When Conscience Conflicts with Prophetic Teachings

[Grug the Neanderthal]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Early Latter-day Saints did somewhat of the same things in their worship services. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N01_15.pdf

"WE BELIEVE IN THE GIFT OF TONGUES, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth" (Seventh Article of Faith).

"I attended several meetings," he later noted, "one of which was the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, which, I thought, would give me a good opportunity to detect their hypocrisy. The meeting lasted all night, and such a meeting I never attended before. They administered the sacrament, and laid on hands, after which I heard them prophecy [sic] and speak in tongues unknown to me" (Corrill 1839, 9). The 15 February 1831 Painesville Telegraph describes the speaking in tongues among the Saints the previous December: "At other times they are taken with a fit of jabbering that which they neither understand themselves nor anybody else, and this they call speaking foreign languages by divine inspiration."

On 19 June 1831, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and others left Kirtland for Missouri to begin the settlement of Zion. Ezra Booth, an early convert who later left the Church, recalled that "those who were ordained to the gift of tongues, would have an opportunity to display their supernatural talent, in communicating to the Indians, in their own dialect" ([Ravenna] Ohio Star, 10 Nov. 1831). Reporting on the Saints' activities in Missouri in 1831, Reverend Benton Pixley, previously "sent by the Missionary Society to civilize and Christianize the heathen of the west" (HC 1:372-73), noted that "they declare there can be no true church where the gift of miracles, of tongues, of healing, &c. are not exhibited and continued" {The [Cincinnati] Standard, 30 Nov. 1832). Wilford Woodruff recorded in his autobiography that in the spring of 1832 he had read of a new sect called Mormons "that professed the ancient gifts of the gospel they healed the sick cast out devils and spoke in tongues" (Woodruff, 15). Only then did Brigham Young enter this sequence of events. In September 1832, he first spoke in tongues; and on 8 November 1832, he met with Joseph Smith in Kirtland and spoke in tongues. On 14 November 1832, Zebedee Coltrin recorded in his journal that he "came to Kirtland to Brother Joseph Smith and heard him speak with Tongues and sing in Tongues also." Within a matter of days, others in Kirtland were also speaking in tongues. Statements by Campbell, Pratt, Howe, Corrill, Gifford, Booth, and various newspaper articles in 1830 and 1831 make it clear that speaking in tongues was an accepted part of the LDS experience long before Brigham Young "introduced" it 

the Church. 20 DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT THE GLOSSOLALIC PERIOD 1833-36 From 1833 to 1836, speaking in tongues became a church-wide phenomenon. The "language" spoken was often identified as the language of Adam. Because speaking in tongues was generally regarded as a sign of the truthfulness of the restored gospel rather than as a tool to be used in spreading the gospel in foreign lands, it generally took the form of glossolalia rather than xenoglossia. During a conference on 22 January 1833, Joseph Smith, Zebedee Coltrin, and William Smith spoke in tongues "after which the Lord poured out His Spirit in a miraculous manner, until all the Elders spake in tongues, and several members, both male and female, exercised the same gift" {Kirtland High CouncilMinutebook, 22-23). The conference continued late into the evening. The next day, when the conference reconvened, these gifts were again manifested. On 17 January 1836, while the First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and the [High] Councilors of Kirtland and Zion were gathered together in conference, "the gift of tongues came on us also, like the rushing of a mighty wind" (HC 2:376). Five days later the gift of tongues again came to this group "in mighty power" (HC 2:383). In May 1833, Gideon Carter reported to the Saints in Missouri that "the church at Kirtland is sharing bountifully in the blessings of the Lord, and many have the gift of tongues and some the interpretation thereof" (Evening and Morning Star, July 1833). Many exercised this gift in their homes (Gates 1883, 21-22; "Early Scenes" 1882, 11; Stevenson 1894, 523). At the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in March 1836, speaking in tongues was abundant. Joseph Smith pled in his dedicatory prayer, "Let it be fulfilled upon them, as upon those on the day of Pentecost; that the gift of tongues be poured out upon thy people, even cloven tongues as of fire, and the interpretation thereof" (D&C 109:36). "Hundreds of Elders spoke in tongues, but, many of them being young in the Church, and never having witnessed the manifestation of this gift before, some felt a little alarmed" ("Gems" 1881, 65). Joseph prayed to the Lord to withhold the Spirit and then instructed the cd the congregation on the nature of the gift of tongues. Later, Brigham Young gave an address in tongues which David W. Patten interpreted. Patten then gave a short exhortation in tongues himself (HC 2:428). That day many others spoke in tongues and prophesied. Adults were not the only ones to speak in tongues. According to David Pettigrew, "The gift of tongues, I think, was the cause of the excitement of the opponents of the Church in Missouri. When they Copeland: Speaking in Tongues 21 heard little children speaking tongues that they did not themselves understand," the people became alarmed at the Saints' presence (Pettigrew n.d., 15). Along with the gift of tongues came excesses and abuses. Some members of the Church "would speak in a muttering, unnatural voice and their bodies be distorted" {Times and Seasons, 1 April 1842). In a July 1833 letter to the Saints, Sidney Rigdon counseled: "Satan will no doubt trouble you about the gift of tongues, unless you are careful" (HC 1:369). Fredrick G. Williams wrote in the 15 April 1845 Times and Seasons, "Many who pretend to have the gift of interpretation are liable to be mistaken, and do not give the true interpretation of what is spoken; therefore, great care should be had, as respects this thing." In September 1834, Joseph Smith redefined the legitimate use of this gift —"It was particularly instituted for the preaching of the Gospel to other nations and languages, but it was not given for the government of the Church" —and advised that "we speak our own language in all such matters" (Kirtland High Council Minutebook, 40). Until this time, the Saints had viewed speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as a sign from God of the truthfulness of the restoration. 

It’s true that the gift of tongues was manifested to a much greater degree in the early days of the church than it is today. 

I doubt that the actual gift of tongues experienced by the early members of the church was anything like what the Pentecostals do, though.

There were however plenty of false manifestations of "speaking in tongues" in the early days of the church, too, and these may have sometimes been similar to what the Pentecostals do. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Agree to disagree. Peace out. 

I take it that you didn’t read the editorial?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It’s true that the gift of tongues was manifested to a much greater degree in the early days of the church than it is today. 

I doubt that the actual gift of tongues experienced by the early members of the church was anything like what the Pentecostals do, though.

There were however plenty of false manifestations of "speaking in tongues" in the early days of the church, too, and these may have sometimes been similar to what the Pentecostals do. 

I deleted my comment to you after your sharing the link that is similar to what I had posted. I kind of thought it was moot. But will ask, have you read about the Kirtland Temple? That would make me throw up. I think they had too much alcohol on empty stomachs or maybe some other substance was added to the sacrament wine. And a few were doing some very strange things, that would have made me want to run and never come back.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Tacenda

[Grug the Neanderthal]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But will ask, have you read about the Kirtland Temple? That would make me throw up. I think they had too much alcohol on empty stomachs or maybe some other substance was added to the sacrament wine. And a few were doing some very strange things, that would have made me want to run and never come back.

I know all about the Kirkland temple and I see no comparison to what the Pentecostals do. In any event, my dad’s experience is not hypothetical, it really happened. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

nevermind

Likewise.   It won't change things anyway

[Benjamin McGuire]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That's not an interpretation, though. That’s having a correct understanding of the meaning of both languages. 

It is interpretation. Language simply doesn't have the determinate meaning that you seem to be suggesting that it does. Language without interpretation is merely artifact - and it doesn't actually mean anything. Meaning is constructed by an author - but it is reconstructed when the text is read - and the fact that the two meanings can be similar is as much accidental as anything else.

