My Friendly Friday Questions

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If Latter-day Saints see baptism of equal necessity and sacredness for the living and the dead, why are the living baptized in chapels or the ocean, and the dead baptized in LDS temples?

Temples are very sacred to us, and the formula (words and procedures) for baptizing the dead are a little different than for the living.

Using science fiction language it might be said that for us, temples are kind of like a "portal" where the veil between living and dead is pierced.  

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

A bonus question today:

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever boycott businesses? Perhaps groups of LDS unofficially boycott businesses? Maybe Latter-day Saints in Utah don't watch MSNBC or something?

My question is prompted by the part the Catholic League played in the cancellation of Samantha Bee's "Full Frontal."

 

No, we take on secular positions very rarely, and every time we have done so, I personally think it has not done well for us

Note for example the play and movie "The Book of Mormon", a HUGE Broadway play and movie (?) totally ridiculing our beliefs and we said nothing.

Sometimes it is good to stand up, as we did with prop 8 in California and sometimes it is better to remain silent.

The Apostles keep forgetting to ask me my opinion, though

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

For those of you who live or have lived in an area where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a majority religion:

1. Do you think living in the majority influences Latter-day Saints to view other churches and religions as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
2. Do you think other churches and religions in areas where Latter-day Saints are the majority see themselves as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I'm having thoughts about a "majority effect" that might contribute to a sense of opposition to other churches/religions. 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Saint Bonaventure said:

For those of you who live or have lived in an area where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a majority religion:

1. Do you think living in the majority influences Latter-day Saints to view other churches and religions as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
2. Do you think other churches and religions in areas where Latter-day Saints are the majority see themselves as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I'm having thoughts about a "majority effect" that might contribute to a sense of opposition to other churches/religions. 

 

Interesting question. When I lived in Utah (and was still an active LDS member), I didn't feel like other churches were in opposition necessarily. Just different.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do you think living in the majority influences Latter-day Saints to view other churches and religions as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I don't.

1 minute ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do you think other churches and religions in areas where Latter-day Saints are the majority see themselves as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Asking someone how they think someone else thinks seems like an easy road to misunderstanding.

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

For those of you who live or have lived in an area where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a majority religion:

1. Do you think living in the majority influences Latter-day Saints to view other churches and religions as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
2. Do you think other churches and religions in areas where Latter-day Saints are the majority see themselves as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I'm having thoughts about a "majority effect" that might contribute to a sense of opposition to other churches/religions. 

 

The Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City has a mural near the altar of Galatians 1:8:

This has to be directed at LDS.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City has a mural near the altar of Galatians 1:8:

This has to be directed at LDS.

Sorry, but that's kind of funny.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

For those of you who live or have lived in an area where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a majority religion:

1. Do you think living in the majority influences Latter-day Saints to view other churches and religions as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
2. Do you think other churches and religions in areas where Latter-day Saints are the majority see themselves as being in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I'm having thoughts about a "majority effect" that might contribute to a sense of opposition to other churches/religions. 

 

1.  I haven't seen that.  I saw it more in places where the church was a minority.

2.  Some.  I see a lot of billboards around that play up the church it's for by pointedly referring to something in ours (sometimes in a negative way and sometimes more neutral.)

[Saint Bonaventure]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City has a mural near the altar of Galatians 1:8:

This has to be directed at LDS.

Exactly.

And I'm imagining that someone could run a Bible church near BYU and structure the whole thing for former-LDS. 

[smac97]

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've been reading about the LDS Articles of Faith, and have a few friendly questions:

• The LDS Articles of Faith seem very similar to a creed. Is there a difference?

I think so.  I have previously commented on this here:

Quote

My sense is that creeds are objectionable not only for their content, but for their origins and purpose.

My sense is that Latter-day Saints believe creeds to be composed of the philosophies of men, not revelation. And yet they are often construed as being on par with - or perhaps even superior to - actual revelation.

As a corollary, I think the purpose of creeds is to supplant (or subordinate) revelation, to privilege certain interpretations of scripture above others, and also to consolidate political power.

...

This article (from FARMS, apparently) also has some salient points about the creeds (including the Apostle's Creed):

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe, however, that the creeds of the later Christian councils did not accurately preserve the biblical doctrine of God. Members of the restored Church of Christ do not recognize the authority of these councils to issue binding formulations of doctrine. Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe that the creeds are not consistent with each other, each becoming more removed from biblical teachings and doctrine as time went by. The earliest form of the Old Roman Creed (from the second century) is fairly simple and close to the Bible. Later forms, however, move step by step away from the Bible. The Caesarean Creed (late third century) and the received form of the Apostles' Creed confess God the Father-instead of Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible (see John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2)-as the "Creator of all things" or "Maker of heaven and earth." The Nicene Creed (fourth century) began to speak of Jesus as being "from the substance of the Father" and "of one substance with the Father," introducing these nonbiblical expressions into the creedal formulas. Eventually, the so-called Athanasian Creed (about the seventh century) added notions such as "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity" and dictated that to be saved a person "must think in this way of the Trinity."4 Latter-day Saints find certain aspects of these formal creeds to be unbiblical and spiritually limiting. They prefer the testimonies given in the Bible and in modern revelation to the formulations fashioned by councils or synods, however astute they may have been.

...

4. See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Harper & Row, 1931; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1985); and J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (New York: David McKay Co., 1972).

 

And here:

Quote

{T}he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't really do "dogmas" or "creeds."  See here:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no creed, as that term is understood in traditional theology. Truth and the things of God are comprehended by study, faith, reason, science, experience, personal revelation, and revelation received through the prophets of God. Creeds, on the other hand, tend to delimit this process.

From the beginning of the Church until the present, its view has always been that such formulas are incompatible with the gospel's inclusive commitment to truth and continual revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants states, "He that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day" (D&C 50:24). In his first vision in 1820, the young Prophet Joseph Smith was told that the creeds of the competing churches around him "were an abomination in [God's] sight" (HC 1:19). These sweeping words were clarified in his Wentworth Letter (1842): "all were teaching incorrect doctrines." During the April 1843 conference of the Church, the Prophet said: "It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine" (HC 5:340), and later he elaborated: "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things, but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,' which I cannot subscribe to" (HC 6:67).

Since Joseph Smith's day, the Christian world has moved in this direction by acknowledging that creeds are "historically conditioned," and that confessions of faith are to be seen as "guidelines" rather than as final pronouncements.

Authoritative statements found in LDS literature are not viewed as elements in a creed. For example, although its thirteen Articles of Faith are scriptural, they are open-ended. One of them says, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (A of F 9).

And here:

Quote

The Articles of Faith gained more notoriety with James E. Talmage's publication of Articles of Faith in 1899—a series of elaborations on these fundamental truths within our religion. While Talmage held the highest degree of reverence for these simple and sacred statements of belief, he acknowledged that Latter-day Saints "announce no such creed as a complete code of faith; for they accept the principle of continuous revelation as an essential feature of their belief" (Articles of Faith).

This statement provides one of the most beautiful and profound recognitions of the Articles of Faith—that they provide a unifying understanding of our basic beliefs while still allowing for growth and for our own personal convictions received through revelation.

 

 

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Why no mention of the Doctrines & Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price in the Articles of Faith?
• I understand that the Articles of Faith are in the Pearl of Great Price, so again, why no mention of the Pearl of Great Pri

The Pearl of Great Price, a compilation of varied documents, was not canonized until 1880.  The Doctrine & Covenants, also a compilation (but overwhelmingly from Joseph Smith) was largely published well before then:

Quote

The 138 sections and two official declarations in LDS Church's Doctrine and Covenants break down as follows:

• Sections 1–134, 137: From the presidency of Joseph Smith (1828–44)
• Sections 135–136: During the administration of the Quorum of the Twelve (1844–47)
• Official Declaration 1: From the presidency of Wilford Woodruff (1889–98)
• Section 138: From the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18)
• Official Declaration 2: From the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball (1973–85)

Anyway, my sense is that these are "downstream" from the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  The Articles of Faith are not meant to be comprehensive or detailed.

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• Article # 8 says, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
  • The authority to create the Bible comes from the Catholic Church, and particularly through its apostolic succession and sacred, oral tradition. Doesn't accepting the Bible at all accept Catholic authority on some level? Perhaps LDS folks posit that the Great Apostasy happened after the Bible was settled? After the synods of Hippo, or Carthage, or the Council of Trent?

I question the first statement (that "authority to create the Bible comes from the Catholic Church").

As for "accept{ing} Catholic authority on some level," I'm not sure that is required.  To be sure, the Catholic Church was instrumental in preserving the Bible, but I don't think that role is congruent with a claim of authority.  After all, we believe the Bible to be incomplete.  And we have not canonized the Apocryphal portions of the Bible which are accepted by our Catholic neighbors, and have otherwise taken a somewhat arms-length approach to these omitted portions (see D&C 91).  We also disclaim the Song of Solomon as scripture.  And we have the "as far as it is translated correctly" caveat.

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• • Does Article #8 mean that a "right dividing" of LDS scripture places the Book of Mormon as more authoritative than the Bible? Again, I'm wondering if the Doctrines & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price would then be third as they aren't even mentioned.

The Latter-day Saint "Standard Works," the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, are canonized as scripture.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

These words of President Joseph Fielding Smith should guide all of us in our gospel study: “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 teachings 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.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:203–4; also cited in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], p. 609.)

I think the Standard Works are construed as a whole, together with living prophets and apostles and an open canon.

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• • I understand the Joseph Smith translated the Bible. Isn't his translation "correct?" Is it unfinished? Was it messed with?

The "translation" (such as it was) was apparently not completed:

Quote

QUESTION: Did Joseph Smith actually finish the translation, and if not, how much did he do?

MONTE S. NYMAN: He did not finish the translation. I know that it is written in Church history that he finished it in July of 1833. We have no idea the percentage of completion. I think he did a pretty thorough job in the early parts of Genesis and in some parts of the New Testament, but if we consider the Old Testament prophets, that is another mater. I look at the prophet Isaiah, and realize that many areas are untouched. There is no way of knowing whether he did 10 percent or 20 percent or some other percent. What he did, he did well, but because of time and other factors, there was much that he did not get around to doing.
...
QUESTION: Why has no other Prophet in the Church completed the translation of the Bible?

JOSEPH F. McCONKIE: I think the obvious key here is that in all things wherein we do the Lord’s work we have to be called of the Lord to do it. There are undoubtedly prophets who are spiritually and intellectually qualified to do that work, but they haven’t received the call to do it. Let me suggest to you a classic case study that illustrates the principle. In 1 Nephi chapter 14 we read about Nephi having had the same revelation that John the Revelator had, the one recorded in the book of Revelation. Nephi desired to write it, and surely there is no question about his competency and ability to do it. He was about to do it when, in effect, the Lord said, “Nothing doing; I’ve already given that assignment to another by the name of John.” Maybe John was still making major preparations in the preexistence, I don’t know. But John was due to come along in six hundred years and write the vision, and it was his mission and his commission. For that reason Nephi was told not to do it. Now, without question there are prophets who have been trained from eternity and who will come forth at the right point in time to do that work.

QUESTION: Why does the Church, meaning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not accept Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible? (That is a trick question, so be careful.)

ROBERT A. CLOWARD: The simplest answer is that we do accept the Joseph Smith Translation. But if I can complicate it a little bit, let me go on from there. Since the translation was made, there are parts of it that have been more available to the Church. From 1832 to 1851 parts of it were published in various periodicals. In 1851 the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price was published in Liverpool, England, including parts of what we now call the book of Moses and chapter 24 of Matthew, which were taken directly from the Joseph Smith Translation. As a Church, we have had since that time, and now have as part of our canon or standard works, those portions of the Joseph Smith Translation. I think that it is a fortunate thing that the name Pearl of Great Price was put on that book and if I can apply a parable, I can see a process going on in the Church today that goes back to the parable the Lord gave on a pearl of great price. You remember the parable about a pearl hidden in a field. When it was discovered where the pearl was, a man went and sold all that he had and he purchases the field. I see the Joseph Smith Translation as being a pearl for our day, and one at a time members of the Church are discovering where the field is. They are putting in the study and the work that it takes to purchase the field and find the pearl and receive the worth that it represents. Though we do accept the translation, the process of making it part of individual lives is a process of individuals encountering and studying and finding the worth of Joseph Smith’s work.

