Interesting changes for 3rd hour block in 2018

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

God doesn't reveal doctrine for his church through anyone but the prophet.

Except when he does..Wilford Woodruff when John Taylor was President, Heber C. Kimball when Brigham Young was President.

Heck, Brigham Young called Heber his prophet.

[hagoth7]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God doesn't reveal doctrine for his church through anyone but the prophet.  

To individuals, God certainly does.

Channels for church-wide general doctrine is a separate matter.

Which is precisely what I meant by it sometimes not being *official* doctrine.

We each receive what truth we need, whether it is spoken or not, official or not.

Edited June 7, 2017 by hagoth7

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

To individuals, God certainly does.

Channels for church-wide general doctrine is a separate matter.

Which is precisely what I meant by it sometimes not being *official* doctrine.

We each receive what truth we need, whether it is spoken or not, official or not.

JLH was using the example of JS receiving doctrine for the church.  That's why, in this discussion, it wasn't a separate matter.  

[hagoth7]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God doesn't reveal doctrine for his church through anyone but the prophet.  

? And you can say that 300 times and click your heels if you wish. :0) Won't contradict what I've said.

It won't change the fact that you can sit in sacrament meeting or sunday school and receive personalized guidance (spoken or otherwise) on what *you* need to learn/do/become, or what those in your stewardship need to learn/do.

Question. Do  you believe that people ministering in other faiths can receive guidance/doctrine intended to benefit those *outside* this church?

If so, what if some of that might overflow and happen to benefit those *within* this church? Would worlds collide?  

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except when he does..Wilford Woodruff when John Taylor was President, Heber C. Kimball when Brigham Young was President.

Heck, Brigham Young called Heber his prophet.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hagoth7 said:

? And you can say that 300 times and click your heels if you wish. :0) Won't contradict what I've said.

It won't change the fact that you can sit in sacrament meeting or sunday school and receive personalized guidance (spoken or otherwise) on what *you* need to learn/do/become, or what those in your stewardship need to learn/do.

Question. Do  you believe that people ministering in other faiths can receive guidance/doctrine intended to benefit those *outside* this church?

If so, what if some of that might overflow and happen to benefit those *within* this church? Would worlds collide?  

The context of Bluebell's discussion with JLH was revelation for the church, not personal revelation.

[hagoth7]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The context of Bluebell's discussion with JLH was revelation for the church, not personal revelation.

Understood.

And the church consists of...individuals....with unique, specific needs.

The two pillars go hand in hand.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  

I think that in a way you're both right.  I believe that revelation can come to other members of the First Presidency or even Quorum of the Twelve.  But that revelation would need to be approved by the President of the Church. 

Having worked in presidencies as a counselor I know that at times I've received inspiration that the president did not.  However, before acting on that inspiration it was discussed as a presidency and then acted upon only after receiving approval from the presiding authority.  I believe that this is how councils work at all levels of the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeah.  I heard of this one kid, about 14.  He didn't think the available materials were sufficient.
So he actually studied for himself, got down on his knees, and WHOA, would you believe the theories he started teaching?
Crazy stuff about how the godhead was actually 3 separate people, that there wasn't just heaven and hell but multiple degrees and kingdoms, that marriage could last into the eternities despite what it says in the NT, and even that God still called people as prophets.

Such wild theories.  He should have just stuck to the correlated materials his local pastor provided.  He should have learned his catechism and creeds and kept his mouth shut about any "theories" he might have had.

So you are being serious when you equate the extant sectarian dogmas of the early 19th century with the doctrine, teachings and revelation from Jesus Christ as they have been revealed through prophets and apostles under the latter-day gospel restoration and as they are taught today under the correlated direction of those prophets and apostles? I have to say I'm somewhat taken aback by that. I thought your understanding was keener.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I think that in a way you're both right.  I believe that revelation can come to other members of the First Presidency or even Quorum of the Twelve.  But that revelation would need to be approved by the President of the Church. 

Having worked in presidencies as a counselor I know that at times I've received inspiration that the president did not.  However, before acting on that inspiration it was discussed as a presidency and then acted upon only after receiving approval from the presiding authority.  I believe that this is how councils work at all levels of the church. 

In such an instance, I would say that the counselor is inspired to act in his role as a counselor to the president, but the binding revelation is received by the president as he evaluates the counsel he receives from the counselor, whether that revelation be to enact or to reject what the counselor has proposed.

 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Traela said:

Also,

"How do I teach about the importance of meetings?"

"How do I teach the correct way of running a meeting?

 

Do you moonlight as a gospel manual writer?

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are being serious when you equate the extant sectarian dogmas of the early 19th century with the doctrine, teachings and revelation from Jesus Christ as they have been revealed through prophets and apostles under the latter-day gospel restoration and as they are taught today under the correlated direction of those prophets and apostles? I have to say I'm somewhat taken aback by that. I thought your understanding was keener.

 

Of course I wasn't being serious.  Just pointing out the ironic similarities in thinking.
There is no comparison between sectarian dogma and the truths of the restoration.
But there is a comparison in how both sectarians and modern Mormons like to stick to their correlated materials/catechism and a strong comparison between how sectarians rejected anything out side the Bible and creeds as modern Mormons reject anything outside the "official".

It didn't used to be that way in the Church.  Speculation, or to be more precise, reasoning based on revealed truths, used to be encouraged.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course I wasn't being serious.  Just pointing out the ironic similarities in thinking.
There is no comparison between sectarian dogma and the truths of the restoration.
But there is a comparison in how both sectarians and modern Mormons like to stick to their correlated materials/catechism and a strong comparison between how sectarians rejected anything out side the Bible and creeds as modern Mormons reject anything outside the "official".

 

I agree with ksfisher that your analogy was taken out of context.

Quote

It didn't used to be that way in the Church.  Speculation, or to be more precise, reasoning based on revealed truths, used to be encouraged.

I know how things used to be. I also know that we got a lot of rampant wacky lore that entrenched itself in our collective consciousness. The theories trying to explain the priesthood ban are one example. The expectation that Mormons will one day be called to pull handcarts back to Jackson County, Mo., is another.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know how things used to be. I also know that we got a lot of rampant wacky lore that entrenched itself in our collective consciousness. The theories trying to explain the priesthood ban are one example. The expectation that Mormons will one day be called to pull handcarts back to Jackson County, Mo., is another.

And the King Follett doctrine?  A key, supreme piece of revelation restored through God's prophet that members reject at will for no other reason than its lack of canonization.  Preferring instead to create a larger separation between man and God than there actually is and falsely labeling an eternal truth as speculation on Joseph's part.

Edited June 7, 2017 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the King Follett doctrine?  A key, supreme piece of revelation restored through God's prophet that members reject at will for no other reason than its lack of canonization.  Preferring instead to create a larger separation between man and God than there actually is and falsely labeling an eternal truth as speculation on Joseph's part.

They aren't really rejected, they just aren't canonized.  I don't know why they aren't, but as Calm said many years ago about why they aren't a part of our scriptures, "Would not be surprised if it was because it was a combination of inspiration/revelation and speculation and canonizing it places everything under the inspiration/revelation umbrella in many people's views. There is a reason why conference talks, sermons such as those collected in the JoD have not been canonized even if viewed as inspired."

I know they printed them in the Ensign a while back.

Edited June 8, 2017 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

They aren't really rejected, they just aren't canonized.  I don't know why they aren't, but as Calm said many years ago about why they aren't a part of our scriptures, "Would not be surprised if it was because it was a combination of inspiration/revelation and speculation and canonizing it places everything under the inspiration/revelation umbrella in many people's views. There is a reason why conference talks, sermons such as those collected in the JoD have not been canonized even if viewed as inspired."

I know they printed them in the Ensign a while back.

The King Follett Sermon was published in full in the Ensign in 1971. I linked to it hours ago but the darned board software made my post disappear. I'd link to it again, but it's too hard with a mobile device  

I made the point that the Ensign, last I heard, falls under Church correlation, the correlation that JLHPROF finds so deplorable. Yet the Ensign published in full the King Follett sermon he claims we are marginalizing. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

also

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermon

http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

They aren't really rejected, they just aren't canonized.

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The King Follett Sermon was published in full in the Ensign in 1971.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

 

 

And at the same time the KFD is actually quoted in the Gospel Principles manual along with the key doctrine.

• Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).
  Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.
  https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Yet many members have real problems with the doctrine even in correlated materials.  There are TBM, faithful, active members of this board who reject the discourse completely despite its correlated status (Thank you President Hinckley).
And if instead of using the manual I used the source material there would be problems with some members.
I just don't understand why we are so danged limiting in our discussion of doctrine.

Why should I used the parsed quote from the manual instead of the full quote in teaching this lesson?

• It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did;

Or even better, Joseph's reasoning that led to the correlated doctrine and the more detailed passage before the quoted one?

• God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
   
• What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.

Now that would make an interesting discussion on exaltation and might cause a few class members to think.  I think most of the current discussion among members on our exaltation and godhood that I hear is the true speculation.

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course I wasn't being serious.  Just pointing out the ironic similarities in thinking.
There is no comparison between sectarian dogma and the truths of the restoration.
But there is a comparison in how both sectarians and modern Mormons like to stick to their correlated materials/catechism and a strong comparison between how sectarians rejected anything out side the Bible and creeds as modern Mormons reject anything outside the "official".

It didn't used to be that way in the Church.  Speculation, or to be more precise, reasoning based on revealed truths, used to be encouraged.

I agree, if there is nothing to hide, why hide right? If they themselves believe there is nothing wrong then why? It tends to make one think that they aren't sure the church is true themselves. If only some of them had your testimony.  ETA: JLHPROF, I was talking about some leaders. Especially Joseph Fielding Smith and those that edited BY's wives to wife. And more, but I won't put it all here. I am out of posts for the day, I'm only allowed 12 I believe. Hope you see this. It's right above the post to clarify whom I was talking about.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, if there is nothing to hide, why hide right? If they themselves believe there is nothing wrong then why? It tends to make one think that they aren't sure the church is true themselves. If only some of them had your testimony.

Are you speaking of the leaders or the members? 
If it's the leaders I think they are sincere and just trying to avoid too much speculation, no matter the cost to learning.
If it's the members I think you're attributing far more thought than most bother with.  (This board notwithstanding).

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Now that would make an interesting discussion on exaltation and might cause a few class members to think.  I think most of the current discussion among members on our exaltation and godhood that I hear is the true speculation.

You seem to have a bit of a fundamentalist take on Mormonism, JL. I don't see the wholesale rejection of the KFD that you are insisting is there, in fact, I find that a rather odd opinion.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You seem to have a bit of a fundamentalist take on Mormonism, JL.

You are just noticing that? 

My difference with the fundamentalists is that they assume authority when we have clearly been told that the Church will not be replaced and another restoration will not occur.

But yes, my doctrinal and theological beliefs match those taught by the 19th century prophets of the Church.
Perhaps if the 20th (and 21st) century prophets had ever bothered to publish some actual revelations for the changes they made to the 19th century doctrines and practices I would be more in line with a current day TBM.
But since the changes made since 1900 have no recorded revelations backing them I cannot do like some members do and take it on faith that the Lord authorized the changes.

For just one example:
You have Joseph F. Smith stating that the design of the garments was given to Joseph directly from heaven.  And then you have Heber J. Grant authorizing major changes to them and making no statement of revelation.
So, do I take President Grant's word that the changes are acceptable to God?  Why should I do that?

I am a faithful member of the LDS Church.  It is God's church.  He will not bypass it and he will fix his own Church in his own due time.  But theologically and doctrinally, I believe what was taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith.  (And other than a few adjustments like the Law of Adoption these first prophets of the Church were remarkably consistent doctrinally).
The changes in doctrine during the 20th century are remarkable.  And other than the 1978 revelation correcting the false doctrines behind the priesthood ban we have no record to support the other changes.

Quote

I don't see the wholesale rejection of the KFD that you are insisting is there, in fact, I find that a rather odd opinion. 

Wholesale rejection is an overstatement.
But we have many good TBM members on this board who reject it.  You have President Hinckley downplaying it publicly (even though he taught it just a couple of years earlier).
The doctrine isn't rejected by the Church as a body.  As I pointed out, it's in the Gospel Principles manual.
But It is downplayed by the Church and plenty of members won't talk about it much or can't accept it.  Since it's the very reason for our existence, I find that an odd opinion.

Edited June 8, 2017 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with ksfisher that your analogy was taken out of context.

I know how things used to be. I also know that we got a lot of rampant wacky lore that entrenched itself in our collective consciousness. The theories trying to explain the priesthood ban are one example. The expectation that Mormons will one day be called to pull handcarts back to Jackson County, Mo., is another.

you mean the officially sanctioned first presidency claim to having been estabilished by revelation "theories"?

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

you mean the officially sanctioned first presidency claim to having been estabilished by revelation "theories"?

So the 1949 First Presidency issued a statement that it came by revelation.
The current First Presidency issued a statement that it didn't.

Neither First Presidency produced any revelation concerning the doctrine, its origin, or anything whatsoever that could be connected to God.

So they were both pretty much stating opinion then?   And we are all allowed our own opinions so we can choose to accept neither or one (but presumably not both) and not be out of harmony with "official" doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

you mean the officially sanctioned first presidency claim to having been estabilished by revelation "theories"?

No, I mean speculative theories such as the one to the effect that people of African heritage were neutral during the war in heaven, that sort of thing.