Fallible Prophets: Does Mormonism need to come up with a better theology of prophets?

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I addressed this in the post you quoted from me, but I'll add a little more now:

Think of any act people could do, any act you can think of and imagine people doing.

Now ask why God would have any good reason to recognize that act as something that he had authorized and approved of.

Are you getting the picture yet?

People can do anything we or they are capable of doing, but that doesn't mean God approves of all of our actions.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I addressed this in the post you quoted from me, but I'll add a little more now:

Think of any act people could do, any act you can think of and imagine people doing.

Now ask why God would have any good reason to recognize that act as something that he had authorized and approved of.

Are you getting the picture yet?

People can do anything we or they are capable of doing, but that doesn't mean God approves of all of our actions.

If your assumption is correct, that God approves some actions and doesn't approve others, how do you suggest that we mortals who are inherently fallible, influenced by our time and culture, and biased in a multitude of ways, how can we accurately discern what God has approved and what God has not approved?  

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

If your assumption is correct, that God approves some actions and doesn't approve others, how do you suggest that we mortals who are inherently fallible, influenced by our time and culture, and biased in a multitude of ways, how can we accurately discern what God has approved and what God has not approved?  

First, get yourself to the point where you have a personal relationship with our Father in heaven through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  A relationship that involves him talking to you, through prayer and thoughts throughout each day, with you trying to pay as much attention as you can to what he tells you.  And you of course should always feel free to talk back to him and ask him some questions. 

Then, once you have established your own personal relationship with him, and them, you can... well, you can just keep doing that, including asking him every once in a while what he approves of and what he doesn't approve of.

Sorry, I had assumed that you already knew at least that much 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

First, get yourself to the point where you have a personal relationship with our Father in heaven through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  A relationship that involves him talking to you, through prayer and thoughts throughout each day, with you trying to pay as much attention as you can to what he tells you.  And you of course should always feel free to talk back to him and ask him some questions. 

Then, once you have established your own personal relationship with him, and them, you can... well, you can just keep doing that, including asking him every once in a while what he approves of and what he doesn't approve of.

Sorry, I had assumed that you already knew at least that much 

You have no reasonable argument to support your claim for the necessity of authority and keys, only a personal conviction that Mormon authority is more valid than other religious authority.  I articulated some questions and my reasoning for those questions, but instead of responding, you choose to retreat to the safe ground of, well God is telling me that I'm right and you're wrong.  Oh well, so much for having an intelligent conversation.  

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You have no reasonable argument to support your claim for the necessity of authority and keys, only a personal conviction that Mormon authority is more valid than other religious authority.  I articulated some questions and my reasoning for those questions, but instead of responding, you choose to retreat to the safe ground of, well God is telling me that I'm right and you're wrong.  Oh well, so much for having an intelligent conversation.  

I gave you several reasonable arguments to explain and support my position.  What else do you expect from me?  What else could I possibly offer you? 

Oh well, so much for having an intelligent conversation with you.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

There is no answer to your questions that doesn't come from the exclusive teachings of Mormonism.
Which of course would then be labeled as "self-fulfilling prophecy".

If you reject the doctrines of Mormonism as unique, then any explanation of that uniqueness contained in the doctrines would likewise be rejected.
But there are many teachings in Mormonism explaining why ordinances of the restored gospel are the only ones that are valid.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Ah, I see more now.  Cost/benefit analysis and reasons that explain why God approves of some things but not other things that he doesn't approve of. Reasons that get into the nature of good vs evil or just good vs not good enough.

But still, things that God can explain and discuss with you, which is what I recommended.  I don't claim to be as intelligent as he is, yet.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no answer to your questions that doesn't come from the exclusive teachings of Mormonism.
Which of course would then be labeled as "self-fulfilling prophecy".

If you reject the doctrines of Mormonism as unique, then any explanation of that uniqueness contained in the doctrines would likewise be rejected.
But there are many teachings in Mormonism explaining why ordinances of the restored gospel are the only ones that are valid.

I guess what I was hoping for was a thoughtful discussion about it.  Not just the Sunday school answers that everyone from primary on up can recite.  I'm looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important.  Otherwise, the argument can get circular, i.e. proper authority is important because God says it is, and I know this because God told me.  

I don't reject that some doctrines are unique necessarily, but its also important to look at the big picture and notice the historical and cultural influences that helped to shape Mormonism's doctrines, including the exclusive authority concepts in this thread, and then to place everything in its larger context.

