Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[kllindley]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

When or how have I undermined or criticized doctrines or foundational beliefs you hold central to your testimony? (Sincere question) Do you have me confused with someone else?

And I apologize that you it may have come across that way.  Certainly not my intent.

Not confused.  

Quote

Ill just say this:  the main event that made me realize that church doctrine regarding homosexuality was not the product of revelation was when I spent hours compiling all of the past apostolic and prophetic teachings into one document (I was YM Pres at the time with a couple gay young men in our ward... so I was seeking to really understand the matter).

After reading through that document, there was so much confusion and contradiction that I realized it was just the philosophies of men.

Apology accepted.  I understand that you are not necessarily entering discussions with the desire to undermine and criticize.  You are working through things for yourself and sharing your experience.  I don't think that's intentional or personal, but  it does still come across as undermining and criticizing.

Edited January 18, 2017 by kllindley

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

So this old book describes a series of historical events in somewhat vague terms. Up to a certain point, the vagueness really doesn't seem so vague, though. It seems pretty easy and natural to match up what the book says with events that we know from other sources. Then, at that certain point, the matching suddenly goes off the rails. It becomes very unclear what the book is talking about. You have to jump hundreds of years into the future, and squint quite a bit, to find anything that half-way fits. Whereas before, all the events seemed to line up pretty well with known history, in accurate sequence, within one century. 

One explanation is that the author of the book was miraculously foretelling the future, as a prophet inspired by God, but at that one point the prophecy jumped ahead several centuries, without any warning or comment. God and the prophet were keen to reveal the future straightforwardly up to a point, but then they got cagey all of sudden, and decided to be confusing. For a while they go on talking about Hellenistic rulers BC, but then they abruptly switch topic to AD papacy, or something, without any overt hint that the topic has changed. Okay, then.

The other explanation is that the point at which the prophecy seems to jump is simply the time at which the author was writing. He wrote a poetic description of his own recent history, and then continued with guesses about his future. His guesses were wrong.

Okay, the second explanation has an intrinsic appeal to skeptics/rationalists/atheists, while the first is more congenial to religious believers. Apart from that, though, it seems to me that the second explanation is just simpler and more coherent, according to its own logic, than the first explanation is, according to its logic. So to me the second explanation has a louder ring of truth. In principle I'm willing to believe in prophecy, but if a book can manage to be a miraculous prophecy, then why can't it manage to present its message clearly?

The most simple response is that God knew the Jews would try to establish the vision, so made it kind of easy up to that point, but did not intend for this vision to be established by "scholars" or before the time of the end. The fact that this vision had not been completed yet, is verified by Jesus' own reference to it in Matthew. Indeed, despite the Darbyist interpretations of Daniel 9, Jesus also referred to Daniel 9 in the destruction of the temple and the city.

But back to Daniel 11-12:

Daniel 11:14

14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Daniel 12:9

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

I suppose you can believe that scholars unsealed what God sealed, but I know otherwise.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Not confused.  

 

Okay.

Well, I can't apologize for my own study and spiritual experiences but I am sorry if my sharing it here served to undermine the foundational beliefs of your testimony.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.

Well, I can't apologize for my own study and spiritual experiences but I am sorry if my sharing it here served to undermine the foundational beliefs of your testimony.

I wanted to make sure my edit above was clear:

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Apology accepted.  I understand that you are not necessarily entering discussions with the desire to undermine and criticize.  You are working through things for yourself and sharing your experience.  I don't think that's intentional or personal, but  it does still come across as undermining and criticizing.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

I wanted to make sure my edit above was clear:

Thanks.  I didn't see that edit before I replied.  I understand what you're saying and will try to do better.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Calling the proclamation a "revelation" is not to call it "canon", you continue to conflate the two. To call the proclamation a "revelation" is not abandonment of the "old system". The  old system is still the same system we use for canonization of revelation and establishment of capital-D Doctrine.  No one here is claiming that the proclamation is canon, so I don't know what you mean by abandoning old systems.

