Revelations come "after the manner of their language"

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well ok but I never really listened to the words, honestly.  I have never sung it, and the usual cuteness of the kids and lack of distinct pronunciation probably went over my head.  Honestly my mind wanders at times like that and is usually plugging in to other things.  I am not expecting to learn doctrine when kids are singing- which is probably a flaw.  I need more humility, unquestionably!

It says "He knows the way" which is obviously present tense.  I suppose if you were raised with it, it would not be creepy.  I am also bugged by "Praise to the Man" which has been discussed here before.  I invited some investigators once and man did they have questions about "mingling with gods he can plan for his brethren".  "Multiple gods?  Planning with Joseph?  Like some kind of committee meeting talking about strategy?  For what? Taking over the world in cahoots with false gods?"  They took it as pretty Satanic, and I never really got them back.

I am so glad the church changed the policy about whispering in a child's ear for them to repeat a "testimony".   To an insider it is cute and a teaching moment; for an outsider it looks like brain washing in progress.

Sorry, but I think it is time for those raised in the church to understand how really "weird" it sounds to outsiders.   I love the weirdness because I understand the culture and what is under it, there are solid principles there.  But the presentation- the PR aspects of it just do not communicate to outsiders and it seems life members do not get that because it never was even slightly weird to them, being raised in the culture.

I took the "he knows the way" to be for those who were listening to the prophet being sung about. But even if it's the current prophet (and I'd say that's the ultimate intent) it's not at all clear to me it was a problem. 

To regular hymns that seem weird to visitors like "Praise to the Man" or "Hie to Kolob" I used to worry a great deal. I remember on my mission in Louisiana being terrified they'd sing them when I had an investigator. It's not that I have a problem with either song. Indeed both are among my all time favorite hymns. Just that it can lead to misunderstanding. However ultimately it's what we believe. There's a good chance that a talk or lesson is going to mention the plurality of Gods. A companion pointed this out to me on my mission and it changed my view quite a bit. I realized I just needed to prepare people a bit better. A good way is to talk about the Trinity and the different ways of talking about Jesus and the Father as two Gods.

I don't mind that people think it somewhat weird, although in these days of a more multicultural America where we rub shoulders with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and more I'd hope "weird" wouldn't be as big a deal. (I know it still is - especially in communities with little diversity or understanding)

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Also, the thing about whispering a "testimony" in a child's ear (which bugs me as well) I don't think ever was codified as policy.

In truth, I haven't seen an instance of the ear whispering for a long time, blessedly. 

Handbook 2 18.2.3

"It may be best to have young children learn to share their testimonies in settings such as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so in a fast and testimony meeting without assistance from a parent, sibling, or other person."

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just curious how you explained to the investigators the line in "Praise to the Man." 

I know we have to be careful to give milk before meat to the uninitiated, but I hate to think that means dumbing down the doctrine for the rest of us.

Also, the thing about whispering a "testimony" in a child's ear (which bugs me as well) I don't think ever was codified as policy. It is just something that was tolerated for a while -- like closing s talk in the name of "Thy Son" is tolerated now even though it doesn't make sense.

In truth, I haven't seen an instance of the ear whispering for a long time, blessedly. 

I think I did not handle it well, probably because I have always had a problem with that line myself.  It is easy to see how that line has led to the idea that we worship Joseph as a sub-god, and sometimes I think, frankly, that I have heard that kind of sentiment.  I think that is false doctrine, or at least a baseless belief.  If anyone in authority has uttered such ideas I think it is unfortunate to detract from our total reliance on the Savior, at least for PR purposes.

And I don't think keeping the Savior in the forefront at all times is "dumbing down" doctrine?

As I recall when I was bishop (released 5 years ago) there WAS an official memo from SLC encouraging small children to bear their testimonies at the pulpit, unassisted.

After that I noticed a marked decline in ear whispering.  But I could be mistaken.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Handbook 2 18.2.3

"It may be best to have young children learn to share their testimonies in settings such as family home evening or when giving talks in Primary until they are old enough to do so in a fast and testimony meeting without assistance from a parent, sibling, or other person."

 

There ya go!  Thanks!

I have not lost ALL my marbles yet!

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There ya go!  Thanks!

I have not lost ALL my marbles yet!

