King Follett Sermon Take 2!

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I do not understand why you say an interpretation of #1 contravenes the doctrine of resurrection he taught. Is that because he taught the "permanency" of the resurrection with such words as "eternal" or "forever"? If so that does not preclude a future MMP by choice or until "the end."

Did God say he never sinned? Hmm. I thought Gen 3:22 says that through the fall Adam and Eve became even as "us" knowing good and evil?

The scriptures seem to present God in His present form since "the beginning" as one who will not lie as a man, and is the same eternally. As someone who became the Father even as Christ does infer an eternal inheritance and knowledge. I believe this is something one would inherit through priesthood - even as Melchizedek became without father or mother.

"For that is the way Father gained his knowledge" - ie through the fall.  You know the source but you might have to think about it. 

Of course that source is "Satan" so do we believe that character in the play or not?   

And yet he told us to accept all the teachings and live up to the covenants or we would be in his power.  So which Satan should we believe?

Why should we believe Satan in a play and call him the "father of lies" elsewhere?

Only some of the problems of literalism!  And the difference between The Endowment and the presentation of the endowment!

My advice is to avoid mechanistic explanations of things which cannot be shown to be mechanistic unless we really need those kinds of explanations to bolster our testimonies, but understand that they are crutches to do that.

D&C 29

 

Quote

 

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—

32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agentunto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Oh, contrare my dear Watson. We will have example, and visible confirmation. 

"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. As many were astonished at thee - his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men - so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Verily, verily, I say unto you, all these things shall surely come, even as the Father hath commanded me. Then shall this covenant which the Father hath covenanted with his people be fulfilled; and then shall Jerusalem be inhabited again with my people, and it shall be the land of their inheritance." 3 Nephi 20:43-6. "And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place - that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion;... Therefore, when these works and the works shall be wrought among you hereafter shall come forth from the Gentiles, unto your seed which shall dwindle in unbelief because of iniquity; For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel; And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things - it shall be a sign unto them...." 3 Nephi 21:1-7. "For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them. But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet, I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant." 3 Nephi 21:9-11.

No .....kidding....Sherlock if you take the BOM literally.

Just a tad circular, mi amigo.   But ya know I love ya!

Quote

33 Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"For that is the way Father gained his knowledge" - ie through the fall.  You know the source but you might have to think about it. 

Of course that source is "Satan" so do we believe that character in the play or not?   

And yet he told us to accept all the teachings and live up to the covenants or we would be in his power.  So which Satan should we believe?

Why should we believe Satan in a play and call him the "father of lies" elsewhere?

Only some of the problems of literalism!  And the difference between The Endowment and the presentation of the endowment!

My advice is to avoid mechanistic explanations of things which cannot be shown to be mechanistic unless we really need those kinds of explanations to bolster our testimonies, but understand that they are crutches to do that.

I didn't bring that up. You did friend. Gen 3:22 is not from Satan but from our YHWH Elohim. So, it has no such problem. I will say from scripture, that the lie was that they wouldn't "die." So the part you are referencing comes from true scriptural precepts, that is indeed how the Father learned.

Edited October 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

No .....kidding....Sherlock if you take the BOM literally.

Just a tad circular, mi amigo.   But ya know I love ya!

Should I not take the BoM literally? What is circular? Please explain.

But if you need more there is more per scripture. We have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah & 

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Edited October 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

On 10/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."

I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:

 https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999

Thanks for the link, but looking through its 116 pages for a good bit, I didn't find the page that contains the quote. I wonder if my browser kinda blanked the page... it seemed to have some issue showing all the pages. Do you know the exact page of the reader the quote is on?

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for the link, but looking through its 116 pages for a good bit, I didn't find the page that contains the quote. I wonder if my browser kinda blanked the page... it seemed to have some issue showing all the pages. Do you know the exact page of the reader the quote is on?

Hey Rev, I haven’t dug through the images myself and would need to fire up my laptop to find a link to the quotation/page, but the entry should be on Dec. 30 1841, and I saw the citation of MS 23512 from someone who quoted only the latter portion of it. That date should get you there though!

 

[Stargazer]

A couple of years ago I started thinking that there must be multiple mortal probations, given that I consider that for most of us one mortal lifetime doesn't provide what I would consider near enough testing.  Not that I want to be tested more than once! I thought it was my very own bright idea, but I see that I was wrong. I've been mightily impressed by the contributions thus far to this topic, and it has provoked a lot of thought. I don't think I can contribute materially to the topic at this point, but I would like to encourage the rest of you to keep it up!

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Should I not take the BoM literally? What is circular? Please explain.

But if you need more there is more per scripture. We have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah & 

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

What are you trying to show here?  I am not following your logic at all.

What does this have to do with multiple probations?

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Was the King Follett discourse historically true in Joseph Smith's day but false in our day?

The question is incoherent. How could something be historically true one day and not on a later day? Historical truth refers to past events, doesn't it? If something was "historically true" in 1844, how could it not be "historically true" in 2017?

15 hours ago, theplains said:

  If false, he would have to be viewed as a deceiver because he was preaching a false god (a man who became the God and Heavenly Father of
our Earth).

Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, what your sole interest in Mormon things is.

15 hours ago, theplains said:

As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god.

See attached.

Thanks,
Jim

lds - teachings about heavenly father.pdf

And why should this be a problem for us?

[cdowis]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

 As a side note, the LDS Church continues to propagate this teaching of God once being a man who became
a god.

As a side note, Mormons are Bible believing Christians and we accept what it teaches.  We accept ALL of the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.

But you already knew that.

Edited October 29, 2017 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:03 PM, Stargazer said:

A couple of years ago I started thinking that there must be multiple mortal probations, given that I consider that for most of us one mortal lifetime doesn't provide what I would consider near enough testing.  Not that I want to be tested more than once! I thought it was my very own bright idea, but I see that I was wrong. I've been mightily impressed by the contributions thus far to this topic, and it has provoked a lot of thought. I don't think I can contribute materially to the topic at this point, but I would like to encourage the rest of you to keep it up!

Apparently Terryl Givens is weighing in on the topic with his next book The Christ Who Heals. He pushes a more Talmage view of progression between kingdoms. It sounds like he is touching on MMP as well, but I can't tell from the people who've read it already.

[hope_for_things]

On 10/28/2017 at 10:53 AM, RevTestament said:

Maybe because like others you are drawn to the idea of trying to understand God? 

I don't believe a group of teenagers today could come up with this stuff through wild speculation. It is too radical, and would have come up before, if it was so subject to speculation. I believe it is somewhat hidden in the teachings of the NT so for the idea to even come up, one must understand the spirit of the NT and Yeshua's teachings. However, I pose that it will become much more evident to the Church.

Perhaps we learn about God the most when we imagine God and proof text scripture?  I don't know.  I've come up with a lot of odd ideas about life and the universe and God when I've imagined things. 

The difference for me is I didn't start a religion and try to claim that my musings were universal religious truths.  I would be horrified at the idea of people following me or following any of my wild speculations as inspired scripture.   

Interesting to think about as I was just listening to podcast on the NT where they were pointing out that Paul had no idea that his letters would later be canonized as scripture, and likened that to you or I writing emails or maybe even posting on an internet message board like this one, and some future group collecting our posts and canonizing them as scripture.  

[hope_for_things]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:11 AM, mfbukowski said:

Maybe time to start reading other sources like philosophy etc and writing your own stuff.

Kick your study of theology into another level?  Read theologians and compare what they say with what you think. 

But honestly in my opinion "Mormonism" in the larger sense,  is the only "true and living church" largely because it is the only path to God compatible with the way you are turning, IN MY OPINION, for what it's worth.

And a church needs authority to have a consistency about it, even if it is not always consistent. 

But there is such a great flexibility here you will find nowhere else.  Just don't confuse people at church- that is the big no-no because in the final analysis they are just as "right" in their worlds as you are in yours.  Everybody gets to make their own.

Go to the scriptures and interpret them as you like.  If you want to stay within the church- as I absolutely insist upon doing for myself, stay within the bounds of the temple recommend questions and develop your own stuff and pray pray pray for inspiration and get close to God, and don't let the words get in the way.

Again, my two cents which may make sense or not.

Thanks, good advice.  I have been searching a little more than usual lately, wondering where some of my extra energies and passions.  Getting in better shape exercise wise, which has been fun.  Same with finances.  I've been having a harder time with the church attendance lately, questioning my motives for attendance, why I do it and whether its for the right reasons.  If I just go and sit through classes without participating I feel myself completely bored and critiquing everything.  If I go and get up the guts to give a few comments (usually the kind that try to make people think differently), sometimes I feel like I contributed in a good way and other times I feel like I'm saying things just to try and get other people to think differently, which makes me really question my motives.  

At any rate, I'm still searching, thankful for the life I have and my opportunities in it, and Mormonism will be a part of that in its complicated ways.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, good advice.  I have been searching a little more than usual lately, wondering where some of my extra energies and passions.  Getting in better shape exercise wise, which has been fun.  Same with finances.  I've been having a harder time with the church attendance lately, questioning my motives for attendance, why I do it and whether its for the right reasons.  If I just go and sit through classes without participating I feel myself completely bored and critiquing everything.  If I go and get up the guts to give a few comments (usually the kind that try to make people think differently), sometimes I feel like I contributed in a good way and other times I feel like I'm saying things just to try and get other people to think differently, which makes me really question my motives.  

At any rate, I'm still searching, thankful for the life I have and my opportunities in it, and Mormonism will be a part of that in its complicated ways.  

I think the proper attitude for Church is that we go to serve and to partake of the sacrament. I'll admit I fall down in this rather frequently since I particularly find Sunday School pretty pointless. However I do at my better times try and take the questions the teacher asks and ask myself questions on it. Priesthood I find much more valuable since the way it's usually taught is so pragmatic tied to day to day issues and lessons. Now I'm in primary teaching the 11 year olds, so that's all less of an issue. In it's odd way I find primary teaching much more fulfilling than actually going to Sunday School.

Where I really fall down - and I'd already been calling myself to repentance - is that I should be far more outgoing and welcoming to new members. If I read Moroni 6 and Mosiah 18 correctly, it's finding the needs of others and serving them that should be our main focus. I realize that I just do that very poorly. Part of that is just dealing with children and the inevitability it seems of being utterly exhausted by the time church rolls around. There's so much more I could be doing though. There's lots of people looking for a friendly voice and more importantly a friend.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the proper attitude for Church is that we go to serve and to partake of the sacrament. I'll admit I fall down in this rather frequently since I particularly find Sunday School pretty pointless. However I do at my better times try and take the questions the teacher asks and ask myself questions on it. Priesthood I find much more valuable since the way it's usually taught is so pragmatic tied to day to day issues and lessons. Now I'm in primary teaching the 11 year olds, so that's all less of an issue. In it's odd way I find primary teaching much more fulfilling than actually going to Sunday School.

Where I really fall down - and I'd already been calling myself to repentance - is that I should be far more outgoing and welcoming to new members. If I read Moroni 6 and Mosiah 18 correctly, it's finding the needs of others and serving them that should be our main focus. I realize that I just do that very poorly. Part of that is just dealing with children and the inevitability it seems of being utterly exhausted by the time church rolls around. There's so much more I could be doing though. There's lots of people looking for a friendly voice and more importantly a friend.

Thanks Clark, I agree with you on this.  I think my best Sundays are when I'm looking to uplift and serve others, when I'm not as focused on myself and when I'm focused on how I can help others.  I can get good from introspection sometimes at church, but I feel like that my best introspection happens when I'm not at church.  

Unfortunately church just feels so long and tedious for me, and because some of my kids who don't want to attend, it feels like I'm picking and choosing to attend at the expense of certain family members.  So I end up going infrequently which I'm sure to the ward community makes it seem like my devotion to the group isn't as strong as it should be, but instead its much more complicated than that.  

I agree with you on reaching out to new members too and being a friend and those are elements I really enjoy when I'm at my best and not in my head.  

[nuclearfuels]

Thanks for posting this. I've wondered about that same topic for a long time.

John 5:19 seems to speak to such a historical interpretation.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

-

Also, IMHO I'm not sure the idea that Christ was the Savior of every single one of His Divine Ancestors (infinite line from both of His Parents) makes much sense.

This topic also helps me understand how Adam and Eve taught the truth in it's fullness to their children, who then apostatized, and how reincarnation looks past the mark but clearly has evolved from divine truth about specific, very different phases of existence (intelligence, premortal, mortal, post-mortal (probably has a billion phases within it or a billion ruings on the ladder Joseph mentioned).

 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps we learn about God the most when we imagine God and proof text scripture?  I don't know.  I've come up with a lot of odd ideas about life and the universe and God when I've imagined things. 

The difference for me is I didn't start a religion and try to claim that my musings were universal religious truths.  I would be horrified at the idea of people following me or following any of my wild speculations as inspired scripture.   

It does seem Yeshua Himself was a little daunted by the task, and thought about shrinking from the task, but thankfully, He did not. Joseph set about accomplishing the task set before him, although I believe somewhat imperfectly, but I am thankful to him too. He did a pretty good job on the whole. If you are horrified by the idea of being a leader, I think it is because being a true leader is a daunting task - which not all are called to do. 

Quote

Interesting to think about as I was just listening to podcast on the NT where they were pointing out that Paul had no idea that his letters would later be canonized as scripture, and likened that to you or I writing emails or maybe even posting on an internet message board like this one, and some future group collecting our posts and canonizing them as scripture.  

I believe Paul to be a true follower, but he spoke in a somewhat circular pharisaic fashion - making him sometimes a little difficult to understand. It is apparent that his letters were not dictated by the Lord, and Paul sometimes says that his words are more personal advice than by way of commandment or directive from the Lord. Joseph's revelations in D&C are usually direct dictations from the Lord, although they were sometimes given in segments. I imagine Joseph did his best to be accurate, but that is about all that was really required of him in the way of "work."

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Apparently Terryl Givens is weighing in on the topic with his next book The Christ Who Heals. He pushes a more Talmage view of progression between kingdoms. It sounds like he is touching on MMP as well, but I can't tell from the people who've read it already.

This is one of the things that I was told was LDS doctrine by the member family that brought me into the Church. That if you were in the Telestial Kingdom, you could, eventually, be promoted to the Terrestrial and even the Celestial.  I have had an uneasy relationship with this idea -- potentially this means that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong could be exalted. Or for that matter, Genghis Khan.  I have swung back and forth between giving and not giving this notion some credence. It seems possible, from a certain point of view. After all, neither Paul's statement on the three glories nor D&C 76 explicitly exclude it. Except for the Sons of Perdition.  

Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter. Because my most important business is to see to my own salvation. Whatever the Lord does, He does, and I trust Him to do right.

[RevTestament]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

What are you trying to show here?  I am not following your logic at all.

What does this have to do with multiple probations?

Mark as I said this cannot really be "proven" from our current scriptures. It is a matter of interpretation, but it will become more apparent.

Most Christians will simply assume that the "our Lord" is Heavenly Father. I thought He already had the kingdoms, and that it was Yeshua who was to inherit them - See Isaiah 65:9. Where else in the NT is Heavenly Father referred to as "our Lord?" Or anywhere else in scripture for that matter? He is referred to as the Lord/Life our Elohim/house of Power/family.

Here, let's try a few more to hopefully shed further light on the subject:

Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, YHWH our righteousness.

Isa 60:

1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thyside.

5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentilesshall come unto thee.

6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord.

7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

8 Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?

9 Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.

10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.

11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may bebrought.

12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feetglorious.

14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the Lord, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.

18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.

19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlastinglight, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

22 A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time.

Who is who here and what is the branch? Shall this branch be called as Jeremiah says? What does YHWH mean? A lot of these things just are usually taken for granted. If this branch is indeed to be called YHWH, what does that mean for the future kingdom?

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It does seem Yeshua Himself was a little daunted by the task, and thought about shrinking from the task, but thankfully, He did not. Joseph set about accomplishing the task set before him, although I believe somewhat imperfectly, but I am thankful to him too. He did a pretty good job on the whole. If you are horrified by the idea of being a leader, I think it is because being a true leader is a daunting task - which not all are called to do. 

The narrative about Jesus feeling daunted by the task is just the remnants of what we have from some of the remnants of his followers and whats was created in the gospels.  I don't think these tell us much about what Jesus thought.  They are the best we have, but I think of these works as literary works that communities created and that survived because of the meaning they had to those communities.  So I wouldn't think of them as telling us much about the history of Jesus and what he actually believed about his role, which I think a close reading of the gospels shows a very different personality of Jesus in each gospel narrative. 

For Joseph I have studied his history more than any other person in Mormonism, and he's a complicated person.  I tend to think that during his youth and during the treasure digging years that he developed a tendency to be comfortable telling stories that were exaggerated and getting people to believe him.  I believe that his success in convincing people of the reality of his ideas (treasures, ancient civilizations, etc) and the fact that many others in his community also believed in these things led to a level of self deception that he also believed in the reality of these things on some level in his psyche. 

Now, there is no way to know how real he really believed these things, or how far he bought into his own stories.  But its interesting to read his earliest revelations and see the progression from tentatively speaking in the voice of God to more bold proclamations.  Unfortunately I think he was a victim of his success, in that the more people were willing to grant authority to him, the more contests of authority that he was able to win, the more he believed that this was a sign of some kind of divine approval for his religious innovations.  As his excesses became increasingly extreme this eventually led to his death.  

I don't see the overarching history of Joseph as one to emulate.  There are flickers of inspired thought and attributes worthy of emulation, but I don't see the larger narrative as something we should aspire too from a leadership perspective, more of a cautionary tale of what power and ego can lead to.  

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe Paul to be a true follower, but he spoke in a somewhat circular pharisaic fashion - making him sometimes a little difficult to understand. It is apparent that his letters were not dictated by the Lord, and Paul sometimes says that his words are more personal advice than by way of commandment or directive from the Lord. Joseph's revelations in D&C are usually direct dictations from the Lord, although they were sometimes given in segments. I imagine Joseph did his best to be accurate, but that is about all that was really required of him in the way of "work."

Nothing in the history of writing has ever been dictated by the Lord, everything ever written came from the mind of a human, through the hand of a human to the paper manufactured by a human.  That Joseph had the audacity to write in first person prose as if God was speaking directly, shows us only what Joseph thought about his writings.  Interestingly when Joseph later edited these writings it caused problems for many of the early saints, because they too believed the words were directly from God and if God is inerrant then how could these words need to be changed.   Whether anything written was inspired by the spark of the divine is a matter of personal perspective and faith, but not an objective assumption we should make when reading the text.  

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The narrative about Jesus feeling daunted by the task is just the remnants of what we have from some of the remnants of his followers and whats was created in the gospels.  I don't think these tell us much about what Jesus thought.

Actually, we have a definite indication of what Jesus felt in regard to the task of the Atonement:

D&C 19:18 --> "18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—"

He knew what was coming, and he was daunted. That's clear. Now, you can look at the Gospels and say that it doesn't say what Jesus actually thought and felt, because it was his followers that wrote about it, years and years after the events, and how can we know that they were reporting accurately and all. I can accept that one might have an arguable point.  But in DC 19:18 we have the Lord reporting for himself, I don't think there's much room for quibbling about it. 

Unless you think that Joseph Smith made it all up.  Which, of course, is exactly what you think:

Joseph had the audacity to write in first person prose as if God was speaking directly

Edited October 30, 2017 by Stargazer

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The narrative about Jesus feeling daunted by the task is just the remnants of what we have from some of the remnants of his followers and whats was created in the gospels.  I don't think these tell us much about what Jesus thought.  They are the best we have, but I think of these works as literary works that communities created and that survived because of the meaning they had to those communities.  So I wouldn't think of them as telling us much about the history of Jesus and what he actually believed about his role, which I think a close reading of the gospels shows a very different personality of Jesus in each gospel narrative. 

For Joseph I have studied his history more than any other person in Mormonism, and he's a complicated person.  I tend to think that during his youth and during the treasure digging years that he developed a tendency to be comfortable telling stories that were exaggerated and getting people to believe him.  I believe that his success in convincing people of the reality of his ideas (treasures, ancient civilizations, etc) and the fact that many others in his community also believed in these things led to a level of self deception that he also believed in the reality of these things on some level in his psyche. 

Now, there is no way to know how real he really believed these things, or how far he bought into his own stories.  But its interesting to read his earliest revelations and see the progression from tentatively speaking in the voice of God to more bold proclamations.  Unfortunately I think he was a victim of his success, in that the more people were willing to grant authority to him, the more contests of authority that he was able to win, the more he believed that this was a sign of some kind of divine approval for his religious innovations.  As his excesses became increasingly extreme this eventually led to his death.  

I don't see the overarching history of Joseph as one to emulate.  There are flickers of inspired thought and attributes worthy of emulation, but I don't see the larger narrative as something we should aspire too from a leadership perspective, more of a cautionary tale of what power and ego can lead to.  

I have spoken similarly of Joseph - after all he was a sinning man. I think he did sin as a youth in an effort to help his family's financial situation. In fact I believe this delayed his receipt of the golden plates. I need to study what Joseph actually said about polygamy more closely vs, what was later reported he said - because I am not a fan of the exaltation through polygamy turn the Church took. If this really came from Joseph, I believe it is not something to be emulated, but has led to a lot of trouble not only for the Church, but has caused a lot of heartache to innocent women and children outside the Church.  Nevertheless, Joseph had many admirable qualities, and I still strongly identify with his ideals and desire to search out the truths of God.  I further testify of his true, prophetic status despite his shortcomings. He is the restorer of Christ's gospel on the earth, and through him the truths of the Bible became evident to man again. I think most men put in his shoes could hardly do better than he. There are reasons he was the head of the sixth seal.

Quote

Nothing in the history of writing has ever been dictated by the Lord, everything ever written came from the mind of a human, through the hand of a human to the paper manufactured by a human.  That Joseph had the audacity to write in first person prose as if God was speaking directly, shows us only what Joseph thought about his writings.  Interestingly when Joseph later edited these writings it caused problems for many of the early saints, because they too believed the words were directly from God and if God is inerrant then how could these words need to be changed.   Whether anything written was inspired by the spark of the divine is a matter of personal perspective and faith, but not an objective assumption we should make when reading the text.  

I am saddened that you have such difficulty believing scripture is inspired. 

D&C 130:12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Deut 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I will agree that not all scripture is dictated from the Lord, but many prophets have said "Thus saith the Lord" and the Lord has spoken to His servants over the millennium. If you had ever heard His voice, I don't think you would be a doubter. Scriptures are a mix of dictation, inspiration, perspiration, and sometimes just words of wisdom. For instance, I think it fairly obvious that Chronicles is a restatement of Kings and other works, and is not a book of dictation from the Lord. I believe the books of Moses to be a later compilation of Moses' writings and the remembrances of Joshua or Caleb. However, books like Revelation are essentially direct dictation from God, even if through a messenger. So, I disagree with you.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This is one of the things that I was told was LDS doctrine by the member family that brought me into the Church. That if you were in the Telestial Kingdom, you could, eventually, be promoted to the Terrestrial and even the Celestial.  I have had an uneasy relationship with this idea -- potentially this means that Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong could be exalted. Or for that matter, Genghis Khan.  I have swung back and forth between giving and not giving this notion some credence. It seems possible, from a certain point of view. After all, neither Paul's statement on the three glories nor D&C 76 explicitly exclude it. Except for the Sons of Perdition.  

Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter. Because my most important business is to see to my own salvation. Whatever the Lord does, He does, and I trust Him to do right.

I'm pretty dubious about the idea. It's interesting that it never really caught on, which I find somewhat significant if community reception can give an insight into inspiration. It's not perfect of course but it is I think indicative at times. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea mind you. But as I said there seem to be some big ontological assumptions behind it. Unsurprisingly those who tend to adopt a somewhat existential radical sense of freedom tend to favor it (as well as tending to be distrustful of foreknowledge). My personal view is that I'm pretty skeptical of privileging a certain ontology of free will without good cause. So I tend to be skeptical of open theism and related movements within Mormon theology. More just because of the reasoning than any real opposition to the ideas. (It just strikes me as theology done the basis of what we want to be true)

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Actually, we have a definite indication of what Jesus felt in regard to the task of the Atonement:

D&C 19:18 --> "18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—"

He knew what was coming, and he was daunted. That's clear. Now, you can look at the Gospels and say that it doesn't say what Jesus actually thought and felt, because it was his followers that wrote about it, years and years after the events, and how can we know that they were reporting accurately and all. I can accept that one might have an arguable point.  But in DC 19:18 we have the Lord reporting for himself, I don't think there's much room for quibbling about it. 

Unless you think that Joseph Smith made it all up.  Which, of course, is exactly what you think:

D&C 19 tells us what Joseph envisioned about Jesus.  Again, if you believe Joseph's articulation about Jesus applies to the Jesus of history, then that is a proposition of faith entirely.  I personally believe Joseph's thoughts about Jesus tell us only about the theological Jesus that Joseph perceived.  

I don't like saying the words "made it all up" because that sounds too pejorative to me, but thats pretty much what happened.  Every author that writes narratives is making it up.  Even those that study history imbue their narratives about history with a certain creative license. 

Do you believe Joseph was just a conduit for the words of God, just a passive receptacle like a receiver on the end of a telephone?  

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have spoken similarly of Joseph - after all he was a sinning man. I think he did sin as a youth in an effort to help his family's financial situation. In fact I believe this delayed his receipt of the golden plates. I need to study what Joseph actually said about polygamy more closely vs, what was later reported he said - because I am not a fan of the exaltation through polygamy turn the Church took. If this really came from Joseph, I believe it is not something to be emulated, but has led to a lot of trouble not only for the Church, but has caused a lot of heartache to innocent women and children outside the Church.  Nevertheless, Joseph had many admirable qualities, and I still strongly identify with his ideals and desire to search out the truths of God.  I further testify of his true, prophetic status despite his shortcomings. He is the restorer of Christ's gospel on the earth, and through him the truths of the Bible became evident to man again. I think most men put in his shoes could hardly do better than he. There are reasons he was the head of the sixth seal.

I would ask you this question.  How do you determine which things are divine and which are not.  It sounds like you believe that some of what Joseph created was inspired, and others weren't or at least you are questioning about their inspiration.   Do you think for those things that are divinely inspired that they are at the same time perfectly correct or inerrant?  For example, is a particular teaching either 100% inspired and 100% reflects the will of the divine, or could it be there are degrees of inspiration, in which case I wonder how you would determine which teachings are inspired and to what degree they are inspired.  

24 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am saddened that you have such difficulty believing scripture is inspired. 

D&C 130:12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

Deut 4:1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I will agree that not all scripture is dictated from the Lord, but many prophets have said "Thus saith the Lord" and the Lord has spoken to His servants over the millennium. If you had ever heard His voice, I don't think you would be a doubter. Scriptures are a mix of dictation, inspiration, perspiration, and sometimes just words of wisdom. For instance, I think it fairly obvious that Chronicles is a restatement of Kings and other works, and is not a book of dictation from the Lord. I believe the books of Moses to be a later compilation of Moses' writings and the remembrances of Joshua or Caleb. However, books like Revelation are essentially direct dictation from God, even if through a messenger. So, I disagree with you.

Scripture isn't something I elevate as writings from God.  I think there are elements that I find inspirational, but I recognize that the authors of scripture were humans just trying to reflect their beliefs, who had different motivations and context unique to their time and circumstances.  I find inspiration in many writings.  None of it is dictated by God.  The earliest passages in the D&C about the process of how the BoM was translated even says that Joseph had to study things out in his mind, indicating some level of creativity in the process.  At any rate, everything that ever was written by a human came through the mind and context of that human.  I see no evidence that any human was possessed by some kind of supernatural entity and that human produced text was somehow appeared independent of the knowledge and circumstances of that human's brain.  

Revelation is one of the worst books in the canon, it was kept out of the canon for many years and its very place in the canon has been controversial throughout the history of the Christian tradition.  Its so bad because it is misunderstood and used as a proof text for modern events when it has no relationship to modern events.  I wish we'd get rid of it.  

Interestingly the number of American's that view the bible as inerrant continues to decline, only 24% in this recent poll.  I consider myself in the 26% that believes scriptures are moral tales recorded by man.  

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx?g_source=Social+Issues&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles