Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 30 minutes ago, smac97 said: "What God says" is based on representations given to us through an apostle. Surely you concede that. And then there's D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." C'mon. This is basic stuff. Why are you ignoring obviously relevant considerations such as these? Thanks, -Smac Elder Oaks is not the Lord. If you believe Jesus is the Lord, then you have the word of the Lord on the matter already. I guess that was more important when you thought the word of the Lord was condemning gay people instead of straight people. 1
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Matthew 16:19 has been very helpful to me in understanding the power and authority that God gives to His servants on earth as well as the trust that He has in them. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Did Jesus ever say, "I will give you the keys to totally abrogate my teachings"?
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Quote And then there's D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." Ah yes, the Mormon trump card. Whatever the prophets say is suddenly the voice of the Lord. Except when it's not. How is quoting modern apostles any different from quoting the Bible (which is to say, quoting ancient apostles)? Thanks, -Smac Edited November 14, 2018 by smac97 2
ksfisher Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Did Jesus ever say, "I will give you the keys to totally abrogate my teachings"? He said what I quoted.
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Quote "What God says" is based on representations given to us through an apostle. Surely you concede that. And then there's D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." C'mon. This is basic stuff. Why are you ignoring obviously relevant considerations such as these? Thanks, -Smac Elder Oaks is not the Lord. Neither was Matthew. 6 minutes ago, Gray said: If you believe Jesus is the Lord, I do. 6 minutes ago, Gray said: then you have the word of the Lord on the matter already. I have the word of the Lord as given through the writings of an apostle, Matthew. How is it that you acknowledge and submit to the authority of one apostle to speak on behalf of God (Matthew) but not to the authority of another (Elder Oaks)? Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: How quoting modern apostles any different from quoting the Bible (which is to say, quoting ancient apostles)? Thanks, -Smac It's not different. I agree. I'm not willing to say that whatever an apostles says (ancient or modern) is automatically equivalent to the voice of the Lord. Too dangerous for my tastes. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gray said: Did Jesus ever say, "I will give you the keys to totally abrogate my teachings"? Jesus...Oaks...who's to say who has more authority? I know that according to Benson's 14 Fundamentals talk, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, but are the teachings of a living prophet really (little p) more important than the teachings of Jesus? Ever? 3
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: He said what I quoted. So the answer is no. You have, then, the word of the Lord on the matter. Grievous sexual sin is permitted in the LDS Church, so long as you are straight.
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Jesus...Oaks...who's to say who has more authority? I know that according to Benson's 14 Fundamentals talk, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, but are the teachings of a living prophet really (little p) more important than the teachings of Jesus? Ever? Supposedly we can't ordain women because Jesus only called male apostles. But apparently it's a simple matter to reverse any of Jesus' teachings by mere declaration. 3
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Neither was Matthew. "Matthew" didn't say it, nor did "Mark". Jesus said it. Quote I do. I have the word of the Lord as given through the writings of an apostle, Matthew. It's one of the most well-attested teachings of the historical Jesus, so I'm afraid you won't be able to wriggle out of the word of the Lord that way. Quote How is it that you acknowledge and submit to the authority of one apostle to speak on behalf of God (Matthew) but not to the authority of another (Elder Oaks)? Thanks, -Smac No apostle has the authority to abrogate the word of the Lord. The steward of Gondor is not the King of Gondor, if you like. Edited November 14, 2018 by Gray 1
CV75 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: The sin of getting remarried after a divorce, which Jesus called adultery. One of the most well attested teachings of the historical Jesus. From Mark 10, unless Jesus was implying that Moses was out of order, Moses’ words were His own. So even Jehovah gave a "special dispensation to sin" -- so to speak in "stawmanese" -- in the same way He held off the consequences for Adam and Eve's transgression, giving them “space for repentance.” 1
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gray said: Quote Matthew 16:19 has been very helpful to me in understanding the power and authority that God gives to His servants on earth as well as the trust that He has in them. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Did Jesus ever say, "I will give you the keys to totally abrogate my teachings"? Nope. Your criticisms here echo those leveled against Jesus Christ Himself. And yet Christ came not to destroy law or prophets, but to fulfill, 3 Ne. 12:17 (Matt. 5:17). I am curious what you think of the following passage in Matthew 3 (see also Luke 3): Quote 7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Quote How quoting modern apostles any different from quoting the Bible (which is to say, quoting ancient apostles)? Thanks, -Smac It's not different. I agree. And yet you disparage and disregard one (Elder Oaks, living in our day), by pointing to a purported conflict with another (Matthew, who lived thousands of years ago). So if Elder Oaks and Matthew are not "different" in terms of authority, why are you treating them differently? 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm not willing to say that whatever an apostles says (ancient or modern) is automatically equivalent to the voice of the Lord. Too dangerous for my tastes. But isn't that exactly what you just did when you were quoting/paraphrasing/referencing Matthew? Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: From Mark 10, unless Jesus was implying that Moses was out of order, Moses’ words were His own. So even Jehovah gave a "special dispensation to sin" -- so to speak in "stawmanese" -- in the same way He held off the consequences for Adam and Eve's transgression, giving them “space for repentance.” Yes, that's precisely what church leaders used as a rhetorical jumping off point to abrogate the word of the Lord.
CV75 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Yes, that's precisely what church leaders used as a rhetorical jumping off point to abrogate the word of the Lord. How exactly?
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nope. Your criticisms here echo those leveled against Jesus Christ Himself. And yet Christ came not to destroy law or prophets, but to fulfill, 3 Ne. 12:17 (Matt. 5:17). That comparison would only work if you're saying Oaks is the Lord and Jesus was merely a prophet. That would be the symmetrical relationship between Jesus and Moses. Fulfill, by the way, doesn't mean put an end to. Jesus in Matthew does not call for an end to the keeping of the law of Moses. That's likely a fairly accurate depiction of the historical Jesus. Quote I am curious what you think of the following passage in Matthew 3 (see also Luke 3): Thanks, -Smac Oh dear, I am feeling very biblical today. Here comes a lawyer to test me! I think he's condemning the religious leadership who had grown fat in their collaboration with Rome, while the downtrodden were oppressed. He was warning them they would not fare well in the coming eschaton. Edited November 14, 2018 by Gray
Gray Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: How exactly? By reusing "it was permitted due to the hardness of your hearts" and saying that we've somehow regressed again to that state, contrary to the word of the Lord on the subject.
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Gray said: "Matthew" didn't say it, nor did "Mark". Jesus said it. Jesus said it, but the record is Matthew's. I believe Matthew represented Jesus' teachings to us. I believe the same about Elder Oaks. Matthew, then, was telling us the will of God. And we accept it because of his apostolic calling. And yet you seem to reject the ability/authority of Elder Oaks, also an apostle, to do the same thing. I'm struggling to understand your position. Quote It's one of the most well-attested teachings of the historical Jesus, so I'm afraid you won't be able to wriggle out of the word of the Lord that way. It is? CFR, please, for attestations of this teaching that do not derive from Matthew. I'm all ears. And I'm not the least interested in "wriggl[ing] out of the word of the Lord." I'm willing to listen, whether it comes through an ancient apostle (Matthew) or a modern one (Elder Oaks). It can be a hard thing to listen to modern prophets and apostles. I suspect this is partly why some of the folks in ancient Israel struggled with accepting Jesus Christ. They had Abraham and the ancient prophets, so it was hard for them to hear something new (see, e.g., John 6). Quote No apostle has the authority to abrogate the word of the Lord. I agree. But you concede that by "the word of the Lord" you mean "the writings of an ancient apostle named Matthew," correct? So how is it that you are willing to listen to "the word of the Lord" when it comes through an ancient apostle, but not through a modern one? Quote The steward of Gondor is not the King of Gondor, if you like. A non sequitur. Matthew as an apostle. So is Elder Oaks. As regarding authority to speak on behalf of God, they are on equal footing. Elder Oaks is not Denethor, if you like. Thanks, -Smac Edited November 14, 2018 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Quote Quote Did Jesus ever say, "I will give you the keys to totally abrogate my teachings"? Nope. Your criticisms here echo those leveled against Jesus Christ Himself. And yet Christ came not to destroy law or prophets, but to fulfill, 3 Ne. 12:17 (Matt. 5:17). That comparison would only work if you're saying Oaks is the Lord and Jesus was merely a prophet. No, the comparison holds even if Elder Oaks is an apostle. Again, D&C 1:38 ("[W]hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same"). You persist in discounting the authority of Elder Oaks, while elevating the authority of Matthew. That seems strange to me. 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Fulfill, by the way, doesn't mean put an end to. I'm curious what you make of 3 Nephi 15:8 ("For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me."). Thoughts? 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Jesus in Matthew does not call for an end to the keeping of the law of Moses. But Jesus as quoted in 3 Nephi did. 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Quote I am curious what you think of the following passage in Matthew 3 (see also Luke 3): Quote 7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Oh dear, I am feeling very biblical today. Here comes a lawyer to test me! I'm not speaking as a lawyer. Just a fellow traveler. No need to be snide. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Jesus...Oaks...who's to say who has more authority? You mean "Matthew...Oaks...who's to day who has more authority?" Right? 27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I know that according to Benson's 14 Fundamentals talk, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, but are the teachings of a living prophet really (little p) more important than the teachings of Jesus? Ever? You mean "are the teachings of a living prophet (Elder Oaks) more important than the teachings of an ancient prophet (Matthew)? Ever?" Right? -Smac
CV75 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Gray said: By reusing "it was permitted due to the hardness of your hearts" and saying that we've somehow regressed again to that state, contrary to the word of the Lord on the subject. It isn’t reuse or rhetorical if it is actual, and doctrinally, the Lord actually speaks through His Church leaders. Another actuality is that He supported then, and He supports now, a lesser law while teaching a higher law. Tithing, word of wisdom and building Zion (the New Jerusalem) are other modern examples. Recall that Jesus was killed for claiming to be “I Am” telling Abraham and Moses, and all the law and the prophets, what to do and how they would be fulfilled. He upheld the law, taught a higher law, and fulfilled both. He accomplished this through His atonement which is a "special dispensation to sin" (strawman!) in that it frees us up to make bad choices and repent. The prophets are always calling us to repentance, or as you put it, a regressed state, along with promising the Lord will establish higher expectations to come. 45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Jesus...Oaks...who's to say who has more authority? I know that according to Benson's 14 Fundamentals talk, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet, but are the teachings of a living prophet really (little p) more important than the teachings of Jesus? Ever? See above. It's not about the relative importance of His servants; Jesus bridged that gap by sustaining both the law and the higher law simultaneously. He is very understanding and patient, even with Pharisees! Edited November 14, 2018 by CV75 2
rockpond Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: And yet you disparage and disregard one (Elder Oaks, living in our day), by pointing to a purported conflict with another (Matthew, who lived thousands of years ago). So if Elder Oaks and Matthew are not "different" in terms of authority, why are you treating them differently? I wasn't disparaging and disregarding. CFR. I'm not treating them differently. CFR. 38 minutes ago, smac97 said: But isn't that exactly what you just did when you were quoting/paraphrasing/referencing Matthew? Nope. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else's posts.
CV75 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 52 minutes ago, rockpond said: It's not different. I agree. I'm not willing to say that whatever an apostles says (ancient or modern) is automatically equivalent to the voice of the Lord. Too dangerous for my tastes. Yet the Lord will sustain him as He did Moses in Mark 10.
smac97 Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I wasn't disparaging and disregarding. CFR. "Ah yes, the Mormon trump card. Whatever the prophets say is suddenly the voice of the Lord." That sounded awfully contemptuous. Disparaging. Insulting. 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I'm not treating them differently. CFR. Well, by all means, please correct me. Do you accept Matthew's recitation of the Lord's will regarding divorce? Do you accept Elder Oaks' recitation of the Lord's will regarding divorce? Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted November 14, 2018 Posted November 14, 2018 30 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yet the Lord will sustain him as He did Moses in Mark 10. Yep... he sustained what Moses did. And then in Mark 10, the Lord goes on to explain his will (which differed from what Moses had instructed).
Recommended Posts