The only point that I have made is that several prophets claim that it was received by revelation, is prophetic, and is equal to the voice of God.  These claims do not require common consent as you seem to suggest, and are not in violation of the system established in the D&C.

Well, let me put it this way. There can be all kinds of revelation going on all the time. I can get a revelation that black tea is approved of God and all members should drink it. It can even be "true". But that revelation is not a "public" revelation - it hasn't gone through the channels that were established, including the channel of presenting it before the body of the church, so it's not an "official" revelation. 

Maybe the proclamation was revelation - but it sounds like it's in the category of personal revelation, at least if we're evaluating it under the old rules that have been abandoned. Example: We had a prophet get a revelation that polygamy would never end, or else the church would be in apostasy. We say we reject that revelation on the grounds that it was never presented before the body of the church. So it sounds like any revelation experience that was had (or interpreted onto) in connection with the proclamation is in the same category as the revelation that polygamy would never end. Received by revelation, prophetic, equal to the voice of God? Maybe. But not following the channels that would make it binding on the saints. 

But, in the last 100 years or so, there's been quite a few theories of "official doctrine" taught by church leaders, many of them contradictory. For instance, it was taught in the mid-20th century that extra-canonical teachings were not doctrinal. 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

It can even be "true". But that revelation is not a "public" revelation - it hasn't gone through the channels that were established, including the channel of presenting it before the body of the church, so it's not an "official" revelation. 

The prophets are the "established channels" for public revelation.  They are the only ones who can receive revelation for the church, and the entire world in this particular case.  Presenting a revelation for common consent does not make it any more or any less public.  It simply makes it canonical/Doctrinal.

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Example: We had a prophet get a revelation that polygamy would never end, or else the church would be in apostasy. We say we reject that revelation on the grounds that it was never presented before the body of the church. 

I am not familiar with this revelation, but will assume that what you say is accurate.  I would suggest however that the revelation was not rejected solely on the grounds that it lacked common consent.  If the revelation was in harmony with all other revelations and canon, it would not have been rejected as it was.

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

But not following the channels that would make it binding on the saints. 

Because it is not "binding" on the saints, does not mean that it is not a public revelation. It clearly is intended for all saints and the entire world.  Does the world need to consent before they become accountable to the warnings?  Again, "binding" simply  means that it is a source of "official" doctrine for the church as a whole, but either way, it is still binding on each one of us to adhere to the light received.

Edited January 19, 2017 by pogi

[cdowis]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

We had a prophet get a revelation that polygamy would never end, or else the church would be in apostasy.

Listen carefully.  In case you have been asleep for the past several decades, the doctrine of polygamy is practiced TODAY in the temples.  It has NEVER ended.

Do I really have to explain this to you??

Edited January 19, 2017 by cdowis

[Teancum]

Mark

I read the Faulconer paper on modernism and postmodernism.  A bit heavy.  But I think I grasped some of it.  Need to mull it over some. Will tackle the other items you provided soon. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

In case you care at all about accuracy, I went ahead and bolded the false statements you have made about me.  I do place their actions in historical context.  I have faith and testimony that see me through the long haul (that's why I'm still a faithful, active church member).  And I don't believe that raw documents are adequate in and of themselves... but the Brethren have had far more than raw documents for a long time.

Well, since perception is everything, I suppose that it doesn't really matter whether you are right or wrong.  And, based on your actual statements, it is clear to me that you do not know what you do not know.  Moreover, you seem secure enough in that belief that you are unlikely ever to challenge (within yourself) those key notions which have led to your lack of balance, and lack of understanding of professional standards of historiography.  Those problems of misunderstanding include key flaws which I have already mentioned:

1.  Holding the Brethren in higher estimation than is reasonable (along with other misconceptions about LDS theology)..

2.  Assuming that adequately digested material was already available for publication long before that was true.

3.  Assuming that professional historians had already taken the measure of the LDS Archives before they had in fact done so.

4.  Unwillingness to accept the nature of the real world.

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I haven't studied Fawn Brodie nor read her book so I don't have much to comment on your second paragraph.

You ought to read her bios of Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson, and then read the reviews by professional historians (I can cite them for you).  She didn't know what she did not know, and so was probably not even embarrassed.  That's the way it works in the real world.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks Gray - the point I was trying to make by having you post a cfr is that there really is no evidence for the date of the Book of Daniel. I have taken a course in NT textual analysis, and understand what you are saying, but the problem with it is that the dating is not based on actual evidence. In other words there is no third party historian of an earlier date who verifies the existence of Daniel in the 6th century BC, etc. Looking at the page of the book you posted note that it says "The lengthy apocalypse of Daniel 10-12 provides the best evidence for date and authorship." In other words from a scholarly standpoint they reject the book as a prophecy and conclude that since it appears to outline events leading up to Antiochus Epiphanes, that must be the time it was written. Similar analysis is applied to the NT books which refer to the impending destruction of the temple. Scholars CONCLUDE that these books must have been written or finished after the referenced destruction of the temple since Jesus obviously couldn't have know it would happen.... bla bla bla. 

But there is evidence - textual evidence. If the only kind of evidence we could accept is the age of the physical documents, we'd have to date everything very, very late. 

Let's say we recovered a document claiming to be written by a President Denton, writing from 1804. There are no other corroborating documents that mention a US President with the last name Denton in the early 19th century. Moreover, this Denton seems very fuzzy on recent American history (late 18th century, early 19th century), and makes crystal clear predictions of what's going to happen in the mid-20th century, right up until the presidency of John F. Kenney, who he predicts will be a two-termer. That would be good textual evidence that, despite the claims of the text's author, the document was in fact written sometime between 1961 and 1963, when Kennedy was president but before he was assassinated.

 

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The obvious problem with this type of dating is that it really is not based on "evidence" but conclusions based upon interpretation. Really, modern scholars have fallen into the same trap of the Maccabeans who believed they understood the vision, and that Antiochus Ephiphanes was the vile one. In fact the text itself addresses that:

All evidence is based on interpretation. 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

 

 

Daniel 11:14

14 And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

The text says this vision will not be established until the latter days or time of the end. 

So answer this: If the scholars are right, and it was written late, and doesn't refer to a time when the Grecian kingdoms were plucked up, and they were indeed writing about Antiochus Ephiphanes as the vile one, like modern scholars claim, how come these writers switch to the king of the north(Antiochus Epiphanes) coming against himself (the "him" or vile one of the preceding verses) at the time of the end? That certainly seems to point to a large flaw in their conslusions ie interpretation...  

The presentation that there was no Darius the Mede is also a conclusion, and could be wrong. We don't really know much of the Medes. We do know that is where the 10 tribes were taken, and we find the Medes helping Babylon defeat Assyria - maybe a little Hebrew "payback" involved? We also know thte Medes then joined forces with the Persians to defeat Babylon. This alliance was cemented with marriages. And indeed we find Ruth marrying a king in the book of Ruth. It is certainly conceivable that there was a Darius who served under the Persian king - who really did not take the city of Babylon himself but arrived after his generals had taken the city. Just like the NT refers to Herod as "king" but he is really a Roman prefect - he certainly wasn't the emperor. It was not much later that Darius the Great came to power. It is certainly conceivable that he was named after a famous general or something like that, whom the book is referring to. Hystaspes, his father, served as a general for Cyrus. Incidentally, Darius the Great said his father, Hystaspes, had been a prefect of Bactria, which I believe may have been a landing ground of the tribe of Ephraim. One of the subtribes of Ephraim were the Bachrites. In fact, maybe it is this Hystaspes whom the book calls Darius the Mede as the father of Darius the Great. 

This is your interpretation, but it's not historical, because it doesn't follow the historical method. Does that make sense?

[Gray]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

The prophets are the "established channels" for public revelation.  They are the only ones who can receive revelation for the church, and the entire world in this particular case.  Presenting a revelation for common consent does not make it any more or any less public.  It simply makes it canonical/Doctrinal.

