For Those Looking For Meat, How Would You Recognise It?

[Rob Osborn]

When someone starts to criticize past or present leaders then begin to expound their own "revelation" as to correct doctrine I get a really bad feeling.

So do I. I remember about 15 years ago when a movement within the church by some members over this "tent city" that everyone was dreaming about and receiving "revelation" about. Crtisizm rose over how the church leaders might be in a state of apostacy not knowing the impending doom. The church had to come out and confront one group and its leader over it.

Revelation comes to all that have the Holy Ghost (the spirit of revelation) and unto all these are given the truth line upon line precept upon precept until they are given all the mysteries of the kingdom. There are also gifts given for some to expound upon the scriptures to clarify doctrines, etc, that may be incorrect in the church as a whole or from area to area.

[CV75]

There are also gifts given for some to expound upon the scriptures to clarify doctrines, etc, that may be incorrect in the church as a whole

Do you have some examples where someone has such a gift and used it to correct the Church "as a whole" without having the keys to do so in unity with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Or, where such a gift as this is discerned by those whom "God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church"? (D&C 46:27).

[Rob Osborn]

Clarifying doctrine is doctrine already revealed by God that perhaps isnt understood by the general membership. To sone it is given to expound upon these doctrines and clarify. I do realize though that changing a doctrine must come down from the first presidency.

[CV75]

Clarifying doctrine is doctrine already revealed by God that perhaps isnt understood by the general membership. To sone it is given to expound upon these doctrines and clarify. I do realize though that changing a doctrine must come down from the first presidency.

Do you have a reference for the spiritual gift of correcting the lack of understanding of the general membership (“the church as a whole”) about a particular doctrine, and some real-life examples?

[Rob Osborn]

Do you have a reference for the spiritual gift of correcting the lack of understanding of the general membership (“the church as a whole”) about a particular doctrine, and some real-life examples?

Well, hard to say exactly but from time to time I have heard people expound upon scripture that really clears things up. I do want to say, as I may have said otherwise, or led one to believe, that individual members do not have authority to change or declare new doctrine. That said, members do have the ability to discern truth and clarify doctrine that has been taught incorrectly.

[mfbukowski]

 

Do you have a reference for the spiritual gift of correcting the lack of understanding of the general membership (“the church as a whole”) about a particular doctrine, and some real-life examples?

 

I think clearly the social changes of the '60's brought about a state of uneasiness throughout the church which eventually led to the changes made in 1978.

 

The same was also arguably true of the polygamy issue.  Yes both of these came as revelations to the brethren, but as responses to social pressure.

 

To me this is a strength rather than a weakness in the church- we are able to respond to current issues and add line upon line as needed, as seen by the brethren.

[CV75]

I think clearly the social changes of the '60's brought about a state of uneasiness throughout the church which eventually led to the changes made in 1978.

 

The same was also arguably true of the polygamy issue.  Yes both of these came as revelations to the brethren, but as responses to social pressure.

 

To me this is a strength rather than a weakness in the church- we are able to respond to current issues and add line upon line as needed, as seen by the brethren.

I'm not challenging arguments about how the brethren make decisions (that is a separate topic as far as I can see).

 

I'm challenging the assertion that there is a distinct spiritual gift (a la D&C 46) given to a person specifically for correcting the doctrinal understanding of the whole Church, and that the Lord works through that person without the brethren to effectuate such a correction. In my thinking, there are so many levels of mortal understanding and belief, and yet the same eternal covenants and exaltation, that making such a correction isn't even necessary. Also, "line upon line" progress doesn't require correction, only added light--if a precept is flat-out wrong, progress could not be made from it (it would have to be corrected first, as progress is not built upon the lack of light, so in such a case we're really talking about the spiritual gift of repentance, which is the purview of the judges in Israel). Also, while the saints (including the brethren) have the capacity to learn truth from anyone, especially from one with a spiritual gift to teach it, this is not the same as correcting or adjusting everyone's understanding for them.

[mfbukowski]

I'm challenging the assertion that there is a distinct spiritual gift (a la D&C 46) given to a person specifically for correcting the doctrinal understanding of the whole Church, and that the Lord works through that person without the brethren to effectuate such a correction.

OK yes, I agree that would be wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

Perhaps I miststated. I never meant to mean a person could have a gift of correcting doctrine. I only meant a person or many have the gift of discerning and clarifying doctrine already given. Perhaps its just the way it sounds that causes confusion but in truth no one is witheld from knowing the very truth on doctrine if they are living righteous and ask for that clarification.

[CV75]

I only meant a person or many have the gift of discerning and clarifying doctrine already given.

Discerning and clarifying doctrine (especially in terms of meat and mysteries) for oneself is one thing, doing it within the scope of one's calling or class participation is another, and doing it for the benefit of the general membership or the Church as a whole is quite another.

 

From this talk: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/gifts-of-the-spirit?lang=eng

 

"Some may mean well but are listening to the wrong influence ...not focused on correcting their own imperfections. They focus on the imperfections of others."

 

"The Spirit of the Lord withdraws from them with their faultfinding and contentions. ...The Lord and the prophets of this day have set the course we should follow."

[Rob Osborn]

Let me be quite certain here. I am not saying that a person has authority to clarify doctrine to the whole church outside of the first presidency approval. That is not what I am getting at. I am merely stating that members have the right to the truth and where doctrines are being corrupted or misinterpreted some have gifts of discerning this and can clarify truth of doctrine already revealed.

[CV75]

Let me be quite certain here. I am not saying that a person has authority to clarify doctrine to the whole church outside of the first presidency approval. That is not what I am getting at. I am merely stating that members have the right to the truth and where doctrines are being corrupted or misinterpreted some have gifts of discerning this and can clarify truth of doctrine already revealed.

OK—your posts from 141- 146 looked like an exhortation to dutifully exercise a spiritual gift involving personal revelation to correct the existing teachings (definitions) of the Church regarding such doctrines as you listed (Salvation, Damnation, Saved, Damned, Born again, Eternal life, Spiritual death), rather than to teach them as they have evolved line upon line, precept upon precept throughout and since the days of Joseph Smith to what we have in the current class manuals.

 

The posts sounded like a charge that these doctrines as presented in the current manuals are corrupted and misinterpreted, and that "someone" is duty-bound to exercsie a God-given spiritual gift to correct them and the general understanding of them.

[Rob Osborn]

OK—your posts from 141- 146 looked like an exhortation to dutifully exercise a spiritual gift involving personal revelation to correct the existing teachings (definitions) of the Church regarding such doctrines as you listed (Salvation, Damnation, Saved, Damned, Born again, Eternal life, Spiritual death), rather than to teach them as they have evolved line upon line, precept upon precept throughout and since the days of Joseph Smith to what we have in the current class manuals.

 

The posts sounded like a charge that these doctrines as presented in the current manuals are corrupted and misinterpreted, and that "someone" is duty-bound to exercsie a God-given spiritual gift to correct them and the general understanding of them.

This is getting back to my intent. Our doctrine of salvation has already been revealed, but in my opinion has wandered or wavered to some degree off course. It is my belief that some may have gifts to discern this and use tgat gift to perhaps help straighten out the course. Whereas they cannot change doctrine already revealed without thefirst presidency they can write up papers, books, even teach the correct precepts. For example, I believe that the general understanding of "damnation" in mormon circles is grossly distorted or redefined to now mean something other than what Christ taught in the BoM and NT. Is it thus wrong for someone like me to show or attempt to show where our understanding is off or show a more correct way to use the word?

[Tacenda]

This documentary would be meat when discussing church history.  I remember watching it when I was a fully believing member and most went over my head.  I believe it was shocking to watch for some members at that time.  They even mention the seer stones.     

 

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/

[teddyaware]

This documentary would be meat when discussing church history.  I remember watching it when I was a fully believing member and most went over my head.  I believe it was shocking to watch for some members at that time.  They even mention the seer stones.     

 

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of zero to 100% (100% being total, unshakable belief), where do you fall in this continuum of unbelief to belief at this moment in time. If I'm being too nosey, please do ignore me.

[Stone holm]

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of zero to 100% (100% being total, unshakable belief), where do you fall in this continuum of unbelief to belief at this moment in time. If I'm being too nosey, please do ignore me.

 

Oh we try to do that as a matter of course.

 

The question is inappropriate and so is your response.

[Calm]

This documentary would be meat when discussing church history.  I remember watching it when I was a fully believing member and most went over my head.  I believe it was shocking to watch for some members at that time.  They even mention the seer stones./

Meat because it was unfamiliar or because it went in depth or because it went into things of a deeply spiritual nature?

I just don't see the scriptures when they speak of getting meat worrying all that much about history specifics or controversies. There seems a very specific type of meat being referred to there of the latter nature.

Though I do understand that many translate "meat" as "unknown" or "in detail".

[Stone holm]

OK—your posts from 141- 146 looked like an exhortation to dutifully exercise a spiritual gift involving personal revelation to correct the existing teachings (definitions) of the Church regarding such doctrines as you listed (Salvation, Damnation, Saved, Damned, Born again, Eternal life, Spiritual death), rather than to teach them as they have evolved line upon line, precept upon precept throughout and since the days of Joseph Smith to what we have in the current class manuals.

 

The posts sounded like a charge that these doctrines as presented in the current manuals are corrupted and misinterpreted, and that "someone" is duty-bound to exercsie a God-given spiritual gift to correct them and the general understanding of them.

I think "corrupted" and " misinterpreted" are too harsh of a characterization, how about sanitized and milkified? Is milkified a word, if not should be.