The ECFs must be crazy

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Hi MFool,
There is no need for such a claim, and as you said, none is made. What is a fact, that supports my position in this, is that the Church provides no mechanism for which any member can discern the nature of the revelation.

Revelation is a black box process. No church can prove the exact circumstances behind every word they accept as an authentic record of revelation.

As our previous conversation on this topic showed, was that Smith (at a minimum) was producing dialogic style revelations that were shown to be merely inspritational revelation, to which you both agreed, and said was perfectly fine.

I am not sure what you mean by *at minimum. *I indicated I would accept something as dialogic revelation if a prophet drafted a statement and God put his revelatory signature as an indication it is sufficiently approved. Much like a lawyer writing up someone’s last will and testament, which is put into action by signatures and witnesses. Yes, you reject this notion. But it was not the only option I provided.

As also stated there, I do not recognize that misrepresenting a revelation as to its type and source is fine.

All revelation comes from God and is limited by human comprehension. This concept appears over and over in LDS scriptures and even Christian scriptures. “We see through a glass, darkly.” The scriptures have never misrepresented themselves. D&C 1:38 “Whether by [the Lord’s] own voice or by voice of his servants, it is the same.”

The nature of the revelation needs to be accurately stated if the members relying upon it are to be able to utilize the revelation in a manner conductive to its transmission.

Where is this done anywhere? Do you have a highlighted version of the Bible that color codes everything according to the exact circumstances in which they were received?

A dialogic revelation needs be followed more strictly than a mere inspirational musing of the prophet, as an exapmle of the need for this.

If there is a variation of urgency in different levels of commitment in following a prophet, there are many factors that completely overshadow the manner in which a revelation was received.

Yes, you can claim that dialogic revelations occur, but you cannot point to a single one with any certainty under your own allowances and definitions.

I think I have already pointed out the false dichotomy in your mere inspiration vs. dialogic revelation. I will have to point out that all dialogic revelation in LDS scriptures is “real” to me. Hence you will have to desist in claiming I have any uncertainty whatsoever as to Who to attribute it too. It is you who can’t point to with certainty that any word of scripture is dialogic revelation under your definitions. My allowances let me err on the side of belief. Yours puts you at risk for rejecting legitimate expressions of God’s will.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Was there really any doubt I understood your point? I simply disagree with the universality of its application. I think I have by now, as has TOm, completely dismantled your complex question.

First, yes, there was doubt as to you understanding as you simultaneously made the points I desired (in the correct solution of the two presented), while responding in a manner to the other solution in a manner that showed an apparent lack of understanding as to what I was driving at.

Second, Its universality resides in the ‘principle’ I was applying, which you seem to have lost when delving into points of detail that were, effectively, irrelevant to the point I was making. I preferr discussion utilizing principle because of its usefulness (once the factors are correctly identified). In this case, in principle, my position holds, and can be applied to both sides of the fence that I was addressing. I admit that I did not aparently articulate my position to the clearest possible statement.

Third, while TOm did dissect my original posture, he apparently has recinded (to a small degree, I won’t say “capitualted”, as that would be clearly overstating such) his position upon such after I made my point more clear.

Fourth, as to your assertion of “complex argument”, you are again demonstrating that you did not understand my position if you are making such a claim. My example provided you with two mutually exclusive solutions, one obviously accepted by us both as being the “correct” one, the other a fallicious one. This was done to help lead you in seeing that, under the principles discussed, while you assert the correct position for yourself, you in actuality apply the opposing, fallicious, solution when extracting pro-lds material support from non-lds ECF statements.

Sorry I have generated so much confusion for you. I will try not to “show you the way”, and just simply stick to base assertions. while we won’t agree to the ultimate conclusions, we can at least see them. Lesson learned.

BTW, did you see my link on the EG catechism on the other thread?

B

 

[PaulDupre]

mormon fool:

While it definitely makes things more interesting when ECFs have been sainted or were in positions of authority, the main thing is that their writings do give us records on how the Christian church developed.

Hi fool,
I fear there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of sainthood in the RCC. A person is sainted (which means nothing more than an official declaration that she is in heaven) not because she was correct about anything, but because of the singularly holy character of her life.

A sainted person may have been mistaken about any number of things, so long as he did not defy any of the precepts of the Church. St. Augustine, for example, had wrong-headed notions about a few things, but his life following his conversion was one of awesome holiness and dedication to God.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[BJRumph]

Hmm, seems thing will get ugly soon if this continues. However, here are a few “final” responses.

Revelation is a black box process. No church can prove the exact circumstances behind every word they accept as an authentic record of revelation.

To which I obviously disagree. While one must rely upon the word of the revelator as to the mode/source, that word can be verified to a minimal extent by both how the revelator treats that revelation, and by the construction and wording of the revelation itself. In the case of Smith, it was shown, and accepted, that he was not having dialogic revelation in regards to a revelation that itself claimed to be such. However, as I detail below, paul made quite certain that the differences in the mode of his various ‘revelations’ were clearly indicated in the text themselves, and in how he apparently anticipated their use by the audiences aimed at.

I am not sure what you mean by at minimum

In this specific case, the minimum discussed is specific prophets. As only Smith was discussed and shown to be using non-dialogic revelations as dialogic revelations, I felt it best to stick only to points we already agreed upon (and already establish the basis for the points being made), rather than add others, such as BY or JT or GBH…

Where is this done anywhere?

As already mentioned in the thread where this was originally discussed, it is found within the language used by the NT (for instance) writers when discussing such. For instance, Paul clearly indicates the nature of his visionary experience on the Road, but later in other writings, he also make the effort to clearly explain that he is speaking by way of inspiration when doing so in an adress that he is about to make. Paul is one certain example of someone who differentiates the source/mode of revelation, and apparently sees the value of communicating that mode/source to those receiving his “revelations”.

If there is a variation of urgency in different levels of commitment in following a prophet, there are many factors that completely overshadow the manner in which a revelation was received.

Yes, but in order to appreciate the relative weights of those factors, one must have a trustworthy indicator as to the mode of revelation.

My allowances let me err on the side of belief. Yours puts you at risk for rejecting legitimate expressions of God’s will.

You do realize that this statement requires you to accept, in erring on the side of belief, to accept not only those things of BY you reject, but also any claimed revelation? I realize that this is not what you intended to mean (as you have shown you do not believe what your statement requires), but in trying to make an extra point against me, you have clearly moved into your own realm of error, whose retraction requires you to stand on the same revelatory ground as I. It is sad that you see my position as you do, but it doesn’t really need to be said that we will have to simply disagree, and that I feel my position is both more firm, and not quite so atheistic (or at least ‘unbelieving’) as you present.

 

[BJRumph]

Arieh;

Sorry to ‘short shrift’ my response, but I am running out of time.

As to the example you requested, consider Jesus’ handling of the Adulterous Woman.

Here is a woman, caught in the act of adultery, which required (under the OT) her death. Jesus, in trying to reveal what you and I see as an abstract continuation of the OT law, clearly asserts what is a practical reversal (of the sort to which I was referring) of the OT law by refusing to condemn her as the law demanded.

No, this is nothing so crude/mean as you were expecting to compare with similar instances of lds revelation; but on a level of principle, it is nevertheless the same. Keep in mind, also, that the most dramatic reversals of revealed doctrine have not in fact been reversed, such as polygamy or witholding the preisthood from those of African descent (only the practices were ‘reversed’ or stopped, not the doctrines that drove them). Hidden or ignored, yes; reversed, no.

No need to abandon your position, it is simply one that I don’t necessarily feel the need to make myself, in favor for one that I see (from my own limited pov) as being more important/relevant.

As many here are willing to suggest ever so coyly, I can make mistakes, and my position is certainly not inassailable.

 

[mormon_fool]

The scriptural promise (D&C) is that whatsoever these men speak when moved by the Holy Ghost IS the mind and will of God. (no room for incorrect transmission) So the only out can be wether or not they were “moved by the Holy Ghost”.

I disagree with your scriptural eisegesis, as it ignores stated limitations on the revelatory process.

Ether 12: 25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

D&C 1: 24-6
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;
26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

D&C 89: 2-3. . . .by** revelation** and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, **adapted to the capacity of the weak **and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

Alma 29: 8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their **own **nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have;

1 Cor. 13:8-9 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 

[mormon_fool]

Who determines that? Common consent? maybe…sometimes… but then the member sits in judgement (allegedly by inspiration) ovewr the veracity of the prophets teaching. So either the individual members are inspired (in which case why do they need a prophet?) or this system is very broken.

Why we need a central authority like a prophet:
Eph 4: 11-14 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Scriptures
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
2 Pet. 1: 20 no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Why we need multiple witnesses and our own witness in regards to revelation:

2 Cor 13:1 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
1 Cor. 12: 3 no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Moro. 10: 5 by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all.

Where in the Bible do Prophets called by God submit their prophecies to a sustaining vote?

Ex. 24: 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said,all the people answered with one voice.

see also Acts 15 1 Sam 10

Zeph. 3: 9 they may all call upon the name of the LORD,serve him with one consent.
Philip. 2: 2being of one accord, of one mind.

The Bible passages may be unsatisfactory to “proof-text” the principle of common consent, hence. . . (nevermind, I am sure any one can see this argument coming).

The cognitive dissonance required for this is spiritually deadly.

Some people learn to deal, here is a recent article that help me.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Hmm, seems thing will get ugly soon if this continues.

We do not have an agreement on the following which you assert we do:

In the case of Smith, it was shown, and accepted, that he was not having dialogic revelation in regards to a revelation that itself claimed to be such.

It was neither shown (at least not to my satisfaction) what the mode of Smith’s purported dialogic revelation was. I have a loose definition of dialogic revelation, you have a tight one. I do not rule out the tight definition as a possibility for Smith’s D&C claims.

I don’t think you can use Paul as some one who differentiates between modes of revelation because you have previously compared Paul’s ability to receive revelation to that of the pope. I can appreciate that you are trying to make a point that speaks to my point of view and I can say that I appreciate when Paul says he is giving his own opinion. However Paul’s style is rather unique.

The challenge is for you to find one piece of scripture that meets your criteria for dialogic revelation with certainty. Finding a few cases where more details are given as to the mode than in other places doesn’t help your case. Even when OT prophets say “Thus saith the Lord” we don’t know whether they have your definition or my more inclusive one in mind.

Yes, but in order to appreciate the relative weights of those factors, one must have a trustworthy indicator as to the mode of revelation

I am entirely happy to not care about the “mode of revelation”, because I can not reproduce such a mode. Requiring that I know the exact mode of a revelation when in the vast majority cases I will never know, would put me into eternal procrastination mode. (Is that better? No references you this time! I apologize for making my last comparison so direct.) This is counterintuitive to John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.)

One of the things that drives my loose definition of dialogic revelation is that the cultural conditioning of the OT apostles and prophets is plainly evident in their revelations. Couple that with all the imperfection of prophecy (a synonym for revelation) in scripture by Paul.

You do realize that this statement requires you to accept, in erring on the side of belief, to accept not only those things of BY you reject, but also any claimed revelation?

I have consistently qualified my remarks by refering to LDS scriptures and “other factors” which is in a turn a reference to DSI. These things are more important to me than “mode of revelation.” If I were to create a DSI step for mode of revelation it would only swing by a point or two.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

BJ’s analogy revisited
Trying to make it work

Oliver Cowdery, a mormon ECF, apparently rejected Smith’s teachings on polygamy, as it was one of his reasons for leaving the church at a point. But, your church adopted Smith’s polygamy as being “orthodox”. Does this make Cowdery’s rejection of polygamy “evidence”, “proof”, or “support” for the falsity of Smith’s polygamy? Or rather, does it provide evidence that Crowdery was, while occasionally respected, wrong in the matter?

The first problem is that this scenario is presented as an either/or (“mutually exclusive”) when “both” is the real correct answer! Oliver’s rejection of polygamy is very much used as evidence for both propositions by critics and LDS. Yes, different people look at the same piece of evidence and assign different conclusions to it.

If we reject the “both” answer and all we know about the problem is what was given than there is insufficient information to solve it. If we pick either answer, we see that we had to assume either “later orthodoxy is right” or “later orthodoxy is wrong”. That begs the question all polemics revolve around.

Lets assume that we go with our bias or take a leap of faith and say “later orthodoxy is right”. Then it follows we can charitably allow respected individuals in an organization to make errors as judged by later orthodoxy without questioning that later orthodoxy…This is the third problem with the argument, when it tries to make Cowdery’s errors and Catholic ECFs’ errors a package deal. Accept them both or reject them both is what the complex question demands. Selective acceptance can get some one labeled. Applying this principle across the board shows mormons misuse Catholic ECFs because they forgive OC or JS but challenge the ECFs.

But not vice versa? Surely a principle wouldn’t be developed that shows Catholics misuse errant (by later orthodoxy) LDS leaders. I’ll pass on that thought because I am obviously extending this analysis past its breaking point. Causality would seem to be on the Catholic side. If all wayward leaders have to be forgiven, then the Catholic church orthodoxy is right, therefore the LDS church has no justification for existance and its rightness of orthodoxy doesn’t matter. LDS bear the burden of proof in the apostasy debate. If neither set of leader(s) can be forgiven without impinging on later orthodoxy rightness, then both churches are false. This isn’t an acceptable solution for anyone (except protestants or the RLDS).

In conclusion, LDS have a need to analyze ECFs to form a more plausible argument for the apostasy. Catholics can take advantage of this interest by providing informed alternative takes and demanding equally critical self-examination.

later,
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

MF:
deal, recent article
This was excellent. Dr. Ulrich is both quite intelligent and in my observation quite spiritual (as is Blake Ostler my other favorite presenter, but Blake’s external presentation does not communicate his spirituality as well as Dr. Ulrich. Talking to him, or perhaps visiting him playing on the floor with the nursery kids you get the message).
Dr. Ulrich uses the psychological definition of Cognitive Dissonance(CD) rather than the Bob McCue definition(BCD). It seems that majick275 is using the BCD definition. Of course, I could misunderstand much.
It is my opinion that BCD is another in a long series of specious attacks. (not that all attacks are specious). It should be noted that Bob McCue would suggest that Catholics who have a clue about history are surely suffering from BCD. And second it would be just as utterly useless and self-aggrandizing for him to say this to you. However at least he would be remotely consistent when doing so whereas I do not think Catholics are.
BCD essentially suggests that the mind is able to compartmentalize itself such that mutually contradictory things can be KNOWN at the same time. It is the rare (and presumably enlightened) individual that is able to see beyond such compartmentalized things and align ones internal framework thus alleviating BCD. Bob McCue would quite readily suggest that to decompartmentalize would LDS out of the CoJCoLDS because the facts that demonstrate its falsity are solid and the ?facts? that support it are flimsy. The problem with this is that intelligent folks (who actually understand CD in psychological circles) like Wendy Urlich disagree with Bob as to which facts are flimsy and how one must resolve such problems. I suggest that the Bob McCue is the one who suffers from BCD and he should recognize that the CoJCoLDS is the proper solution to his compartmentalized mutually contradictory things. And this is surely just as specious and untestable as anything BCD.
CD on the other hand is the stress we feel when our expectations are confronted by a reality that is in opposition to these expectation. Bob McCue resolved his CD by rejecting the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. May LDS have resolved our CD by recognizing that we never should have felt that prophets were infallible, the church was perfect, and … This concept is more able to shed light upon human behavior and feelings and is thus far more useful than BCD.
One of the greatest things Dr. Urlich said was essentially, “Let’s all get disillusioned.” Why do we want to be illusioned?

Anti-Mormonism leads to atheism for many reasons. I do not disagree with BJRumph that part of that reason is that Mormonism teaches implicitly and occasionally explicitly that non-LDS Christianity is flawed. I however think the main reason is that anti-Mormonism invites a type of thought that when consistently applied will ultimately destroy virtually all Christian belief structures. Many exMormon atheist agree with me.
Reading Newman’s letters from 1870-1871 as the infallibility debacle occurred further solidified this truth for me. He regularly thanked God for the simple faith that allowed him to take all those things he knew were not in accordance with the way the RCC claimed to operate, and yet continue to have faith. Bob McCue would invite Newman to see that this is BCD. Such and such practice of Vatican I is not in accordance with the way the charism of God works BUT somehow we will accept that the charism of God sealed the truth. In Bob McCue’s world this is BCD and the enlightened will shed flimsy faith and embrace the freedom of atheist/unspecified spiritualism.
Wendy Ulrich would invite Newman to resolve his CD (which he surely had) in the way God directed him to. And this is what Newman did. His faith in the RCC was not challenged by the inappropriate things that he saw at Vatican I.
My especially conservative SSPX friend (it seems I now have two SSPX friends) should take a lesson from Dr. Ulrich and Newman. There are surely excesses associated with Vatican II and especially associated with the path of liberal American bishops, but it is important to remember that where men fail, God makes up the difference. Be an agent of changes yes, BUT BELIEVE.
Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I disagree with your scriptural eisegesis, as it ignores stated limitations on the revelatory process.

What exegesis? Here is the actual scripture:
D&C 68
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly• Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower• of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

I don’t see how that lends itself to very much interpretation.
mormon fool:

Ether 12: 25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

I am tempted to claim higher DSI for D&C 68, but as I find DSI to be entertaining nad thought provoking, I do not agree with it. I would look at this scripture and think that LDS apologists might claim that JS “fixed” any errors when he translated it. I might also claim that it applies only to that particular book (due to the extreme circumstances of multiple languages and a war going on). But I am quite content to concede to you that LDS scriptures are full of errors.
mormon fool:

D&C 1: 24-6
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;
26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

D&C 89: 2-3. . . .by** revelation** and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, **adapted to the capacity of the weak **and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

I see these as claiming all kinds of weaknesses in the Lords servants but nothing that would indicate that they incorrectly write canonized scripture. (at least not without swift correction) But if you want to persist in the belief that LDS scriptures are inherently full of mistakes OK, I’ll agree to that.
mormon fool:

Alma 29: 8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their **own **nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have;

The Lord wants people to have scripture in their own language. I agree. are you claiming that he seeth fit to give them scriptural erors?
mormon fool:

1 Cor. 13:8-9 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

If I were LDS I could claim that any perceived between these biblical passages and the D&C must be due to translation errors, but then I would be back to using DSI to make my point.

I certainly read Pauls letter to the Corinthians different that what is presented here. He seems to be saying that without charity, everything fails. Are you claiming that LDS prophecies were received wihout charity?

As to the see and prophesy in part, glass darkly, etc. I think that refers to Prophets not knowing all (or even most) of Gods plan. I don’t see this as saying that they incorrectly transmit what has been revealed to them.

Of course I see this as coming down to D&C 68. If JS was really a prophet and if this is really scripture. (both are LDS truisms) then we are back to my original assertion.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

Why we need a central authority like a prophet:
Eph 4: 11-14 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Scriptures
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
2 Pet. 1: 20 no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Of course, as a Catholic, I agree in principle. You might find some disagreement with that last scripture (2Pet 1:20) from some LDS. The references to spiritual gifts don’t (IMO) support the LDS belief in A prophet. (or THE prophet as LDS see the Pres. of the Church) at least I don’t see any restrictions there that refute Joel and Acts.
mormon fool:

Why we need multiple witnesses and our own witness in regards to revelation:

2 Cor 13:1 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
1 Cor. 12: 3 no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Moro. 10: 5 by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all.

I really don’t have a problem with this. I see nothing here that refutes Catholic teachings.
mormon fool:

Ex. 24: 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said,all the people answered with one voice.

see also Acts 15 1 Sam 10

Zeph. 3: 9 they may all call upon the name of the LORD,serve him with one consent.
Philip. 2: 2being of one accord, of one mind.

The Bible passages may be unsatisfactory to “proof-text” the principle of common consent, hence. . . (nevermind, I am sure any one can see this argument coming).

So I really don’t need to go into this part. My original question here still awaits.
mormon fool:

Some people learn to deal, here is a recent article that help me.

later,
fool

Psychology? Okay we can go down the rabbit hole of mental health or I can go back to my assertion that it is SPIRITUALLY deadly. This goes more to my beliefs on JS, BY and others who LDS honor as true prophets who led the church correctly yet taught doctrine that is now denounced as false. That some choose to “deal” with it is IMO a great tragedy. Rather than go through the mental gyrations of seeing paradox instead of contradiction, why can’t people just worship as the Lord taught. (and don’t bother with the “we do” it was just MIA for 1800 years cuz Jesus wasn’t as effective as JS in establishing Gods true church)

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Regarding the LDS prophets, I will grant you that official LDS doctrine alows for fallibility of the individual. I would note though two apparent “doctrines” of the LDS church dealing with this. The first is the canonized promise (from D&C) that when the oracles of the lord are moved by the holy ghost then whatever they speak is the mind and will of God. This at least creates situational infallibility.

I am not sure what you mean by “situational infallibility”. Actually, it doesn’t denote any kind of infallibility. Firstly, I have mentioned this before, and I will repeat it again here, that the point that is at issue here is when does a new doctrine taught by somebody in the Church becomes valid or binding on the Church, not just whether something is classed “scripture” or “inspired” in general or not. By new doctrine I mean something that cannot be found in or confirmed by canonized scripture. All scripture is not new doctrine. All of the Bible is scripture, but 90% of it is not new doctrine. 99% of the words of the prophets to mankind (ancient and modern) have been exhortations to repent, believe in God, and keep His commandments; and there is nothing new about that. Here is a tiny example from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 7:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I and I will cause you to dwell in this place.
What is new about that? This is the kind of things that God has been telling mankind since the creation of Adam; except that each prophet has adapted the same general message to the needs and requirements of the age and the society in which they lived. The difficulties that have arisen have always been when somebody has taught something that is new, meaning one that cannot be substantiated by the scriptural canon. If I taught that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and had 7 kids, people have the right to ask me, “What is the source of your information?” The scripture in the D&C that you had referenced, that “their teachings when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is scripture, is the word of the Lord, etc.” does not authorize anyone to introduce new and innovative teachings into the Church. That simply is not a mandate that is granted by that scripture.

Point number 2: That scripture does not make the person, or his teaching, infallible either. I will give you an example. In Joshua 10:12, he commands the sun and the moon to stand still while the children of Israel avenged themselves of their adversaries. I was once discussing religion with an atheist. He cited this scripture, and said that the Bible cannot be true, because if Joshua was genuinely inspired by God, he should have known that the sun doesn’t go around the earth, so it can’t stop. I said that just because Joshua is a prophet, that does not mean that he must know everything. He speaks according to his human limitations, and God makes up the difference. He has faith to believe that God is able to make it to happen, and God knows how the thing works, and makes it happen the way it should happen.

Just because someone is inspired by the Holy Ghost when he speaks, that does not mean that he must be infallible. In a sense he may be considered infallible in the main message that he is attempting to convey, but that does not mean that he is incapable of any kind of mistake in anything. Let me illustrate with another example. In the last General Conference of the LDS Church, Elder Dalin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve preached a powerful sermon against the evils of pornography. He also indicated that he had received his commandment to preach that sermon from the Lord. That sermon was indeed inspired by the Holy Ghost, and therefore it was “scripture,” as it says in the D&C. It was the “word of the Lord,… and the power of God unto salvation”. But does that mean that it must be infallible in every detail? The answer is no!

(Continued in the nexst post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

First of, all there was nothing new in that sermon. It was the same age old counsel that the prophets have always given, to avoid immorality and lasciviousness, but tailored to the requirements of our time. But it was scripture because it was inspired by the Holy Ghost. But was it infallible? That depends in how you want to look at it. It was infallible in the sense that his counsel to avoid that evil came form the Lord, and we had better heed it or else! It was an infallible counsel form the Lord to avoid the evil of pornography. But does it have to be infallible in every detail? Suppose that he had had some mistaken notion in his mind on some particular thing or doctrine, and that mistake had crept into his sermon. Would that be possible, if he was genuinely inspired by the Holy Ghost? It certainly would be, just as it happened in the case of Joshua. As it turns out, I did not detect any such errors in his sermon; but in theory, that does not exclude the possibility that there could have been; and if there had been, that would not have made his sermon any less “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”.

The premise that common consent is the measure of when to apply this is somewhat problematic in that when this is actually applied it resembles a single party election. (everyone voted, all in favor continue on, all opposed are being re-educated) I don’t mean to imly anyhting sinister but more a lack of true choice.

You are referring to the quote from Harold B. Lee which I had given. That quote doesn’t just say that “common consent is the measure”. It says a lot more than that. Let me repeat again that what he was referring to was when somebody brings in some new doctrine into the Church. Let us suppose that the Church decided to give the priesthood to women. An Apostle can’t just get up in conference and declare that it is now the Church’s policy to ordain women to the priesthood, and start going around ordaining women to the priesthood. Even the prophet couldn’t just get up and make an off the cuff remark to that effect. Because it would be a new doctrine or sacramental practice in the Church, it would have to follow a set procedure. That is the procedure that President Harold B. Lee was trying to outline in this quote, and it says a lot more than just “common consent”. Here is the quote:

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church {that must include the President of the Church}, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973.)
This lays down three criteria, all of which must be fulfilled before some new doctrine can be accepted in the Church. These are:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

1. The Prophet must declare it as revelation from God. I don’t recall if Brigham Young ever stated unequivocally that he had received a revelation from God commanding him to teach the Adam-God doctrine to the Church. By contrast, when Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto discontinuing polygamy, he did just that.
2. It must be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve {and by his own counselors of course too}. As far as I know, Brigham Young’s Adam-God theory was never submitted to the Quorum of the Twelve (or to his counselors) for their approval, and was never so accepted by them. But Wilford Woodruff did.
3. It must be sustained by the body of the Church. The same here, Brighm Young didn’t, but Wilford Woodruff did.
   These are the conditions that President Lee lays down for accepting a new doctrine as the doctrine of the Church. This, if you like, is the LDS Church’s equivalent to the Catholic Church’s “ex-cathedra” pronouncement of the Pope. All the above conditions must be fulfilled before a new doctrine or practice becomes binding on the Church. If the Church wanted to give the priesthood to women, for example, it would have to be done like that. If the Church wanted to believe that Jesus was married and had 7 kids, it would have to be accepted through that procedure.

When individuals disagree they are promptly “counseled” so that either they accept or they are “on the high road to apsotasy”.

That is not quite true. You are misquoting that. That quote comes form the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the exact quote is as follows:

“That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, and that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, he will apostatize as God lives.” (Teachings, pp 156, 57.)
Here Joseph Smith is speaking of a different phenomenon. What he is referring to is someone that has a bickering and contentious attitude, and finds fault with the Church or its leaders. What he is saying there is quite correct. If somebody finds a genuine error in the teachings of the leadership of the Church, and genuinely possesses the spiritual insight to be able to recognize such an error, he will not just go around finding fault with the Church or its leaders, undermining the faith and testimony of others. He will bring the matter to the attention of the leadership of the Church in an appropriate way, through the appropriate channels; and I can assure you that his views would be gratefully received by the leadership, duly considered by them, and if found to be correct acted upon. I know for a fact that this has happened in the Church.

Second is the consistent teaching (therefore “doctrine”) that obedience to the “lords anointed” is more important than “correctness”. Numerous times LDS authorities have taken the position that if the leaders erred and the members followed them then they would be blessed for faith and obedience and the leaders would be corrected by God. (eventually) But to act contrary to the counsel of the prophet, even if “wrong” is sin. It is certainly disobedience and quite often apostasy.

You are partly right about that. There is a reason for it. The reason is that experience has shown that when somebody finds fault with the Church or its leaders, 999 times out of a 1000 they are in the wrong, and the Church or its leaders are in the right. It is better to be safe than to be sorry. As I said before, if somebody genuinely recognizes an error in the teachings of the Church, and is spiritually equipped to be able to do so, he will not work himself into a frenzy, and he will not go around finding fault with others. He will bring the matter to the attention of the leadership in an appropriate way, and it will be gratefully received, accepted, and acted upon.

amgid

 

[amgid]

PaulDupre:

We all understand the concept in theory. But those of us that have been LDS know that no one ever doesn’t sustain the GAs and the things they propose (unless he is looking to get ex’d or disfellowshipped).

That is not correct. Nobody gets “ex’d” or “disfellowshipped” for refusing to sustain anybody or anything. There are several kinds of decisions that can come before the membership for sustaining. The commonest is when someone is called to a position in the Church. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to sustain someone in the Church, but you must be able to give a valid reason for it. A valid reason is either you know that the person is a transgressor, which renders him unworthy of that calling; or there is a technical difficulty, such as somebody being proposed for baptism before they have reached the age of eight. You can’t refuse to sustain somebody just because you don’t like them, or because you have a disagreement with them. Even if you refuse to sustain someone just because you don’t like them, you would still not be “ex’d” nor “disfellowshipped”. The most that would happen is that you would not be considered for advancement in the priesthood, or be given a temple recommend. It would also affect your callings. Apart from that, you would be acting perfectly within you legitimate rights to refuse to sustain somebody, even if it is for no other reason than that you just don’t like them. You would not be considered “apostate” for that reason. The only time disciplinary action would be taken against you would be if you took a public stand against the Church, its leadership, or it fundamental doctrines. If I started teaching and preaching publicly that the Church is not true, or that the leadership is in transgression, or that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God, or that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet, or that Jesus Christ is not the So of God, or that the atonement is not necessary etc., then I would be charged with apostasy, and disciplinary action would be taken against me.

Anyone who does not sustain the prophet and his teachings is, by definition, an apostate. And no LDS wants to be suspected of apostacy.

That is not quite true. See above.

Besides, by the time the matter is submitted for sustaining by the faithful, it is already a fait accompli.

That is not correct. If you knew that someone is in transgression, and nobody else did, and you refused to sustain them, you would be asked to give an explanation; and if you were right, the person would not be called.

Whatever changes are proposed were enacted before the matter was ever presented in sacrament meeting or general conference. Your sustaining vote has no effect on whether or not the changes are enacted.

The first sentence does not make any sense. The second sentence is not correct. See above.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

So the faithful raise their hands as a matter of routine, without ever critically evaluating the merits of the proposal being sustained.

That is partly true. Many Church members do tend to sustain without giving serious thought to their decision. But on the other hand, it is difficult to do otherwise. Unless you know for a fact that someone is transgressor, there is no reason to be suspicious of their worthiness. Everyone who is called is interviewed for worthiness, and we must assume he passed the test. We trust that their superiors have their job properly, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise.

In actual practice, what the prophet says goes. Period.

As a general rule that is correct. The number of occasions that the prophet has seriously erred in doctrine have been very small.

I understand that the process of sustaining is for your spiritual benefit and is not a “vote” per se.

Not correct. Sustaining, or what is called in the scriptures the law of “common consent,” is a vital principle of Church government, and signifies the exercise of the agency of Church members. You are free to refuse to sustain anything or anyone in the Church you like, and for any reason you like, including personal reasons, and no disciplinary action will be taken against you, although it would affect you personal progress in the Church. The only time disciplinary action would be taken against you would be if you took a public stand against the Church.

How is it significant then that a doctrine is “accepted by common consent” when the surety of unanimous acceptance is built into the process?

Sustaining a new doctrine is a somewhat different event from sustaining a church officer. First of all, sustaining a new doctrine, or a new practice in the Church, is an extremely rare event. There are only two instances that I know of that this has happened; the first was when polygamy was discontinued, the other was when the priesthood was given to blacks. Secondly, when you sustain a new Church officer, you don’t know for sure whether he is worthy or not. You assume that your priesthood leaders have done their jobs properly, and he has been interviewed and found worthy. But when you vote for a new doctrine (which is an extremely rare event), you know exactly what you are voting for, and you can make up you own mind about whether you agree with it or not. As it turns out, in both the above instances, Church members have agreed with the decision, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t have. I agree with the decisions too. The General Authorities wouldn’t present such a matter of importance to the Church for their sustaining vote unless they had satisfied themselves that it was right and came from the Lord, and the Church members having the same Spirit would recognize the same thing, and would vote for the decision.

amgid

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

What exegesis? Here is the actual scripture:
[snip D&C 68:4]
I don’t see how that lends itself to very much interpretation.

Well in case you can’t tell I was ressponding to your parenthetical about there being “no room for incorrect transmission.” In other words it is great to be inspired in regards to the mind and will of the Lord, but there are no gaurantees about inerrancy when doing so.

I am tempted to claim higher DSI for D&C 68, but as I find DSI to be entertaining nad thought provoking,

Yes, I would say that D&C is cited more frequently in church than the passages I brought up. I memorized it on my mission even. However it doesn’t address the issue of how error-free the transmissions are. The scriptures I cited are much more directly and explicitly to the point.

But I am quite content to concede to you that LDS scriptures are full of errors.

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!

Well my true position is that scriptures are functionally inerrant, “full of errors” would be an overstatement. Not perfect, but worthy of God’s approval as being sufficient to help his followers progress, at least until the next emendations are revealed

I see these as claiming all kinds of weaknesses in the Lords servants but nothing that would indicate that they incorrectly write canonized scripture. (at least not without swift correction)

I see Moroni being very blunt about mistakes being in the Book of Mormon. I didn’t quote this idea that appears later in the Ether passage or title page. He knows they exist, he just doesn’t know where exactly. If this is so, the revelatory process can not be said to take away an individual’s free will or communicate something beyond his capacities of comprehension. Furthermore the D&C 89 passage and the Alma 29 passage specificly mention God adapts his message to the needs and level of understanding of his recipients. Even more astonishing is D&C 19 where the Lord refers to a past teaching about hell that was simplified to create a desired response:

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

Are you claiming that he seeth fit to give them scriptural erors?

I see Him adapting teachings to fit the needs of his followers. As an analogy they teach Newtonian physics before Einsteinian physics in college. Newton’s laws produce great results in many areas of application, yet poor results for astronomical phenomenom. Einstein’s laws have great results across the board but the equations are much more difficult to grasp.

So when God reveals truth He can’t give us the entire intellectual of network of ideas at once. I also don’t think He can do it linearly from first principles, either. In my work in engineering, we constantly use mathematical models without learning all the assumptions that were made to make the model easy to use. When simulated results don’t match reality, the underlying assumptions have to be modified and a new model derived. This constitutes backtracking to more universal principles and then taking off in a new direction.

The same type of adjustment has to be made when jumping from Newton to the higher paradigm that is the Einsteinian model. I would not say teaching “Newtonian” religous ideas constitutes error, but when the needs of a community demand “Einsteinian” religous ideas, doubtless the way previous ideas were expressed in will seem erroneous and culturally dependent.

 

[mormon_fool]

I certainly read Pauls letter to the Corinthians different that what is presented here. He seems to be saying that without charity, everything fails. Are you claiming that LDS prophecies were received wihout charity?

You assumption that “without charity, everything fails” is easily seen to not be viable. You question about LDS prophecies, but that is a stretch compared to the more immediate prophecies in Paul’s text.

Here is how you reading would look like:

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies [without charity], they shall fail; whether there be tongues [without charity], they shall cease; whether there be knowledge [without charity], it shall vanish away.
Scriptures
9 For we know in part [because we don’t have charity], and we prophesy in part [because we don’t have charity].

Verse 9 provides the real reson for failure. Prophecy and knowledge fail “for” (because) they are only had “in part”.

When I read Paul’s text he is explaining charity as a super-principle that beats out seeking after spiritual gifts and accruing knowledge. Knowledge vanishes when it is replaced by superior knowledge. Prophecy can get fulfilled . Tongues won’t be as necessary after the advent of bi-lingual dictionaries, language training schools, and babelfish.com.

As to the see and prophesy in part, glass darkly, etc. I think that refers to Prophets not knowing all (or even most) of Gods plan. I don’t see this as saying that they incorrectly transmit what has been revealed to them.

Yes, these are separate issues. I see the Book of Mormon and D&C pursuing the your latter sentence and the Bible giving decent evidence for the former idea.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Yall realize that the KJV “faileth” means “not end” or “come to an end” right? 'course the Vulgate ‘excidit’ also can mean “destroy”…

And as I just spent an hour writing up “meatier” responses to both TOm and MFool, only to have it be eaten by an “invalid thread” error (which even hitting the browser Return did not allow me to save what I wrote), I don’t really feel up to spending that much more time recreating and refining it. Sorry, my lazyness has spared you all nother two-post "breif’ response.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas