rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What is the difference and how do YOU define it? We don't even know what constitutes "doctrine" and now we are worrying about if it is "revelation"? Doesn't matter how I define it. The document itself claims to be a proclamation from the FP and Q12, not from the Lord. So it's not a revelation.
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually, they did not have professional historians around (back when Joseph Fielding Smith was the Church Historian), and (as I explained in detail earlier for you) it took a full decade for Arrington and his young staff to get a handle on just what was available in the LDS archives, to catalogue it, and to begin publishing it with commentary (context). Only very recently has all that been systematically digested and much of it placed on the internet. The Brethren showed great faith and wisdom in taking the more professional route. That has meant the long process of discussion and peer review among both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars as they worked through the material, and we are all the better for it. There is no such thing as instant knowledge, unless we get it from Cliff Notes or XXX for Dummies, where it is generally very deficient. If it took Arrington a decade then that brings us to 1982 which would be THIRTY YEARS before the church began publishing the Gospel Topics Essays. Meanwhile many others beat them to it. So, what you are saying pretty much supports the church being "a day late and a dollar short"... the comment that you seemingly disagreed with which started this whole subthread. 1
california boy Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Circular You only know about the savior from scriptures. You can only know the savior IS the savior by "knowing the will of God" Dude. You need some critical thinking classes if you are going to continue saying stuff like this. It does not help your credibility at all. Dude, I don't need personal attacks from you. If you want to dialogue with me, then knock it off. I am pretty much done with the personal attacks from some members on this board. If you want me to respond to your post, then edit out the personal insult. If you just have to make those kinds of remarks, then fine. We are through exchanging ideas. Edited January 17, 2017 by california boy
cacheman Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I think you may have overlooked all my attempts to highlight the tentativeness of my subjective assessment: 'many of which I don't even understand', 'some', 'many', 'a number', 'seem', 'I don't know all the reasons why', 'in many cases', 'almost', etc. The black-and-white nature of your post was that you focused on negative descriptions when describing the least educated members of your ward, while presenting the well educated investigator in a very positive light. I thought we were talking about activity. I don't necessarily equate being inactive with being unfaithful. Do you? We were talking about your statement concerning the 'least educated' members of your ward. I don't follow your faith, so I'll let you determine how you define 'unfaithful'. I assumed that people who don't read the scriptures, don't come to church, and struggle with prayer and revelation would be considered less faithful. 'Unfaithful' was probably not the correct term to use, so I will retract that. However, you seem to affirm later in this post that formal education is positively correlated with faithfulness in your congregation. Maybe you meant inactivity. If they do so in our ward, that's a choice. We are happy when people can and will serve regardless of background. Our current bishop is a senior manager in a national government department, and his second counsellor is a police officer, but the first counsellor dropped out of school when he found himself a teen father and has worked as a labourer ever since. I mentioned the correlation between education and callings in part due to the paper you posted in the original post that I responded to. Albrecht and Heaton mentioned the positive correlation and discussed some learned traits gained during the course of education that make it more likely for someone to be called. I don't imagine that every congregation would follow the same pattern. I can't be certain of causality, but it is certainly positively correlated. We have exceptions as well. One of our active apostates is working on a PhD (and has been so for several decades). 20+ years and still not finished!? Those apostates just can't do anything right!