How can revelations be "public" if the saints have not been told about them or asked to accept or reject them? If there was a specific revelatory event connected to the proclamation, it was kept secret for two decades. It seems to be more along the lines of tradition that has become "beautified" into a revelation with age, not unlike the priesthood ban or other folk doctrines. 

 

Quote

I am not familiar with this revelation, but will assume that what you say is accurate.  I would suggest however that the revelation was not rejected solely on the grounds that it lacked common consent.  If the revelation was in harmony with all other revelations and canon, it would not have been rejected as it was.

Because it is not "binding" on the saints, does not mean that it is not a public revelation. It clearly is intended for all saints and the entire world.  Does the world need to consent before they become accountable to the warnings?  Again, "binding" simply  means that it is a source of "official" doctrine for the church as a whole, but either way, it is still binding on each one of us to adhere to the light received.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation

Is this revelation binding on the saints? It's certainly consistent with scripture. It was not a public revelation, but it applied to all Latter-day Saints and sparked the FLDS schism. 

In any case, what the Proclamation seems to have been a compilation of teachings on gender roles that were already being taught in 1995. In a sense we can call anything revelation if we believe it is the "will of the Lord", even if it was not received by a specific revelatory act. In the case of the Proclamation, the doctrines don't seem to have a single source, but instead are an evolved mixture of scriptural exegesis, cultural mores, conservative identity politics, and folk wisdom. 

I think when most of us hear the word "revelation" we think about a specific event - the prophet asks God a question and God responds back with the answer. Perhaps that model is causing confusion. Revelation in Mormonism is perhaps no longer specific and verbal messages from God, but simply the doctrines that church leaders, at this moment, believe to be Godly.  

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Gray

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, since perception is everything, I suppose that it doesn't really matter whether you are right or wrong.  And, based on your actual statements, it is clear to me that you do not know what you do not know.  Moreover, you seem secure enough in that belief that you are unlikely ever to challenge (within yourself) those key notions which have led to your lack of balance

Right back at you, Robert.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

and lack of understanding of professional standards of historiography.

I don't need to understand "professional standards of historiography" to know when our own church narrative has been changed.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those problems of misunderstanding include key flaws which I have already mentioned:

1.  Holding the Brethren in higher estimation than is reasonable (along with other misconceptions about LDS theology)..

2.  Assuming that adequately digested material was already available for publication long before that was true.

3.  Assuming that professional historians had already taken the measure of the LDS Archives before they had in fact done so.

4.  Unwillingness to accept the nature of the real world.

1.  I don't.

2.  It was.  As has been cited here, the Arrington biography is evidence that it was.  Along with many other (professional) historical publications.  You've cited nothing to support your conclusion that it wasn't.

3.  The LDS Archives aren't the only historical resource.

4.  I assure you that I've accepted the nature of the real world.  Perhaps you could stick to the facts of the issue rather than continuing to turn this around as a personal attack.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You ought to read her bios of Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson, and then read the reviews by professional historians (I can cite them for you).  She didn't know what she did not know, and so was probably not even embarrassed.  That's the way it works in the real world.

Why should I read them if they aren't accurate?

p.s.  Everybody "doesn't know what they don't know."  Including you.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

Listen carefully.  In case you have been asleep for the past several decades, the doctrine of polygamy is practiced TODAY in the temples.  It has NEVER ended.

Do I really have to explain this to you??

Here is the revelation in question. I'll let you decide if we're acting in harmony with it:

 

Quote

1886 Revelation

Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886

My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.[5]

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Right back at you, Robert.

I don't need to understand "professional standards of historiography" to know when our own church narrative has been changed.

1.  I don't.

2.  It was.  As has been cited here, the Arrington biography is evidence that it was.  Along with many other (professional) historical publications.  You've cited nothing to support your conclusion that it wasn't.

3.  The LDS Archives aren't the only historical resource.

4.  I assure you that I've accepted the nature of the real world.  Perhaps you could stick to the facts of the issue rather than continuing to turn this around as a personal attack.

You have applied generic comments to yourself, thus missing the point once again.  These are problems which have general impact and are the cause of continuing general misunderstanding.  And which feeds the absurd blame-game.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Why should I read them if they aren't accurate?

p.s.  Everybody "doesn't know what they don't know."  Including you.

Those bios and their professional reviewers are exemplars of what I have been saying all along, and you once more show your failure to commit to an accurate understanding of historiography.  When (as in your case) you don't know what you don't know, naturally you attribute the same failing to everyone else, and you are nearly correct -- since it is a very common failing.  Some scholars speak of that as being engulfed in the first or second levels of naivete.  That can be true of any profession, of course, so it doesn't necessarily impinge on character so much as a simple lack of knowledge.  You have not gone to the trouble to acquire the tools of analysis which the professionals use, and so assume that you already know enough to get you through the debate.  The truth, however, is that you don't.  In so doing, you are very much like the guy attempting neurosurgery without having had any training.  In a Walter Mitty world perhaps that works.  In the real world it is a disaster.

You need the same humility needed by the Brethren in such a situation.  You and they simply do not know what you do not know.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

How can revelations be "public" if the saints have not been told about them or asked to accept or reject them?

Again, a revelation does not need to be prefaced with "thus sayeth the Lord" to be a revelation.  We don't need to be told, "this is a revelation", for it to be a revelation.  We don't need to be asked to accept it for it to be a revelation.  The fact that it was a proclamation to the world obviously makes it "public".

3 hours ago, Gray said:

 If there was a specific revelatory event connected to the proclamation, it was kept secret for two decades. It seems to be more along the lines of tradition that has become "beautified" into a revelation with age, not unlike the priesthood ban or other folk doctrines. 

It is up to YOU to decide if it came from the Lord or not.  Truth is delivered by prophets through revelation, but it is also intended to be received by the members through revelation.  The burden of verification lies with you.  Any speculation you may present will not change that fact. To require a "thus sayeth the Lord" before you will believe that something was received by revelation is spiritual laziness. All this speculation without spiritual confirmation seems useless and reckless and unnecessarily mistrusts the good word of President Nelson and others.  I am not asking you to trust blindly, but I am asking you to give these good men the benefit of the doubt until you can verify these things for yourself.  I know that you are not calling these men naive, misinformed, or liars, but it sure is bordering that line. 

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Is this revelation binding on the saints?

Was this even a revelation?

Some have questioned whether the revelation, if authentic, even refers to plural marriage or its continuance.

In an “Official Statement” from the First Presidency of the LDS Church, signed by Heber J. Grant, A.W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., it states:

“It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this organization (Fundamentalists). As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such a revelation; the archives contain no record of any such a revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such a revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such a revelation exists.”

I don't care to speculate about these things.  You can pray about it if you want, but lets not derail.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

In any case, what the Proclamation seems to have been a compilation of teachings on gender roles that were already being taught in 1995. In a sense we can call anything revelation if we believe it is the "will of the Lord", even if it was not received by a specific revelatory act. In the case of the Proclamation, the doctrines don't seem to have a single source, but instead are an evolved mixture of scriptural exegesis, cultural mores, conservative identity politics, and folk wisdom. 

I think when most of us hear the word "revelation" we think about a specific event - the prophet asks God a question and God responds back with the answer. Perhaps that model is causing confusion. Revelation in Mormonism is perhaps no longer specific and verbal messages from God, but simply the doctrines that church leaders, at this moment, believe to be Godly.  

Revelations can be "verbal messages from God", visions, dreams, impressions, prophetic interpretations of scripture, or clarification and verification of previous teachings.  In a broad sense, it is any communication of God to man.  The proclamation doesn't need to come from "a single source" to be considered revelation, so long as all the sources are from God and validated through revelation and prophetic witness.  

