Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[carbon dioxide]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I would rather see some examples of dueling prophets living at the same time.  Of course a prophet in the 19th century might think that polygamy would be practiced to the 2nd coming and beyond.  Why would they think it would end if they did not know what would happen around the turn of the century.  A prophet living in in the 20th century could look backwards and see why polygamy ended. 

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But that's my point.  Sure, some were revised and corrected.  That's not the issue.

Can you please quote D&C Section 84, 92, or 107 in their original form (just for comparison to what we have printed in our D&C)?   These are the ones you mentioned and I'd really like to know how much or if they were altered.  Thanks.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would rather see some examples of dueling prophets living at the same time.  Of course a prophet in the 19th century might think that polygamy would be practiced to the 2nd coming and beyond.  Why would they think it would end if they did not know what would happen around the turn of the century.  A prophet living in in the 20th century could look backwards and see why polygamy ended. 

Examples-

1-Look up the public disagreements between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt regarding Adam/God. In this case you had the prophet and an apostle openly at odds over this doctrine.

2- Look up public statements by contemporary prophets/seers/revelators (specifically Peterson and McConkie) about race and the priesthood and then the lifting of the ban by Pres. Kimball. McConkie famously had to retract his previous statements by saying something like "forget everything I've taught on that matter".

But requiring the prophets to be contemporaries for their ideas/teachings to be "dueling is really moving the goal posts. So when John Taylor declares that polygamy will never be removed from practice among the saints, only to have the practice halted a few years later by Wilford Woodruff means that John Taylor was wrong.

When BY says Adam is God the Father and that your salvation depends on believing that, yet modern prophets claim that belief is a heresy, then one of them is wrong. And it's fine for them to be wrong in their opinions but when they are speaking for God, and are wrong, and we know they are because they directly contradict each other, then I have to accept that at least one of the prophets is taking the name of God in vain (speaking for Him incorrectly). There's really no way around that.

So when prophets today declare that SSM will NEVER be acceptable to God, they may be right, but they might be wrong.  Why should I trust that they are right this time when they are demonstrably wrong in other instances? 

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

Can you please quote D&C Section 84, 92, or 107 in their original form (just for comparison to what we have printed in our D&C)?   These are the ones you mentioned and I'd really like to know how much or if they were altered.  Thanks.

Nope.  You have the internet.  You can access the Joseph Smith Papers if you are so inclined.

Because as I said, I am not looking for reasons to pull apart the miracle.
I have already conceded that many revelations were altered, adjusted, corrected, etc.

But I will not use that as an excuse to dismiss the ones that weren't significantly adjusted as being anything other than the actual words from God's lips to Joseph's ear/mind.  Such an approach would make the entirety of the gospel utterly pointless as it would be based on nothing more than the feelings some people had once.

My point remains - that for Joseph to dictate forth the words of scripture and doctrine that he did without either pre-writing the words or God giving him the words is a completely unreasonable expectation.  Either he scammed us all by sitting home and composing his revelations ahead of time, or God himself gave Joseph the actual words, not just the inspired feelings.

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But requiring the prophets to be contemporaries for their ideas/teachings to be "dueling is really moving the goal posts. So when John Taylor declares that polygamy will never be removed from practice among the saints, only to have the practice halted a few years later by Wilford Woodruff means that John Taylor was wrong.

No, actually it doesn't.  That's why Wilford Woodruff didn't actually end polygamy.  He only allowed the Church membership to vote to remove the practice.  And then most of the GA's, many local leaders, and possibly Woodruff himself, continued the practice individually.

Quote

When BY says Adam is God the Father and that your salvation depends on believing that, yet modern prophets claim that belief is a heresy, then one of them is wrong.

Yes, one of them is wrong.  But only one claimed any revelation on the subject.

Quote

So when prophets today declare that SSM will NEVER be acceptable to the church, they may be right, but why should I trust that they are right this time when they are demonstrably wrong in other instances?

Depends on whether a revelation was given or not.  God doesn't change, although man's understanding sometimes does.

[DBMormon]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Whether I know anything, I will simply leave you guessing.  But I am excited to see the new handbook next year.  Let's say a change does happen , It will be interesting how those who have defended it tooth and nail now come to grips in their mind that only a year later it is retracted as a bad idea.  hmmmm that feels like cognitive dissonance.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.  You have the internet.  You can access the Joseph Smith Papers if you are so inclined.

Because as I said, I am not looking for reasons to pull apart the miracle.
I have already conceded that many revelations were altered, adjusted, corrected, etc.

But I will not use that as an excuse to dismiss the ones that weren't significantly adjusted as being anything other than the actual words from God's lips to Joseph's ear/mind.  Such an approach would make the entirety of the gospel utterly pointless as it would be based on nothing more than the feelings some people had once.

My point remains - that for Joseph to dictate forth the words of scripture and doctrine that he did without either pre-writing the words or God giving him the words is a completely unreasonable expectation.  Either he scammed us all by sitting home and composing his revelations ahead of time, or God himself gave Joseph the actual words, not just the inspired feelings.