The ability to find things in the handbook isn't one of the gifts mentioned by either Paul or Moroni, but it's theone I've ended up with.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I did not handle it well, probably because I have always had a problem with that line myself.  It is easy to see how that line has led to the idea that we worship Joseph as a sub-god, and sometimes I think, frankly, that I have heard that kind of sentiment.  I think that is false doctrine, or at least a baseless belief.  If anyone in authority has uttered such ideas I think it is unfortunate to detract from our total reliance on the Savior, at least for PR purposes.

And I don't think keeping the Savior in the forefront at all times is "dumbing down" doctrine?

Our total reliance on the Savior and keeping Him at the forefront is not precluded by the concept of the divine council or the doctrine that those who are faithful in their mortal probation will be, in Paul's words, joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has. 

To me, there is no more magnificent aspect of the gospel of Christ than the doctrine of theosis or deification. I believe the line in "Praise to the Man" can be explained in terms of that glorious doctrine, for it is reasonable to suppose that the Prophet of the Restoration, he who "communed with Jehovah" and was anointed by Him to open the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, would fill an important role in the divine council, along with prophets and apostles in ages past. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The ability to find things in the handbook isn't one of the gifts mentioned by either Paul or Moroni, but it's theone I've ended up with.

One thing I've learned about gifts of the Spirit is that they are not limited to what is listed or mentioned in scripture. 

Just an aside, but we had a Sunday School lesson a while back in which the teacher mentioned that the gifts of the Spirit are listed in three of the four Standard Works. I didn't say so at the time, but they are also listed in the Seventh Article of Faith. Since the Articles of Faith are part of the Pearl of Great Price, that means the gifts of the Spirit are in all four of the Standard Works. 

I think that's pretty cool!

Edited August 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As I recall when I was bishop (released 5 years ago) there WAS an official memo from SLC encouraging small children to bear their testimonies at the pulpit, unassisted.

After that I noticed a marked decline in ear whispering.  But I could be mistaken.

I never doubted there was an official statement to that effect. I'm only saying that I think the practice only emerged in the first place through undirected custom and was never officially condoned. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Five Solas]

On 8/16/2017 at 8:22 AM, Meerkat said:

Five Solas, I know this post is too long and apologize In advance.  I like your questions.  They make me think.

In summary, I believe you are misunderstanding Ash.  I agree with Ash, but for the exact opposite reason you do. I would be interested in your response.

Your comment illustrates the limitation of words to communicate.  We each have a different context. I believe you missed Ash's point and gave it the opposite meaning.

He said:

"Another layer of complication is added in recording the words of God in the weakness of human language, Ash explained. “Words do not have a plain meaning. They only have meaning in context of a language, culture, time frame and so forth.”

Readers in turn automatically recontextualize the words according to their own culture and context, he said, and some ambiguity is inevitable."

This is clearly true, based on your take of his premise.  

“Heavenly Father is aware of our limitations and knows the factors that contribute to our limitations,” he said “Despite our deficiencies, however, He also knows how to communicate important directives as we are able to receive them.”

He cited the passage in Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”

Thus, Ash said, “God must descend to our level and speak our language in order for us to comprehend.”

Take Korihor, for example. 

...

So, FS, we see that God was able to communicate with Korihor in a language he could understand.  I believe that was Ash's point.  God is not limited in His ability to communicate.  In my opinion, we are limited in our desire or worthiness, etc. and therefore limit our own ability to receive it.  But God can still communicate with us when He needs or wants to.  

Ash also said  “He knows they will get things wrong, describe things inaccurately, point to non-existent evidence while rejecting very real evidence. … Knowing all the challenges, God also knows that the only way we can understand the important and basic principles of discipleship is by having His teachings revealed in the manner of our language, so that the weak things will become strong enough to put us on a course to bring us back home to the Father.”

He closed by citing Ether 12:27, that if men humble themselves before God, He will show them their weaknesses and make weak things become strong unto them."

Ash does have a sentence here and there that can be ambiguous.  To focus on them is to ignore the overall point of his article. God can and does communicate with man.  He has communicated with me, and probably you also.  Sometimes it may take a long time to understand what He is telling us in order for our context to catch up with what He has communicated.  The problem is on our end, not His.  He gives us time to understand, imo, because He will not, under normal circumstances, override our responsibility to exercise faith or our freedom to choose whether or not to believe.

Thank you for the kind opening comment, Meerkat.  And I do note the irony that we now find ourselves debating Ash's meaning. 

;0)

Rightly or wrongly, I took Scott's opening sentence at face value.  And I will concede the possibility it unduly colored how I understood the remainder of his words.  But let's play this out.  As Scott wrote of Ash's position--

It is not humanly possible to fully understand God’s mind and will, or even His communications, Michael Ash asserted in his address Aug. 3 at the FairMormon Conference.

The first part of that sentence is without controversy (e.g., Romans 11:33).  But that second part is problematic.  To be sure, Jesus sometimes used parables that were not understood by his hearers.  But this was purposeful and deliberate, in no way fitting Ash's analogy of the black & white television receiving color signals.  

As Jesus explained to his disciples, Mark 4:11-12--

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that
“‘they may indeed see but not perceive,
    and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”

Regardless whether we find the message comforting or disconcerting, the point here is that God is in full control of the message at all times--and it exists to serve His purpose.  God's sovereignty extends to the human ear and tongue, to all aspects of human language just as certainly as it extends to everything else.  And I submit to suggest otherwise contradicts the nature of God as revealed in Scripture, the Bible.  Scott's article gives me reason to think Ash would strongly disagree with me over this (and I assume the article is a reasonably accurate portrayal of Ash's views--although I didn't go back to the original to check Scott's work). 

I'll gladly take correction if you have it to give, Meerkat, but I really don't think I'm out on a limb here.  And if my understanding is anywhere close, then it has profound implication for the understanding of faith in an LDS context, per my previous post. 

--Erik

______________________________________

Television man is crazy
Saying we're juvenile delinquent wrecks
Oh man I need T.V.
When I got T. Rex

--Mott the Hoople, 1972

 

[Five Solas]

On 8/16/2017 at 5:55 PM, bluebell said:

I would tell them to do whatever they believed God was telling them to do.

But not great advice if "they" happened to have been the Lafferty brothers.  Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven: The Story of a Violent Faith tells their story.  Well worth your time and consideration if you're unfamiliar, bluebell. 

Yes, I'm old enough to remember & was living in Utah at the time.  For better or worse...

--Erik

PS.  No more thread-bans and/or deleted posts, please.  An extreme illustration can serve to make a valid point.  Scripture must be the basis for judging our feelings and/or any voices we hear, not the other way round.   

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But not great advice if "they" happened to have been the Lafferty brothers.  Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven: The Story of a Violent Faith tells their story.  Well worth your time and consideration if you're unfamiliar, bluebell. 

Yes, I'm old enough to remember & was living in Utah at the time.  For better or worse...

--Erik

PS.  No more thread-bans and/or deleted posts, please.  An extreme illustration can serve to make a valid point.  Scripture must be the basis for judging our feelings and/or any voices we hear, not the other way round.   

I read that book a number of years ago. I've read mostKrakauer's books I think.

But your advice doesn't pass your own test. People have used scripture many times throughout history to justify acts of violence. 

David Koresh, as one example, used the Bible extensively to justify plural marriage, statutory rape, violence, murder, and suicide. 

If we can't tell people to rely on the Holy Ghost (because they could be deceived) and we can't tell them to rely on scripture (because they could be deceived), what do  we tell them?

[Thinking]

Quote

Revelations come "after the manner of their language."

English speaking members, however...

Quote

We should always address Deity by using the sacred pronouns thou, thee, thy, and thine.

 

[Meerkat]

8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Thank you for the kind opening comment, Meerkat.  And I do note the irony that we now find ourselves debating Ash's meaning. 

;0)

Rightly or wrongly, I took Scott's opening sentence at face value.  And I will concede the possibility it unduly colored how I understood the remainder of his words.  But let's play this out.  As Scott wrote of Ash's position--

It is not humanly possible to fully understand God’s mind and will, or even His communications, Michael Ash asserted in his address Aug. 3 at the FairMormon Conference.

The first part of that sentence is without controversy (e.g., Romans 11:33).  But that second part is problematic.  To be sure, Jesus sometimes used parables that were not understood by his hearers.  But this was purposeful and deliberate, in no way fitting Ash's analogy of the black & white television receiving color signals.  

As Jesus explained to his disciples, Mark 4:11-12--

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that
“‘they may indeed see but not perceive,
    and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.’”

Regardless whether we find the message comforting or disconcerting, the point here is that God is in full control of the message at all times--and it exists to serve His purpose.  God's sovereignty extends to the human ear and tongue, to all aspects of human language just as certainly as it extends to everything else.  And I submit to suggest otherwise contradicts the nature of God as revealed in Scripture, the Bible.  Scott's article gives me reason to think Ash would strongly disagree with me over this (and I assume the article is a reasonably accurate portrayal of Ash's views--although I didn't go back to the original to check Scott's work). 

I'll gladly take correction if you have it to give, Meerkat, but I really don't think I'm out on a limb here.  And if my understanding is anywhere close, then it has profound implication for the understanding of faith in an LDS context, per my previous post. 

--Erik

______________________________________

Television man is crazy
Saying we're juvenile delinquent wrecks
Oh man I need T.V.
When I got T. Rex

--Mott the Hoople, 1972

 

I believe Ash is describing how God can communicate with anyone in their own language, not how God may choose not to communicate with a person via parables.  Example: God told Jonah directly what was expected of him.  Jonah tried to run. God communicated with Jonah in a language he could understand.  Jonah got the message and obeyed.  

I'm trying to consider Ash's work as a whole, not parsing one sentence to fit my meaning.  I think you are mistaken about Ash's premise.  That's my two cents.

[theplains]

On 16/08/2017 at 1:17 PM, Avatar4321 said:

 

And He has appeared to the saints in this dispensation and we do likewise

I believe the LDS started their fall into disbelief when they accepted Joseph Smith's teachings that
Heavenly Father was once a man who became a god and that Jesus is the first spirit born to heavenly
parents who progressed into godhood when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life.

Jim

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the LDS started their fall into disbelief when they accepted Joseph Smith's teachings that
Heavenly Father was once a man who became a god and that Jesus is the first spirit born to heavenly
parents who progressed into godhood when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life.

Jim

There is much speculation about the origin of God and man.  Scriptures can be used to support a corporeal God or that God is a spirit. Regardless of which is accurate, there is enough uncertainty that any view of God requires a substantial amount of faith. Apparently, that is part of God's plan.

We do know, whether LDS, Protestant, Catholic, or you name it, that faith in Jesus Christ can transform lives from sinners to saints.

All religions have enough mistakes and uncertainties in them that it's  not difficult to take shots at them. I dont know that comments like the plains above are any more helpful than complaining that Christians began our fall when we believed in a God who created the world and allowed Himself to be killed, rose from the dead and asked his followers to eat his body and drink His blood. To me, one sounds no more unreasonable than the other.  

Yet I am a true believer in Jesus Christ since before reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it.  My faith in Him has only been strengthened since joining this wonderful Church.  And to me, the LDS version of God makes sense.  It inspires me to want to live as John suggested in 1 John 3:1-3:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
            Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
            And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

Edited August 21, 2017 by Meerkat

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe the LDS started their fall into disbelief when they accepted Joseph Smith's teachings that
Heavenly Father was once a man who became a god and that Jesus is the first spirit born to heavenly
parents who progressed into godhood when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life.

Jim

And yet the new testament is clear about both God becoming a Man and Jesus being the Firstborn

[Five Solas]

On 8/19/2017 at 8:57 PM, bluebell said:

I read that book a number of years ago. I've read mostKrakauer's books I think.

But your advice doesn't pass your own test. People have used scripture many times throughout history to justify acts of violence. 

David Koresh, as one example, used the Bible extensively to justify plural marriage, statutory rape, violence, murder, and suicide. 

If we can't tell people to rely on the Holy Ghost (because they could be deceived) and we can't tell them to rely on scripture (because they could be deceived), what do  we tell them?

Says bluebell, I'll see your Lafferty bros., and raise you David Koresh!

Although the latter name probably doesn't pop into too many minds on the matter of biblical exegesis.  But at least we've staying on topic, albeit loosely.

;0)

Regarding your last sentence, no one is suggesting we should ignore God (I'm not sure that's even possible--although Meerkat's previous example of Jonah reminds us we can run, at least for a little while).  But if your spirit tells you the Book of Mormon (or anything else) is on par with the Bible, then I'm afraid you've dialed the wrong number.  Spirits should be tested, and yes, the Bible tells us that (1 John 4:1). 

