JLHPROF Posted June 27, 2016 Posted June 27, 2016 30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeah, that whole "chosen people" thing about Israel is difficult to swallow. Why would God do something racist like that? It's worse than that. He even plays favorites among the Children of Israel by making some to preside over others. 2
James Tunney Posted June 27, 2016 Posted June 27, 2016 28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeah, that whole "chosen people" thing about Israel is difficult to swallow. Why would God do something racist like that? Maybe the "chosen people" is a self-designated appellation? Supposed prophets from Israel wrote the bible so I don't think it's too far of a stretch that they would proclaim themselves to be "chosen." It seems that this is a pattern. We see it with Joseph Smith proclaiming that America is the chosen land. Why didn't God call prophets from Israel to proclaim that the Arabs were the chosen people or Arabian prophets to proclaim that Israel was the chosen people? Instead we have the bible calling Israel chosen and the Koran calling the Arabs chosen.
James Tunney Posted June 27, 2016 Posted June 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: You brought up the issue of bias yourself, instead of dealing with substantive issues, and you are clearly motivated by an overwhelming anti-Mormon bias. It would have been very easy for you to have dealt instead with substantive issues, but you are unwilling to do so. I have dealt with the evidence. I just see it differently than you do. As for bias, the evidence seems overwhelmingly against historicity, to get back to the original question. This is why, in my humble opinion, I think that one has to be biased to the historicity conclusion in order to still believe in the historicity of the BofM. This is why I believe that the debate with Dr. Jenkins last year ended as it did. Despite the fact that Dr. Hamblin is a historian, there weren't any rules against his consulting with other authorities to get a good response. He just didn't have one because at this point, there isn't much to point one toward a historicity conclusion. Sure, in the future there might be something to change this state of affairs. The future is always full of possibilities. If the church needs to commission more digs in central america to find the evidence, it surely has the funds to do so. Maybe that is the answer? Surely the evidence is out there?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2016 Posted June 27, 2016 4 hours ago, James Tunney said: Maybe the "chosen people" is a self-designated appellation? Supposed prophets from Israel wrote the bible so I don't think it's too far of a stretch that they would proclaim themselves to be "chosen." It seems that this is a pattern. We see it with Joseph Smith proclaiming that America is the chosen land. Why didn't God call prophets from Israel to proclaim that the Arabs were the chosen people or Arabian prophets to proclaim that Israel was the chosen people? Instead we have the bible calling Israel chosen and the Koran calling the Arabs chosen. You make some good points, although I have never found the Quran calling Arabs chosen. Muslims do call the Jews the "people of the Book," meaning the Bible. The Israelites did write the Bible, so yes they could certainly have applied "chosen" as a self-designation, as do the elite Zoramites in their rameumptom. The pattern of arrogant people vaunting themselves up is certainly common enough. So it boils down to a question of faith: Is the Bible merely historical fiction attempting to fob the Israelites off as the "chosen people"? Or did God actually choose them and make a covenant with them?
theplains Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 On 26/06/2016 at 8:54 AM, Glenn101 said: If we believe in prophets, in the restored, Gospel, we have to believe in God, to trust Him that He will not allow a prophet to lead His Church astray. The LDS Church, I think as a whole, has taught that Heavenly Father was a man who became a god. If this doctrine is false, then its prophets are not called by God. Jim
Avatar4321 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 20 hours ago, James Tunney said: When was the last time they said they had a message directly from the Lord and what was it? Why don't they ask the Lord to answer the big questions like war and poverty? Aren't those questions bigger than who is going to be president over a given mission or who is going to be a stake president? First weekend of April. They teach us how to solve hose problems every time they share the gospel. Only some people, such as yourself, have no desire to follow them. And no, those aren't bigger questions. Because revelation on who should teach and hold keys is as vitally Important as what to teach
Avatar4321 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 20 hours ago, James Tunney said: How do you know if I'm mocking or not? Also, do you mean the gentile ban in the new testament? If that's what you mean, then yeah it's bothersome too. The whole concept of god favoring one race over another is definitely problematic Because I'm literate.