I think the big issue with this view is, the words have changed and the revelations have been edited.  If God gave Joseph the words just as he needed them then there'd be no need or room for editing.  If He inspired the editing we wouldn't know, because it didn't happen quite like your version of how the revelation of D&C works. 

On the other hand, if the D&C came to Joseph by impressions and the words were his maybe even mixed with inspiration, then editing works just fine. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, actually it doesn't.  That's why Wilford Woodruff didn't actually end polygamy.  He only allowed the Church membership to vote to remove the practice.  And then most of the GA's, many local leaders, and possibly Woodruff himself, continued the practice individually.

Yes- the first manifesto was a sham. I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that it was declared necessary by one prophet and unnecessary by another. When the church, via direction from the church, excommunicates people for doing something the church claimed to be essential, there is an obvious problem of dueling prophets.

Yes, one of them is wrong.  But only one claimed any revelation on the subject.

But according to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet it is not necessary for a prophet to say "thus saith the lord" to proclaim doctrine. If that statement is true, your point doesn't matter. If that point is wrong, then it's another example of a prophet teaching a false doctrine. When a prophet declares something authoritatively it is generally accepted, though I agree with you that we should require some more information and inquire about a revelation. Of course there is no process in place to seek this kind of clarification.

 

Depends on whether a revelation was given or not.  God doesn't change, although man's understanding sometimes does.

I've never seen a revelation. The nearest thing we have is a third party claiming revelation of the prophet. And since no revelation has been produced I see no reason to treat it as a revelation, nor do I feel a need to accept other "prophetic utterances" on SSM and h0mosxuality to be binding. No revelation means I have no need to accept.

What changes often is what prophets and apostles claim to be the will of God. An unreliable prophet isn't terribly useful.

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- the first manifesto was a sham. I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that it was declared necessary by one prophet and unnecessary by another. When the church, via direction from the church, excommunicates people for doing something the church claimed to be essential, there is an obvious problem of dueling prophets.

All Wilford Woodruff did is reverse what Brigham Young did in 1852 and place polygamy back in the same status as it was in the days of Joseph.  Brigham was determined that all laws and ordinances be available to the entire Church and sought to merge Church and Temple into one society.  A noble goal.  In Joseph's day they were separate.

But according to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet it is not necessary for a prophet to say "thus saith the lord" to proclaim doctrine. If that statement is true, your point doesn't matter. If that point is wrong, then it's another example of a prophet teaching a false doctrine. When a prophet declares something authoritatively it is generally accepted, though I agree with you that we should require some more information and inquire about a revelation. Of course there is no process in place to seek this kind of clarification.

I don't accept the 14 fundamentals (well, not all of them).  I don't consider them to have any revelatory authority behind them at all and several border on contradicting correct principle.  But I see your point about that meaning President Benson taught false doctrine.  But I've said for years any doctrine taught that contradict previously revelation may be ignored as false.

I've never seen a revelation. The nearest thing we have is a third party claiming revelation of the prophet. And since no revelation has been produced I see no reason to treat it as a revelation, nor do I feel a need to accept other "prophetic utterances" on SSM and h0mosxuality to be binding. No revelation means I have no need to accept.

On that, we completely agree.  So we are left to look at any previously revealed doctrine and revelation to suit the topic.  And any gospel principles that apply.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.  You have the internet.  You can access the Joseph Smith Papers if you are so inclined.

That's fine.  You were the one who listed those sections as examples of verbatim revelations, word for word, being straight from God.  I'm just asking if you have the original copy of them to compare to what we have today since we know some were altered.

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because as I said, I am not looking for reasons to pull apart the miracle.

Well, that's the point here.  You can't have it both ways.  First you state that Joseph's revelations were "verbatim" and printed word for word eloquently spoken straight from God.  But we know that many were "revised, elaborated, and clarified", (as clearly stated in the first edition of the D&C published in 1835).

What other alterations were made between the first edition and the one we have now?  I have to believe there were many more changes. 

So this argument of yours is very weak without showing comparisons between how the revelations were originally recorded.

.

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's the point here.  You can't have it both ways.  First you state that Joseph's revelations were "verbatim" and printed word for word eloquently spoken straight from God.  But we know that many were "revised, elaborated, clarified", (this is clearly stated in the first edition of the D&C published in 1835).

What other alterations were made between the first edition and the one we have now?  I have to believe there were many more alterations.

So this argument of yours is very weak without showing comparisons between how the revelations were originally recorded.

I realize my argument is weak.  It's an argument of faith, not demonstrable proof.
I realize SOME scripture has been edited.  I realize SOME of Joseph's discourses have multiple historical versions available.

The point remains that for Joseph to speak forth as he did without preparation is basically inconceivable.  Either God told him what to say or he prepared it beforehand.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I realize my argument is weak.  It's an argument of faith, not demonstrable proof.
I realize SOME scripture has been edited.  I realize SOME of Joseph's discourses have multiple historical versions available.

The point remains that for Joseph to speak forth as he did without preparation is basically inconceivable.  Either God told him what to say or he prepared it beforehand.

You can't know that Joseph spoke "without preparation".  He may have pondered things for days, weeks, or months prior to speaking about them.

.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I realize my argument is weak.  It's an argument of faith, not demonstrable proof.
I realize SOME scripture has been edited.  I realize SOME of Joseph's discourses have multiple historical versions available.

The point remains that for Joseph to speak forth as he did without preparation is basically inconceivable.  Either God told him what to say or he prepared it beforehand.

You've made this statement a couple of times now and I don't understand why you find it so inconceivable that a person like Joseph could have a gift of speaking. It's certainly not my gift, but I've known people with oratorical gifts that amaze me. Especially when we consider that he is coming from a culture where preachers would speak for hours on end with nary a note to refer to, I don't see why it is hard to believe that Joseph could speak well. And I certainly wouldn't claim that he never gave thought to these things. He gave tremendous thought and study to various topics. He was continually seeking education. 

It seems plausible to me that Joseph was a very gifted person who was able to draw from multiple sources (written/verbal) and weave them into religious thought. And it's not like all/most of his revelations were literary masterpieces.

[Duncan]

This is what I don't understand, critics want the church to change and then when it does they don't like it, is it a case of the change they want to see? you can't please everyone

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Duncan said:

This is what I don't understand, critics want the church to change and then when it does they don't like it, is it a case of the change they want to see? you can't please everyone

I don't consider myself a critic (though some may disagree).
I just want the Church to stay as close to the restored revealed gospel as possible and quit making "administrative" adjustments to gospel doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Whether I know anything, I will simply leave you guessing.  But I am excited to see the new handbook next year.  Let's say a change does happen , It will be interesting how those who have defended it tooth and nail now come to grips in their mind that only a year later it is retracted as a bad idea.  hmmmm that feels like cognitive dissonance.

So is it inside information you are privy to, or are you going by something anyone could access on the Internet? Don't play this juvenile game.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So is it inside information you are privy to, or are you going by something anyone could access on the Internet? Don't play this juvenile game.

If you've read the other thread (started by stemmelbow), you'll see that this policy has already been removed from the seminary manual (after first including it).  Hopefully, removal from the handbook will be next.

.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

If you've read the other thread (started by stemmelbow), you'll see that this policy has already been removed from the seminary manual (after first including it).  Hopefully, removal from the handbook will be next.

.

This doesn't answer the question.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This doesn't answer the question.

I never said that it did.  I just didn't know if you'd seen the other thread.  It was just an FYI  

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I never said that it did.  I just didn't know if you'd seen the other thread.  It was just an FYI  

I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question I put to Reel. Nor is it even necessarily related.

 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question I put to Reel. Nor is it even necessarily related.

 

I disagree (about it being related).  I hope it's the first step to backing away from this awful new policy and that the next step will be removing it from the handbook.  Time will tell, but I do hope these rumors are true and that they are coming from someone who knows.  We will just have to wait and see, but what took place with the seminary manual is encouraging.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 this awful new policy and that the next step will be removing it from the handbook.  

I have yet to hear a reasoned explanation about what makes this policy so awful.
It seems completely in keeping with priesthood principles and policies.  I will fully own that I had a similar "this is awful" reaction when it was announced.

I think it does rub our kind and loving natures the wrong way.  It certainly did with me.
But then I thought about the propriety of giving ordinances to minors who were still at home under the direction of guardians who outwardly oppose the Church in their actions and choices.
And suddenly the policy didn't seem so awful anymore.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have yet to hear a reasoned explanation about what makes this policy so awful.
It seems completely in keeping with priesthood principles and policies.  I will fully own that I had a similar "this is awful" reaction when it was announced.

I think it does rub our kind and loving natures the wrong way.  It certainly did with me.
But then I thought about the propriety of giving ordinances to minors who were still at home under the direction of guardians who outwardly oppose the Church in their actions and choices.
And suddenly the policy didn't seem so awful anymore.

You know better than that.

The policy, and you, assume that the guardians "outwardly oppose the church. They are only "apostate" ( or in open opposition to the church) because of the policy. But it fails to recognize that some people who live in a SSM might want their kids to grow up Mormon. I don't see why that is hard to comprehend. Unmarried parents "living in sin" still go to church and take their children so why is it unfathomable that SSM couples may also want their children to be a part of the church. Your assumption implies that the church has absolutely nothing to offer children whose parents happen to be gay and penalizes them because of that assumption. And for those who don't think it's a penalty then they must not place much value in the ordinances of baptism and confirmation or the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

It's an absurd policy.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have yet to hear a reasoned explanation about what makes this policy so awful.

That's already been discussed at length on here and there are other threads on that topic.

I do find it odd that President Monson received a revelation (first one in many years that we know of) and as of yet, has not spoken about it.  As far as I know,  Pres. Nelson is the only one who has stated it was a revelation.

Edited September 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree (about it being related).  I hope it's the first step to backing away from this awful new policy and that the next step will be removing it from the handbook.  Time will tell, but I do hope these rumors are true and that they are coming from someone who knows.  We will just have to wait and see, but what took place with the seminary manual is encouraging.

Revision of an online youth instruction manual proves nothing.

So let's make this a proper CFR.

To Bill Reel (DBMormon): Call for references that Dehlin has a source who says what you claim about a change to the handbook coming next year. And let's have a link.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd