Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 1:00 AM, carbon dioxide said:

God the Father?  No.  But Adam is the ancient of days and was made "Lord over the earth" by the Father and I believe Adam is still Lord over the earth until Christ comes to him at Adam-ondi-Ahman and takes control.  Adam role in things is much greater than we realize.  He does hold the keys of salvation under Christ.  When an angel is sent to someone, it is Adam that sends that personally sends that angel.  I avoid using the word "God" with Adam as I give that title to the Father and Son and I prefer to avoid confusion but Adam has obtained his exaltation and the roles that has been given to him, in practical terms he acts as God does.  In some ways calling Adam "God" it not way off the mark.  So the whole Adam-God thing does not really bother me since my views of it keeps all the actors in their distinct roles and everything is in order.

You seem to be missing the part that Adam is the father of all living, both spiritually and physically, including Jesus. So Adam was Jesus' father and Elohim is Jesus', and our, grandfather (assuming you stick with an individualized God and not a council of Gods as Brigham taught)

IOW- According to that doctrine Adam is OVER Jesus, not Under.

Adam is the only God with whom we have anything to do, according to BY. So the bother with this topic comes when a prophet of God, supposedly with greater access to deity and therefore better understanding of Him/Them (whatever) doesn't know who God is. At least it is clear that prophets have different opinions about who is God. It doesn't get much more fundamental than that. If a prophet can't be relied upon to share truth about who God is, then the rest of his teachings are pretty pointless.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:53 AM, carbon dioxide said:

I don't see there are dueling prophets.  I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living.  Prophets don't know everything.  They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that.  We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. 

I'm not sure how you don't see dueling prophets based on my few examples alone.

Yes, they are fallible. Yes, their understanding is limited. But if that's the defense whenever prophets contradict each other on major doctrinal issues, then why not own it fully. The church still treats the words of the prophets as if they come directly from God. There's no allowance for fallibility or limited understanding. They speak with certitude as if they know they mysteries, only to have future generations dismiss their prophetic utterance.

If the modern prophet can sometimes dismiss the teachings of past prophets, then I have to expect that future prophets will sometimes dismiss the teachings of current prophets.

[stemelbow]

I just realized what a tough spot the Church finds itself these days.  I mean I kinda knew but this brought out the difficulty for me all the more.

Anything any of the top leaders say and do in nearly any setting can potentially be as public and official sounding as General Conference.  I'm not trying to zero in on President Nelson's claim of revelation as per the policy change, although that is an interesting example.  What if some of them don't see it as revelation?  They can't really say so now.  "well, let's take it out and disregard it" they might decide.  What?  At the expense of the opinion of the president of the Quorum of the 12?  "nevermind, let's put it back in.  We're going to have to ride this out now."

The simple answer from my perspective seems to be, be open, admit mistakes, stop contributing to the pharisaic pattern of making silly details more important than love, while decrying the "all we need is love" mentality, don't hide disagreements among the top leaders (it'd be hugely beneficial to us if we understood their disagreements, I'd say), don't pretend that everything they may say is untouchable until or unless the whole group somehow disavows their viewpoints--kinda like they did with Adam-God and others. 

I mean, I don't really know the answer, but it feels the Church is way too steeped in legalism, tradition, and such to really be revelation any more.  It's all people getting together to decide the best course of action on any given issue.  It's the exact issue we used to say was the problem with the Church in the New Testament era. 

[Gray]

On 9/3/2016 at 3:04 PM, JLHPROF said:

The Church seems very gun shy about putting anything forth as a possibility for canonization.

Which is funny when you consider such gems as D&C 120 -  1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.

Surely the revelations of the 20th and 21st century are of more import to the members than this and should be canonized for study?

I think that tells us a lot about the nature of revelation. If we could get literal messages from God then the revelations would be a lot more consistent. Revelation just isn't like that. It's more akin to the kind of inspiration that painters and musicians get when they're creating something new. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that tells us a lot about the nature of revelation. If we could get literal messages from God then the revelations would be a lot more consistent. Revelation just isn't like that. It's more akin to the kind of inspiration that painters and musicians get when they're creating something new.

It is now.  It was not always so.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is now.  It was not always so.

I think it was the same before too - but people interpreted their inspired thoughts as a first-person message from God. That "genre" of revelation seems to still live on some other Mormon denominations.

Perhaps the emphasis on consensus has changed the way inspiration is couched. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure how you don't see dueling prophets based on my few examples alone.

Yes, they are fallible. Yes, their understanding is limited. But if that's the defense whenever prophets contradict each other on major doctrinal issues, then why not own it fully. The church still treats the words of the prophets as if they come directly from God. There's no allowance for fallibility or limited understanding. They speak with certitude as if they know they mysteries, only to have future generations dismiss their prophetic utterance.

If the modern prophet can sometimes dismiss the teachings of past prophets, then I have to expect that future prophets will sometimes dismiss the teachings of current prophets.

I like this.  The thing is,if they are upfront about what they really know..then they are free to penalize those who don't follow the Prophet.  I would think it would be hard to discipline someone on something that may change.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think it was the same before too - but people interpreted their inspired thoughts as a first-person message from God. That "genre" of revelation seems to still live on some other Mormon denominations.

The records of Joseph dictating revelation would disagree with you.
If you are right Joseph would be the biggest and best con-artist in the history of the world - sitting at home, formulating revelations and memorizing them so he could dictate them precisely, with consistency of teaching. 
Sure, there were some revelations where a word or phrase etc was corrected after the recording, but there were just as many that were dictated word for word as we have them today without any adjustment or contradiction from other revelation.  Either God directly told him the words or he was the best spontaneous doctrine producer in history (Christ excepted).

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The records of Joseph dictating revelation would disagree with you.
If you are right Joseph would be the biggest and best con-artist in the history of the world - sitting at home, formulating revelations and memorizing them so he could dictate them precisely, with consistency of teaching. 
Sure, there were some revelations where a word or phrase etc was corrected after the recording, but there were just as many that were dictated word for word as we have them today without any adjustment or contradiction from other revelation.  Either God directly told him the words or he was the best spontaneous doctrine producer in history (Christ excepted).

If by "Joseph" you are referring to Joseph Smith jr., the founder of the LDS and other churches, I think you need to do a little more studying regarding the history and provenance of the revelations. 

And I would recommend being sitting down while doing it.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If by "Joseph" you are referring to Joseph Smith jr., the founder of the LDS and other churches, I think you need to do a little more studying regarding the history and provenance of the revelations. 

And I would recommend being sitting down while doing it.

Funny.
I am aware of the variety of methods and completeness by which he received revelation.
The fact that he dictated ANY of the D&C verbatim makes him either a complete con or a true prophet.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny.
I am aware of the variety of methods and completeness by which he received revelation.
The fact that he dictated ANY of the D&C verbatim makes him either a complete con or a true prophet.

Verbatim would require there was something to compare them too.  I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  He dictated the D&C which was word for word the same as what? 

[DBMormon]

On 9/3/2016 at 9:47 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this topic illustrates why there is so much skepticism.

-Policy is leaked

-It's later called a revelation

-It's added as an example of revelation in CES course material

-It's removed as an example of revelation in CES course material

 

We have the usual issues of Adam/God where one prophet states a teaching as essential doctrine and that a person will be damned if they don't accept it, while another prophet claims the teaching to be a damnable heresy.

We have "theories" about the reason for the priesthood/temple ban taught by prophets as doctrine only to have other prophets denounce those theories as racist.

We have prophets teaching that the practice of polygamy is essential for salvation and that it will never be taken from the earth while others claim it was a temporal practice (similar to a policy) and that it is not essential for exaltation.

 

As long as we have dueling prophets, there will continue to be confusion about what is doctrine and what is not. We are left to choose which prophet is truly speaking for God and it is reasonable that different people will come up with different answers.

And John Dehlin has reported he has a source that the policy will be walked back to something diminished from its current state in new Church leadership handbooks of instruction set to come out next year.  This thing whatever it was appears to on a path to the memory hole.

Edited September 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

On 9/3/2016 at 10:53 AM, carbon dioxide said:

I don't see there are dueling prophets.  I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living.  Prophets don't know everything.  They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that.  We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. 

This is pretty wishy washy.  If they can't decipher truth then anything any of us or the whole of us know to be true is questionable lest an angel hath delivered it (and you ask to shake his hand)

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The records of Joseph dictating revelation would disagree with you.

 

How so? 

 

Quote

If you are right Joseph would be the biggest and best con-artist in the history of the world - sitting at home, formulating revelations and memorizing them so he could dictate them precisely, with consistency of teaching. 

I disagree. We do have some traditions in the modern church that very closely follow Joseph Smith's way of getting revelation - Patriarchal blessings, confirmation, and blessings of healing and comfort.

People seek the guidance of the spirit in these ordinances and often speak for the Lord. It's stream of consciousness and it's dictated, just like the D&C and BOM were. 

But that doesn't mean every priesthood blessing is accurately quoting God's words, and that doesn't mean that a person giving such a blessing was engaging in some kind of con, even if they totally failed at accurately quoting God. When you engage in this kind of revelatory experience, you seek the spirit as best you can and grab words as they come to you. There is no way to know for sure if those words came from somewhere in your heart, or from a third party speaking words to your heart, or something else entirely.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Gray

[Calm]

 

44 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

This is pretty wishy washy.  If they can't decipher truth then anything any of us or the whole of us know to be true is questionable lest an angel hath delivered it (and you ask to shake his hand)

So you believe all prophets should have identical knowledge, understanding or both?

Edited September 6, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Verbatim would require there was something to compare them too.  I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  He dictated the D&C which was word for word the same as what?

