Who holds the keys?

[Vidar]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If this really happened, why were these words added to the original revelation? Why had no one heard of this event prior to the interpolating of these words? Why did Smith have to do this to his revelations:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is more…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

AND

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

TOm:

Can you provide me with any evidence of biblical prophets butchering their revelations like this? Do you have ANY evidence prior to (and other) interpolations that Smith was ever given the keys to the kingdom? That the early LDS church had even heard of the high priests in the new covenant? THIS is what David Whitmer could not accept.

Vidar

 

[TOmNossor]

Vidar:

Can you provide me with any evidence of biblical prophets butchering their revelations like this? Do you have ANY evidence prior to (and other) interpolations that Smith was ever given the keys to the kingdom? That the early LDS church had even heard of the high priests in the new covenant? THIS is what David Whitmer could not accept.

Vidar

I have read of early Catholic/Christian documents that I imagine to look much as your photo copy looks. Documents that have numerous erasures, additions, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands. The question should not be were changes made, but by what authority. It is quite clear that the CoJCoLDS expects for the prophet to have such authority.

Again, I cannot follow David Whitmer. If the BOM is the word of God, which I am convinced it is, then I need to incorporate this truth into the way I seek God.

When I suggest that the authority of the Papacy developed, I always acknowledge that this in and of itself does not mean that this development was an invalid development. I see major differences in the way the Papal authority developed and the way the CoJCoLDS authority developed, but even without these differences where would I go?

I am convinced that Joseph Smith had no idea he was to be the prophet of God after the first vision. I believe this idea was not even fully grasped as he began work upon the BOM. I can even accept that as this authority developed there were places were the church may have overstepped its divine authority.

But believing authority is important I cannot be a David Whitmer or Lynn Ridenhour.

Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

Yet the question was how this editorial process compared to the revelations of prophets, not popes or ECFs.

The popes (nor ECFs) do not claim “revelation” when defining doctrine, merely the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when doing so. The LDS claim full distinct revelation, as the pre and post edit language of the “revelations” below fully indicate. One merely under the inspiration of God does not quote God directly.

As the big claim to fame for the LDS church is the restoration of OT style Prophets, it was not an unreasonable question to compare the revelations of the lds prophets to the revelations of the OT prophets. This question still has not been addressed.

As you fully are aware, the only way in which the LDs prophets compare closely to the RCC popes is in the sole relationship of their respective positions within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. You cannot even say “preisthood authority”, because what the two churches claim as such are defined in terms that are radically distinct from each other. In the context of the question asked; you are asking us to compare Apples to Oranges in your response.

Yes, anyone taking this seriously, will expect a papal document, or any ECF document, to show such redactions and editorial processes. But then, they do not claim these writings to be the literal words of God, being spoken in a direct fashion, to them. They also do not rely solely upon their own discretion in these matters, but rely upon many people to review and assist with the process.

The question is, is there any evidence that those things that are accepted as “revelation” in Christianity went through the same editorial and redaction processes by the authors/revelators (not later sources) as is evidenced that the equivelant revelations of the LDS have. It is one thing for, for a hypothetical example, GBH to alter a revelation of Smith; but it is an altogether different scenario to have Smith, himself, heavily edit the revelations that he, himself, claimed to have recieved. It is this latter scenario that is, if I am not mistaken, being questioned by Vidar at this time.

 

[BJRumph]

As a folowup note, however, I’d like to add a minor point.

The question is, due to historical and archeological circumstances, a bit unfair.

The lds church, being a very recent innovation, has the distinct disadvantage of have their original source documents actually available (mythical golden & brass plates aside). No other church of the Christian tradition has the original scriptural versions.

So, had Isaiah, for an example, been edited by Isaiah himself, as Smith’s revelations were, then we cannot prove, or disprove, that such occurred, as we do not have the original, first, document. I would venture to say that we do not have any copies of the revelations of Isaiah that date to his lifetime. As such, any variations in the isaiah revelations found after his lifetime would be due to scribal error, translations difficulties, or agenda. To prove that any given variation was an edit of Isaiah, himself, would be next to impossible.

The best possibility to find such would be John’s Revelation, due to its “recent” recording, and as it is possible to expect that such documents could physically have survived (if not currently known to exist).

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

popes …do not claim “revelation” when defining doctrine, merely the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when doing so. The LDS claim full distinct revelation, as the pre and post edit language of the “revelations” below fully indicate. One merely under the inspiration of God does not quote God directly.

There is a difference. Despite the fact that both the LDS Prophet and the Catholic Pope suggest they have the Peterine authority, there is a difference.
I suggest that a very under-explained fact within Catholicism is the question of why the Pope is not equal in all authority to Peter. Catholic apologists from the very late second century have been pointing to Peter as the source of the Pope’s authority and yet the authority of the Pope has never been claimed to be equal to Peter. I am well aware that the Pope cannot receive supernatural public revelation. I am well aware that the Pope cannot produce scripture. I understand that Peter was an apostle and the Pope is not, but I do not know exactly were this leaves Paul and Jude.
Concerning the edits in this thread, I guess you are suggesting that if the prophet merely vocalizes or quotes God’s words then how can he then edit them? I would say that the man who is the prophet does not change the words of God. It is possible that the prophet is presenting revelation from God, but cannot be said to quoting God. It is also possible that the prophet is being guided as he edits. I would not suggest that God errs in the words he chooses, but I will suggest that the actions of free agents can result in alteration of the meaning of God’s words AND necessitate His interaction to correct errors or expand upon previous concepts.

BJRumph:

As the big claim to fame for the LDS church is the restoration of OT style Prophets, it was not an unreasonable question to compare the revelations of the lds prophets to the revelations of the OT prophets. This question still has not been addressed.

Actually, it was vaguely addressed. You have left the CoJCoLDS and are finding your place among the Catholic Church. If you or someone intends to be a LDS I can clarify, but the point you make below is very pertinent too.

BJRumph:

The question is, due to historical and archeological circumstances, a bit unfair.

The lds church, being a very recent innovation, has the distinct disadvantage of have their original source documents actually available (mythical golden & brass plates aside). No other church of the Christian tradition has the original scriptural versions.

BJRumph:
So, had Isaiah, for an example, been edited by Isaiah himself, as Smith’s revelations were, then we cannot prove, or disprove, that such occurred, as we do not have the original, first, document…As such, any variations in the isaiah revelations found after his lifetime would be due to scribal error, translations difficulties, or agenda.
The best possibility to find such would be John’s Revelation, due to its “recent” recording, and as it is possible to expect that such documents could physically have survived (if not currently known to exist).
There are no known autographs of any Biblical writings. There are a handful of parts of books from the 2nd century (the vast majority from late second century). There are many more parts and books from the 3rd and 4th century. One of the earliest complete Bible is Codex Vaticanus B from the 4th century.
Almost all Biblical scholars acknowledge that books like Isaiah have been edited. The most popular theory in fact is that Isaiah was written in three different timeframes and by three different men. Most liberal scholars acknowledge that most of the Bible was edited from the autographs. Who edited it and what authority they had to do so is of some concern I suspect.

I want to mention that I personally do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but I advocate that the Bible is sufficient and functionally inerrant. Despite the fact that books were left out that had greater importance in the early church than some of the books included. Despite the fact that certain sections of the Bible seem to have been edited through deletion. Despite a number of other things, the Bible is the word of God and contains the fullness of the gospel.
Charity, TOm

 

[BJRumph]

I suggest that a very under-explained fact within Catholicism is the question of why the Pope is not equal in all authority to Peter.

As the authority of Peter is clearly outlined in the CCC 552, and especially 553, and the authority of the popes does, in fact, encompass this authority, I logically fail to follow your assertion that the RCC has a “lesser” authority than that of Peter. If your basis for this is that Peter was able to write scripture, and the Pope cannot (in your veiw), then I would again suggest reading those particular CCC references, or even the scriptures themaelves. Nowhere is Peter given authority to reveal new things. Yes, this is what you assume he has, as it is part of the LDS view of what authority Peter had, but it has no basis outside mormon assumption. What part of Jude’s writings would you call “revelation”, as opposed to exhortation or instruction? Or, are you asking me (and whomever is watching this exchange) to accept the unfounded (and contrary to mormon theology) idea that because we consider it sacred, it is all “revelation”? Even Paul, who did record his revelations, did not assert those revelations beyond being a personal experience, used only in “validating” his conversion and testimony; not for creating new doctrine. Or Peter, whose “revelation” regarding the Kosher laws; did not introduce new doctrine; his revelation allowed him to escape his own stubborness, and embrace what Christ had already taught him. Thus, in the only “clear example” of an apostle introducing “new” doctrine, was not introducing anything that was not already believed by other christians as being a true teaching of Christ’s (hense the arguments that lead to his experience).

It is possible that the prophet is presenting revelation from God, but cannot be said to quoting God.

And you say I was not a “real” mormon. As we both speak, and presumably understand, the English language; I ask you, is not the intention of the preface “Thus saith the Lord…” but to introduce the following passages as being from God Himself, being quoted by the speaking “prophet” in a word-for-word manner? How then can you say that a prophet “cannot be said to {be} quoting God”? Consider it only from your own religious tradition, as your D&C is not “flawed” by having had to been translated from other languages that have literary traditions foreign to english, and therefore have meaning beyond what is meant by the mother language.

If you insist that Smith, even when proclaiming “thus sayeth/saith the Lord” revelation, is only acting under the inspiration (ie “through a glass darkly”) of God, rather than actual revelation; then you are denying the very authority and capability claimed by said revelation. In which case, your prophets are, at best, in the same revelatory boat as everyone else. Nothing superior in your position.

You have left the CoJCoLDS and are finding your place among the Catholic Church.

And what purpose does this bit of temporary trivia have to do with points of fact that will outlive us both? Is this an attempt at being personal, and therefore somehow more “charitable”; or is it just another attempt at discrediting my points because of my current religious status (and therefore for personal reasons)?

If you or someone intends to be a LDS I can clarify…

No need. The subjective nature of such an argument that is implicit in your statement would completely undermine and discredit your position, regardless of how acceptible or appealing it may be. I, for one, find rhetoric to fail in establishing the truthfulness of a point. Sure, it can give those “warm fuzzies” everyone enjoys; but from an objective standpoint, it is meaningless in establishing the Truth.

…but the point you make below is very pertinent too.

See, I really do like to be fair, even if I do not come across as being such at times.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

You seem to a lot of nuanced rules for classifying revelation and scripture which raise a lot of questions for me.

1. How would you classify John’s revelation? Just a personal experience or something conveying no new doctrine?
2. Would the current pope be able to deliver/relay a revelation like John’s? Peter’s? Paul’s? and then get it canonized?
3. If not wouldn’t this be a functional difference in authority between apostles and bishops?
4. If Paul or Jude had said their exhortations and instructions had been revealed (or perhaps God-breathed) would they have less credibility?
5. Does Acts 1:22 require an apostle to be “a witness of the resurrection” ?
6. If so is this met by the current pope?

Thanks for your time.

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

If you insist that Smith, even when proclaiming “thus sayeth/saith the Lord” revelation, is only acting under the inspiration (ie “through a glass darkly”) of God, rather than actual revelation; then you are denying the very authority and capability claimed by said revelation.

I think you presented a very simplistic model of revelation and tried to reduce it an either/or between dialogic revelation and inspiration that is not “actual revelation”.

I would accept the legitimacy for “thus saith the Lord” revelation in any of the following scenarios:

1. A prophet quoting or paraphrase God, an angelic intermediary, or somebody else’s authoritative revelation.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

In which case, your prophets are, at best, in the same revelatory boat as everyone else. Nothing superior in your position.

Revelation that is confident enough to declare its divine origin and inspire canonization into scripture, is potentially superior to revelation that has to confine itself to “nothing new” and only “personal”.

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

BJRumph:

If you insist that Smith, even when proclaiming “thus sayeth/saith the Lord” revelation, is only acting under the inspiration (ie “through a glass darkly”) of God, rather than actual revelation; then you are denying the very authority and capability claimed by said revelation.

I think you presented a very simplistic model of revelation and tried to reduce it an either/or between dialogic revelation and inspiration that is not “actual revelation”.

I would accept the legitimacy for “thus saith the Lord” revelation in any of the following scenarios:

1. A prophet quoting or paraphrase God, an angelic intermediary, or somebody else’s authoritative revelation.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

In which case, your prophets are, at best, in the same revelatory boat as everyone else. Nothing superior in your position.

Revelation that is confident enough to declare its divine origin and inspire canonization into scripture, is potentially superior to revelation that has to confine itself to “nothing new” and only “personal”.

later,
fool

 

[BJRumph]

Then, Mormonfool, I’d say that out of the four instances that you would accept the accuracy of revelation under the “thus saith the Lord” seal, that you are in dire error in three of those instances, namely 2-4.

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.

A prophet speaking under this frame of reference would utilize language that supports what they, indeed, experienced. This sort of revelation should not ever be reported as “thus saith the Lord” for it is under inspiration, and the language used comes from a human trying to frame a divine experience. Nothing in this circumstance would allow a true prophet to proclaim “thus saith the Lord”.

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.

Again, this would be an even further removed instance that would allow for the prophet to make the “Thus saith the Lord” proclamation, as by the circumstance’s definition, the doctrine is of man, and he is only seeking a divine confirmation afterward. Even if the prophet recieved an inspirational response that they interpret as being a “yes, run with it” response, the confirmation itself is too vague to allow, honestly and correctly, the preface of “thus saith 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.

The “functional inerrancy” of a revelation does not establish the actuality of its origin. Were I to proclaim the laws of Gravitation as being a revelation, of any sort, no one would take them seriously, as they are established without need for revelation. The “revelation” is, indeed, functionally correct, and therefore inerrant, infallible even; but none of this proves it qualifies as a legitimate revelation from God, sufficiently dictated by Him to the point that I could honestly proclaim “Thus saith the Lord”. The lds WoW is “functionally inerrant”; however that does not establish it as a direct revelation of God, of any sort, regardless of your personal leaning or belief in its inspirational origin.

The problem is, the type of revelation claimed by the modern LDS church, and possibly the old church (though quite privately) is not the type of revelation that is claimed by the language utilized in the revelations themselves. Were it so, and the prophets are truly not trying to be deceptive, then they would utilize appropriate language, and not resort to utilizing the preface that indicates a direct quotation of the Lord. If Smith only ever “saw” his revelations through inspirational feelings and mystic vision, then he has no right, if he were a True Prophet, to proclaim these things the direct words of the Lord by proclaiming “Thus saith…”.

There is nothing “confident” in the revelatory systems you have claimed are acceptible in your belief, as I have simply shown. Therefore, there is nothing “superior” in your church’s claims. The very fact that you apologetically mine at and marginalize the nature of the revelation you claim makes your position superior, defeats your very point. That you accept anything less than what is claimed by the revelation itself is to disbelieve the force of that revelation. Therefore, I see no reason to believe more in the power or superiority of your church’s revelation than you do.

If the mormon revelations are as vague as you suggest, then there isn’t anything to believe in, as no matter how clear those revelations seem to be, they are nothing but the esctatic (at the most generous assessment) notions of a person. As such, the supernatural elements of the mormon “restoration” are likewise spiritual puffs of wind, like the experienc of PJ&J coming down to give Smith the Melk priesthood. If that is just what Smith thought he saw, or wanted to experience, and not what really happened, then there is nothing of value in it for anyone searching for The Way given us by Christ. The preisthood given by them is, in the most charitable assessment, nothing more then the same priesthood that everyone who follows Christ already has.

Sorry, but what you find as acceptible to call “revelation” is very short of the goal, and is sadly deficient in providing the very fruit that true revelation is meant to provide.

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry if this is shorter, and less detailed than I’d like, but I just spent two hours on these responses, only to have them be eaten by the electron gremlins

1. How would you classify John’s revelation? Just a personal experience or something conveying no new doctrine?

In short, John’s apocalypse, offers up only new “history”, not new “doctrine”. Though I see different modes of revelation occuring throughout the entire document, there is no new teaching, no new doctrine. There are exhortations to the then current churches to hold fast to what they have, or to develop weak areas in their implementation of doctrine. There is also a lot of allegorical episodes dealing with the current political circumstances the christians were in at the time. And there is a lot of symbolic references to the end results of the Gospel. Christ wins, the adverasry loses, God Rules. Nothing “new” there to those already believers. Consider, however, that I, that is me, consider the Apocalypse to be an allegorical, or apocalyptic in the true meaning of the word, Gospel. It is a gospel intentionally veiled in order to protect its readers from the evil times they found themselves in.

1. Would the current pope be able to deliver/relay a revelation like John’s? Peter’s? Paul’s? and then get it canonized?

Yes. However, before you say that the RCC disagrees, answer me this: Where does Peter, John, or Paul ever intentionally create scripture, or organize a canon of scripture? Where do any of the three indicate that any of thier writings were intended to be utilized as scripture as we do? Additionally, wherein are they proclaiming a new doctrine, either in action or in stated intent? Where do they assert this authority you claim they had, that the RCC does not?

Secondly, if Peter never created scripture, or organized a cannon; then how can you claim said authority? And, assuming he does have that authority, why is the lack of utilizing that authority by the papacy automatically mean that it does not have it; especially in light of the fact that you use a NT that was compiled by that very authority? In the scriptural “books” of peter, where does he indicate that the epistles written are intended to be equal to the scriptures of the OT? where is the proclamation that he intends this status for these letters which are meant for a limited group of people?
Other thoughts to ponder:
Why do the mormons not add scriptures to the NT or OT? Why are all of the additional scriptures placed in separate collections, rather than augmenting the collections they already have? Does this mean that they do not have the authority to do so? Or, as is more reasonable, is there a reasonable and valid point to abstaining from such? Is so, then why is it unreasonable for the RCC to record its doctrinal clarifications and pronouncements in separate collections as well?
Continued…

 

[BJRumph]

…continuation:

1. If not wouldn’t this be a functional difference in authority between apostles and bishops?

The “functional difference” lays only in your church’s definition of what these two functions are. Therefore, no. See CCC 981 for how the RCC sees the function of the apostles. All bishops are apostles. Not all apostles are bishops. See my response to #5, below.

1. If Paul or Jude had said their exhortations and instructions had been revealed (or perhaps God-breathed) would they have less credibility?

Irrelevant. They did not claim such, and it is clear that their writings support the level and provenance to support their claims. Smith, however, claims a dialogic revelation in the text of the revelation, but then is seen to be treating his revelation to be no more than to have been an inspirational revelation, at best. An honest Prophet is not going to receive dictated material from God, and then edit it based on his own understanding; that defeats the very purpose of the alarming “Thus saith the Lord…”. Such revelatory pronouncements are meant to convey a message that has already been decided upon by God in how it is meant to be expresed, hense His use of “tell them these words”, and therefore the true prophet’s pronouncement of “thus saith the Lord…” My point is, a true prophet would identify the type of revelation he recieved by the language used to report it. If Smith were being honest, then he would not be utilizing language that claims direct provenance from God; but by utilizing language that indicates that he is interpreting a vision or impression. The he does not, tends to damage his reputation as an honest revelator or prophet.

His words claim to be directly communicated to him from God. His treatment of those words indicate that he does not believe them to be Gods words, but his words as a result of (if I am to give him the benfit of the doubt) spiritual impressions that he has experienced. This is a contradiction, pure and simple. It is also not shared by the NT persons that you seem to be trying to compare to Smith’s claims of prophethood. You are incorrect to do so.

1. Does Acts 1:22 require an apostle to be “a witness of the resurrection” ?

Not in the literal sense that I know you take it at. All Christians, as required by the NT, are self-proclaimed witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ, simply by calling themselves “christian”. Therefore, they are all, in the sense of Acts, apostles. Yes, they wanted someone who was faithful and had proven themselves by staying with them throughout Christ’s ministry. That is neither unexpected, nor binding to future circumstances. They still had people who could literally fulfill such a requirement, so it makes sense to utilize such a resource.

And before you say that your church still does have apostles in this literal sense, consider first what you have been defining as revelation worthy of being taken literally. Under the watered down version of revelation you are operating under, then none of your apostles can make any better claim to having witnessed Christ in his Resurrection than any other visionary. Again, the question of this thread revolves around the disparity between what the mormons believe about revelation, and what their revelation claims for itself. According to your veiw as to what is acceptible revelation; none of your present apostles have any better claim to having literally “witnessed” the resurrection than the same spiritual testimony that I have that Christ did rise from the dead. They experienced the same inspiration that every believing Christian has.

1. If so is this met by the current pope?

Obviously, I’d answer this in the affirmative. As the single most visible Christian in the world, leading the Church in proclaiming the fact of Christ’s Ressurection (the meaning of witnessing), I’d say he definately fits the bill for being an apostle.

Again, I’d like to apologize if I have not provided more articulate responses to your questions. I really wish I hadn’t lost my original answers, as they were far less curt, and really addressed the nuances you were qestioning in a more direct, and clearer fashion. Sorry, I am just too tired at this point to redo that work.

 

[BJRumph]

I think you presented a very simplistic model of revelation and tried to reduce it an either/or between dialogic revelation and inspiration that is not “actual revelation”.

Of course, you are correct in your assesment here. I have done this, however, to highlight and clarify the actual, and very real, distinction between two different modes of revelation, as in the context of the questions asked, there is a disparity between what type of revelation the documents say they are, and the type of revelation that Smith, and you, are treating the documented revelation as.

For the record, I accept dialogic, visionary, and inspiration, to all be valid forms of Revelation. However, in the general mind of many, dialogic revelation is what one first considers when discussing actual revelation.

But, to again address the issues of this articular thread, there is a distinction in how the revelation is treated, and in what it, itself, claims to be.

Why is this important? Consider a mundane example: business law. When you start a business, you can choose, on paper, to form it as a corporation. however, if you run and treat your business as a partnership or sole propritorship, when the law catches up to you, your business will be recognized legally as being in the form that you treat it, in total disregard to how you expressed it on paper.

This is no different. According to what is being shown us, Smith wrote down a revelation that he received (according to you) as an ispiration, but worte it down as being a dialogic revelation from God; but then later modified it based upon a better understanding of what his inspirational revelation really meant. In short, he lied to those who were to accept this revelation as holding the form and provenance of a dialogic revelation, when in fact it was from the beginning, and was in deed treated by Smith, as being an inspired revelation. Make no mistake: this is DECEPTION.

Or, for an alternate situation that you also find to be acceptible; it was indeed originally a dialogic revelation given to Smith by God; but then Smith later decided that God did not correctly state Himself, and therefore he was correcting what God told him, based upon further investigation of what he thought God meant to say. Make no mistake: this is DECEPTION and BLASPHEMY. If God is going to engage in dialogic revelation, I find it incredulous to believe that He would expect the prophet to review and edit His words, which He Himself chose to reveal unto man, on some premise that God cannot control His expression, and therefore needs a man to reinterpret those things that He has given him on his level. Clearly, I am not alone in feeling this way.

The case of this thread is quite simple:

1.) The revelation was, as is claimed by the evidence of the Text, a dialogic revelation, containing the actual words of God; and was then edited by Smith under his own understanding or agenda. (As God says what He has to say, and corrects not Himself…)
-or-
2.) The text is based upon an inspired revelation of Smith, who was incorrectly framing the text to appear as a dialogic revelation, presumably so that it will be accepted more readily by the membership.

Either way, Smith was practicing deceit in this particular example.

If you are happy to accept that every revelation that claims to the be literal words of God, chosen by Him so that there is no mistaking or confusing His intentions for the communication, is in fact based upon a spiritual inspiration; then you can do so, but understand if others cannot. I realize that such a veiw is necessary to hold in order to maintain the “truthfullness” of your church’s claims. I, however, cannot continue to hold such an erroneous veiw, and thank God for showing me the error of it.

 

[ben_dy]

TOmNossor:

I have read of early Catholic/Christian documents that I imagine to look much as your photo copy looks. Documents that have numerous erasures, additions, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands. The question should not be were changes made, but by what authority. It is quite clear that the CoJCoLDS expects for the prophet to have such authority.

TOm,

I think a great difference for we Catholics is that the only documents that we have that we claim to be inspired works are copies and/or translations of inspired works and any printed have been changed only when errors occurred in the printing or in the translations - you may well find a printed Gospel of Matthew ‘marked up’ to change an order or use of words to provide a better translation but you wouldn’t find a Gospel of Matthew ‘marked up’ to include new revelations or even clarifications - clarifications would be footnoted and footnotes would not be accepted as inspired text.

As I understand it, from the point of view of the LDS hierarchy, the Book of Commandments is not to be read the the faithful with a good testimony and is pretty much out of bounds for critical analysis by LDS scholars who don’t wish to be excommunicated. As new and/or revised LDS revelations are made public I understand that they sort of supersede all previous revelation (but I’m still confused a bit about D&C 132 - apparently the revelations that resulted in the restriction of plural marriage was for a ‘period of time’ and only ‘on earth’; plural marriage is still taking place as new worlds are being populated by the gods in the celestial kingdom, if I’m not mistaken).

Ben - who has 9 minutes to leave in order to get to Mass on time!)

 

[Casen]

Your answer regarding plural marriage is right in Section 132. Sometimes God authorized plural marriage, as he did in the case of David and Solomon, and sometimes he does not.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife…(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:38 - 39)

That plural marriage was authorized for a period of time during the beginning years of the LDS church and later abandoned through another prophet doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.

 

[Vidar]

TOmNossor:

I have read of early Catholic/Christian documents that I imagine to look much as your photo copy looks. Documents that have numerous erasures, additions, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands. The question should not be were changes made, but by what authority. It is quite clear that the CoJCoLDS expects for the prophet to have such authority.

I do not dispute that Smith had tje right to edit his own writings, nor his authority to do whatever he likes to the book of commandments. I do, however have a problem with a “God” that does not know what to say the first time around, who needs to correct and contradict himself years later. A “God” who needs to invent historical events, and interpolate them into previous revelations. Events nobody had heard about.

These revelations are presented as God speaking. Not like Smith writing something under some sort of vague inspiration. And God does not need to correct himself.

When I looked into the history of the LDS church as a mormon, I did so with the best of intentions. What I found destroyed my faith in mormonism.

I could not and CANNOT believe it. It is impossible, I would have to be lobotomized first. What I see in early LDS history litterally screams “manmade”.

So if you arguments against the Catholic Church would suddenly become deep, well reasoned and balanced. If you were to convince me of the circular square that the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be (and I state this simply for the sake of the argument), rest assured: I would never even consider mormonism. I rejected mormonism long before I knew anything about catholicism.

Vidar

 

[majick275]

Casen:

Your answer regarding plural marriage is right in Section 132. Sometimes God authorized plural marriage, as he did in the case of David and Solomon, and sometimes he does not.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife…(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:38 - 39)

That plural marriage was authorized for a period of time during the beginning years of the LDS church and later abandoned through another prophet doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.

I think you have completely reversed what was being pointed out here. The belief stated was that Polygamy is the rule and MONOGAMY is the temporary exception. Your view aligns with what is taught in the BoM but appears to be contradicted by D&C. (especially when BY, as prophet, explained in great detail just what the Lord meant fot the people to do with this teaching)

I still find it interesting how Emma Smith chose to respond after JS death. (complete denunciation of this doctrine) especially in light of the “revelation” that she would be “destroyed”.

 

[Vidar]

That plural marriage was authorized for a period of time during the beginning years of the LDS church and later abandoned through another prophet doesn’t seem inconsistent to me.

Smith lied and covered up the fact that he was a polygamist.

Times and Seasons, volume 5, page 423: T**HURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1844.

 *NOTICE.*

 *As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.*

  *This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been *cut off* from the church,* for his iniquity*; and he is further notified   to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these   charges.*

    *JOSEPH SMITH,

HYRUM SMITH,
Presidents of said Church.*

"12th Lie–Joseph Smith taught a system of polygamy.
“12th Refutation.–The Revelations given through Joseph Smith, state the following … ‘We believe that one man should have one wife.’ Doctrine and Covenants, page 331.” (Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star, volume 12, pages 29-30)

The Nauvoo expositor contained several signed affadavits describing the revelation now known as Doctrine & Covenants 132. Get a reprint of the paper and you will see how accurate it is in its description of this private revelation given to Emma Smith, in order to make her accept Joseph’s adulterous relations with other women (it wasn’t added to D&C until much later).

Smith however, called the paper a “pack of lies” and had the printing press destroyed. Get a copy and see if it is a pack of lies? I think you will be surprised.

Smith wasn’t jailed because of his faith, but because he denied it and wanted to cover up what he was doing. The Nauvoo expositor printed the truth.

BTW: get a copy of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton. Then read the FARMS review and ask yourself whether they even BEGIN to deal with what is in the book, or whether it is intended for people who have never read the book, to turn them away from reading it.

Vidar

 

[mormon_fool]

BJ,

Thanks for spending the effort for clarifying your views and reach out to a mormon fool like myself. You have obviously put in a lot of thought into this, for which I commend you. From now on I will have to less cocky about thinking that Catholics don’t have a way of thinking around the mormon thought that popes have considerable less authority to revelate than the apostles. (Wow look at all the different POV changes in that sentence!) The way you elevate popes and dimininish apostles doesn’t match my observations of their respective functionality, but I am guessing that similar observations can be made about mormon apostles and then meridian counterparts from the opposite perspective.

You mounted a challenge against my set of beliefs. If I can summarize your critique –

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.

This summary is probably inadequate and I am probably attacking a strawman , but here is my critique.

#5 Seems to me as an over-idealized, easy to make if the dialogic revelation one accepts had long since lost source documents and only the polished end product is had. First we have Isaiah (no stranger to revelation) that God reveals things line upon line, precept upon precept. We also have an example in the scriptures were God added to a revelatory text the 2nd time around (Jer 36:32). This doesn’t yet explain why there might be mistakes in earlier installments. More on that later.

I accept #3 and #4.

#5 is really a restatement of #1 now that I think about it. But I will analyze #1 temporarily assuming #2. I think by allowing a prophet to paraphrase rather than quote the actual dialogue gives a prophet considerable leeway for introducing errors into manuscripts. First if a prophet is citing an earlier text, he may be propagating the errors that have entered into that text. Second if there is a time lapse between the revelation and its recording, a prophet’s fallible memory might recall things slightly incorect. Third, see my comments about God having to bring things down for the benefit of human comprehension and ability to implement instructions, together with the associated learning curve on the other thread.

In short even given a narrow definition of dialogic revelation their is no way around the human element in the communication process. If God wanted to create a perfect text, the Mount Sinai model is the only acceptable one, i.e. He writes it down himself without the aid of a middle man.Therefore I dismiss #1 as an ad hoc ploy to conveniently put straight jackets on prophets and ignore them no matter how inspired they are.

to be continued. . .

 

[BJRumph]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Does it not strike you odd that the very prophet that “revealed” that David and Solomon’s polygamy was justified in God’s eyes is the same prophet who gave us the words of another accepted prophet in the BoM, that “revealed” to us that David and Solomon’s polygamy was, indeed, an ABOMINATION in His sight?

Since Smith was not making literal, scholarly, translations of the supposed plates, one cannot possibly be serious in the standard mormon exuse of it being an artifact of the original language that is causing the confusion. Why? Smith did not know the languages being translated, and relied only upon revelation (and it is well accepted even by mormons that he didn’t even look at the plates during some if not most of the translation), that is now being said to be nothing more than vague inspiration. For all intents and purposes, the BoM is a “new” revelation, contrary to the assertion of being a “translation” of old revelation.

Sure, I am willing to accept that God has the authority to establish or revoke practices amongst His people as He wills; thus the very basic premise that mormon polygamy can be established, removed, and reestablished (note that the practice was ended by OD1, not the actual doctrine, which remains hidden upon the “books” of official doctrine). The critical flaw is that two mormon prophets are contradicting each other on what is acceptible and why: One says D&S were flat out wrong; the other uses D&S to legitimize the practice of polygamy. This is a clear contradiction of equally weighted revelation. God says (thus sayeth the Lord…) they were abominations in one book; then says (thus sayeth the Lord…) they were justified in their practice (with the sole exception of Uriah’s wife). Were it not for Smith using D&S as a justification, in clear contradiction to previous revelation, then he could have possibly made the polygamy thing fly. But he didn’t. He didn’t even recognize the problem, and so failed to address it. A human failure, not Divine. However, this failure had a grave impact upon the lives of many faithful mormons, which would never have occured if Smith were a true and faithful prophet, and was actually receiving revelation from God.

For further contradiction, consider that even in Casen’s D&C, the case of Uriah’s wife was still not acceptible in God’s sight. Uriah’s wife was the only case of an attempt at marrying someone else’s wife (and even then, David was not so presumptuous to actually take her while she was still married); and yet Smith seemed to find it fully acceptible to take polygamous wives who were already married to other men. Nothing in the new polygamy revelation grants him such freedom, and in fact, the only “restraint” given in the revelation, suggests that such an arraingement would not be well received in the Hevenly Courts.