It is hit and miss. The JoD is widely quoted in LDS church materials including their Ensign magazine. Yet individual mormons will tell non-mormons over and over again the JoD is not important, and does not deserve serious consideration.
Well…that’s not quite correct, y’know.
I would warn you against putting too much stock in “One Nation Under Gods.” While Abanes does do some fine muckraking, his presentation of Mormon history is so imbalanced that it often lurches into caricature. One noticeable examples his overly unsympathetic treatment of polygamy - tales of returned missionaries raping their wives, etc. He doesn’t really take sufficiently into account that Mormons thought polygamy was a sacred obligation, and men often entered polygamous unions at great burden to themselves out of that duty. While we should not condone such a practice, there is at least some level on which we should be able to sympathize. Indeed, sympathy with one’s subject is part of the disciple of historiography, which Abanes seems to lack. In fact, he does not even give the theological explanation of polygamy until an illogically late point in his narrative, after he has prepped the reader with horror stories, ensuring maximum shock value. And then he skewers it with theological arguments that are on track but very incomplete. A lot of his stories about murders and gross crimes derive from nineteenth century sensationalist literature that is not well regarded by historians. His book has its merits, I admit, but the blunders are so serious, I give him a C-.
I think that this is only problematic for those that believe that public revelation ended with the appearance of Christ. Since Catholics believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, this is not an issue. So I think I agree with you that, if they are presented as proof of no more revelation, it doesn’t work. When people say that public revelation ended with Jesus Christ, they need to be specific as to what they mean, especially if Hebrews 1:1-2 is being used.
Not necessarily, since my reason for referencing it was simply to point out what it clearly says: that in the past, God spoke in parts through the prophets, and in these last days, He has spoken in full through Jesus Christ. The question is, what does that mean?The fact that you used it as a prooftext against further revelation is a pretty good indication of how you interpret it, Theosis.
Could you please explain why it counts? I have heard much speculation that the Proclamation may be added to the D&C. Is it seen as “new” information? It really seems to be a statement of faith on things that LDS have believed for quite some time. I could be wrong, please explain the context of the Proclamation as it relates to public revelation. How do you know that GBH was speaking as a prophet when this came out, and since it hasn’t been declared canonized scripture, are there any other examples of President Hinckley receiving public revelation that is canonized scripture? What about Ezra Taft Benson and Howard Hunter? Did they receive public revelation that became canonized scripture? How does this relate to them being sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators”? Indeed, there are 15 “prophets, seers, and revelators” in the LDS church, right?
True
Yes, I can see that.
Oh yes, one could very well argue that. But does it make sense? I don’t think so. This relates to what the Bible is and who said what is to be included in it. The Bible is not a list of beliefs, a “creed” if you will. Instead, the Bible tells one unified story, from Genesis to Revelation. Believing the entirety of that story (obviously interpretation is another question) is required/normative belief. The Bible is a collection of books, yet they come together as one Gospel.
Very good summation of our views.
Deut 18;20-22 Gives you the words of God on this exact matter. Otherwise anyone can claim they speak for god and start their own religion. Only God knows the future its the prfect test. I gave some Mormon Missionaries several weeks to find me one JS that came true. in exchange I agreed to read the parts of their littturature that they assigned me. each week a more experienced missionary would come in place of the newest guy on the previous week. Eventually they came back with JS civil war prophecy(short version) I was impressed though at the time I didnt know about the many many failed prophesies. It wasnt until later that I found out I was only given the first part of the pronouncement the part that most citizens at the time expected would happen. the lasts part never came true.
The issue of polygamy really didnt bother me at all. I actually found myself feeling sympathetic for the mormons at times. JS said God gave polygamy to the mormans as a lasting covenant. that is why it is still practiced to this day. by some fundamentalists.
You have noticed that trend too? Use the JoD when it supports what they want, ignore the other, controversial stuff?
Dianiad:
Then his “Stake President” would need to be made aware of this, if he is in fact a bishop. They are usually so busy w/ their ward that they wouldn’t have the time or energy to be on a CATHOLIC FORUM for such lengthy periods of time…
Thanks Rebecca, I thought the same. I, after leaving the church after 22 years -I’m not 22, I was a mormon from the ages of 21-43 - I have kind of drawn my own conclusions about this arm crossing when you pray thing. - I think it’s because Catholics & Protestents fold their hands, and the mormons want to show that they are “protesting this”. I am so done with these mormon threads. I LOVE this website because it teaches me so much about the religion that I love - CATHOLICISM. I only go onto the mormon sites to read, and then just shake my head at what people like diana are always denying that she was taught, when I as a former mormon sat and heard ALL OF WHAT SHE IS MOSTLY DENYING for -I’ll say it again - 22 YEARS. I don’t have the time for this. Peace to all of you…
I feel the same way. The same arguments are hashed over and over.
As a mormon for many many years, I think the problem comes from them not having a Catechism, there is no definitive source of mormon doctrine. Of course Bruce R. tried to write one and it was never formally adopted even after the many many revisions he was forced to make. Mormons get told that the words of the prophets, like during their general conferences are like Scripture, but please don’t go too far back. The JOD if it were widely read by mormons would destroy most of their testimonies because it’s certainly not what they believe now. Blood atonement, Adam God etc…You have noticed that trend too? Use the JoD when it supports what they want, ignore the other, controversial stuff?
Ah well…If it works for someone, gives them whatever it is they need/want to get thru life…I say go for it.
I couldnt handle the mental gymnastics though.
I agree. There is no orthodoxy in mormonism. It is why you have individual mormons (including mormon leaders) all over the map in what they believe and teach. The closest thing you’ll find to a catechism is “Gospel Principles”. Even then, as a LDS person, you can say it isn’t part of the LDS standard works so anything it describes as doctrine you could just take as opinion. (And mormons 50 years from now will most likely say it is only opinion!)
