How Revelation Is Received; Why ( Or Are) Errors Are Allowed.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was watching the movie “Rudy” on Saturday, during one of the classes on Catechism (as he was attending a Catholic school; Holy Cross), this was a required subject. In any event, I copied the comment by the Priest teaching the class. It made sense to me and peaked my interest.

I then looked up the term Revelation and found this wiki article on how different religions view revelation…which I include Here.

(From the movie, Rudy)

For us divine inspiration does not mean that God possesses a man and simply dictates the inspired text to him. Rather that God implants into the man’s mind the general concept, and when God does that he allows the man to write that in the historical context in which he lives—we call that Sitz im Leben... that is the setting in life; so a man may have historical inaccuracies, but God allows the man to write with those misunderstandings; but what is important and what is inerrant is the theological concept that God is trying to get across to mankind.

Does anyone agree with the comment from the movie? In relation to errors or misunderstandings the Apostle Paul reminds all that “in this life we see through a glass darkly”.

Do our critics unfairly judge our leaders, and impose on any who call themselves Prophet (or whom we call Prophet) an unrealistic standard?

Thanks to Rob I was able to make the correction within the quote I highlighted, I did not want to take credit for something someone else did.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Duncan]

Could be! It fits Doctrine and Covenants 1:24

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

The German expression is Sitz im Leben, "life situation."

I have never seen the movie, but I'm sure you'll understand that a movie's representation of Catholic teachings has no bearing on understanding what evangelicalism teaches.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

The German expression is Sitz im Leben, "life situation."

I have never seen the movie, but I'm sure you'll understand that a movie's representation of Catholic teachings has no bearing on understanding what evangelicalism teaches.

Thank you for the correct spelling, but EV's and Catholic's share common beliefs. BTW...it is a great movie, very inspiring.

For an example, what about the instance in the Bible where it speaks of the "sun standing still", to lengthen out the day...when it is the earth that moves. The Book of Mormon corrected that error. What was important however is that Joshua and Israel won through supernatural means.

I believe the term from the movie fits quite well in this instance.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

God is perfect, man however is not.

God perfectly tells me what he wants.

1. Is it possible that I may misunderstand what he says?

2. Is it possible that I don't have the words necessary to explain to others what God said to me?

3. Is it possible that I inaccurately communicate those words?

4. Is it possible for that person to misunderstand what I am saying?

5. Is it possible for that person to miscommunicate what was said?

Repeat that process over thousands of years.

[Duncan]

Pa Pa,

The German expression is Sitz im Leben, "life situation."

I have never seen the movie, but I'm sure you'll understand that a movie's representation of Catholic teachings has no bearing on understanding what evangelicalism teaches.

Not sure why it has to teach what Evangelicals believe

[cdowis]

I think the important concept here is that receiving revelation, inspiration does not make one a prophet. The Lord gives rain to the wicked and the righteous, and He can choose to give inspiration to anyone He chooses.

[Rob Bowman]

Duncan,

You wrote:

Not sure why it has to teach what Evangelicals believe

I don't think it does have to do so. My point was simply that it doesn't have any relevance to the view of Scripture that the opening post is criticizing.

[Rob Bowman]

saint,

You wrote:

Rob:

God is perfect, man however is not.

God perfectly tells me what he wants.

1. Is it possible that I may misunderstand what he says?

2. Is it possible that I don't have the words necessary to explain to others what God said to me?

3. Is it possible that I inaccurately communicate those words?

4. Is it possible for that person to misunderstand what I am saying?

5. Is it possible for that person to miscommunicate what was said?

Repeat that process over thousands of years.

1. Is it possible for God to inspire a human being to understand correctly what he says?

2. Is it possible for a human being to have the words necessary to explain to others what God said to him?

3. Is it possible for a human being to communicate those words accurately, if God enables him to do so?

[cdowis]

The issue is not what God CAN do, but what He actually does.

• Jesus could have gone to the top of the temple and jumped down.
  He could have convinced the Sanhedrin or Pilate to release him.
  Stephen, with the assistance of the Lord, could have given an argument that the Jews released him.
  Nathan could have warned David to stay away from Bathsheba

Edited July 18, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

Nathan could have warned David to stay away from Bathsheba

I don't know about Nathan, specifically, but God did warn David about Bathsheba. He said, as I recall, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

He also commanded the kings of Israel to lead their armies into battle (it was, after all, the justification for Israel's wanting a king in the first place, was it not?). David was in Jerusalem and his armies were in the field. He was not where he was supposed to be—he was not doing what he was supposed to be doing.

Maybe I have it wrong.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

All those are possible, but given that man is not perfect, the chances of inerrancy on the part of man are pretty small.

Ever play telephone as a child?

[cdowis]

And that is how He does things. For the most part, He does not micromanage our decisions and our lives, including revelation. We are left to figure it out.

That is why the inerrancy of the Bible is a moot issue..... until we can have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible.

[BCSpace]

Does anyone agree with the comment from the movie?

I think it would apply to a situation where, for example, the story of the mythological global flood is transmitted by BoM prophets. But on the other hand, it seems highly unlikely that the report of the people of Zarahemla that they descend from a son of Zedekiah who escaped the Babylonians is erroneously recorded.

[rameumptom]

Joseph received revelations based upon situational events and readings from scripture. He frequently updated revelations as he received more information regarding those issues.

[cdowis]

Joseph received revelations based upon situational events and readings from scripture. He frequently updated revelations as he received more information regarding those issues.

Sir, I think you need to explain yourself. (spoken with a false tone of shock)

Does the Lord have to correct his word? He did not give a complete revelation, or gave a faulty one, and it needs revision?

(I think that goes to the crux of this discussion)

[fatherofone]

Joseph received revelations based upon situational events and readings from scripture. He frequently updated revelations as he received more information regarding those issues.

I have been here a long time and I know many of you say that the prophet today still receives revelations when required, matter of fact that is part of what sets this church apart, is the claim that the cannon is not closed. My question is why has the language of the revelations changed, in other words, in Joseph Smiths revelations the lord is most of the time speaking in first person, example "21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." d&c 6:21 while in these times I rarely hear the name of Jesus invoked, or Jesus speaking in first person thru the prophet or apostles, I am wondering why the change? I am not trying to nit-pick or be over critical, I just would love some insight on this

Edited July 18, 2011 by fatherofone

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been here a long time and I know many of you say that the prophet today still receives revelations when required, matter of fact that is part of what sets this church apart, is the claim that the cannon is not closed. My question is why has the language of the revelations changed, in other words, in Joseph Smiths revelations the lord is most of the time speaking in first person, example "21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." d&c 6:21 while in these times I rarely hear the name of Jesus invoked, or Jesus speaking in first person thru the prophet or apostles, I am wondering why the change? I am not trying to nit-pick or be over critical, I just would love some insight on this

Not all revelation was given in this manner. But I see your point.

[fatherofone]

Not all revelation was given in this manner. But I see your point.

nope they weren't but while I was looking thru the online D&C I did see that first person language by the Lord was fairly common place, whereas now it is not at all

[Ahab]

I think the important concept here is that receiving revelation, inspiration does not make one a prophet.

You mean, that's the concept they teach and want others to think. Right?

Receiving revelation (which includes inspiration) is indeed what makes someone a prophet, at least at that particular time. At that point it's just a matter of who that revelation is coming from, and if it's from God the person who receives it is a prophet of God.... as opposed to being a false prophet who receives revelation (which includes inspiration) from the person we don't refer to as God.

The Lord gives rain to the wicked and the righteous, and He can choose to give inspiration to anyone He chooses.

Yes, and when the Lord chooses to give revelation to the wicked that wicked person is then a prophet of God... regardless of what the wicked person does with the revelation.

Receiving revelation from God isn't what makes a person without sin or without any weakness. It's simply a tool the wicked can use to become perfected.

[fatherofone]

I have been here a long time and I know many of you say that the prophet today still receives revelations when required, matter of fact that is part of what sets this church apart, is the claim that the cannon is not closed. My question is why has the language of the revelations changed, in other words, in Joseph Smiths revelations the lord is most of the time speaking in first person, example "21 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." d&c 6:21 while in these times I rarely hear the name of Jesus invoked, or Jesus speaking in first person thru the prophet or apostles, I am wondering why the change? I am not trying to nit-pick or be over critical, I just would love some insight on this

sorry if I killed this thread

[inquiringmind]

Rob:

God is perfect, man however is not.

God perfectly tells me what he wants.

1. Is it possible that I may misunderstand what he says?

2. Is it possible that I don't have the words necessary to explain to others what God said to me?

3. Is it possible that I inaccurately communicate those words?

4. Is it possible for that person to misunderstand what I am saying?

5. Is it possible for that person to miscommunicate what was said?

Repeat that process over thousands of years.

So it's possible that Moses, Nephi, Alma, Paul, and Joseph misunderstood, miscommunicated, or simply lacked the words to express some of the things that God told them?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

nope they weren't but while I was looking thru the online D&C I did see that first person language by the Lord was fairly common place, whereas now it is not at all

D&C 1, was a literal dictation to Joseph.

[fatherofone]

D&C 1, was a literal dictation to Joseph.

why did that change? Does the Lord no longer speak directly to the Prophets?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

why did that change? Does the Lord no longer speak directly to the Prophets?

D&C 1, is the Preface to the D&C given by Christ; seems necessary in this case. There are others as well. Maybe all I don’t know. BTW, you did not shut the thread down, just brought up a good point…thanks.