Mormon prophet

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnettejane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebecca, I’m disappointed
RebeccaJ said:
You are reinventing Mormonism, which, isn’t an unusual thing to do. Kolob has never been taught by the Mormon Church as metaphorical.

Here’s an Institute manual.
Click to expand...
Your link seems to support Allegory
  • Urim and Thummim represent instruments of revelation used by JS as well as OT prophets.
  • Kolob and several other ‘governing’ stars are discussed to explain how insignificant our world is in comparrison to the throne of God. It’s not an astronomy lesson.
    “There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. . . .
I have to agree with you, believing the BoA is not such a bright thing.

Oh, and this is a gem:

lds.org/new-era/print/1971/04/people-on-other-worlds?lang=eng&clang=eng

It should appeal to your anti-Catholic leanings.
Click to expand...
Why must you stoop to an insulting retort, and then to criticize me of being anti-Catholic!
This link simply showed Ken’ts speculation about life on other worlds. Wasn’t 1971 when UFOs were all the rage?
 
Tony888 said:
Rebecca, I’m disappointed

Your link seems to support Allegory
  • Urim and Thummim represent instruments of revelation used by JS as well as OT prophets.
  • Kolob and several other ‘governing’ stars are discussed to explain how insignificant our world is in comparrison to the throne of God. It’s not an astronomy lesson.“There are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. . . .
    Why must you stoop to an insulting retort, and then to criticize me of being anti-Catholic!
    This link simply showed Ken’ts speculation about life on other worlds. Wasn’t 1971 when UFOs were all the rage?
Click to expand...
Tony888, Kolob is a serious subject, really, I’m not laughing.

Maybe someday you’ll hie to Kolob.
 
Tony888 said:
Rebecca, I’m disappointed
  • Kolob and several other ‘governing’ stars are discussed to explain how insignificant our world is in comparrison to the throne of God. It’s not an astronomy lesson.
Click to expand...
The mention of governing stars hearkens back to the Genesis creation account, references in Abraham 3:5, in which the sun and moon govern the day and night respectively. This makes sense, since Abraham is eventually going to get in to another creation account of his own. It should be noted here, that regardless of whether we consider the Genesis account to be an astronomy lesson, the fact is that the sun and moon do exist. They are not fictional entities created for a story, but rulers that fill the void of heaven.

Moreover, if, for the sake of argument, we are going to take The Book of Abraham as an ancient, Semitic text, you have got to consider the extent to which time, understood in terms of heavenly bodies, was determinative for the liturgical life of Israel - the calculations of annuals feasts, jubilee years, etc. When God claims that he reckons time in terms of Kolob, this would mean for an ancient Hebrew that time on Kolob was the most important, objective measure of time conceivable. That alone would make the reality of Kolob not irrelevant, but indispensable to the text’s theological meaning. Thinking of it as simply showing the diminutive status of earth without reckoning the significance for liturgical timekeeping would be utterly un-Jewish.
 
I’m thinking this new way of looking at Mormon teachings is intriguing.
  • Joseph Smith’s visions
  • Golden plates
  • Angels guarding treasure
  • Translating said golden plates
  • Monson a prophet
All metaphors. 👍
 
:rotfl:
RebeccaJ said:
I’m thinking this new way of looking at Mormon teachings is intriguing.
  • Joseph Smith’s visions
  • Golden plates
  • Angels guarding treasure
  • Translating said golden plates
  • Monson a prophet
All metaphors. 👍
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Maybe if that was true, we would have all stayed in the church…
 
RebeccaJ said:
I’m thinking this new way of looking at Mormon teachings is intriguing.
  • Joseph Smith’s visions
  • Golden plates
  • Angels guarding treasure
  • Translating said golden plates
  • Monson a prophet
All metaphors. 👍
Click to expand...
Well, with an ever-changing religion at the mercy of the latest prophet and his revelations that trump all those before him - it just might happen! :juggle:
 
lax16 said:
Well, with an ever-changing religion at the mercy of the latest prophet and his revelations that trump all those before him - it just might happen! :juggle:
Click to expand...
Tsk, tsk. Mormons change their doctrine way less than people think - less even than they themselves think. I know of only two LDS doctrines that have ever changed, though many more have been de-emphasized…
 
soren1 said:
Tsk, tsk. Mormons change their doctrine way less than people think - less even than they themselves think. I know of only two LDS doctrines that have ever changed, though many more have been de-emphasized…
Click to expand...
Excuse me - I didn’t say doctrine, I said religion.

And yes, it has changed A LOT - polygamy, Adam-God, Book of Abraham, Jesus and Lucifer as brothers…
 
soren1 said:
Tsk, tsk. Mormons change their doctrine way less than people think - less even than they themselves think. I know of only two LDS doctrines that have ever changed, though many more have been de-emphasized…
Click to expand...
Ok are you REALLY going to make us ask which two? :whistle:
 
Well, the bottom line is the Holy Spirit.

Why do all these concepts sound so new to us? Why weren’t they revealed alot earlier??? Is God playing games with us? If He is now beginning a new turn in revelation – His Church, then why didn’t He reveal this at the very beginning and insure that it be revealed openly to every generation…???
 
lax16 said:
Excuse me - I didn’t say doctrine, I said religion.

And yes, it has changed A LOT - polygamy, Adam-God, Book of Abraham, Jesus and Lucifer as brothers…
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but your point about modern revelations trumping older prophets did seem to point to matters of doctrine.

On the whole though, I don’t think the view you have described, which we might describe as supercessionist, really accords with the consistent public teaching of LDS general authorities. It’s true that many (most?) individual Mormons will hold to a position like that, but I think it comes from the growth of postmodernism within the LDS Church rather than reflecting the Church’s official stance. We live in a time where progressivism is valued, and people think of it as an automatically good thing for a church to change with the times, even in ways that constitute a foundational repudiation of that church’s truth claims. Many Mormons, therefore, (like a lot of Catholics, I fear) feel like they are making a credible defense of their church by saying things like “Well, we have changed that.” This gets the praise of the world, certainly the liberal media likes it, plus it is good morphine for the conscience. People who love truth see right through it.

But Mormons who take that stance are speaking for themselves, not for the Church. The official literature always stresses historical consistency, and the safety in following prophetic counsel. Now I don’t think this view of LDS authority can square with history, but my point right now is not to judge the plausibility of LDS teachings about church authority, but simply to represent their position accurately. I think the official LDS stance favors inclusive belief, especially of doctrines that have been reiterated by two, three or more prophets. On various, embarassing teachings that pose PR liabilities, LDS General Authorites tend to assume a stance of silence or equivocation, but not repudiation.
 
RebeccaJ said:
JS changing doctrine of deity.
Click to expand...
Oh, shoot. That makes three. I suppose I should have said that only two doctrines have changed since Smith’s time. Though again, I must say I am conservative here. I find less inconsistency in Smith’s doctrine of deity than most of his critics. A lot of the time, what seem like different teachings about the nature of god actually reflect Smith thinking about different gods.
 
soren1 said:
Fair enough, but your point about modern revelations trumping older prophets did seem to point to matters of doctrine.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt when their prophet received a revelation that is now okay to drink soda that anyone would consider that doctrine.😉
On the whole though, I don’t think the view you have described, which we might describe as supercessionist, really accords with the consistent public teaching of LDS general authorities. It’s true that many (most?) individual Mormons will hold to a position like that, but I think it comes from the growth of postmodernism within the LDS Church rather than reflecting the Church’s official stance. We live in a time where progressivism is valued, and people think of it as an automatically good thing for a church to change with the times, even in ways that constitute a foundational repudiation of that church’s truth claims. Many Mormons, therefore, (like a lot of Catholics, I fear) feel like they are making a credible defense of their church by saying things like “Well, we have changed that.” This gets the praise of the world, certainly the liberal media likes it, plus it is good morphine for the conscience. People who love truth see right through it.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the visions of Joseph Smith that changed, the Book of Mormon that was revised, polygamy that was a cornerstone of their early church…these are very important aspects of their religion that one would think would remain consistent.

I agree that Mormons change with the times. Catholics, even the lukewarm ones that I know, do NOT think the Church changes at all - and many disagree with the Church’s unchanging stance (on gay marriage for example). Heck, I had an athiest in college tell me that he had to respect the CC for her unchanging ways.
But Mormons who take that stance are speaking for themselves, not for the Church. The official literature always stresses historical consistency, and the safety in following prophetic counsel. Now I don’t think this view of LDS authority can square with history, but my point right now is not to judge the plausibility of LDS teachings about church authority, but simply to represent their position accurately. I think the official LDS stance favors inclusive belief, especially of doctrines that have been reiterated by two, three or more prophets. On various, embarassing teachings that pose PR liabilities, LDS General Authorites tend to assume a stance of silence or equivocation, but not repudiation.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by “But Mormons who take that stance are speaking for themselves…”?

Soren, I have read extensively about Mormonism and know that it has changed dramatically from its beginnings not even 200 years ago. Joseph Smith’s visions changed, blacks in the priesthood banned to now warmly welcomed, the definition of the Godhead, revisions to the BoM, backing away from Kolob…the list is extensive. In fact, much has been written on the subject from credible sources.

On some matters, I agree, it is harder to get an answer or the doctrine is not defined.
 
soren1 said:
Oh, shoot. That makes three. I suppose I should have said that only two doctrines have changed since Smith’s time. Though again, I must say I am conservative here. I find less inconsistency in Smith’s doctrine of deity than most of his critics. A lot of the time, what seem like different teachings about the nature of god actually reflect Smith thinking about different gods.
Click to expand...
Try this one out:

irr.org/mit/changing-doctrine.html
 
soren1 said:
Oh, shoot. That makes three. I suppose I should have said that only two doctrines have changed since Smith’s time. Though again, I must say I am conservative here. I find less inconsistency in Smith’s doctrine of deity than most of his critics. A lot of the time, what seem like different teachings about the nature of god actually reflect Smith thinking about different gods.
Click to expand...
Four. I am assuming they no longer teach this:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular **doctrine **which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God—. . . (Deseret News Weekly, June 18, 1873)

On October 8, 1861, Brigham Young said:

Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God. . . . It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, . . . (“A Few Words of Doctrine,” unpublished manuscript in the Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives, as cited by David John Buerger in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 29).
 
What about Blood Atonement - not in practice anymore I presume.
How many are we up to now?

If a prophet uses the word doctrine can they now say it never was doctrine?

Brigham Young:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness … and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone, for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood… I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit… There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top