JLHPROF Posted October 2, 2013 Posted October 2, 2013 At what point do we say this is enough and there is to be no more? Sounds like to me where in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 29 it is claimed by some gentiles that: "A Bible a Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible". Absolutely not. There can always be continuing revelation. But the Lord and the Prophet Joseph gave us guidelines concerning how to tell true revelation. There were several, but one of the most important is that it cannot contradict what the Lord has previously revealed. Of course there can be more "Bible" - but not if it declares the other revealed truths to be wrong. Continuing revelation means further light and knowledge, not less. God is eternal and what is true doesn't change. Even if we can learn more about a truth through continuing revelation that should never be a different truth that God has previously given us. 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2013 Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Absolutely not. There can always be continuing revelation. But the Lord and the Prophet Joseph gave us guidelines concerning how to tell true revelation. There were several, but one of the most important is that it cannot contradict what the Lord has previously revealed. Of course there can be more "Bible" - but not if it declares the other revealed truths to be wrong. Continuing revelation means further light and knowledge, not less. God is eternal and what is true doesn't change. Even if we can learn more about a truth through continuing revelation that should never be a different truth that God has previously given us.It's not the Constitution where amendments can be made and doctrine can be reinterpreted in the name of modern revelation. It doesn't work that way. Edited October 2, 2013 by Valentinus 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2013 Posted October 2, 2013 No one has to like or dislike his ideas on Isaiah. It is the promotion of those ideas as binding on the Saints that is the problem. If the orthodoxy he advocates in his commentaries was binding on ancient community then it is binding and not open for reinterpretation. Modern revelation does not correct or clarify holy writing and religious practice. The Scriptures have already been determined as doctrine of the Church. Further we have an open canon that allows us to add to Scripture as God so desires. An open canon is fine so long as the continuation of the canon does not contradict, refute or reinterpret the already existing holy writings. See The September 6; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six I've read the poor article. Watch the vids from the Sunstone Symposium I posted as well as Gileadi's testimony. JS what ever his other qualities as Prophet isn't the final say in LDS belief. Does he have a say at all any more or is he dismissed because the current prophet is, horribly heretical, "more important or valid" than past prophets? Such is an admission of apostacy. Never said it wasn't. However it is catagorically wrong to say it greatly influenced the early Church members.See Jupiter Talisman; http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic/Jupiter_talisman I agree. But it is also categorically wrong to dismiss any occultism and magic practice even to the slightest degree. That is dishonest and disingenuous.
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) JS what ever his other qualities as Prophet isn't the final say in LDS belief. Does he have a say at all any more or is he dismissed because the current prophet is, horribly heretical, "more important or valid" than past prophets? I have always believed that the current prophet is more "necessary" that the past prophets as they give us direction specific to our day and issues. But I really dislike the idea that the current prophet is more doctrinally valid than past prophets. Truth is eternal regardless who is the current prophet. Doctrine shouldn't change, especially Joseph Smith's, but direction always will. Edited October 3, 2013 by JLHPROF
Freedom Posted October 3, 2013 Author Posted October 3, 2013 Saints in Cardston Alberta know about it because many of them are decedents of such marriages. When I read about this scandal in the 1980s nobody I knew of were at all surprised by what was being 'revealed'. It is rather difficult to provide a source for common knowledge. It is not like the local paper interviewed people to find out what they knew about polygamy.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Saints in Cardston Alberta know about it because many of them are decedents of such marriages. When I read about this scandal in the 1980s nobody I knew of were at all surprised by what was being 'revealed'. It is rather difficult to provide a source for common knowledge. It is not like the local paper interviewed people to find out what they knew about polygamy.So is this a retraction of your "willfully ignorant" statement? Or a modification to apply the statement only to those in your area or those that are directly decended from such marriages?
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 So it was bad scholarship because they disregarded counsel from church leadership? Yes. Would a student be considered a good scholar if they ignored their teachers?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Yes. Would a student be considered a good scholar if they ignored their teachers?It would entirely depend on what kind of scholars the teachers were.
rockpond Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Yes. Would a student be considered a good scholar if they ignored their teachers? If they were to only publish what the church leaders said they could write on a particular subject it becomes a theological work, not scholarship. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 It would entirely depend on what kind of scholars the teachers were. Are we talking about subject or quality?
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 If they were to only publish what the church leaders said they could write on a particular subject it becomes a theological work, not scholarship. The Church doesn't tell writers what to write. It does tell them not promote their ideas as Church doctrine, or publically challenge its truth claims.IE; Writing that BY did "X", "Y", and "Z" is different than because BY did "X", "Y", and "Z". BY was a fallen prophet.
rockpond Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 The Church doesn't tell writers what to write. It does tell them not promote their ideas as Church doctrine, or publically challenge its truth claims.IE; Writing that BY did "X", "Y", and "Z" is different than because BY did "X", "Y", and "Z". BY was a fallen prophet. I agree. But now you're talking about something entirely different... what constitutes apostasy or qualifies one for excommunication/disfellowship. We were discussing the claim that their (the "Sept 6") work was "bad scholarship". A claim that has not yet been supported on this thread.