 

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• • Is there a list of passages where the Bible translations are known to not be translated incorrectly? Do LDS folks discuss this kind of thing?

I don't think there is any definitive or authoritative list anywhere.  The interpolations of the JST into the Church's version of the KJV (not interpolated per se, but rather included in footnotes) are probably a good place to start.

I think most Latter-day Saints approach the Bible in a "devout" kind of way, with a presumption that it is largely correct and edifying.  Most Latter-day Saints don't, I think, give much time or attention to discussing translation errors.

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

• • LDS folks seem to scrutinize Biblical interpretation much more than Biblical translation. This seems to go all the way back to Joseph Smith's evisceration of sola scriptura when he notes that the various Protestant groups were making it impossible to reconcile belief by appealing to the Bible. Is Article #8's reference to translation really more about interpretation?

I don't think so.  I think the Standard Works are intended to work in conjuction with living prophets and apostles.  

We are notably attentive to questions of authority, no doubt there.  But I think we focus more on orthopraxy than stringent orthodoxy.

On 6/10/2022 at 9:16 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Please don't feel obligated to address all of these. I'm just trying to put puzzle pieces together as I read the Joseph Smith Rough Rolling book.

Happy Friday!

And to you!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Saint Bonaventure]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1.  I haven't seen that.  I saw it more in places where the church was a minority.

2.  Some.  I see a lot of billboards around that play up the church it's for by pointedly referring to something in ours (sometimes in a negative way and sometimes more neutral.)

Regarding #1, I think it could show up indirectly, such as if someone built a mega-church and Latter-day Saints felt like it was encroaching. It could also show up directly, with more pointed comments in Sunday School or at the PTA or whatever.

Regarding #2, an extreme example might be a church deciding to light up in a big way so that when someone looks around they also see the glowing cathedral with spotlights or something. Billboard messages could get snarky too.

I don't really know, I'm just hypothesizing.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City has a mural near the altar of Galatians 1:8:

This has to be directed at LDS.

Of course, the ready answer to those who would use that passage as a proof text against the faith of the Latter-day Saints is that those angelic beings who brought forth the Restoration through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith were teaching the selfsame gospel that Paul taught, of which Christ Himself is the Author. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Regarding #1, I think it could show up indirectly, such as if someone built a mega-church and Latter-day Saints felt like it was encroaching. It could also show up directly, with more pointed comments in Sunday School or at the PTA or whatever.

Regarding #2, an extreme example might be a church deciding to light up in a big way so that when someone looks around they also see the glowing cathedral with spotlights or something. Billboard messages could get snarky too.

I don't really know, I'm just hypothesizing.

For #2, there is a sign on a church near my home that says that people should go there because questions are welcome.  That seems like a subtle dig.  I've seen a billboard for a church advertising the availability of coffee at their service (or probably before their service) and the hook is "church caffeinated".  That's obviously a nod to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is oppositional in a way but I don't see it as being hostile or negative.  Just using contrast as a marketing tool.

I've only lived in Utah for 8 years but in the other states that I've lived in, I felt #1 more because the opposition was more personal and they had the numbers to make it annoying.

In one state there was a huge "mega" four square-type church that put a ton of effort into trying to keep a temple from being built in the city.  The vibe in the church during that time was pretty "oppositional".

When you are the majority it's much easier not to even notice the minority voices, so there is often less focus on opposing them.  

[Saint Bonaventure]

My question today might seem peculiar, but it's all interconnected to my reading of the Book of Mormon.

A little context might help you understand the reason for my question.

In my understanding, the Annunciation of our Lord (Luke 1:31) is interwoven with the Incarnation. The Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him. 

And yet the Book of Mormon describes countless people knowing his name, when he would be born, and that he would be the Messiah and the Son of God, and all of this many years before Mary was even alive, let alone St. Luke was writing his gospel. 

Do Latter-day Saints not believe in the Annunciation? Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Annunciation, but just that it happened many years before Gabriel spoke to Mary? Is this not a point of discussion for Latter-day Saints? 

As usual, I'm not quite putting the pieces together.

[Stargazer]

On 8/17/2022 at 7:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City has a mural near the altar of Galatians 1:8:

This has to be directed at LDS.

Oh, no doubt that it is!  And I definitely appreciate the dig!

What is ironic about it is that the LDS could post that in every meetinghouse and mean it to be directed at every other Christian denomination. And a lot of those other Christian denominations could do it in the same spirit as well. 

We all think the others are preaching a "different gospel."

[Stargazer]

44 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

My question today might seem peculiar, but it's all interconnected to my reading of the Book of Mormon.

A little context might help you understand the reason for my question.

In my understanding, the Annunciation of our Lord (Luke 1:31) is interwoven with the Incarnation. The Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him. 

And yet the Book of Mormon describes countless people knowing his name, when he would be born, and that he would be the Messiah and the Son of God, and all of this many years before Mary was even alive, let alone St. Luke was writing his gospel. 

Do Latter-day Saints not believe in the Annunciation? Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Annunciation, but just that it happened many years before Gabriel spoke to Mary? Is this not a point of discussion for Latter-day Saints? 

As usual, I'm not quite putting the pieces together.

Revelation, sir. Revelation.

Did God know what was going to happen 600 years from the time Nephi received his vision? Did God know in advance, word for word, how the King James translation committee would translate the Bible? Of course He did. And what stops God from revealing His secret to His prophets?

Amos 3:7,8 - Surely the Lord God will do nothing, abut he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?

The Book of Isaiah contains some of the greatest messianic prophecies of all time. He knew in advance what would happen. Read the entirety of Isaiah 53. 

"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"

It is glorious, completely revealing, and full of understanding. Yet it was given to a prophet about 600 years before the actual events. Just because Isaiah didn't say the name of His mother or didn't say His own name, doesn't mean he didn't know them.

Actually, there was no other name that the Messiah could have, other than Jeshua, "Deliverer."

 

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

My question today might seem peculiar, but it's all interconnected to my reading of the Book of Mormon.

A little context might help you understand the reason for my question.

In my understanding, the Annunciation of our Lord (Luke 1:31) is interwoven with the Incarnation. The Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him. 

And yet the Book of Mormon describes countless people knowing his name, when he would be born, and that he would be the Messiah and the Son of God, and all of this many years before Mary was even alive, let alone St. Luke was writing his gospel. 

Do Latter-day Saints not believe in the Annunciation? Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Annunciation, but just that it happened many years before Gabriel spoke to Mary? Is this not a point of discussion for Latter-day Saints? 

As usual, I'm not quite putting the pieces together.

On what basis do you understand that the "Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him."? Certainly Gabriel spoke to Mary as the Books of Matthew and Luke attest, but I'm not seeing where this is the first time such a prophecy was ever made (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, 15).

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him.

It may be a matter of dogma/traditional belief that this was the first ever announcement, but there's no scriptural word of God that no prior announcement could or would be made.

Unless I missed something in the Bible somewhere?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

My question today might seem peculiar, but it's all interconnected to my reading of the Book of Mormon.

A little context might help you understand the reason for my question.

In my understanding, the Annunciation of our Lord (Luke 1:31) is interwoven with the Incarnation. The Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him. 

And yet the Book of Mormon describes countless people knowing his name, when he would be born, and that he would be the Messiah and the Son of God, and all of this many years before Mary was even alive, let alone St. Luke was writing his gospel. 

Do Latter-day Saints not believe in the Annunciation? Do Latter-day Saints believe in the Annunciation, but just that it happened many years before Gabriel spoke to Mary? Is this not a point of discussion for Latter-day Saints? 

As usual, I'm not quite putting the pieces together.

I've never heard a Latter-day Saint mention the Annunciation, and had never heard the term myself until your post and if you hadn't have defined it I would have had to look it up.

I'm sure there are members who were aware of the term, but it's not something that really means anything in our church.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard a Latter-day Saint mention the Annunciation, and had never heard the term myself until your post and if you hadn't have defined it I would have had to look it up.

I'm sure there are members who were aware of the term, but it's not something that really means anything in our church.  

I don’t remember it being used commonly, but it is used in manuals a few times and quite a bit in the titles of artwork. I can’t remember where I came across it first. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/the-annunciation-gabriel-mary-478780d?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-7?lang=eng
 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

And yet the Book of Mormon describes countless people knowing his name, when he would be born, and that he would be the Messiah and the Son of God, and all of this many years before Mary was even alive, let alone St. Luke was writing his gospel. 

How did the Zoroastrian Magi know He would be born, and the signs?   Zoroastrian scriptures, from many years before the events.   Some even argue that Zoroastrianism was the origin of Judaism!  There are many many parallels.

And remember the Book of Mormon was sent to people who lived thousands of miles away- across oceans- who might have had the same more ancient sources unforgotten, which had been lost to the local Jews.   These are both speculation of course, but I find them as perfectly reasonable possibilities.

Careful reading of the Old Testament reveals many details like the birth to be in Bethlehem etc.    

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/11/zoroastrianism?lang=eng

Edited August 20, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard a Latter-day Saint mention the Annunciation, and had never heard the term myself until your post and if you hadn't have defined it I would have had to look it up.

I'm sure there are members who were aware of the term, but it's not something that really means anything in our church.  

The Joyful Mysteries are to be contemplated sometimes while praying the Rosary.   All events are important days for Catholics

https://www.vatican.va/special/rosary/documents/misteri_gaudiosi_en.html

Edited August 20, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 8/19/2022 at 12:31 PM, CV75 said:

On what basis do you understand that the "Annunciation is literally the first announcement to a human, to Mary no less, that Jesus, the Son of the Most High, will be conceived in the Blessed Mother's womb, and that she will bear him."? Certainly Gabriel spoke to Mary as the Books of Matthew and Luke attest, but I'm not seeing where this is the first time such a prophecy was ever made (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, 15).

Thanks for your question. I'll try to not be too obtuse as I respond.

Isaiah 7:14 is certainly important as it looks forward to the Incarnation. It indicates that a sign will be given, and it certainly is prophecy. An important difference in our understandings is, I think, that I believe that The Annunciation in Luke 1:26-38 is more than prophecy. It is the sign and is the beginning of the Incarnation. The announcement by the Archangel Gabriel of Jesus by name and the response by Mary is a unique interaction in the history of the world.

From that moment, Mary might have reflected on Isaiah 7 and realized that the sign was given through Gabriel's declaration and her response. 

There's more here as relating to Christ saying that he will build his Church (Matt. 16:18) and that Christ says that the Holy Spirit will come (John 14), and then the Holy Spirit does come on the Day of Pentecost and fills them (Acts 2). The Book of Mormon indicates a "Church of Christ" and a pouring out of the Holy Spirit hundreds of years before those things happen as presented in the New Testament, which is astonishing to me. (BTW, the pouring of the Spirit language in Isaiah 44 that gestures to Acts 2 is often cited in favor of pouring as a form of baptism).

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 8/19/2022 at 3:46 PM, bluebell said:

I've never heard a Latter-day Saint mention the Annunciation, and had never heard the term myself until your post and if you hadn't have defined it I would have had to look it up.

I'm sure there are members who were aware of the term, but it's not something that really means anything in our church.  

I think you've identified the language issue. I don't think Latter-day Saints are against some fundamentals of The Annunciation, at least in so far as the Choir has sung Ave Maria:

The Tabernacle Choir is asking our Blessed Mother to pray for them, which is something of which I whole-heartedly approve. Maybe Ave Maria isn't in the LDS hymnbook? Still, they are asking her to pray for them, which is beautiful.

Edited August 21, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[InCognitus]

On 8/19/2022 at 2:01 PM, Calm said:

I don’t remember it being used commonly, but it is used in manuals a few times and quite a bit in the titles of artwork. I can’t remember where I came across it first. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/the-annunciation-gabriel-mary-478780d?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-7?lang=eng

The Gospel Art image you linked above is the how "The Annunciation" (the title of the painting) is hard coded into my memory, and I'm pretty sure that my mom and family had taught me about the phrase before that.  My mom is an amateur artist, and taught me to appreciate art, both in and out of the church, and this painting and it's name has always been linked in my memory to passages like Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:26–38: