Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course.  It would be extremely upsetting.  Absolutely so.

That doesn't mean the doctrine is false.  There are many of God's words that have upset millions since the beginning of recorded history.

Agreed. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Risingtide said:

You've given me a lot to unpack, but I'll try to address some of it.  I agree, it's not wise to defer to the personal conscience of psychopaths. It's not always wise to defer to the healthy in mind. There are millions of God fearing persons with varying beliefs. Beliefs that are in conflict with one another. My guess is that most of those persons believe they are following the ultimate authority. I am not bound by the belief of others. They have the right to follow their conscience, as I do mine. I don't believe that is a dodge. 

I agree, our conscience is largely formed by the culture around us along with our experience and education, with some biology in the mix. So we develop a conscience from these factors. This doesn't guarantee we arrive at the true paradigm. We get along as best we can, hopefully with some level of humility and acceptance of differences. 

I wish you a happy Easter.

Likewise. 

I apologize if I have come across as curt or severe. My internal monologue is like that and, though I try to keep it from bleeding into what I actually say, sometimes I'm not as good at tempering my words. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/3/2021 at 12:30 PM, longview said:

..................................

Quote

.............who is the biological father of Adam?  God was father of his spirit (Michael), but who begat him in the flesh?  According to Brigham Young, both Adam and Eve were begotten elsewhere (another planet) and brought to the Garden of Eden.  So, who were their biological father(s) and mother(s)?

It cannot be that Adam (Michael) was begotten physically of God the Father.  A contradiction because it should be clear that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father.  I accept literally the teaching in the Temple that God the Father and Jesus went down to earth to form Adam's body.  Eve's body was formed later.  Read the scripture in my signature box below.  God is perfectly capable of commanding the dust to come together to form physical bodies (without having to use the birthing process).........................................

Yes, God forming Adam from the clay (like a potter) or from the dust, and woman from Adam's rib.  A great many people accept the literal meaning under the assumption that God can do anything, and do not believe that such descriptions are meant to be part of a symbolic and figurative liturgy.  The problem with that assumption is that LDS theology does not allow violation of natural law, not by God, nor by anyone else.  The point made by Brother Brigham was that all humans are engendered the same way as all other humans, every time (JD 3:319).

And the First Presidency, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, agreed, November 1909,

Quote

“all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.”
* * * * *
“True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. .....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. ”  Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81.  Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley explicitly agreed to this in 1925 as the next First Presidency.

Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie both emphasized that stories about creation of Eve from a rib, or of eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are figurative (not to be taken literally), so Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, 6/3 (Mar 1976), 70, online at https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/03/the-blessings-and-responsibilities-of-womanhood?lang=eng  ;  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 2nd ed. (1966), 242; "Eve and the Fall," in Woman (1988), 60.

Hugh Nibley said:

Quote

The Mormon endowment… is frankly a model, a presentation in figurative terms. As such, it is flexible and adjustable; for example, it may be presented in more languages than one, and in more than one medium of communication. But since it does not attempt to be a picture of reality, but only a model or analogue to show how things work, setting forth the pattern of man’s life on earth with its fundamental whys and wherefores, it does not need to be changed or adapted greatly through the years; it is a remarkably stable model, which makes its comparison with other forms and traditions, including the more ancient ones, quite valid and instructive…   H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. xxix.

All of this is unrelated to Adam-God theory, which was staunchly opposed by Orson Pratt, whose theology on such matters is dominant today in the LDS Church.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
44 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Likewise. 

I apologize if I have come across as curt or severe. My internal monologue is like that and, though I try to keep it from bleeding into what I actually say, sometimes I'm not as good at tempering my words. 

Thank you. Apology accepted.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Risingtide said:

I agree, our conscience is largely formed by the culture around us along with our experience and education, with some biology in the mix. So we develop a conscience from these factors. This doesn't guarantee we arrive at the true paradigm. We get along as best we can, hopefully with some level of humility and acceptance of differences.

Are you saying there IS a true paradigm?

And if there is how would we know it is "true"?

Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Are you saying there IS a true paradigm?

And if there is how would we know it is "true"?

Wouldn't God know the true paradigm"? I think so.  How do we know a paradigm is true? We see through a glass darkly, and walk by faith, and trust personal conformation of the Spirit, but don't see the whole. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

Wouldn't God know the true paradigm"? I think so.  How do we know a paradigm is true? We see through a glass darkly, and walk by faith, and trust personal conformation of the Spirit, but don't see the whole. 

I like that, but maybe a few quibbles about terms.  It just seems to me that then the "true paradigm" is not a "paradigm" at all but something that is NOT "seen through a glass darkly"?  If so there is no need for it to be a "paradigm" among others, right?  If it is not a paradigm then it is "reality" - "the whole" or "things as they truly are"?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I like that, but maybe a few quibbles about terms.  It just seems to me that then the "true paradigm" is not a "paradigm" at all but something that is NOT "seen through a glass darkly"?  If so there is no need for it to be a "paradigm" among others, right?  If it is not a paradigm then it is "reality" - "the whole" or "things as they truly are"?

I think you're right. I believe I used paradigm incorrectly. I thought paradigm meant things as they truly are. is there a word that pertains to a universal truth? 

Another question are Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton generally considered as responsible historians of polygamy in LDS history by Latter Day Saints who seek to understand the practice. 

Edited by Risingtide
Link to post
11 hours ago, Risingtide said:

That would take some time to work out. I'll give you some of what I've got.

The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry.

It would limit the amount of sealings. I think three would be the very maximum. Even then it would cheat the children of the time with fathers and the financial resources that children of monogamous families are blessed with. 

There would be clearly written and enforced rules of behavior regarding the practice, and these laws would be available for all to read.

Scripture wouldn't be published to obfuscate polygamous doctrine.

Before a second wife would be taken into the marriage the first wife would wish for the addition of another wife. 

I don't believe the LDS practice of polygamy aided in the goal of raising righteous seed. I believe the opposite is more likely. I think the Church would have attracted more righteous persons or persons seeking a righteous life  into the faith without polygamy, and those children would have been raised in better circumstances. 

 

I am in full agreement. I love watching Sister Wives on TLC, because I see that they are all responsible adults, and their family is so loving, they still have issues but it's their belief so what are ya going to do. But I am impressed at their hard work that it takes them to keep their family together. So I'm not against adults entering polygamist relationships as long as it's handled well, just as you put forth here. 

Link to post
19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Food for thought. If they truly have no authority behind them, why do you hold them as authoritative? 

Why do you hold JS's doctrine of plural marriage as having authority?  What do you base that on? Does it really only have authority  over you because you grant that authority?  What is authority anyway?  It seems to me authority only exists if the individual is willing to grant it to another.  

Link to post
19 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

What is the authority of personal conscience but the authority of personal preference, if not reinforced by some external authority? 

Is the authority of personal preference absolute? 

If not, then are we truly justified in relying on our personal consciences to pass judgement upon others? 

I'll lighten up on the Socratic dialectic and cut to the point. 

"The authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself" is a diversion, not an answer. Do you believe that your personal preferences are keyed to something actually true? If not, is somebody who violates them actually doing anything wrong? No. In the absence of any form of external reinforcement, internal ethical systems cannot be used to describe or qualify the actions of other people, except as references to one's own preferences. Which indicates that moral outrage is not based on any variety of truth, but merely of preference. There is no ontological difference, at that point, between my casual dislike of quiche and moral revulsion; the difference is only in the intensity of the feeling. "That person is doing something wrong" is reduced to "I really don't like what that person is doing." Shall I declare mankind a moral monster for making French egg tarts?

There have been a lot of societies throughout history that have believed moral codes which are roundly condemned as horrid by others. Aztec sacrifice was abhorred by the conquistadors. We Westerners are mortified by the treatment of women in the Middle East. The list is lengthy and the anthropologists continue to add more. Humans tend to have general ethical impulses that are common to all of us; revulsion to murder, the protection of children, etc., but these impulses are not a moral code in and of themselves, they are only impulses. The creation of moral codes, moral rules, linguistic descriptions of what is right and wrong and what we can and cannot do, require us to elaborate upon these impulses and build a framework upon them which is manifestly culture-dependent. And we are all educated in our cultures and derive the values that prop up our personal consciences from those cultures. So, frankly, in my belief system the authority of personal conscience has a pretty big asterisk. We do not defer to the personal conscience of the psychopath, which means that the authority of personal conscience to declare how things "ought to be" is already determined to be less than absolute. And "normal" personal consciences in any particular culture tend to reflect the values of that culture, which implies that our personal consciences are more reflective of what we absorb then declarative of what is actually right or wrong in an objective sense. My conclusion is that, inasmuch as we are part of a culture we might as well follow the values of that culture, but none of those values are sufficiently absolute to outrank God, and in any case we mortals are not in any position to translate those culturally-contingent values into declarations on what God "should" or "can" do. 

Yet you personally give authority in an entity which most of your culture rejects. And you see this as problematic right?  And many who believe in a God reject the authority you think comes from God. In other words they think you are very mistaken and reject LDS authority as from God. So who is correct?

Edited by Teancum
Link to post
13 hours ago, Risingtide said:

Another question are Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton generally considered as responsible historians of polygamy in LDS history by Latter Day Saints who seek to understand the practice. 

Of the two, I think Compton is generally seen as more careful and judicious in his use of sources. His book won the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award and is cited, albeit only once, in the Church's essay on plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.

Van Wagoner is not antagonistic, but he uses more questionable sources than other writers. He knows they're problematic but tends to bury this information in the endnotes (see this critique for some examples).

Both authors have a naturalistic outlook that colors their presentation. Latter-day Saints wanting to get a believing historian's perspective will need to look elsewhere (Bushman, Fluhman, etc.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 3/29/2021 at 10:26 PM, OGHoosier said:

We don't. I believe that is where faith enters in. Also the principle that we will be held accountable for the light that we have and no more. 

In my mind this is just the question of prophetic infallibility. To assert that Joseph must always have heard clearly is to assert prophetic infallibility. Prophetic infallibility is contra-doctrinal. The point of ongoing prophecy is to perpetuate and refine the church as it goes forward. To hold that we received an infallible kerygma, a Deposit of Faith, from Joseph, just makes us Catholics or Protestants minus 1800 years. 

According to scripture you are mistaken in that point. If it is TRUE revelation, that prophet is uttering the words of God, the way God intended and no more. There can not be error or misinterpretation. God can not lie neither does He err. Jeremiah 1:9 "Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." In Isaiah 50:4 "The Lord God has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught."  Equally in Deut 4:2 "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." So, when a prophet spoke, he spoke the words or the Lord, the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own.

From the beginning of time, the Lord has raised up prophets to speak for Him and a test of true prophesy was ALWAYS that it was in fact infallible. Why? For the Lord has spoken it! Under the Law of Moses, a false prophet was put to death (Deut 13:1-5). Jeremiah warned against false prophets that speak not the word of the Lord (Jer. 23:16) but out of their own imagination. 

So, prophetic accuracy; infallibility, was the true test of the prophet, according to the very word of the Lord. In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we read:  "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

The same admonition by the Lord we find in Jeremiah 23:30-32: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord."

So, there. To know with certainty that a prophet is indeed speaking in the name of the Lord is of vital importance for the people of God. Millions of people are deceived every day by false prophets, charlatans and decidedly evil men (and women) because they can not discern whether what is being taught is sound or false doctrine. Again, the Lord our God does not lie nor does He make mistakes or cause His chosen prophet to fall into error when he is speaking for Him.

In the final analysis, one most discern if indeed the prophet is a true messenger of God or a charlatan, based on what scripture says; God's own word, are the hallmarks of a true prophet. Modern "revelation" (as we commonly call it) is inspiration, illumination by the Spirit. But is primarily procedural and administrative, not doctrinal. There has been no new  true doctrinal revelation in 150 years in the Church. There is no "refining" of doctrine or revelation. Every six months in GC we receive instruction, warning, encouragement and exhortation based on existing revelation/scriptures. There is no new revelation in the biblical sense and that is clear to all.

 

Link to post
55 minutes ago, Islander said:

According to scripture you are mistaken in that point. If it is TRUE revelation, that prophet is uttering the words of God, the way God intended and no more. There can not be error or misinterpretation. God can not lie neither does He err. Jeremiah 1:9 "Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." In Isaiah 50:4 "The Lord God has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught."  Equally in Deut 4:2 "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." So, when a prophet spoke, he spoke the words or the Lord, the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own.

From the beginning of time, the Lord has raised up prophets to speak for Him and a test of true prophesy was ALWAYS that it was in fact infallible. Why? For the Lord has spoken it! Under the Law of Moses, a false prophet was put to death (Deut 13:1-5). Jeremiah warned against false prophets that speak not the word of the Lord (Jer. 23:16) but out of their own imagination. 

So, prophetic accuracy; infallibility, was the true test of the prophet, according to the very word of the Lord. In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we read:  "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

The same admonition by the Lord we find in Jeremiah 23:30-32: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord."

So, there. To know with certainty that a prophet is indeed speaking in the name of the Lord is of vital importance for the people of God. Millions of people are deceived every day by false prophets, charlatans and decidedly evil men (and women) because they can not discern whether what is being taught is sound or false doctrine. Again, the Lord our God does not lie nor does He make mistakes or cause His chosen prophet to fall into error when he is speaking for Him.

In the final analysis, one most discern if indeed the prophet is a true messenger of God or a charlatan, based on what scripture says; God's own word, are the hallmarks of a true prophet. Modern "revelation" (as we commonly call it) is inspiration, illumination by the Spirit. But is primarily procedural and administrative, not doctrinal. There has been no new  true doctrinal revelation in 150 years in the Church. There is no "refining" of doctrine or revelation. Every six months in GC we receive instruction, warning, encouragement and exhortation based on existing revelation/scriptures. There is no new revelation in the biblical sense and that is clear to all.

 

You've given me a fair amount to think about. I am considering your distinction between revelation and inspiration; I had not considered such a conceptual schema before, considering revelation and inspiration to be different things. I will have to ponder and study on this, thank you. 

However, in terms of critique, the scriptures you cite are ambiguous.  How they are interpreted depends on whether or not you view the Lord as direct or a delegator, and I would argue that if we have a distinction between inspiration and revelation then He is definitely a delegator. All of these scriptures use the language of the king and the vizier, a subordinate who speaks with the King's voice but is empowered to speak with his authority. It was a common metaphor in the ancient Near East and predictably appears in the Old Testament, and it does not denote the sort of divine ventriloquism implied by "the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own."  This is the model of prophecy propounded by the Givens', for instance, and it has much to recommend it. And I have to warn you up front that I am remarkably unsympathetic towards "the plain meaning of the text" arguments because there is no meaning of the text (or of revelation for that matter) independent of interpretation. The biblical model for the administration of the church is that of a council such as the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles and the leaders of the Church had to decide together how to proceed, even after Peter received his divine manifestation, on a matter which most definitely concerned doctrine as opposed to merely policy. 

Edit: I don't mean to say that God is incapable of divine ventriloquism, but He doesn't seem to do it for whatever reasons of His own. Though the Lord etched the tablets of stone on Mt. Sinai, He appears to have let all of his revelation since pass through the intermediary of prophets. He didn't provide Jeremiah a new scroll when the king of Judah burnt the first one. He showed Ezekiel visions, but didn't write them down for him. Same thing with Isaiah. He didn't give everyone at the Jerusalem Council the same vision Peter had. Jesus Christ was perfectly capable of editing the erroneous Nephite scriptures Himself (He literally had them in His hands), but instead He instructed Nephi to do it. He did not hand Joseph Smith a translation of the Book of Mormon but had him do it in a process which, if Oliver Cowdery's experience is any indication, was not particularly intuitive. The involvement of the prophet is ALWAYS stressed. If God wants precise word choice, how much harder would it be to just write it down Himself rather than send it through the prophet?  Despite what you've said, the behavior of the Father in the scriptures doesn't indicate that He just takes over and puppeteers whenever it's time for serious revelation to get announced, which means the prophets themselves have a role to play, which means infallibility must not be correct. 

Also, for what it's worth, scripture certainly must be doctrinal but Joseph Smith felt fine making minor revisions to his D&C revelations and the Book of Mormon, which indicates that he of all people did not view his revelations as divine dictations and himself as a divine stenographer. 

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to post

Oops, error

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
21 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You've given me a fair amount to think about. I am considering your distinction between revelation and inspiration; I had not considered such a conceptual schema before, considering revelation and inspiration to be different things. I will have to ponder and study on this, thank you. 

However, in terms of critique, the scriptures you cite are ambiguous.  How they are interpreted depends on whether or not you view the Lord as direct or a delegator, and I would argue that if we have a distinction between inspiration and revelation then He is definitely a delegator. All of these scriptures use the language of the king and the vizier, a subordinate who speaks with the King's voice but is empowered to speak with his authority. It was a common metaphor in the ancient Near East and predictably appears in the Old Testament, and it does not denote the sort of divine ventriloquism implied by "the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own."  This is the model of prophecy propounded by the Givens', for instance, and it has much to recommend it. And I have to warn you up front that I am remarkably unsympathetic towards "the plain meaning of the text" arguments because there is no meaning of the text (or of revelation for that matter) independent of interpretation. The biblical model for the administration of the church is that of a council such as the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles and the leaders of the Church had to decide together how to proceed, even after Peter received his divine manifestation, on a matter which most definitely concerned doctrine as opposed to merely policy. 

Edit: I don't mean to say that God is incapable of divine ventriloquism, but He doesn't seem to do it for whatever reasons of His own. Though the Lord etched the tablets of stone on Mt. Sinai, He appears to have let all of his revelation since pass through the intermediary of prophets. He didn't provide Jeremiah a new scroll when the king of Judah burnt the first one. He showed Ezekiel visions, but didn't write them down for him. Same thing with Isaiah. He didn't give everyone at the Jerusalem Council the same vision Peter had. Jesus Christ was perfectly capable of editing the erroneous Nephite scriptures Himself (He literally had them in His hands), but instead He instructed Nephi to do it. He did not hand Joseph Smith a translation of the Book of Mormon but had him do it in a process which, if Oliver Cowdery's experience is any indication, was not particularly intuitive. The involvement of the prophet is ALWAYS stressed. If God wants precise word choice, how much harder would it be to just write it down Himself rather than send it through the prophet?  Despite what you've said, the behavior of the Father in the scriptures doesn't indicate that He just takes over and puppeteers whenever it's time for serious revelation to get announced, which means the prophets themselves have a role to play, which means infallibility must not be correct. 

Also, for what it's worth, scripture certainly must be doctrinal but Joseph Smith felt fine making minor revisions to his D&C revelations and the Book of Mormon, which indicates that he of all people did not view his revelations as divine dictations and himself as a divine stenographer. 

Well, all I know is that which is plainly detailed in the scriptures. I am convinced that the Lord always "breaths into" the mind of His prophet what He wants revealed. Now, as a human being, every prophet pours out that revelation with all the cultural and linguistic nuances of the historical and social milieu inhabited by the prophet. But no doubt, the message is clear and the meaning accesible to the intended audience. For us, some 2-3000 years later, it may require spiritual discernment, study and effort to grasp all the contextual elements but rest assured it is accessible to the true seeker. For that is the expressed intent of the Lord. What is evident is that ALL the elements necessary for salvation and godly living are easily grasped from the scriptures by those led by the Spirit to come to Him by the Gospel message.

What is evidently clear, based on the scriptures, is that accuracy, faithfulness and thus total adherence to the revelation given by God was proof of a true prophetic calling and the Lord's commandment. 

Link to post
23 hours ago, Islander said:

According to scripture you are mistaken in that point. If it is TRUE revelation, that prophet is uttering the words of God, the way God intended and no more. There can not be error or misinterpretation. God can not lie neither does He err. Jeremiah 1:9 "Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." In Isaiah 50:4 "The Lord God has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught."  Equally in Deut 4:2 "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." So, when a prophet spoke, he spoke the words or the Lord, the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own.

From the beginning of time, the Lord has raised up prophets to speak for Him and a test of true prophesy was ALWAYS that it was in fact infallible. Why? For the Lord has spoken it! Under the Law of Moses, a false prophet was put to death (Deut 13:1-5). Jeremiah warned against false prophets that speak not the word of the Lord (Jer. 23:16) but out of their own imagination. 

So, prophetic accuracy; infallibility, was the true test of the prophet, according to the very word of the Lord. In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we read:  "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

The same admonition by the Lord we find in Jeremiah 23:30-32: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord."

So, there. To know with certainty that a prophet is indeed speaking in the name of the Lord is of vital importance for the people of God. Millions of people are deceived every day by false prophets, charlatans and decidedly evil men (and women) because they can not discern whether what is being taught is sound or false doctrine. Again, the Lord our God does not lie nor does He make mistakes or cause His chosen prophet to fall into error when he is speaking for Him.

In the final analysis, one most discern if indeed the prophet is a true messenger of God or a charlatan, based on what scripture says; God's own word, are the hallmarks of a true prophet. Modern "revelation" (as we commonly call it) is inspiration, illumination by the Spirit. But is primarily procedural and administrative, not doctrinal. There has been no new  true doctrinal revelation in 150 years in the Church. There is no "refining" of doctrine or revelation. Every six months in GC we receive instruction, warning, encouragement and exhortation based on existing revelation/scriptures. There is no new revelation in the biblical sense and that is clear to all.

 

Nope.

Link to post
On 4/6/2021 at 9:57 PM, Islander said:

According to scripture you are mistaken in that point. If it is TRUE revelation, that prophet is uttering the words of God, the way God intended and no more. There can not be error or misinterpretation. God can not lie neither does He err. Jeremiah 1:9 "Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." In Isaiah 50:4 "The Lord God has given me the tongue of those who are taught, that I may know how to sustain with a word him who is weary. Morning by morning he awakens; he awakens my ear to hear as those who are taught."  Equally in Deut 4:2 "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." So, when a prophet spoke, he spoke the words or the Lord, the words that were given to him by the Lord and not his own.

From the beginning of time, the Lord has raised up prophets to speak for Him and a test of true prophesy was ALWAYS that it was in fact infallible. Why? For the Lord has spoken it! Under the Law of Moses, a false prophet was put to death (Deut 13:1-5). Jeremiah warned against false prophets that speak not the word of the Lord (Jer. 23:16) but out of their own imagination. 

So, prophetic accuracy; infallibility, was the true test of the prophet, according to the very word of the Lord. In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we read:  "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

The same admonition by the Lord we find in Jeremiah 23:30-32: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord.’ Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the Lord, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the Lord."

So, there. To know with certainty that a prophet is indeed speaking in the name of the Lord is of vital importance for the people of God. Millions of people are deceived every day by false prophets, charlatans and decidedly evil men (and women) because they can not discern whether what is being taught is sound or false doctrine. Again, the Lord our God does not lie nor does He make mistakes or cause His chosen prophet to fall into error when he is speaking for Him.

In the final analysis, one most discern if indeed the prophet is a true messenger of God or a charlatan, based on what scripture says; God's own word, are the hallmarks of a true prophet. Modern "revelation" (as we commonly call it) is inspiration, illumination by the Spirit. But is primarily procedural and administrative, not doctrinal. There has been no new  true doctrinal revelation in 150 years in the Church. There is no "refining" of doctrine or revelation. Every six months in GC we receive instruction, warning, encouragement and exhortation based on existing revelation/scriptures. There is no new revelation in the biblical sense and that is clear to all.

 

First, yes, when a man speaks as a prophet to say what God inspires him to say and what he says is in agreement with God's will and purpose for speaking, on that occasion, it is the same as God speaking and God is always infallible.

But, the fact that that man is speaking as a prophet to say whatever God inspires him to say does NOT mean everyone who hears or reads what that man said will know he was speaking as God.  Which is why we need to ask God to help clarify that for us.

Also, revelation from God does not need to be new or original to count as revelation from God.  God often repeats himself through multiple prophets  and also through the very same prophets.  For those who didn't hear him or understand him before.

Link to post
13 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, all I know is that which is plainly detailed in the scriptures. I am convinced that the Lord always "breaths into" the mind of His prophet what He wants revealed. Now, as a human being, every prophet pours out that revelation with all the cultural and linguistic nuances of the historical and social milieu inhabited by the prophet. But no doubt, the message is clear and the meaning accesible to the intended audience. For us, some 2-3000 years later, it may require spiritual discernment, study and effort to grasp all the contextual elements but rest assured it is accessible to the true seeker. For that is the expressed intent of the Lord. What is evident is that ALL the elements necessary for salvation and godly living are easily grasped from the scriptures by those led by the Spirit to come to Him by the Gospel message.

What is evidently clear, based on the scriptures, is that accuracy, faithfulness and thus total adherence to the revelation given by God was proof of a true prophetic calling and the Lord's commandment. 

If the message was clear and the meaning accessible to the intended audience, then whence cometh confusion in the churches? Yet the scriptures adamantly attest the existence of such. The human element is unavoidable and it is not merely invoked in matters of style. 

I'm sorry, but I do not see the simplicity you describe, and it is not for lack of desire to do so. 

What is plain to one man is viewed through a glass darkly by another. God does the best He can with all of us but that is a reality He either cannot or will not change. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/8/2021 at 11:24 AM, Zeniff said:

But, the fact that that man is speaking as a prophet to say whatever God inspires him to say does NOT mean everyone who hears or reads what that man said will know he was speaking as God.  Which is why we need to ask God to help clarify that for us.

Also, revelation from God does not need to be new or original to count as revelation from God.  God often repeats himself through multiple prophets  and also through the very same prophets.  For those who didn't hear him or understand him before.

That is why in the scriptures is ALWAYS points to "...thus saith the Lord..." as to avoid any confusion in terms of who is actually speaking. God ALWAYS says what He means and means precisely what He says. There is no room for misinterpretation or confusion. The calling of a prophet is not child's play and when God desires to say something, that prophet WILL ALWAYS say exactly what God intends to be said.

As far as the man's opinions are concerned, when he is not speaking for God, I am not interested. Any other saint has access to the same Spirit and has the ability to receive inspiration and guidance for his/her life and the work of the ministry in which he/she is involved and has been called to fulfill. 

Like I said, there is no new revelation. Discoursing about past revelation is the same as reading scripture. We are called to do so as to remain firm in the faith, receive strength, as a reminder of the work of God and the promises of God as well as to develop the ability to teach those that are new to the faith. 

Link to post
On 4/8/2021 at 11:40 AM, OGHoosier said:

If the message was clear and the meaning accessible to the intended audience, then whence cometh confusion in the churches? Yet the scriptures adamantly attest the existence of such. The human element is unavoidable and it is not merely invoked in matters of style. 

I'm sorry, but I do not see the simplicity you describe, and it is not for lack of desire to do so. 

What is plain to one man is viewed through a glass darkly by another. God does the best He can with all of us but that is a reality He either cannot or will not change. 

The basic elements for salvation are accesible to ALL that diligently seek the Savior guided by the Holy Spirit. A person with enough education to read a properly translated bible in a linguistic mode that accommodates for the current vernacular, will get the message. The message of the Gospel of John is transparent; Jesus was the long prophesied Messiah, the creator of the world, was sent by the Father to redeem those that would come to Him for ALL are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. If we believe in Him, open our hearts so that His love may dwell therein, obey His words and endure to the end, will be saved in the last day. The problem arises when those that DO NOT have the Spirit trifle with the word of God; driven by mundane desires of the flesh.

Error is always a human flaw and will always be present when men tread blindly, driven by their own ambition and absent the Spirit of the Lord. Good intentions are never enough because truth matters and there is no truth on the earth apart from the Spirit of the Lord. Just like the Savior said: "...without me you can do nothing...".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...