rongo Posted September 20, 2016 Posted September 20, 2016 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: You may be right about the lack of reciprocation for acceptance of the ban but I see a significant difference. Rejecting the ban is often based on 1) a lack of evidence that it came from God and 2) the harm that it has caused to an entire race of people and those who love them. Rejecting the ban causes no loss or harm but accepting the ban does cause harm. To reciprocate and accept the ban despite the lack of evidence that it came from God, even though the ban and the associated doctrines/theories hurt people deeply, adds to the hurt. There is no benefit to the victimized group in accepting it where there is benefit to the victimized group to reject it. What about if you're trying to help someone in a faith crisis for whom "they were wrong all these years; it/they was/were racist!" might be a tipping point? But for whom "the ban and its lifting were both from God" could well help? Isn't that ostensibly the "middle way" "stay lds" approach? Or, not when you might need to encourage some people to accept the ban? I sense a lot more "flexibility" and "nuance" among the "hardliners" than among the "progressives" in the Church, and not just about this issue. There is likewise lack of evidence that it didn't come from God, other than the circular "because God just wouldn't do that --- that's racist!" I don't think the yardstick should be the relative "benefit" or "hurt" to the "victimized group" if one accepts one theory over another. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 16 hours ago, rongo said: What about if you're trying to help someone in a faith crisis for whom "they were wrong all these years; it/they was/were racist!" might be a tipping point? But for whom "the ban and its lifting were both from God" could well help? Isn't that ostensibly the "middle way" "stay lds" approach? Or, not when you might need to encourage some people to accept the ban? I sense a lot more "flexibility" and "nuance" among the "hardliners" than among the "progressives" in the Church, and not just about this issue. There is likewise lack of evidence that it didn't come from God, other than the circular "because God just wouldn't do that --- that's racist!" I don't think the yardstick should be the relative "benefit" or "hurt" to the "victimized group" if one accepts one theory over another. That might be the stayLDS way but I don't find it particularly useful. If someone is struggling with the racism of the church's past they are going to have to figure out a way to accept the fallibility of the church. The church and the prophets make mistakes. Serious mistakes. Doctrinal mistakes. That's the lay of the land. But whether or not the struggling individual accepts that the ban was from God they must recognize the church admits that doctrines taught about the ban were racist. So the racism exists with or without the ban. If they choose to believe the ban was from God as a way of keeping faith in the church (which is not the same as keeping faith in God BTW) the individual has to understand how/why the church was racist but ALSO how/why God is racist without any supporting doctrines. Remember, those racist doctrines that supported the ban are disavowed. So the racist ban stands alone. If there is a revelation from God that harms a group of people by excluding them from eternal saving ordinances, then the responsibility is on the church to show evidence of that revelation. Produce the revelation. The meeting notes. Something. Requiring people to prove that church didn't receive a revelation is a bit silly. 1
stemelbow Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 16 hours ago, rongo said: What about if you're trying to help someone in a faith crisis for whom "they were wrong all these years; it/they was/were racist!" might be a tipping point? But for whom "the ban and its lifting were both from God" could well help? Isn't that ostensibly the "middle way" "stay lds" approach? Or, not when you might need to encourage some people to accept the ban? I sense a lot more "flexibility" and "nuance" among the "hardliners" than among the "progressives" in the Church, and not just about this issue. I'm not sure what you mean by flexibility particularly on this issue. the "hardliner" approach, if that's what you want to call it, is without question that the ban was inspired by God. I've never seen anything from one who espouses the "hardliner" approach to be any different, nor compromising. There's no flexibility on that. The "progressive" approach is more along the lines of, "it was a mistake, unless one can provide a rational justification for it". Since no justification has ever come, there's no flexibility, but the flexibility is possible. I had an interesting experience last night. Went on splits with the missionaries. We went to visit a new couple in the ward whom we haven't seen. A young couple, but the wife was not home. So we talked to the husband--been married two years and married in the temple. Says he, "The Priesthood ban was a big issue for me. it doesnt' make sense that God would condone racism like that". Having just participated, me and the missionary, in the regional conference starring Elder Ballard, I recall Elder Ballard say, "don't dismiss people's questions". So I did not. The missionary who I was with did. And he says, "well God does what he wants. When has God ever done anything that has made sense?" Ugh...Kind of a mess. After we left the missionary was pretty proud about his question, thinking he had the guy stumped. He didn't. It only brought into question whether God or the BIble has any validity for the guy. The just looked like a jerk dismissing the guy's main concern he raised. For me, I think Elder Ballard is right. You should never dismiss. You should first acknowledge the difficulty. All of our explanations about the ban from the past have been nothing but racist. That's an ugly thing. 1
ALarson Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If there is a revelation from God that harms a group of people by excluding them from eternal saving ordinances, then the responsibility is on the church to show evidence of that revelation. Produce the revelation. The meeting notes. Something. Requiring people to prove that church didn't receive a revelation is a bit silly. The same should be said for this most recent policy / revelation as well. 3
JLHPROF Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: the responsibility is on the church to show evidence of that revelation. Produce the revelation. The meeting notes. Something. Requiring people to prove that church didn't receive a revelation is a bit silly. We all know that what is in the Church now termed revelation is a feeling determined to be from the Lord - inspiration. When the revelation is a feeling there is nothing to produce. President Monson felt like this was the right choice. He directed whichever GA's implemented it. There is nothing to produce. We apparently no longer get Churchwide revelation of the more demonstrable kind. 1
stemelbow Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: We all know that what is in the Church now termed revelation is a feeling determined to be from the Lord - inspiration. When the revelation is a feeling there is nothing to produce. President Monson felt like this was the right choice. He directed whichever GA's implemented it. There is nothing to produce. We apparently no longer get Churchwide revelation of the more demonstrable kind. That's a little scary, for me. I realize this what you describe is not a bit different than any committee of people contemplating decisions than having a decision maker go with one. Any business or organization runs the exact same. It is, or has been, the exact process long condemned by the church as that which led the ancient Church astray or at least was the sign that shows the ancient Church was astray. There's little unique about the Church's claim to revelation if what you describe is true (which in fact I agree with).
HappyJackWagon Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: We all know that what is in the Church now termed revelation is a feeling determined to be from the Lord - inspiration. When the revelation is a feeling there is nothing to produce. President Monson felt like this was the right choice. He directed whichever GA's implemented it. There is nothing to produce. We apparently no longer get Churchwide revelation of the more demonstrable kind. OK, that is super weak. How about a meeting note where Monson describes the inspiration he received for the policy? We are left with a 2nd hand account that he received inspiration, but that is all. So really, it's just an assumption. Or maybe Kirton McConkie attorneys presented their wording for the policy for First Presidency review and President Monson said something like "that feels right". Is that revelation? If it is, I don't have much confidence in revelation, and it seems much more mundane than miraculous. If this is truly the best revelation the church has to offer I think the membership deserves to hear from the prophet that that is all they should expect. 1
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's a little scary, for me. I realize this what you describe is not a bit different than any committee of people contemplating decisions than having a decision maker go with one. Any business or organization runs the exact same. It is, or has been, the exact process long condemned by the church as that which led the ancient Church astray or at least was the sign that shows the ancient Church was astray. There's little unique about the Church's claim to revelation if what you describe is true (which in fact I agree with). I think that it is important to realize that JLHPROF's description of how revelation works in the church is his own opinion. Unless JLHPROF has inside information from a source that he has not yet shared I don't think we should be scared. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's a little scary, for me. I realize this what you describe is not a bit different than any committee of people contemplating decisions than having a decision maker go with one. Any business or organization runs the exact same. It is, or has been, the exact process long condemned by the church as that which led the ancient Church astray or at least was the sign that shows the ancient Church was astray. There's little unique about the Church's claim to revelation if what you describe is true (which in fact I agree with). Scary for all of us. 2 Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: OK, that is super weak. How about a meeting note where Monson describes the inspiration he received for the policy? We are left with a 2nd hand account that he received inspiration, but that is all. So really, it's just an assumption. Or maybe Kirton McConkie attorneys presented their wording for the policy for First Presidency review and President Monson said something like "that feels right". Is that revelation? If it is, I don't have much confidence in revelation, and it seems much more mundane than miraculous. If this is truly the best revelation the church has to offer I think the membership deserves to hear from the prophet that that is all they should expect. So what would provide an acceptable evidence of revelation from God for a policy that you fundamentally disagree with? We have D&C 132 as a canonized revelation confirming plural marriage as a principle of God and yet we have many members who still cannot accept it. We have D&C 119 as a canonized revelation confirming 10% tithing as a requirement and yet we have many members who twist it, ignore it, or outright reject it. While I agree with posters like you HJW and Stemelbow and ALarson who doubt the receipt of revelation happens much these days, I also recognize that actual revelation on a subject would make no difference to those who have dug their stakes in. An angel from heaven or maybe even Christ himself could appear to the likes of Kate Kelly and state that priesthood in the Church is only for men in mortality and she still wouldn't believe it. If God sent an angel to General Conference next week that appeared standing above the pulpit and confirming that any SS relationship was sinful and always would be it would do little to change the mind of most. All they saw and experienced didn't stop Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon from apostatizing. We are a great bunch of Laman's and Lemuels.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think that it is important to realize that JLHPROF's description of how revelation works in the church is his own opinion. Unless JLHPROF has inside information from a source that he has not yet shared I don't think we should be scared. I actually think JLHPROF is right on the money. When I said it was weak, I was referring to the process of revelation, not his analysis. I once had the opportunity to ask Elder Nelson, one on one, about the nature of revelation in the church today. I asked about angelic visitations, visions of God and/or Christ, voice dictated revelations etc. He told me the church does not receive revelation that way. In the early days of the church, when the leaders were more spiritually immature that kind of revelation was necessary but now the still, small promptings from the HG are all that is needed. This was a private conversation so you'll either choose to believe me or not. But his response did not inspire confidence in me and was a heavy load on my shelf. I wrote my experience immediately so I know my recollection is accurate. JLHPROF nailed the nature of modern revelation in the church.
