Ashes of a rye straw...

[bOObOO]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wonder if "the Spirit" should be renamed "Confirmation Bias"

More like "God's Confirmation Giver" or "He who testifies for God our Father and our Lord as their authorized Spirit Spokesman".  Our Counselor or Comforter, acting in their behalf.  I suppose he is biased.  All people are.  He prefers good over evil.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

People often drop "the spirit" as a kind of trump card to end discussion. I am wary of people who refer to their own personal revelation too often because methinks they be trying to hard to drop the mic.

 

Too often?  How is one to know how often is too often?  I only do it when I'm sharing what they have told me.  Is that too often, in your perspective?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Consider any words written by men, for example.  Who is to know whether those words were written as men were inspired by God to write them?  Only a prophet can know for sure. 

That's really the issue with canon/not canon.
What makes something "scripture" and why do we weight one document as spiritually authoritative and not another?

Take the Epistle to the Galatians.  In about 48AD the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians containing doctrinal teachings.
On April 7, 1844 Joseph Smith gave a discourse at the funeral of King Follett.

Neither feature any "thus saith the Lord", that is to say neither indicate that the words were given directly by God or our Savior.
One was canonized around the 3rd or 4th century, the other has never been canonized.

When the question of canon comes up, I have to ask myself, what makes Paul's ideas more canonical than Joseph Smith's?  Why are one prophet's teachings "scripture" and the other just "opinion"?
The term "canon" holds no weight for me.
 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

More like "God's Confirmation Giver" or "He who testifies for God our Father and our Lord as their authorized Spirit Spokesman".  Our Counselor or Comforter, acting in their behalf.  I suppose he is biased.  All people are.  He prefers good over evil.

Too often?  How is one to know how often is too often?  I only do it when I'm sharing what they have told me.  Is that too often, in your perspective?

The spirit told me it was too often.

ba...dum..ching

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

That's really the issue with canon/not canon.
What makes something "scripture" and why do we weight one document as spiritually authoritative and not another?

Take the Epistle to the Galatians.  In about 48AD the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians containing doctrinal teachings.
On April 7, 1844 Joseph Smith gave a discourse at the funeral of King Follett.

Neither feature any "thus saith the Lord", that is to say neither indicate that the words were given directly by God or our Savior.
One was canonized around the 3rd or 4th century, the other has never been canonized.

When the question of canon comes up, I have to ask myself, what makes Paul's ideas more canonical than Joseph Smith's?  Why are one prophet's teachings "scripture" and the other just "opinion"?
The term "canon" holds no weight for me.
 

 

I regard canon as a standard or comparative tool to illustrate what scripture is.  Like how a ruler or yardstick gives an example of measurement that can be used to measure other things, not only what is within the ruler or yardstick.

The fact that we call what is in our canon our standard works doesn't mean there are no other examples of scripture.  I consider many words of men to be scripture even though they are not in our standard works. 

Maybe we should call scripture that are not in our standard works "accessories", maybe?  Or "additional line items"?  

As I said, to know what scripture is we need the spirit of prophecy, as prophets and prophetesses have it.  If we're relying on other people to tell us what scripture is without any way for us to know for ourselves, then we do not have what we need.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

LDS history makes it very clear that prophets can disagree among themselves and make mistakes.  Since no one is infallible, those observations are doubly important.  Even more crucial is the lack of understanding of the Canon -- especially the Bible, which comes to us in an archaic English translation, subject to manifold and mutually exclusive interpretations.  Indeed, all Scripture is supposed to be interpreted via the Holy Spirit, and not by human understanding (including even the best scholarship).   Rampant and continuing denominationalism among christians ought to be indicative.

In the end, each person of faith is on his own to decide what is true and false.  He cannot depend upon others for his understanding -- living on borrowed light.  Brother Brigham thought that the best approach:  That each person know for himself through earnest prayer and inspiration whether what the Brethren say now and have said in yesteryear is true.  He had no patience for those who lived on borrowed light.

Thanks Bob.

