HappyJackWagon Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. I have to grin at your very careful word choice. You may be right that the "LDS community" (however you choose to define that- and in your case it appears you want to define it as 'local') is not a top down hierarchy but the church as a whole sure is. I'd also argue that locally it is top-down as well as evidenced by the level of control local leaders have the power to exert over some elements of a person's life: leadership roullette in regards to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. "Anyone is free to believe" anything they want but depending on the locally operated church with its leadership hierarchy, that person may find themselves with some rather uncomfortable consequences for such beliefs.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: 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. I disagree, but enjoy the humorous nature of your comments. Sounds like a Mormon version of a Jerry Seinfeld routine.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I have to grin at your very careful word choice. You may be right that the "LDS community" (however you choose to define that- and in your case it appears you want to define it as 'local') is not a top down hierarchy but the church as a whole sure is. I'd also argue that locally it is top-down as well as evidenced by the level of control local leaders have the power to exert over some elements of a person's life: leadership roullette in regards to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. "Anyone is free to believe" anything they want but depending on the locally operated church with its leadership hierarchy, that person may find themselves with some rather uncomfortable consequences for such beliefs. I'm glad you can grin. I am 80 now and have never found the LDS Church to be a vertical hierarchy, and certainly not in any way oppressive. Moreover, although orthopraxy is a central characteristic of Mormonism (the church and culture), orthodoxy is not. It is not even clear what the official theology of the organization might be. Uncontrolled speculation is rife. Within reason. I agree with the quotations from Terryl Givens earlier in this thread. Naturally, I am looking at Mormonism phenomenologically. Edited August 13, 2021 by Robert F. Smith 2
Navidad Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Here is a typical evangelical critique of pentecostalism: 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." Robert: Thanks for the reply. I would cautiously suggest that if you believe there is such a thing as a "typical evangelical critique" of anything, that shows me that your understanding of the breadth of evangelical thought is a bit narrow. The Rev. Wes Walters, probably a reformed theologian has emphasized something to you. Do you believe that reformed theology is "typical" among evangelicals? It is certainly present, but is certainly not typical. I can assure you that more evangelicals are not reformed in their doctrine than those who are. There are powerful voices in the reformed tradition. There is also a rather strident-certainty perspective that at times does not go over well. You then quote an ex-Mormon as "typical" of an evangelical response? Certainly you know most evangelicals are not ex-Mormons and that this gentleman is probably laden with some kind of baggage. Paul Louis Metzger is the most typical of those you quote. He is a real advocate for inter-and multi-faith ministries. He teaches at a mainstream evangelical seminary that is non-denominational. I have been there on a number of occasions and have spoken at their sister institutions. I can think of no reason to deem him atypical of an evangelical perspective. Pentecostalism, especially in its Assemblies of God identity has come a long way in my lifetime to becoming mainstream in evangelicalism, and even in fundamentalism as well. The AG college and seminary in Springfield are extremely well respected. I have great respect for you, your knowledge, and your positive presence on this forum. I appreciate your contributions, even those I might disagree with. Take care. Edited August 13, 2021 by Navidad
CV75 Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 23 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Blurb from new book on continuing revelation. https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine edited by Bryan Buchanan Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members." What say you? Which prevails? Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet? I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting. I'm not sure I've heard that before. I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God." But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation". Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle? And which prophets had it backwards? Would you provide the full JFS and ETB quotes / references? I ask because "contradicts" is an interesting choice of words, given how much contradiction might be demonstrated in the canon.; and, because "important" could mean "divine," "expedient," or a large number of contradicting meanings.
Navidad Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 57 minutes ago, bOObOO said: 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. Let me clarify - I believe there is a lot of truth and scripture in the BOM. That is obvious to anyone who reads it. I am not a fan of D&C, and especially not of the POGP. D&C is very LDS-centric, so as a non-member, most of it does not resonate with me. Most of the heterodox doctrine of the LDS church is contained therein, not in the BOM. What is going on with me? I am very happy Christian, in the words of the old song "Just as I am." I am a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite third. I place the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the same category as Mennonite. They both are specific Christian sub-groups with their own specific uniqueness. My wife and I have attended an LDS ward for four years, are faithful non-members, and very active in virtually every aspect of its work except the temple work. We enjoy the fellowship with our LDS neighbors and friends. We are neither instigators, alligators, or investigators. When we retired here in the colonies, we looked for a church home and settled in on our ward. The ward provides us some spiritual and interactive refreshment. Ninety-five percent of the folks accept us as we are. Would most be happy if we joined? Of course. I have studied LDS history since 1989. I speak regularly at meetings of the Mormon History Association. I have many friends in the church history department and am regularly consulted on questions about the Mexican Mormon colonies. I do not accept some of the core tenets of the church such as baptism being salvific, that the LDS priesthood is somehow unique ( I believe the Melchizedek priesthood is the royal priesthood mentioned in I Peter 2 and is available to all believers), that the apostasy was total or great (I could accept partial), or in the historicity of the 1838 version of the first vision, from which D&C 1:30 was added. Finally I am most impressed with the Godliness and sincerity of the vast majority of the folks in our ward. I admire them just as I admire the Godly and sincere folks in my home church back in Pennsylvania. We accept our Mormon friends as fully Christian and would long for the day they accept us as such as well. It doesn't seem that is going to ever happen. The doctrine precludes it. I hope that helps inform you on what is going on with me. Two LDS friends from our ward came by an hour ago to check on us. The river right behind our house is a raging torrent and was almost on our patio several nights ago. Two more are coming in an hour to do the same. That is kindness personified. We are very grateful. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I'm glad you can grin. I am 80 now and have never found the LDS Church to be a vertical hierarchy, and certainly not in any way oppressive. Moreover, although orthopraxy is a central characteristic of Mormonism (the church and culture), orthodoxy is not. It is not even clear what the official theology of the organization might be. Uncontrolled speculation is rife. Within reason. I agree with the quotations from Terryl Givens earlier in this thread. Naturally, I am looking at Mormonism phenomenologically. I don't understand that word...BUT...I'm impressed by the usage. When you say "uncontrolled speculation is rife. Within reason" I have to ask myself, who decides what is or is not "within reason". Answer- the hierarchy (both local and central)
Robert F. Smith Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: .................. When you say "uncontrolled speculation is rife. Within reason" I have to ask myself, who decides what is or is not "within reason". Answer- the hierarchy (both local and central) Well, as you know, I speak my mind, and am quite frank. Some of the more staid members of this board find my opinions anything but orthodox. I have written and published a lot over the years and have yet to be called on the carpet. I agree with Elder Jeff Holland that there is no reason to be overly cautious with LDS members, and that there is plenty of room for a diversity of views. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted August 13, 2021 Posted August 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Robert: Thanks for the reply. I would cautiously suggest that if you believe there is such a thing as a "typical evangelical critique" of anything, that shows me that your understanding of the breadth of evangelical thought is a bit narrow. The Rev. Wes Walters, probably a reformed theologian has emphasized something to you. Do you believe that reformed theology is "typical" among evangelicals? It is certainly present, but is certainly not typical. I can assure you that more evangelicals are not reformed in their doctrine than those who are. There are powerful voices in the reformed tradition. There is also a rather strident-certainty perspective that at times does not go over well. You then quote an ex-Mormon as "typical" of an evangelical response? Certainly you know most evangelicals are not ex-Mormons and that this gentleman is probably laden with some kind of baggage. Paul Louis Metzger is the most typical of those you quote. He is a real advocate for inter-and multi-faith ministries. He teaches at a mainstream evangelical seminary that is non-denominational. I have been there on a number of occasions and have spoken at their sister institutions. I can think of no reason to deem him atypical of an evangelical perspective. Pentecostalism, especially in its Assemblies of God identity has come a long way in my lifetime to becoming mainstream in evangelicalism, and even in fundamentalism as well. The AG college and seminary in Springfield are extremely well respected. I have great respect for you, your knowledge, and your positive presence on this forum. I appreciate your contributions, even those I might disagree with. Take care. I merely gave you some examples of what I have been told directly by evangelicals over the years. Aside from my wide reading, I attended an evangelical church for 7 years, took extensive notes, and received frank views from the members there. They made it abundantly clear that "feelings" is no basis for faith. They constantly made the point (often made in this thread) that the Holy Spirit was an unreliable guide to anything. I did not think them on firm biblical ground in so saying, but they were adamant.
JLHPROF Posted August 13, 2021 Author Posted August 13, 2021 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Would you provide the full JFS and ETB quotes / references? I ask because "contradicts" is an interesting choice of words, given how much contradiction might be demonstrated in the canon.; and, because "important" could mean "divine," "expedient," or a large number of contradicting meanings. I would if I could find the JFS one. I'd like to read it myself. The ETB one is in the famous fundamentals talk.
webbles Posted August 14, 2021 Posted August 14, 2021 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I would if I could find the JFS one. I'd like to read it myself. The ETB one is in the famous fundamentals talk. I think the reference is from Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3. https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-3-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv3_djvu.txt appears to be a link online with the full text. Here's the paragraphs that seems to match it. Quote STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted 2
webbles Posted August 14, 2021 Posted August 14, 2021 9 minutes ago, webbles said: I think the reference is from Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3. https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-3-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv3_djvu.txt appears to be a link online with the full text. Here's the paragraphs that seems to match it. I also found a quote from President Lee that is similar to what Joseph Field Smith said: Quote It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them `standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it” (“Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” 14).(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 221.) I found it at https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/01/11/is-that-doctrine/
JLHPROF Posted August 14, 2021 Author Posted August 14, 2021 34 minutes ago, webbles said: I think the reference is from Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3. https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-3-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv3_djvu.txt appears to be a link online with the full text. Here's the paragraphs that seems to match it. That's probably it. Thank you. And he's right. And so are Pres. Benson and Young. A prophet to guide us IS more vital than scripture BUT they don't get to contradict prior revelations under the guise of continuing revelation. Both are right. Amazing how that seems to be the case with most gospel "contradictions".
JLHPROF Posted August 14, 2021 Author Posted August 14, 2021 27 minutes ago, webbles said: I also found a quote from President Lee that is similar to what Joseph Field Smith said: "if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea." I found it at https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/01/11/is-that-doctrine/ Interesting exception. Does it apply to all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators? Or just the one? Back to the revelation by committee question again. 1
CV75 Posted August 14, 2021 Posted August 14, 2021 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I would if I could find the JFS one. I'd like to read it myself. The ETB one is in the famous fundamentals talk. For ETB, "3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng That is very different than "On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon." So I have a hunch the book is garbage.
JLHPROF Posted August 14, 2021 Author Posted August 14, 2021 3 hours ago, CV75 said: For ETB, "3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng That is very different than "On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon." So I have a hunch the book is garbage. Not #3, #2 Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works. 1
CV75 Posted August 14, 2021 Posted August 14, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Not #3, #2 Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works. Thank you. Conflating 2 and 3 doesn't signal well, to me, anyway. 2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. -- yes, in that he has the keys for the saving and exalting ordinances; the standard works do not. 3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. -- kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? Dead prophets don't delegate the keys for the ordinances in this world, and why we need succession. In either case, I see no contradiction between the prophet and the canon. I'm sure the author can find some in other areas, but he seems to be equating apples with oranges to appeal to the gut. Edited August 14, 2021 by CV75
JLHPROF Posted August 14, 2021 Author Posted August 14, 2021 29 minutes ago, CV75 said: Thank you. Conflating 2 and 3 doesn't signal well, to me, anyway. 2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. -- yes, in that he has the keys for the saving and exalting ordinances; the standard works do not. I agree. Joseph said there is no salvation between the lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. I also agree that the prophet doesn't get to claim a revelation that contradicts a revelation in the D&C for example (not that that's happened and maybe never will). My point isn't that prophets outrank scripture or that scripture outranks the prophet. But continuing revelation doesn't get to override canon and canon doesn't get to stop continuing revelation. A pox on both their houses to people that claim either. I've seen people lean both ways and I've seen people claim the contradictions this book addresses Perhaps this book won't be so bad. 1
CV75 Posted August 14, 2021 Posted August 14, 2021 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I agree. Joseph said there is no salvation between the lids of the Bible without a legal administrator. I also agree that the prophet doesn't get to claim a revelation that contradicts a revelation in the D&C for example (not that that's happened and maybe never will). My point isn't that prophets outrank scripture or that scripture outranks the prophet. But continuing revelation doesn't get to override canon and canon doesn't get to stop continuing revelation. A pox on both their houses to people that claim either. I've seen people lean both ways and I've seen people claim the contradictions this book addresses Perhaps this book won't be so bad. My criticism isn’t over a compellation of essays, but the marketing hook that leaders’ messages create confusion, using a confused premise (and not exactly a correct representation or paraphrase – I did find a JFS statement, below) to do so. This doesn’t draw me to read this book. https://books.google.com/books?id=-FToijpH-aAC&pg=PA836&lpg=PA836&dq=Joseph+Fielding+Smith+if+i+should+say+something+which+is+contrary+to+the+that+which+is+written+in+the+standard+works&source=bl&ots=CcRGqRZfd0&sig=ACfU3U1WiIGQyNqrFXyIEWL8Cw0Hi_GSFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5I-GgrHyAhUMCc0KHUt9D8oQ6AF6BAgfEAM#v=onepage&q&f=true
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 On 8/13/2021 at 11:58 AM, Navidad said: Regarding your first statement, I have a testimony of its truth to my LDS friends. So as far as I see it- this says that God told you- (ie:definition of "having a testimony" )that your LDS friends have had a spiritual experience testifying of the truth of the BOM. Why do you think that God would give you a personal revelation that YOUR FRIENDS know that the BOM is true without telling YOU that it is true? Just trying to follow the logic here
Navidad Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So as far as I see it- this says that God told you- (ie:definition of "having a testimony" )that your LDS friends have had a spiritual experience testifying of the truth of the BOM. Why do you think that God would give you a personal revelation that YOUR FRIENDS know that the BOM is true without telling YOU that it is true? Just trying to follow the logic here The BOM truth for my LDS friends is the same as my saying I am married to the best wife in the world. My claim about my wife is my absolute heart-felt truth. I don't expect anyone else who is happily married to agree with me. I have no doubt about the truth of my statement, but I realize it is "my truth" and "my truth" only. So it is with my LDS friends and their BOM truth. It is their truth. I respect it and receive it. I do not agree with it, but that is basically irrelevant as long as I "receive" it as true for them. Today at the ward I heard at least three times that the church is "true." While I am not quite sure what that means since I regularly hear it from 4 to 84 year olds, I receive it as true for my LDS friends, even if I have no idea what they mean by that statement. I have no need to debate them on that, unless perhaps they refuse to accept that the Mennonite church is true for me as well, as indeed are most, if not all Christian groups. Since I don't believe that we will have any church affiliation in the spirit world or in heaven (pick your kingdom), I am not a big fan of declaring my church to be true, to the exclusion of any others, including the LDS church. In heaven, none of that will matter. I believe we will each stand in front of Christ at the judgment seat as individuals, not as members or this or that group. Our judgment there will have no correlation whatsoever to our church affiliation in this mortal life. It is all about our faith. I hope that logic is helpful, even if you don't agree with it.
mfbukowski Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Navidad said: Today at the ward I heard at least three times that the church is "true." While I am not quite sure what that means since I regularly hear it from 4 to 84 year olds, I receive it as true for my LDS friends, even if I have no idea what they mean by that statement. I have no need to debate them on that, unless perhaps they refuse to accept that the Mennonite church is true for me as well, as indeed are most, if not all Christian groups. Since I don't believe that we will have any church affiliation in the spirit world or in heaven (pick your kingdom), I am not a big fan of declaring my church to be true, to the exclusion of any others, including the LDS church. In heaven, none of that will matter. I believe we will each stand in front of Christ at the judgment seat as individuals, not as members or this or that group. Our judgment there will have no correlation whatsoever to our church affiliation in this mortal life. It is all about our faith. I hope that logic is helpful, even if you don't agree with it. I agree After my years of philosophical training in a couple of totally secular universities (UCLA and CUNY) ng that phrase means to me is "Church! RAH!" After at least 2500 years of trying, there is not a SINGLE theory of truth that stands up to philosophical scrutiny. "I find this paradigm to be useful' is about the best parallel statement that is coherent. But there is more to philosophical coherence than meets the eye- because even the most rigourous physicist will tell you that they can do no better in approaching "TRUTH" in physics than we can in the gospel "I find this paradigm to be useful" is about the best anyone has come up with. BUT it was you who said you could not tell an LDS priesthood holder as anyone "special". Well I can't see anything in Evangelical ordained ministers that is "special" either. Friend to friend, let me suggest one thing about your nature of discussion, and that is that I notice that you will bring up a point, and when a counter-point is made, the subject shifts. We were talking about visual evidence which made priesthood holders visibly diffeerent and now in a few posts, you are now talking about what "truth" means. It's had to see what one has to do with the other and how we got here. I typically drive people nuts for sticking to one point and drilling down on that point, until I get an answer, but I do not mean to be obnoxious, I am ultimately trying to see what others say and completely understand their point IF there is a point to be made, and I often am disappointed when the subject changes and my point gets ignored. On the other hand I think I am fairly reasonable about admitting when I totally blow it, but probably could also do better. Yet again, for the several thousandth time Quote Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5. Edited August 23, 2021 by mfbukowski 1
Navidad Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well I can't see anything in Evangelical ordained ministers that is "special" either. Thanks again for your response. Well, I am an Evangelical ordained minister and I know hundreds if not more of them. The one thing we all have in common is that we don't make a claim of being anything or anyone special or unique within the world of Christianity, or anywhere else for that matter. In fact, I would instantly be skeptical of any Evangelical ordained minister who claimed the specialness of "onliness." You probably have guessed by now that I believe the primary source of LDS identity as that of being the "only" this or that. The most distinctive doctrine in the LDS church is this carefully developed self-concept of onliness that has been nurtured since the early 1830s, may have reached its peak in the 1950s, and has been slowly receding since. There are hints of it in the Book of Mormon, I guess depending how you define the two churches that Nephi talks about. Almost every LDS male I have ever met claims by virtue of his male membership in the LDS church to hold the only valid priesthood in the only valid church group on earth. Having said that I must also say this. Yesterday (Sunday) our stake patriarch and I were the last to leave the chapel property - an hour after the end of Elder's Quorum which we have after Sacrament. We stood and chatted about life, faith, and onliness for that hour. Now, he is as fine and as Godly a man as I have ever met in any faith. He exudes one who is righteous, tenderhearted, kind and the epitome of being Spirit-filled. He reminds me so much of my Mennonite bishop in Florida. So no, he is not the only such person I have ever met, but he is a wonderful example of the Christian faith and I believe it is obvious to anyone who might ever meet him. So, yes I believe he is "special," not because of his LDS priesthood authority, but because of the quality of Christ-likeness that is manifested in his lived life. Edited August 23, 2021 by Navidad
bOObOO Posted August 23, 2021 Posted August 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Thanks again for your response. Well, I am an Evangelical ordained minister and I know hundreds if not more of them. The one thing we all have in common is that we don't make a claim of being anything or anyone special or unique within the world of Christianity, or anywhere else for that matter. In fact, I would instantly be skeptical of any Evangelical ordained minister who claimed the specialness of "onliness." You probably have guessed by now that I believe the primary source of LDS identity as that of being the "only" this or that. The most distinctive doctrine in the LDS church is this carefully developed self-concept of onliness that has been nurtured since the early 1830s, may have reached its peak in the 1950s, and has been slowly receding since. There are hints of it in the Book of Mormon, I guess depending how you define the two churches that Nephi talks about. Almost every LDS male I have ever met claims by virtue of his male membership in the LDS church to hold the only valid priesthood holder in the only valid church group on earth. Having said that I must also say this. Yesterday (Sunday) our stake patriarch and I were the last to leave the chapel property - an hour after the end of Elder's Quorum which we have after Sacrament. We stood and chatted about life, faith, and onliness for that hour. Now, he is as fine and as Godly a man as I have ever met in any faith. He exudes one who is righteous, tenderhearted, kind and the epitome of being Spirit-filled. He reminds me so much of my Mennonite bishop in Florida. So no, he is not the only such person I have ever met, but he is a wonderful example of the Christian faith and I believe it is obvious to anyone who might ever meet him. So, yes I believe he is "special," not because of his LDS priesthood authority, but because of the quality of Christ-likeness that is manifested in his lived life. Thank you for the introduction of a new word into my vocabulary, onliness. We can always sometimes use a new word. Do you think it applies only to those who are in the strait and narrow way of our Lord? To only those who have his priesthood?
chochmah Posted August 26, 2021 Posted August 26, 2021 Others may have greater insights, but this approach works for me: 1. The answer to what is official doctrine is not as straight forward as it may seem. What we must remember before any discussion is that this telestial realm in which we live is designed to be one of faith. Faith is required in an understanding of what is doctrine. By wanting a fixed formula that will define what is official church doctrine we are forsaking the faith that applies to life here. 2. The first logical step might be to claim that canonized scripture is what Church doctrine is. A. However, there is no clear procedure for canonization and decanonization. “Canonization procedures in the Church have never been officially specified. And not all revelations given to Church presidents have been presented to the Church for sustaining. The title page to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants notes that the revelations were "Carefully Selected From The Revelations of God" and compiled by a committee of four presiding elders, including Joseph Smith. Elder George F. Richards, original chairman of the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants committee, wrote in his journal 29 July 1921 of other noncanonized revelations: "We read the revelations which do not appear in the present edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, about twenty in number, with the view of recommending to the First Presidency certain of them to be included in the edition we are just now preparing." The First Presidency apparently did not approve these suggested additions, for no new revelations were included in the 1921 edition.” The 'Lectures on Faith': A Case Study in Decanonization, by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts, DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT. B. At least one member of the First Presidency or Twelve said there is a higher measuring stick than canonization. (1) First Presidency member George Q. Cannon responded to this very issue in an 1891 question: “It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God should submit to such a test as this (common consent), and not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired, whether any man or body of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of them would not affect in the least their divine authenticity. But it would be for the people to accept them after God had revealed them. In this way they have been submitted to the Church, to see whether the members would accept them as binding upon them or not. Joseph [Smith] himself had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he had received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to have them pronounce upon their validity.” George Q. Cannon, Juvenile Instructor 26 [1 January 1891]: 13-14. (2) Elder Bruce R. McConkie, writing before he was called to the Twelve, supports Cannon's thinking: “Revelations given of God through his prophets ... are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity. Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord's plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or by other means.” McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 150. C. But are those scriptures perfect? No. (1) Brigham Young never minced words: “I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870). (2) But modern revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants and modern restoration of the Book of Mormon would allow us to view those scriptures as being infallible, wouldn’t it? (A) Elder B.H. Roberts further taught, "The message of the Old Testament was not written by the divine hand, nor dictated by an outward compulsion. It was planted in the hearts of men, and made to grow in a fruitful soil. And then they were required to express it in their own language after their natural methods and in accordance with the stage of knowledge which their time had reached. Their human faculties were purified and quickened by the divine Spirit; but they spoke to their time in the language of their time; they spoke a spiritual message, accommodated to the experience of their age, a message of faith in God and of righteousness as demanded by a righteous God." B.H. Roberts, Seventy's Third Year Book. (B) Brigham Young addressed this. “I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities, as we have to do with these benighted Lamanites; it would be of no benefit to talk to them as I am now speaking to you. Before you can enter into conversation with them, give them your ideas, you are under the necessity of condescending to their low estate, so far as communication is concerned, in order to exalt them.” Brigham Young, JD 2:314. (C) Brigham Young also taught, “When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little.” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. [13 July 1862] D. Even if we knew canonized scripture were the final word, there is still the question of interpretation. Who is the official interpreter of scripture? One looks in vain to find authority that only the President of the Church or someone else is the official interpreter of Church doctrine and scripture. (1) Hugh Nibley writes that we are to obtain an understanding of what the scriptures and doctrines are and are not to wait for Salt Lake City. He sees this as a strength of the Church. “We don't have a professional clergy — a paid ministry that gives official interpretations of the scriptures — as we've always said we don't. There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit. Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things. Brigham said that Joseph didn't know a thing about business [though he presided over the business interests of the Church]. Joseph rebuked Parley P. Pratt for things said in the newspaper Parley was editing, but he didn't remove him from the editorship. ‘The paper is not interesting enough. You're not putting the right things in it.’ Still he left it entirely up Parley what to do. This has always been the policy in the Church — a lot of degree of differences. It should not worry us.” Hugh Nibley, Terrible Questions, reprinted in Temple and Cosmos. [Bracketed Information Added] (A) No one has the calling to interpret scripture. (B) Therefore we should not be passive in scriptural interpretation, but as a “nation of prophets” [Book of Numbers 11:29] we should use the privilege of the Holy Ghost to come to understand it ourselves. (2) Also from Hugh Nibley, “‘But who's to interpret it? Do I have a right to interpret the scriptures as much as anyone else?’ Of course. You may remember that the wars of the Reformation were fought on that issue: ‘Does the ordinary person have the right to read the scriptures?’ We regard that as a definite step forward in the Lord's work on the earth, and in the Church every individual is commanded to read the scriptures for himself. Of course, the story of the last dispensation begins with the Prophet Joseph, as a young boy, reading the scriptures very much for himself, putting the most literal interpretation on them, belonging to no church at the time, without asking for anybody's permission. So we do that also. As far as official interpretation of the scriptures is concerned, the Latter-day Saints scoff at the idea that one must study special courses and get a special degree — ‘training for the ministry’ — and thus interpret the Bible for others. Joseph Smith noted many times that interpreters of the scriptures like William W. Phelps and Frederick G. Williams read the scriptures quite differently than he, but he didn't order them to stop or to change. He said we should try to use reason and testimony, but that's all we can do. The Brethren are instructed to stick to the scriptures in all their teachings: ‘No man's opinion is worth a straw: advance no principle but what you can prove, for one scriptural proof is worth ten thousand opinions.’” Hugh Nibley, Gifts, reprinted in Approaching Zion. (A) If only the First Presidency and Twelve were tasked with interpreting scripture, too many hope, then we could lull and be at ease in Doctrinal Zion. (B) But the Lord requires more of us. (3) Hugh Nibley adds, “When Brigham Young was asked in an interview with a representative of the New York Herald, (Do) you, like the old prophets, receive direct revelation from God?" he answered, "Yes, and not only me, but my brethren also." "Does that extend to all the Church without reserve or rank?" "Yes, and it is just as necessary for the mother to possess this spirit in training and rearing her children as for any one else." "It is not absolutely necessary, then, that each person receive revelation through you?" "Oh, no; through the spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost; but to dictate the Church is my part of it" [56] — what the Brethren say is the word and the will of the Lord (confer D&C 84), but only, as President Clark pointed out no less than twenty-seven times in a speech on the subject, when they are so moved upon by the Holy Ghost. "How can we know that?" asked Brother Clark. By following the oft-repeated principle that everyone must so live that the Holy Ghost will reveal to him whether the others are speaking by the spirit or not. [57] ‘Do you know whether I am leading you right or not? Do you know whether I dictate you right or not? Do you know whether the wisdom and the mind of the Lord are dispensed to you correctly or not? ... I have a request to make of each and every Latter-day Saint, or those who profess to be, to so live that the Spirit of the Lord will whisper to them and teach them the truth.... In this there is safety; without this there is danger, imminent danger (you otherwise get a tyrant or a dictator); and my exhortation to the Latter-day Saints is — Live your religion (and you'll know for yourself).’ [58]” Hugh Nibley, Criticizing the Brethren. (Parentheticals by Nibley) Footnotes: Fn56. "Interview with Brigham Young," by a representative of the New York Herald, in Deseret News 26 (23 May 1877): 242. Fn57. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture," second part of an address delivered 7 July 1954, at Brigham Young University, pages 5—17. Fn58. Brigham Young JD 17:51. (A) If only the President of the Church could receive revelation, we would need no faith, other than perhaps that the Church is true. (B) But there is an ongoing need to have faith within our lives. That is the nature of this mortal, fallen existence where we have come to learn. (4) Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught: “... it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.” Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “The Doctrine of Christ,” from the April 2012 General Conference. (A) As good as men as they are, their interpretations are not foolproof. (B) We must obtain our own understanding. This does not give us license to believe whatever we chose or is fashionable, but empowers us to know from God for ourselves. (5) Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke from the Brigham Young University Marriott Center to a Utah South Area broadcast on September 13, 2015, which I attended. He addressed many topics. One of them concerned challenging doctrinal issues. In a very straightforward manner he indicated that the First Presidency and Twelve don’t necessarily have all the answers to these questions, but that there are many scholars within the Church who are equipped to bring light to these questions. (A) There are non-general authorities, often scholars, whose duties in life put them in a position to know more about some doctrinal fine points than the twelve who lead them. (B) This does not meant we shouldn’t give serious consideration to what they have to say. Humility and wisdom will always serve us well. 3. But are the canonized scriptures the highest source of knowledge? Brigham Young famously was asked by Joseph Smith to indicate what was higher source of revelation, the published scriptures or the words of the living prophet. “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’ “When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, “... compared with the living oracles those books [of scripture] are nothing to me.” Cited in P.L. Barlow, Bible, pages 92-93 and in Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness, 712] “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books ... without the living oracles ...” [Brigham Young, Journal, 27 January 1860, page 417, Brigham Young, delivered 7 October 1864, page 339; also Conference Report, October 1897, pages 18–19] A. So following the living prophets, seers and revelators is more binding in terms of doctrine than are the scriptures. B. But are those prophets, seers and revelators infallible? No. No one has ever said so. (1) From the LDS Newsroom: “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency ... and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles ... counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.” LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," (of 4 May 2007). (2) Elder Stephen L. Richards in the 1930s answered a question of another member of the twelve put in a letter about the literalness of the Jonah story. His response was that rarely was there ever a revelation that came down that wasn’t in some small way tainted by the culture, language and assumptions of that individual. Are we better than they? We are in no position to tell God he made a mistake in sending us to this telestial realm of ambiguity with the faith it requires. C. So does this mean we don’t have to bother reading the scriptures or listening to our Church leaders? Certainly not. The Lord has sent these as messengers. However, merely because there is occasionally static in the receipt of the message, we don’t blithely reject the entire message. We are given many wonderful sources but in the end it is up to us to ferret through them. This is not something we can delegate to someone else. 4. In the end our relationship is primarily with God. The institutional Church is a necessary but insufficient condition for exaltation generally and for finding true doctrine specifically. Just as we ask investigators to know for themselves whether the Book of Mormon is true. Can you find an isolated Seventy, BYU religion professor, mission president, etc. who comes up with a neat clean formula for what is official doctrine? Probably, but while they are sincere, their understanding on this is limited, however well intended. The church exists to connect us with the ordinances that allow for greater personal revelation and we are to learn by “study [of the scriptures, prophets as the first needed step] and by faith [by asking God ourselves]. D&C 107:99. [Bracketed Material Added] 5. This relationship with God is one of the faith and of the spirit. We are here upon this earth to show faith in him. Mercifully, he has given us the Holy Ghost to guide us. If, however, we set our own ground rules that rule out faith, we will have failed the test of mortality. If we set up standards that do not allow for the spirit to influence us, we will never find the true path. Faith requires a tolerance for ambiguity (for lack of a better term) in our lives, an acceptance of ambiguity of our leaders at times, and an acknowledgment of uncertainties in our scriptures. If his plan were given to us in the irrefutable clarity that some well intentioned individuals demand, then there would be no need for faith. On this earth we work in partnership with God. And so at times, we must balance our need to follow with our need to develop our own godly gifts. 6. Some upon finding a disturbing quote, an upsetting incident in the life of a leader feel that they are among the few who are truly enlightened and that the mindless masses would not be blind misguided followers if only they were more informed, as they are. There are, however, countless deeply committed LDS who have read as much and more than the critics whose brashness sometimes cover a fear to truly and honestly plumb the depths. But the faith, spirit and wisdom of the humble and honest hearted allow them to see. They are neither foolish nor prideful enough to through out the baby with the bath water. 7. Some time those distracting “did you knows” are human foibles or the flaws in the record. But there are also paradoxes in the gospel, which understandably unsettle some. Joseph Smith offered an invitation in 1844 when he taught that “by proving contraries truth is manifest.” [History of the Church 6:428]. A paradox (a “contrary” in Joseph’s day) is an apparent contradiction which masks a greater underlying truth. The foolish see in rich paradox a simple contradiction. However, the wise seek greater truths in their prayerful, thoughtful efforts at reconciliation. The perceptive poet William Blake noted that “without contraries [or paradoxes] there is no progression.” [Norton Anthology of English literature: Major Author’s Edition, Abrams et al, New York: W.W. Norton, published in 1975, see page 1323 William Blake made that comment in 1790 in his book, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell] The great Danish theologian, Søren Kierkegaard, wisely wrote in this vein, “To cultivate faith in a transcendent, eternal, omnipresent God, who allegedly became incarnate in the form of a particular human being who was put to death, requires one to overcome the offense to one’s reason and to adopt a tolerance for paradox.” [Cited in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. Søren Kierkegaard, once insightfully commented that the more paradox a religion has, the truer it is likely to be. Similarly the polymathic German philosopher, Wilhelm Dilthey, said “Paradox is a characteristic of truth.” Only the humble will seek to understand paradoxes. 8. It is interesting and I think instructive that in the temple, the most sacred place for us on the earth where we reverently retire to worship, there are no classes, no question and answer periods, no instruction, no correction. No guidance on the plenitude of paradoxes to be found there. It is just us and the Lord. Perhaps one reason why we are to be very careful in discussing sacred things is in part so that it becomes a very personal enterprise, between us alone and the Lord. That is how we will come to understand the highest and deepest doctrines of the kingdom. That is a model for learning that we can profitably apply to all other aspects of our experience in the Church. 9. For the same reason the scriptures are not written in a fluid way. There are little bits and pieces here that do not always seem to clearly relate to the next passage. The Lord very easily could lay out very organized, outlined doctrinal dissertations. But he does not, for a wise purpose. We must look for bits here and there and piece it together ourselves, humbly keeping an open mind, with the aid of the Spirit of the Lord from these deliberately designed choppy texts. We should never be frustrated that the complex symphonic fugue of the gospel is not a simplistic schmaltzy polka. 10. It is ultimately between us and god. We do need the church, and its ordinances, and its leaders. But in the end it is up to us. We have divinity within us that God respects.
Recommended Posts