canonical books of Hebrew scribes in the fourth century A.D.

First, Daniel was listed among the prophets in the Septuagint translation (hence the position of our English Bibles through the medium of the Vulgate). Second, Josephus (first century A.D.) listed Daniel among the prophets. Third, Melito, bishop of Sardis (A.D.70), did the same. Fourth, Origen (d. A.D. 254) listed Daniel before Ezekiel and the twelve prophets. R. Laird Harris thus argues not only for the full canonicity of the book of Daniel but also its inclusion among the prophetic books in the most ancient Hebrew collections.

And Archer says elsewhere [Arch.SOT, 388-9]:

The Masoretes may have been influenced in this reassignment by the consideration that Daniel was not appointed or ordained as a prophet, but remained a civil servant under the prevailing government throughout his entire career. Second, a large percentage of his writings does not bear the character of prophecy, but rather history (Chap.1-6), such as does not appear in any of the books of the canonical prophets. Little of what Daniel wrote is couched in the form of a message from God relayed through the mouth of His spokesman.

These findings are confirmed by Koch [Koch.DanP], who points out that Daniel was regarded as being among the prophets in the NT, in the LXX, and at Qumran. The shift to the Writings, he says, was not until the 5th-8th century AD.

Canon Fire II: Ben Sirach

The second canon-related objection observes that Jesus Ben Sirach - whose writings are often called upon to verify the state of the OT canon - quotes all the Prophets except Daniel in 170 BC. This is taken to mean that Sirach was unaware of Daniel; hence, it was written after 170 BC. A coherent form of this objection was made by Driver [Driv.BD, xivii; see also Lacq.Dan, 7]:

Jesus, the son of Sirach (writing c. 200 B.C.), in his enumeration of famous Israelites, Ecclus. xliv--1., though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel. In view of the remarkable distinctions attained by Daniel, and the faculties displayed by him, according to the Book, the statement in Ecclus. xlix. 15 that no man had ever been born 'like unto Joseph,' seems certainly to suggest that the writer was unacquainted with the narratives respecting Daniel.

Archer [Arch.SOT, 389] responds:

But it should be pointed out that other important authors like Ezra received no mention either. Nor for that matter did he make mention of such key figures in Hebrew history as Job, or any of the Judges except Samuel; Asa, Jehoshphat, and Mordecai. How can such omissions furnish any solid ground for the idea that these leaders were unknown to Jesus Ben Sirach?

In this regard, it should be noted that Ecclesiasticus failed to mention people outside of Israel. The writer was very Sadducean and nationalistic; he selected personalities to feature according to his own ideas. He pays no attention to those outside Israel: Jonah at Nineveh, Daniel at Babylon, and Mordecai in Persia. Thus, aside from being an argument from silence, pointing out that Sirach did not mention Daniel is irrelevant.

Some do, however, find allusions to the Book of Daniel in Sirach's work, which would make the point moot - SRM.Dan, 25-6.

As for one "not being like Joseph," it should be noted that, unlike Joseph, Daniel did NOT save the entirety of Israel from extinction and did not do anything to raise the Jews as a whole to prominence. Far too much emphasis is placed on the fact that both received dreams as a prophetic tool; the differences between these two personages tend to be ignored.

Historical Issues

[Introduction] [The Siege of Daniel 1:1] [The Chaldeans] [Belshazzar] [Darius the Mede] [Daniel in Ezekiel] [Nebuchadnezzar: Spelling of Name] [Nebuchadnezzar: Madness] [Satraps] [Where Was Daniel at Furnace-Time?] [How Found Ten Times Better?] [The Watchers]

With this section we get into the "meatiest" objections against the Book of Daniel - and the place where we have the most controversy.

The Siege

Critics observe historical inaccuracies in Daniel 1:1 and the lack of a contemporary account of a siege of Jerusalem [see Call.BPFF, 152; DilHart.BDan, 34]. Driver [Driv.IOT, 498] complained:

That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and carried away some of the sacred vessels in 'the third year of Jehoiakim' (Dan.1), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable: not only is the Book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah, in the following year (c.25) speaks of the Chaldeans in a matter which appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah.

