Who holds the keys?

[mormon_fool]

(continued)

In regards to #2 let me reiterate some acceptable(in my POV) ways to claim to be speaking for the Lord:

1. A prophet quoting or paraphrase God, an angelic intermediary, or somebody else’s authoritative revelation.

1. A prophet speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, even if some amount of human effort is put into framing the concepts that come into the mind.

1. A prophet exerting mental effort to form an official teaching and then getting a divine witness that he should promote said teaching as the will of the Lord.

1. A completely black box process involving a prophet that produces a text and the claim and I receive a personal revelation affirming the “functional inerrancy” of such.

BJ rejects 2-4 notwithstanding that #4 is probably how we encounter most revelation in the Bible. In other words, for a given text we do not have the excruciating details on how it was received. Nor do we require the details in order to accept a particular text as “true” or “normative” or “functionally inerrant” (props to TOmN for introducing this term to me).

Even if with some source documentation for Joseph Smith’s texts, the revelatory process is anyone’s guess. I wasn’t commiting to 1,2, or 3; just stating scenarios that I would find acceptable.

The model I have for a prophet is that he is a spokesman for God. Exodus 4:15-16 (KJV) is particularly telling:

15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
Here Aaron is a spokesman for Moses. We see how he fulfilled his role is the interactions with Pharoah. He and Moses would have a pre-encounter conference where Moses taught Aaron and schooled him on the game plan. Then Aaron–repressenting Moses–did all the talking, adjusting on the fly to interact with Pharaoh. If at any time Aaron mis-spoke, he had Moses looking over his shoulder, who could correct him if needed.

As it was with Aaron, so it is so with today’s spokesman. The prophet is like an attorney who has the right to speak for his Client and prepare documents in His behalf. It would be un-ethical for an attorney to not constantly remind us who he speaking for. A prophet would be usurping his power if he pretended that revelation that came from God was his own ideas.

Therefore I am thankful for the rhetorical devices used in the scriptures to remind us of Who their source is. The fact that prophets are human may result in imperfect communication, but the positive is that there is a person on earth that can genuinely sympathize with me and my conditions, and effectively mediate for me and my maker.

 

[BJRumph]

As I have to run off to Mass, I will only make a breif comment here, and will likely elaborate and respond more specifically to your post, MF, tonight.

I do not reject the distinct methods of revelation, as stated in another post. What I do reject is the reporting of all revelation, irrespective of its actual provenance or type, as all being dialogic revelation. Read Paul’s writings, and you will have an example of what you consider to be a prophet, but who, as I find acceptable, declairs the modes of “revelation” that he has experienced that drive his particular message. Unlike your “prophets”, when Paul is acting under an insired revelation, he identifies it as such, not proclaiming it to be the direct and uncontrovertable words of God, Himself.

If a prophet composed the language used in a revelation, then he cannot make claim to dialogic, “Thus saith the Lord”, revelation, even if he recieves a confirmation of its content via inspiration. He composed the words, not God.

Further, redefining through editorial processes is not an example of progressive revelation. Were such changes needed, then a second revelation would be given, and would, if the prophet is being honest, given in a second discourse. Going back to the original, and destroying the first step language is to destroy the claim of “line upon line, precept upon precept” for the rationale for the edit. Hense, when Isaiah had additional revelations that built upon his earlier ones, he recorded them as secondary, and progressive revelations (which gives us chapter 1, then 2, then 3…). Thus, you could follow the progression of the revelations. What Smith is doing in the opening posts is destroying both the original language, and even intent and meaning of the revelations received, eliminating the original clear revelation. What he should have done, and what accepted prophets have done, is record the additional material in another revelation that claims to explain the first.

An example of this, which is what the line/Precept issue really means, can even be found within your scripture. When Nephi had an additional revelation that expounded upon the meaning of the Tree of Lehi beyond what Lehi revealed, he did not destroy Lehi’s vision, but recorded both, with his own as being the “next line” of the vision’s meaning and intent. This I find as an acceptable example of the concept of “line upon line”. But, in order for such progressive degrees of teachings to exist, as your claims necessitate, then you must have all of the lines present in order to move from one to the next.

Remember, MFool, you consider Christ to be the meridian, and that God still has not revealed His full plan to us, even now. The RCC views Christ as the fullness of the Gospel, the final line and precept of God’s plan. As such, the nature of the value of revelation and prophecy is fundamentally different between the two religions. The RCC does recognize continuing revelation; however its place in the church is far different than what you expect, due to your fundamentally different expectations given you by your religious tradition.

 

[BJRumph]

Me again.

Ok MFool, in your summary:

1. Texts that claim to be records of dialogic revelation are not fair game for editing later.1. Texts that claim to be records of dialogic revelation are not fair game for editing later.
2. The claim of dialogic revelation is only justified under model (1) of revelation in fool’s previous post.
3. From transition documents of Joseph Smith’s revelations we see editing.
4. Many of the passages in Smith’s texts appear to take on the character of dialogic revelation.
5. God can’t deliver a revelation text in istallments, He has to get it right the first time.

I would agree with your analysis of my position, with the exception being #5. However, as I feel that I stated my position regarding progressive revelation in my post immediately prior to this one, I will spare your, and everyone else that has to put up with my ponderous ramblings, unless you indicate you desire further development of my point in this regard. As a short re-cap: Yes, God can be demonstrated from biblical texts to reveal things in a progressive manner. However, His prophets do not eliminate or destroy the preceeding revelations when providing the next “installment” as you call it, He allows us to see the development, which is, imho, critical for each of us.

Do I think that He went to Smith and said “Say Joe, do you remember that revelation I gave you two years ago? I just thought of a few more things I’d like to add to it, as well as some theological revisions, if you don’t mind…”? Certainly not. And as comical as that sounds, that is something that you have indicated that you would find acceptable. Again, this is just something that we will have to disagree on.

In short even given a narrow definition of dialogic revelation their is no way around the human element in the communication process.

Have you forgotten Jonah? His is an interesting case for inclusion in a scriptural canon; a rebellious prophet with his own ideas on what should be done. His is also an interesting example regarding how God deals with such. Jonah resisted, and deplored God’s message and His followthrough; yet God made sure the message that He wanted to be made, was indeed, delivered. Also, you are assuming that God does not know how to motivate those who do wish to do His will, to deliver the messages that He communicates. At some point you bring up Aaron and Moses. The problem is, they are also examples of God working through that defective humanity to deliver His will, according to His will.

As we both call God “Father”, does it suprise you so that I believe that He can successfully communicate with me, perfectly, despite my inherent imperfection? Is He incapable of opening the eyes of the blind, and the ears of the deaf? If not, then how difficult is it for Him to communicate to someone sincerily trying to listen?

You seem to think that our creator is incapable of dealing with us, that our imperfection overpowers His perfection. Granted, I realize the sources of that perception, even as you prolly do not conciously aknowledge that you hold it; but it is not true. Even from the mormon theology, I ask; what is the point of necessitating the advancement through lower states of being to higher states of being, if you are incapable of exersizing your abilities through those lower states of being that you passed through? (Rhetorical, btw; not terribly on-topic, though a tangental development of our particular conversation)

Ah, yes, on to your second post. The scriptures quoted pertain to the authority of one to speak for another. Moses is to tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron is to speak it. This is clearly a human analog to dialogic revelation. Note, however, Aaron is not given ispiration by Moses, but literal words. Note again, that Moses cannot perfectly convey his words to Aaron to Aarons full undestanding. Thus, the provisions of moses to correct Aaron are a bit pointless, as I know that God is under no such restiction of communication, as is the imperfect Moses. That moses cannot convey to aaron the message in perfection, does not insinuate, to me, that God is likewise limited. Remember also, Moses is receiveing this message correctly form God, thus proving that God, and His actually appointed revelator (Moses, NOT Aaron) can communicate “infallibly”, it is only once the message is passed down from a secondary source (Aarron) that the posibility of error is recognized. Moses is not said to be in error, but Aaron is said to mispeak.

Again, nothing to validate your belief that Smith was a direct prophet from God, especially within the context of this thread. Sorry.

 

[BJRumph]

Here is a “hypothetical” example situation, to clarify the issue of the necessity of clarifying the actual type of revelation received.

Many years ago, during my spiritual meanderings, God did reveal to me, through inspiration, and the vaguest of visionary experiences, that the Trinity is indeed the true expression of His nature, as much as can be allowed in finite language. Thus, I never gave up my belief in the Trinity, despite my subsequent joining of the lds church.

Now, does anyone out there, including MFool, believe that it would be acceptible for me to write up a documented revelation using dialogic language to assert that this recorded revelation is word for word what God gave me during this experience? How about if I were the current Prophet of the CoJCoLDS? The Pope, perhaps?

Or, what if GBH had the exact same experience that I did, and then proceeded to present a revelation in dialogic terms? Does this change your answer? (I am only adding this scenario to bypass the distracting “authority” arguments which are irrelevant to the point being made)

According to your stated standards, MFool, it is fully acceptible for me to present some theological document, expressing in clear terms that the words (that *I *composed and decided upon) themselves were delivered to me by God, and are in fact His words; despite the fact that they would only be, at best, the best effort attempt at my defining an ineffible experience of inspiration, as He certainly did not voice or otherwise direct actual dialog or words.

According to my standards, to “reveal” this experience as a dialogoc revelation would be deceptive. Any revisions that I made to this document would only reveal to those who had seen both documents, that the revelation is not what it claimed to be (that is the sure and direct words of God, Himself). However, should I express the experience in a manner that ensures that the audience understands that it is “by way of inspiration” as Paul says, then there would be no conflict. And, it would be fully acceptible to edit, revise, or alter the inspirational text to conform with my own spiritual growth and experience (unless it contradicted the experience itself, in which case a “new” document would be necessitated by truthful reporting standards). This would be analogous to how your own Testimony changes in a variety of ways as you, yourself, grow in that testimony.

Yes, when presented contradictory information regarding the actual nature of your prophet’s revelations (and this thread is not the first time, so it has become nearly institutional amongst the apologists and “internet mormons”), it is easy to understand why you must rely upon the standards which you use; they are the only ones that allow you to maintain your testimony. But, were you to see these standards in a subject that is not tied to your spiritual faith, then you would agree that these “standards” are not reasonable.

Would you not dismiss a scientist who is upholding a hypothesis as an actual theory (once you recognized the nuances that are implicit in such an error), or a theory as a Law? So would I. Therefore, once this error was revealed, I could not maintain my belief in it.

(thanks btw, this conversation has been most, pleasant, and useful for both uttering the ineffible, and sapping out the frustration resulting from being unable to utter some (though still not all) of the things which are so invisibly clear to me) (hows that for obfuscation? )

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas.

 

[BJRumph]

Somehow I missed this:

As it was with Aaron, so it is so with today’s spokesman.

So, is there some secret person that is relaying the revelations of Smith or GBH to them, or is it, as they claim, given them, without intermediary, by God, Himself?

The prophets of your church claim revelation from God, yes? Or is Moroni still hanging around to dispense God’s word to the prophets (and thereby creating an instance of possible miscommunication)? I do not ever recall them identifying themselves as Aaron, who worked through the intermediary of Moses (whom your prophets certainly did identify themselves with). If you can substantiate how this particular literary device used in Exodus can be applied in a literal, and substantiated, manner to how Smith received revelation, then I suppose I could then accept that Smith had full license to edit the “dialogic” revelations of his intermediary god, who lacks the perfection of God, Himself.

Are you suggesting that God is here literally elevating Moses to Godhood? Or, as is likely, merely employing a metaphor to describe Aaron’s function to Moses in terms that they both could understand?

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

Somehow I missed this:

fool (old): As it was with Aaron, so it is so with today’s spokesman.

So, is there some secret person that is relaying the revelations of Smith or GBH to them, or is it, as they claim, given them, without intermediary, by God, Himself?

You may wish to go back and review how Aaron is the archetypal spokesman in the Exodus passage. When Aaron is the spokesman, Moses is to him “instead of God” In other words, Aaron’s and Moses’ relationship models the one between God and Moses (or any prophet).

Your 2nd to last post is more on target. It appears you just took one of sentences out of context. And admittedly my writing is less than clear sometimes.

HTH,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

You may wish to go back and review how Aaron is the archetypal spokesman in the Exodus passage. When Aaron is the spokesman, Moses is to him “instead of God” In other words, Aaron’s and Moses’ relationship models the one between God and Moses (or any prophet).

HTH,
fool

Like sidney Rigdon’s Aaron to Joseph Smith’s Moses?

and I think what is being asked is “who is currently the Aaron to Gordon hinkley’s Moses?”

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Like sidney Rigdon’s Aaron to Joseph Smith’s Moses?

and I think what is being asked is “who is currently the Aaron to Gordon hinkley’s Moses?”

Good call about Sidney Rigdon being a spokesman. To me, that reference gives a good indication that the “spokesman” model of relaying revelation was very much on Joseph’s mind.

Modernly I think that Gordon B. Hinckley works pretty much as his own spokesman, although I am sure he can call on his public relations people for help if needed.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJ,

Excellent posts, you have truly articulated you position well. I appreciate your constructive use a Book of Mormon passage, surely a good example of the “line upon line” concept which I would extend to be more pervasive, but I would perhaps be making inferences beyond the text itself.

Also nice personal example of receiving inspiration. If you ever make it to be the prophet of the LDS church, please fill free to canonize it into a text if that is what you still feel inspired to do. I think being in the prophetic office, though, would create a more intimate pipeline to source of revelation as well as confer the authority to receive a revelation that is “sufficiently correct enough” for the whole church and not just you as a person.

Essentially I am restating confidence in “the prophet will not be allowed to lead the people astray principle.” This also seems to be the point of Deut. 18:18-22 where people don’t need to be afraid if their prophet speaks presumptuously. The prophet has God looking over his shoulder just like Aaron had Moses. Whether corrections happen merely through the passages of time or through divine intervention doesn’t matter to me. I have faith that God is at the helm.

My way of dealing with the scriptures does not distinguish between when the writer is quoting the Lord and when he isn’t. Brigham Young said something much to the effect that it isn’t necessary for a prophet to say “Thus saith the Lord” in order to be speaking for the Lord. Latter-day Saints accept the scriptures to be “the word of God” while allowing errors in transmission as well as each prophet to have his own rhetorical style. Joseph Smith’s style was to get our attention. Paul’s seems to me to understate his revelatory experiences and put his erudite logic on display.

My point has not been to prove that Joseph Smith is a prophet, my entire argument is to stave off a proof by contradiction that he is not. “Proof by contradictions” start out with an assumption that he is a prophet, but that this can not be reconciled with the facts. All I have done is shown that a plausible (in my POV anyway) reconciliation can indeed be made, and that LDS don’t need to abandon their faith over a this criticism.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

You entire post seems to build up the case of those who point to the teachings of BY as proof of false doctrine being taught and practiced by the LDS church.

This also brings out the confusion inherent in “flexible” doctrine. If, as you appear to say, it doesn’t matter when God corrects an incorrect prophet then you have no way of knowing what is right. I don’t buy that it doesn’t matter brcause God will only hold the Prophet accountable if you follow incorrect teachings of a true prophet. (that seems oxymoronic at best)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

You entire post seems to build up the case of those who point to the teachings of BY as proof of false doctrine being taught and practiced by the LDS church.

Yes, I will admit some critics mis-use BY’s statements to create a strawman that a mormon prophet must be inerrant at all times. Not me. I take a prophet’s fallibility for granted although I place limits on how badly a prophet will be allowed to screw up without the Lord intervening (or not passing common consent). With that given, I can then use BY’s bluring the distinction of what constitutes “speaking for the Lord” to assert across-the-board potential fallibility.

And despite my acknowledgement of the prophet’s weakness, I am still profoundly loyal to looking to the prophet for guidance.

This also brings out the confusion inherent in “flexible” doctrine.

The only way to get confused over this issue is to not accept the change. The LDS church has a history of change and those who can’t keep up usually splinter off. There was hardly any confusion when the church canonized The Doctrine and Covenant to replace The Book of Commandments. Nearly every member gave their common consent and respected the prophet’s perogative to amend his revelations. Since this has long since been set as a historical precedence there is really no need to get confused.

If, as you appear to say, it doesn’t matter when God corrects an incorrect prophet then you have no way of knowing what is right. I don’t buy that it doesn’t matter brcause God will only hold the Prophet accountable if you follow incorrect teachings of a true prophet. (that seems oxymoronic at best)

I don’t require absolute certainty in all things, that is why faith is required. It is not my place to referee the Lord’s prophet!

Nice post by the way.

later,
fool

 

[majick275]

Sounds alot like putting your trust in the arm of flesh.

Consider how many people worshiped ADAM as a result of BY. (as an extreme example) I don’t see “faith” as being a real good thing if it is placed in a prophet who is this fallible (my understanding of your post), especially with the open ended time lag you alot to God to correct things. I certainly don’t see a scriptural basis for it. Doctrinal evolution as a “line upon line” is not the same as the “Lo here and Lo there” we have seen from LDS prophets.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Sounds alot like putting your trust in the arm of flesh.

No more so then any faithful follower of the Lord’s prophets in Biblical times.

Consider how many people worshiped ADAM as a result of BY. (as an extreme example)

I don’t know anybody who did. If so they must have missed the memo where the 1st Presidency implied BY wasn’t promoting an official doctrine with that teaching.

I don’t see “faith” as being a real good thing if it is placed in a prophet who is this fallible (my understanding of your post), especially with the open ended time lag you alot to God to correct things. I certainly don’t see a scriptural basis for it.

A large list of examples of scriptural precedence can be compiled. I am lazy, but I will mention a few. Gad’s flip-flop on whether God wants David to build a temple. Jonah’s prediction of destroying Nineveh. God preventing Balaam from cursing the Israelites in his name, even though he accepted a fee to just that. Moses classifying hares as cud-chewing animals which science has since corrected. (This is a whole sub-list of science mistakes that prophets have made. pi=/=3 for example). John Tvedtnes has another list here. I doubt I can be convinced that I should hold prophets up to an infallible standard.

Doctrinal evolution as a “line upon line” is not the same as the “Lo here and Lo there” we have seen from LDS prophets.

Nice soundbite

Later,
fool

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

No more so then any faithful follower of the Lord’s prophets in Biblical times.

Where did biblical prophets lead “the church” into this degree of error with that long of a time period before corrective intervention?

I don’t know anybody who did. If so they must have missed the memo where the 1st Presidency implied BY wasn’t promoting an official doctrine with that teaching.

Please. …what of all the people in the church DURING BY’s presidency? obviously this is not being practiced now. How long did it take after this docrine was taught to get that memo out?

A large list of examples of scriptural precedence can be compiled. I am lazy, but I will mention a few. Gad’s flip-flop on whether God wants David to build a temple. Jonah’s prediction of destroying Nineveh. God preventing Balaam from cursing the Israelites in his name, even though he accepted a fee to just that. Moses classifying hares as cud-chewing animals which science has since corrected. (This is a whole sub-list of science mistakes that prophets have made. pi=/=3 for example). John Tvedtnes has another list here. I doubt I can be convinced that I should hold prophets up to an infallible standard.

with the exception Moses (which is obviously splitting hares ) these are examples of the Lord dealing with MISTAKES. ( David wasn’t worthy to build the Temple, Jonah was disobedient, God didn’t want Balaam to curse them) notice how quickly the Lord corrected errors in all of these cases. I ask you to consider the distinction of holding the prophecies rather than the prophets to an infallible standard. To reference your memo link, The Journal of Discourses (which is currently quoted in numerous LDS lesson manuals) wasn’t some guys sitting around speculating. It was very much like todays ensign in that it recorded the general authorities addresses to the church at general conference and other “official” assemblies. To put it in perspective…what is the canonical status of the first presidency message in the ensign today? (I am told that it is scripture)

Nice soundbite

Couldn’t resist

Later,
fool

 

[majick275]

BTW, if we were to apply the Joseph Fielding Smith teaching from your FAIR link, then there are MANY cases where LDS members should have ignored the “prophets”. The specific quote there from him would seem to contraindicate “flexible” doctrine and in fact support Pauls admonition to ignore “different” teachings even if an angel should bring them. (Different in this case is defined as contradicting existing standards, the revealed word, etc.)

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

with the exception Moses (which is obviously splitting hares ) these are examples of the Lord dealing with MISTAKES. ( David wasn’t worthy to build the Temple, Jonah was disobedient, God didn’t want Balaam to curse them) notice how quickly the Lord corrected errors in all of these cases. I ask you to consider the distinction of holding the prophecies rather than the prophets to an infallible standard. To reference your memo link, The Journal of Discourses (which is currently quoted in numerous LDS lesson manuals) wasn’t some guys sitting around speculating. It was very much like todays ensign in that it recorded the general authorities addresses to the church at general conference and other “official” assemblies. To put it in perspective…what is the canonical status of the first presidency message in the ensign today? (I am told that it is scripture)

Some of these examples do represent prophecies rather just prophets. Tvedtnes’ article has examples of prophecies that were never corrected by God and yet failed to happen. And a hare splitting science list also never got corrected by God even though all prophecies presuppose a now out-dated understanding of science. So, no I don’t think I can suspend the laws of human errancy and free will for prophecy, because I would have to throw out old prophets with the new.

For the status of church publications see here. The Journal of Discourses is pretty low on the doctrinal spectrum because of its datedness, yet it is still selectively quoted to good effect in current manuals and to bad effect by anti-mormon sites. i don’t dismiss all of it as speculation, but some of it I suspect is. General Conference editions are treated as “scripture” in some sense for 6 months, but that shouldn’t be confused with canonized scripture. The First Presidency message makes good material for home teaching, but thats about it.

 

[majick275]

I see your examples of prophecies “not being fulfilled” as being cases where the prophecy is dependent on human actions. some are warnings (this will happen unless you…) some are promises (this can happen if you will …) Moses science list is in my opinion a case where God revealed a principle (Don’t eat unclean animals) explained the meaning (this is what makes animals unclean) and then Moses attempted to provide specific details on his own. (don’t eat this species)

On church pubs, JoD,etc…On the one hand you want to say these are “soundbites” taken from outdated pubs and on the other you want to do the same thing to teach doctrine??? The fact that you suspect some of it as speculation would indicate to me that you don’t have an efective method of determining which of your prophets teachings are from God. (kind of makes it difficult to “follow the prophet”) you have scripture that expire in 6 months? and that’s a good thing? you don’t value JoD much because it’s dated? Then you must really have a low opinion of the BoM and the Bible. This doesn’t seem like 1984 to you? You would claim a significant advantage in being “the true church” because of yor being led by a “prophet”. (whom you would have us believe receives revelation from God for the church as a whole) Yet you tell us that when he addresses the church (allegedly as the steward of Jesus Christ) it’s only to have home teaching material? So Gordon Hinkley is a prophet who is directed by God in how to lead your church but when he takes this inspiration/revelation/whatever and gives it to the church in an official capacity …“it’s good material for home teaching but that’s about it.”

It sounds like you don’t believe that your church presidents are really prophets. (at least not in the biblical sense.)