438 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Anything after D&C 134 is post JS.

Polygamy is still allowed in Mormonism, just not in this life. So that is a clarification of existing revelation.

The giving of the Priesthood to all worthy male members was the fulfillment of existing revelation.

[Brian 2.0]

The church was a lot more exciting back in the day when you could talk about their being "a living prophet of God on the earth" and then go hear them talk and give you revelations that they said they recevied from God.  You'd hear them say, "Thus saith the Lord..." or "The Lord has revealed to me that..."

Today is just seems that our modern prophets are not much different that any leaders of other protestant or even catholic religions.  They give inspiring sermons on topics from the scriptures.  Having "living oracles" on earth is a lot less exciting than it used to be.

[calmoriah]

Look at the scriptures.  Many of the prophets pretty much just repeated the same thing that their predecessors said.

[Cobalt-70]

BCSpace, on 30 January 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Why canonize official doctrine?  Official doctrine in many senses is more important and of greater authority than canon.  Canon requires interpretation by the prophets for us to be sure of what it says.  Official doctrine is the sure understanding itself.

You seem to be advocating an authoritarian view of canon, in which the canon has One Authoritative Interpretation, and the role of the Mormon is to interpret the canon the way their leaders tell them to interpret the canon. And then interpret the interpretations of the canon the way their leaders tell them to interpret the interpretations of the interpretations. Ultimately, the One Meaning of canon is mediated through church authorities rather than through the Holy Spirit. To the extent that the Holy Spirit seems to disagree with the church authority, the Holy Spirit wasn't truly speaking and one who thinks the Spirit guided them is mistaken. Church authorities therefore can be trusted more than the "Holy Spirit."

An alternative model is that the canon speaks with many voices. A member is free to interpret the scripture as the Spirit directs in any given context. The same passage may mean one thing in the context of a mission, something else in the context of a nasty divorce, and yet something else in the context of academic history. Under this model, there is no One True Meaning For All People And All Times to be found within the canon, but the canon can serve as a springboard for a more personal and contextual relationship between the reader and God. This model lacks the certainty of the prior model, and what a scripture might mean for one member may not apply to another member, but for some Mormons it might be more practically useful.

[Cobalt-70]

LeSellers, on 30 January 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

Do you know of any prominent Mormon who was teaching that Jesus didn't personally go to the spirit prison after his crucifixion? As somebody mentioned in an earlier post, James Talmage, who was supposed to be the church's resident expert on this subject, thought Jesus went there personally.

[zerinus]

LeSellers, on 30 January 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

D&C 138 does reveal new doctrine. The fact that Jesus did not go in person among the wicked spirits, but commissioned the righteous spirits to do so is new doctrine. It is something that we did not know until that revelation was given. That makes it new doctrine.

Edited by zerinus, 31 January 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[zerinus]

I personally prefer to move away from the artificial dichotomy of "official doctrine" versus "unofficial doctrine". (If, in fact, there is no such thing as "unofficial doctrine," that makes "official doctrine" redundant too.) I prefer to think of it in terms of "correct doctrine" vs. "incorrect doctrine". I adhere to the following principles:

• Scripture taken as a whole infallibly teaches correct doctrine. This comes with the added qualification mentioned in 2 Peter 1:20-21, that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
  
• Any teaching coming form the Church or its leaders, be it written or spoken, officially published or not, may contain errors in doctrine. Now this does not mean that such errors will always exist, or that they will be numerous. It simply acknowledges that possibility, and that it has occurred on occasion in the past.
  
• The only protection that a Church member has against such a scenario is familiarity with the standard works, accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost. A Church member equipped as above will always be prepared, and need never be deceived or misled by such an error regardless of its source and origin. The scriptures testify to that truth beyond reasonable doubt:

1 Nephi 15:

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the rod of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?
24 And I said unto them that it was the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

2 Nephi 31:

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

2 Nephi 32:

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

Edited by zerinus, 31 January 2012 - 03:56 AM.

[Zeta-Flux]

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility".  The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures.  Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

[zerinus]

Zeta-Flux, on 30 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility".  The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures.  Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

I read infallibility into the scriptures quoted in post #87.

[inquiringmind]

Zeta-Flux, on 30 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

zerinus,

The scriptures say nothing about "infallibility".  The scriptures mention that they may contain the mistakes of men. I don't believe I've ever heard, read, or even been told from a second-hand source that our prophets and apostles have ever even used the word "infallible" with respect to the scriptures.  Infallibility is a philosophical term that you may not want to invoke as it brings in a host of problems.

I've never understood Mormon 9:33.

It seems to say that the BOM contains the mistakes of men, but only because those men couldn't write in Hebrew.

If they could have written in Hebrew, their writings would have contained no imperfections (would have been infallible.)

Is that how you read it?

What does it mean?

Edited by inquiringmind, 30 January 2012 - 11:22 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

zerinus, on 30 January 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I personally prefer to move away from the artificial dichotomy of "official doctrine" versus "unofficial doctrine". (If in fact there is no such thing as "unofficial doctrine," that makes "official doctrine" redundant too.) I prefer to think of it in terms of "correct doctrine" and "incorrect doctrine"....

When you make it a dichotomy between "correct" and "incorrect" doctrine, you are essentially basing the distinction on who has the most power. Nobody who teaches doctrine considers that doctrine to be "incorrect." Whose doctrine is considered "correct" is therefore the person in the church with the greatest power. Thus, Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine was considered "correct" in the 1900s, because he was the President of the Church. When Joseph F. Smith was President, and thus had the most power (Young's pronouncements having lost much of their doctrinal authority when he died and was no longer around to wield his authority), the Adam-God doctrine became considered "incorrect." That's why I don't think a correct/incorrect dichotomy is at all helpful. "Correctness" is merely an assertion of power. The official/unofficial dichotomy is much more tractable, and less overbearing.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

The only perfect/infallible person that has ever lived on this earth was Jesus the Christ. The Prophets of the OT weren't, the Apostles of the NT weren't, neither were Church member in Book of Mormon times, and we sure aren't. Nothing man touches or has a hand in making is perfect. That includes Scripture.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

Edited by thesometimesaint, 31 January 2012 - 05:22 AM.

[zerinus]

Cobalt-70, on 31 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

When you make it a dichotomy between "correct" and "incorrect" doctrine, you are essentially basing the distinction on who has the most power. Nobody who teaches doctrine considers that doctrine to be "incorrect." Whose doctrine is considered "correct" is therefore the person in the church with the greatest power. Thus, Brigham Young's Adam-God doctrine was considered "correct" in the 1900s, because he was the President of the Church. When Joseph F. Smith was President, and thus had the most power (Young's pronouncements having lost much of their doctrinal authority when he died and was no longer around to wield his authority), the Adam-God doctrine became considered "incorrect." That's why I don't think a correct/incorrect dichotomy is at all helpful. "Correctness" is merely an assertion of power. The official/unofficial dichotomy is much more tractable, and less overbearing.

Never heard of so much nonsense put together in one paragraph in all my life.

[zerinus]

thesometimesaint, on 31 January 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

Zerinus:

The only perfect/infallible person that has ever lived on this earth was Jesus the Christ. The Prophets of the OT weren't, the Apostles of the NT weren't, neither were Church member in Book of Mormon times, and we sure aren't. Nothing man touches or has a hand in making is perfect. That includes Scripture.

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

All scripture is both an infallible guide to doctrine and to eternal life.

[zerinus]

inquiringmind, on 30 January 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

I've never understood Mormon 9:33.

It seems to say that the BOM contains the mistakes of men, but only because those men couldn't write in Hebrew.

If they could have written in Hebrew, their writings would have contained no imperfections (would have been infallible.)

Is that how you read it?

What does it mean?

The Nephites chose to write all of their sacred history on metal plates in order to guarantee their preservation to future generations (see Jacob 4:1-2). However, because of the difficulty of making those engravings, they had developed some kind of a "shorthand" method of writing for the purpose of engraving it on those plates, which enabled them to condense a lot of material into a short space. This shorthand method of writing was called “reformed Egyptian”. We have no idea of what it was or what it looked like; all we know is that it existed, and served this kind of purpose. However, it appears that there was also a downside to its use, and the downside of it was that it compromised clarity of expression. They could not compose material in Reformed Egyptian as clearly and unambiguously as they could in Hebrew (or whatever dialect of Hebrew that they had developed). That is what Moroni was referring to in that verse you quoted.

Edited by zerinus, 31 January 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[Nofear]

There are plenty of things which are true which are not doctrine. There are plenty of things officially published by the Church which are true or neither true or not-true, and even a few things which are not true. For me, what constitutes doctrine is a fuzzy circle that resides in correct interpretation of the scriptures and the official statements by the First
Presidency. Almost all commentary by general authorities are helping us shape what "constitutes correct interpretation of scripture" and elucidation of the official statements by the First Presidency. As time goes on, this fuzziness has generally decreased.

[Mark Beesley]

Libs, on 29 January 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Thanks, Zeta..  I am beginning to see that it is, indeed, very complicated!  

Life is too complicated as it is.  Let's simplify it.

There is one official doctrine in the Church:  Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.  He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day.  He is the Christ.

Beyond that, everything the Church publishes, including the Scriptures, is simply intended to guide us to that one great truth, and that one great truth is the only thing the Church is bound by.  All else is subject to change. Does something in a lesson manual lead us to Christ?  Great, follow it.  If you find it doesn't lead you to Christ, then change directions.

So, maybe an interesting question might be, what are the official guideposts?  

[Libs]

Mark Beesley, on 31 January 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Life is too complicated as it is.  Let's simplify it.

There is one official doctrine in the Church:  Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.  He suffered for our sins, was crucified, and rose again on the third day.  He is the Christ.

Beyond that, everything the Church publishes, including the Scriptures, is simply intended to guide us to that one great truth, and that one great truth is the only thing the Church is bound by.  All else is subject to change. Does something in a lesson manual lead us to Christ?  Great, follow it.  If you find it doesn't lead you to Christ, then change directions.

I LIKE that!  

Quote

So, maybe an interesting question might be, what are the official guideposts?  

How is that different from asking what is "official doctrine"?

[Libs]

NoFear...that's an interesting chart.   I like that, as well.

[cinepro]

zerinus, on 30 January 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

D&C 132 does reveal new doctrine. The fact that Jesus did not go in person among the wicked spirits, but commissioned the righteous spirits to do so is new doctrine. It is something that we did not know until that revelation was given. That makes it new doctrine.

Uh, D&C 138?

Edited by cinepro, 31 January 2012 - 12:27 PM.