RevTestament Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: But that's not the LDS view, is it? General conferences is not in your canon, yet Mormons consider that God's instruction, don't they? Quote I've seen other threads where people are arguing about what is canon and what isn't. I guess those who say general conference isn't canon are wrong. What I say here is not Church doctrine. Much of what is said in conference has the potential to be scripture. Scripture is for the whole Church. So all the conference talks are recorded. They are usually treated as authoritative by Church members. I don't believe all of it is scripture though. So, it seems it is up to the Church to determine what has been pronounced by the Holy Spirit, and therefore to be accepted as scripture. Note, that section 68 does not say one has to be president to be the mouthpiece of the Lord - an idea common in the Church today. All of the apostles are authorized to receive revelation for the Church. In fact I read it more broadly. Any holding the Melchizedek priesthood, or at least the office of High Priest may be moved to say something by the Holy Spirit which can be scripture. This gift is not limited to the Church President. Ultimately it is up to the Spirit or the Lord Himself. If the Spirit speaks to everyone and confirms it represents the will of the Lord, it will become scripture. In Joseph Smith's day the Lord did say He was speaking through Joseph Smith, so anyone who contradicted him could be rejected as spurious. I don't read that as being narrowly applicable today. I am one who does not personally accept everything the Church President or other leaders have said as scripture. In fact sometimes I feel it contradicts scripture. I do not accept the idea that what a living "prophet" (read President) says is more important than scripture. I believe Church Presidents are responsible for upholding the word of the Lord, and if they seem to depart from it, it better be convincing and move me so. In essence I tend to be more of an independent thinker, who for instance does not accept everything BY said just because it came out of his mouth. So there is room there for "tension" in what to believe is scripture. However, this is not the TBM view of things. Some on this board probably have some similar feelings, and will say "prophets are fallible." Some like my wife try to follow everything Church leaders say. To me that seems a bit high strung. I remember what impresses me or moves me. However, if they were to say "The Lord told me" or "I heard the spirit whisper" I would and do take note, and there are a good number of examples of this in the Church. Edited May 19, 2018 by RevTestament 2
Stormin' Mormon Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: I've seen other threads where people are arguing about what is canon and what isn't. I guess those who say general conference isn't canon are wrong. For LDS, not all scripture is canon. In fact, we have mountains of scripture that has never been canonized. So, yes: General Conference is scripture but it is not canon. Heck, my mission journals (or at least parts of them) are scripture, but not canon. 3
mfbukowski Posted May 19, 2018 Posted May 19, 2018 8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Thanks for the quote. I've seen other threads where people are arguing about what is canon and what isn't. I guess those who say general conference isn't canon are wrong. Thanks again for the link. What you don't understand still is that we all receive personal revelation for ourselves meaning that in the context of our personal lives we are our own Prophets. The Prophet receives Revelation for the church because he is the person who does so but each of us is a profit or our lives. So it's not the general conference alone is Cannon everything that we personally receive is also Canon for us personally. Spelled by spell check. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) On 5/17/2018 at 4:56 PM, MiserereNobis said: There have been a few times over the years that I have questioned the LDS claim to receiving revelation as being a unique claim. It is very often positioned as a unique claim, meaning that not only does the LDS church claim to receive revelation, but it also says that no other Christian church even has this claim. .............. The purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, to discuss whether or not this claim to revelation is unique. And secondly, as part of that discussion, to figure out what exactly revelation is. ............................ ....... after years around Mormons it seems that the word revelation has a much much broader meaning, one that could be more accurately placed under inspiration. ............................ I've also been intrigued about the idea to study things out in your mind and then God will help you. That seems to be lowering the bar for revelation even further. If revelation means I study things through and then "get it right" then I can claim revelation when I pass a math test. .................. what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation? If it is inspiration, then every Christian church claims it and every Christian (and others) have it, so it isn't a unique claim after all. I feel that using the term revelation for what I have seen used for makes things sound more special than they actually are. ................................. You evince several misconceptions about Mormonism here, Brother. The first is the notion that Mormons know anything at all about theology. They generally do not, and that includes the top leadership. You won't find any of them who have read Avery Dulles (SJ) classic 1983 Models of Revelation,* and Mormons are unconcerned with any critique of their lack of sophistication in theological matters. Mormons are lay priests, and are more concerned with marriage, children, religious faith, and their work-a-day world. For them, religion is belief in actu, and there is no systematic theology or even true catechism. * reviewed at http://www.davidkeysministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/A-Review-of-Avery-Dulles-Models-of-Revelation-website2.pdf . Mormons generally speak very loosely about things like revelation and inspiration, and are more concerned with practical application than in abstract definitions. For example, a pragmatic lesson in revelation (in which God or the Holy Spirit is communicating directly with the recipient) can be found in a Conference address by the late Apostle Richard G. Scott, “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009), online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng. As the late Apostle John A. Widtsoe said: “Seldom are divine revelations dictated to man. . . . Instead, ideas are impressed upon the mind of the recipient, who then delivers the ideas in his own language” (Improvement Era, 40 [Oct 1937]:600-601). Second, Mormons do not claim to be the only recipients of revelation/inspiration. Quote "...the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." Alma 29:8 (Book of Mormon) Apostle Orson F. Whitney said: Quote “[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves. …All down the ages men bearing the authority of the Holy Priesthood—patriarchs, prophets, apostles and others, have officiated in the name of the Lord, doing the things that he required of them; and outside the pale of their activities other good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood, but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1921, pp. 32–33.) He also said: Quote "Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along... They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people." Elder B. H. Roberts said: Quote “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.” The late President James E. Faust (Counselor to the First Presidency) said that "we claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints" (Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, Mar 2002, 2–7). Edited May 20, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 4
california boy Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 Thanks for starting this thread. I find the discussion fascinating. And I learned more about what Catholics believe about the heavens being closed means. I grew up when David O McKay was the prophet of the church. As a young missionary, I remember knocking on doors showing people a picture of David O McKay and asking them if they knew who this man was. Then testifying that he is a Prophet of God. David O McKay looked like a prophet. He didn't look like a head of a corporation. It meant to me that he was literally like the prophets in the Bible that spoke and talked to God. I believed that the Holy of Holies (a special room in the Salt Lake Temple) is where those conversations with God took place. That he literally received revelation from God. Ok, I was very naive and young. Later, I came to realize that the Mormon Church just hijacked, as you say, very charged words, to make me believe this is a special church run and directed by God Himself through His living prophet. As you point out, that is a bit of a dramatic over exageration of the reality. It became clear to me that the Mormon Church is guided just like any other church or large corporation for that matter. The best possible men are called to fill positions of decision making. They are men of great wisdom and experience. They counsel together and come up with policy that they feel best. This was a great disillusion of my previous beliefs. But then I realized that this has probably always been the case. Since the beginning of time, a handful of men have claimed to have a special hot line relationship to God and that we should all listen to them because of their claims of authority. Just about every culture has such men that have made such claims. There was no hijacking of special titles and claims. It is not that the words prophet and revelation are highly charged words. It is more like the actual definition of those two words is hyperbole. If the truthfulness of a church is based on the number of heavenly visions that are claimed, then the Catholic church wins hands down. There have been more claims of heavenly visions in my lifetime by Catholics than any other religion. If the truthfulness of a church is based on the number of prophesies that have come true, then Nostradamus is the greatest prophet that has ever lived. I don't believe either scenario is true.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, california boy said: Thanks for starting this thread. I find the discussion fascinating. And I learned more about what Catholics believe about the heavens being closed means. I grew up when David O McKay was the prophet of the church. As a young missionary, I remember knocking on doors showing people a picture of David O McKay and asking them if they knew who this man was. Then testifying that he is a Prophet of God. David O McKay looked like a prophet. He didn't look like a head of a corporation. It meant to me that he was literally like the prophets in the Bible that spoke and talked to God. I believed that the Holy of Holies (a special room in the Salt Lake Temple) is where those conversations with God took place. That he literally received revelation from God. Ok, I was very naive and young. Later, I came to realize that the Mormon Church just hijacked, as you say, very charged words, to make me believe this is a special church run and directed by God Himself through His living prophet. As you point out, that is a bit of a dramatic over exageration of the reality. It became clear to me that the Mormon Church is guided just like any other church or large corporation for that matter. The best possible men are called to fill positions of decision making. They are men of great wisdom and experience. They counsel together and come up with policy that they feel best. This was a great disillusion of my previous beliefs. But then I realized that this has probably always been the case. Since the beginning of time, a handful of men have claimed to have a special hot line relationship to God and that we should all listen to them because of their claims of authority. Just about every culture has such men that have made such claims. There was no hijacking of special titles and claims. It is not that the words prophet and revelation are highly charged words. It is more like the actual definition of those two words is hyperbole. While I think that some degree of skepticism and cynicism is helpful in evaluating extraordinary claims, calboy, at the same time one can go too far. Thus, although every royal court in the ancient world had its coterie of prophets and magicians, the Bible itself admits that -- suggesting that the real question is how much veracity to give to a particular tradition. For example, the character of the Israelite experience with prophecy was harshly self-critical, and uniquely so. In addition, we have come down to a time thousands of years later in which the end-time seems near. Certainly the Jews seem to be riding a recent tide of fulfillment of prophecy, as they did so long ago. What gives? Is it all illusion? Mere accident? Quote If the truthfulness of a church is based on the number of heavenly visions that are claimed, then the Catholic church wins hands down. There have been more claims of heavenly visions in my lifetime by Catholics than any other religion. If the truthfulness of a church is based on the number of prophesies that have come true, then Nostradamus is the greatest prophet that has ever lived. I don't believe either scenario is true. I agree with your evaluation of Michel Notradame (Nostradamus), who (like Joseph Smith) practiced lecanoscopy, and was quite successful as the physician, astrologer, and magus of Catherine de’ Medici, the Queen of France. He correctly predicted the death of her husband. However, if you are going to discount the quantity and quality of Mormon prophecy, you might want to take account of the following compilations: Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One,” Interpreter, 26 (2017): 1-48, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ . Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Two,” Interpreter, 26 (2017):49-92, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-two/ . Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Three,” Interpreter, 26 (2017):93-122, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-three/ . John W. Welch, and Eric B. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820–1844, 1st ed. (Provo: BYU Press/SLC: Deseret Book, 2005); 2nd ed. (2017). Certainly, if you have a mind to, you can ignore the Civil War Prophecy, or the Orson Hyde Dedication of Palestine to the Gathering of the Jews, etc., but are you sure that you are being entirely fair? If we are to go by the claims of an ordinary Apostle such as Richard G. Scott, which comes awful close to dialogic revelation (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/11/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng ), then maybe revelation is just quotidian.. He treats it like the most normal sort of thing an apostle might do from day to day. If that is the case, then your cynicism may be completely uncalled for. Edited May 20, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 3
rodheadlee Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) Revelation = revealed knowledge. It can be received several ways, audio, visual, direct input...... Edited May 20, 2018 by rodheadlee 1
california boy Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: While I think that some degree of skepticism and cynicism is helpful in evaluating extraordinary claims, calboy, at the same time one can go too far. Thus, although every royal court in the ancient world had its coterie of prophets and magicians, the Bible itself admits that -- suggesting that the real question is how much veracity to give to a particular tradition. For example, the character of the Israelite experience with prophecy was harshly self-critical, and uniquely so. In addition, we have come down to a time thousands of years later in which the end-time seems near. Certainly the Jews seem to be riding a recent tide of fulfillment of prophecy, as they did so long ago. What gives? Is it all illusion? Mere accident? Thanks for your response Robert. Not sure what you are seeing in the world today that suggests any fulfillment of prophecy by Prophets from the Church. And I don't see any indication that we are now living in the last days. Nothing is going on now that hasn't been going on for thousands of years. Maybe you could be more specific in what you are seeing. Quote I agree with your evaluation of Michel Notradame (Nostradamus), who (like Joseph Smith) practiced lecanoscopy, and was quite successful as the physician, astrologer, and magus of Catherine de’ Medici, the Queen of France. He correctly predicted the death of her husband. However, if you are going to discount the quantity and quality of Mormon prophecy, you might want to take account of the following compilations: Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part One,” Interpreter, 26 (2017): 1-48, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-one/ . Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Two,” Interpreter, 26 (2017):49-92, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-two/ . Duane Boyce, “A Lengthening Shadow: Is Quality of Thought Deteriorating in LDS Scholarly Discourse Regarding Prophets and Revelation? Part Three,” Interpreter, 26 (2017):93-122, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-lengthening-shadow-is-quality-of-thought-deteriorating-in-lds-scholarly-discourse-regarding-prophets-and-revelation-part-three/ . John W. Welch, and Eric B. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestation, 1820–1844, 1st ed. (Provo: BYU Press/SLC: Deseret Book, 2005); 2nd ed. (2017). I skimmed through this. Still not sure what you find in the article that is relevant. Maybe you could quote the part that you wanted me to better understand. Quote Certainly, if you have a mind to, you can ignore the Civil War Prophecy, or the Orson Hyde Dedication of Palestine to the Gathering of the Jews, etc., but are you sure that you are being entirely fair? If we are to go by the claims of an ordinary Apostle such as Richard G. Scott, which comes awful close to dialogic revelation (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/11/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng ), then maybe revelation is just quotidian.. He treats is like the most normal sort of thing an apostle might do from day to day. If that is the case, then your cynicism may be completely uncalled for. I don't discount either prophecy. There are things about both prophecies that certainly the tea leaves were already laid out. But let's set my skepticism aside. You still have to go back over a century to point to two prophecies that, while they came true Unfortunately, your link to Richard G. Scott didn't work, so I couldn't read up on it. In any event, prophesies at best are an extremely rare event in a church that has claims of continuous prophets for just shy of 200 years. I think you see my point. And like I said, perhaps men claiming to be prophets rarely ever actually uttered a prophesy. I personally have predicted events to happen more often than what church prophets have claimed. Do I qualify for the prestigious title of prophet, seer and revelator? Yeah, I am much more realistic about what that claim means than I was as a young missionary. Do you have any expectations of President Nelson announcing a prophesy during his time he carries that title? I was talking to a friend about his. He responded with this: "That's nothing! My grandfather saw the Titanic. He told everyone it was going to sink. No one believed him. He yelled it out 3 more times until finally, he was kicked out of the cinema.." Edited May 20, 2018 by california boy