Rivers Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 Mormons have no doctrine of infallibility as the Catholics do with the Pope. We have to deal with the fact that prophets are both authorized servants of God while at the same time being flawed humans. Its complicated. 1
Eek! Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) On 6/26/2016 at 7:54 AM, Glenn101 said: If we believe in prophets, in the restored Gospel, we have to believe in God, to trust Him that He will not allow a prophet to lead His Church astray. I am not sure that last statement necessarily follows from the ones which precede it. Following the same general type of reasoning, a Christian would not see that there had been an Apostasy. If the Book of Mormon was written for our time, and if the cycles in the Book of Mormon are any indication, there are no guarantees that Church leaders will never lead the members astray. Imo you gotta have oil in your own lamp... you can't borrow it from someone else, not even from a prophet. Edited June 28, 2016 by Eek!
Avatar4321 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, Eek! said: I am not sure that last statement necessarily follows from what preceded it. Following the same general type of reasoning, a Christian would not see that there had been an Apostasy. If the Book of Mormon was written for our time, and if cycles in the Book of Mormon are any indication, there are no guarantees that the leadership will never lead the people astray. Imo you gotta have oil in your own lamp... you can't borrow it from someone else, not even from a prophet. We are supposed to become prophets in our own right 2
Glenn101 Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Eek! said: I am not sure that last statement necessarily follows from the ones which precede it. Following the same general type of reasoning, a Christian would not see that there had been an Apostasy. If the Book of Mormon was written for our time, and if the cycles in the Book of Mormon are any indication, there are no guarantees that Church leaders will never lead the members astray. Imo you gotta have oil in your own lamp... you can't borrow it from someone else, not even from a prophet. While what you say is partially true, we have not had all of our prophets and apostles killed off either.. But we are not supposed to turn off our brains or our own personal prayers. If we have a problem with something that comes from our leaders, we need to put in at least as much time and effort in determining for ourselves the truth of the matter as our leaders do in receiving their revelations and inspiration. I believe that all too often people may have adverse reactions to a talk, statement, or policy that colors how they respond in their personal prayers and meditations about the subject in question. Edited to add: There are few instances in the Book of Mormon of the church leaders leading the church astray. An unrighteous king, such as King Noah was usually the instigator, who killed any who dared oppose him. The Lord did send prophets to try to bring them back into line. (Abinadi for one). Do you have an example of a church authority leading the Nephites astray? Glenn Edited June 28, 2016 by Glenn101
Eek! Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Do you have an example of a church authority leading the Nephites astray? Not in so many words, but I think it is implied. In a highly centralized organization like the Church (which operates from the top down rather than from the bottom up), it would be highly unusual to see the leadership going in one direction and the people going in another, ESPECIALLY when they all ended up in the same place. Usually the people follow where the leaders lead, for better or for worse. Edited June 28, 2016 by Eek!
hope_for_things Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 I'm a couple days late to this, but I listened to the interview and was intrigued by the topic. I believe the central idea of Mormonism is not that God calls Prophets in the latter day, its that God is present in our latter days. If you look at the very early church, the emphasis was not on Joseph Smith as a prophet. It wasn't even on priesthood authority. It was an emphasis on the gifts of the spirit being restored, and the power of God being manifest again in modern times. One influencing idea may have been borrowed from the Methodists and John Wesley, and comes from the 2 Timothy 3:5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". This concept that churches would deny the power of God, and that the power of God needed to be restored by way of actual gifts of the spirit, was in some ways a response to the Deism that was so prominent at the time. This was one of the earliest emphasis' in Mormonism. Only later, when challenges to authority came around, did a new emphasis get solidified. But even then, throughout this same time period you still have this impulse towards individual revelation, individual experience with God. It think Bushman really emphasizes this in his book RSR. I wonder if the pendulum couldn't swing back towards individual experience with God, and away from authority figures? For the most part the current leaders don't do anything prophetic anymore, they are more administrators than anything else. So, I kind of think prophets aren't as central to Mormonism as Mr. Mason does. 2
Ahab Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) I don't say any man is speaking as a prophet unless I know for myself, from a personal witness from God, that he is. And only on a case by case basis. This thing that some people do, calling someone a prophet without knowing for themselves that he is, has always seemed weird and just wrong to me and I see no good reason for them or me to do it. Edited June 28, 2016 by Ahab 1
Ahab Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I wonder if the pendulum couldn't swing back towards individual experience with God, and away from authority figures? For the most part the current leaders don't do anything prophetic anymore, they are more administrators than anything else. So, I kind of think prophets aren't as central to Mormonism as Mr. Mason does. Being able to hear from God, personally, is one thing, and a very important thing to be able to know the mind and will of God too, but there still need to be people who have the authority (as in keys) to do what God wants done. There are prophets with keys, on one hand, and there are also prophets who don't have any keys to act today, too. 1
consiglieri Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 20 hours ago, Rivers said: Mormons have no doctrine of infallibility as the Catholics do with the Pope. We have to deal with the fact that prophets are both authorized servants of God while at the same time being flawed humans. Its complicated. You are right that it is complicated. In order to sort out what statements are authoritative, Mormons have historically developed a set of ad hoc categories. These categories come into play only when there is a contradiction between authorities. 1. If a Seventy contradicts an Apostle, the Apostle is authoritative. 2. If an Apostle contradicts a subsequent Apostle, the subsequent Apostle is authoritative. 3. If anybody contradicts the Prophet, the Prophet is authoritative. 4. If a Prophet contradicts a Prophet, the most recent Prophet is authoritative. 5. If a Prophet contradicts science or what actually ends up happening, the Prophet was speaking as a man. Soon to be a popular board game from Parker Brothers.
James Tunney Posted June 28, 2016 Posted June 28, 2016 39 minutes ago, Ahab said: Being able to hear from God, personally, is one thing, and a very important thing to be able to know the mind and will of God too, but there still need to be people who have the authority (as in keys) to do what God wants done. There are prophets with keys, on one hand, and there are also prophets who don't have any keys to act today, too. Does there really have to be authority as we see it today? Couldn't God call people for a limited time and then call someone else for a limited time? Why the permanence of those at the top?
Avatar4321 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 3 hours ago, James Tunney said: Does there really have to be authority as we see it today? Couldn't God call people for a limited time and then call someone else for a limited time? Why the permanence of those at the top? Because the Lord's house is a house of order. He doesn't leave us in confusion
Glenn101 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 13 hours ago, Eek! said: Not in so many words, but I think it is implied. In a highly centralized organization like the Church (which operates from the top down rather than from the bottom up), it would be highly unusual to see the leadership going in one direction and the people going in another, ESPECIALLY when they all ended up in the same place. Usually the people follow where the leaders lead, for better or for worse. However the Book of Mormon is replete with instances of the leaders of the church laboring to get the membership back into line with gospels principles after many had fallen away. Alma relinquished his job as chief judge for that very reason. Glenn
Eek! Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Glenn101 said: However the Book of Mormon is replete with instances of the leaders of the church laboring to get the membership back into line with gospels principles after many had fallen away. Alma relinquished his job as chief judge for that very reason. Alma would be an example of a very good leader. In the year 231 the true believers in Christ separate out from the rest and call themselves the Nephites. A little less than a hundred years later, the Nephites had become so universally wicked that God wouldn't even let Mormon preach to them. And Mormon was a teenage general, not a church leader. I'm thinking there was a failure in church leadership in there somewhere, even if it isn't spelled out. Edited June 29, 2016 by Eek!
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 15 hours ago, Ahab said: Being able to hear from God, personally, is one thing, and a very important thing to be able to know the mind and will of God too, but there still need to be people who have the authority (as in keys) to do what God wants done. There are prophets with keys, on one hand, and there are also prophets who don't have any keys to act today, too. I think the doctrine of keys is flexible enough that it could evolve too. Perhaps get to a point where the emphasis of covenants is on the personal commitment someone makes with God, more than the authority of the person performing the ordinance. Of course, this kind of a power shift would reduce the authority of the hierarchy and its hard for large and powerful organizations to want to give up that kind of influence, but its still a possible path to take. Honest question, do you feel like your personal life is improved by this doctrine that the ordinances that you've participated in are somehow more approved of by the divine that those of other religions? In essence, what are the costs/benefits of Mormonisms exclusivity claims?
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, James Tunney said: Does there really have to be authority as we see it today? Couldn't God call people for a limited time and then call someone else for a limited time? Why the permanence of those at the top? Good point, there is no scriptural precedent for permanence in these callings. I think emeritus status for the Prophet/Apostles would be a positive step in the right direction for the church as well as those called to serve. It makes sense logically and I hope it will happen. I don't know if its being seriously considered or not, but it should be. Edited June 29, 2016 by hope_for_things
Ahab Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 17 hours ago, James Tunney said: Does there really have to be authority as we see it today? Couldn't God call people for a limited time and then call someone else for a limited time? Why the permanence of those at the top? It doesn't really matter how long the people who have the keys keep them. The point is that as long as they have the keys then they are authorized to do what our Lord authorizes them to do with those keys. And those who have the most keys for our Lord's work should, of course, be at the top of the key chain of authority.
Ahab Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Honest question, do you feel like your personal life is improved by this doctrine that the ordinances that you've participated in are somehow more approved of by the divine that those of other religions? In essence, what are the costs/benefits of Mormonisms exclusivity claims? Yes, because without the keys to act in the name of our Lord the ordinances wouldn't be anything other than what everybody else is doing by their own authority, without the added authority of our Lord. They would just be things that we did whether or not everybody else did the same things. With no more regard for anyone's actions than anyone else's. The keys are what make the ordinances divinely sanctioned, or said another way, it is through the ordinances that the power (authority) of God is manifested. They (the keys) are what make our work and our Lord's work one and the same thing. Like a marriage, for example. Anyone can make up their own rules and laws for whatever they want to call a marriage, but for a marriage to be a marriage our Lord will consider a marriage it must be done in our Lord's way, by his authority. Otherwise it's just something people other than him have taken upon themselves to call a marriage with him not bound or obligated to consider it a marriage that he has authorized and approved. So the costs/benefits are directly related to their worth in the sight of God in regards to whether or not he considers something as something he has authorized and approved. Edited June 29, 2016 by Ahab
hope_for_things Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes, because without the keys to act in the name of our Lord the ordinances wouldn't be anything other than what everybody else is doing by their own authority, without the added authority of our Lord. They would just be things that we did whether or not everybody else did the same things. With no more regard for anyone's actions than anyone else's. The keys are what make the ordinances divinely sanctioned, or said another way, it is through the ordinances that the power (authority) of God is manifested. They (the keys) are what make our work and our Lord's work one and the same thing. Like a marriage, for example. Anyone can make up their own rules and laws for whatever they want to call a marriage, but for a marriage to be a marriage our Lord will consider a marriage it must be done in our Lord's way, by his authority. Otherwise it's just something people other than him have taken upon themselves to call a marriage with him not bound or obligated to consider it a marriage that he has authorized and approved. So the costs/benefits are directly related to their worth in the sight of God in regards to whether or not he considers something as something he has authorized and approved. I understand the standard appologetic claims, I'm asking for an analysis on how that actually improves your life, and what some of the costs/benefits are. Let me share a little more along those lines Possible Benefits: Ordinances are valid in God's eyes. Unity within the religious group. Loyalty & commitment to the institution. Possible Costs: Arrogant orientation towards other religions. Superiority/prideful disposition that can impede individual spiritual growth. Difficulty in gaining and retaining converts. Dividing families along ideological lines. Those are some of the potential costs/benefits off the top of my head. One other point I'd like to make. I find it curious that Mormons don't discount the prayers of other faiths as being less efficacious. I've always heard that God answers the sincere prayers of people all over the world without respect to religious affiliation. Why is this principle halted when it comes to ordinances? If God can answer the prayers of other faiths, without respect to form or belief, why can't God also honor and sanction a commitment someone makes through baptism or Bar Mitzvah or any other ritual spanning across different religions? I guess the idea that my ritual is more valid than your ritual because God approves mine and God doesn't approve yours, seems petty to me.
Recommended Posts