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I actually think JLHPROF is right on the money. When I said it was weak, I was referring to the process of revelation, not his analysis. I once had the opportunity to ask Elder Nelson, one on one, about the nature of revelation in the church today. I asked about angelic visitations, visions of God and/or Christ, voice dictated revelations etc. He told me the church does not receive revelation that way. In the early days of the church, when the leaders were more spiritually immature that kind of revelation was necessary but now the still, small promptings from the HG are all that is needed. This was a private conversation so you'll either choose to believe me or not. But his response did not inspire confidence in me and was a heavy load on my shelf. I wrote my experience immediately so I know my recollection is accurate. JLHPROF nailed the nature of modern revelation in the church. I believe you. What I have issue with is the idea that revelation in the church today is limited to just "feelings." The vast majority of impressions that I have received have been a feeling. I personally call this inspiration. I'm sure many others have had these same feelings and have acted on them, knowing that they come from God. There have been a couple of other occasions in my life (and only a couple) when I have had actual words come into my head. They were only a few words, but I consider those experiences as very sacred and would not care to share further. In my experience I call this revelation. I'm sure others, including prophets and apostles, have had the same experience and have acted on it, knowing that it came from God. Question: should the prophet have to justify his experiences to the members of the church? 1
ALarson Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I once had the opportunity to ask Elder Nelson, one on one, about the nature of revelation in the church today. I asked about angelic visitations, visions of God and/or Christ, voice dictated revelations etc. He told me the church does not receive revelation that way. In the early days of the church, when the leaders were more spiritually immature that kind of revelation was necessary but now the still, small promptings from the HG are all that is needed. Wow, did he actually say that? I wonder if he really considers Joseph Smith to be "more spiritually immature" than leaders are today?
stemelbow Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 34 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think that it is important to realize that JLHPROF's description of how revelation works in the church is his own opinion. Unless JLHPROF has inside information from a source that he has not yet shared I don't think we should be scared. I think his description is about right. I don't know we've had anything to contradict it.
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Wow, did he actually say that? I wonder if he really considers Joseph Smith to be "more spiritually immature" than leaders are today? Do you believe that Joseph Smith came out of the grove as a spiritually mature person? Or did he need to learn and grow? How about others who joined the church and a few short years latter were called to be apostles, did they automatically become mature spiritually with the calling. Our apostles today have had many, many years of experience in learning to recognize and follow the promptings of the Spirit that early church leaders did not have. This is what President Nelson is referring to.
JLHPROF Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 35 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think that it is important to realize that JLHPROF's description of how revelation works in the church is his own opinion. Unless JLHPROF has inside information from a source that he has not yet shared I don't think we should be scared. I think the same can be said of those who believe real revelation IS being received regularly. I can only go by what has been said. The last revelation we have ANY record of: Quote "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord." - Bruce R. McConkie Quote And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage. Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. It was a quiet and sublime occasion. There was not the sound "as of a rushing mighty wind," there were not "cloven tongues like as of fire" (Acts 2:2-3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentecostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there. No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls. - Gordon B. Hinckley This is valid revelation. 100%. But a long way from: Quote By the Prophet Joseph, January 5, 1841. "At the organization of a school for instruction. Description of Paul: He is about five feet high, very dark hair; dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small, black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders, a whining voice, except when elevated, and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator, active and diligent, always employing himself in doing good to his fellow man." (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p.264) Quote D&C 136:37-38 (Jesus Christ) ... I did call upon [Joseph Smith] by mine angels, my ministering servants, and by mine own voice out of the heavens, to bring forth my work; which foundation he did lay, and was faithful; and I took him to myself.
JLHPROF Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I once had the opportunity to ask Elder Nelson, one on one, about the nature of revelation in the church today. I asked about angelic visitations, visions of God and/or Christ, voice dictated revelations etc. He told me the church does not receive revelation that way. In the early days of the church, when the leaders were more spiritually immature that kind of revelation was necessary but now the still, small promptings from the HG are all that is needed. I don't know whether to believe you or not, but if he said that what utter B.S. Sorry to be so "disrespectful" but men like Joseph and Hyrum and John Taylor etc were spiritual giants akin to Noah and Moses and Peter. Any notion that our current leaders are more spiritually mature than the man who holds the keys of this final dispensation and sealed his testimony with his blood is a complete insult. And they will be standing before him to be judged on how they handled the dispensation, gospel and Church he restored to the earth. Quote Our apostles today have had many, many years of experience in learning to recognize and follow the promptings of the Spirit that early church leaders did not have. No, I don't believe this is an accurate explanation. Joseph Smith taught "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." He gazed. They haven't. So yes, they may have decades of experience listening to the promptings of the spirit but I don't believe for one second they are more spiritual or remotely better equipped to receive the promptings of the spirit. Edited September 21, 2016 by JLHPROF
ALarson Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 31 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Do you believe that Joseph Smith came out of the grove as a spiritually mature person? Or did he need to learn and grow? How about others who joined the church and a few short years latter were called to be apostles, did they automatically become mature spiritually with the calling. Our apostles today have had many, many years of experience in learning to recognize and follow the promptings of the Spirit that early church leaders did not have. This is what President Nelson is referring to. Well, you can't know what President Nelson was "referring to" here, so this is only a guess on your part. And, it's a pretty poor guess IMO that falls apart rather quickly. Who among the leaders today were spiritually mature at 14 years of age? That's not a good comparison to try to make. And, are you seriously claiming that when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith in 1836, he was still more spiritually immature than our leaders today? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Wow, did he actually say that? I wonder if he really considers Joseph Smith to be "more spiritually immature" than leaders are today? I don't think he meant it in a disparaging way though. It was more of a matter-of-fact response, probably aimed more at the youthfulness of leaders and their inexperience with spiritual things. But yes, that's what he said. Quote JLHPROF- Any notion that our current leaders are more spiritually mature than the man who holds the keys of this final dispensation and sealed his testimony with his blood is a complete insult. I really don't think he meant it as any kind of insult. Still, I had a negative reaction to it as well, but mine was a bit different than yours. To me his answer didn't come across as arrogant so much as it was a weak excuse for not having had similar spiritual experiences. Edited September 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: And, are you seriously claiming that when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith in 1836, he was still more spiritually immature than our leaders today? Elijah's appearance in 1836 was to restore priesthood keys necessitating a personal appearance.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Do you believe that Joseph Smith came out of the grove as a spiritually mature person? Or did he need to learn and grow? How about others who joined the church and a few short years latter were called to be apostles, did they automatically become mature spiritually with the calling. Our apostles today have had many, many years of experience in learning to recognize and follow the promptings of the Spirit that early church leaders did not have. This is what President Nelson is referring to. That was exactly Elder Nelson's point, I believe.
ALarson Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Elijah's appearance in 1836 was to restore priesthood keys necessitating a personal appearance. Yes, I know that. But it's these examples that cause your comparison to fall flat, IMO (this is just one of many I could give). There is no way that Joseph was more spiritually immature than our leaders are today. I have to believe that HJW's explanation is more accurate and makes a lot more sense. Edited September 21, 2016 by ALarson
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: There is no way that Joseph was more spiritually immature than our leaders are today. Why? (just for the sake of discussion)
ALarson Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 12 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Why? (just for the sake of discussion) I'm out to door right now, but didn't want to ignore your response. Read JLHPROF's thoughts above for starters of a discussion: 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Any notion that our current leaders are more spiritually mature than the man who holds the keys of this final dispensation and sealed his testimony with his blood is a complete insult. And they will be standing before him to be judged on how they handled the dispensation, gospel and Church he restored to the earth.
JLHPROF Posted September 21, 2016 Author Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Why? (just for the sake of discussion) 1. His calling 2. His experiences temporally 3. His experiences spiritually 4. His fruits of the restoration 5. The testimony of those that actually knew him 6. His sacrifices 7. His teachings on doctrine D&C 135:3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. Joseph was more mature spiritually at 30 than others who make it to 80. Just as Christ was more spiritually mature at 12 teaching in the temple than those who had spent a lifetime studying the gospel. Edited September 21, 2016 by JLHPROF
ksfisher Posted September 21, 2016 Posted September 21, 2016 Just now, JLHPROF said: 1. His calling 2. His experiences temporally 3. His experiences spiritually 4. His fruits of the restoration 5. The testimony of those that actually knew him 6. His sacrifices 7. His teachings on doctrine D&C 135:3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. But he didn't start out this way. He started out as a young boy who, in his own words " frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God." (JSH 1:28) What you've described in your 7 points is how he grew. He gained spiritual maturity through his obedience as well as experiences. Would you not agree that Joseph Smith at the time of his death was more mature than say, when he began the translation of the Book of Mormon, or even when he organized the church?
Recommended Posts