Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted September 8, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 8, 2017 26 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: From your link: This seems to be a somewhat disingenuous methodology, craftily weighted towards a favourable outcome...Either Prophets are true, or you did the test wrong. It's easy to assert that I'm a liar. How about an actual demonstration? I'd find that much more persuasive than off-the-cuff slander. My case from the FAIR Mormon essay is this: Quote The Biblical keys for discerning true and false prophets are useful and plentiful, and for the most part, surprisingly neglected. This study includes a hypertext list of Bible tests for true and false prophets. The best known tests turn out to be the ones most qualified by precept and abused in practice. However, most can be applied without careful qualification, each positive test being balanced by complimentary tests for false prophets. Modern use calls for consideration of the Mote-Eye rule (Matthew 7:2-5), that no interpretation or application of a Biblical test for prophets can be correct if it requires us to reject Biblical prophets. Overall, these Biblical tests should focus attention on the truly important points by which we can discern the true and false. Because the attitudes and actions of each individual shape what we can know and perceive, I also include a section on Bible passages that describe what a person should do in order to see truth. In all cases, the recommendations contrast with contrary behavior and attitudes we should avoid. The Bible also includes many[2] of the arguments made to justify rejecting true prophets. I discuss some of the most instructive of these. They demonstrate that what people think and want often emerge as obstacles to their perceiving what is real. Additionally, other objections based on actual Bible tests often demonstrate what Jesus meant when he said that those who do not know what it means to “have mercy, and not sacrifice” may condemn the guiltless. In practice their examples show how the letter kills, and the spirit gives life. The overall picture includes all three elements—tests to apply, actions and attitudes to demonstrate, and mistakes to avoid—and reveals an organic interaction between them. That is, those who use the appropriate tests for prophets also demonstrate the behavior recommended for seeing truth. Those who reject true prophets fall short of the recommended behavior. In consequence, they miss or misapply the actual tests for true prophets, and repeat the kinds of arguments used by those who rejected true prophets anciently. This shows why Jesus said “He that receiveth you receiveth me.” (Matthew 10:40). Despite the passage of millennia, that same issues arise. We too quickly congratulate ourselves for being modern. I include a section on the implications these tests and Biblical examples have for testing the claims of Joseph Smith. One final point is that these are not “proof-texts” by which anyone can compel another person's thinking.[3] Rather they provide essential contexts for the questions we ask about true and false prophets. Each scripture I quote here can and should be further considered in its own cultural and literary context. In some instances, where context is crucial, I have added information from modern scholarship. With respect to both scripture and commentary, I offer a beginning, not an ending. The soil in which we plant such seeds (the “word” in the parable of the Sower) and the care with which we nurture them over time affects our personal harvests. I have noticed that rather than use the whole armory of Biblical tests for prophets, most people prefer to compose their own personal and subjective tests. That makes it far easier to control the outcome. And of course, it all boils down to people saying, "It's not what I think, not what I want." Which is why the voice in 3 Nephi calls for the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit," that is, a willingness to offer up what you desire and think, rather than to hunker down behind personal wants and opinions as if they were inviolate and sacred. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 5 Link to comment
Marginal Gains Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: It's easy to assert that I'm a liar. How about an actual demonstration? I'd find that much more persuasive than off-the-cuff slander. My case from the FAIR Mormon essay is this: I have noticed that rather than use the whole armory of Biblical tests for prophets, most people prefer to compose their own personal and subjective tests. That makes it far easier to control the outcome. And of course, it all boils down to people saying, "It's not what I think, not what I want." Which is why the voice in 3 Nephi calls for the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit," that is, a willingness to offer up what you desire and think, rather than to hunker down behind personal wants and opinions as if they were inviolate and sacred. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I didn’t assert that you were a liar. I stated that the test appeared rigged to produce either an outcome of the Prophet is true, or the tester didn’t do it right. I note that the case you quote, includes the phraseology that indicated to me that it was a rigged test. Quote That is, those who use the appropriate tests for prophets also demonstrate the behavior recommended for seeing truth. Those who reject true prophets fall short of the recommended behavior. I hope that clarifies sufficiently what i was saying. FWIW You aren't going to get along if you can't dialogue without using sly insults when you encounter disagreement. Link to comment
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted September 8, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) "Disingenuous" is a fancy word for liar. I'm an English major and a professional writer, and that is the sort of thing I tend to pick up on over the span of that kind of life. How about providing a better test? I would have thought that the way to test a claim to be a prophet in the Biblical sense would involve using the Biblical tests for true and false prophets. Perhaps you think that using the 28 distinct Biblical tests is itself rigging the results? Should we exclude the Bible tests as a matter of course? Without even considering the possibility that they might be useful in a contemporary setting? Without even examining them or mentioning that they exist as a potential resource? One of the things that surprised me when I assembled them is that no one had done it before. Perhaps you have a better way to test prophets, something more reliable, less subjective, less subject to the charge of "rigging" by persons who don't like how the answer comes out? I'm interested. Sterling McMurrin, for example, famously tested Joseph Smith on the basis of a something he realized when he was younger than he can remember, that "You don't get books from angels, and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." And McMurrin famously admitted that he had never read the Book of Mormon. And if I notice that Jesus recommended that his followers test his claims by "examining the works [of my Father, works none other man did] though ye believe not me, believe the works that ye know and believe" and Luke contrasted that behavior of close examination with those who tested this way: "And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." It strikes me that there is an organic relationship between McMurrin's not bothering to read the Book of Mormon and his view that Joseph's story was an idle tale that he didn't believe. I could even argue that McMurrin's test is rigged to provide the answer that he arrived at, not through his formidable education and scholarship as an adult, but what he had concluded as child, younger than he could remember. It strikes me that the Biblical tests for a prophet are far more rigorous than a skeptical young child's intuitive suppositions about the nature of reality. I can say that because I have been a young child, learned since that I ought to discard a lot of childish thinking, and I have also carefully read the Biblical tests for a prophet. It happens that I made the claim that you object to based on my observations of contemporary human behavior in relation to the Biblical tests for prophets, the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth, and the Biblical examples of Biblical peoples arguing against the claims of Biblical prophets. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited September 8, 2017 by Kevin Christensen style 5 Link to comment
Calm Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: If Church Leadership is sophisticated enough, and bright enough, to understand that the new policy would be leaked, why didn’t they have a plan in place for dealing with a leak of the new policy? Here’s a suggestion - knowing it would be touted globally via social media and the press, why not get ahead of the game and send a letter around to be read over the pulpit explaining the new policy and the rationale behind it? At least then members wouldn’t feel like they were finding out something they weren’t supposed to know, or something the Church was trying to keep quiet for obvious reasons. Being aware of the realities of communication doesn't automatically mean purposefully using one of those realities as a vehicle. One can be aware of gossip spreading news and yet strongly opposed to gossip itself. However, if the intent was to limit knowledge of the policy, then acting to prevent the reality of leaking would be necessary. You don't keep something secret by putting it online in a form open to thousands of people worldwide, at least some of whom one knows have various issues with the Church. My personal opinion/speculation when the policy first leaked (and I have seen nothing to change my mind at this point) is that the policy was being inputted in preparation for its release in conjunction with a more active training. However, as happens at times, it was prematurely activated/placed in public view before supportive materials were also prepared for release. Once released, the Church leadership eventually (I think there was about 5 days of nonresponse, could have been a week) decided to just go with it as it was given the reaction. It was likely believed (understandably given history) that any changes (removing, editing, etc.) would be seen as giving into public pressure and just bring more controversy and more pressure. Any explanation of error would be seen as an excuse rather than explanation. One of the reasons I have this opinion is a discussion about the process of putting stuff online that I had with a relative who was in charge of all of LDS.org several years prior to the policy as well as my own participation in surveys on how to structure online materials. There is a lot of work done prior to putting something in the public view that takes a goodly amount of time usually. I am not posting this opinion as evidence or to be taken as anything besides speculation. It merely demonstrates there are possible explanations for why it went down the way it did without requiring the policy to be something the Church leadership tried to sneak in on local leadership (makes no sense if intended to be implemented) or hide from members (no one could be so unaware of the reality of putting something online available to at least 100,000 members). I accept there is a possibility that it was put online without announcement in order to avoid blowback. I just don't think anyone in Church leadership is clueless enough to expect that nor do I believe that everyone who knew better would have been too cowed to speak out a warning, so I think the possibility is highly unlikely. As Mormonleaks has demonstrated, leadership gets detailed briefings on many subjects and internet leaks was one of them a few years prior to the release of the policy. add-on: Church leadership did not have to add a policy that defined longterm gay couples as apostate in order to be in line with doctrine, homosexual sexual behaviour already was grounds for Church discipline. If they were so concerned with public and member reaction they tried to hide the policy, why bother making it in the first place? There are likely a miniscule number of children being raised primarily in a gay couple's family who would be seeking baptism or name blessing. Again if caring about the public reaction was so significant, doing nothing makes much more sense because of the limited actual difference the policy makes in numbers of excommunications, baptisms, and name blessings. Edited September 8, 2017 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Marginal Gains Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: I didn’t assert that you were a liar. I stated that the test appeared rigged to produce either an outcome of the Prophet is true, or the tester didn’t do it right. I note that the case you quote, includes the phraseology that indicated to me that it was a rigged test. I hope that clarifies sufficiently what i was saying. FWIW You aren't going to get along if you can't dialogue without using sly insults when you encounter disagreement. My point was to question the integrity of the prophetic test suggested within the content, not the poster who was posting it. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear enough from the way I wrote this post and perhaps my choice of words could have been better. Edited September 9, 2017 by Marginal Gains Link to comment
MiserereNobis Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 2:32 PM, Maidservant said: But if the answer to either of those questions is yes, then I would take care worrying about a people who are following a prophet (or a man claiming to be a prophet); when there is a person who is following the leader of their congregation or set creeds that do not even claim to be a prophet and to speak for God. And if they are not, cannot, and will not claim to speak for God--then who are they speaking for? I just want to point out that this may be true of protestantism, but it is not true of traditional Christianity. Tradition, scripture, and the magisterium (priesthood authority) are all God's will. 1 Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 On 9/4/2017 at 2:15 PM, theplains said: Would Latter-day Saints of the present still sustain the leaders of the past who taught the Hill Cumorah was in New York state? I do. Just because a person is called to be an apostle and "prophet" does not mean they have unlimited access to all truth that exists. Prophets only know what God tells them. What God does not tell them , they are free to have an opinion on. God does not remove their agency and right to have an opinion on an issue. The location of Hill Cumorah might be of interest to some people but its not one of vital importance to the membership of the Church and I don't think its a high item on God's list to correct leaders if they get it wrong. That that might be important is that there was a Hill Cumorah. Link to comment
Maidservant Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I just want to point out that this may be true of protestantism, but it is not true of traditional Christianity. Tradition, scripture, and the magisterium (priesthood authority) are all God's will. I love that Catholics confirm that their Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That makes sense to me. Also, I don't care if people want a looser "priesthood of the believers". But my problem comes with moving to criticism of followers of God's EARTHLY authority (in a person), as if we aren't all. I don't think Protestants have escaped that as much as they maintain that they do, whether they call it by "prophet" or not. Mormons and Catholics, and++, just admit it . Link to comment
Recommended Posts