Edited January 19, 2017 by pogi

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have applied generic comments to yourself, thus missing the point once again.  These are problems which have general impact and are the cause of continuing general misunderstanding.  And which feeds the absurd blame-game.

Those bios and their professional reviewers are exemplars of what I have been saying all along, and you once more show your failure to commit to an accurate understanding of historiography.  When (as in your case) you don't know what you don't know, naturally you attribute the same failing to everyone else, and you are nearly correct -- since it is a very common failing.  Some scholars speak of that as being engulfed in the first or second levels of naivete.  That can be true of any profession, of course, so it doesn't necessarily impinge on character so much as a simple lack of knowledge.  You have not gone to the trouble to acquire the tools of analysis which the professionals use, and so assume that you already know enough to get you through the debate.  The truth, however, is that you don't.  In so doing, you are very much like the guy attempting neurosurgery without having had any training.  In a Walter Mitty world perhaps that works.  In the real world it is a disaster.

You need the same humility needed by the Brethren in such a situation.  You and they simply do not know what you do not know.

You claim that I (and apparently "generic" others) lack an accurate understanding of history but you've done nothing to establish the veracity of that claim.  

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am starting to feel like a broke record.  Again, a revelation does not need to be prefaced with "thus sayeth the Lord" to be a revelation.  We don't need to be told, "this is a revelation", for it to be a revelation.  We don't need to be asked to accept it for it to be a revelation.  The fact that it was a proclamation to the world obviously makes it "public".

I haven't said anything about "thus saith the Lord." But should the default mode be to assume that anything said by church leaders is revelation?

The proclamation was public, but no one was calling it a revelation for the first 20 years of its existence. So the revelation claim wasn't public. 

 

Quote

It is up to YOU to decide if it came from the Lord or not.  Truth is delivered by prophets through revelation, but it is also intended to be received by the members through revelation.  The burden of verification lies with you.  Any speculation you may present will not change that fact. To require a "thus sayeth the Lord" before you will believe that something was received by revelation is spiritual laziness. All this speculation without spiritual confirmation seems useless and reckless and unnecessarily mistrusts the good word of President Nelson and others.  I am not asking you to trust blindly, but I am asking you to give these good men the benefit of the doubt until you can verify these things for yourself.  I know that you are not calling these men naive, misinformed, or liars, but it sure is bordering that line. 

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "thus sayeth the Lord" phrase. That has nothing to do with anything I've been saying. 

I'm also not "bordering" on calling anyone a liar or naive or anything else. My speculation is that this is starting to be called a revelation only now because the definition for revelation among the brethren has evolved recently. President Hinckley did not seem to think it was a revelation in the same sense that President Nelson does - perhaps because revelation means something different now.

 

Quote

Was this even a revelation?

Some have questioned whether the revelation, if authentic, even refers to plural marriage or its continuance.

In an “Official Statement” from the First Presidency of the LDS Church, signed by Heber J. Grant, A.W. Ivins and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., it states:

“It is alleged that on September 26-27, 1886, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord, the purported text is given in publications circulated apparently by or at the instance of this organization (Fundamentalists). As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such a revelation; the archives contain no record of any such a revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such a revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such a revelation exists.”

I don't care to speculate about these things.  You can pray about it if you want, but lets not derail.

Revelations can be "verbal messages from God", visions, dreams, impressions, prophetic interpretations of scripture, or clarification and verification of previous teachings.  In a broad sense, it is any communication of God to man.  The proclamation doesn't need to come from "a single source" to be considered revelation, so long as all the sources are from God and validated through revelation and prophetic witness.  

I don't think there is any serious question as to the polygamy revelation's provenance, despite objections to it by later church leaders. I'm open to any arguments or evidence to the contrary, however. 

My point in bringing it up is that it was not a public, "official" revelation, and so has been rejected by the church. That shows how much our process has changed over the years. 

Now, remember, as I've been saying all along, I'm not conflating the value of a teaching with the status of a teaching. Teachings are good or bad independent of who said them or how they're categorized. "Love thy neighbor" is true no matter who says it, and whether or not you want to call it a revelation or a proverb. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Gray

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 But should the default mode be to assume that anything said by church leaders is revelation?

The proclamation was public, but no one was calling it a revelation for the first 20 years of its existence. So the revelation claim wasn't public. 

No, I don't think the default should be to assume anything.  That is my point.  Because revelations don't need to be identified as such, it is the burden of the saints (as it should be) to receive, or not receive, the words of the prophets via revelation.  It requires active spiritual diligence and independence on the part of the saints, rather than a passive blind trust.  You are correct that the revelation claim wasn't public, but that has never been a qualification.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "thus sayeth the Lord" phrase. That has nothing to do with anything I've been saying. 

Your suspicions are centered around the fact that the proclamation was not declared as a revelation when it was delivered.  "Thus sayeth the Lord" is my way of saying that a revelation does not need to be declared as such.  Never has.  Nothing has changed.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My speculation is that this is starting to be called a revelation only now because the definition for revelation among the brethren has evolved recently. President Hinckley did not seem to think it was a revelation in the same sense that President Nelson does - perhaps because revelation means something different now.

Because Pres. Hinckley did not call it a revelation does not mean that it was not received by revelation.  How do you know what he thought?  I see no signs of an evolving definition of revelation in any modern teachings.  Revelation has always had a broad definition which includes any light received by God.

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My point in bringing it up is that it was not a public, "official" revelation, and so has been rejected by the church. That shows how much our process has changed over the years. 

 The church at the time felt "justified that no such revelation exists".  That is not evidence of changing processes. 

 

Edited January 19, 2017 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You claim that I (and apparently "generic" others) lack an accurate understanding of history but you've done nothing to establish the veracity of that claim.  

I have given a series of specific examples, which you do not deign to recognize or examine.  What would be most effective for you would be to spend a great deal of time acquiring those skills.  Only thus would you come to realize what was largely invisible to you.  In my own life, I can see the sharp distinction before and after, and it was a long time coming.  I did not know what I did not know until after I learnt it the hard way.  All of us have been part of the "first naivete" or "precritical naivete," and it is a normal state of innocence.  https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/me-jesus-the-journey-home/ .

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have given a series of specific examples, which you do not deign to recognize or examine.  What would be most effective for you would be to spend a great deal of time acquiring those skills.  Only thus would you come to realize what was largely invisible to you.  In my own life, I can see the sharp distinction before and after, and it was a long time coming.  I did not know what I did not know until after I learnt it the hard way.  All of us have been part of the "first naivete" or "precritical naivete," and it is a normal state of innocence.  https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/me-jesus-the-journey-home/ .

What examples have you given of my lacking an accurate understanding of the history of the church?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

No, I don't think the default should be to assume anything.  That is my point.  Because revelations don't need to be identified as such, it is the burden of the saints (as it should be) to receive, or not receive, the words of the prophets via revelation.  It requires active spiritual diligence and independence on the part of the saints, rather than a passive blind trust.  You are correct that the revelation claim wasn't public, but that has never been a qualification.

I can't disagree with you there.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Your suspicions are centered around the fact that the proclamation was not declared as a revelation when it was delivered.  "Thus sayeth the Lord" is my way of saying that a revelation does not need to be declared as such.  Never has.  Nothing has changed.

I see. 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Because Pres. Hinckley did not call it a revelation does not mean that it was not received by revelation.  How do you know what he thought?  I see no signs of an evolving definition of revelation in any modern teachings.  Revelation has always had a broad definition which includes any light received by God.

We would expect the prophet to identify it as a revelation if he believed that it was. It would be strange not to. I think that's a good tentative case that it wasn't considered revelation at the time. I disagree that revelation has always had the broad definition it seems to have today, which seems to include personal thoughts that may not be directly "broadcast" by God, but are consistent with God's word. That's what Elder Bednar recently taught. Perhaps I missed it, but I never encountered that definition of revelation in the past in the church. Revelation was always about discrete messages from God (whether in words or "impressions"), not simply "things we assume to be true."

I feel like we're partially arguing over semantics and I actually agree with your definition of revelation. I just don't agree that it's always been that way in the church. The church is evolving.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 The church at the time felt "justified that no such revelation exists".  That is not evidence of changing processes. 

 

Their justification was based on the fact that it wasn't recorded officially. Similarly, we have no official record of a revelation in connection with the Proclamation. 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

We would expect the prophet to identify it as a revelation if he believed that it was.

I wouldn't expect it.  That is actually a foreign idea to me.

16 hours ago, Gray said:

I disagree that revelation has always had the broad definition it seems to have today, which seems to include personal thoughts that may not be directly "broadcast" by God, but are consistent with God's word. That's what Elder Bednar recently taught.

...not simply "things we assume to be true."  

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.  

Edited January 20, 2017 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

What examples have you given of my lacking an accurate understanding of the history of the church?

This whole conversation has been about the ways in which you have an incorrect understanding of LDS history and theology, and why that is the case.  I gave specific examples throughout, and you have only to go back over the many pages of this thread to see each one.  You most recenly said:

Quote

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You claim that I (and apparently "generic" others) lack an accurate understanding of history but you've done nothing to establish the veracity of that claim

Yet you have continually claimed that the LDS Church authorities themselves were responsible for not allowing an accurate understanding of Church history and theology, as though ti were some sort of conspiracy.  Which is it?  Does everyone understand it, or not?  You have repeatedly declared that the Gospel Topics Essays were too little too late (based on the dire need for such information), but on that basis the LDS general authorities are damned if they do present such essays and damned if they don't.  I thought the Essays timely and appropriate.  You don't agree, but only based on your lack of understanding of the process by which such material is generated over time.  Why do you lack understanding of that process?  Because the historiographical reality is invisible to you, as to so many others.  One may take a cynical view and see that as perfectly normal.  Things just don't get done as quickly as we would like, at least not in the real world.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This whole conversation has been about the ways in which you have an incorrect understanding of LDS history and theology, and why that is the case.  I gave specific examples throughout, and you have only to go back over the many pages of this thread to see each one.  You most recenly said:

Yet you have continually claimed that the LDS Church authorities themselves were responsible for not allowing an accurate understanding of Church history and theology, as though ti were some sort of conspiracy.  Which is it?  Does everyone understand it, or not?  You have repeatedly declared that the Gospel Topics Essays were too little too late (based on the dire need for such information), but on that basis the LDS general authorities are damned if they do present such essays and damned if they don't.  I thought the Essays timely and appropriate.  You don't agree, but only based on your lack of understanding of the process by which such material is generated over time.  Why do you lack understanding of that process?  Because the historiographical reality is invisible to you, as to so many others.  One may take a cynical view and see that as perfectly normal.  Things just don't get done as quickly as we would like, at least not in the real world.

Are these your examples of my "incorrect understanding of LDS history and theology"?  If so, you've made some incorrect assumptions as I can see you jumping to faulty conclusions about me and my understanding.

The LDS Church authorities were not responsible for "not allowing an accurate understanding of Church history and theology".  What I've argued is that they presented (through their teachings and curriculum) a narrative that was not complete and accurate.  While that certainly didn't facilitate membership gaining an accurate understanding of Church history, and likely served as a hindrance, it also isn't tantamount to "not allowing" it.

I've never suggested it was a conspiracy.  These are sincere, good, noble men of God.  While they aren't perfect, they are certainly doing all they can to magnify their callings as prophets, seers, and revelators.

I do believe that the Gospel Topics Essays were reactive, rather than proactive.  And, I absolutely agree that the LDS GA's were "damned if they do... and damned if they don't".  I think that's at least part of the reason that they waited as long as they did.  The challenge in inoculating the younger generation is to be able to do it while not causing a crisis among the older generation.  I imagine that this is a struggle in which they have spent many hours on their knees.

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.