A Review of Recent Trends Re: Ordination of Women in LDS Church

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Of course, the other choice is not easy.  You have to submit to the will of God - accept his standards as your own and strive to be like him.  

 

 

Why are Mormons so quick to conflate "submit to the will of Church leaders" with "submit to the will of God"?

[Zakuska]

Just now, consiglieri said:

Why are Mormons so quick to conflate "submit to the will of Church leaders" with "submit to the will of God"?

Reminds me of the Prophet Ezra who got slapped in the face by another Member of the church so they got in a prophetic duel to see who was approved of God and who wasn't.

[Russell C McGregor]

10 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

So  you object to my definitively correct usage of "Quorum of Sisters" when referring to the Relief Society? Why?

Quorum isn't a Mormon word restricted to "Priesthood" and it does have a definition. Us LDS can't just appropriate the word and change its definition to exclude women from using it to refer to their "Societies" which are included in its definition of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

"Us LDS" is incorrect grammar.

It's factually questionable too.

You used the phrase "Quorum of Sisters" in an LDS context. Are you now admitting that it's not LDS terminology?

Thank you.

Now tell us about "Female Priesthood Matriarchy."

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

So  you object to my definitively correct usage of "Quorum of Sisters" when referring to the Relief Society? Why?

Quorum isn't a Mormon word restricted to "Priesthood" and it does have a definition. Us LDS can't just appropriate the word and change its definition to exclude women from using it to refer to their "Societies" which are included in its definition of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum

I'm not "objecting" to anything yet.  I'm just wondering whether you are fabricating phrases and concepts.  It appears you are.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not "objecting" to anything yet.  I'm just wondering whether you are fabricating phrases and concepts.  It appears you are.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

29 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

"Us LDS" is incorrect grammar.

It's factually questionable too.

You used the phrase "Quorum of Sisters" in an LDS context. Are you now admitting that it's not LDS terminology?

Thank you.

Now tell us about "Female Priesthood Matriarchy."

I already gave the link to LDS.ORG which talks of Mother Eve's Matriarchal Priesthood held in partnership with her husband Adam's Patriarchal Priesthood.

"Eve served in matriarchal partnership with the patriarchal priesthood. So today, each wife may join with her husband as a partner unified in purpose. ." https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/service/serving-in-the-church/relief-society/RS-SG1-LessonsfromEve-eng.pdf

Remember Joseph Smiths "Quorum of the Anointed"... it included Women.

Google that and you come up with all kinds of hits. Yet another proof that temple endowed Women do indeed belong to a Quorum of Melchezadek Priesthood holders!

Quote

Between December 1845 and February 1846, the Anointed Quorum extended the same rituals they had received from Smith to over 5,000 men and women living in the vicinity of Nauvoo.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Smac already primaryily linked to the quote you are complaining about Calm in the very next post.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/content/journal-thomas-bullock

I think you are missing my point.  You've posted a number of quotes that another person collected and used in her article, even used some of her bolding.  You have given this person no credit for the research and work she did in collecting the quotes and posting them in her article.  That the quotes are available elsewhere are irrelevant if you were using her source as your uncredited reference given they are not quotes that are well known.  The list of quotes---and it is a list even if you posted them in separate posts---is her work product.

It is possible I am pickier about plagiarism than the mods are though.

[Cold Steel]

On 12/21/2015 at 11:04 AM, Gray said:

That's interesting, I'd never heard that before, and it seems to be a hard to find quote. Of course he does not say that the revelations are "direct word for word revelations" which is what I was saying doesn't seem to happen anymore. But I wonder, how can any of us respond to secret revelations that are never shared with us?

President Hinckley said, of course, that revelation is quite rare in the church, only coming up in response to specific problems. 