I've long appreciated John Calvin's explanation of the office of the Holy Spirit.  If you've heard it too many times before, forgive me--

But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

--Erik

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Says bluebell, I'll see your Lafferty bros., and raise you David Koresh!

Although the latter name probably doesn't pop into too many minds on the matter of biblical exegesis.  But at least we've staying on topic, albeit loosely.

;0)

Regarding your last sentence, no one is suggesting we should ignore God (I'm not sure that's even possible--although Meerkat's previous example of Jonah reminds us we can run, at least for a little while).  But if your spirit tells you the Book of Mormon (or anything else) is on par with the Bible, then I'm afraid you've dialed the wrong number.  Spirits should be tested, and yes, the Bible tells us that (1 John 4:1). 

I've long appreciated John Calvin's explanation of the office of the Holy Spirit.  If you've heard it too many times before, forgive me--

But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

--Erik

Taking your excellent reference, 1 John 4:1

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

He is not suggesting here that there will not be future prophets that are sent by God.  I believe he is telling us to "try the spirits" when they do come.  Otherwise John would have said "Don't believe anyone who represents himself as a prophet."  Mormons take that scripture to heart.  They don't reject the prophets. They "try the spirits" to determine whether it is a prophet sent by God. 

The Book of Mormon is very direct in how to do this.  It involves prayer, exercising faith in Jesus Christ and receiving an answer by the power of the Holy Ghost.  (See Moroni 10)  Here are a few verses:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
            5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
            6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
            7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever."

You referenced John Calvin.  He was a great theologian of the Reformation.  He never claimed to be a prophet.  Yet he introduced interpretation of predestination that put him and his followers at odds with other leaders of the Reformation, significantly Martin Luther. Calvin believed that people were predistined to receive salvation.  Luther believed anyone could receive salvation based on their faith in Jesus Christ.

That important doctrinal difference alone demonstrates why a clarification from God was needed.  As later in Joseph's time, ministers of the different faiths understood "the same passages of scriptures so differently" that it was impossible to settle their questions from the Bible alone.  A prophet was needed.  

Fortunately, the Apostle Paul alluded to that in Ephesians 4:11-14.  He said that apostles, prophets and others would help us "come in unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."  That's why a prophet was needed.  The existing scriptures were confusing.  We needed and need unity of the faith.

God did show us how to know if a prophet is true:

I believe, with 2 Peter1:19-21, that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."  We seek that Spirit that we may determine for ourselves whether, as Five Solas stated, We have "dialed the wrong number."  I am satisfied that the Holy Ghost bears witness thatThe Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ, is true.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Meerkat

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Says bluebell, I'll see your Lafferty bros., and raise you David Koresh!

Although the latter name probably doesn't pop into too many minds on the matter of biblical exegesis.  But at least we've staying on topic, albeit loosely.

;0)

Regarding your last sentence, no one is suggesting we should ignore God (I'm not sure that's even possible--although Meerkat's previous example of Jonah reminds us we can run, at least for a little while).  But if your spirit tells you the Book of Mormon (or anything else) is on par with the Bible, then I'm afraid you've dialed the wrong number.  Spirits should be tested, and yes, the Bible tells us that (1 John 4:1). 

I've long appreciated John Calvin's explanation of the office of the Holy Spirit.  If you've heard it too many times before, forgive me--

But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John 16:13), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

--Erik

I would consider Koresh more of a call than a raise.  I only used him as an example because I had just watched a show about him last week and he was fresh in my mind. I didn't bother googling the topic and just went with him.  He was hugely into the bible, and had large parts of it memorized while he was still a kid.  And he was very much in prayer and trying to find out God's will for him.  And he got it SO. VERY. WRONG.   

Oh well.  Just like how David Koresh doesn't make you doubt the bible or stop praying to know God's will for you, the Lafferty bros. don't do that for me either.  

Your quote from John Calvin is interesting, but why should I care what John Calvin has to say (no disrespect intended).  That quote is just a man teaching his religious beliefs.  Why should I believe he's right?  If i try to use the bible to see if he's right, doesn't the bible show that he's not?  For example, wasn't the revelation to Peter about preaching to the gentiles new and unheard of doctrine at the time?  If Peter had been following Calvin's teachings on the subject, wouldn't he have had to deny that such was actually from God because it "formed new and unheard-of revelation"?

[clarkgoble]

On 8/20/2017 at 2:29 PM, theplains said:

I believe the LDS started their fall into disbelief when they accepted Joseph Smith's teachings that
Heavenly Father was once a man who became a god and that Jesus is the first spirit born to heavenly
parents who progressed into godhood when he reached a pinnacle of intelligence in the pre-mortal life.

I believe traditional Christians started their fall into apostasy when they accepted the platonic philosophers' teachings that God wasn't material and denied that Jesus was really God's son who experienced all it means to be human including ignorance and progression. i.e. denied Jesus was really fully human

Edited August 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[theplains]

On 20/08/2017 at 8:40 PM, Avatar4321 said:

And yet the new testament is clear about both God becoming a Man and Jesus being the Firstborn

How are Israel and Ephraim considered the firstborn (Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9)?

Thanks,
Jim

[Five Solas]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:57 AM, Meerkat said:

Taking your excellent reference, 1 John 4:1

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

He is not suggesting here that there will not be future prophets that are sent by God.  I believe he is telling us to "try the spirits" when they do come.  Otherwise John would have said "Don't believe anyone who represents himself as a prophet."  Mormons take that scripture to heart.  They don't reject the prophets. They "try the spirits" to determine whether it is a prophet sent by God. 

The Book of Mormon is very direct in how to do this.  It involves prayer, exercising faith in Jesus Christ and receiving an answer by the power of the Holy Ghost.  (See Moroni 10)  Here are a few verses:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
            5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
            6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
            7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever."

You referenced John Calvin.  He was a great theologian of the Reformation.  He never claimed to be a prophet.  Yet he introduced interpretation of predestination that put him and his followers at odds with other leaders of the Reformation, significantly Martin Luther. Calvin believed that people were predistined to receive salvation.  Luther believed anyone could receive salvation based on their faith in Jesus Christ.

That important doctrinal difference alone demonstrates why a clarification from God was needed.  As later in Joseph's time, ministers of the different faiths understood "the same passages of scriptures so differently" that it was impossible to settle their questions from the Bible alone.  A prophet was needed.  

Fortunately, the Apostle Paul alluded to that in Ephesians 4:11-14.  He said that apostles, prophets and others would help us "come in unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."  That's why a prophet was needed.  The existing scriptures were confusing.  We needed and need unity of the faith.

God did show us how to know if a prophet is true:

I believe, with 2 Peter1:19-21, that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."  We seek that Spirit that we may determine for ourselves whether, as Five Solas stated, We have "dialed the wrong number."  I am satisfied that the Holy Ghost bears witness thatThe Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ, is true.

Yes, the Book of Mormon does have a recipe.  But its prerequisites are a little funny, when you think about them.  Where does faith in Jesus come from?  Should its reader read the Bible first in order to come to the table with requisite faith?  And what is this about sincerity and real intent?  Doesn't that just make it the reader's fault if he or she doesn't obtain the promised manifestation?  That seems awfully convenient for its proponents: The Church is TRUE, the problem is YOU.  Keep trying, try it again, try it harder next time...  

And let me add this.  Your grasp of the respective doctrines of Luther and Calvin is pretty hazy, Meerkat.  There was never a significant dispute in their day over the biblical doctrine of predestination (the question of "double-predestination" would come with a subsequent generation of Reformers).  Luther's deep disagreement with Calvin concerned the meaning and implication of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (Luther's view was more akin to traditional Catholicism).  This was the real stumbling block to their potential unity.  

But you can easily close your deficiency with any number of online resources on the subject of these two remarkable men. 

Now forgive me for saying so, but your words & understanding remind me of a comparative religion class I took at LDS Institute while I was a student at the University of Washington.  Among other curious things we learned, "Baptists believe they are saved through baptism."  But I guess you could say any deficiency in understanding was compensated--by the depth of the instructor's sincerity.  And for what it's worth, I actually got expelled from that program for speaking up.  True story. 

I just had to get that last bit off my chest, after all these years.  Forgive my digression.  But we could have had much better discussions if they'd just raise their game a little. 

:0)

--Erik

PS.  Would you be willing to share how you tested whether Thomas S. Monson "is a prophet sent by the Lord?"  I'm honestly curious about that. 

__________________________________________________

All that summertime I revolved around your eye
In accelerating spirals in an asymmetric sky
You slow down, you slow down
Lights are changing

--Mary Lou Lord, 1995

[Meerkat]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

 Q1 Where does faith in Jesus come from? 

Q2 Should its reader read the Bible first in order to come to the table with requisite faith? 

Q3 And what is this about sincerity and real intent?  Doesn't that just make it the reader's fault if he or she doesn't obtain the promised manifestation? 

That seems awfully convenient for its proponents: The Church is TRUE, the problem is YOU.  Keep trying, try it again, try it harder next time...  

Q4. Your grasp of the respective doctrines of Luther and Calvin is pretty hazy, Meerkat.  There was never a significant dispute in their day over the biblical doctrine of predestination (the question of "double-predestination" would come with a subsequent generation of Reformers). 

Q5. But you can easily close your deficiency with any number of online resources on the subject of these two remarkable men. 

Q6.  Now forgive me for saying so, but your words & understanding remind me of a comparative religion class I took at LDS Institute while I was a student at the University of Washington.  Among other curious things we learned, "Baptists believe they are saved through baptism."  But I guess you could say any deficiency in understanding was compensated--by the depth of the instructor's sincerity.  And for what it's worth, I actually got expelled from that program for speaking up.  True story. 

I just had to get that last bit off my chest, after all these years.  Forgive my digression. 

Q7. But we could have had much better discussions if they'd just raise their game a little. 

:0)

--Erik

Q8.  PS.  Would you be willing to share how you tested whether Thomas S. Monson "is a prophet sent by the Lord?"  I'm honestly curious about that. 

__________________________________________________

All that summertime I revolved around your eye
In accelerating spirals in an asymmetric sky
You slow down, you slow down
Lights are changing

--Mary Lou Lord, 1995

Q1. My theory is that faith in Christ comes in response to desire and prayer.  I was raised as a Lutheran.  2 years of confirmation classes, Luther League on Wednesdays, the whole bit. My first experience with faith in Christ did not come in the Lutheran Church.   We lived in Cordova, Alaska.  A man came through town who's life had been transformed by Christ while in prison.  I heard his story, wanted Christ in my life and prayed.  Within minutes, I felt what I now recognize as the Holy Ghost testify of Christ.  When I walked down that dirt road looking up at the night sky,  I thought "I didn't know this yesterday.  What happens if I forget tomorrow?"  The next day came, and I did forget for a number of years.  Hence my need of the constant companionship if the Holy Ghost.

Q2.  I was not a Bible reader at the time.

Q3.  My view is that a sincere heart with real intent enhances all conversations whether between you and me, or man and God. Although I have fallen into the trap of feeling more intelligent and making disparaging remarks to strengthen my position perhaps, my experience is that it doesn't tend to open hearts and minds.  I have felt emboldened by my wit in the moment, but embarrassed by same when I had a chance to think about it. It still happens more often than I care to admit. Sorry.  

Q4.  I do hold both of them nearly in as high a regard as I do Joseph Smith because they sought to do God's will regardless of the personal consequences.  They helped lay the foundation for the printing of the Bible and restoration of the Gospel.  They had similarities, as they do with Mormon doctrine of faith in Christ. I believe God inspired them to do what they did.  My point was to illustrate the need for a prophet to address the confusion among so many religions.  But you knew that, right?  I know very little about Baptist theology, other than the Baptists I know believe in Christ and live their lives accordingly.  My Baptist neighbors tell me baptism is not a requirement for Salvation, according to their understanding.

Q5.  I don't claim to be an expert on either Calvin or Luther.  As you said, there is much available on the internet, if one is interested in that discussion.  You brought up Calvin.

Q6. Regarding being expelled, I think many of us were obnoxious from time to time when we were young.  I was expelled from my Lutheran confirmation class once (although I was probably considerably younger than you were, and am sure I deserved it.)  Taking you at your word, is there any chance you misunderstood what the instructor was saying?  I would be surprised if a salaried CES instructor didn't have a better understanding.  If it was a volunteer, it's unfortunate they didn't prepare better for their class.