What I am saying is simple.  Either Joseph was a con or God told him exactly (word for word) what to dictate in some of the revelations.  Because I don't believe that many of these could have been made up on the spot based on nothing more than his own feelings.  The words themselves simply had to be given to him directly or he is a huge fraud who spent his nights writing these, memorizing them, then dictating them to scribes.
 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But that doesn't mean every priesthood blessing is accurately quoting God's words, and that doesn't mean that a person giving such a blessing was engaging in some kind of con, even if they totally failed at accurately quoting God. When you engage in this kind of revelatory experience, you seek the spirit as best you can and grab words as they come to you. There is no way to know for sure if those words came from somewhere in your heart, or from a third party speaking words to your heart, or something else entirely.

Of course that is correct.  But again, I refer you to the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Joseph's discourses.
If you don't believe God gave him the actual words ever and that they are only based on his feelings I would consider him a con-man of the highest caliber.
Nobody made up those revelations and scriptures on the spot without either being told the words or having them prepared in advance.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course that is correct.  But again, I refer you to the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Joseph's discourses.
If you don't believe God gave him the actual words ever and that they are only based on his feelings I would consider him a con-man of the highest caliber.
Nobody made up those revelations and scriptures on the spot without either being told the words or having them prepared in advance.

How would you know if those were the only two possibilities? We have plenty of examples of brilliant composers who were able to compose masterpieces in quite short order, without having prepared music in advance. 

Of course if you talked to them you might find out that some of the themes had been circling their brains for days or weeks before being suddenly crystallized at the moment of composition. Perhaps the same is true of religious genius. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

How would you know if those were the only two possibilities? We have plenty of examples of brilliant composers who were able to compose masterpieces in quite short order, without having prepared music in advance.

Of course if you talked to them you might find out that some of the themes had been circling their brains for days or weeks before being suddenly crystallized at the moment of composition. Perhaps the same is true of religious genius.

D&C 84
D&C 93
D&C 107
D&C 132

Unprepared word for word dictation by a genius?  Perhaps?
Personally I think the literal word of God is the only way those could be produced without being prepared beforehand.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 84
D&C 93
D&C 107
D&C 132

Unprepared word for word dictation by a genius?  Perhaps?
 

Other than Section 132 above, do you have the original revelation for those other sections?

Here is what is stated in the first edition of the Doctrine & Covenants (published in 1835):

Quote

"Some documents in this first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants were worded quite differently from their earlier form in the Book of Commandments.  Joseph Smith revised, elaborated, and clarified many of the earlier ideas and instructions when preparing the copy for the Doctrine and Covenants in 1834-1835."

So were the sections "word for word dictation" or have they been "revised, elaborated, and clarified" for today's edition of the D&C?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

Other than Section 132 above, do you have the original revelation for those other sections?

Here is what is stated in the first edition of the Doctrine & Covenants (published in 1835):

So were the sections "word for word dictation" or have they been "revised, elaborated, and clarified" for today's edition of the D&C?

I didn't want to get bogged down going revelation by revelation through the Joseph Smith papers.
But suffice it to say that there are many that were edited and adjusted, and there are many that only have the original dictation.

And given the complexity of some of these a single dictation without either preparation of the text in advance or actual revealed words from God seem the only two reasonable options.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, DBMormon said:

And John Dehlin has reported he has a source that the policy will be walked back to something diminished from its current state in new Church leadership handbooks of instruction set to come out next year.  This thing whatever it was appears to on a path to the memory hole.

If John Dehlin said it, and has an anonymous source for it,  then it must be true.

 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And given the complexity of some of these a single dictation without either preparation of the text in advance or actual revealed words from God seem the only two reasonable options.

Not really.  Especially when you read what some of the revelations went through between the original copy and the version we have today.  As stated above, some were "revised, elaborated, and clarified".  That leaves open many options regarding how they were originally written and worded.

.

Edited September 6, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not really.  Especially when you read what some of the revelations went through between the original copy and the version we have today.  As stated above, some were "revised, elaborated, and clarified".  That leaves open many options regarding how they were originally written and worded.

.

But that's my point.  Sure, some were revised and corrected.  That's not the issue.
It is what the the dictation of some of these revelations without any correction or adjustment tells us.

We can choose to ignore it and stomp our foot and say that since some revelations had adjustments and revisions made that God didn't give actual words to Joseph.
Except that was not the case in every revelation.

Some revelations have complexity in the original text that was issued by Joseph Smith in one dictation that could only come from the two possibilities I named.
If Joseph was making up the text on the spot I see only the possibility that it came from God or that he had it prepared.  To be able to speak forth with such complexity without making errors and contradictions seems a complete impossibility.

Focusing on the ones that were edited is a great red herring to distract from the miraculous creation of the wording in others.

Edited September 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[DBMormon]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So you believe all prophets should have identical knowledge, understanding or both?

No but if they claim to receive his mind and will only to be dead wrong then it calls into question every revelation ever received by one or many 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, DBMormon said:

And John Dehlin has reported he has a source that the policy will be walked back to something diminished from its current state in new Church leadership handbooks of instruction set to come out next year.  This thing whatever it was appears to on a path to the memory hole.

Last time I saw anything from John Dehlin on this, he was reporting anonymous gossip, as he is wont to do. And even he said he didn't believe it.

Are you saying he has something more solid on this now? Please share.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd