Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SettingDogStar

The First Three Verses of WoW

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I am not trusting man I am trusting God to inspire his prophets to lead correctly

 

Of course God will inspire His prophets correctly.  He is perfect.  I think the scripture (2 Nephi 28:31) is not stating that God won't do His job, but that His servants may not do their part. 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, hoo rider said:

Of course God will inspire His prophets correctly.  He is perfect.  I think the scripture (2 Nephi 28:31) is not stating that God won't do His job, but that His servants may not do their part. 

Well we have to put some degree of trust in the servants or we have no one else to lead us. I can lead myself on personal things, but the members in general have to rely on the prophets to get things right at least most of the time otherwise who else can we get direction on for matters of doctrine? In my opinion their track record has been pretty good so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’ve heard debate recently on whether or not the first 3 verses of the Word of Wisdom were actually part of the revelation. Some claim they were a header and thus should not be considered as actual scripture, while others say that it was always meant to be there and part of the revelation received.

If, in fact, it was a header then it would ruin any arguement using “not by commandment or constraint” as justification for considering the WoW not binding. I always assumed it was and thus I always thought it was interesting that it eventually became a commandment. 

And clarification would be good!!

(As also the Mild Drinks is Barley was always an interesting thing to think about)

The Book of Mormon is full of "headers" and I do not refer to the chapter headings (Jacob 1:4 -- "And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people.").

As long as they were approved as cannon by common consent by the saints before us, we are obligated to incorporate them into our current standard, whether we do so by faith, prayer and spiritual confirmation, reason, or any other way people take the scriptures and liken or apply them to themselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Book of Mormon is full of "headers" and I do not refer to the chapter headings (Jacob 1:4 -- "And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people.").

As long as they were approved as cannon by common consent by the saints before us, we are obligated to incorporate them into our current standard, whether we do so by faith, prayer and spiritual confirmation, reason, or any other way people take the scriptures and liken or apply them to themselves.

 

What I meant by headers was a chapter heading. It would seem that there those who believed that it wasn't Joseph that added those verses but they were placed there in publication to simply explain what the Wow was. In other words they weren't inspired, it was just to summarize the next section, like a chapter heading. I didn't know if this was true but it looks like it isn't from reading some of the responses here. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

What I meant by headers was a chapter heading. It would seem that there those who believed that it wasn't Joseph that added those verses but they were placed there in publication to simply explain what the Wow was. In other words they weren't inspired, it was just to summarize the next section, like a chapter heading. I didn't know if this was true but it looks like it isn't from reading some of the responses here. 

Yes, if an erstwhile chapter heading, no matter the author, gets incorporated into the canonized version, it becomes scripture. The Bible is a good example: the authors, scribes and compilers may or may not have not been inspired, but it serves the Lord's purposes well enough (as mentioned in Book of Mormon and JSH-1) and He still inspires modern people through it. Those who proposed and sustained canonization of D&C 89, and those who direct its teaching and those who adopt it today as their standard, are in good faith also inspired.

Share this post


Link to post

The most important lesson learned from the 1st Vision is that the heavens are opened and that each person is able to receive inspiration/revelation directly from God, not through middle men. So the idea that we must trust the middle men and that they will hold us accountable to what they say, instead of relying directly on God and his judgement puts us on a sandy path.

As others have noted, we are all responsible for ourselves. We will not be able to blame others, (not even the prophets and apostles), for the mistakes or errors in judgement we make. Having said that, I believe God will be very merciful in how he judges us based on incomplete/unreliable information we have. We are asked to trust in God, and in Jesus Christ. That is faith. Requiring that we place absolute faith in fallible humans and a fallible organization would be silliness on God's part. I don't believe God is silly :) 

So when it comes to the WoW, I have no problem believing JS felt inspired to share it, as stated, by way of invitation and NOT commandment or constraint. Turning the advice into commandment when it specifically says it is not commandment, is like unto the Pharisees adding to the Mosaic law. Even if it is done with good intention, it still is taking the name of God in vain, claiming that God commands us to do something, when really he has not.

The WoW is used by the church as a loyalty test to prove obedience to leaders, and as a branding tool to differentiate members from the rest of the world. I think it's effective in those two purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, if an erstwhile chapter heading, no matter the author, gets incorporated into the canonized version, it becomes scripture. The Bible is a good example: the authors, scribes and compilers may or may not have not been inspired, but it serves the Lord's purposes well enough (as mentioned in Book of Mormon and JSH-1) and He still inspires modern people through it. Those who proposed and sustained canonization of D&C 89, and those who direct its teaching and those who adopt it today as their standard, are in good faith also inspired.