Q7.  Actually, my experience is that a non scholar can have an edifying conversation with just about anyone, if the goal is not one upping each other, but trying to understand one another. 🤔

Q8.  Re: Thomas S. Monson, my testimony is subjective and circular.  I know The Book of Mormon is true because I prayerfully study it nearly every day.  Therefore, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet.  The Holy Ghost testified the Book of Mormon was true when the Missionaries of the LDS Church taught me. Therefore, I know Harold B. Lee was a prophet, as are his successors.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost confirms it to my satisfaction.  I have seen signs and wonders in my own life.  I have the fruits of the Gospel in my life.  I feel the security of the Holy Ghost in my life.  That is all the evidence I need.  And you can have it too.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Meerkat

[Five Solas]

Appreciate how you’ve organized the discussion, Meerkat.  And thank you for sharing a bit of your story.  My brief thoughts, in order as you’ve presented.

Q1 – I think you have the cart before the horse.  In the Bible, God initiates, we respond (1 John 4:19).  And faith is a gift, not something we create out of our own volition (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Q2 – Interesting you were raised Lutheran but didn’t read the Bible.  Guessing you weren’t part of the LCMS, but maybe I’m wrong about that.

Q3 – No worries

Q4 – I always find it curious when LDS praise the Protestant Reformation as a stepping stone to Joseph Smith.  A while back I kicked off a thread about it.  Mfbukowski had it right, from an LDS perspective (4^th post down).  And you don’t hear me say that often!

Q5 – Agree with you.

Q6 – Salaried CES professionals.  Interesting tidbit, every one of them had an Ed. D.  A curious degree, signifying no real depth in, well, anything.  (And CES's fondness for the Ed. D. extends well beyond Seattle, I'm told.)  But what do I know, I only have a bachelor’s in business with an accounting emphasis (and I went on to get my CPA). 

Q7 – I hope that’s true, perhaps even right here.

Q8 – Not quite the logic of 1 John 4.  But to your point—it works for you (and you think it would work for me too).  Really though, the question shouldn't be what works for you or me--the proper question is what works for God.  And when we elevate our feelings, other people (e.g., Monson), other books to be on par with the Bible, things tend to go sideways, sooner or later.  But that’s just my experience.

Enjoy your Sunday, Meerkat.

--Erik

Edited August 27, 2017 by Five Solas
qualifier

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate how you’ve organized the discussion, Meerkat.  And thank you for sharing a bit of your story.  My brief thoughts, in order as you’ve presented.

Q1 – I think you have the cart before the horse.  In the Bible, God initiates, we respond (1 John 4:19).  And faith is a gift, not something we create out of our own volition (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Q2 – Interesting you were raised Lutheran but didn’t read the Bible.  Guessing you weren’t part of the LCMS, but maybe I’m wrong about that.

Q3 – No worries

Q4 – I always find it curious when LDS praise the Protestant Reformation as a stepping stone to Joseph Smith.  A while back I kicked off a thread about it.  Mfbukowski had it right, from an LDS perspective (4^th post down).  And you don’t hear me say that often!

Q5 – Agree with you.

Q6 – Salaried CES professionals.  Interesting tidbit, every one of them had an Ed. D.  A curious degree, signifying no real depth in, well, anything.  (And CES's fondness for the Ed. D. extends well beyond Seattle, I'm told.)  But what do I know, I only have a bachelor’s in business with an accounting emphasis (and I went on to get my CPA). 

Q7 – I hope that’s true, perhaps even right here.

Q8 – Not quite the logic of 1 John 4.  But to your point—it works for you (and you think it would work for me too).  Really though, the question shouldn't be what works for you or me--the proper question is what works for God.  And when we elevate our feelings, other people (e.g., Monson), other books to be on par with the Bible, things tend to go sideways, sooner or later.  But that’s just my experience.

Enjoy your Sunday, Meerkat.

--Erik

1.  I agree it is a gift, and have always felt that.  And I don't have a problem with God initiating in order for me to receive it, as in the evangelist telling his story.

2.  I was 9.  We didn't read the Bible in our home.  I didn't start reading it until seminary age (12) in confirmation class.

8.  Thomas Monson isn't any more elevated than the men God called as prophets and apostles anciently.  All were mortals, sinners just like you and me.  God used them, even though some had serious lapses in faith, judgment, obedience, etc.

I hope you enjoy your Sunday also!