The idea that texts have a fixed meaning was a philosophical position developed primarily to protect the Biblical text and to claim that the text of the Bible has a single meaning - the one that God intended (of course, there are so many different interpretations of the Bible more or less destroys this idea - everyone believes that the meaning that they get from the text is exactly the one that God intended - although this cannot be the case). The Book of Mormon throws this idea out the window when it tells us to liken scripture unto ourselves. The Book of Mormon seems to have a much better understanding of language. Authors convey meaning in their texts to a predetermined audience (who the author believes will interpret the text in a specific way). The further the real audience is from that imagined audience, the less likely it becomes that the meaning that they get from reading a text is the same as the meaning that the author intended. At its most basic level, such a play between real and intended is seen in the language used. When I write in English, I am supposing an English audience. And someone who doesn't read English will likely get nothing at all (the text becomes purely artifact for them).

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is interpretation

Not in the way Pogi is suggesting. But I guess you could say that it’s accurately interpreting what the phrase means in that specific context.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Book of Mormon throws this idea out the window when it tells us to liken scripture unto ourselves.

When Nephi says “I did liken the scriptures into us" I believe that he is talking about applying what the scriptures say to ourselves. I also never claimed that there is only one meaning in the scriptures. There can be multiple meanings and applications to scripture. 

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When I write in English, I am supposing an English audience. And someone who doesn't read English will likely get nothing at all (the text becomes purely artifact for them)

Of course, but to an audience that does read English the words do have meaning. Sometimes the meaning is clear and obvious to all or most people and other times it isn’t.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. Best wishes to you.

God bless you!

I wish I could learn how to be that peaceable.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The idea that texts have a fixed meaning was a philosophical position developed primarily to protect the Biblical text and to claim that the text of the Bible has a single meaning - the one that God intended (of course, there are so many different interpretations of the Bible more or less destroys this idea - everyone believes that the meaning that they get from the text is exactly the one that God intended - although this cannot be the case).

Sometimes I wonder if God ever thinks or speaks in language at all, or that there is a "text" there at all; for me revelation is a kind of raw intelligence which I turn into words myself, almost like it is coming from my unconscious, and even that word "unconscious" is just a word, just a human construction 

I think that is why some folks worry about "where that idea came from", God or themselves.  But the paradigm I accept tells me that we ARE godlings ourselves, and so for me, the difference is largely irrelevant.

We are all to be prophets for ourselves 

I experience a flash of ineffable intelligence "out of the blue" (a VERY interesting idiom in this context! ) that seems was impossible for me to create, and then I struggle to create "text" from that wave of ineffable intelligence.

The wording is never quite exactly "right," but is the best I can do.

Edited February 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

my dad’s experience is not hypothetical, it really happened. 

Your/his interpretation of it is what is suspect.  He could have just had a bug or extreme fear of the unknown/misunderstood.  I don't see why otherwise good and moral Christians speaking in tongues would be so vomit inducingly evil as compared to immoral acts (possibly influenced by dark spirits) that we are all guilty of.   I think immoral acts that actually hurt others are far more vomit-inducing, personally.  I don't see speaking in tongues as immoral.   

Edited February 16, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

On 2/15/2023 at 12:14 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It depends on what you mean.

Whitmer was adding a descriptive header to each section at the time. (This is similar to the way we have headers at the beginning of each section now). He only did it for the one volume. This one became part of the text of the revelation (the others didn't) - and it's impossible to say why it happened only in this one instance.

Well I am pretty sure that as a influential Mennonite and member of a German Baptist congregation, he must have done it under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit! I think he was baptized into three, and possibly four different churches (LDS, River Brethren, Mennonite and German Baptist) in the same river (the Susquehanna). Certainly that in and of itself may have been a first and inspirational! 😀🙃

[Grug the Neanderthal]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your/his interpretation of it is what is suspect.

So you think you know better what happened and what the reason was than my dad who actually experienced it?

That’s interesting. 

[Navidad]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:03 PM, Chum said:

He's a pretty notable resource. I feel fortunate that he chills here.

Well, I appreciate that very much. I am rather famous for my puns - they have been deemed "the lowest form of humor" by many. I also am regularly feted for the quality of my green chili stew. I once submitted a paper to a scholarly journal. The blind reviewer described my article as "the worst repeated misuse of the comma he had ever seen." They published the article anyway! I was also told the same thing by Mrs. Stewart, my 8th grade English teacher who, by the way played the organ at my wedding. Somethings never change! Patrick Mason in front of hundreds of people once deemed me the "Mennonite guru of Mormon history. I guess that is notable, coming from him - he who is genuinely notable! My slam of a ping pong ball has put terror into the hearts and paddles of opponents for many years! Oh, and finally I was told last year by a noted Mexican history scholar that I should probably use a translator when I speak in order to translate my Spanish into Spanish! That might be a first!

I must add I haven't always chilled here, have I? (notice the comma?) I am trying to do better! Best wishes to all.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I haven't always chilled here, have I? (notice the comma?) I am trying to do better! Best wishes to all

Social media presents a great opportunity to observe how our personalities are received and to adjust as needed

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What my Dad experienced while in a Pentecostal church is true. I believe it was a manifestion of false spirits that caused him to become physically sick and throw up, just like he maintains. People are welcome to take offense, but false spirits abound and are very prevalent among the religions of the world. That’s one of the major ways Satan deceives people.

And I thought Navidad is Catholic, not Pentecostal. So sharing my dad’s experience was definitely not an attack on his religion.

Just to clarify, I am neither Catholic nor Pentecostal. I have however, spoken at Catholic marriage and family retreats and on several occasions to Pentecostal groups. My religion is Christianity. My preference for its interpretation is Evangelical (capital e), and in my life I have belonged (been a member of) Baptist, non-denominational, and Mennonite churches. My heritage and church home is Mennonite. I hope that helps clarify things. Oh - and in case you don't know we have faithfully attended an LDS ward for over five years now.

Just yesterday in our village here in Mexico we had the highest wind storm we have ever experienced (sustained winds of about 116 kilometers per hour). The dust was unbearable. We have two new missionaries working here in our village. All cell phone, walkie-talkie, landlines, and internet (such as it is) services were out. The sisters got stuck here in fierce winds, a twenty minute car ride from their home base.

Knowing they would find help, or desperate (I am not sure which) they walked the mile or so, across town to our home. My wife and I (mostly my wife) helped them recover a bit from the dust, wind, and wind chill and we drove them home to the historic colony from which they are based. Their ride back to the colonia had forgotten all about them in the fury of the storm. They thanked us over and over and over and over. Actually it made my wife's and my day, because we had a chance to minister to them. You see, I wasn't supposed to be home yesterday. I was supposed to be speaking about 250 miles from here down in Camargo about a massacre of Catholic students, police, unionists, and soldiers in that town in 1936. Because of the once-in-a-century storm here in Chihuahua the meeting was cancelled. Fortunately I was here and able to help minister to two wonderful young LDS missionaries a long way from home in Mexico City! It was our privilege and joy, even if the ride was a bit harrowing! Take care.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is interpretation. Language simply doesn't have the determinate meaning that you seem to be suggesting that it does. Language without interpretation is merely artifact - and it doesn't actually mean anything. Meaning is constructed by an author - but it is reconstructed when the text is read - and the fact that the two meanings can be similar is as much accidental as anything else.

The idea that texts have a fixed meaning was a philosophical position developed primarily to protect the Biblical text and to claim that the text of the Bible has a single meaning - the one that God intended (of course, there are so many different interpretations of the Bible more or less destroys this idea - everyone believes that the meaning that they get from the text is exactly the one that God intended - although this cannot be the case). The Book of Mormon throws this idea out the window when it tells us to liken scripture unto ourselves. The Book of Mormon seems to have a much better understanding of language. Authors convey meaning in their texts to a predetermined audience (who the author believes will interpret the text in a specific way). The further the real audience is from that imagined audience, the less likely it becomes that the meaning that they get from reading a text is the same as the meaning that the author intended. At its most basic level, such a play between real and intended is seen in the language used. When I write in English, I am supposing an English audience. And someone who doesn't read English will likely get nothing at all (the text becomes purely artifact for them).

Thanks for this. You should write another book - on this subject. When I give lectures in Spanish, I think it is often mostly artifact for them! Ha! The other day, after a conference was over, a good cronista friend of mine came up to me, gave me a big abrazo, smiled and said with reassurance, "You are doing so much better! I almost understood you!" 🙃

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So you think you know better what happened and what the reason was than my dad who actually experienced it?

That’s interesting. 

Am I just supposed to believe whatever your dad thinks?  No thanks.  I can show you videos of people bearing testimony of Allah and the truthfulness of Islam because of their personal spiritual experiences.  Somehow I am guessing that you don't take your own medicine of just believing what other people say because they are the ones who actually experience it.   

I said it was "suspect" based on what I know of good moral Christian Pentecostal believers.  I didn't say I "know better", I just don't have any reason to trust your dad's interpretation.  There are several reasons why he could have vomited that I have pointed out.  It is easy to make false conclusions based on correlation. 

[mfbukowski]

Error

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I said it was "suspect" based on what I know of good moral Christian Pentecostal believers.

So you believe that the Pentecostals are actually in possession of the legitimate gift of tongues and when they speak in tongues it is by the power of the Holy Ghost?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So you believe that the Pentecostals are actually in possession of the legitimate gift of tongues and when they speak in tongues it is by the power of the Holy Ghost?

That’s not what I said.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

Just now, pogi said:

That’s not what I said.

Then I don’t understand why you take issue with my dad’s experience becoming physically sick when the Pentecostals were speaking in tongues via a false spirit. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just to clarify, I am neither Catholic nor Pentecostal. I have however, spoken at Catholic marriage and family retreats and on several occasions to Pentecostal groups. My religion is Christianity. My preference for its interpretation is Evangelical (capital e), and in my life I have belonged (been a member of) Baptist, non-denominational, and Mennonite churches. My heritage and church home is Mennonite. I hope that helps clarify things. Oh - and in case you don't know we have faithfully attended an LDS ward for over five years now.

Just yesterday in our village here in Mexico we had the highest wind storm we have ever experienced (sustained winds of about 116 kilometers per hour). The dust was unbearable. We have two new missionaries working here in our village. All cell phone, walkie-talkie, landlines, and internet (such as it is) services were out. The sisters got stuck here in fierce winds, a twenty minute car ride from their home base.

Knowing they would find help, or desperate (I am not sure which) they walked the mile or so, across town to our home. My wife and I (mostly my wife) helped them recover a bit from the dust, wind, and wind chill and we drove them home to the historic colony from which they are based. Their ride back to the colonia had forgotten all about them in the fury of the storm. They thanked us over and over and over and over. Actually it made my wife's and my day, because we had a chance to minister to them. You see, I wasn't supposed to be home yesterday. I was supposed to be speaking about 250 miles from here down in Camargo about a massacre of Catholic students, police, unionists, and soldiers in that town in 1936. Because of the once-in-a-century storm here in Chihuahua the meeting was cancelled. Fortunately I was here and able to help minister to two wonderful young LDS missionaries a long way from home in Mexico City! It was our privilege and joy, even if the ride was a bit harrowing! Take care.

Thank you for the clarification.

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then I don’t understand why you take issue with my dad’s experience becoming physically sick when the Pentecostals were speaking in tongues via a false spirit. 

That’s a false dichotomy you are setting up.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

That’s a false dichotomy you are setting up.

I don’t think it is, but feel free to actually explain your position instead of continuing to be evasive.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think it is, but feel free to actually explain your position instead of continuing to be evasive.

People can do things for lots of different reasons.  It doesn’t have to either be a true manifestation/gift of the spirit or a vomit inducing level of evil.  I thought that seemed obvious, I wasn’t trying to be evasive.

I don’t doubt that they actually feel the spirit.  That doesn’t mean that I believe they are actually speaking some heavenly tongue.  Believe it or not, people can manifest how they feel the spirit in diverse cultural ways.  Or, some may be imitating their parents and following cultural expectations in pretty benign ways, or…I could go on and on with different motivations that are not either vomit inducing level of evil stuff, or a true manifestation of the gift of the spirit.