Presidents of the church receive revelation frequently. I'm not sure what President Hinckley meant when he says revelation is quite rare in the church because it's not rare. Perhaps he meant in the way of new doctrine or quoted word-for-word dictates. President Wilford Woodruff said that one of the goals of the church was to get away from such word-for-word revelations:

In the days of Joseph Smith it was "Thus saith the Lord" almost daily, until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day Presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor and myself have seldom used the words "Thus saith the Lord" when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68th section of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is the word of the Lord and revelation... And the Latter-day Saints throughout Israel should understand that the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles are led and guided by the inspiration of the Lord, and the Lord will not permit me, nor any other man, to lead the people astray. (Collected Discourses 2:281-282.) 

Earlier, Joseph Smith himself rebuked the people for wanting dictated revelations. Brigham Young explained:

Joseph received the pattern of the temple in Kirtland, and said to me, if this people would do as they are told, it would be superfluous to have a revelation. And if you are covetous and indolent, you may get a revelation in regard to this hall. (Millennial Star, 15:386.) 

By "a revelation" he meant a dictated revelation. In the past, people wanted dictated revelations as a way ensuring the word came from God and wasn't something that was concocted by man. But Joseph's point was that whether by the Lord's voice or that of his servants, it is the same. And he urged the people to grow spiritually enough to where they didn't need everything dictated to them. 

Again, President Woodruff stated:

A great many people are rejoiced to have revelations, and are all the time anxious for the Lord to give his word and have it written down; but let me tell you if the people had never apostatized, there never would have been a written law from the days of Adam until now, that is as we have received them, or as we have considered them. There is no necessity for it, for the word of the Lord is with us, the Lord himself is with us, his angels are with us, he comes when he pleases and reveals himself when he pleases and how he pleases. He sends his angles and has his prophets and mouthpiece on the earth. A living oracle is here. What is the use of reading the law when we have the living oracle to tell us what to do from time to time? If you have these living oracles with you they are better to you than all that has ever been written from the days of Adam until now. (Discourse given March 30, 1856, CHD.) 

If we haven't progressed as a people enough that we still require written dictated from the Lord, then the Lord will give us the written law. But we'll be no better for it. Too many saints have assumed that the church has tapered off since the early days, and to an extent that's true. As it stands, we've had a great deal of doctrine restored and the church is still enjoying pretty good prosperity. Revelation continues on two levels: 1) personal revelation to the prophet, and 2) revelation to the church. The latter is received by those with stewardships over the various programs. That way the president doesn't have to receive it for everything. (That's the way it's set up.)  Revelation still comes regarding temples, reorganizations and so forth, but no angels are generally needed for mundane things. But for some things, especially personal revelation and general church matters, yes, there are angels, many of them past church presidents as well as instructional beings concerning matters we don't need to know.

 

 

On 12/21/2015 at 11:07 AM, Gray said:

There is no indication that any of the OT prophets held priesthood as we understand it today. 

 

Not where duties are concerned. But as far as priesthood, they usually, if not always, held the higher priesthood. All the Nephite prophets held it as none of them were Levites. 

 

On 12/21/2015 at 11:09 AM, Gray said:

Then perhaps Deborah did hold the priesthood. 

Nope. Nice try, though.

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why are Mormons so quick to conflate "submit to the will of Church leaders" with "submit to the will of God"?

For many of us, I suspect it's because we've developed of habit of taking the Saviour's words seriously...

To the 12:

Quote

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward (Matthew 10:41–41).

To the 70:

Quote

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Luke 10:16).

 

[Russell C McGregor]

34 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

 

I already gave the link to LDS.ORG which talks of Mother Eve's Matriarchal Priesthood held in partnership with her husband Adam's Patriarchal Priesthood.

"Eve served in matriarchal partnership with the patriarchal priesthood. So today, each wife may join with her husband as a partner unified in purpose. ." https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/service/serving-in-the-church/relief-society/RS-SG1-LessonsfromEve-eng.pdf

 

No.

You didn't.

You gave the link to LDS.org which talks of Eve being in a matriarchal partnership with the Priesthood, as represented by her husband.