I've never considered the chapter headings for any scripture chapters as actual scripture. I figured when the scriptures were sustained as such that it was assumed the vote only included the revelations, not the chapters headings, footnotes, or any other various helpers in the format. I consider the headings as summaries (though sometimes poor ones) and able to be changed at a moments notice like footnotes or BD definitions. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The Book of Mormon is full of "headers" and I do not refer to the chapter headings (Jacob 1:4 -- "And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people.").

As long as they were approved as cannon by common consent by the saints before us, we are obligated to incorporate them into our current standard, whether we do so by faith, prayer and spiritual confirmation, reason, or any other way people take the scriptures and liken or apply them to themselves.

 

IIRC, didn't McConkie write most of the headings? Was the new version of scriptures ever raised to common consent, or was it just introduced? I don't remember but I suspect it was just changed and given to the church. Kind of like when the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C. The only version of common consent the church ever really uses anymore is in sustaining the leaders. I suppose they think that if we accept leaders through common consent we must by extension accept all of their actions/decisions/teachings by common consent.

Common consent is broken.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SettingDogStar said:

I've never considered the chapter headings for any scripture chapters as actual scripture. I figured when the scriptures were sustained as such that it was assumed the vote only included the revelations, not the chapters headings, footnotes, or any other various helpers in the format. I consider the headings as summaries (though sometimes poor ones) and able to be changed at a moments notice like footnotes or BD definitions. 

I don't either. But you said in this case the heading was subsequently incorporated into the body of the revelation and presented for canonization by those with the keys to do so. Thus it became part of the revelation. The same can be said for the "Year of our Lord" prefaces which now are in the canonized verses. No more or no less inspired, but nonetheless scripture and to be received and interpreted by the Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC, didn't McConkie write most of the headings? Was the new version of scriptures ever raised to common consent, or was it just introduced? I don't remember but I suspect it was just changed and given to the church. Kind of like when the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C. The only version of common consent the church ever really uses anymore is in sustaining the leaders. I suppose they think that if we accept leaders through common consent we must by extension accept all of their actions/decisions/teachings by common consent.

Common consent is broken.

Yes he did. Those have not been incorporated into the verses of the scripture as has been asserted the Word of Wisdom preface was appropriated into the verses of D&C 89, so not the same thing. In a sense, common consent is also broken when an individual decides to retract it.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't either. But you said in this case the heading was subsequently incorporated into the body of the revelation and presented for canonization by those with the keys to do so. Thus it became part of the revelation. The same can be said for the "Year of our Lord" prefaces which now are in the canonized verses. No more or no less inspired, but nonetheless scripture and to be received and interpreted by the Spirit.

I'm saying the paper I read (which I'm still looking for, long time ago) said that they were not canonized. However, in a new printing of scriptures the italics were removed and they were simply Incorporated into the text unofficially in favor of and a different chapter heading too their place. Again, I from what I've seen now it seems they actually did come with the Word Of Wisdom, or were at least received by Joseph a little later. 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I'm saying the paper I read (which I'm still looking for, long time ago) said that they were not canonized. However, in a new printing of scriptures the italics were removed and they were simply Incorporated into the text unofficially in favor of and a different chapter heading too their place. Again, I from what I've seen now it seems they actually did come with the Word Of Wisdom, or were at least received by Joseph a little later. 

I hope you find the first and share the support for both positions. As you might tell, I'm comfortable with any scenario that proves to be correct.

I suppose there are at least three paths to canonization: one through a sustaining vote to accept the publication; another through a sustaining vote of the prophets who in turn adjust the publication; routine editing and formatting.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/18/2019 at 4:45 PM, Jason_Allred said:

Doesn't really matter to me because we believe in continuing revelation. It appears that it was not initially revealed as a commandment, but then subsequent prophets elevated it to a commandment.

The text states that it was a principle "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints." So it was purposefully "adapted" for the saints of that time period. It has since been "adapted" to the saints in our day.

Further, the text states that the reason it was given was because of the "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." Since "conspiring men" change their tactics, then the application of the principle is likewise "adapted" to counter it

That's what revelation is--understanding how an eternal principle should apply to the current circumstances.