Robert F. Smith Posted May 20, 2018 Posted May 20, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, california boy said: Thanks for your response Robert. Not sure what you are seeing in the world today that suggests any fulfillment of prophecy by Prophets from the Church. And I don't see any indication that we are now living in the last days. Nothing is going on now that hasn't been going on for thousands of years. Maybe you could be more specific in what you are seeing. I just assumed that you are familiar with the broad range of prophecy within both Bible and Mormonism, and that you understand that even the evangelical community sees the end time coming on hard and fast, what with the gathering of the Jews into the most powerful industrial and military nation in the Middle East. That was not true for the last 2 thousand years, and it should be impossible. Thomas Edward Lawrence (of Arabia) spoke of "the eternal miracle of the Jews," while Arnold Toynbee could not account for the Jews in his massive Study of History. I have made the case that the priesthood among the Jews is the world's oldest surviving organization on Earth, online at https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-oldest-organization-of-the-world/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 Quote I skimmed through this. Still not sure what you find in the article that is relevant. Maybe you could quote the part that you wanted me to better understand. The main point is that, far from being rare and infrequent, revelation is quotidian within Mormonism -- something the general membership simply does not know. That was Boyce's main point, which he demonstrated with superabundant documentation. Quote I don't discount either prophecy. There are things about both prophecies that certainly the tea leaves were already laid out. But let's set my skepticism aside. You still have to go back over a century to point to two prophecies that, while they came true Unfortunately, your link to Richard G. Scott didn't work, so I couldn't read up on it. I only mentioned two examples. A serious scholar, such as Jan Shipps, looked carefully at the full range of revelations, both published and unpublished. That is the only way to examine the issue. As to Scott, the URL worked fine for me just now, but see it at lds.org, “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct 2009, published in Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009). It is very easy to miss the point, but Scott brings us back to planet Earth by showing how simple and ubiquitous revelation can be -- whether you call it "revelation" or "inspiration." Quote In any event, prophesies at best are an extremely rare event in a church that has claims of continuous prophets for just shy of 200 years. I think you see my point. And like I said, perhaps men claiming to be prophets rarely ever actually uttered a prophesy. I personally have predicted events to happen more often than what church prophets have claimed. Do I qualify for the prestigious title of prophet, seer and revelator? Yeah, I am much more realistic about what that claim means than I was as a young missionary. Do you have any expectations of President Nelson announcing a prophesy during his time he carries that title? Boyce's whole point was to show this assumption completely false, even though it is the most common conception. Of course, if prophets are only defined by you as fortune-tellers, you have clearly missed the point. Both biblically and in Mormon tradition, prophets do much more than just make predictions as to the next race at Pimlico. Revelation entails far more than parimutuel betting. Edited May 20, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 1
california boy Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I just assumed that you are familiar with the broad range of prophecy within both Bible and Mormonism, and that you understand that even the evangelical community sees the end time coming on hard and fast, what with the gathering of the Jews into the most powerful industrial and military nation in the Middle East. That was not true for the last 2 thousand years, and it should be impossible. Thomas Edward Lawrence (of Arabia) spoke of "the eternal miracle of the Jews," while Arnold Toynbee could not account for the Jews in his massive Study of History. I have made the case that the priesthood among the Jews is the world's oldest surviving organization on Earth, online at https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-oldest-organization-of-the-world/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 Would you be willing to acknowledge that people have been expecting the end of the world to happen soon since the time of Christ? And are you suggesting that the Jews still have the priesthood? 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The main point is that, far from being rare and infrequent, revelation is quotidian within Mormonism -- something the general membership simply does not know. That was Boyce's main point, which he demonstrated with superabundant documentation. I only mentioned two examples. A serious scholar, such as Jan Shipps, looked carefully at the full range of revelations, both published and unpublished. That is the only way to examine the issue. As to Scott, the URL worked fine for me just now, but see it at lds.org, “To Acquire Spiritual Guidance,” LDS General Conference, Oct 2009, published in Ensign, 39/11 (Nov 2009). It is very easy to miss the point, but Scott brings us back to planet Earth by showing how simple and ubiquitous revelation can be -- whether you call it "revelation" or "inspiration." Boyce's whole point was to show this assumption completely false, even though it is the most common conception. Of course, if prophets are only defined by you as fortune-tellers, you have clearly missed the point. Both biblically and in Mormon tradition, prophets do much more than just make predictions as to the next race at Pimlico. Revelation entails far more than parimutuel betting. You mentioned the two prophecies that I have already commented on. Until I can see a list of acknowledged fulfilled prophecies by church leaders, I am going to obviously be unconvinced. How else could I possibly change my. mind without evidence no matter what anyone else claims. Show me the prophecies so we can talk about them.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, california boy said: Would you be willing to acknowledge that people have been expecting the end of the world to happen soon since the time of Christ? And are you suggesting that the Jews still have the priesthood? The D&C claims that the Aaronic priesthood continues its lineal authenticity among the Jews. Of course they have the priesthood: How else do you imagine that Orson Hyde's prophetic 1841 declaration on the Mt of Olives that the Jews would gather the final time, and that they would build their temple in Jerusalem? Of course it is true that we in the West have been deeply influenced by NT end-time prophecies. How is it that the Jews managed to survive for thousands of years, and to now be fulfilling those end-time prophecies? We can dismiss it all as self-fulfilling prophecy, but is that too facile? Does it save the appearances? 7 minutes ago, california boy said: You mentioned the two prophecies that I have already commented on. Until I can see a list of acknowledged fulfilled prophecies by church leaders, I am going to obviously be unconvinced. How else could I possibly change my. mind without evidence no matter what anyone else claims. Show me the prophecies so we can talk about them. You don't accept two, and I doubt that you would accept three or four, or more. We can always soft-pedal every one of them and discount them through eisegetic interpretation. Somehow we must come to terms with the very raison d'etre of the Restoration. It either has legs or it doesn't. Mormonism has a history of extraordinary events which can always be dismissed as just coincidence. If you really want to consider the facts, begin with the boy Joseph Smith and list in chronological order all the major events in LDS history, then assess the prophetic nature of the relevant events. Is it all just a series of banal claims which don't mean anything anyhow? 1
california boy Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The D&C claims that the Aaronic priesthood continues its lineal authenticity among the Jews. Of course they have the priesthood: How else do you imagine that Orson Hyde's prophetic 1841 declaration on the Mt of Olives that the Jews would gather the final time, and that they would build their temple in Jerusalem? Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that the Mormon church acknowledged Jews as having the same Aaronic Priesthood. What does that do to the whole baptism thing. Could a Jew baptize someone and have that baptism recognized by the Church? 23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course it is true that we in the West have been deeply influenced by NT end-time prophecies. How is it that the Jews managed to survive for thousands of years, and to now be fulfilling those end-time prophecies? We can dismiss it all as self-fulfilling prophecy, but is that too facile? Does it save the appearances? You don't accept two, and I doubt that you would accept three or four, or more. We can always soft-pedal every one of them and discount them through eisegetic interpretation. Somehow we must come to terms with the very raison d'etre of the Restoration. It either has legs or it doesn't. Mormonism has a history of extraordinary events which can always be dismissed as just coincidence. If you really want to consider the facts, begin with the boy Joseph Smith and list in chronological order all the major events in LDS history, then assess the prophetic nature of the relevant events. Is it all just a series of banal claims which don't mean anything anyhow? Well that is not really accurate. This is what I actually said about the two prophecies you mentioned. 17 hours ago, california boy said: I don't discount either prophecy. There are things about both prophecies that certainly the tea leaves were already laid out. But let's set my skepticism aside. You still have to go back over a century to point to two prophecies that, while they came true Unfortunately, your link to Richard G. Scott didn't work, so I couldn't read up on it. In any event, prophesies at best are an extremely rare event in a church that has claims of continuous prophets for just shy of 200 years. I think you see my point. And like I said, perhaps men claiming to be prophets rarely ever actually uttered a prophesy. I personally have predicted events to happen more often than what church prophets have claimed. Do I qualify for the prestigious title of prophet, seer and revelator? Yeah, I am much more realistic about what that claim means than I was as a young missionary. Do you have any expectations of President Nelson announcing a prophesy during his time he carries that title?
Kenngo1969 Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 On 5/19/2018 at 5:21 PM, mfbukowski said: ... So it's not the general conference alone is Cannon everything that we personally receive is also Canon for us personally. ... Is it cannon, or is it canon? And, should I duck?
Kenngo1969 Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: ... You don't accept two [prophecies], and I doubt that you would accept three or four, or more. We can always soft-pedal every one of them and discount them through eisegetic interpretation. ... Whether one can soft-pedal or not depends on how steep the hill is: If the hill is very steep, I wouldn't recommend soft-pedaling; only hard pedaling will get one up such a hill. (Sorry; couldn't resist! Carry on!)
hope_for_things Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 On 5/17/2018 at 4:56 PM, MiserereNobis said: So, in Mormonism, what exactly is revelation? And if it is inspiration or "getting it right," shouldn't you just call it that instead of using the loftier sounding term of revelation? If it is inspiration, then every Christian church claims it and every Christian (and others) have it, so it isn't a unique claim after all. I feel that using the term revelation for what I have seen used for makes things sound more special than they actually are. The exception is Joseph Smith (and perhaps others I do not know of). What he claimed I would certainly call revelation. What I have seen discussed here I would not. Good post, thanks for sharing. A couple of my thoughts. A few years ago when I was a very conservative and orthodox Mormon I believed that Mormonism was entitled to greater inspiration than other religions based on the priesthood authority and keys that were restored. I still thought other churches could receive revelation from God, but I believed that the LDS church was the only church with exclusive authority and held a privileged position because of that. Today, I'm essentially a non-theist. I don't believe there is a being that is pulling strings and orchestrating events in our world or sending messages to humans. However, I still see some value in the use of the terms revelation and inspiration from a more secular perspective. I prefer the term inspiration because it connotes a more creative element. I believe great art, science and innovative thinking in every discipline has elements of inspiration and creativity in it. I believe these things are part of the beauty of our world and the amazing capacities that humans have to create. I try to think of God in a more pantheist way because I see so much beauty and am constantly amazed at the things I observe and experience in life. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Good post, thanks for sharing. A couple of my thoughts. A few years ago when I was a very conservative and orthodox Mormon I believed that Mormonism was entitled to greater inspiration than other religions based on the priesthood authority and keys that were restored. I still thought other churches could receive revelation from God, but I believed that the LDS church was the only church with exclusive authority and held a privileged position because of that. Today, I'm essentially a non-theist. I don't believe there is a being that is pulling strings and orchestrating events in our world or sending messages to humans. However, I still see some value in the use of the terms revelation and inspiration from a more secular perspective. I prefer the term inspiration because it connotes a more creative element. I believe great art, science and innovative thinking in every discipline has elements of inspiration and creativity in it. I believe these things are part of the beauty of our world and the amazing capacities that humans have to create. I try to think of God in a more pantheist way because I see so much beauty and am constantly amazed at the things I observe and experience in life. Very perceptive comments. 2
mfbukowski Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Is it cannon, or is it canon? And, should I duck? Duck. 😛 That's why I said spelled by spell check. I was dictating into my phone and for some reason my phone doesn't know the difference. Gotcha! Lol! 😁
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 35 minutes ago, california boy said: Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that the Mormon church acknowledged Jews as having the same Aaronic Priesthood. What does that do to the whole baptism thing. Could a Jew baptize someone and have that baptism recognized by the Church? The original Aaronic priesthood is of the tribe of Levi, one of the original Twelve Tribes of Israel, assigned to be the priesthood for the other tribes. One was born with that priesthood from the paternal line. People today who are named Cohen or Levi, or the like, are part of that priestly line. Mormons only exercise Aaronic priesthood as substitutes for the actual lineal descendants. All converts to Judaism are baptized in a font called a mikveh. However, unlike the time of John the Baptist, in which he officiated in baptisms, converts self-baptize with a witness present to be sure that they are completely immersed. So, although John the Baptist was a priest (a lineal descendant of Aaron), such priests do not officiate at Jewish baptisms today. So Jewish baptisms have no force or effect in the LDS Church, unless they are the official means by which someone can become a Jew -- which the LDS Church does recognize as an authentic part of ancient Israel. See Romans 12. 35 minutes ago, california boy said: Well that is not really accurate. This is what I actually said about the two prophecies you mentioned. Yes, but you will always want more. The problem is that, if the first two are inadequate or too old, then why would anything else have value? If you actually accept the first two, then why do you demand more? Isn't it true that there will never be enough? 1
mfbukowski Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Good post, thanks for sharing. A couple of my thoughts. A few years ago when I was a very conservative and orthodox Mormon I believed that Mormonism was entitled to greater inspiration than other religions based on the priesthood authority and keys that were restored. I still thought other churches could receive revelation from God, but I believed that the LDS church was the only church with exclusive authority and held a privileged position because of that. Today, I'm essentially a non-theist. I don't believe there is a being that is pulling strings and orchestrating events in our world or sending messages to humans. However, I still see some value in the use of the terms revelation and inspiration from a more secular perspective. I prefer the term inspiration because it connotes a more creative element. I believe great art, science and innovative thinking in every discipline has elements of inspiration and creativity in it. I believe these things are part of the beauty of our world and the amazing capacities that humans have to create. I try to think of God in a more pantheist way because I see so much beauty and am constantly amazed at the things I observe and experience in life. Because we are good friends let me tell you how I see it. I no longer see God as a thing to be described. I cannot say he is everywhere I cannot say he exists I cannot say he doesn't exist. I think who he is and I say who deliberately is beyond human comprehension. What I do know is a state of psychological certainty that describes my experience. I have no idea if or why I should care that my experience corresponds to anything outside of itself. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt again meaning my psychological experience, which does not include any doubt, who guides and directs my life. I am bright enough to know however that that could be a psychological state as much as anything I've perceived in the world could be a psychological state. But since all I can know is one of my mental States, God is as real in my life as anything or any person I experience can be. Theoretically what I experience as God could be some deep unconscious psychological state of my best self expressing itself in my unconscious. It really makes no difference to me. The experience I call God has changed my life and everything about it. It is beyond words and human charactersation so I have long since lost an interest in worrying about "reality" as others perceive it. I mean we are talking about half a century thinking this way at this point. Seeing the world this way is beyond communication. You just have to do it to fully understand it I guess. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 On 5/18/2018 at 9:03 AM, MiserereNobis said: ............................... Notice at the beginning it says that Revelation is summed up in Jesus Christ. Since Christ already came, this is what Catholics (and other Christians) mean when they say there will be no more revelation. It doesn't mean that God has stopped communicating to His children. He fulfilled Revelation through the Gospel and there will be no other Gospel, i.e. no other Revelation. It is a different meaning of the word revelation that what Mormons use. The Gospel is the "Good News" of Jesus Christ. Gospel does not mean "Revelation," although it is a revelation. It is correct to say that the Gospel is to be preached orally and in writing. I see a misuse of terminology here, which leads to the false conclusion that additional revelation is not possible. RC theology doesn't even agree with that. On 5/18/2018 at 9:03 AM, MiserereNobis said: Notice in 76 that the Apostles learned the truth and wrote the truth under the prompting and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Also, notice in 79 that God continues to speak to the Church (the Spouse of Christ) today. So, Catholics also claim that God speaks to His Church today, both to individuals and to the leaders (the Bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, and to the Pope, who is the successor to Peter). I guess my main point is that I have heard Mormons say many times that Christians believe that revelation has ended, making the Mormon claim that God continues to reveal things a unique claim. Have I misheard or misunderstood? What do Mormons mean when you say, "We have a living prophet who receives revelation from God." What is different about that from the Catechism I quoted? Catholic and Mormon scholars generally agree that both churches share much in common about continuing revelation (God speaking to his Church), priesthood authority, sacramentalism, etc. When Mormons speak about the common christian belief that revelation has ended, they are speaking generally about mainstream Protestantism. 1
hope_for_things Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Because we are good friends let me tell you how I see it. I no longer see God as a thing to be described. I cannot say he is everywhere I cannot say he exists I cannot say he doesn't exist. I think who he is and I say who deliberately is beyond human comprehension. What I do know is a state of psychological certainty that describes my experience. I have no idea if or why I should care that my experience corresponds to anything outside of itself. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt again meaning my psychological experience, which does not include any doubt, who guides and directs my life. I am bright enough to know however that that could be a psychological state as much as anything I've perceived in the world could be a psychological state. But since all I can know is one of my mental States, God is as real in my life as anything or any person I experience can be. Theoretically what I experience as God could be some deep unconscious psychological state of my best self expressing itself in my unconscious. It really makes no difference to me. The experience I call God has changed my life and everything about it. It is beyond words and human charactersation so I have long since lost an interest in worrying about "reality" as others perceive it. I mean we are talking about half a century thinking this way at this point. Seeing the world this way is beyond communication. You just have to do it to fully understand it I guess. Thanks friend, appreciate what you said here. I completely respect this and for the most part it is compatible with my experience as well. In spite of the way I've logically deconstructed God as an external entity that guides my life, I have to admit that it often has felt this way, and I too have a sense that there has been a guiding influence on my life. I continue to have that sense today in my non-theistic paradigm. So while I think there is a subtle difference in how you or I am approaching this explanation, I'm not sure in practice that there is much of a difference at all. Sometimes I wonder if there is even that much of a difference in how I act today vs how I would have acted back in my orthodox days. The more I learn about just how much we humans like to do post hoc narrative constructions of our realities, it makes me wonder if I'm really being as analytical in my attempted use of critical thinking skills, as I would like to believe. Perhaps I'm just using different language to describe my path in life, but in reality my path is very similar to how it was before. Either way, I still have a sense that my experience is being guided to some extent, and I think that will likely continue to remain with me throughout my life. 2
california boy Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The original Aaronic priesthood is of the tribe of Levi, one of the original Twelve Tribes of Israel, assigned to be the priesthood for the other tribes. One was born with that priesthood from the paternal line. People today who are named Cohen or Levi, or the like, are part of that priestly line. Mormons only exercise Aaronic priesthood as substitutes for the actual lineal descendants. All converts to Judaism are baptized in a font called a mikveh. However, unlike the time of John the Baptist, in which he officiated in baptisms, converts self-baptize with a witness present to be sure that they are completely immersed. So, although John the Baptist was a priest (a lineal descendant of Aaron), such priests do not officiate at Jewish baptisms today. So Jewish baptisms have no force or effect in the LDS Church, unless they are the official means by which someone can become a Jew -- which the LDS Church does recognize as an authentic part of ancient Israel. See Romans 12. Having taught Old Testament in early morning seminary for 4 or 5 years, I am very familiar with the tribe of Levi and how they became the tribe to hold the Aaronic priesthood. But that is n to really what I asked. This is what I asked. "Could a Jew baptize someone and have that baptism recognized by the Church?" Maybe I should have been more clear. Could a jew baptize someone into the Mormon Church holding the Aaronic priesthood that he holds without being ordained a priest in the Mormon church. Is it kind of like their right to hold the office of Bishop? I haven't ever heard this being discussed in church before. You bring up some interesting points concerning the legitimacy of their Aaronic Priesthood office. 34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, but you will always want more. The problem is that, if the first two are inadequate or too old, then why would anything else have value? If you actually accept the first two, then why do you demand more? Isn't it true that there will never be enough? I didn't mean my question to be some kind of winning of an argument. I was just interested if you had more prophecies given by past prophets that have come true. I was already familiar with the two that you mentioned. You seemed to indicate that you knew of others. It was more curiosity and wondering why these other prophecies you allude to are not discussed in church like the other two you mentioned.
california boy Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Good post, thanks for sharing. A couple of my thoughts. A few years ago when I was a very conservative and orthodox Mormon I believed that Mormonism was entitled to greater inspiration than other religions based on the priesthood authority and keys that were restored. I still thought other churches could receive revelation from God, but I believed that the LDS church was the only church with exclusive authority and held a privileged position because of that. Today, I'm essentially a non-theist. I don't believe there is a being that is pulling strings and orchestrating events in our world or sending messages to humans. However, I still see some value in the use of the terms revelation and inspiration from a more secular perspective. I prefer the term inspiration because it connotes a more creative element. I believe great art, science and innovative thinking in every discipline has elements of inspiration and creativity in it. I believe these things are part of the beauty of our world and the amazing capacities that humans have to create. I try to think of God in a more pantheist way because I see so much beauty and am constantly amazed at the things I observe and experience in life. I see this as well. It seems by nature I am a very creative individual. It comes to me quite naturally, when others seem to struggle. I have been fortunate to make my living using what I consider to be this gift from God. It all seems quite natural and fluid to me until others make a comment about what they see. All of my children seem to have inherited the same tendency and they all work in the arts. Now math? Completely void in our family. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 On 5/18/2018 at 11:31 AM, MiserereNobis said: Everything God says is not scripture. Don't Mormons agree on that, too? Is every word that God has spoken in the LDS canon? Catholics absolutely believe that God is not done speaking to His people. It explicitly says that in the catechism I quoted........................................ On 5/18/2018 at 11:35 AM, MiserereNobis said: Just to clarify, that is not the Catholic position. We do believe that we will have further instruction. We do believe that God communicates with His children. We do believe that the Church is being led by the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit prompts and inspires the leaders. On 5/18/2018 at 12:59 PM, MiserereNobis said: But that's not the LDS view, is it? General conferences is not in your canon, yet Mormons consider that God's instruction, don't they?............. The LDS faith has a very specific Canon of Holy Scripture, and it has to be approved in General Conference. Nothing else is part of the Canon, even though some Mormons do not understand that (and cannot even spell "canon" correctly). Quote Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine . W. D. Davies, “Reflections on the Mormon 'Canon',” Harvard Theological Review, 79 (Jan-Jul 1986):44-66, online at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/reflections-on-the-mormon-canon/1B8DEB5AEB2165CA60BC2AA6F3327397 . Davies was a non-Mormon scholar.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 21, 2018 Posted May 21, 2018 22 minutes ago, california boy said: Having taught Old Testament in early morning seminary for 4 or 5 years, I am very familiar with the tribe of Levi and how they became the tribe to hold the Aaronic priesthood. But that is n to really what I asked. This is what I asked. "Could a Jew baptize someone and have that baptism recognized by the Church?" Maybe I should have been more clear. Could a jew baptize someone into the Mormon Church holding the Aaronic priesthood that he holds without being ordained a priest in the Mormon church. Is it kind of like their right to hold the office of Bishop? I haven't ever heard this being discussed in church before. You bring up some interesting points concerning the legitimacy of their Aaronic Priesthood office. What you are asking has no meaning in a Jewish context, since no Aaronic priest in Judaism every does baptisms -- as I explained already. The only context in which your question would have meaning would be in a specifically Mormon context, in which an Aaronic priest from the tribe of Levi had been fully approved by the First Presidency of the Church to be a bishop (without counselors). Then he could do any such baptisms, in or outside the temple. But I thought you understood that. 22 minutes ago, california boy said: I didn't mean my question to be some kind of winning of an argument. I was just interested if you had more prophecies given by past prophets that have come true. I was already familiar with the two that you mentioned. You seemed to indicate that you knew of others. It was more curiosity and wondering why these other prophecies you allude to are not discussed in church like the other two you mentioned. If you were to take prophecies (in the broad meaning of the word) in chronological order from the First Vision onward in time until today (as I already suggested) you would have your test sequence. The question I always have is whether it is seen as purely happenstantial when real events happen to fit prophecy. How many coincidences are too many when examining the Bayesian probabilities? In other words, when does the preponderance of evidence kick in, if ever? What sort of research design is valid? Does it matter?
Recommended Posts