Reading is such a worthwhile skill to learn.
 

Quote

 

Remember Joseph Smiths "Quorum of the Anointed"... it included Women.

Google that and you come up with all kinds of hits. Yet another proof that temple endowed Women do indeed belong to a Quorum of Melchezadek Priesthood holders!

 

No. It is not.
 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

"Us LDS" is incorrect grammar.

It's factually questionable too.

You used the phrase "Quorum of Sisters" in an LDS context. Are you now admitting that it's not LDS terminology?

Thank you.

Now tell us about "Female Priesthood Matriarchy."

If a concept exists in given paradigm, then the usual practice is that sooner or later it will be identified and given a name and definition.  For example, "Res Judicata" is a concept in the paradigm of Anglo-American law which, broadly-speaking, prohibits a party from re-litigating the dispute once it has been adjudicated in court.  It developed over time, and was eventually summarized by three legal maxims (in Latin), then further reduced to one of them ("Res judicata pro veritateoccipitur"), and then abbreviated to simply "Res Judicata".  The phrase represents a broader, and somewhat complex, concept.  The phrase does not fully illuminate every nuance of the concept, but it gives it a name and allows those studying it to communicate about it in a more efficient matter.

This practice, the taxonomic labeling of concepts in a particular paradigm, is not unique to the law.  Diseases in medicine are identified and then given names.  Fans of movies and TV shows develop their own vocabularies (fans of Game of Thrones will understand "R+L=J", fans of Star Wars will immediately understand the topic of "Han Shot First").  It is no surprise, then, to see religious groups follow this pattern.  So most Latter-day Saints know what "FHE" means.  And "CTR".  And "Tithing Settlement".  And "Unrighteous Dominion".  And "Temple Recommend".  And "Sons of Perdition".  And "the Mantle".  And "Alpha and Omega".  And "Articles of Faith".  And on and on and on.  Acronyms and short phrases which are used to describe things, ideas, processes, events, etc.

I know that all of this is rather obvious, so let me get to my point, which is that this labeling process matters, both for establishing the existence of a concept, and also for the nonexistence of a concept.  For example, no faithful Latter-day Saint would agree with inaccurate and offensive characterizations of their beliefs such as "Pay, Pray and Obey" or "Lying for the Lord".  These concepts have been foisted on us by our critics.  So when someone purports to be explaining LDS doctrines, and they use phrases like these, then they are marking themselves as both profoundly ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

So what are we to do when someone comes along and fabricates other phrases/labels?  Such as "Quorum of Sisters" and "Female Priesthood Matriarchy"?  Phrases which do not originate in LDS scripture or authoritative writings/statements?  Phrases which do not reflect concepts existing in the Church, but which instead have been made up in order to create false impressions, to find fault with the Brethren, and to foment discord in the Church?  Phrases which purport to reflect concepts about which the Brethren are oblivious, but which a self-selected and self-declared enlightened few (who, as Zak put it, have "eyes to see and ears to hear") have discovered, which self-selected few can then deign to bestow such new revelations upon the rest of us?

What do we do?  Well, we identify them for the falsehoods that they are and reject them.

I have fairly minimal qualms with someone choosing to characterize the Relief Society as a "quorum of sisters".  The LDS usage of the term "quorum" is, I think, exclusively associated with priesthood groups, but the underlying sentiment could simply be to emphasize the close bonds of sisterhood that can exist in that group.  But to fabricate this term, to capitalize it so that it looks quasi-official, to obfuscate and pretend that it originates with the Church when it does not, and to then use it as a weapon against the Church, as Zak is plainly attempting to do . . . well, I will take exception to that.

A few years back I represented a bank which was being sued by its residential mortgage borrower.  The borrower, one of those "Sovereign Citizen" types, wanted to challenge the bank's pending foreclosure.  His legal theory was that the bank hadn't really loaned him "money", but rather "credit", and that "money" only exists if it is backed by gold bullion at Fort Knox or some such place, and that in the absence of such gold backing the loan is not really a loan, so he didn't owe the bank anything, so the bank couldn't foreclose on him, so he should be able to keep his house forever.  It was a bizarre legal claim, so much so that it took me a while to locate legal authorities to rebut it.  I knew the theory was absurd and had no basis in the law, and eventually I came across a phrase, the "vapor money theory".  Aha!  The phrase made boolean searching in legal databases a cinch.  I quickly found a large number of authorities which supported my client's position.  I filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted.  The plaintiff appealed, and the Utah Court of Appeals promptly rejected his "vapor money theory", describing it as "strange and vague", as being "utterly frivolous" and "patently ludicrous" and - most importantly - as having "no basis in law".  In fact, the concept was only given a name ("vapor money theory" or "no money lent theory") by the courts so that it could be readily identified and rejected.

This thread sorta reminds me of that experience.  In this thread, Zakuska has presumed to fabricate doctrinal concepts and give them specific, capitalized labels and to declare them as doctrine.  Not because these concepts exist in LDS Doctrine, but I think because he wanted to give the impression that they do.  But these labels, fabricated and specious as they are, should be dismissed as such.

We can and should talk about serious topics in the LDS Church.  But fabrications such as this are not conducive to that.

-Smac

Edited December 23, 2015 by smac97

[Zakuska]

Russel,

Read some history instead of making "Bald Faced Assertions"

Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845

https://books.google.com/books?id=bRJzAAAACAAJ&dq=anointed+quorum&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1sfmM3PDJAhUUzWMKHYI3AdYQ6AEINzAB

This "Quorum" included both men and Women.

I hope that's not "temple content".  It does hold this disclaimer.

 

Quote

 

Among Latter-day Saints today, temple worship is a sensitive topic; but the editors of this volume do not reveal anything that would be considered invasive or indelicate. In fact, the accounts, which come almost exclusively from the early LDS leadership itself, manifest discretion about what to report.

Never before have these primary, authoritative sources been correlated by date for comparison and fuller understanding of the gradual development of the temple ceremonies. Readers may find an added benefit in discovering some of their own ancestors' names included in these records; but in fact, anyone interested in LDS temple worship will find this compilation of primary documents to be invaluable.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For many of us, I suspect it's because we've developed of habit of taking the Saviour's words seriously...

To the 12:

To the 70:

 

To all members of the church both men and women...

Matt 24

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:²

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Thus we see a Missionary Priesthood Couple Teaching and Preaching in Acts...

Acts 18

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.³

I'm seeing more than one poster complain about sources. Name your sources don't just cherry-pick from unnamed authors and call it done.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Thus we see a Missionary Priesthood Couple Teaching and Preaching in Acts...

As Smac earlier pointed out, you seem to be inserting some of your favourite words into verse 26...

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Yes, it does.

And guess who wrote the footnote . . . ?

That would be a member of the established patriarchy.

 

The "established patriarchy" wrote the whole D&C. 

If I had an inborn distrust of patriarchy, I wouldn't be LDS. Probably not even Christian.

Edited December 23, 2015 by bluebell
Typo

[Russell C McGregor]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Yes, it does.

And guess who wrote the footnote . . . ?

That would be a member of the established patriarchy.

 

Poisoning the well, a species of the ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Russel,

Read some history instead of making "Bald Faced Assertions"

Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845

https://books.google.com/books?id=bRJzAAAACAAJ&dq=anointed+quorum&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1sfmM3PDJAhUUzWMKHYI3AdYQ6AEINzAB

This "Quorum" included both men and Women.

I hope that's not "temple content".  It does hold this disclaimer.

 

Umm, Zak?

If you were to take the trouble to learn how to read, you might understand that I was taking issue with this:

Quote

Between December 1845 and February 1846, the Anointed Quorum extended the same rituals they had received from Smith to over 5,000 men and women living in the vicinity of Nauvoo.

You cited that as:

Quote

Yet another proof that temple endowed Women do indeed belong to a Quorum of Melchezadek [sic] Priesthood holders!

No! It isn't!

How do I know that?

Because I can read!!

Even if we accept (purely for the sake of discussion) the assertion that any contemporary calls this group the "Anointed Quorum," the fact is that "the same rituals they had received from Smith" don't refer to any long-lost arcana, but to the Temple ordinances.

The same ones millions of contemporary Latter-day Saints -- men and women -- receive.

Reading. A dying art.

Here's my suggestion to you, Zak. Instead of getting carried away with every nutty idea you come across, like someone tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, why don't you calm down a little and start giving heed to the words of the prophets and apostles?

 

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

If a concept exists in given paradigm, then the usual practice is that sooner or later it will be identified and given a name and definition.  For example, "Res Judicata" is a concept in the paradigm of Anglo-American law which, broadly-speaking, prohibits a party from re-litigating the dispute once it has been adjudicated in court.  It developed over time, and was eventually summarized by three legal maxims (in Latin), then further reduced to one of them ("Res judicata pro veritateoccipitur"), and then abbreviated to simply "Res Judicata".  The phrase represents a broader, and somewhat complex, concept.  The phrase does not fully illuminate every nuance of the concept, but it gives it a name and allows those studying it to communicate about it in a more efficient matter.

This practice, the taxonomic labeling of concepts in a particular paradigm, is not unique to the law.  Diseases in medicine are identified and then given names.  Fans of movies and TV shows develop their own vocabularies (fans of Game of Thrones will understand "R+L=J", fans of Star Wars will immediately understand the topic of "Han Shot First").  It is no surprise, then, to see religious groups follow this pattern.  So most Latter-day Saints know what "FHE" means.  And "CTR".  And "Tithing Settlement".  And "Unrighteous Dominion".  And "Temple Recommend".  And "Sons of Perdition".  And "the Mantle".  And "Alpha and Omega".  And "Articles of Faith".  And on and on and on.  Acronyms and short phrases which are used to describe things, ideas, processes, events, etc.

I know that all of this is rather obvious, so let me get to my point, which is that this labeling process matters, both for establishing the existence of a concept, and also for the nonexistence of a concept.  For example, no faithful Latter-day Saint would agree with inaccurate and offensive characterizations of their beliefs such as "Pay, Pray and Obey" or "Lying for the Lord".  These concepts have been foisted on us by our critics.  So when someone purports to be explaining LDS doctrines, and they use phrases like these, then they are marking themselves as both profoundly ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

So what are we to do when someone comes along and fabricates other phrases/labels?  Such as "Quorum of Sisters" and "Female Priesthood Matriarchy"?  Phrases which do not originate in LDS scripture or authoritative writings/statements?  Phrases which do not reflect concepts existing in the Church, but which instead have been made up in order to create false impressions, to find fault with the Brethren, and to foment discord in the Church?  Phrases which purport to reflect concepts about which the Brethren are oblivious, but which a self-selected and self-declared enlightened few (who, as Zak put it, have "eyes to see and ears to hear") have discovered, which self-selected few can then deign to bestow such new revelations upon the rest of us?

What do we do?  Well, we identify them for the falsehoods that they are and reject them.

I have fairly minimal qualms with someone choosing to characterize the Relief Society as a "quorum of sisters".  The LDS usage of the term "quorum" is, I think, exclusively associated with priesthood groups, but the underlying sentiment could simply be to emphasize the close bonds of sisterhood that can exist in that group.  But to fabricate this term, to capitalize it so that it looks quasi-official, to obfuscate and pretend that it originates with the Church when it does not, and to then use it as a weapon against the Church, as Zak is plainly attempting to do . . . well, I will take exception to that.

