Joseph Smith on Mormonism

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not a single written revelation in a century.

Added to the canon. 

Do you always write down the revelations that are spoken to you?

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

What i see in Joseph's usage of Mormon and Mormonism is making lemonade from the lemmons thrown his way.  Do you think the original word in mosiah 18 meant "wild jungle" or "near a fountain of pure water"?

The author of mosiah 18:30 really likes the name repeating it 6times in one verse.

Most people like hearing their own name

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Still, the fact remains that an absence of revelation and a claim of revelation with no evidence to examine look remarkably similar.

This is what I don't get. I've said it before -- I don't see evidence for the claim of modern day prophets and continuing revelation. I see policy changes being made with a claim of inspiration. That is far from what the words "prophet" and "revelation" mean to most people. Those are strong, loaded words. When I first heard LDS say "we have a living prophet" I wanted to know what he was prophesying -- it was a bold bold claim to have a prophet that speaks for God. However, I have found nothing but administrative changes. That doesn't seem to quite live up to the words "prophet" or "revelation."

With the current LDS use of the word prophet, I could call the Pope a prophet because Francis does for the Catholic Church what President Nelson does for the LDS church, including the claims of inspiration. I really don't see any difference except the LDS church seems to be inflating what President Nelson actually does by calling him a "prophet, seer, and revelator." Show me the prophesies, the "seeing," the revelations.

I totally grant that Joseph Smith fully fits the claim of prophet, seer, and revelator; then it becomes an issue of determining if was telling the truth or not. Maybe other past presidents (I don't know anything about them). I just don't see it now.

Edited December 19, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nonsense. There are many many recorded written revelations that aren't canonized.  But again, all from the 1800s.  Not a single written revelation in a century.

Joseph F. Smith's vision of the spirit world was 1918. 

Again I don't get the issue with written revelations. It'd frequently just be a description of the vision. That's well in keeping with Joseph Smith and say D&C 76. And of course the texts of the revelations for most of Joseph's Nauvoo teachings are non-existent. Including a lot that made it into canon. 

Likewise by this view of revelation nothing in the New Testament except possibly Revelation is a revelation. Paul's epistles have much more in common with Conference Talks. I remain confused as to why this is such a big deal for some. Even in the Old Testament there's not a lot akin to the early sections of the D&C. It seems to privilege a particular style of revelation while ignoring that the vast majority of our canon (including the Book of Mormon) isn't like that.

I've definitely heard apostles give revelatory apostolic blessings. It's just that they don't publicize such things to the world. 

It's also weird that people say apostles don't do "in the name of the Lord" type prophecies since they actually are reasonably common. Say this one by Elder Uchdorf: "But I give you this promise in the name of the Lord: rise up and follow in the footsteps of our Redeemer and Savior, and one day you will look back and be filled with eternal gratitude that you chose to trust the Atonement and its power to lift you up and give you strength."

An other one commonly mentioned is Pres. Monson's prophecy of a temple in Germany which, at the time, was implausible given the cold war. George Albert Smith's prophecy of the Oakland temple seems reasonable to appeal to as well. That's in the book The First 100 Temples. According to that George Albert Smith looked towards the future location of the temple and said he saw a vision of a temple there. The temple was built there 40 years later.

Once you move to private statements there are many more.

Edited December 19, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, blueglass said:

What i see in Joseph's usage of Mormon and Mormonism is making lemonade from the lemmons thrown his way.  Do you think the original word in mosiah 18 meant "wild jungle" or "near a fountain of pure water"?

The author of mosiah 18:30 really likes the name repeating it 6times in one verse.

I have no idea what its original meaning was. I see that verse as a poetic expression of a fond and profoundly moving event in the writer’s life. Highly unlikely Joseph Smith come up with it on his own, but that’s a matter for another discussion. 

Quote

30 And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer; yea, and how blessed are they, for they shall sing to his praise forever.

 

[Guest]

On December 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM, tulip said:

From the Saints book

After the Lord spoke to him in the dark, miserable dungeon, Joseph no longer feared that God had forsaken him and the church. In letters to Edward Partridge and the Saints, he testified boldly of the latter-day work. “Hell may pour forth its rage like the burning lava of Mount Vesuvius,” he declared, “yet shall Mormonism stand.” He was sure of this.

“Truth is Mormonism,” he exclaimed. “God is the author of it. He is our shield. It is by Him we received our birth. It was by His voice that we were called to a dispensation of His gospel in the beginning of the fullness of times.”

With a name like "TULIP", and a newbie, along with a post in a drive by fashion, it can only be one of two people, from the "board not to be named", and one guess does not count. It's been a long time, how are you CARMella? It has been years since your last. Hope all is well. 

My guess is the idea that Joseph Smith and President Nelson, are at odds, so which one is the "Prophet"? The answer, should she show again is, BOTH? They are both Prophets. 

[RevTestament]

On 12/17/2018 at 1:59 PM, mfbukowski said:

I never respond to threads that don't make sense.

So this response doesn't exist.

Hey Tulip! Whassup?

Back to the Mark i know and love...