The Bible And Modern Prophets And Apostles.

[treehugger]

I realized something interesting yesterday while pondering on statements in the Bible attributed to Christ; He did not say much as to governments or temporal laws (this is not the point of discussion) It then occurred to me that more was said in letters from Apostles to specific groups of people. The question then came to mind:

Why do we, Lds, accept the letters and statements that comprise the Bible, but we largely dismiss the same of modern day Prophets and Apostles; in that we bicker amongst ourselves that so and so did not speak it from the pulpit at General Confernce therefore it is not official.

What would be the difference between Elder Bednar or any other General Authority speaking at a Stake Conference and a letter written by Paul to the Corithians?

Edited July 3, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Another example of not accepting modernly, what could be considered the same as the letters that comprise the Bible. We, lds, will also claim "Even if it was spoken at General Conference it still is not Official because *insert reason for rejection.". For instance statements found in History of the Church or Journal and Discourses. Some, otherwise seemingly faithfully lds, reject First Presidency letters.

[wenglund]

I am not one to fuss over what is "official" or not, thinking it kind of missed the point of the gospel. So, I'm out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 3, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

What would be the difference between Elder Bednar or any other General Authority speaking at a Stake Conference and a letter written by Paul to the Corithians?

One has gone through the process of being canonized and the other hasn't.

[treehugger]

I am not one to fuss over what is "official" or not, thinking it kind of missed the point of the gospel. So, I'm out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are the Journal of Discourses or History of the Church fair game for critics to claim represent the lds Church?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I realized something interesting yesterday while pondering on statements in the Bible attributed to Christ; He did not say much as to governments or temporal laws (this is not the point of discussion) It then occurred to me that more was said in letters from Apostles to specific groups of people. The question then came to mind:

Why do we, Lds, accept the letters and statements that comprise the Bible, but we largely dismiss the same of modern day Prophets and Apostles; in that we bicker amongst ourselves that so and so did not speak it from the pulpit at General Confernce therefore it is not official.

What would be the difference between Elder Bednar or any other General Authority speaking at a Stake Conference and a letter written by Paul to the Corithians?

Nothing much except for time of context....... they both gave their opinions on matters. I see no problem with that......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Are the Journal of Discourses or History of the Church fair game for critics to claim represent the lds Church?

Absolutely......but with this caveat..... time changes things......after all look at Christianity then and look at her now, the two are as different as a gnat and an elephant..... ALL things change......

[DwayneS]

I think its important to note that the JoD is not considered an official publication of the church. Critics love to mis-quote or quote-out-of-context anything even mildly controversial from the JoD.

See here: http://www.lds.org/study/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

[wenglund]

Are the Journal of Discourses or History of the Church fair game for critics to claim represent the lds Church?

Your question feeds into the very question that I indicated misses the point of the gospel.

Instead of concerning ourselves fruitlessly with what is "official" or not and/or who or what may or may not "represent the LDS Church," we ought to be asking how we personally are doing in our quest to become like Christ and doing good to our fellow man, and how we may do better.

If there are things in the JoD that assist in one's growth in Christ, then we ought to seek after those things. However, if it is being used to contend dogmatically and/or score polemic points, then it isn't being used for the purpose for which is it was intended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

What crops to plant in the Salt Lake Valley of the mid/late 1800's probably doesn't have much relevance to me and my times. But have my one year supply does.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Your question feeds into the very question that I indicated misses the point of the gospel.

Instead of concerning ourselves fruitlessly with what is "official" or not and/or who or what may or may not "represent the LDS Church," we ought to be asking how we personally are doing in our quest to become like Christ and doing good to our fellow man, and how we may do better.

If there are things in the JoD that assist in one's growth in Christ, then we ought to seek after those things. However, if it is being used to contend dogmatically and/or score polemic points, then it isn't being used for the purpose for which is it was intended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah well, what do we do with the Bible then, since it is being used for the same purpose, and with far more devastating effect? Just because someone uses a book or collection of books in a negative fashion is no reason to disown the books is it? That doesn't appear to me to be very logical.

[wenglund]

Yeah well, what do we do with the Bible then, since it is being used for the same purpose, and with far more devastating effect?

What we should do, or rather what we might do, is what I have done, and that is encourage using the books, and judging the books, according to the purpose for which they were intended, and in so doing, eliminate the presumed devastating effect.

Just because someone uses a book or collection of books in a negative fashion is no reason to disown the books is it? That doesn't appear to me to be very logical.

What isn't logical is assuming that I have suggested disowning the books. In fact, my comment about "seeking after these things" would logically suggest otherwise.

People are free to use the books however they wish and own them for whatever reason. They can use them to prop up a sagging foundation, or fire them from a cannon as shrapnel, or feed them to their pet goat, or use them as ballast for their boat, or read them to help sleep better at night, or even use them as the basis for endless and fruitless theological debates.

Or, they can be used as they were intended: to bring us to Christ and enabling us to become like him.

I am simply advising the later since that, to me, makes the most sense. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 4, 2012 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

What we should do, or rather what we might do, is what I have done, and that is encourage using the books, and judging the books, according to the purpose for which they were intended, and in so doing, eliminate the presumed devastating effect.

What isn't logical is assuming that I have suggested disowning the books. In fact, my comment about "seeking after these things" would logically suggest otherwise.

People are free to use the books however they wish and own them for whatever reason. They can use them to prop up a sagging foundation, or fire them from a cannon as shrapnel, or feed them to their pet goat, or use them as ballast for their boat, or read them to help sleep better at night, or even use them as the basis for endless and fruitless theological debates.

Or, they can be used as they were intended: to bring us to Christ and enabling us to become like him.