Why are revelations elevating to commandments not canonized in the DandCov?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't either. But you said in this case the heading was subsequently incorporated into the body of the revelation and presented for canonization by those with the keys to do so. Thus it became part of the revelation. The same can be said for the "Year of our Lord" prefaces which now are in the canonized verses. No more or no less inspired, but nonetheless scripture and to be received and interpreted by the Spirit.

I'm saying the paper I read (which I'm still looking for, long time ago) said that they were not canonized. However, in a new printing of scriptures the italics were removed and they were simply Incorporated into the text unofficially in favor of and a different chapter heading too their place. Again, I from what I've seen now it seems they actually did come with the Word Of Wisdom, or were at least received by Joseph a little later. 

A related issue comes up with the first scripture of D&C 20, which many have assumed it specifies the date of the birth of Jesus on April 6

"The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days being one Thousand eight Hundred & thirty years since the coming of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh it being regularly organized & established agreeable to the Laws of our Country by the will & commandments of God in the fourth Month & on the Sixth day of the Month which is called April."

However, according to Steven Harper, a BYU Assistant Professor of Church History and volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers,  

"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.
The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses shouldn’t be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ,"

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

A related issue comes up with the first scripture of D&C 20, which many have assumed it specifies the date of the birth of Jesus on April 6

"The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days being one Thousand eight Hundred & thirty years since the coming of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh it being regularly organized & established agreeable to the Laws of our Country by the will & commandments of God in the fourth Month & on the Sixth day of the Month which is called April."

However, according to Steven Harper, a BYU Assistant Professor of Church History and volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers,  

"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.
The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses shouldn’t be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ,"

 

D&C 20 was mostly compiled by Oliver Cowdery with some help from Joseph though, right? 

Also it sounds like those verses were included by accident then! haha

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

A related issue comes up with the first scripture of D&C 20, which many have assumed it specifies the date of the birth of Jesus on April 6

"The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days being one Thousand eight Hundred & thirty years since the coming of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh it being regularly organized & established agreeable to the Laws of our Country by the will & commandments of God in the fourth Month & on the Sixth day of the Month which is called April."

However, according to Steven Harper, a BYU Assistant Professor of Church History and volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers,  

"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.
The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses shouldn’t be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ,"

 

Yes, I mentioned that here: Posted 2 hours ago . People can decide what to do with the impression(s) they receive from canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, JAHS said:

No doctrine. My opinion. I simply trust and have faith that all 15 of them would not do anything to jeopardize my eternal life.

However, this explains how they won’t teach error in your view.  But this doesn’t answer why you think if there were to be any error that we commit through mistaken instruction, it is only on their heads***, especially given we are constantly taught to seek out the guidance of the Spirit ourselves, even with instructions from our leaders. 

Could you explain your reasoning why you don’t think you would be held at least in part responsible for acting in error even if it was the prophet telling you to act like this?

***” if it's wrong it's on their heads. 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, this explains how they won’t teach error in your view.  But this doesn’t answer why you think if there were to be any error that we commit through mistaken instruction, it is only on their heads***, especially given we are constantly taught to seek out the guidance of the Spirit ourselves, even with instructions from our leaders. 

Could you explain your reasoning why you don’t think you would be held at least in part responsible for acting in error even if it was the prophet telling you to act like this?

***” if it's wrong it's on their heads. 

I seek guidance from the spirit on how what the prophets and leaders tells us applies to me personally, which might be different on how it might apply to someone else. Who am I to think that God would tell me something that is contrary to what He tells the prophets, especially when it comes to Church doctrines for the general membership? Who else am I going to listen to regarding my eternal life? Certainly not someone from another faith or secular belief. 
President Wilford Woodruff stated:
“I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff)
Was he lying about this? I don't think so and other prophets have sustained that sentiment.

President Marion G. Romney said:
"I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. . . .Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” [In Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78]

While leaders can make mistakes, God will not allow the leaders to utterly destroy the work of the Church or cause the members to lose their opportunity to receive exaltation. We have to have faith to accept that this is a true principle. 

If I make mistakes or commit sin or tell someone who I have authority over to do something that is wrong, I am responsible for that and the people it hurts. Likewise if a prophet makes a mistake He would be responsible for the harm it does to others who faithfully follow his counsel.  However, there are 15 prophets who counsel and discuss and pray about the doctrines and policies of the Church. This helps assure us that no one person would be allowed to do something wrong that would hurt the church or its members. In my opinion any perceived mistakes the church leaders have made in the past are far outnumbered by the things they have gotten right.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

“I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.”

I don’t think he was intentionally lying, but depending on what you mean by “astray” a case can be made against that quote. Prophets and apostles have fallen plenty of times in scripture, they’ve taught false doctrine dozens and dozens of times in this dispensation alone.

This quote was made because of the great concern discontinuing polygamy was to many. It isn’t really accurate if taken at exactly face value, but again it depends on your definition of “astray.”

We aren’t some magical dispensation that is suddenly immune to any kind of corruption, traditions of men, and maybe some light apostasy..that has never been the case of any dispensation, God would have made that clear if it was. 

But this shouldn’t worry us! If mistakes are made then it helps us to lean more to God then to men. I truly believe Judas and other modern wicked men were allowed to high offices to teach us that we are not to trust in the arm of the flesh. They have their role in administration and revealing Gods Word for the church, but we should not lean on them for salvation. As history has shown, even the nicest and most godly seeming best man can utterly and competent fall and fail us.

It doesn’t make the church false by any means, it just makes this quote innaccurate.

Edit: from you “This helps assure us that no one person would be allowed to do something wrong that would hurt the church or its members.”

While hundreds of threads have focused on the “blacks and the priesthood” issue it is good evidence that just because we have 15 prophets does not mean nothing harmful will come from it. Whether the ban was of God or not doesn’t matter, teaching men, women, and children for decades that they were a lesser race, sinful, and couldn’t receive blessings was harmful to the members. While the ban might (and that’s a big might) have been of God, the teachings and theories put forth by dozens of apostles and prophets was very very damaging. 

This isn’t a thread jack or in any way bashing the prophets and apostles. However, I just wanted to point out that having a council of 15 prophets still doesn’t foolproof that nothing damaging will ever be taught in the church. It isn’t foolproof, but it is a good idea! 

I agree though that more good has come in the history of the church then bad. However, the bad things can remind us to better put our trust in the Lord and His ways, not mans. I think they happened for a reason and serve as a lesson to us all.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

We aren’t some magical dispensation that is suddenly immune to any kind of corruption, traditions of men, and maybe some light apostasy..that has never been the case of any dispensation, God would have made that clear if it was. 

I go when thinking on this topic to all that counsel the Brother of Jared probably gave out to his people for four years, at the end of such time God comes to him and scolds him thoroughly for having gone missing in the spiritual connection department:

Quote

“And it came to pass at the end of four years that the Lord came again unto the brother of Jared, and stood in a cloud and talked with him. And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord” (Ether 2:14)

BofJ was probably quite confident in his ability to discern the will of the Lord during that time period given his prior achievement.  But if he wasn't seeking spiritual guidance for himself, what guarantee was there what he was telling others was of the Spirit?

Now perhaps he didn't get on his knees or go into the mountain or whatever his choice because there wasn't anything to ask God about for his people/clan/church.  Maybe his people were the one group in history that didn't try and get their leader to make the hard decisions for them, keep the peace, etc. etc.

But the following verse would seem to indicate the Lord expected something different:

Quote

And the brother of Jared repented of the evil which he had done, and did call upon the name of the Lord for his brethren who were with him. And the Lord said unto him: I will forgive thee and thy brethren of their sins; but thou shalt not sin any more, for ye shall remember that my aSpirit will not always strive with man; wherefore, if ye will sin until ye are fully ripe ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

I figure if the BofJ was capable of skipping for four years the essential step of seeking the Lord's Will needed to avoid teaching/counseling error, I see it as any other leader might on occasion take the shortcut of leaning on his own wisdom and we know where that often leads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/18/2019 at 11:44 PM, clarkgoble said:

How do you deal with he Old Testament? Not trying to be snarky, it seems to me pretty difficult to say policy never contradicts scripture since the application of a particular scripture is frequently unclear. Thus the NT conflict between Peter, Paul and others.

I don't understand your point. Could you be more explicit about the OT? I don't sense you are snarky, just opaque. 

My position is the opposite of what you stated above. I actually think policy does contradict scripture - in other words, I think policy is generally the ideas of men doing what they think is best in a given situation. The majority of the conflicts between Peter and Paul are relatively easy to explain and understand. I am not saying that scripture does, as we know it, does not conflict with itself.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

am not saying that scripture does, as we know it, does not conflict with itself.

Scripture does or does not contradict itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't understand your point. Could you be more explicit about the OT? I don't sense you are snarky, just opaque. 

The question of policy is over what commandments and rites one should follow that were in the Old Testament. In the later Christian tradition it was typically assumed all practices were irrelevant because it was the old covenant superseded by the new covenant. However within the pages of the New Testament things are more complicated, partially due to the complications of conversion into Judaism. By the time of the latter Christian tradition Judaism was a de facto completely different religion and so they just selectively rejected the Old Testament. But the point is there's not clear revelation for that policy. The closest we have is Peter's vision, but that was largely about whether scripture banning eating with gentiles applied and whether gentile converts should be circumcized.

The Book of Mormon has a different tradition, probably because the version of the Old Testament on the brass plates was likely quite different from the Old Testament compiled in Hellenistic times. However in the New Testament there's simply huge rejection of the Old Testament without any explicit revelation. Even today we tend to reject a lot of Old Testament practices (say the feasts or the celebration of the Day of Atonement) but there's no explicit revelation for that policy. 

This is, I think, a non-trivial issue for anyone who says any policy difference from scripture requires an explicit revelation.

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My position is the opposite of what you stated above. I actually think policy does contradict scripture - in other words, I think policy is generally the ideas of men doing what they think is best in a given situation. The majority of the conflicts between Peter and Paul are relatively easy to explain and understand. I am not saying that scripture does, as we know it, does not conflict with itself.

I don't think the conflicts between Peter and Paul are as easy to resolve as you suggest. (I also think Paul's writings as scripture are problematic in various ways depending upon his actual office) However even if you think they are fine, then simply turn to Pauline commandments like women not speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2: 9-15) or not cutting their hair (1 Corinthians 11:3-9). That's in scripture. It's a policy we don't follow those scriptures. There's no revelation for it. Do you think women should stop speaking in Church until an explicit revelation is received?

Scripture is definitely important and is the foundational text in terms of deciding policy. However I think those saying policy and scripture must match until an explicit revelation (presumably textual) is received haven't thought through the implications of that.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Calm said:

Scripture does or does not contradict itself?

I was trying to stop a line of questions about the simple conflicts found in the NT that are commonly known. However, to answer you:  Yes, scripture conflicts with itself in various areas and various levels. 

Edited by Storm Rider

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The question of policy is over what commandments and rites one should follow that were in the Old Testament. In the later Christian tradition it was typically assumed all practices were irrelevant because it was the old covenant superseded by the new covenant. However within the pages of the New Testament things are more complicated, partially due to the complications of conversion into Judaism. By the time of the latter Christian tradition Judaism was a de facto completely different religion and so they just selectively rejected the Old Testament. But the point is there's not clear revelation for that policy. The closest we have is Peter's vision, but that was largely about whether scripture banning eating with gentiles applied and whether gentile converts should be circumcized.

The Book of Mormon has a different tradition, probably because the version of the Old Testament on the brass plates was likely quite different from the Old Testament compiled in Hellenistic times. However in the New Testament there's simply huge rejection of the Old Testament without any explicit revelation. Even today we tend to reject a lot of Old Testament practices (say the feasts or the celebration of the Day of Atonement) but there's no explicit revelation for that policy. 

This is, I think, a non-trivial issue for anyone who says any policy difference from scripture requires an explicit revelation.

I don't think the conflicts between Peter and Paul are as easy to resolve as you suggest. (I also think Paul's writings as scripture are problematic in various ways depending upon his actual office) However even if you think they are fine, then simply turn to Pauline commandments like women not speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2: 9-15) or not cutting their hair (1 Corinthians 11:3-9). That's in scripture. It's a policy we don't follow those scriptures. There's no revelation for it. Do you think women should stop speaking in Church until an explicit revelation is received?

Scripture is definitely important and is the foundational text in terms of deciding policy. However I think those saying policy and scripture must match until an explicit revelation (presumably textual) is received haven't thought through the implications of that.

I think the ideal is to have revelation for actions. Also, it is a matter of degree of problems. For example, an issue that affects eternal salvation is a major issue. Creating a policy that affects the eternal salvation of individuals is a major problem. Preventing individuals from attending the temple over a teaching that specifically states obedience is not compelled is a problem. This is contrasted with those issues that don't affect eternal salvation, such as women speaking in church. 

Do I think conflicting with scripture on non salvific issues is a problem? Again, the ideal is to have God guide us through revelation in order to demonstrate clear, unarguable guidance on topics that some individuals will think is a big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...