Sin, Iniquity, Transgression

[Mark Beesley]

On 2/14/2021 at 5:58 PM, Islander said:

Well, friend, facts are important. In a Church that is worldwide, there are traditions and practices that have absolutely nothing to do with doctrine, even preached from the pulpit, that are never challenged or corrected in public. So, it is important that when you make a statement you attempt, at least, to share where that idea or belief comes from. Opinions have no biding authority and there are as many as there are colors in flowers and no need to agree on them. But a doctrinal position is no-negotiable. 

Of course, the challenge is discerning what is doctrine and what is policy. What is immutable and what is subject to change? Things we may have believed were immutable change. Ask BRM. Most critical is keeping open communications between ourselves and the He who reveals all truth, and be teachable.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Of course, the challenge is discerning what is doctrine and what is policy. What is immutable and what is subject to change? Things we may have believed were immutable change. Ask BRM. Most critical is keeping open communications between ourselves and the He who reveals all truth, and be teachable.

If God says it's true it's doctrine and doesn't change.

If it changes it's man's attempt to implement a policy.

[Islander]

5 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Of course, the challenge is discerning what is doctrine and what is policy. What is immutable and what is subject to change? Things we may have believed were immutable change. Ask BRM. Most critical is keeping open communications between ourselves and the He who reveals all truth, and be teachable.

If you understand the Gospel of Christ and the what God has ALREADY revealed, there is no need to guess. There is no new doctrine being revealed. So, what we see are mostly policies and procedures implemented or changed, and that is what we have witnessed in the last few years. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

If you understand the Gospel of Christ and the what God has ALREADY revealed, there is no need to guess. There is no new doctrine being revealed. So, what we see are mostly policies and procedures implemented or changed, and that is what we have witnessed in the last few years. 

Except almost every teaching of the Church has changed over the years.  Only the most basic tenets haven't changed at all.  So either we have virtually no actual doctrine, we've changed our doctrine, or God changed.

[Mark Beesley]

20 hours ago, Islander said:

. . . There is no new doctrine being revealed. . . . 

Are you certain this is a doctrinally sound statement? (See D&C 121 generally.) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only entity receiving revelation. And the Prophet is not the only member of the Church receiving revelation. There are undoubtedly true doctrines which have been revealed to others, but they are laid under a strict command not to impart . . . etc. (See Alma  12:9.) But perhaps we are speaking past one another in how we understand the word doctrine. Anyway, I know the Lord has revealed truths to me which are not generally taught in the Church. I accept such revelation as doctrine, but perhaps I shouldn’t.

[Islander]

On 2/21/2021 at 5:34 PM, JLHPROF said:

Except almost every teaching of the Church has changed over the years.  Only the most basic tenets haven't changed at all.  So either we have virtually no actual doctrine, we've changed our doctrine, or God changed.

Can you point to specific doctrinal issues that have changed?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Islander said:

Can you point to specific doctrinal issues that have changed?

Yes.  But it's not worth the time or bandwidth to rehash the semantics arguments again for the hundredth time.  At this point I could present both sides verbatim.

[Islander]

8 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Are you certain this is a doctrinally sound statement? (See D&C 121 generally.) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only entity receiving revelation. And the Prophet is not the only member of the Church receiving revelation. There are undoubtedly true doctrines which have been revealed to others, but they are laid under a strict command not to impart . . . etc. (See Alma  12:9.) But perhaps we are speaking past one another in how we understand the word doctrine. Anyway, I know the Lord has revealed truths to me which are not generally taught in the Church. I accept such revelation as doctrine, but perhaps I shouldn’t.

See, you open Pandora's box when you talk about personal revelation (to you) that has not been revealed to the Church. ONLY the prophet can receive revelation for the Church. And, how do you know whether that revelation came from God and not the devil? After all, you have no corroboration or scriptural support for that "revelation" if it has not been revealed to anybody, anywhere else. 

I think we have, in the Church, used the word "revelation" very loosely that it has come to mean just about anything. Example; the divorce rate within the membership of the Church is fast approaching that of the world at large. Allegedly, all those couples received "revelation" as to whom they should marry for eternity. But, somehow, sin crept into the relationship, superseding and overpowering the revelation and will of God and destroyed the marriage? 

It is the prerogative of God to reveal to a prophet certain things on account of what is the heart of that prophet. And He does it to strengthen or to comfort the prophet. There is no evidence in scripture that He would do that for anybody else just because we ask Him. So, Alma 12:9 does not apply to you and me. God reveals truth to ALL who seek Him. Now, that truth He has ALREADY revealed in scripture by the mouth of His prophets. But there is no new "revelation" unless it comes by the voice of His appointed prophet on the earth and said prophet proclaims that it is such.

Doctrine is a teaching or faith principle spoken by God, held by the Church, taught by it in an intellectually clear and explicit way, and which is binding for ALL members of the Church. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Islander said:

See, you open Pandora's box when you talk about personal revelation (to you) that has not been revealed to the Church. ONLY the prophet can receive revelation for the Church. And, how do you know whether that revelation came from God and not the devil? After all, you have no corroboration or scriptural support for that "revelation" if it has not been revealed to anybody, anywhere else. 

One of my favourite experiences -- and one that seems to be increasing in frequency for some reason -- is hearing something that God has revealed to me personally being taught in General Conference.

[Mark Beesley]

On 2/22/2021 at 7:31 PM, Islander said:

. . . And, how do you know whether that revelation came from God and not the devil? After all, you have no corroboration or scriptural support for that "revelation" if it has not been revealed to anybody, anywhere else. . . .

In answer to your question, I would refer you to the scriptures which tell us how to judge. 

[Mark Beesley]

On 2/22/2021 at 7:35 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of my favourite experiences -- and one that seems to be increasing in frequency for some reason -- is hearing something that God has revealed to me personally being taught in General Conference.

That is a wonderful, inspiring and confirming experience. And you are right, it seems to be happening more and more. The heavens truly are open to those willing to listen.

 

On 2/22/2021 at 7:31 PM, Islander said:

It is the prerogative of God to reveal to a prophet certain things on account of what is the heart of that prophet. And He does it to strengthen or to comfort the prophet. There is no evidence in scripture that He would do that for anybody else just because we ask Him. So, Alma 12:9 does not apply to you and me. God reveals truth to ALL who seek Him. Now, that truth He has ALREADY revealed in scripture by the mouth of His prophets. But there is no new "revelation" unless it comes by the voice of His appointed prophet on the earth and said prophet proclaims that it is such.

I would be interested if there are any other Latter-day Saints on the Board who believes this is a correct statement. It seems to me to go counter to everything the Prophet stood for. 

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

That is a wonderful, inspiring and confirming experience. And you are right, it seems to be happening more and more. The heavens truly are open to those willing to listen.

 

I would be interested if there are any other Latter-day Saints on the Board who believes this is a correct statement. It seems to me to go counter to everything the Prophet stood for. 

I have had personal experience with the first statement and thus concur with both the statement and your comment. 
 

l do not concur with the statement by Islander as my experience is contrary to his assertion.  Additionally, his statement would preclude anyone without access to scripture from receiving revelation. I don’t believe God is precluded from revealing His will with respect to one of His children to that child if the child doesn’t have access or is unfamiliar with scripture.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

I would be interested if there are any other Latter-day Saints on the Board who believes this is a correct statement. It seems to me to go counter to everything the Prophet stood for. 

I don't believe it correct.  While he's correct that revelation is top down and only the head receives revelation for the entire Church, personal revelation is a separate issue.

The idea that any doctrinal insights we receive from God are always already revealed to the prophet is not correct.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe it correct.  While he's correct that revelation is top down and only the head receives revelation for the entire Church, personal revelation is a separate issue.

The idea that any doctrinal insights we receive from God are always already revealed to the prophet is not correct.

It doesn’t make sense with calling all apostles to be prophets, seers, and revelators as well it seems to me.  Only the president of the Church would need to be. 

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

It doesn’t make sense with calling all apostles to be prophets, seers, and revelators as well it seems to me.  Only the president of the Church would need to be. 

If only the President of the Church was a prophet, seer and revelator of God and his will, then all of the apostles would be left with only 2 choices.  1) believe that what the President said agreed with what God said, essentially taking the President's word as God's word, or 2) reject what the President said and rely on their own thoughts, unaided by God

AND

all of the rest of us would have only those 2 choices, as well

Oh, well, we could have one more choice, I suppose.  The apostles or we could ask God to reveal his will to us so that we would know what God thinks or how God feels including what God would like us to do.

BUT, then again, if God didn't reveal his will to us and instead God did that only for the President of our Church, then we would still have only those 2 options I mentioned before.

[Islander]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:59 AM, let’s roll said:

I have had personal experience with the first statement and thus concur with both the statement and your comment. 
 

l do not concur with the statement by Islander as my experience is contrary to his assertion.  Additionally, his statement would preclude anyone without access to scripture from receiving revelation. I don’t believe God is precluded from revealing His will with respect to one of His children to that child if the child doesn’t have access or is unfamiliar with scripture.

Again, the issue here is that we have come to call "revelation" to just about anything that comes to our minds and we are quickly to claim that it came from God. I heard, some years ago on PPI at the time, a man that claimed that he has left his wife because God "revealed" that his wife would become an apostate and leave the Church. But, I neglected to tell you that he had begun an affair after the "revelation". He claimed the affair was platonic, by the way.

Now, can you dispute his claim to such revelation? How? If everybody is entitle to "revelation" and some claim that such has not even been revealed to the Church as a whole yet, how is that possible? ONLY the prophet can receive revelation for the church. There is no evidence in scripture, ancient or modern, that would lead me to believe that such (as the man in question) is a sound principle. 

Like I mentioned before, revelation has very important and unique purposes but it is always directed to:

1. Testimony, clarity about the word and the work of God.

2. Comfort, uplift and encouragement.

3. To inspire action in support of the Gospel and the work of God.

4. Warning, safety, restrain.

Outside of that the rest is poor theology and limited understanding of the scriptures, in the most benign cases, or worst Gnosticism. 

[Peacefully]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:31 AM, Mark Beesley said:

I would be interested if there are any other Latter-day Saints on the Board who believes this is a correct statement. It seems to me to go counter to everything the Prophet stood for. 

I do not believe it is a correct statement.

7th Article of Faith-We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

If you then go to the scriptural references for “revelation” it is promised to so many who seek diligently as the sons of Mosiah did:

Alma17:3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.

I believe things have been revealed to me that allow me to continue on my spiritual journey, but also help me relate to my children who no longer believe as I do.