Section 132: Of Man Or God?

[stemelbow]

The Church still teaches that Moses literally wrote the first five books of the Bible.  He did it as an eyewitness to the events in a vision, as recorded in scripture.  So no "oral traditions" were needed.

I guess that's one of the problems before us. The Church still teaches things that seem untenable. One of which, being, the first 5 books in the Bible were written by Moses. Surely, something could have been written by him. But if something was, it could be a rendition supplying a base from which the first 5 books were actually written.

[Gray]

I guess that's one of the problems before us. The Church still teaches things that seem untenable. One of which, being, the first 5 books in the Bible were written by Moses. Surely, something could have been written by him. But if something was, it could be a rendition supplying a base from which the first 5 books were actually written.

 

Well, the problem goes deeper than authorship. There is no good historical evidence that Moses was an actual person, or that the exodus ever occurred. 

 

That's the danger of hanging your hat on modern literalism - it doesn't line up well with the way people wrote anciently. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

Well, the problem goes deeper than authorship. There is no good historical evidence that Moses was an actual person, or that the exodus ever occurred. 

 

That's the danger of hanging your hat on modern literalism - it doesn't line up well with the way people wrote anciently. 

 

I only need two pieces of evidence to convince me that Moses actually existed:

 

Matthew 17:3 - And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

and

D&C 110:11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Polygamy should be left for the eternities. Not for this life.

[Gray]

I only need two pieces of evidence to convince me that Moses actually existed:

 

Matthew 17:3 - And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

and

D&C 110:11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.

 

One can accept these as visionary and symbolic experiences (or in the case of Matthew, more mythic tradition) without there having been a real person behind the myth 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

One can accept these as visionary experiences (or in the case of Matthew, more mythic tradition) without there having been a real person behind the myth 

 

Priesthood keys are only imparted through the laying on of hands.  Somebody had to put their hands on Joseph's head and give the keys of the gathering.  More than just a vision.

 

And I personally believe that's what happened on the Mt of Transfiguration too - Moses and Elijah restored their keys to that dispensation by laying on of hands.

Edited April 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy should be left for the eternities. Not for this life.

 

It has been for now.  That may change.

[Gray]

Priesthood keys are only imparted through the laying on of hands.  Somebody had to put their hands on Joseph's head and give the keys of the gathering.  More than just a vision.

 

And I personally believe that's what happened on the Mt of Transfiguration too - Moses and Elijah restored their keys to that dispensation by laying on of hands.

 

The laying on hands itself is symbolic. I realize it's common to assume the laying on of hands itself is the important thing, but I'm not as concerned with details like that.  

[JLHPROF]

The laying on hands itself is symbolic. I realize it's common to assume the laying on of hands itself is the important thing, but I'm not as concerned with details like that.  

 

5th Article of Faith says otherwise.  Assuming you subscribe to the same Church and religion I do.

 

Also D&C 107

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;

66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

 

Not to mention all the scriptural precedents.

[Gray]

5th Article of Faith says otherwise.  Assuming you subscribe to the same Church and religion I do.

 

Also D&C 107

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;

66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

 

Not to mention all the scriptural precedents.

 

I just don't find bureaucratic details (as in, you must fill out all forms in triplicate, witnessed by a notary public to get to into heaven kind of thing) all that interesting or important. I never have. Not to say that when I participate in ordinances that I do anything "off-manual," but I consider all ordinances to be external symbols meant to convey some deeper meaning. The symbols themselves aren't important. Any number of symbols could be used to get the point across. 

 

The ordinance of baptism, for example, is a symbolic event. The inner change of heart is the important thing to me, not the administrator or the angle of the arms or any other detail. 

 

To a certain extent orthodox Mormonism is very much concerned with these kinds of details, almost obsessively. But I don't claim to be orthodox. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Gray

[Teancum]

 

OK.  If Joseph Smith "later went down an erroneous path," how do you explain Doctrine and Covenants 43:3-4?

 

 

 

 

 

What that he did not have a chance to appoint another?  Some argue he did.... his son, the Q of 12 and James Strange claimed to be appointed as well.

 

Personally I think most of the people who we think of as prophets may have had some inspiration from a higher power that we call God but they mixed a lot of their own ideas in.  The concept of one true church or religion is becoming increasingly foreign to me.  I feel if God does exist God intervenes in humans affairs little to nothing.  Just my own musings though.