A few years back I represented a bank which was being sued by its residential mortgage borrower.  The borrower, one of those "Sovereign Citizen" types, wanted to challenge the bank's pending foreclosure.  His legal theory was that the bank hadn't really loaned him "money", but rather "credit", and that "money" only exists if it is backed by gold bullion at Fort Knox or some such place, and that in the absence of such gold backing the loan is not really a loan, so he didn't owe the bank anything, so the bank couldn't foreclose on him, so he should be able to keep his house forever.  It was a bizarre legal claim, so much so that it took me a while to locate legal authorities to rebut it.  I knew the theory was absurd and had no basis in the law, and eventually I came across a phrase, the "vapor money theory".  Aha!  The phrase made boolean searching in legal databases a cinch.  I quickly found a large number of authorities which supported my client's position.  I filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted.  The plaintiff appealed, and the Utah Court of Appeals promptly rejected his "vapor money theory", describing it as "strange and vague", as being "utterly frivolous" and "patently ludicrous" and - most importantly - as having "no basis in law".  In fact, the concept was only given a name ("vapor money theory" or "no money lent theory") by the courts so that it could be readily identified and rejected.

This thread sorta reminds me of that experience.  In this thread, Zakuska has presumed to fabricate doctrinal concepts and give them specific, capitalized labels and to declare them as doctrine.  Not because these concepts exist in LDS Doctrine, but I think because he wanted to give the impression that they do.  But these labels, fabricated and specious as they are, should be dismissed as such.

We can and should talk about serious topics in the LDS Church.  But fabrications such as this are not conducive to that.

-Smac

Those sovereign citizen people are.... Interesting

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Umm, Zak?

If you were to take the trouble to learn how to read, you might understand that I was taking issue with this:

You cited that as:

No! It isn't!

How do I know that?

Because I can read!!

Even if we accept (purely for the sake of discussion) the assertion that any contemporary calls this group the "Anointed Quorum," the fact is that "the same rituals they had received from Smith" don't refer to any long-lost arcana, but to the Temple ordinances.

The same ones millions of contemporary Latter-day Saints -- men and women -- receive.

Reading. A dying art.

Here's my suggestion to you, Zak. Instead of getting carried away with every nutty idea you come across, like someone tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, why don't you calm down a little and start giving heed to the words of the prophets and apostles?

 

Well it looks like he gave heed to one prophet, Joseph Smith.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Poisoning the well, a species of the ad hominem fallacy.

 

You seem to be a member of the same species, Russell.

[HappyJackWagon]

New Mormon Matters podcast discussing in this topic in depth.

http://mormonmatters.org/2015/12/22/316-reflections-on-the-new-mormon-gender-survey/

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

The "established patriarchy" wrote the whole D&C. 

If I had an inborn distrust of patriarchy, I wouldn't be LDS. Probably not even Christian.

LOL!

My "distrust" of the LDS patriarchy is not inborn, Bluebell.

It has slowly developed over 37-years of being a Mormon.

 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I never spoke of using "revelation" to "take the place of academic study and inquiry".  In fact, I specifically said that "I am willing to listen to what academics have to say".  Moreover, I think academic study is not only advisable, but required in our scriptures:

• “Jesus answered [the Sadducees] and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29)
• “And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith.” (D&C 109:7)
• “Today we are troubled by evil-designing persons who [endeavor] … to destroy the testimonies of members of the Church, and many … are in danger because of lack of understanding and because they have not sought the guidance of the Spirit. … It is a commandment from the Lord that members … be diligent … and study … the fundamental truths of the gospel. … Every baptized person [can] have an abiding testimony. … but [it] … will grow dim and eventually disappear [without] … study, obedience, and diligent seeking to know and understand the truth” – Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith (1963)
• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry

I can't speak to your "assumptions about the nature of revelation".  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, my reaction was based on my perception that you believe Joseph Smith was able to get to the heart of the heart of the real history of the Bible through revelation. 

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

• “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” – L. Tom Perry

 

This is nonsense.

Of course Mormons have been encouraged to be blindly obedient.

As a First Presidency Message declared in 1980, "When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over."

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1980/06/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Presidents of the church receive revelation frequently. I'm not sure what President Hinckley meant when he says revelation is quite rare in the church because it's not rare. Perhaps he meant in the way of new doctrine or quoted word-for-word dictates. President Wilford Woodruff said that one of the goals of the church was to get away from such word-for-word revelations:

In the days of Joseph Smith it was "Thus saith the Lord" almost daily, until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day Presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor and myself have seldom used the words "Thus saith the Lord" when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68th section of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is the word of the Lord and revelation... And the Latter-day Saints throughout Israel should understand that the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles are led and guided by the inspiration of the Lord, and the Lord will not permit me, nor any other man, to lead the people astray. (Collected Discourses 2:281-282.) 

Earlier, Joseph Smith himself rebuked the people for wanting dictated revelations. Brigham Young explained:

Joseph received the pattern of the temple in Kirtland, and said to me, if this people would do as they are told, it would be superfluous to have a revelation. And if you are covetous and indolent, you may get a revelation in regard to this hall. (Millennial Star, 15:386.) 

By "a revelation" he meant a dictated revelation. In the past, people wanted dictated revelations as a way ensuring the word came from God and wasn't something that was concocted by man. But Joseph's point was that whether by the Lord's voice or that of his servants, it is the same. And he urged the people to grow spiritually enough to where they didn't need everything dictated to them. 

Again, President Woodruff stated:

A great many people are rejoiced to have revelations, and are all the time anxious for the Lord to give his word and have it written down; but let me tell you if the people had never apostatized, there never would have been a written law from the days of Adam until now, that is as we have received them, or as we have considered them. There is no necessity for it, for the word of the Lord is with us, the Lord himself is with us, his angels are with us, he comes when he pleases and reveals himself when he pleases and how he pleases. He sends his angles and has his prophets and mouthpiece on the earth. A living oracle is here. What is the use of reading the law when we have the living oracle to tell us what to do from time to time? If you have these living oracles with you they are better to you than all that has ever been written from the days of Adam until now. (Discourse given March 30, 1856, CHD.) 

If we haven't progressed as a people enough that we still require written dictated from the Lord, then the Lord will give us the written law. But we'll be no better for it. Too many saints have assumed that the church has tapered off since the early days, and to an extent that's true. As it stands, we've had a great deal of doctrine restored and the church is still enjoying pretty good prosperity. Revelation continues on two levels: 1) personal revelation to the prophet, and 2) revelation to the church. The latter is received by those with stewardships over the various programs. That way the president doesn't have to receive it for everything. (That's the way it's set up.)  Revelation still comes regarding temples, reorganizations and so forth, but no angels are generally needed for mundane things. But for some things, especially personal revelation and general church matters, yes, there are angels, many of them past church presidents as well as instructional beings concerning matters we don't need to know.

 

 

Not where duties are concerned. But as far as priesthood, they usually, if not always, held the higher priesthood. All the Nephite prophets held it as none of them were Levites. 

 

Nope. Nice try, though.

Those are some interesting sources, but I feel we're meandering all over the place. We started talking about the COC, and then whether or not we're getting direct word for word revelations. So your position is that we don't need that necessarily, yes? But you also agree that we don't get that kind of thing anymore?

Regarding priesthood, why do you suppose that the OT prophets held a higher priesthood? And why do you suppose that the female  prophets did not, if the male ones did?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

This is nonsense.

Of course Mormons have been encouraged to be blindly obedient.

 

This is absolutely undiluted anti-Mormon propaganda.

It is an outright falsehood.

Outright. Falsehood.

Quote

 

As a First Presidency Message declared in 1980, "When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over."

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1980/06/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

 

Which has nothing to do with being "blindly obedient."

As is apparent to anybody who actually reads past the headline.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Russell C McGregor