Continuing Revelation

[Freedom]

God is a god of order. He keeps his order through revelation. The alternative is leaving it to the bible to speak for itself which leaves us with hundreds of conflicting beliefs. I like modern revelation instead. 

[Calm]

I'll never forget a mentally challenged young man, probably in his late 20's, that blessed the Sacrament. He got most right but kept stumbling. He had to do it 2 or 3 times. I just really wanted the bishop to give him a pass. But finally he got it nearly perfect. But how hard that would be, especially having the younger man's parents in the audience. Poor bishop, It would be terribly difficult to not just say they did it good enough.

I think it is better to have them try rather than give them as pass on the first time around as if no one believes they can do it or that their time and effort has value.  Given it is young men, there seems to me there it is wise to be a relatively rigid standard to help instill respect and to avoid sloppiness.  I wonder at times if it was a less rigid rule if the priests were older and who had spiritual awakening and treated the prayer with inherent respect on their own without the rules needing to encourage them.

 

There is greater pride in something that is hard that one accomplishes than being patted on the head and being told you are special in other ways so who cares if you can't do that one thing like everyone else does.

 

In the temple, where the community is smaller for the encounter, just three people, my understanding is that temple workers are to err on the side of compassion and people are allowed more to learn at their own rate.

[ERayR]

Ok I won't insist that it's your belief. Although, you'll have to excuse me for finding it odd that Sacrament prayer has to be restarted after a slip up, and yet you're allowed error in scripture. What message are you trying to send about God, is he orderly or not. That's what happens in my brain when I see these juxtapositions. 

 

The difference is that the sacrament prayer is not just a prayer but is an ordinance or ritual prayer.

[ERayR]

I asked what the record is, they said 7 tries that they could remember

 

Thanks 

 

And this proves what? 

[mass168]

The difference is that the sacrament prayer is not just a prayer but is an ordinance or ritual prayer.

Yup, which came from God supposedly, which is why it's so serious. What I said proves nothing. I just find it to be a very mixed message to say God cares so much about little things like that, but can't be bothered to ensure there's no error in scripture. 

[thesometimesaint]

Yup, which came from God supposedly, which is why it's so serious. What I said proves nothing. I just find it to be a very mixed message to say God cares so much about little things like that, but can't be bothered to ensure there's no error in scripture. 

 

The errors in scripture are plainly manifest. IE; Not too many people still believe the earth is flat. But that is a stretch to go from a non-literal bible to Jesus isn't the Christ.

[JLHPROF]

Yup, which came from God supposedly, which is why it's so serious. What I said proves nothing. I just find it to be a very mixed message to say God cares so much about little things like that, but can't be bothered to ensure there's no error in scripture. 

 

You do understand there are two kinds of scriptures right?

 

1. The Word of God

2. The Words of God's servants.

 

# 2 is usually as dependable as #1, but even Peter and Paul didn't agree on doctrine and we have record of both their teachings.  Prophets and Apostles are fallible and so too are their teachings.  The teachings of Paul don't outrank the teachings of James or of John, or of Moroni, or of Joseph Smith.

Ideally there should be no conflict, but sometimes there is.

 

There is no flaw in the words of God when we have them recorded correctly.  But there is a big flaw in our thinking that we always have them recorded correctly.

[ERayR]

Yup, which came from God supposedly, which is why it's so serious. What I said proves nothing. I just find it to be a very mixed message to say God cares so much about little things like that, but can't be bothered to ensure there's no error in scripture. 

 

I think I have found your problem.  I bolded and underlined it.

[mfbukowski]

I asked what the record is, they said 7 tries that they could remember

 

Thanks 

As has been said, if prophets are fallible, so are bishops.

[mfbukowski]

I'll never forget a mentally challenged young man, probably in his late 20's, that blessed the Sacrament. He got most right but kept stumbling. He had to do it 2 or 3 times. I just really wanted the bishop to give him a pass. But finally he got it nearly perfect. But how hard that would be, especially having the younger man's parents in the audience. Poor bishop, It would be terribly difficult to not just say they did it good enough.

There is no excuse for this really.  Even in the temple we are told that you correct the patron once with kindness, and if they miss it again, you let it go.  The atonement makes up for errors.

 

God is a kind God who loves his children and makes allowances.  I am not sure why EV's believe that even those who never heard of Christ burn forever in hell, but so is their nature.  I guess they believe in more of an old testament God of fire and brimstone, while we believe in a loving Father.  But obviously as you point out, even Mormons tend to be overly sanctimonious some times as well.  This is where fundmentalism and literalism leads.

[mfbukowski]

God is a god of order. He keeps his order through revelation. The alternative is leaving it to the bible to speak for itself which leaves us with hundreds of conflicting beliefs. I like modern revelation instead. 

Look at the morass of fundamentalist groups each with their own doctrine.  Look at the morass of denominations all criticizing the others.  Hardly one faith one baptism, and that conflict is proven daily.

[mfbukowski]

Yup, which came from God supposedly, which is why it's so serious. What I said proves nothing. I just find it to be a very mixed message to say God cares so much about little things like that, but can't be bothered to ensure there's no error in scripture. 

LOL

What's the difference if "there is no error in scripture" when there is error in a hundred denominations all using their own interpretations?   Or perhaps they are all right?

 

Do you believe in transubstantiation?   Why or why not?  You believe in the Trinity- don't you?  Both are based on substance theology- that there exists and underlying "substance" or essence or being that unifies the trinity, or that can be changed in transubstantiation.  You can't consistently believe in substance in one way and throw it out in the other.

 

Yet all of that supposedly comes from scripture- which is God breathed.  Perhaps he had a little cough or two when the Creeds were written and the books of the bible were canonized.

Edited January 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The errors in scripture are plainly manifest. IE; Not too many people still believe the earth is flat. But that is a stretch to go from a non-literal bible to Jesus isn't the Christ.

And of course some believe in evolution and others do not, some believe in a global flood and others do not, some believe in predestination, others do not, some believe in universal salvation, others do not,  some believe in purgatory and transubstantiation and others do not, and then we have the Jehovah's Witnesses who are entirely different on many of these.

 

All from an inerrant Bible which is God breathed.

 

No thanks, I'll stick with a Bible that sometimes got it wrong, and other scriptures that did the same, with prophets to help us figure it out day by day.  And if we don't like what they say, we go on message boards and discuss it, we pray for answers, but at the end as long as we have orthodox practices we get a temple recommend anyway and are all equal before God, to let him teach each of us in our own individual tutoring program for the spiritually impaired.

 

Yep, that definitely makes more sense to me.

 

Individualized instruction and our own liahona inside of us to show us the way we need to go individually.  THAT's what I signed on for! 

[thesometimesaint]

And of course some believe in evolution and others do not, some believe in a global flood and others do not, some believe in predestination, others do not, some believe in universal salvation, others do not,  some believe in purgatory and transubstantiation and others do not, and then we have the Jehovah's Witnesses who are entirely different on many of these.

 

All from an inerrant Bible which is God breathed.

 

No thanks, I'll stick with a Bible that sometimes got it wrong, and other scriptures that did the same, with prophets to help us figure it out day by day.  And if we don't like what they say, we go on message boards and discuss it, we pray for answers, but at the end as long as we have orthodox practices we get a temple recommend anyway and are all equal before God, to let him teach each of us in our own individual tutoring program for the spiritually impaired.

 

Yep, that definitely makes more sense to me.

 

Individualized instruction and our own liahona inside of us to show us the way we need to go individually.  THAT's what I signed on for! 

 

They're ALL RIGHT except the Mormons, just because we're Mormons and not Christians.

[mfbukowski]

You do understand there are two kinds of scriptures right?

 

1. The Word of God

2. The Words of God's servants.

 

# 2 is usually as dependable as #1, but even Peter and Paul didn't agree on doctrine and we have record of both their teachings.  Prophets and Apostles are fallible and so too are their teachings.  The teachings of Paul don't outrank the teachings of James or of John, or of Moroni, or of Joseph Smith.

Ideally there should be no conflict, but sometimes there is.

 

There is no flaw in the words of God when we have them recorded correctly.  But there is a big flaw in our thinking that we always have them recorded correctly.

Excellent point, and of course we do not have God's handwriting on anything.  It's all written by human hands in human words in human languages which change literally daily.

 

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/march-2014-update/new-words-list-march-2014/

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/slideshows/older-than-you-think#omg

Edited January 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mass168]

You do understand there are two kinds of scriptures right?

 

1. The Word of God

2. The Words of God's servants.

 

# 2 is usually as dependable as #1, but even Peter and Paul didn't agree on doctrine and we have record of both their teachings.  Prophets and Apostles are fallible and so too are their teachings.  The teachings of Paul don't outrank the teachings of James or of John, or of Moroni, or of Joseph Smith.

Ideally there should be no conflict, but sometimes there is.

 

There is no flaw in the words of God when we have them recorded correctly.  But there is a big flaw in our thinking that we always have them recorded correctly.

This seems to be taking a very small view of God. Foreseeing and perfectly planning for all the little scribal changes etc over the years is certainly not the most impressive thing he has done, IMO.

[mass168]

LOL

What's the difference if "there is no error in scripture" when there is error in a hundred denominations all using their own interpretations?   Or perhaps they are all right?

 

Do you believe in transubstantiation?   Why or why not?  You believe in the Trinity- don't you?  Both are based on substance theology- that there exists and underlying "substance" or essence or being that unifies the trinity, or that can be changed in transubstantiation.  You can't consistently believe in substance in one way and throw it out in the other.

 

Yet all of that supposedly comes from scripture- which is God breathed.  Perhaps he had a little cough or two when the Creeds were written and the books of the bible were canonized.

I assume you are talking about it like this because you don't see God as a fundamentally different substance than we are. If you allow yourself to imagine that, it can start to make sense that perhaps whatever substance he is follows different physical laws than our substance. 

 

I don't believe in transubstantiation simply because I think Christ was speaking metaphorically about the bread and wine. 

[Freedom]

This seems to be taking a very small view of God. Foreseeing and perfectly planning for all the little scribal changes etc over the years is certainly not the most impressive thing he has done, IMO.

But you do not have any evidence that this is something that he would do. You need it to be so to justify your doctrines, but you have failed to provide any evidence that he would do this. Can you provide a single verse in the bible that suggests the book would be handed down for generations without any errors?

[thesometimesaint]

This seems to be taking a very small view of God. Foreseeing and perfectly planning for all the little scribal changes etc over the years is certainly not the most impressive thing he has done, IMO.

 

God can do anything he wants. But with nearly 1/2 million variants in the Bible text in some 50,000 different Bibles, and no original text. It becomes problematic to say which one is God Breathed.

[Freedom]

I would also wonder why God would ensure that the bible is perfect, but not care that it is interpreted so many ways, and not even given to the majority of the people on the earth. Why would he not make an effort for it to get to China or Africa for thousands of years? Why, if it is so perfect, are there Catholics, Easter Orthodox, baptists, 7th day adventists, mormons and  host of other religions? For such a perfect book, why is it so unclear? 

Is homosexuality a sin or not? Are we to rely on works or not? Is the Father and the Son separate individuals or not? what about baptism? What about baptism for the dead? 

[mfbukowski]

I assume you are talking about it like this because you don't see God as a fundamentally different substance than we are. If you allow yourself to imagine that, it can start to make sense that perhaps whatever substance he is follows different physical laws than our substance. 

 

I don't believe in transubstantiation simply because I think Christ was speaking metaphorically about the bread and wine. 

I think those words don't make sense in this context.  Having been raised Catholic, I have been there and done that as far as imagining "substance" and found the idea lacking.  Also, physical laws are physical laws and are just regularities we humans observe. Since God is unobservable, so are the "physical laws" which he might or might not decide to bind himself by. 

 

In short, none of these ideas apply to God because we are stuck with human words to describe human ideas.  That's also why the bible is inspired but man made.

 

When you see a sample of God's handwriting, let me know.

 

And of course you completely avoided the question

Edited January 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mass168]

But you do not have any evidence that this is something that he would do. You need it to be so to justify your doctrines, but you have failed to provide any evidence that he would do this. Can you provide a single verse in the bible that suggests the book would be handed down for generations without any errors?

Off the top of my head 2 Tim 3:16. How could God guarantee it is ALL useful, if it was corrupted. 

[mass168]

God can do anything he wants. But with nearly 1/2 million variants in the Bible text in some 50,000 different Bibles, and no original text. It becomes problematic to say which one is God Breathed.

I'm glad you agree he can do anything he wants. It is unbelievably difficult to convince people of even that sometimes  

[mass168]

I would also wonder why God would ensure that the bible is perfect, but not care that it is interpreted so many ways, and not even given to the majority of the people on the earth. Why would he not make an effort for it to get to China or Africa for thousands of years? Why, if it is so perfect, are there Catholics, Easter Orthodox, baptists, 7th day adventists, mormons and  host of other religions? For such a perfect book, why is it so unclear? 

Is homosexuality a sin or not? Are we to rely on works or not? Is the Father and the Son separate individuals or not? what about baptism? What about baptism for the dead? 

None of this has a simple answer. Questions for the ages. And I assume this is why LDS feel comfortable with their description of God as an exalted man. It makes him literally one of us so that we don't have to even ask a lot of these questions. I just don't see it in the Bible though. In fact I see the opposite answer a lot of times than LDS have arrived at. All I can do is choose with the tiny brain that God has given me. 

[mass168]

I think those words don't make sense in this context.  Having been raised Catholic, I have been there and done that as far as imagining "substance" and found the idea lacking.  Also, physical laws are physical laws and are just regularities we humans observe. Since God is unobservable, so are the "physical laws" which he might or might not decide to bind himself by. 

 

In short, none of these ideas apply to God because we are stuck with human words to describe human ideas.  That's also why the bible is inspired but man made.

 

When you see a sample of God's handwriting, let me know.

 

And of course you completely avoided the question

I have answered it implicitly. I believe God's word will reach the hearts and minds of those he has chosen to have mercy on (Romans 9, before you get mad and say that's my idea). It will do this in exactly and precisely (and other words like that) the way that he has chosen. That way appears to be somewhat confusing in human terms, lots of translations, lots of interpretations. Don't ask me why he did it that way, I don't know. 

 

At the present time, despite all that, the LDS system contains much greater confusion in my estimation. Therefore it wiill take a lot of work to convince me your answer is better than mine. I am on this forum to learn, do your worst.