[Teancum]

God did that in several revelations through Joseph.  But I guess that would be self-fulfilling...

But in that case there would be NO prophets ever, which would make the scriptures false, which would eliminate Christianity, which would remove the atonement from our knowledge, which would make me an atheist.

Not going to happen.

 

Even as a more solid LDS believer when I read the passages in the D&C where it says about JS that this generation will have my word through you, or that there was non other appointed it gnawed at the back of my mind that those passages written by the guy claiming this special privilege seemed pretty convenient.  I guess I have always had the seeds of apostasy in me.

[Kenngo1969]

As long as we're recapping, because apparently you feel my reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired (is the feeling mutual? you decide! ) Buckeye said:

Elder Holland has taught that the spirit can lead us down wrong and dangerous roads:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQC-_srxH8

 

I've sometimes thought that perhaps this will serve as a parable for the racial priesthood ban. If we hadn't continued the ban through 1978, we wouldn't have known how wrong racism is. Or something like that.

At a minimum, I would have a problem with Buckeye's paraphrase, because the insertion "and dangerous" appears to be entirely his, which means, even if it means nothing else, that he is attributing something to Elder Holland that Elder Holland did not say.  If you don't have a problem with that, that's fine, but that says more about you than it'll ever say about Elder Holland. In part, that's why I then said: 

 

No, he didn't teach any such thing!  Now that this has been pointed out to you, I'm sure you'll be eager to present what Elder Holland said in context, and I, in turn, eagerly await your correction of the record.  You are very clearly wresting what Elder Holland said to suit your own purposes.  Consider this a CFR.

 

 

I'm not Buckeye but I agree with his interpretation of the Holland video. It is very problematic.

 

Recap- Holland and his son are lost. They pray to know which road they should take. They get an answer. The answer is wrong. The road is a dead end.

 

According to Holland the wrong answer to the question that was asked was really a correct answer because it allowed them to turn around and continue on with confidence. Of course if the road had not dead ended then it could have been big trouble for them. If they had been led to the correct road I would expect a decent chance that they would recognize a landmark of some kind that would also allow them to continue on with confidence. It is totally disingenuous to claim that a wrong answer to a question is really right. The sky is down and the ground is up. Everything is backwards here.

Provided the facts are as Elder Holland recounted them, there was, shockingly no catastrophe (no, to use Buckeye's word ... and it is Buckeye's, rather than Elder Holland's ... "danger") here.  The only "dangers" were that: (1) perhaps Elder Holland's truck got a little extra dirty; and (2) Elder Holland and his son were a little bit late for dinner (that's got to be it!  I'll bet Elder Holland left out the minor, insignificant detail that thanks to taking that wrong road, he and his son got lost and nearly perished with hunger!!!).

 

I happen to think that the Lord works by the principle of employing the minimum intervention necessary.  While He's not above sending an angel if that's what it takes, If the best way to answer someone's prayer is to prompt him to do something that will not lead directly and immediately to his ultimate desired destination, I don't think the Lord is above doing that.  On the other hand, the Lord could just easily have prompted Elder Holland and his son along these lines: "You want to know where that road leads, there's no reason why you shouldn't take it.  Doing so won't lead to any lasting or great harm" (even if it is a dead end).  Sure, Elder Holland's truck got a little extra dirt on it.  Maybe he and his son arrived for dinner that night a little hungrier than usual.  Other than that, what was the harm?

 

There have been plenty of times I have wondered if, perhaps, I haven't taken a wrong road or hit a dead end in my life, particularly with respect to my intended career choice ... and yet that choice was made only after a good deal of prayer and reflection, and only after receiving what I felt was a clear direction about which way I should go.  I could get angry at God.  I could shake my fist at the Heavens and ask him, "Why?  Why has this particular decision met with no small degree of opposition and frustration?  I was only trying to do what I felt you wanted me to do!  Why haven't you blessed me with the result I thought you wanted?"  But at the risk that you'll accuse me of rationalizing, just as you have Elder Holland, then I ask myself, "Wrong road or no, am I really that bad off?"  

 

Yes, I live at poverty level, and no, I couldn't meet my obligations without a good deal of family support. Still, despite the fact that there is a certain school of thought that says, with respect to student loans, "If you can't get a job, and/or you can't get a job in your chosen field, just default.  Just stop paying," I've paid every single cent due on my student loans in the last ten years.  (And frankly, while I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for me, I would have a better excuse to default than most people who actually do default because of my disability and resultant circumscribed job prospects.)  And whether I ever work a single day for pay in my would-be chosen field or not, if nothing else, it's only knowledge.  It won't kill me, and it's one of the few things I'll take with me when I leave this life.

 

Bottom line, we're not only here to learn to hearken to the voice of the Holy Spirit and to do the will of God: we're here to learn by our own experience to shun evil and to choose good.  Whether I took a "wrong road" or not, I can't choose my current circumstances.  The only thing I can choose is how I respond to them. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Teancum]

I know polygamy is a bugaboo for you, but if I were you, I wouldn't appeal to the ever-loving, ever-patient, ever-kind, never-judgmental God of the Bible in an effort to bolster your position.  After all, we know that God never commanded anybody to kill anyone else.

 

Oh, wait ...  Yeah, He did.

 

I don't have time to go through the whole litany, so permit me just a couple of examples:

 

Deuteronomy 20:17

Genesis 22:2

 

 

The barbaric way God is portrayed in the bible IMO is not a good thing to appeal to. It makes for a pretty unstable strange God.  Really it is more how the people who wrote viewed the world, their culture and used God to justify bad things rather than God.   Can't take it all so literally.

[Teancum]

The key is, will you do it willingly and happily, or grudgingly and resentfully?

To my mind, one would bring the blessings attendant to the practice, the other would bring the sorrows.

 

When God tell me to my face to do something the seems pretty awful like taking additional wives and all the things JS did with this then I will do it.  If God tells me to my face to kill someone, I have a problem with that.  But I might be so scared enough to do it....

 

When a man tells me to do something that total flies in the face of reason and decency then I won't do it because it is more likely just a man telling me and not God.  I will take my chances on this one.

[Teancum]

Teancum:

 

Still waiting for an answer to this query to you from me earlier in the thread.  (If you don't have an answer or are otherwise disinclined to respond, that's OK: Just wanted to make sure you didn't overlook it.)

  Been busy.

See response above.

[JLHPROF]

flies in the face of reason and decency

 

Totally subjective and based in societal norms.  Polygamy is completely decent and reasonable to many people's perspective.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't imply that just because it bugs you that that makes it wrong.

[JLHPROF]

Not to say that when I participate in ordinances that I do anything "off-manual," but I consider all ordinances to be external symbols meant to convey some deeper meaning. The symbols themselves aren't important.

 

And as you know, I believe the exact opposite.

If they were important enough for God to mention them they are important enough to be mandatory.

Edited April 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

Totally subjective and based in societal norms.  Polygamy is completely decent and reasonable to many people's perspective.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't imply that just because it bugs you that that makes it wrong.

Kind of like gay marriage.

[JLHPROF]

Kind of like gay marriage.

 

True.  Unless, unlike Teancum and others, you believe that God has an absolute morality that he has revealed.  (Which my personal understanding of scripture tells me polygamy good/SSM bad). 

Rep point for the good catch.

 

But of course many people feel the same way about SSM that I do about polygamy.  And many people feel the same way about polygamy that I do about SSM.  So I will stick to the scriptures as best I can until God tells me (or his prophet) otherwise.

Edited April 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

Totally subjective and based in societal norms.  Polygamy is completely decent and reasonable to many people's perspective.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't imply that just because it bugs you that that makes it wrong.

 

 

Not they way JS did it.  I really am quite fine with consenting adults doing it if it is of their own free will and there is not a compulsive element behind it like "God promised you to me before we were born... you have 24 hours to think about it... an oh if you say no you will may lose your exaltation... and remember I am THE PROPHET of God after all.."  Or how about "Well you see you have to ask your wife permission before you can take another but if she says no, well then, just do it anyway and she might just be obliterated.... "  or some other nice things along those line.

[Teancum]

True.  Unless, unlike Teancum and others, you believe that God has an absolute morality that he has revealed.  (Which my personal understanding of scripture tells me polygamy good/SSM bad). 

Rep point for the good catch.

 

But of course many people feel the same way about SSM that I do about polygamy.  And many people feel the same way about polygamy that I do about SSM.  So I will stick to the scriptures as best I can until God tells me (or his prophet) otherwise.

 

 

Darn.  I almost thought I had you listening to reason......    Just kiddin ya!

[Gray]

And as you know, I believe the exact opposite.

If they were important enough for God to mention them they are important enough to be mandatory.

 

Yes, and as you know I don't believe in verbatim word for word revelation.