Personally I see revelation working this way - people are willing to question their assumptions, to look at the greater context, to explore the reasoning of the past, to square that reasoning with new ideas, and get inspiration to make a change.  

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Ah, I see more now.  Cost/benefit analysis and reasons that explain why God approves of some things but not other things that he doesn't approve of. Reasons that get into the nature of good vs evil or just good vs not good enough.

But still, things that God can explain and discuss with you, which is what I recommended.  I don't claim to be as intelligent as he is, yet.

Ok, I'll try again.  How do you know that God approves one person's covenants/promises/ordinances, and disapproves of another's?  Have you asked God in prayer if he rejects the rituals of all other faiths and only approves of Mormonisms rituals?  Honestly, have you ever asked a question of that specificity before?  

And at some level doesn't this very concept violate the Mormon principle of only being able to receive revelation for those within your sphere of responsibility.  I.E. if you are a Bishop of your Ward you're only entitled to revelation for the members of your Ward? So why would God tell you if some person in India's Hindu ritual is accepted by God or not?  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess what I was hoping for was a thoughtful discussion about it.  Not just the Sunday school answers that everyone from primary on up can recite.  I'm looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important.  Otherwise, the argument can get circular, i.e. proper authority is important because God says it is, and I know this because God told me.  

I don't reject that some doctrines are unique necessarily, but its also important to look at the big picture and notice the historical and cultural influences that helped to shape Mormonism's doctrines, including the exclusive authority concepts in this thread, and then to place everything in its larger context.

Personally I see revelation working this way - people are willing to question their assumptions, to look at the greater context, to explore the reasoning of the past, to square that reasoning with new ideas, and get inspiration to make a change.  

Maybe it would help if you asked some questions.  That's what I do with God when I want him to explain something to me.

On the whole,  though, the answers should lead to very simple concepts, like why is "good" good, and why "evil" is evil, and why God approves and authorizes us to do only the things that are good and better and best things for us to do.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, I'll try again.  How do you know that God approves one person's covenants/promises/ordinances, and disapproves of another's?  Have you asked God in prayer if he rejects the rituals of all other faiths and only approves of Mormonisms rituals?  Honestly, have you ever asked a question of that specificity before?  

And at some level doesn't this very concept violate the Mormon principle of only being able to receive revelation for those within your sphere of responsibility.  I.E. if you are a Bishop of your Ward you're only entitled to revelation for the members of your Ward? So why would God tell you if some person in India's Hindu ritual is accepted by God or not?  

Okay, you do realize you are asking me.  Right?  

"I" know what "I" know based on what God has helped me to learn, and as that relates to your question we are now talking about what "I" know to refer to as "keys".  Keys pertaining to the priesthood authority and power of God.  Keys that authorize the people who have them to do what God has told "THEM" to do with them.  So that only with those "keys" can "THEY" do what God wants them to do with them.

Personally, I don't have any keys of the priesthood, but I do know what they are and what they are for, which I have explained to you.  And I know that anyone who claims to have God's authority or power to do something must have what "I" call "keys" to be able to do whatever God has authorized them to do with them, otherwise they are doing whatever they do on their own, without his power and authority.

Does that help you to understand what "I" know a little more now?  Keys are something that are necessary for people to be able to do whatever God wants them to do in his name, by his authority.  Otherwise we areally only acting by our own authority, with whatever authority we have on our own, without his authority.

And yes I have asked very specific questions like the ones you have suggested before 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe it would help if you asked some questions.  That's what I do with God when I want him to explain something to me.

On the whole,  though, the answers should lead to very simple concepts, like why is "good" good, and why "evil" is evil, and why God approves and authorizes us to do only the things that are good and better and best things for us to do.

Ugh.....  I am asking questions, and they are going unanswered.  I'm specifically asking you the questions, not God.  I'm asking you why you think these things are important, and I'm looking for reasoning in your responses.  This reasoning can include theological ideas, but explain the ideas, don't just state platitudes. I want some thinking to happen here, not just simple good vs. evil responses.   

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay, you do realize you are asking me.  Right?  

"I" know what "I" know based on what God has helped me to learn, and as that relates to your question we are now talking about what "I" know to refer to as "keys".  Keys pertaining to the priesthood authority and power of God.  Keys that authorize the people who have them to do what God has told "THEM" to do with them.  So that only with those "keys" can "THEY" do what God wants them to do with them.

Personally, I don't have any keys of the priesthood, but I do know what they are and what they are for, which I have explained to you.  And I know that anyone who claims to have God's authority or power to do something must have what "I" call "keys" to be able to do whatever God has authorized them to do with them, otherwise they are doing whatever they do on their own, without his power and authority.

Does that help you to understand what "I" know a little more now?  Keys are something that are necessary for people to be able to do whatever God wants them to do in his name, by his authority.  Otherwise we areally only acting by our own authority, with whatever authority we have on our own, without his authority.

And yes I have asked very specific questions like the ones you have suggested before 

Your answer confused me a bit, but I'd like to thank you for making the effort to explain.  Can you answer this question with a yes or no response:

Did God tell you specifically that the rituals of all other faiths, except those found within Mormonism (and performed by someone holding keys as you explain above), are invalid or unauthorized?  Yes or No

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess what I was hoping for was a thoughtful discussion about it.  Not just the Sunday school answers that everyone from primary on up can recite.  I'm looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important.  Otherwise, the argument can get circular, i.e. proper authority is important because God says it is, and I know this because God told me.  

This was exactly my point.
I'm not sure what reasoning could be used that doesn't rely on Mormon teachings to show it.

Why is Mormon baptism more valid than other baptisms?  Because God only sent John the Baptist to restore the authority to baptize to Joseph and Oliver, clearly restoring something that other religions don't have.

See the problem?  You either believe that John the Baptist restored authority to baptize or don't.   If he did all other baptisms have no authority before God.  If he didn't then Joseph lied and Mormonism is false.
Reasoning on the validity of Mormon baptism vs Catholic baptism doesn't enter into the equation.  You cannot reason why God only accepts or doesn't only accept Mormon baptisms.  It's a matter of faith.  Did JTB give Joseph Smith the Aaronic priesthood so he could baptize?  We believe it or we don't then accept the consequences either way.

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your answer confused me a bit, but I'd like to thank you for making the effort to explain.  Can you answer this question with a yes or no response:

Did God tell you specifically that the rituals of all other faiths, except those found within Mormonism (and performed by someone holding keys as you explain above), are invalid or unauthorized?  Yes or No

Yes

As I already told you and explained above.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why is Mormon baptism more valid than other baptisms?  Because God only sent John the Baptist to restore the authority to baptize to Joseph and Oliver, clearly restoring something that other religions don't have.

See the problem?  You either believe that John the Baptist restored authority to baptize or don't.   If he did all other baptisms have no authority before God.  If he didn't then Joseph lied and Mormonism is false.
Reasoning on the validity of Mormon baptism vs Catholic baptism doesn't enter into the equation.  You cannot reason why God only accepts or doesn't only accept Mormon baptisms.  It's a matter of faith.  Did JTB give Joseph Smith the Aaronic priesthood so he could baptize?  We believe it or we don't then accept the consequences either way.

Ok, lets talk about this piece.  I'm pretty sure from reading many of your other posts that you are much more familiar with early Mormon history than I am, but I'll still mention a few things.  

First, there are historical complexities around the John the Baptist Aaronic priesthood story.  I believe the first specific references to this event were in 1834, approximately five years after the event happened.  There is also other evidence that Joseph and Oliver just baptized each other, and that this happened about the time they were working on Mosiah 18 where Alma baptized and received his authority not by laying on of hands, but directly from God.  The history around this event isn't clear and presents some important questions about what outside pressures were happening in Kirkland at the time this story was first told, challenges to Joseph's authority, etc.  I see the JTB narrative as containing some apologetic elements, rather than a straight telling of accurate history as experienced by Joseph and Oliver.  This is an example of a larger contextual examination that I was talking about.  

I reject the dichotomy presented, the, either Joseph lied or Mormonism is false.  I don't think its that simple.  I also question the idea that God only accepts Mormon baptisms.  There are some strains of that thinking in Mormonism, but if you look at some of the statements by leaders, you can make a case that other religions are approved of by God and play an important role in the overall plan.  I'm thinking of some of the ideas that the Given's and Adam Miller's of the world present as possibilities.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You cannot reason why God only accepts or doesn't only accept Mormon baptisms.  It's a matter of faith.

We can reason why in the sense of giving or explaining the reasoning.

Faith is simply to be sure about something and we need to have reasons for why we believe what we believe.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes

As I already told you and explained above.

Wow, well, I didn't expect that answer.  I used to be a very orthodox Mormon myself and I believed in exclusive priesthood authority, but I never thought of turning that question around and asking God to tell me whether the rituals of other people are considered invalid in God's eyes.  That takes a level of hubris that I have a hard time understanding.  

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I also question the idea that God only accepts Mormon baptisms.