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 The Church doesn't tell writers what to write. It does tell them not promote their ideas as Church doctrine, or publically challenge its truth claims.IE; Writing that BY did "X", "Y", and "Z" is different than because BY did "X", "Y", and "Z". BY was a fallen prophet. But the problem comes when BY did "X", "Y" and "Z" and the Church:1. Doesn't want to talk about or acknowledge "it"2. Tries to minimize the importance or impact of "it"3. Tries to claim that "it" didn't happen despite the evidence All 3 have happened too often, but I agree, scholars have no business proclaiming a prophet as fallen. They're scholars, not gospel authorities.
rockpond Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 But the problem comes when BY did "X", "Y" and "Z" and the Church:1. Doesn't want to talk about or acknowledge "it"2. Tries to minimize the importance or impact of "it"3. Tries to claim that "it" didn't happen despite the evidence All 3 have happened too often, but I agree, scholars have no business proclaiming a prophet as fallen. They're scholars, not gospel authorities. True. But a scholar's job would be to say something along these lines: The church has defined "A", "B", and "C" as reasons why a prophet could be "fallen". The evidence shows that *this* prophet did "X", "Y", and "Z" which seems to fit the churches definition of fallen. For the record, I'm not suggesting that any prophet is fallen (that's why I didn't follow the pattern here and use "BY" in the hypothetical).
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 But the problem comes when BY did "X", "Y" and "Z" and the Church:1. Doesn't want to talk about or acknowledge "it"2. Tries to minimize the importance or impact of "it"3. Tries to claim that "it" didn't happen despite the evidence All 3 have happened too often, but I agree, scholars have no business proclaiming a prophet as fallen. They're scholars, not gospel authorities. I haven't seen many things that the Church doesn't want to talk about. What we do emphasis is that all knowledge needs to be in context. Miscellaneous tidbits really don't serve investigator, or member very well. I think a bigger problem is not its importance or impact. But some peoples spin of its importance or impact. IE; The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. It was a bad thing. Does it make the Church false, or make BY a false prophet. Not in my mind. 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I haven't seen many things that the Church doesn't want to talk about. What we do emphasis is that all knowledge needs to be in context. Miscellaneous tidbits really don't serve investigator, or member very well. I think a bigger problem is not its importance or impact. But some peoples spin of its importance or impact. IE; The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. It was a bad thing. Does it make the Church false, or make BY a false prophet. Not in my mind. You and I are in agreement. Plausible deniability is at the heart of absolute guilt as well.
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I haven't seen many things that the Church doesn't want to talk about. What we do emphasis is that all knowledge needs to be in context. Miscellaneous tidbits really don't serve investigator, or member very well. I think a bigger problem is not its importance or impact. But some peoples spin of its importance or impact. IE; The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. It was a bad thing. Does it make the Church false, or make BY a false prophet. Not in my mind. Things the Church doesn't like to talk about?Well, we just recently read postings of all the Church public denials of the post-manifesto polygamy. That, in fact, polygamy in general is usually ignored both for historical and doctrinal impact. Knowledge should be in context, but we get such watered down items in the Church that all context is really lost. How about the Kirtland Saftey society or the School of the Prophets? Do members know that both Heavenly Father and the Saviour appeared to the men at the School of the Prophets. Or when we discuss the necessity of Temples, do we ever mention how the ordinances were restored in Nauvoo.Adam-God (even as a heresy) has been so downplayed the majority of non-studious Church members have never even heard of it or its impact.How about teaching that the Law of Adoption used to exist and WHY Pres. Woodruff felt to end it? The list is almost endless at this point. The Church scholars often acknowledge, and even discuss these things, but the Church itself refuses to tolerate discussion and like to downplay important historical and doctrinal items. There are SO many things the Church won't talk about. When was the last time you had a lesson on some of Joseph Smith's deeper teachings? Instead we get the first vision and the appearance of Moroni ten times a year. We do ourselves a disservice by refusing to acknowledge, in context, some of the deeper truths restored. 3
rockpond Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I haven't seen many things that the Church doesn't want to talk about. What we do emphasis is that all knowledge needs to be in context. Miscellaneous tidbits really don't serve investigator, or member very well. I think a bigger problem is not its importance or impact. But some peoples spin of its importance or impact. IE; The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. It was a bad thing. Does it make the Church false, or make BY a false prophet. Not in my mind. I'd say that the church clearly doesn't want to talk about polygamy... at least not in our priesthood & RS classes. The all but removed it from the Presidents of the Church manuals. My guess is that they view it as not relevant which is a bit sad to me as the descendant of a polygamist. I think there are important things to learn from the practice. In any case, I agree that we should use caution in "spinning" importance/impact. Like you, I see that happen all too often. That's why I mentioned earlier in the thread, that despite his writings and despite his excommunication, Quinn is still a believer. I think it's significant that you can know a lot about these controversial topics and still place them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith. 1
rockpond Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 Things the Church doesn't like to talk about?Well, we just recently read postings of all the Church public denials of the post-manifesto polygamy. That, in fact, polygamy in general is usually ignored both for historical and doctrinal impact. Knowledge should be in context, but we get such watered down items in the Church that all context is really lost. How about the Kirtland Saftey society or the School of the Prophets? Do members know that both Heavenly Father and the Saviour appeared to the men at the School of the Prophets. Or when we discuss the necessity of Temples, do we ever mention how the ordinances were restored in Nauvoo.Adam-God (even as a heresy) has been so downplayed the majority of non-studious Church members have never even heard of it or its impact.How about teaching that the Law of Adoption used to exist and WHY Pres. Woodruff felt to end it? The list is almost endless at this point. The Church scholars often acknowledge, and even discuss these things, but the Church itself refuses to tolerate discussion and like to downplay important historical and doctrinal items. There are SO many things the Church won't talk about. When was the last time you had a lesson on some of Joseph Smith's deeper teachings? Instead we get the first vision and the appearance of Moroni ten times a year. We do ourselves a disservice by refusing to acknowledge, in context, some of the deeper truths restored. Amen!