In response, Archer [Arch.DEx, 14] notes:

Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar's first invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem took place in the third year of Jehoiakim, whereas Jeremiah 46:2 dates the first year of Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This objection was raised before modern scholarship understood the complexity of ancient Near-Eastern dating systems. We now know that in Judah the non-accession-year system was followed, whereby the calendar year in which a new king acceded to the throne was reckoned as the first year of his reign (which in the case of Jehoiakim would have been 608 B.C.). But in the northern kingdom (which, of course, came to an end in 722 B.C.) and in Babylon, the accession-year system prevailed. According to this reckoning, the year when the new king came to power would be called simply his accession year. The first year of his reign would not begin until the commencement of the next calendar year. Thus, by the Babylonian reckoning, Jehoiakim's first year was 607; therefore Nebuchadnezzar's invasion in 605 was Jehoiakim's third year. Who can fault Daniel, living in Babylon, for following the Babylonian reckoning? Therefore this argument turns out to be not only worthless but a confirmation that the author of Daniel wrote from a Babylonian perspective.

And Baldwin [Bald.Dan, 19-20] adds:

It is true that there is no mention of a siege of Jerusalem at this time in 2 Kings, though it does say that in the days of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years' (2 Kings 24:1), and Chronicles adds, 'Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon' (2 Chron. 36:6). The presence of Nebuchadrezzar in Jerusalem is thus doubly attested prior to the siege of 597 B.C., which was in Nebuchadrezzar's seventh year, just after the death of Jehoiakim in his eleventh year (2 Kings 24:6-10). The publication of the Babylonian Chronicles in the British museum made available an independent source of precise information relating to the events of Nebuchadrezzar's accession.

The following table sets out the details as they can be reconstructed from the Babylonian data for 605 B.C.

• January/February -- Army returned from a campaign to Babylon
• April/August -- Battle of Carchemish, after which Nebuchadrezzar pursued the Egyptians south and conquered the whole of Hatti-land (i.e. Syria-Palestine). [see also SRM.Dan, 57]
• August 15 -- Death of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadrezzar
• September 7 -- Accession of Nebuchadrezzar.

In light of this information the biblical statements begin to look probable. Jehoiakim had been put on the throne by the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23:34) and therefore Nebuchadrezzar, in taking all that belonged to the king of Egypt (2 Kings 24:7), would need to include the king of Judah. This would be the occasion when Jehoiakim became his servant and was bound in fetters to be taken to Babylon. Whether he made the journey or not we cannot know. The Bible is consistent in asserting that Nebuchadrezzar put pressure on Jerusalem and it's king; the Babylonian evidence allows time for him to do so. It is also clear why the outcome is left vague. The death of his father made the return of the crown prince imperative (he had been called king proleptically, as in Jer. 46:2); he would need to leave the army in the command of his generals and travel light with all speed back to Babylon as Berossus recounted.

This objection therefore fails.

Chaldeans

It is said that the term "Chaldeans" was not as specialized in the 6th century B.C. as it was in 2nd century B.C. The book of Daniel specializes the term to refer to magicians and astrologers. [see Call.BPFF, 166; Porte.Dan, 28] Montgomery [JM.CCBDm 73] formulates the objection thusly, finding it important enough to say:

Perhaps transcending the obvious historical difficulties recorded above is the naive use of "Basic-Chaldeans" as a class of magicians.

And Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 4] adds:

The word Chaldeans is used to describe an astrologer, but was not used in this way in the sixth century B.C. It is unlikely that Daniel would have a prefectship over the astrologers (Dan. 2:48) as this would have involved membership of the Babylonian priesthood. (Nehemiah and Esther both refer, however, to high positions held by Jews at the Persian court).

This objection is also noted by Katz [Kat.McD].

Archer [Arch.SOT, 390], however, replies:

This theory, however, fails to fit the data of the text, for the author of this work was certainly aware that Kasdim was the ethnic term for the race of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus in Daniel 5:30 Belshazzar is referred to as the king of the Chaldeans; in this case the term certainly could not refer to any class of wise men. Therefore, we must look to other explanations for the twofold use of Kasdim. Herodutus (vol. 1, sec 181-183) refers to the Chaldeans in such a way as to imply that they were speedily put into all the politically strategic offices of Babylonia as soon as they had gained control of the capital. If this was the case, then "Chaldean" may have early come into use as a term for the priests of Bel-Marduk.

