Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Gray]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I think it would be strange to assume it was anything but prophetic, and if prophetic, then revelatory.  

Then we're back to assuming everything they say is revelation?

 

Quote

If the following words were recorded in the Bible and signed by Peter and all of the apostles, would there be any question as to whether it was prophetic?  Would you require the qualifier - "by the way, this is a prophetic warning"?

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 Either it is prophetic, or it is a made up lie. 

From their language, I would assume that this is their interpretation of scripture. Is interpretation a kind revelation? Maybe, but not in the sense that most people think of when they think revelation.

Why can't it be both prophetic and made up? That's kind of what prophesy is - it's a creative process. Prophesy, and indeed theology, isn't a science - it's more like art. We're limited only by imagination.

I would reject the word "lie" as completely irrelevant. Is a painting a "lie" if the subject is invented?

 

Quote

Can you give me that reference for Bednar?  That would seriously surprise me if he considered something to be revelation that did not come from God (or broadcast by God), and is simply "assumed to be true".  That sounds terribly fishy to me.  

 

 

From this video:

 

 

 

Quote

Elder Bednar: “I think we over complicate this. I think we over analyze it. Moroni teaches that all good emanates from Christ. So if you have a thought to do something good, it’s prompted by the Holy Ghost. So for example if a student goes to an early morning Seminary class, and your mother says every day, ‘Be sure to say your prayers,’ and one day you forget to say your prayers and in your mind you hear your Mother’s voice saying ‘Make sure to say your prayers.’ Is that the Holy Ghost or is that you? What difference does it make? Is Moroni going to come to deliver that message, or would the Holy Ghost use the memory of your angel Mother to deliver the same message? So if it invites and entices to do good, it comes from Christ, and we ought to do it.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Gray

[california boy]

I have read both points of view on revelation and what actually qualifies as a revelation from God.  I think a lot of the disagreement  comes from a viewpoint that was once taught in the church but now seems to be tossed aside like so many other doctrines that were once believed to be true.  I grew up believing that the prophet of God was actually God's mouthpiece on earth.  That God would tell him what to say and the prophet would declare those words of God.  I remember being on my mission and telling people that just as God spoke to prophets in the past, so does He speak to a prophet today.  Just as God spoke to Moses, Abraham and others, we now have a prophet that is the mouthpiece of God today.  That was the message.  That was the promise.  That was what people were taught to believe  And that was what they were asked to pray about.

It seems to me that recently, that type of prophet has been replaced with one who heads a committee, and if there is a consensus of that committee, then they have just received a revelation from God.  If the church needs a new temple in China, then the committee consisting of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 get together and decide if now is the appropriate time.  If the committee agrees, then a revelation from God has just occurred.  If they need a new building on the BYU campus, then the committee gets together and through consensus a new revelation from God has been given.  If we need to do something about the children of gay families being baptized then, the committee decides and a revelation from God has been received.

Some would argue that both things are a revelation from God.  Others would argue that there is a difference between revelation from God and inspiration from God.  Therein lies the problem.  I think for some, to abandon the first definition for the more watered down definition, then the very distinct claim of Mormonism goes away.  If revelation is simply having a committee comes to a consensus, then how is the Mormon church different than any other church run by men wishing to do the will of God.  For some, by using a more broad definition of revelation then the claim of having a prophet is just a different title used by Mormons than the title of Pope the Catholics use or President that other religions use.  If that is the case, then one has to once again ask, "How are the claims of Mormonism any different than any other religion?"

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It seems to me that recently, that type of prophet has been replaced with one who heads a committee, and if there is a consensus of that committee, then they have just received a revelation from God.  If the church needs a new temple in China, then the committee consisting of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 get together and decide if now is the appropriate time.  If the committee agrees, then a revelation from God has just occurred.  If they need a new building on the BYU campus, then the committee gets together and through consensus a new revelation from God has been given.  If we need to do something about the children of gay families being baptized then, the committee decides and a revelation from God has been received.

