altersteve Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 They were Joseph Smith's teachings, not revelations. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had revelations from which these theological ideas were derived, though obviously you can't rule that out. But whenever Smith had a revelation, it was usually a big deal, and he would at least tell somebody about it. But the point is that by that time, Smith was leading the church, not primarily by revelations, but by authoritative teaching. He had moved from a Muhammad/Moses-type figure to a Jesus-type figure.You're free to believe that, but if it's in the D&C, a book of holy scripture, then I'm going to accept it as a revelation.
altersteve Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 By the way, D&C 88, which deals extensively with three degrees of glory, is explicitly stated to be a revelation that was received on 27 December 1832 and 3 January 1833.
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 It is an amazing thing when an individual attempts to define doctrine by what a historian or pseudo-historian states. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ's bedrock belief is revelation. It has declared to the world that the canon is not closed; that God continues to talk to his children. It is clear that the doctrines of the Church are found in the scriptures. If it is not found in scripture, it is not the doctrine of the Church. Critics and confused alike prefer to sift the words of the prophets to achieve their own objectives. They shout from the roof-tops that this is what so-and-so said and therefor it must be the teaching of the LDS Church. Yet, from the very beginning Joseph made it clear that a prophet is only a prophet when he acts as such. Why is this so hard to understand? Why are there those who continue to try to pound that square peg into the round hole of the gospel of Christ? It is utter foolishness and folly to ignore the repeated refrain that the gospel, the doctrines of the Church, are found in the scriptures.
Cobalt-70 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 It is an amazing thing when an individual attempts to define doctrine by what a historian or pseudo-historian states. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ's bedrock belief is revelation. It has declared to the world that the canon is not closed; that God continues to talk to his children. It is clear that the doctrines of the Church are found in the scriptures. If it is not found in scripture, it is not the doctrine of the Church.Critics and confused alike prefer to sift the words of the prophets to achieve their own objectives. They shout from the roof-tops that this is what so-and-so said and therefor it must be the teaching of the LDS Church. Yet, from the very beginning Joseph made it clear that a prophet is only a prophet when he acts as such. Why is this so hard to understand? Why are there those who continue to try to pound that square peg into the round hole of the gospel of Christ? It is utter foolishness and folly to ignore the repeated refrain that the gospel, the doctrines of the Church, are found in the scriptures.It has never been the case (except arguably prior to 1835) that all operative, or even official, LDS doctrine has been found in the LDS scriptures. It wasn't true in Joseph Smith's era, and it isn't true today. If it were true, then we could all throw away our garments and stop attending the temple. I've never heard of any LDS authority who has signed on to your modified sola scriptura theory. If you know of a church authority who has, please share.
Storm Rider Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 It has never been the case (except arguably prior to 1835) that all operative, or even official, LDS doctrine has been found in the LDS scriptures. It wasn't true in Joseph Smith's era, and it isn't true today. If it were true, then we could all throw away our garments and stop attending the temple. I've never heard of any LDS authority who has signed on to your modified sola scriptura theory. If you know of a church authority who has, please share.I suspected you would go there. Cobalt, you so often work within such a narrow view of the Church, its teachings, and the gospel itself. Do you understand that there is a difference in doctrine and the exact expression or rites found in LDS temples? Do you understand the difference in doctrine and how the Church operates any program in the Church?The topic of doctrine has been discussed on this forum multiple times before. I could just as easily request that you provide a reference from the current leadership that dclares the KF discourse to be doctrine or any of your other sacred cows that you bandy about so often here. Without your sacred cows your entire, twisted view of the Church, its history, and its teachings falls; it falls because it is an incorrect understanding of each of them. I don't enjoy this caliber of discussion, but at times it is necessary.
Recommended Posts