It is entirely possible that " this happened about the time they were working on Mosiah 18 where Alma baptized and received his authority not by laying on of hands, but directly from God."

History of the Church records that:

" WE still continued the work of translation, when in the ensuing month
(May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire
of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found
mentioned in the translation of the plates.  While we were thus employed,
praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a
cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:"

D&C 13 - 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

If you accept D&C 13 the idea that God only accepts Mormon baptisms is not an optional belief.

If you reject D&C 13 you can believe that way but you then have to accept the consequence of rejecting D&C 13, ie Joseph had false revelations or John the Baptist really didn't say what he said or Joseph lied about JTB appearing in the first place.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, well, I didn't expect that answer.  I used to be a very orthodox Mormon myself and I believed in exclusive priesthood authority, but I never thought of turning that question around and asking God to tell me whether the rituals of other people are considered invalid in God's eyes.  That takes a level of hubris that I have a hard time understanding.  

D&C 132 pretty much lays out the reasoning, and in very simple terms.

God authorizes only what he authorizes and it takes what are called "keys" to be able to act in God's name with his power and authority.

[Aron]

I hope the priesthood authority and the prophet Thomas S. Monson´s keys of authority can validate the recent discovery of the Ark of the Covenant found in Panama by the Lamanites including the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon in the tomb of Mulek found in Chirqui Panama. The video of the recent discovery of the gold plates and the Ark of the Covenant by archeologists must be able to now prove the Book of Mormon is true we just need the leys of the authority of Thomas S. Monson to verify the great discovery and announce it in the next Ensign. The video is something worth watching at

 

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Eek! said:

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. 

To each his own. I just don't think the text supports that inference. Mormon and Moroni certainly did not say anything about the church leaders straying and causing the people to stray.

 

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is entirely possible that " this happened about the time they were working on Mosiah 18 where Alma baptized and received his authority not by laying on of hands, but directly from God."

History of the Church records that:

" WE still continued the work of translation, when in the ensuing month
(May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire
of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found
mentioned in the translation of the plates.  While we were thus employed,
praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a
cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:"

D&C 13 - 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

If you accept D&C 13 the idea that God only accepts Mormon baptisms is not an optional belief.

If you reject D&C 13 you can believe that way but you then have to accept the consequence of rejecting D&C 13, ie Joseph had false revelations or John the Baptist really didn't say what he said or Joseph lied about JTB appearing in the first place.
 

When was that excerpt from HoC written?  I'd love to read what Dan Vogel has to say about that one in his new expensive HoC annotated notes.  

As for D&C 13, it wasn't published in either BoC or the 1835 D&C, and as far as I can tell the earliest evidence we have for it being published is August of 1842 in the T&S.  So this is a really late record of a 1829 event.  

It seems like you're still painting these black and white paradigms through with your statements.  Joseph changed a lot of his revelations, this is clear, so why did he do that?  To me his theology was changing over time, and its not all internally consistent either, some things contradict other things.  I'm ok with ambiguity and inconsistency, I think its important to explore and consider these things.  

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

D&C 132 pretty much lays out the reasoning, and in very simple terms.

God authorizes only what he authorizes and it takes what are called "keys" to be able to act in God's name with his power and authority.

I think D&C 132 is one of our worst canonized scriptures.  I would love to have it edited or decanonized for a multitude of reasons, you just gave me one more.  Thanks!  :-)  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

When was that excerpt from HoC written?  I'd love to read what Dan Vogel has to say about that one in his new expensive HoC annotated notes.

As for D&C 13, it wasn't published in either BoC or the 1835 D&C, and as far as I can tell the earliest evidence we have for it being published is August of 1842 in the T&S.  So this is a really late record of a 1829 event.

It seems like you're still painting these black and white paradigms through with your statements.  Joseph changed a lot of his revelations, this is clear, so why did he do that?  To me his theology was changing over time, and its not all internally consistent either, some things contradict other things.  I'm ok with ambiguity and inconsistency, I think its important to explore and consider these things.

And it seems your answer to my point is to find ways to reject Mormon teachings.
See, you asked:

•  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.
   

The answer to why Mormons believe that is found in Mormon teachings.  So rather than " looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important" you reject the teachings that explain why they are important and pick them apart.

What you are really asking is what is the benefit to our rituals over another religions rituals.  The only answer is that God told us ours were the only ones he accepts.  The records of his telling us that are in the scriptures and history of the Church.  In order to believe all other religion's rituals are valid you have to reject our religion's teachings.  That's your right, but we can't have it both ways, even if that seems too black and white.