The primary responsibility of the prophet, besides being a witness for Jesus Christ, is as the holder of the keys of administration of the kingdom of God on earth.  How many times do we expect him to repeat the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

"Just do the best you can" does not just apply to the ordinary member of the church, but to the Prophet and apostles as well.  I find it remarkable how the Lord has prepared a prophet for a specific mission in the church == such as Pres. Hinckley in public affairs and media.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Then we're back to assuming everything they say is revelation?

It says that you posted this 2 hours ago, but when I edited my post 1 hour ago, there was no response posted by you yet.  That is strange! It will appear as if I edited my last post after you posted. Oh well.

I actually edited my last response, because I recognized the same problem in my statement as you point out here.  I didn't mean that we should assume everything is revelation, but their language to me sounds prophetic.  That is all I meant.  It would be almost redundant for them to pre qualify that statement as prophetic.   Either way, we shouldn't assume anything, but should seek revelation for ourselves.  

3 hours ago, Gray said:

From their language, I would assume that this is their interpretation of scripture.

An example of differing perspectives at work- which is why we shouldn't assume. Either this is a new and prophetic warning, or it is a revelatory and prophetic interpretation of scripture.  Either way it is revelation according to them.  However, I have never seen such a scripture which warns of the disintegration of the family and its consequences laid out in such a way.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Is interpretation a kind revelation? Maybe, but not in the sense that most people think of when they think revelation.

Yes, revelatory and prophetic interpretation of scripture is a thing:  

https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-8?lang=eng

Quote

I think we over analyze it. Moroni teaches that all good emanates from Christ. So if you have a thought to do something good, it’s prompted by the Holy Ghost.

His teachings are pretty dang unambiguous here.  All light and revelation is "broadcast", or as Bednar states "emanates", from God.

Quote

Is that the Holy Ghost or is that you? What difference does it make?

This is probably the part you are getting hung up on..  When you take it in context (not only of this talk, but in context of all church teachings and scripture on revelation) it is clear that you are misunderstanding him.

First, he is not talking about "revelation" per se, or attempting to define revelation, he is talking about doing good.  All good is from God.  Period.  Whether prompted by the Holy Ghost, or from memories of our mother's words, it doesn't matter so long as it is good.  If it is good, then do it!  

Elder Bednar affirms a second time that all light and good is from God:

Quote

So if it invites and entices to do good, it comes from Christ, and we ought to do it

I think you know deep down Gray, that the church is not changing its definition of revelation to include ideas which do not emanate from God.  That is a false accusation. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The primary responsibility of the prophet, besides being a witness for Jesus Christ, is as the holder of the keys of administration of the kingdom of God on earth.  How many times do we expect him to repeat the Sermon on the Mount, etc.

"Just do the best you can" does not just apply to the ordinary member of the church, but to the Prophet and apostles as well.  I find it remarkable how the Lord has prepared a prophet for a specific mission in the church == such as Pres. Hinckley in public affairs and media.

I am not disagreeing with your point of view.  I am only pointing out that there is more than one point of view on what constitutes revelation and how some view the role of a prophet.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

..........................................................................................

While the Essays were certainly timely for some they came long after many had learned the same facts from sources outside the institutional church leading those individuals to feel as if information had been withheld by the church.  And, while the level of detail is appropriate for many, there are still some who desire greater depth.  It's there responsibility to do their own research but that may lead them, again, to sources outside the institutional church (for better and for worse).

I fully understand that quality research takes time.  I also understand that much quality research was available long before the Church decided to widely publish it to the members.

The Gospel Topics Essays do not substitute for in-depth articles and books which have been available from scholars for many years, and continue to come forth.  However, most people do not read those long and detailed materials and cannot place them in context any better than that yokel who just took office this morning -- his major problem being that he has no historical sense of perspective, thrives on fake news, and passionately believes in his own tweets.  