And Baldwin [Bald.Dan, 28-9] adds:

Since Nebuchadnezzar was a Chaldean by race the ethnic use of the term in the book of Daniel is not surprising; its use by Herodotus as a technical term for the priests of Bel in the fifth century B.C. shows it had already by then a secondary sense. There is nothing incongruous about the use of the term in both meanings, nor need it cause confusion, any more than our use in English of the word 'Morocco' to designate both the country and the leather for which it is famous. Needless to say the Moroccan would not use the name in both these senses.

Baldwin goes on to say that although the term is used only in the ethnic sense in Assyrian records in the 8-7th centuries B.C., there is no use of the term - in EITHER sense - in Babylonian documents in the 6th century (although Diodorus Siculus indicates that the caste was around as early as the time of Nabopolassar, Nebucadnezzar's father). It is simply a presumptuous argument from silence to say that the term is an anachronism [Mill.D16, 70].

Interestingly, Lacocque admits to the earlier uses in Herodotus [Lacq.Dan, 27], but STILL insists, without any substantiation, that Daniel's use of the term would be too early.

As for Daniel being leader over this bunch, it was hardly required that he endorse all of their practices to be their leader. One must show that Daniel would have had to personally corrupt himself in order for this objection to have any force.

Belshazzar

Our third objection set concerns the personage of Belshazzar. Let us first, for a moment, that it was once argued that Belshazzar did not exist at all. With that in mind, now that critics assent to his existence, they are reluctant to grant him his due as he is represented by Daniel, saying that he was: a) not a King, and b) not a son of Nebuchadnezzar, as Daniel indicates. Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 4] writes:

Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 5:11), although he was the son of Nabodinus. He was heir to the throne and may have acted as regent in his fathers absence, but he was never actually a King despite Dan 5:1-30;8:1.

And Driver [Driv.IOT, 498] adds:

Belshazzar is represented as king of Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of throughout (chap. 5:2,11,13,18,22) as his father. In point of fact Nabodinus was the last King of Babylon; he was a usurper, not related to Nebuchadnezzar, and one Belsharuzer is mentioned as his son. Belsharuzur's standing title is the 'king's son,' something like the 'crown prince.'

This objection, too, is noted by Katz. Archer [Arch.SOT, 391-2] replies to the objections:

This argument, however, overlooks the fact that by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship. Thus in the Egyptian story, 'King Cheops and the Magicians (preserved in the papyrus Westcar from the Hyksos Period), Prince Khephren came to pass in the time of thy father, King Neb-ka.' Actually Neb-ka belonged to the Third Dynasty, a full century before the time of Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty. In Assyria a similar practice was reflected in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which refers to King Jehu (the exterminator of the whole dynasty of Omri) as 'the son of Omri.'

Archer then goes on to explain that Belshazzar could have been a literal grandson of Nebuchadnezzar if Nabodinus married one of his daughters:

There is fairly conclusive evidence that Belshazzar was elevated to secondary kingship during the time of Uzziah in the kingdom of Judah--a common practice in ancient times in order to secure a peaceful succession. Recent archaeological discoveries indicate that Belshazzar was in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire while his father Nabodinus maintained his headquarters at Teman in North Arabia. Among the discoveries at the site of Ur is an inscription of Nabunaid containing a prayer for Nabunaid himself followed by a second prayer for his firstborn son, Bel-shar-usur, such prayers being customarily offered only for the reigning monarch. Still other cuneiform documents attest that Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen at the temples in Sippar as 'an offering of the king.'

Clearly, Belshazzar was regarded as a "king" in a full sense of the word - indeed, the evidence is so clear that even the liberal Lacocque admits that the cuneiform evidence "militate(s) in favor of a reign of Belshazzar." [Lacq.Dan, 92, emph. in original] The kingship is further confirmed by Xenophon, who, reporting on the fall of Babylon, says that the "king" was slain. He does not name this king, but since Nabodinus was in custody at the time (according to Berosus, he was captured and deported - MillS.Dan, 168) - and since Xenophon describes this king as "a riotous, indulgent, cruel, and godless young man" (that would be a bad description of Nabodinus) - Xenophon must be referring to Belshazzar [Ford.Dan, 122; Gold.Dan, 107].

Finally, there is this consideration: The Aramaic language did not have a word for what Belshazzar actually was: a "crown prince." Therefore, Daniel would have had to use the nearest functional word (from the point of view of the Jews, and their own concept of what a co-regency was) to describe what Belzy was doing. [Mill.DBel, 77]

As for the father/son relationship, there are many possible answers to this:

1. Archer notes above the reference to "Jehu son of Omri." This reflects a general Oriental usage of father/son terminology. Textual (non-Biblical) evidence reveals that "son" was used at least 12 different ways in the ancient Orient, and "father" was used at least 7 different ways [Ford.Dan, 123; MillS.Dan, 149].

2. Hints of an actual familial relationship, however, provide a more convincing solution to the problem. Indications of such are given by Herodotus, who reports that the queen mother Nitorcris, Nebucadnezzar's wife, was the "mother" of Nabodinus [Town.Dan, 70] - perhaps meaning by this, the mother-in-law.

   The realization of this kind of relationship, or something similar, is being slowly adapted even by liberal critics. Oriental monarchs who were usurpers commonly tried to legitimate their claim to the throne by marrying their predecessor's wife or daughter [Bout.IABD, 116]. This may be indicated in the case at hand by the fact that Nabodinus named one of his sons after Nebucadnezzar. Furthermore, one of Nabodinus' predecessors, Neriglissar, himself married one of Nebucadnezzar's daughters, so there would be a precedent for Nabodinus to follow.

   In light of the above, it may be suggested that Daniel shows a polemical awareness of such an attempt to legitimate the rule of Nabodinus. The repeated emphasis upon the father/son relationship of Nebucadnezzar and Belshazzar serves to highlight the fact that Belshazzar is decidedly UNlike his "father" Nebucadnezzar - he is, by comparison, grossly incompetent, sensual, worthless, and ignorant of the power of the true God.

   A very thin blood relationship may have been exaggerated, or even created out of whole cloth by the usurpers [see Meadw.ADGD, 64], to perpetrate the fiction that Nabodinus and Belshazzar were legitimate heirs of the throne - and Daniel may well be reflecting this exaggeration/court fiction in his own polemical manner.

   Note especially the implication that the queen mother was NOT invited to the banquet, and that Daniel was no longer a recognized wise man - which would fit in with the idea of a usurper "cleaning house" for his own protection, and a polemical response by Daniel. [see esp. Fewe.CSov, 82, 91-2]

Moreover, the very mention of Belshazzar is proof of an early date for Daniel. Recall, again, that it was once argued that Belshazzar never existed. Here is why, according to Archer [ibid.]:

The fact that by the time of Herodotus (ca 450 B.C.) the very name of Belshazzar had been forgotten, at least so far as the informants of the Greek historian were concerned, indicates far closer acquaintance with the events of the late sixth century on the part of Daniel than would have been the case by the second century B.C.

Archer goes on to explain that the writer of Daniel 5:16 can only promise Daniel to be 3rd ruler in the kingdom is proof of the book's veracity. Why could he not promise #2? Because Belshazzar was #2 as long as his father was still alive.

Baldwin [Bald.Dan, 22-3] adds these words, in line with what has been said above, and serves as a summary:

Five times in chapter 5 Nebuchadrezzar is referred to as his father, and Belshazzar is called his son (5:22). The assumption has often been made that the author's knowledge was so defective that he thought Belshazzar was literally son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas we know that his father was Nabodinus, son of a Babylonian nobleman, Nabu-alatsu-iqbi. It needs to be borne in mind that the terms 'father' and 'son' are used figuratively in the Old Testament. Elisha called Elijah 'my father' (2 Kings 2:12); 'sons of the prophets' were their disciples, and there is some evidence that outstanding kings gave their name to successors who were not of their dynasty. There is in Esdras 3:7, 4:42 an interesting example of a king bestowing as a prize the honour of being called his kinsman, or cousin. Nevertheless the constant repetition of the father-son theme in Daniel appears to imply more, as though the legitimacy of the king might have been under attack.

Baldwin goes on to explain, too, that Belshazzar could be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar (a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar could have carried Belshazzar's father, thus making it very literal).

Darius the Mede

Our fourth objection set concerns another personage in the Book of Daniel - Darius the Mede. Darius the Mede is regarded as a fictional character, or at very best a confusion based on Cyrus' third son - who was not a Mede, but a Persian. Again, Hamner [Hamn.Dan, 4]:

The book also regards 'Darius the Mede' (Dan. 5:31; 6:25) as responsible for the conquest of Babylon and its first ruler. Persian records refer to the conquest by Cyrus and to the governorship of Gubaru (Gobryas), a Persian.

This objection is alluded to by Katz [Kat.McD].

Admittedly, this is by far the most difficult historical problem in the book - albeit not "insurmountable" as Lacocque [Lacq.Dan., 109] suggests. There are two major responses to this problem. One is a proposal by John Whitcomb that Darius the Mede is to be identified with Gubaru, the provincial governor of Babylon. Whitcomb's work, we may note, is conspicuously absent from the bibliographies of, or is never cited by, Lacocque and others who regard the problem as "insurmountable".

The other is a proposal by Donald Wiseman (supported by Shea, Shea.DMedePB, and Colless, Coll.CPDMede) that Daniel 6:28 should be translated, "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius even the reign of Cyrus the Persian," i.e., taking the former name as a throne name - so that Darius the Mede is, in fact, Cyrus the Persian. Both interpretations have attractive features.

Let us first consider the case for the Gubaru equation. Whitcomb suggests that "there is one person in history, and only one who fits all the Biblical data concerning Darius the Mede. He is never mentioned by the Greek historians, but appears in various sixth century B.C. cuneiform texts under the name of Gubaru." [Whit.DMede, 10-16] The central feature of this view is to distinguish Gubaru form Ugbaru, both of whom are called Gobryas in some translations of the Nabodinus Chronicle.

Whitcomb shows that Ugbaru died within weeks of his capture of Babylon, while the latter continued as governor of Babylon for at least fourteen years. About the significance of the confusion between Ugbaru and Gubaru, Whitcomb writes, "...many were led to assume that Ugbaru and Gubaru were the same person and were to be identified also with the "Gobryas" of Xenophone's Cyropaedia. This effort to identify Darius the Mede with a composite 'Gobryas' was clearly unsatisfactory, and opened the door for critics to deny any possibility of an historical identification for Darius the Mede." [ibid., 24]

According to Whitcomb's theory, Gubaru was born in 601 B.C. to Ahasuerus, a Mede, and was appointed by Cyrus as governor over Babylon and the "Region beyond the River." He assumed the kingship over this territory when Cyrus himself withdrew from Babylon, and appointed his own supervisors over his dominion, holding the power of life and death over them.

But now to the Cyrus equation. Wiseman translates Daniel 6:28, "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even (namely, or i.e.) the reign of Cyrus the Persian." And he continues to support his case: "Such a use of the oppositional or explicative Hebrew waw construction has long been recognized in 1 Chronicles 5:26 ("So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria even the spirit of Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria") and elsewhere."

This seems to be supported by the Septuagint and Theodotion which translates Daniel 11:1 the "first year of Cyrus" rather than the "first year of Darius". It could be that Darius the Mede had dual names; this sort of argument is advanced by Colless [Coll.CPDMede, 113], who (though he accepts a late date for Daniel) believes that the double-naming of Cyrus was a reflection of the propensity of the Daniel author to use "double names" for characters (i.e., Daniel/Belteshazzar) - and asserts that Daniel 6:28 was expected to be understood by the reader as making the Darius/Cyrus connection.

Another explanation of this sort suggests that Daniel was emphasizing Cyrus' Median bloodline - his father was a Persian, but his mother was a Mede [Shea.DMedePB, 251; Gold.Dan, 51] - in order to demonstrate the exact fulfillment of earlier OT prophecies of victory by a Mede.

Other indications of this equation may be called upon. The apocryphal story of the Three Guardsmen seems to indicate that Darius the Mede was Cyrus, as does the story of Bel and the Dragon [Bald.Dan, 27; MillS.Dan, 176]. The personal data recorded in Daniel seems to lend support to either identification - Gubaru or Cyrus. Darius the Mede was said to have been 62 when he assumed power; this would fit either Gubaru or Cyrus from what we know. (Cicero tells us that Cyrus died at age 70; cuneiform texts say that Cyrus ruled 9 years after Babylon was captured

Posted via email from The Redemption of Zion