cdowis Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: The document itself claims to be a proclamation from the FP and Q12, not from the Lord. So it's not a revelation. 1. I have pointed out your logical fallacy elsewhere, "Argument from Silence". 2. But more telling is that the church itself disagrees with you. Quote Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. {PLEASE READ THE NEXT SENTENCE CAREFULLY] With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently PROCLAIMED IN OFFFICAL CHURCH PUBLIATIONS. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine (emphasis added for your reading pleasure) I think most intelligent, reasonable individuals would agreed that "official doctrine" indicates that this is not an opinion but revelation from God. I suspect that you will be unmoved by this argument, but I can live with that. Edited January 17, 2017 by cdowis 2
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 15 minutes ago, cdowis said: 1. I have pointed out your logical fallacy elsewhere, "Argument from Silence". 2. But more telling is that the church itself disagrees with you. I think most intelligent, reasonable individuals would agreed that "official doctrine" indicates that this is not an opinion but revelation from God. I suspect that you will be unmoved by this argument, but I can live with that. 1. It's not an argument from silence, I'm going from what the document itself says. 2. You are taking that statement and applying the inverse of it. Doesn't work. More importantly, the Proclamation declares its own origins: the FP and Q12. If the Lord revealed it, they need to give Him credit. 2
cdowis Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: 1. It's not an argument from silence, I'm going from what the document itself says. 2. You are taking that statement and applying the inverse of it. Doesn't work. More importantly, the Proclamation declares its own origins: the FP and Q12. If the Lord revealed it, they need to give Him credit. As I said........ Edited January 17, 2017 by cdowis 1
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Doesn't matter how I define it. The document itself claims to be a proclamation from the FP and Q12, not from the Lord. So it's not a revelation. Gosh man, if it doesn't matter how you define it why are you ARGUING THE POINT? Go play tiddly winks with your kids or something! It MUST matter to you how it is defined! You missed the point. It is MY revelation- that's all that is important. If they said it was a "revelation" that in itself is irrelevant. Anyone can say anything is a revelation. Nice to know you place so much confidence in the Q of 12 to accept their word for anything they say is a "revelation" while disagreeing with them on many other things. You actually think that makes sense? If they told you that this policy on gay marriage- the wait til 18 thing for baptism- was a "revelation" you would accept it because they said so? What are you thinking?? I KNOW it is a revelation because I have had the same one. That's all that matters. And yes I support the policy as well in case anyone questions that, as if anyone would care. It makes perfect sense to me 1
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 22 minutes ago, rockpond said: 1. It's not an argument from silence, I'm going from what the document itself says. 2. You are taking that statement and applying the inverse of it. Doesn't work. More importantly, the Proclamation declares its own origins: the FP and Q12. If the Lord revealed it, they need to give Him credit. And so you DO define revelation as "God breathed" dictation from God not issued through humans? No, I don't think you believe that from your previous posts.
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Gosh man, if it doesn't matter how you define it why are you ARGUING THE POINT? Go play tiddly winks with your kids or something! It MUST matter to you how it is defined! You missed the point. It is MY revelation- that's all that is important. If they said it was a "revelation" that in itself is irrelevant. Anyone can say anything is a revelation. Nice to know you place so much confidence in the Q of 12 to accept their word for anything they say is a "revelation" while disagreeing with them on many other things. You actually think that makes sense? If they told you that this policy on gay marriage- the wait til 18 thing for baptism- was a "revelation" you would accept it because they said so? What are you thinking?? I KNOW it is a revelation because I have had the same one. That's all that matters. And yes I support the policy as well in case anyone questions that, as if anyone would care. It makes perfect sense to me You are conflating ideas here. If the apostles were to come forward with a revelation I would take it to the Lord in prayer and seek my own confirmation, as I have done with everything else. In the case of the Proclamation, there is no need to ask if it's revelation because the document itself states that it is not. That is a separate question of whether the document contains truth (which it does) or whether I should live by its precepts (which I do).
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: And so you DO define revelation as "God breathed" dictation from God not issued through humans? No, I don't think you believe that from your previous posts. I'm not sure I understand your question. Obviously revelation comes from God, through humans. And the recipient can be a prophet, seer, and apostle or someone like me or you.
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: You are conflating ideas here. If the apostles were to come forward with a revelation I would take it to the Lord in prayer and seek my own confirmation, as I have done with everything else. In the case of the Proclamation, there is no need to ask if it's revelation because the document itself states that it is not. That is a separate question of whether the document contains truth (which it does) or whether I should live by its precepts (which I do). This subthread is mostly between you and Mark, so perhaps I'm mixing in where I should let be, but your statement "...there is no need to ask if it's revelation because the document itself states that it is not" is a false statement. I've re-read the entire proclamation and I could not find anywhere where the document itself states that it is not a revelation. Perhaps you have an earlier draft that included that statement? I thought not. So, track this: here we have an entire solemn and unanimous declaration from the FP & Q12, men whom we regular sustain as a body as prophets, seers and revelators. How can it be anything other than the word of the Lord? And anyway, does it really NEED to be a revelation? Many moons ago, after finishing reading the Book of Mormon for the first time cover-to-cover, I knelt down to pray to ask if the Book of Mormon were true. I did so each night for several nights. The Lord stayed silent. When I started to get annoyed with the Lord for not telling me that it was true, I suddenly realized why he keeping silent: I already knew it was true. I had already been a member of the Church for six years, and in that time I had had a number of deep spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon. I was just about to head out to serve a mission in Germany, and I guess I thought I needed to get my testimony passport stamped -- but the Lord was telling me that He didn't feel like repeating Himself unnecessarily. Or so I take it, anyway. I did know it was true. So what part of "prophet, seer and revelator" is unclear? Do you really think the FP & Q12 speaking with a united voice on the subject of the divinity and importance of family is just their united personal opinion? Because I don't. 3
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: This subthread is mostly between you and Mark, so perhaps I'm mixing in where I should let be, but your statement "...there is no need to ask if it's revelation because the document itself states that it is not" is a false statement. I've re-read the entire proclamation and I could not find anywhere where the document itself states that it is not a revelation. Perhaps you have an earlier draft that included that statement? I thought not. So, track this: here we have an entire solemn and unanimous declaration from the FP & Q12, men whom we regular sustain as a body as prophets, seers and revelators. How can it be anything other than the word of the Lord? And anyway, does it really NEED to be a revelation? Many moons ago, after finishing reading the Book of Mormon for the first time cover-to-cover, I knelt down to pray to ask if the Book of Mormon were true. I did so each night for several nights. The Lord stayed silent. When I started to get annoyed with the Lord for not telling me that it was true, I suddenly realized why he keeping silent: I already knew it was true. I had already been a member of the Church for six years, and in that time I had had a number of deep spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon. I was just about to head out to serve a mission in Germany, and I guess I thought I needed to get my testimony passport stamped -- but the Lord was telling me that He didn't feel like repeating Himself unnecessarily. Or so I take it, anyway. I did know it was true. So what part of "prophet, seer and revelator" is unclear? Do you really think the FP & Q12 speaking with a united voice on the subject of the divinity and importance of family is just their united personal opinion? Because I don't. As I've written a few times now, the document identifies as a proclamation from the FP and Q12. If it were a revelation from the Lord, they shouldn't have claimed it for themselves. In your post above you use terms like "will of the Lord" vs "personal opinion". I believe the proclamation has both. And finally, you talk about learning that the Book of Mormon was true. Similarly with the proclamation, I also believe it is true and chose to live my life by its precepts. But I can do that without needing to see it as a revelation. I hope that makes sense.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 7 hours ago, rockpond said: You are conflating ideas here. If the apostles were to come forward with a revelation I would take it to the Lord in prayer and seek my own confirmation, as I have done with everything else. In the case of the Proclamation, there is no need to ask if it's revelation because the document itself states that it is not. That is a separate question of whether the document contains truth (which it does) or whether I should live by its precepts (which I do). You live by it, disagree with it and have not prayed about it. Very confusing. No reply necessary
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: As I've written a few times now, the document identifies as a proclamation from the FP and Q12. If it were a revelation from the Lord, they shouldn't have claimed it for themselves. In your post above you use terms like "will of the Lord" vs "personal opinion". I believe the proclamation has both. And finally, you talk about learning that the Book of Mormon was true. Similarly with the proclamation, I also believe it is true and chose to live my life by its precepts. But I can do that without needing to see it as a revelation. I hope that makes sense. It can readily believe that it makes sense to live your life by the precepts of the proclamation without considering it a revelation. One doesn't even need to believe that God exists in order to follow many of the precepts that are espoused by those who were good and inspired men and women of the past and benefit thereby -- and it can be shown that by and large the precepts espoused by the LDS church are beneficial in and of themselves to those who follow them. Regardless of whether you consider the church to be the only fully authoritative Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth, or not, following beneficial precepts can be a benefit. I suppose that one could say the same thing of the Word of Wisdom. Following the WoW and benefitting therefrom is not contingent upon believing that the Lord commanded it to be followed -- indeed there are those who like to endlessly bring up the fact that DC 89 says "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint...", and thereby claim exemption from it as a requirement, even if they follow it. I guess it makes sense to them. So does one only consider those precepts to be revelation where the imprimatur, "Thus saith the Lord", is appended to them? The rest are just good advice and might be changed upon a moment's notice, either because they become inconvenient or because the Lord finally weighs in to contradict the precept? Well, I'll admit that it happened at least twice. Plural marriage and the priesthood restriction. The former not because God changed His mind, but as a necessity to prevent the destruction of the Church and a serious impediment to God's purposes -- and it wouldn't be the first time that God withdrew a requirement or a blessing because His children were being disobedient. But despite this, plural marriage still exists, though it is not authorized to be practiced in earthly life at this time; it remains a true principle. As for the priesthood restriction, and here it is that you may feel that you have traction for same sex sealing (SSS), the FP & Q12 came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for the policy as doctrine, and then petitioned the Lord for more light and knowledge. Which the Lord then provided. Could this happen for SSS? I will admit that there is a theoretical possibility of it -- I would be the last person on earth to question God's right to declare what His doctrine is. But unlike California Boy, who feels that every word against homosexuality found in the Bible is merely some mortal's opinion, I don't and so wouldn't count on SSS becoming a doctrine. Now, if you insist that something said by the prophet (or by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) must include the incantation "Thus saith the Lord" before you will regard it as a revelation, I must politely tell you that you are wrong to do so. I invite you to read through Elder Ezra Taft Benson's 1980 talk on Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, which is found HERE. In particular part I refer to the 6th point: Quote Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture. Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) Now, I suppose that you have the right to devalue Elder Benson's fourteen points because you don't like his politics, or because you don't like to hear them. But I am very sure that he was teaching sound and wise doctrine. And if the Proclamation on the Family doesn't comprise a revelation, and is merely the compilation of fifteen personal opinions, I'll fry my hat and have it for breakfast.
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You live by it, disagree with it and have not prayed about it. Very confusing. No reply necessary You have stated falsehoods about me so a reply is necessary: I live by it, agree with it, and have prayed about it (I only said I didn't need to pray to determine if it was revelation).
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, Stargazer said: So does one only consider those precepts to be revelation where the imprimatur, "Thus saith the Lord", is appended to them? No. And I never suggested such.
Gray Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 4:58 PM, RevTestament said: CFR please. If Daniel was written that late, how come they do not believe what they wrote about their Messiah in Daniel 9? So the only reason I know anything about this topic is I recently listened to a ten part lecture series on the historical Jesus, from Dr. Thomas Sheehan at the Department of Religious Studies at Stanford University. As part of the lecture series, they go into the centuries preceding the historical Jesus (or Yeshua, as he is referred to in the series), including the Book of Daniel. http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/FeedEnclosure/itunes.stanford.edu.1291405182.01291405187.1297459218/enclosure.pdf As I understand it, the author of Daniel, who is supposed to be writing during the Babylonian captivity, gets a lot of that "contemporary" history wrong (also inventing a king called Darius The Mede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Mede ). He's much more accurate when you get to the history of the 2nd century BCE,but again has errors in his predictions about the last days of Antiochus. So scholars think the author of Daniel was writing just before the death of Antiochus, or just before word of his death got around. Here's another source: https://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Hermeneia-Series-Historical-Commentary/dp/0800660404 On 1/12/2017 at 4:58 PM, RevTestament said: Again, your problem is you are calling this a failed "prophecy" on the one hand, and on the other saying it is not a prophecy at all, but a piece of history. Yes, I do not represent that the truth is "a historical critical view of the text." The truth essentially never corresponds to the "critical" or "scholarly" view. It seems God is smarter than the scholars. The vile person is not Antiochus. Antiochus has to be the king of the north correct? " 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over." If Antiochus is the king of the northern empire of Seleucia, how can he come against himself? The vile person is neither the king of the north nor the king of the south(Ptolemy). Your scholarly critical view doesn't comport with even a plain reading of the text. I know what it is, and it is wrong on several fronts I have shown you. History is a an academic discipline, with its own set of rules. If you're rejecting scholarship, you can't really call your interpretation of Daniel "historical". If it's not historical, it's probably theological, right? Antiochus isn't the king of the North - he's the vile person. If I'm not misunderstanding, the "north" referred to is Syria and the "south" is Egypt. Further reading - Oxford Companion to the Bible: https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2KGVuym5OUC&pg=PA150&dq="why+the+text+of+Daniel+switches+so+suddenly"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkZsVfnICY7l8AWWz4PwBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=antiochus&f=false 1
Gray Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) On 1/12/2017 at 5:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Well, if he isn't anti-Mormon, why is he following that narrow, unfair, and anti-intellectual approach? Is it that he is just anti-intellectual? You seem to claim that deliberately ignoring substantive fact is "the typical Mormon approach." Is that why we have the Gospel Topics Essays and the Joseph Smith Papers Project? Is that what we conclude from the forthright and balanced appraisals of history by Mormon scholars, such as Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, B. H. Roberts, and others? There are hundreds more examples of Mormon scholars exhibiting balanced and responsible scholarship, while we see a dearth of that among anti-Mormons. Is that just coincidence? Or do you think that careful research and citing of good sources are just a waste of time, or a smokescreen? We do occasionally see responsible anti-Mormon scholars, such as Rob Bowman -- with whom it is actually possible to carry on a substantive dialogue. You had said that going by anecdotes and ignoring scholarship was a hallmark of anti-Mormons. The problem with that, of course, is that this is the basis for almost all LDS religious instruction (and indeed, religious instruction in most churches). What is the bearing of testimony, if not anecdotes? Take a look at any LDS teaching manual, it's full of anecdotes, not scholarship. In fact it's often quite at odds with scholarship. Not surprising of course, as spirituality is not an academic pursuit. Mormons and anti-Mormons are more alike than different. There is of course good Mormon scholarship being produced (and if it's good scholarship, that means its critical scholarship, not apologetic or anti-apologetic - and it's being produced by both believers and unbelievers and anything in between), but this material is not driving most of the popular texts that seems to inform Mormons and anti-Mormons. I'm not sure I'd describe the gospel topic essays as scholarship, per se. The essays downplay certain evidences because the church, of course, has certain doctrinal commitments. It's an attempt to be more transparent, but there are limits. Edited January 17, 2017 by Gray 3
Stargazer Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 41 minutes ago, rockpond said: No. And I never suggested such. You clearly did suggest it, because you clearly said that because "Thus saith the Lord" (or words to that effect) was not appended to the Proclamation on the Family, you don't consider it to be a revelation. Or am I misquoting you?
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: You clearly did suggest it, because you clearly said that because "Thus saith the Lord" (or words to that effect) was not appended to the Proclamation on the Family, you don't consider it to be a revelation. Or am I misquoting you? Yes, you are misquoting me. I never said anything about "Thus saith the Lord" needing to be there. I said it isn't a revelation because those making the proclamation are men (not God). It says "We solemnly proclaim..." and is signed by 15 men.
pogi Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, you are misquoting me. I never said anything about "Thus saith the Lord" needing to be there. I said it isn't a revelation because those making the proclamation are men (not God). It says "We solemnly proclaim..." and is signed by 15 men. So, should we throw out the epistles from the canon because they say that they are the epistles of men?
rockpond Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, pogi said: So, should we throw out the epistles from the canon because they say that they are the epistles of men? Of course not. I've never suggested that we throw out the Family Proclamation either.
pogi Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, rockpond said: Of course not. I've never suggested that we throw out the Family Proclamation either. Right, but are the epistles not based in revelation even though they are the epistles of men? Would it make a difference for you if President Russell M. Nelson said in a BYU talk that the proclamation was received by revelation? If so, I will try to find the talk. It was broadcast a week or so ago, it really caught my ear. Edited January 17, 2017 by pogi
Robert F. Smith Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 14 hours ago, rockpond said: If it took Arrington a decade then that brings us to 1982 which would be THIRTY YEARS before the church began publishing the Gospel Topics Essays. Meanwhile many others beat them to it. So, what you are saying pretty much supports the church being "a day late and a dollar short"... the comment that you seemingly disagreed with which started this whole subthread. You have a penchant for not reading carefully, rockpond. As I have stated repeatedly, the shortcuts you envision are irresponsible and impractical. No institution follows your recommendation of precipitate and ill-considered instant publication. LDS scholars are not alone in following the wiser route of allowing the full-scale academic process to have its day. All historians worldwide follow a similarly careful pattern of research and then peer-reviewed publication and wide-ranging discussion, long before popular versions are published. The caution exhibited by the Brethren has proven to be the best way to absorb the data in true context. Non-scholars lack patience and understanding of those essential steps. Non-scholars often sneer at accuracy, and denounce competence as a smoke-screen. Non-scholars often revel in rumor and innuendo, preferring chaos and warfare over clarity. As though real life is just another game or "World of Warcraft." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_5f80cFxM .
Recommended Posts