Just like most Jews, Methodists, and Catholics, most Mormons do not worry themselves over historical issues, and are not going to acquire the tools to do professional research.  That is the responsibility of professional historians as an inchoate group of religious and non-religious researchers.  Those who seek "truth" via unreliable, fake news sources will reap the whirlwind and always have.  Being human is a risky endeavor, and there will be casualties along the way.  That applies to all adherents of belief systems.  No one is privileged or immune from the Law of the Harvest.  But God is gracious and will forgive the well-meaning yokels among us.

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just like most Jews, Methodists, and Catholics, most Mormons do not worry themselves over historical issues, and are not going to acquire the tools to do professional research.  That is the responsibility of professional historians as an inchoate group of religious and non-religious researchers.  Those who seek "truth" via unreliable, fake news sources will reap the whirlwind and always have.  Being human is a risky endeavor, and there will be casualties along the way.  

"The road to truth is littered with the carcasses of those poor souls who are victims of the sound bite." (cdowis)

Edited January 20, 2017 by cdowis

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Gospel Topics Essays do not substitute for in-depth articles and books which have been available from scholars for many years, and continue to come forth.  However, most people do not read those long and detailed materials and cannot place them in context any better than that yokel who just took office this morning -- his major problem being that he has no historical sense of perspective, thrives on fake news, and passionately believes in his own tweets.  

Just like most Jews, Methodists, and Catholics, most Mormons do not worry themselves over historical issues, and are not going to acquire the tools to do professional research.  That is the responsibility of professional historians as an inchoate group of religious and non-religious researchers.  Those who seek "truth" via unreliable, fake news sources will reap the whirlwind and always have.  Being human is a risky endeavor, and there will be casualties along the way.  That applies to all adherents of belief systems.  No one is privileged or immune from the Law of the Harvest.  But God is gracious and will forgive the well-meaning yokels among us.

Too far off the rails.

Have a good day.

[Jeanne]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Gospel Topics Essays do not substitute for in-depth articles and books which have been available from scholars for many years, and continue to come forth.  However, most people do not read those long and detailed materials and cannot place them in context any better than that yokel who just took office this morning -- his major problem being that he has no historical sense of perspective, thrives on fake news, and passionately believes in his own tweets.  

Just like most Jews, Methodists, and Catholics, most Mormons do not worry themselves over historical issues, and are not going to acquire the tools to do professional research.  That is the responsibility of professional historians as an inchoate group of religious and non-religious researchers.  Those who seek "truth" via unreliable, fake news sources will reap the whirlwind and always have.  Being human is a risky endeavor, and there will be casualties along the way.  That applies to all adherents of belief systems.  No one is privileged or immune from the Law of the Harvest.  But God is gracious and will forgive the well-meaning yokels among us.

Hoping God forgives you.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Too far off the rails.

Have a good day.

Probably so, but back at you:  "Have a nice day".  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCg2BoKiuOM

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Hoping God forgives you.

Yes.  Thanks for that.  As we get older, we realize that it is all about forgiveness.  That is the heart of the matter:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9rTiDoUU3w

[Gray]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

It says that you posted this 2 hours ago, but when I edited my post 1 hour ago, there was no response posted by you yet.  That is strange! It will appear as if I edited my last post after you posted. Oh well.

Sometimes there are weird goings on with the software on this board!

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I actually edited my last response, because I recognized the same problem in my statement as you point out here.  I didn't mean that we should assume everything is revelation, but their language to me sounds prophetic.  That is all I meant.  It would be almost redundant for them to pre qualify that statement as prophetic.   Either way, we shouldn't assume anything, but should seek revelation for ourselves.  

Okay, I agree with that.

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

An example of differing perspectives at work- which is why we shouldn't assume. Either this is a new and prophetic warning, or it is a revelatory and prophetic interpretation of scripture.  Either way it is revelation according to them.  However, I have never seen such a scripture which warns of the disintegration of the family and its consequences laid out in such a way.

Yes, revelatory and prophetic interpretation of scripture is a thing:  

https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-8?lang=eng

I don't want to get too pedantic, but the lesson doesn't seem to describe prophetic interpretation as revelation. Nevertheless, I'm fine with that concept. I just don't think that's what most members think of as revelation. 

 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

His teachings are pretty dang unambiguous here.  All light and revelation is "broadcast", or as Bednar states "emanates", from God.

This is probably the part you are getting hung up on..  When you take it in context (not only of this talk, but in context of all church teachings and scripture on revelation) it is clear that you are misunderstanding him.

First, he is not talking about "revelation" per se, or attempting to define revelation, he is talking about doing good.  All good is from God.  Period.  Whether prompted by the Holy Ghost, or from memories of our mother's words, it doesn't matter so long as it is good.  If it is good, then do it!  

Elder Bednar affirms a second time that all light and good is from God:

I think you know deep down Gray, that the church is not changing its definition of revelation to include ideas which do not emanate from God.  That is a false accusation. 

You shouldn't assume that "deep down" I think something other than what I'm saying. I think Elder Bednar was pretty clear in his views. Anything you do that's "good" can assumed to be revelation. I think that's the modus operandi of the leaders of the church today. Most people cannot access dramatic visionary experiences, and many people can't regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences. In my experience with quorums and councils, the way we conduct our church business tends to suppress those kinds of experiences. In absence of clear communication from God, I suspect that the assumption is that whatever they agree is right is also the will of God. 

That's my hypothesis, I don't know that it's true, but it doesn't conflict with anything that I know "deep down"

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I have read both points of view on revelation and what actually qualifies as a revelation from God.  I think a lot of the disagreement  comes from a viewpoint that was once taught in the church but now seems to be tossed aside like so many other doctrines that were once believed to be true.  I grew up believing that the prophet of God was actually God's mouthpiece on earth.  That God would tell him what to say and the prophet would declare those words of God.  I remember being on my mission and telling people that just as God spoke to prophets in the past, so does He speak to a prophet today.  Just as God spoke to Moses, Abraham and others, we now have a prophet that is the mouthpiece of God today.  That was the message.  That was the promise.  That was what people were taught to believe  And that was what they were asked to pray about.

It seems to me that recently, that type of prophet has been replaced with one who heads a committee, and if there is a consensus of that committee, then they have just received a revelation from God.  If the church needs a new temple in China, then the committee consisting of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 get together and decide if now is the appropriate time.  If the committee agrees, then a revelation from God has just occurred.  If they need a new building on the BYU campus, then the committee gets together and through consensus a new revelation from God has been given.  If we need to do something about the children of gay families being baptized then, the committee decides and a revelation from God has been received.

Some would argue that both things are a revelation from God.  Others would argue that there is a difference between revelation from God and inspiration from God.  Therein lies the problem.  I think for some, to abandon the first definition for the more watered down definition, then the very distinct claim of Mormonism goes away.  If revelation is simply having a committee comes to a consensus, then how is the Mormon church different than any other church run by men wishing to do the will of God.  For some, by using a more broad definition of revelation then the claim of having a prophet is just a different title used by Mormons than the title of Pope the Catholics use or President that other religions use.  If that is the case, then one has to once again ask, "How are the claims of Mormonism any different than any other religion?"

The problem here is a naive and literalistic view of how God spoke to Moses and the other prophets.

That comes from straight Protestant literalism - apostate thought which infected the Restoration early on just as Neoplatonism infected the dispensation of the meridian of times.

As Sterling McMurrin said "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place".  As we grow up, we stop believing as children and put off childish things.

1 Cor 13

Quote

 

 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

I am not quite sure how so many people could have missed this, but obviously they did

I wish I had a buck for every time on this board where some critic said "BUT...but THAT'S not what I was taught!"

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Some would argue that both things are a revelation from God.  Others would argue that there is a difference between revelation from God and inspiration from God.  Therein lies the problem.  I think for some, to abandon the first definition for the more watered down definition, then the very distinct claim of Mormonism goes away.  If revelation is simply having a committee comes to a consensus, then how is the Mormon church different than any other church run by men wishing to do the will of God.  For some, by using a more broad definition of revelation then the claim of having a prophet is just a different title used by Mormons than the title of Pope the Catholics use or President that other religions use.  If that is the case, then one has to once again ask, "How are the claims of Mormonism any different than any other religion?"

Not even close.

Have you ever seen perhaps a comment from a critic saying you could not add to the Bible?   Like maybe just once?

Have you ever seen another faith which HAS leaders titled as prophets and apostles who even allegedly receive revelation?

Who have prophets who communicate their views of what God has said to them every 6 months in general conferences?

Who issue proclamations to the world stating doctrinal matters, stated with authority?  Who never CLAIMED that prophets were infallible and whose founder in fact stressed that point?

"How are the claims of Mormonism any different than any other religion?"

There is no other religion like it!!

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Gray said:

You shouldn't assume that "deep down" I think something other than what I'm saying. I think Elder Bednar was pretty clear in his views. Anything you do that's "good" can assumed to be revelation. I think that's the modus operandi of the leaders of the church today. Most people cannot access dramatic visionary experiences, and many people can't regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences. In my experience with quorums and councils, the way we conduct our church business tends to suppress those kinds of experiences. In absence of clear communication from God, I suspect that the assumption is that whatever they agree is right is also the will of God. 

That's my hypothesis, I don't know that it's true, but it doesn't conflict with anything that I know "deep down"

All that is good, and light, and true can only be experienced through revelation.  That is all we have ever taught. Nothing has changed in that regard.  Bednar does not waver from that teaching.  We may have to agree to disagree on that point.

I disagree that "most people cannot access dramatic visionary experience, or regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences."  I agree that the church could do more to nurture these types of experiences, but that does not mean they are not possible, and it does not mean that the teachings are not there.  I have a large collection of such teachings from church leaders over time.  I have several volumes of prayer journals that I have filled from cover to cover with "dramatic visionary" and "religious elevation" experiences.  It is my personal canon and revelation, specific for me and my needs.  The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Books of Ryan (Pogi).  I have no doubt whatsoever that the membership in general can have profound experiences on a regular basis if they would dedicate 20 minutes, twice a day, to devote their full attention to God, as I do daily. I don't think that I am particularly special or more spiritually gifted/capable than anyone else, I just think that I devote more time to listening rather than talking in my prayers...to be still and know that he is God.  I agree that there is not enough emphasis on this type of experience. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by pogi

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is a naive and literalistic view of how God spoke to Moses and the other prophets.

That comes from straight Protestant literalism - apostate thought which infected the Restoration early on just as Neoplatonism infected the dispensation of the meridian of times.

Wait... did it come from Protestant literalism or from Joseph Smith?

Section 1:  "Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together."

Section 3:  "Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall."

Section 5:  "Behold, I say unto you, that as my servant Martin Harris has desired a witness at my hand, that you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., have got the plates of which you have testified and borne record that you have received of me;"

Section 6:  "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Shall I go on?

Joseph Smith seemed to publish revelations as he received them from the mouth of the Lord.

Today, what church membership seems to claim as revelation is a document written by the FP and Q12 wherein THEY "solemnly proclaim" and deem it a revelation some two decades later.  We also have a policy that was secretly published in a handbook available to a fraction of membership also deemed revelation months later in an address to a small group of members.

The change, as CB describes it, has definitely happened without our own church and its short history.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Joseph Smith seemed to publish revelations as he received them from the mouth of the Lord.

Today, what church membership seems to claim as revelation is a document written by the FP and Q12 wherein THEY "solemnly proclaim" and deem it a revelation some two decades later.  We also have a policy that was secretly published in a handbook available to a fraction of membership also deemed revelation months later in an address to a small group of members.

The change, as CB describes it, has definitely happened without our own church and its short history.

Yep and so does Moses.- or whoever wrote what Moses allegedly said, if there WAS a person who lived the life history of the person alleged to be Moses in the bible.

I am absolutely sure that those words you quoted describes Joseph's experience- that it was directly from the Lord.  That was HIS experience

As I said, I too have experience I know are directly from the LORD but I do not expect YOU to believe them

IF I told you I had a revelation from the LORD would you be naive to believe me if I told you I had a revelation for you?  Am I a prophet??  Yes I am and we all can be and should strive to be- by having a testimony of Jesus Christ!

Rev 19

Quote

 

 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

 

 

We all need to evaluate these experiences of humans who allege to be prophets, in the above case, allegedly John the alleged author of The Book of Revelation.  Is that true?   Do you have a testimony of it??.

 In fact I happen to believe that Joseph WAS a prophet- why?

Because he said so? 

Of course not, no more than because Moses said so.   I know he was a prophet because the Lord has confirmed it to ME PERSONALLY

THAT is the point!

CA Boy was naive not for believing Joseph was a prophet but for believing what someone told him without him receiving his own testimony.  We should not believe because someone tells you- unless perhaps you are a child.  We should believe because God has told us!

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep and so does Moses.- or whoever wrote what Moses allegedly said, if there WAS a person who lived the life history of the person alleged to be Moses in the bible.

I am absolutely sure that those words you quoted describes Joseph's experience- that it was directly from the Lord.  That was HIS experience

As I said, I too have experience I know are directly from the LORD but I do not expect YOU to believe them

IF I told you I had a revelation from the LORD would you be naive to believe me if I told you I had a revelation for you?  Am I a prophet??  Yes I am and we all can be and should strive to be- by having a testimony of Jesus Christ!

Rev 19

 

We all need to evaluate these experiences of humans who allege to be prophets, in the above case, allegedly John the alleged author of The Book of Revelation.  Is that true?   Do you have a testimony of it??.

 In fact I happen to believe that Joseph WAS a prophet- why?

Because he said so? 

Of course not, no more than because Moses said so.   I know he was a prophet because the Lord has confirmed it to ME PERSONALLY

THAT is the point!

CA Boy was naive not for believing Joseph was a prophet but for believing what someone told him without him receiving his own testimony.  We should not believe because someone tells you- unless perhaps you are a child.  We should believe because God has told us!

I agree with what you've written here (except for the comment about CB which may well be completely inappropriate... do you know his personal testimony of the Prophet Joseph?).  I was commenting on where LDS perceptions of "revelation" came from (as described in CB's post).  You claimed that they were rooted in Protestant literalism.  I disagree... I think they are rooted in Joseph Smith and the D&C and I provided the evidence for that.

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

All that is good, and light, and true can only be experienced through revelation.  That is all we have ever taught. Nothing has changed in that regard.  Bednar does not waver from that teaching.  We may have to agree to disagree on that point.

I disagree that "most people cannot access dramatic visionary experience, or regularly experience strong religious elevation experiences."  I agree that the church could do more to nurture these types of experiences, but that does not mean they are not possible, and it does not mean that the teachings are not there.  I have a large collection of such teachings from church leaders over time.  I have several volumes of prayer journals that I have filled from cover to cover with "dramatic visionary" and "religious elevation" experiences.  It is my personal canon and revelation, specific for me and my needs.  The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Books of Ryan (Pogi).  I have no doubt whatsoever that the membership in general can have profound experiences on a regular basis if they will dedicate 20 minutes, twice a day, to devote their full attention to God, as I have done. I don't think that I am special or more spiritually gifted than anyone else, I just think that I devote more time to listening rather than talking in my prayers...to be still and know that he is God.  I agree that there is not enough emphasis on this type of experience. 

I agree- these could have been my words if I wrote as well.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is a naive and literalistic view of how God spoke to Moses and the other prophets.

That comes from straight Protestant literalism - apostate thought which infected the Restoration early on just as Neoplatonism infected the dispensation of the meridian of times.

As Sterling McMurrin said "I was never disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place".  As we grow up, we stop believing as children and put off childish things.

1 Cor 13

I am not quite sure how so many people could have missed this, but obviously they did

I wish I had a buck for every time on this board where some critic said "BUT...but THAT'S not what I was taught!"

 

I am so overwhelmed by your greatness and all knowing understanding of how others view revelation, I have to put sunglasses on to even read your comments.  Those people who have such a literal understanding of how God speaks to prophets should be shamed for such attitudes and put in their place like children until they can accept what your view of revelation is.    I will pass on your infinint wisdom and sharply correct them for believing that God ever spoke to man as one man speaketh to another. (Exodus 33:11)  How that was snuck into the Bible is beyond me.  

I am so ashamed that I suggested to investigators that such a prophet restored the gospel of Jesus Christ in the latter days and such a prophet leads His church today.  And just the fact that you know what my spiritual experiences have been throughout my life leaves me speechless in your presence.  

Edited January 21, 2017 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with what you've written here (except for the comment about CB which may well be completely inappropriate... do you know his personal testimony of the Prophet Joseph?).  I was commenting on where LDS perceptions of "revelation" came from (as described in CB's post).  You claimed that they were rooted in Protestant literalism.  I disagree... I think they are rooted in Joseph Smith and the D&C and I provided the evidence for that.

Well Joseph was a convert- what can I tell you?  He did not have an LDS background you know. He knew nothing about what we would mess up which he would disagree with today.  He grew line upon line like everyone else.

I am only quoting this source- me-  because it is the easiest for me to find in one minute flat.  Go to the article to check the footnotes if you like.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Quote

 

The very premise behind the need for a restoration is that revelation is not complete and that continuing revelation is an ongoing part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason, Mormons believe the Bible, [Page 67]though scripture, to be incomplete and doctrinally insufficient. Givens states:

The Bible, in other words, was depicted as neither complete nor accurate. Nor was it sufficient. As Parley Pratt would later develop the concept with vibrant but controversial imagery, Mormon thought demoted scripture to the status of stream rather than fountain. Pratt conceded that “the scriptures are … useful in their place.” But, “they are not the fountain of knowledge, nor do they contain all knowledge.” Their greater value lies in the way “they point to the fountain, and are every way calculated to encourage man to come to the fountain and seek to obtain the knowledge and gifts of God.” God’s utterance preceded, and superseded, its incarnation as holy writ, tainted as it was by the flawed conduits of human understanding and fractured language. Even believing himself to be the Lord’s oracle, Smith would simultaneously deliver revelations in the voice of God and lament, “Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, … of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language.” And he would spend his entire life revising and recasting the words he gave his people as scripture, struggling to claw his way through irredeemably fallen human language to its perfect divine source. (30)

As Blake Ostler and others have argued, Mormons do not believe in “orthodoxy” but “orthopraxis,” placing the practical day-to-day concerns of living a spiritual life above the need for a comprehensive, systematic theology. Indeed this is the case: One can be a fully active Mormon who is seen as thoroughly devout, “true believing Mormon” by truthfully passing a “temple recommend interview” in which one must affirm that one is living the commandments and hold some basic Christian beliefs in the salvific sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the prophethood of Joseph Smith as the “restorer” of Christianity. Crucially, in that same interview one affirms that one has a “testimony” of these beliefs. In effect, this is an affirmation that one has had a spiritual witness or experience which one interprets as a direct personal revelation from God confirming these beliefs.

As in no other Christian church, Mormons are defined by their personal “testimonies,” which place at the core of personal belief a personal revelation from God that “the Church is true.” Mormons are repeatedly admonished that a member may begin on “borrowed light,” but everyone must eventually gain his or her own [Page 68]spiritual witness, or spiritual experience, confirming that the orthopraxis — the lifestyle chosen — is indeed God’s will for the person. The personal spiritual witness obtained by reading the scriptures, pondering, and praying is what confirms in the heart of each Mormon individual that the path chosen is the one God has shown to be “true”; it is the basis for the declaration that “the Church is true.”

Through this process, each individual is to become a “convert” to the Church, regardless of whether one was born into it or has become a true convert after being a believer in another religious discipline. It is no wonder that Mormons are suspicious of systematic theology, when Joseph Smith himself built this attitude into the Church. Givens goes on to state:

In the first generation of the Mormon Church, the picture is especially complicated, for several reasons. First is because Smith hated dogma and tests of orthodoxy. A revelation declared him “a seer, translator, and prophet,” but his calling as a prophet was some years morphing into the virtual office of Prophet. (The first was a function of his revelatory experience; the second was an institutionally defined position in an ecclesiastical hierarchy.) Joseph Smith was as likely to promote openness as to exert his authority. He severely rebuked his own brother Hyrum for performing unauthorized rituals. But in another case, he “did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine” when a council met to discipline Pelatiah Brown for speculating on the meaning of portions of the book of Revelation. “It looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” … A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it. (18–19)

The very assertion that one must confirm every principle by testimony and personal revelation is antithetical to the idea of prophetic infallibility, yet we are to discipline ourselves in following the prophet, personally confirming his counsel. Furthermore, there may develop a tension between this simple spiritual witness that confirms the truth of Mormonism and the complexity of ideas and philosophies with which all contemporary human beings are bombarded — religious and atheistic, scientific and moral, faith-based and rational. The task for [Page 69]every thinking Mormon is to sort all this out, to construct a consistent worldview that accounts for all these apparently diverging philosophies, and to reconcile it with his or her simple spiritual experience and the scriptures.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am so overwhelmed by your greatness and all knowing understanding of how others view revelation, I have to put sunglasses on to even read your comments.  Those people who have such a literal understanding of how God speaks to prophets should be shamed for such attitudes and put in their place like children until they can accept what your view of revelation is.    I will pass on your infinint wisdom and sharply correct them for believing that God ever spoke to man as one man speaketh to another. (Exodus 33:11)  How that was snuck into the Bible is beyond me.  

I am so ashamed that I suggested to investigators that such a prophet restored the gospel of Jesus Christ in the latter days and such a prophet leads His church today.

I am sorry if I offended you, it was not intended.  You were one of perhaps millions who made this same conclusion as I implied in what I actually said.  Yes I believe the view is naive, but you are/were certainly not alone,  See the above for comments of others who would agree with me- even Joseph himself, I think.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well Joseph was a convert- what can I tell you?  He did not have an LDS background you know. He knew nothing about what we would mess up which he would disagree with today.  He grew line upon line like everyone else.

I am only quoting this source- me-  because it is the easiest for me to find in one minute flat.  Go to the article to check the footnotes if you like.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

 

Ha.  Okay so Joseph messed up revelation?  Funny!

You aren't even responding to what CB and I are saying. 

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry if I offended you, it was not intended.  You were one of perhaps millions who made this same conclusion as I implied in what I actually said.  Yes I believe the view is naive, but you are/were certainly not alone,  See the above for comments of others who would agree with me- even Joseph himself, I think.

Millions who made the same conclusion because that's what the church teaches!  Or at least what it taught.  Which is, I believe, CB's point. 

And there is NO REASON to believe Joseph would agree with you. 

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Some would argue that both things are a revelation from God.  Others would argue that there is a difference between revelation from God and inspiration from God.  Therein lies the problem.  I think for some, to abandon the first definition for the more watered down definition, then the very distinct claim of Mormonism goes away.  If revelation is simply having a committee comes to a consensus, then how is the Mormon church different than any other church run by men wishing to do the will of God.  For some, by using a more broad definition of revelation then the claim of having a prophet is just a different title used by Mormons than the title of Pope the Catholics use or President that other religions use.  If that is the case, then one has to once again ask, "How are the claims of Mormonism any different than any other religion?"

I've argued this before on this board.  If we look beyond the words used to describe it (like "revelation") and just focus on the practical acts, it seems like the Pope and the President of the LDS church do the same thing.