I am simply advising the later since that, to me, makes the most sense. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Kewl. I was just asking you, as it appeared that you were saying the JofD's are no good now since critics have used them to show the problematic nature of LDS teachings. They are still Mormon leader's ideas is all I am noting. If those ideas become problematic, it appears almost too easy to simply say oh that was then, but we live now so we have doctrine, all they had was opinion. In another 50 years are the prophets and people living then going to be so different from today's prophets who reveal God's word to us now going to say "Oh in the 2011-2020 era that was just their opinion, while today (2055) we have the true revelation from God? How and where do we honestly draw that line? It has become a confusing muddle.

[wenglund]

Kewl. I was just asking you, as it appeared that you were saying the JofD's are no good now since critics have used them to show the problematic nature of LDS teachings. They are still Mormon leader's ideas is all I am noting.

I figured that was where you were coming from, but I thought it good to clarify.

If those ideas become problematic, it appears almost too easy to simply say oh that was then, but we live now so we have doctrine, all they had was opinion.

Whether easy or not, like you, I don't think this stated response is all that effective. Instead, I would respond that the ideas aren't problematic when one is focused on coming to Christ and becoming like him. So what if once upon a time certain Church leaders believed and preached things we now may not agree with, particularly if those thing weren't all that pertinent to salvation and exaltation? What difference does that make in our living a Christ-like life in the here and now?

In another 50 years are the prophets and people living then going to be so different from today's prophets who reveal God's word to us now going to say "Oh in the 2011-2020 era that was just their opinion, while today (2055) we have the true revelation from God? How and where do we honestly draw that line? It has become a confusing muddle.

Why are we trying to draw such a line, honestly or otherwise?

The point of the restored gospel, as I understand it, isn't to go around drawing those kinds of lines or fashioning hard-and-fast boundaries (at least once we develop beyond the fundamental stages of our spiritual growth), but rather to go around living by the precepts we have been given, taking what has been revealed and using it in a way that best enables us to fulfill the mission of the Church. What is confusing about that?

I think there is a tendency among those of us steeped in Western civilization, to try and formulate a systematic theology, with neat and clear and exacting lines unquestionably demarcating the "truth" and "doctrine." And, while this may have some epistemic advantages and appeal to our fundamentalistic tendencies, it also inadvertently creates a box into which a non-boxy God is shoehorned. It creates the same problem as creedalism which Joseph Smith denounced, and may even boarder on idolatry (creating God in our own image).

For the most part, the scriptures take a somewhat different approach, where bits and pieces of revealed insights into the divine are scatter seemingly indiscriminately across an ongoing human/divine narrative or story. And, while somewhat confusing and messy, the image of God is increasingly revealed, not in a boxy way, but as if through a glass darkly. We begin to see God and know God, not through logically interconnected layers of precise concepts and doctrines laid out line upon line, but in each of our faces as we live and follow what Christ has taught. We discover God, not so much by debating who said what and what is "true" or not, but in observing charitable acts one with another, and by developing godliness within.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 5, 2012 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Why do we, Lds, accept the letters and statements that comprise the Bible, but we largely dismiss the same of modern day Prophets and Apostles; in that we bicker amongst ourselves that so and so did not speak it from the pulpit at General Confernce therefore it is not official.

If you are bickering about officiality (a new word I made up) you should stop.

What would be the difference between Elder Bednar or any other General Authority speaking at a Stake Conference and a letter written by Paul to the Corithians?

Not much.

[treehugger]

If you are bickering about officiality (a new word I made up) you should stop.

Not much.

Thanks for nothing.

[The Nehor]

Thanks for nothing.

Any time. I have a near infinite supply of it. Just ask and I will provide.

[Ron Beron]

Absolutely......but with this caveat..... time changes things......after all look at Christianity then and look at her now, the two are as different as a gnat and an elephant..... ALL things change......

And fall apart. The law of entropy.

[treehugger]

M

Edited July 5, 2012 by treehugger

[theplains]

In another 50 years are the prophets and people living then going to be so different from today's prophets who reveal God's word to us now going to say "Oh in the 2011-2020 era that was just their opinion, while today (2055) we have the true revelation from God? How and where do we honestly draw that line? It has become a confusing muddle.

I suspect that if the Lord tarries for another 50 years, Gospel Principles will be drastically changed (one only needs to look

at the time between the last 2 editions).

The idea of teachings becoming outdated started happening in Joseph Smith's time.

At a meeting in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with

regard to the [living] oracles and the written word of God." Brigham Young said, "When compared with the living oracles

those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet

or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writings

in the books." Joseph Smith said to the congregation, “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told

you the truth" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, chapter 16).

If a pastor said this about the Bible in my church, the board would have him booted out.

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

I suspect that if the Lord tarries for another 50 years, Gospel Principles will be drastically changed (one only needs to look

at the time between the last 2 editions).

I have studied the differences between the two editions, they are both on my shelf plus there was a poster who when it first came out did a side by side comparison and put all the differences for us to see on the board so there was extensive discussion.

I found nothing doctrinally all that different. Mainly repetitions were taken out and support was given primarily by scripture rather than a few quotes.

Having said that, I am happy to point you toward the Ninth Article of Faith.

Edited July 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If a pastor said this about the Bible in my church, the board would have him booted out

Imagine if he had been a Jew saying that during the time of Christ and the Apostles and was rejected by the leaders of the congregation. How sad would that have been.

As God spoke to the Apostles in the past, he speaks now. And for that I am immensely grateful and it astonishes me that people would think this a bad thing (not that they might not believe the LDS Apostles were really apostles, but that the very idea of Apostles these days is wrong).

Edited July 7, 2012 by calmoriah