ERayR Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) I'd say that the church clearly doesn't want to talk about polygamy... at least not in our priesthood & RS classes. The all but removed it from the Presidents of the Church manuals. My guess is that they view it as not relevant which is a bit sad to me as the descendant of a polygamist. I think there are important things to learn from the practice. In any case, I agree that we should use caution in "spinning" importance/impact. Like you, I see that happen all too often. That's why I mentioned earlier in the thread, that despite his writings and despite his excommunication, Quinn is still a believer. I think it's significant that you can know a lot about these controversial topics and still place them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith. I think the church has "place(d) them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith". IMNSHO polygamy is irrelevant to members today. It may become so again but not right now. " Edited October 3, 2013 by ERayR
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I think the church has "place(d) them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith". IMNSHO polygamy is irrelevant to members today. It may become so again but not right now. " But that's the problem. While Polygamy may not be practiced anymore it is NOT irrelevant. There are doctrines behind the practice, historical events related to the practice, and ongoing issues descended from when it was practiced. Look how many people have apostatized when they found out about Joseph seeming to practice polyandry. But rather than teach the members the whys and helpt them through it, they are more willing to let them leave than put the issue in context. The most ludicrous belief I have hear espoused is that that only reason polygamy was practiced was a shortage of men due to "wars and persecutions". I have heard that in Sunday school and it is so blatantly false.
CA Steve Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I think the church has "place(d) them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith". IMNSHO polygamy is irrelevant to members today. It may become so again but not right now. "How does one understand and appreciate the sacrifices our ancestors made to live the laws of the gospel without understanding polygamy?
thesometimesaint Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I'd say that the church clearly doesn't want to talk about polygamy... at least not in our priesthood & RS classes. The all but removed it from the Presidents of the Church manuals. My guess is that they view it as not relevant which is a bit sad to me as the descendant of a polygamist. I think there are important things to learn from the practice. In any case, I agree that we should use caution in "spinning" importance/impact. Like you, I see that happen all too often. That's why I mentioned earlier in the thread, that despite his writings and despite his excommunication, Quinn is still a believer. I think it's significant that you can know a lot about these controversial topics and still place them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith. D&C 132, and and OD1 are still in our Scrptures. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked about my polygamy. The reality is that modern day LDS don't practice polygamy in this life. We don't spend much, if any time, discussing if and when we will in the eternities. Whether or not one of my ancestors practiced polygamy while of interest to me. I don't know as there is anything truly important to learn about its practice. That isn't/can't be learned in how I treat my only wife in this life, and in the life to come. I wish Quinn all the best in his endevour to become a better person. If acknowledging that he still believes helps in that process more power to him. Howver Church membership is a two way street. The Church expects and demands that its members act in certain ways, or the only other option is Church Discipline.
JLHPROF Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I don't know as there is anything truly important to learn about its practice. That isn't/can't be learned in how I treat my only wife in this life, and in the life to come. Doctrinal teachings of the presidents of the Church on polygamy would absolutely be truly important and teach us principles we need to learn. But unfortunately they have all been redacted and labeled as speculation. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 3, 2013 Posted October 3, 2013 I think the church has "place(d) them in their proper perspective in the realm of faith". IMNSHO polygamy is irrelevant to members today. It may become so again but not right now. " While Polygamy may not be practiced anymore it is NOT irrelevant. Just for the record, we still practice "eternity only" plural marriage sealings and this is relevant for many members of the church.
Recommended Posts