Regarding this- I have two quotes from "Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity" by Terryl L. Givens which are highly relevant to this.   I did not take down the page numbers, but if anyone really NEEDS them I can look them up. 

Quote

"Complicating the bases of Mormon theology further, Mormons expand not only the scriptural canon but also the definition of scripture itself. Regarding verbal pronouncements, a revelation declares that anything spoken by priesthood leaders “when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture”60—which of course is of little help to academics and observers trying to sort doctrine from opinion. In the first generation of the Mormon Church, the picture is especially complicated, for several reasons. First is because Smith hated dogma and tests of orthodoxy. A revelation declared him “a seer, translator, and prophet,”but his calling as a prophet was some years morphing into the virtual office of Prophet. (The first was a function of his revelatory experience; the second was an institutionally defined position in an ecclesiastical hierarchy. 61) Joseph Smith was as likely to promote openness as to exert his authority. He severely rebuked his own brother Hyrum for performing unauthorized rituals. 62 But in another case, he “did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine”when a council met to discipline Pelatiah Brown for speculating on the meaning of portions of the book of Revelation. “It looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.”63 Second, Smith seldom exerted editorial control over the publications of church members. Associates, missionaries, editors of church newspapers, and apostles like W. W. Phelps, Orson Pratt, and Parley Pratt printed broadsides, pamphlets, and in some cases books with no supervision. When several reviewers referred to Parley Pratt’s Voice of Warning as a standard work along with Mormon scriptures, neither he nor Smith corrected the perception. 64 Smith allowed a virtually unconstrained flowering of Mormon theology, as his colleagues enthusiastically joined in vigorous exploration, elaboration, and conjecture, constituting a communal project of religion making. 65 It was not until months after Smith’s death, in the face of schismatic fracturing, that Parley Pratt established the Q uorum of the Twelve Apostles’editorial control over publishing of Mormon teachings. 66 Finally, Smith himself freely mingled oracular pronouncement with vigorous speculation, repeatedly insisting that he did not always speak as a prophet. A popular joke has more than a hint of truth to it that Catholics espouse papal infallibility, but no Catholic believes in it. Joseph Smith espoused prophetic fallibility, but no Mormon believes in it. Smith lamented before he was even dead, with his features marbleized and his flaws airbrushed by his followers, the cumbersome myth of his infallibility and ready access to unfiltered truth.

And:

Quote

"This historical corroboration of Webb’s impression about the informality of Mormon theology—and its shifting fortunes—explains a conundrum not unique to the Mormon faith tradition: how to know what constitutes “official”doctrine. A substantial literature within Mormonism debates whether there even is, in fact, anything that can be called Mormon theology, and how it might be ascertained. James Faulconer has famously referred to Mormonism’s “atheological”character, “without an official or even semi-official philosophy that explains and gives rational support to [its] beliefs and teachings.”54 He cites in support Smith’s assertion that “The Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”55 Nevertheless, it is obvious that a body of teachings and propositions and beliefs have arisen in the Mormon faith tradition, and the question is how to establish general grounds for their relative authority. A framework common to many models, and endorsed by the LDS Church itself, gives priority to the four “standard works”of the Mormon scriptural canon, discourses of the leadership delivered in the church’s semi-annual General Conferences, and church handbooks and curricular materials. 56 As many critics of such a model point out, interpretation complicates simple appeals to canon, the thousands of conference sermons are rife with mutually incompatible views, and teachings are constantly evolving. 57 In this study, I will use such sources and many others, from pamphlets and tracts to privately published works, of both LDS ecclesiastical leaders and lay men and women who have exerted conspicuous influence on Mormon thought. Although my intention is primarily descriptive, my judgments are obviously selective and subjective.

 

[bOObOO]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The spirit told me it was too often.

ba...dum..ching

Joke.  Ha.  Funny.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not trying to speak for Robert, but evangelicals largely treat that the Bible is the source of truth over the Spirit or revelation.  To use the terminology of this thread they choose canon over prophet.  Good old sola scriptura.

I mean no offense, but you are grossly misstating the position of evangelicals. The Holy Spirit is vital to every aspect of the creation of the scriptures and then in their interpretation. From the moment the scriptures were written the Holy Spirit was engaged in the process through the inspiration of the writers. Then, came and comes the process of interpretation of the same. The only way evangelicals hope to find the Truth (large T) in the scriptures is via the inspiration, leadership, and direction of the Spirit. If I spent an hour in preparation of a sermon, I spent two hours in prayer about it, seeking the Spirit’s direction as I wrote and spoke. II Timothy 2:15 is the guide for every evangelical interpreter of the scripture. My favorite translation of the same is this - "Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." Almost every word in this verse requires dependence on the Holy Spirit to fulfill. "Good old sola scriptura" is not what you are making of it either. You are seriously taking it out of context. Martin Luther would roll over in his grave! As one early 20^th century author wrote, “Luther set the Word of God as its own interpreter, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of Church and councils, of fathers and tradition. Thus opened a fresh and significant chapter in the history of hermeneutics.”

 

The Holy Spirit is our one and only continual source of revelation, insight, and inspiration. Thanks for reading my reply.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

For me, it's what the truth is (things as they were, are, and will be), and we have the tools to discern this using the canon, current president, and our own revelation. 

And then we will still get to discuss YOUR "truth" from MY TRUTH.  It's never ending.

This is quite obvious to me- people actually fight wars over who's truth represents "things as they are", who has "rights" and who doesn't, and who is the boss and who is the flunky.

The Pragmatist school of philosophy says- since we cannot define truth, we are stuck with subjective appearances and practically speaking, we need to understand that before we start killing the infidels

This will never be resolved until we give up on the question of who is "right" and just use logic, the spirit, and gentile persuasion to further illustrate the benefits of our point of view opposed to others.

I believe that essentially worshipping the Nuclear Family and believing in its immortality is the best ideology for humanity, period.

THAT is our ideology right there.  Everything else flows from that concept.

That is the basis of the first pragmatic Christian book of theology from the first century, the Didache, which teaches two ways of life- the way of life and the way of death.

Essentially the way of life is the life of the perfect nuclear family, and the way of death is sin and what destroys the nuclear family.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Quote

 

Chapter 1. The Two Ways; The First Commandment

There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy. Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect. If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two. If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat. If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able. Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts). Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing. Matthew 5:26 But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself, Matthew 5:34 you shall not bear false witness, Exodus 20:16 you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden

My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads the way to murder; neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper; for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one; for lust leads the way to fornication; neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adulteries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads the way to idolatry; neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to look at these things; for out of all these idolatry is engendered. My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads the way to theft; neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy; neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered. But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5 Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, Luke 18:14 nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. The workings that befall you receive as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.

Chapter 4. Various Precepts

My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words. You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace. You shall judge righteously, you shall not respect persons in reproving for transgressions. You shall not be undecided whether it shall be or no. Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give. If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire. You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but you shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own; for if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal? You shall not remove your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth shall teach them the fear of God. Ephesians 6:4 You shall not enjoin anything in your bitterness upon your bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 for he comes not to call according to the outward appearance, but unto them whom the Spirit has prepared. And you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22 You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord. Forsake in no way the commandments of the Lord; but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom . Deuteronomy 12:32 In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

 

Chapter 5. The Way of Death

And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and full of curse: murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing requital, not pitying a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted, not knowing Him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.

Chapter 6. Against False Teachers, and Food Offered to Idols

See that no one cause you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able, what you are able that do. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on your guard; for it is the service of dead gods.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I mean no offense, but you are grossly misstating the position of evangelicals. The Holy Spirit is vital to every aspect of the creation of the scriptures and then in their interpretation. From the moment the scriptures were written the Holy Spirit was engaged in the process through the inspiration of the writers. Then, came and comes the process of interpretation of the same. The only way evangelicals hope to find the Truth (large T) in the scriptures is via the inspiration, leadership, and direction of the Spirit. If I spent an hour in preparation of a sermon, I spent two hours in prayer about it, seeking the Spirit’s direction as I wrote and spoke. II Timothy 2:15 is the guide for every evangelical interpreter of the scripture. My favorite translation of the same is this - "Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." Almost every word in this verse requires dependence on the Holy Spirit to fulfill. "Good old sola scriptura" is not what you are making of it either. You are seriously taking it out of context. Martin Luther would roll over in his grave! As one early 20^th century author wrote, “Luther set the Word of God as its own interpreter, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of Church and councils, of fathers and tradition. Thus opened a fresh and significant chapter in the history of hermeneutics.”

 

 

 

The Holy Spirit is our one and only continual source of revelation, insight, and inspiration. Thanks for reading my reply.

 

And so the Book of Mormon then, revealed by the spirit, is scripture?

And we LDS can have true testimonies of its truth?

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I mean no offense, but you are grossly misstating the position of evangelicals. The Holy Spirit is vital to every aspect of the creation of the scriptures and then in their interpretation. From the moment the scriptures were written the Holy Spirit was engaged in the process through the inspiration of the writers. Then, came and comes the process of interpretation of the same. The only way evangelicals hope to find the Truth (large T) in the scriptures is via the inspiration, leadership, and direction of the Spirit. If I spent an hour in preparation of a sermon, I spent two hours in prayer about it, seeking the Spirit’s direction as I wrote and spoke. II Timothy 2:15 is the guide for every evangelical interpreter of the scripture. My favorite translation of the same is this - "Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." Almost every word in this verse requires dependence on the Holy Spirit to fulfill. "Good old sola scriptura" is not what you are making of it either. You are seriously taking it out of context. Martin Luther would roll over in his grave! As one early 20^th century author wrote, “Luther set the Word of God as its own interpreter, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of Church and councils, of fathers and tradition. Thus opened a fresh and significant chapter in the history of hermeneutics.”

 

 

 

The Holy Spirit is our one and only continual source of revelation, insight, and inspiration. Thanks for reading my reply.

 

Then can you maybe explain why you don't see the work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit evident in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, etc... works of Holy Spirit inspiration in books other than the Holy Bible?

There are many other instances of prophets writing scripture, other than those of the Bible, where the work of the Holy Spirit has been made manifest.  I wonder why you, and others, don't seem to acknowledge those holy instances. Can you explain?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I mean no offense, but you are grossly misstating the position of evangelicals. The Holy Spirit is vital to every aspect of the creation of the scriptures and then in their interpretation. From the moment the scriptures were written the Holy Spirit was engaged in the process through the inspiration of the writers. Then, came and comes the process of interpretation of the same. The only way evangelicals hope to find the Truth (large T) in the scriptures is via the inspiration, leadership, and direction of the Spirit. If I spent an hour in preparation of a sermon, I spent two hours in prayer about it, seeking the Spirit’s direction as I wrote and spoke. II Timothy 2:15 is the guide for every evangelical interpreter of the scripture. My favorite translation of the same is this - "Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth." Almost every word in this verse requires dependence on the Holy Spirit to fulfill. "Good old sola scriptura" is not what you are making of it either. You are seriously taking it out of context. Martin Luther would roll over in his grave! As one early 20^th century author wrote, “Luther set the Word of God as its own interpreter, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, independent of Church and councils, of fathers and tradition. Thus opened a fresh and significant chapter in the history of hermeneutics.”

The Holy Spirit is our one and only continual source of revelation, insight, and inspiration. Thanks for reading my reply.

No offense meant.  Thank you for the reply.
Is there room for new revelation in the evangelical belief system?  I was under the impression that the belief was the Bible was complete and there would be no more prophets.

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Regarding this- I have two quotes from "Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity" by Terryl L. Givens which are highly relevant to this.   I did not take down the page numbers, but if anyone really NEEDS them I can look them up. ...........

Yes, very nice, and so true.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Which creates the problem mentioned in the OP.

After hearing so many friends talk about how "the spirit" told them not to wear a mask or get vaccinated" even when that contradicts with what the spirit presumably has told church leaders, it is clear that people misinterpret "the spirit" quite regularly. Sometimes I wonder if "the Spirit" should be renamed "Confirmation Bias"

People often drop "the spirit" as a kind of trump card to end discussion. I am wary of people who refer to their own personal revelation too often because methinks they be trying to hard to drop the mic.

Yes, of course, but that does not obviate the personal nature of all inspiration.  A testimony is always personal and non-transferrable, even if that seems to create chaos, and even if there are mutually exclusive claims based on that individual inspiration -- which is exactly why the evangelicals are so uncomfortable with it.  They perceive the Holy Spirit as far too dangerous, and point to the pentecostals for justification.  Evangelicals are deeply fearful of becoming "Holy Rollers."  That is why they emphasize the Scriptures as the sole source of authority.

However, in fact, despite that emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the LDS Church has functioned quite smoothly for a long time, and none of that evangelical fear seems justified.  Your description of the situation seems manifestly untrue, based simply on the results of belief in inspiration from the Holy Spirit -- which is, for example, so central to all LDS missionary work.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course, but that does not obviate the personal nature of all inspiration.  A testimony is always personal and non-transferrable, even if that seems to create chaos, and even if there are mutually exclusive claims based on that individual inspiration -- which is exactly why the evangelicals are so uncomfortable with it.  They perceive the Holy Spirit as far too dangerous, and point to the pentecostals for justification.  Evangelicals are deeply fearful of becoming "Holy Rollers."  That is why they emphasize the Scriptures as the sole source of authority.

However, in fact, despite that emphasis on the Holy Spirit, the LDS Church has functioned quite smoothly for a long time, and none of that evangelical fear seems justified.  Your description of the situation seems manifestly untrue, based simply on the results of belief in inspiration from the Holy Spirit -- which is, for example, so central to all LDS missionary work.

I suppose "smoothly" is in the eye of the beholder.

But to the degree that you are right about smooth functioning, I believe that can be attributed to the box the church has created, in which personal revelation is allowed. In other words, there are rules for how, why, who receives revelation. An order has been created and enforced which allows for the concept of personal revelation to thrive despite its organizationally defined limits. I don't believe other Christian denominations have that level of control over personal revelation. That could be both a benefit and a hindrance. 

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No offense meant.  Thank you for the reply.
Is there room for new revelation in the evangelical belief system?  I was under the impression that the belief was the Bible was complete and there would be no more prophets.

Absolutely, with no shadow of a doubt there is continual revelation in the evangelical belief system. If we didn't believe in new revelation we would waste no time in praying for it, in believing in the power of conviction, we couldn't believe in sanctification, witnessing, or any of a dozen other activities that we share in common with our LDS Christian believers. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists for that matter, believe in both special and general revelation. Special revelation includes the Bible and the direct ministry of the Holy Spirit in the individual's life as a result of prayer, meditation, and seeking to know more of God. It is the result of the truth contained in Ps 42: 1. As we pant after God as a thirsty deer pants after water, He teaches us via the Spirit and the scriptures. He teaches us via life, experiences that give us new insights into and commitment for Him. As we pray and make commitments to Him, we grow in grace. That is all continual revelation. We believe that such revelation, if indeed from the Spirit (not our confirmation bias) will not contradict the correct interpretation of the scriptures as it is guided by the Spirit. Sometimes special revelation is also termed "direct revelation." Certainly the vast majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists believe in direct revelation on an ongoing basis.

About the prophets. . . . Evangelicals do tend to believe (not all - many Pentecostal evangelicals would disagree - diversity alert!)  that there are no modern day prophets in the sense of OT prophets - both forthtellers and foretellers. We do believe there are prophets in the sense of forthtellers - those who are empowered in a special way to preach the gospel - someone perhaps like Billy Graham, Charles Spurgeon, Jedediah Grant, etc. They preach with the power and conviction of the Holy Spirit in a special way, utilizing a special gift. They are modern day prophets, but not of the same nature and power as the OT testament prophets. I personally believe Christ was the last OT prophet. Certainly throughout history there have been modern prophets, gifted by God in a special way to communicate the gospel.

As an aside, I am regularly intrigued in how my LDS friends seem conditioned to see evangelicals and fundamentalists - the "sectarian" pastors as a monolithic group. I say "intrigued" because I am not "surprised" since many evangelicals return the favor and see every LDS church member since Joseph Smith as part of a monolithic church with little or not variance in teachings and doctrine. Right here on this forum we put that to rest, don't we? In our own little ward we see diversity among the flock. There is however, something fascinating ingrained in the LDS mindset about non-LDS Christians. Perhaps it comes from the old endowment ceremony teachings, or from the occasional interaction with this or that fundamentalist, that stereotypes and generalizations are fostered. Perhaps it is simply doctrinal - a function of being the only true and living. . .  I have still on occasion heard stake officials, especially at funerals tell derogatory stories about Protestant pastors in their closing statements, which at least here are more missiological than anything else. The evangelical and the fundamentalist communities are wonderfully and sometime frustratingly diverse - just like this forum! Ha!

[Navidad]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A testimony is always personal and non-transferrable, even if that seems to create chaos, and even if there are mutually exclusive claims based on that individual inspiration -- which is exactly why the evangelicals are so uncomfortable with it.  They perceive the Holy Spirit as far too dangerous, and point to the pentecostals for justification.  Evangelicals are deeply fearful of becoming "Holy Rollers."  That is why they emphasize the Scriptures as the sole source of authority.

Sigh! I am not even sure where to begin. . . So I simply will sigh! My evangelical Pentecostal friends will sigh with me.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

I wonder why you, and others, don't seem to acknowledge those holy instances. Can you explain?

No I can't explain how you arrive at that conclusion. I don't believe in four years on this forum I have ever commented on any other scripture than the Bible. I have quoted from the BOM in sacrament talks. Does that help?

 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Absolutely, with no shadow of a doubt there is continual revelation in the evangelical belief system. If we didn't believe in new revelation we would waste no time in praying for it, in believing in the power of conviction, we couldn't believe in sanctification, witnessing, or any of a dozen other activities that we share in common with our LDS Christian believers. Most evangelicals and fundamentalists for that matter, believe in both special and general revelation. Special revelation includes the Bible and the direct ministry of the Holy Spirit in the individual's life as a result of prayer, meditation, and seeking to know more of God. It is the result of the truth contained in Ps 42: 1. As we pant after God as a thirsty deer pants after water, He teaches us via the Spirit and the scriptures. He teaches us via life, experiences that give us new insights into and commitment for Him. As we pray and make commitments to Him, we grow in grace. That is all continual revelation. We believe that such revelation, if indeed from the Spirit (not our confirmation bias) will not contradict the correct interpretation of the scriptures as it is guided by the Spirit. Sometimes special revelation is also termed "direct revelation." Certainly the vast majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists believe in direct revelation on an ongoing basis.

We believe something very similar.
But do the various evangelical groups believe truths can be revealed from God that aren't already contained in the Bible?  I am sure evangelicals believe in guiding revelation.  But do they believe in additional heavenly teachings and doctrine that didn't make it between he lids of the bible?
The question of revelation is both one of guidance AND knowledge.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And so the Book of Mormon then, revealed by the spirit, is scripture?

And we LDS can have true testimonies of its truth?

Of course you can have true testimonies of its truth. How could I possibly say you "can't" when I know you can and do? Regarding your first statement, I have a testimony of its truth to my LDS friends. And personally I believe it contains a lot of truth and scripture as well. No question about it.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I never met an evangelical who did not depend on the Holy Spirit to provide insight and enlightenment in his or her hermeneutics. Thanks.

Here is a typical evangelical critique of pentecostalism:

Quote

By appealing too frequently to inward feelings and focusing too often on human and spiritual experience the Pentecostal movement tends towards a preoccupation with the emotional element of spirituality. Experiential and personal knowledge is set against theological knowledge. This leads to a culture of ego-focused spirituality with members who increasingly become absorbed by their own individual quests for self-fulfilment through personal encounters with God. It also creates the sub-Christian tendency to rely on, as a basis for faith, personal experiences and group culture. * * *
Insistence on the importance of direct divine revelation and an over-emphasis on the importance of the Spirit's personal guidance makes Pentecostalism extremely susceptible to the influence of new movements, new teaching, and new leaders. Deluded claims, fake showmanship, false testimony, heretical teaching, all abound in a Pentecostal environment that so easily falls for every strong charismatic leader who would trumpet new insight, testify to special encounters with God and boast of closer intimacy with the Spirit than others.  http://talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com/2009/12/negative-tendencies-of-pentecostalism.html .

Much the same is said about the LDS faith:

https://C***.org/mormonism/james-15-and-the-mormon-testimony-feeling/ (“James 1:5 and the Mormon Testimony,” CARM, June 17, 2017)

https://books.google.com/books?id=zpsfsULWq9YC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=evangelicals+on+LDS+"burning+bosom"&source=bl&ots=G9tjrRXgKF&sig=ACfU3U0ciLOBH5sPHiKn63GVIy4hhi4swg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnneC20q7yAhVOgp4KHZ5iBCwQ6AF6BAgjEAM#v=onepage&q=evangelicals on LDS "burning bosom"&f=false (Paul Louis Metzger, Connecting Christ: How to Discuss Jesus in a World of Diverse Paths, chapter 2, “The Burning Bosom (Momronism)”)

LDS testimonies based on the Holy Spirit are frequently attacked as mere, unreliable “feelings,” https://www.Mormon*******.***/truth-claims/mormon-culture/testimony-feeling-the-spirit/ (Mormon Stories).  Ex-Mormon Grant Palmer strongly agrees.

The Rev Wes Walters (Presbyterian) used to emphasize this to me regularly, as did those he had taught.  Coming from a tradition wedded to sola scriptura, he would always discount anything like a "burning bosom."

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No I can't explain how you arrive at that conclusion. I don't believe in four years on this forum I have ever commented on any other scripture than the Bible. I have quoted from the BOM in sacrament talks. Does that help?

 

Does that help what?  First please clarify whether or not you accept our canon as scripture, and if not, why not.  I understood you to be saying earlier that you accept the Holy Spirit as your guide to understand the things of God, and I think you are aware of what our canon consist of...writings of prophets who wrote scripture as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to write them.  So I'm wondering why you don't accept those scriptures as we do and believe as we do.  Can you explain that?  No pressure.  I'm just wondering what is going on with you.

[bOObOO]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Of course you can have true testimonies of its truth. How could I possibly say you "can't" when I know you can and do? Regarding your first statement, I have a testimony of its truth to my LDS friends. And personally I believe it contains a lot of truth and scripture as well. No question about it.

Okay, this is new to me.  I wasn't aware that you accept what we accept as our canon of scripture.  And yet for some reason you still don't want to do what is necessary for you to become a member of our Lord's church.  I don't understand why not.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose "smoothly" is in the eye of the beholder.

But to the degree that you are right about smooth functioning, I believe that can be attributed to the box the church has created, in which personal revelation is allowed. In other words, there are rules for how, why, who receives revelation. An order has been created and enforced which allows for the concept of personal revelation to thrive despite its organizationally defined limits. I don't believe other Christian denominations have that level of control over personal revelation. That could be both a benefit and a hindrance. 

It certainly could.  However, the LDS community is not a top-down hierarchy,but rather a horizontal equilibrium -- locally operated -- with considerable freedom of belief across a broad range, including odd notions about healing stones and water witching, and (occasionally) a doomsday cult like that of Lori Vallow & Chad Daybell.  What is remarkable is that it so seldom devolves into such insanity.

Anyone is free to believe that the LDS notion (and the ancient Christian notion) of the Holy Spirit is delusional, or that it is actual.  Thus, one could account for a smooth-functioning church as based on group-think (like the Borg), or upon actual inspiration of God to His people.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

However, the LDS community is not a top-down hierarchy, but rather a horizontal equilibrium -- locally operated -- with considerable freedom of belief across a broad range, including odd notions about healing stones and water witching, and (occasionally) a doomsday cult like that of Lori Vallow & Chad Daybell. 

Ironically, believing wild and odd notions are more acceptable than believing old LDS beliefs.  If you expressed a belief in Adam-God, blood atonement, polygamy, etc you'd be in big trouble.  And other early LDS beliefs may not rise to the level of discipline but belief in doctrines like the King Follett teachings, united order, a literal gathering of Israel, etc are becoming more taboo every year.
Imagine what current beliefs will be considered "odd notions" in just a generation.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

We believe something very similar.
But do the various evangelical groups believe truths can be revealed from God that aren't already contained in the Bible?  I am sure evangelicals believe in guiding revelation.  But do they believe in additional heavenly teachings and doctrine that didn't make it between he lids of the bible?
The question of revelation is both one of guidance AND knowledge.

Thanks. I really sincerely am not sure how to answer you question? Not because I don't want to, but if we were face to face I would have to ask you what you mean by teachings and doctrine before I could answer. Most additional teachings and doctrine that are not directly Biblical stem from various interpretations of something contained in the Bible filtered through additional revelations, teachings, or interpretations. I can offer a few examples  if that helps. Menno Simons a key founder of the Mennonite church introduced the importance of foot washing into our church. Very few other evangelical churches wash feet. The LDS church used to, but I think it is rare now outside of some temple work. When the apostles met to determine the canonicity of Wilford Woodruff's desert or wilderness revelation, the first thing they did in preparation for the discussion was wash each other's feet. Foot washing was considered an ordinance in the Mennonite church for years. Was that an additional teaching that became doctrine? Yes. It is still on the books as doctrine, but culturally is rarely practiced anymore. It comes from certain Biblical passages and was adopted by a group that valued humility as a virtue taught in Scripture. Baptists developed a doctrine of the independence of the local church, accountable to no higher authority. It is the consummate opposite of LDS teaching. It is a matter of ecclesiology, a doctrine about the organization and functioning of the church. Which is more Biblical, newer? Does that fact that there are two styles of church governance make one right and one  wrong?  I don't think so.

There are at least five versions in the Evangelical community taught about what happens at the judgment to those who haven't heard, were born before Christ, or simply rejected or ignored the message when they heard it. Each of these views has a name. Different evangelicals believe this or that version. They are teachings that come from men who believe they are inspired by God in their study and knowledge. In trying to answer a challenging question, people pray, study, and develop new ideas that aren't presented in the Bible? Of course that happens. Some evangelicals adopt this or that view, this or that ordinance, this or that teaching. Others reject some or all. I think a core disqualifier is that which would contradict or negate the teachings of the Bible, or would seem to be contrary (although this is arbitrary). The Catholic and Orthodox churches codified the teaching that baptism is salvific. The LDS have since codified that same teaching. My faith rejects that "truth." Does that make it untrue? That view incorporates a valid interpretation of certain scriptural passages. Someone in the past looked at all of them and believes they indicated that baptism is necessary for salvation. It certainly has become doctrine in some churches and is seen as untrue by others. Who is right? We will see some day, won't we?

As an evangelical I don't believe in many broad sweeping generalizations. I think everyone tends to view their doctrine as "heavenly" to use your term. I also think as an evangelical that we don't know all the answers to so many questions because all scriptures together don't provide answers to all the questions that the mind of humanity can ask. For each question there may be five answers. When I pray about something and am satisfied I have received a spirit-led direction; then you pray about the same thing and are led in another direction, I don't dare prefer mine over yours. I may believe mine, but I need to receive yours if I know you to be sincere and Godly. I have many sincere and Godly LDS friends. I have many sincere and Godly Evangelical friends. I even have some sincere and Godly evangelical LDS friends. I don't know if any of this helps or not, but my fingers are a bit sore!

Edited August 13, 2021 by Navidad