Your Notre Dame Mormon on Continuous Revelation

[majick275]

Touché. Hence the need for reference to the historical constitution of truth.

What cites are you referring to?

And I would think the language would naturally change as a better understanding was had. Isn’t that the role the CCC, as well?

I think so, that IS the Catholic Experience. I don’t see the LDS experience as just changing hte language or adding detail. The actual doctrines/practices change. i would also submit that the Catholic claim is development and thus just clearer wording is the norm. The LDS claim oracular revelation, actual speaking to God face to face, Q&A. that would seem to be very clear if true and it really makes one doubt the validity of the claim to prophecy when the changes are that significant.

As to cites, here are a few:

President John Taylor:

Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom.*John Taylor, "Our Religion Is From God," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, E.L. Sloan, and D.W. Evans, (7 April 1866), Vol. 11 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1867), 221*

(continued)

 

[majick275]

(continued)

Brigham young
I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the [p.269] blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” - the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. - JoD 11:268-269 (Aug 9, 1866)

To return to our starting point, the great question of what Congress demands. We have shown that in requiring the relinquishment of polygamy, they ask the renunciation of the entire faith of this people. No sophistry can get out of this. "Mormonism" is true in every leading doctrine, or it is false as a system altogether. The question for the wise heads of the nation will be, whether Government can constitutionally enforce a law which makes such a demand upon a people. Conclude how they will, before this people will renounce the glorious hopes their faith inspires, before they will renounce that faith for which they have given up home, father, mother, and broken asunder the dearest ties, or before they will put the brand of infamy upon the brows of their own children, or write "house of ill fame" with their own hands upon their Territorial doors, they will await the "extermination" to which they are invited.

There is no half way house. The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence of how half informed men can talk. The "Mormons" have either to spurn their religion and their God, and sink self-damned in the eyes of all civilization at the moment when most blest in the practice of their faith or go calmly on to the same issue which they have always had - "Mormonism" in the entirety the revelation of God, or nothing at all.    * - Millennial Star 27:675-676 (1865) *

Context around original D&C prohibition of polygamy and later change to D&C prohibiting it:

ldshistory.net/pc/sec134.htm

the current stance
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.Larry King interview on CNN Aired September 8, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET

The article of faith Hinckley refers to was in the scriptures of the LDS back in Brigham youngs day and polygamy wa sillegal then too…yet even under John Taylor mormon polygamy continued. Show me the benfit or validity of continuing revelation here. Why do these scriptures contradict other LDS scriptures, practices and teachings? why do they flip flop? Where do we see true oracles of the Lord speaking prophecy from God here?

 

[majick275]

His people.
Not one person alone.

This is a MOST divisive and uncharitable post!!!
Whewwww! I will remember this when the next mormons come to my door. They may appear nice but in their minds they are thinking…like you?

it’s pretty typical of amgid. he always talks like this. He fails to see the diference between the OT prophets (amos, malachi) speaking BEFORE Christ and the Apostles (pauls letter to the hebrews) speaking AFTER Christ. I don’t think he gets that in the OT the people couldn’t speak directly with God and had to go through prophets and high priests with animalsacrifices. Jesus changed it and brought us the WHOLE Gospel and enabled all mankind to speak freely with God. Personal revelation is now available to ALL. There simply is no need for public revelation. Jesus came and gave the WHOLE message.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

Show me the benfit or validity of continuing revelation here. Why do these scriptures contradict other LDS scriptures, practices and teachings? why do they flip flop? Where do we see true oracles of the Lord speaking prophecy from God here?

First, let me reiterate that the Journal of Discourses has been held by the Church to be unreliable as a source of doctrine for the Church. I just want to make that clear for any readers who might not know that.

However, accepting accuracy…

These quotes of Young and Taylor admonish the Saints to follow the commandment of God, whatever commandment that may be. (Consequently, you can substitute the doctrine of baptism into the topic line and get the same sermon: Obedience to God.) President Hinckley’s quote does the same. The practice he speaks of is the illegal practice of polygamy being perpetrated in the name of God where God has clearly forbid it. All these quotes are in perfect harmony. There is no flip flop or change of doctrine. The doctrine taught by all of them is obedience where the Lord requires polygamy, obedience where he forbids it.

 

[majick275]

First, let me reiterate that the Journal of Discourses has been held by the Church to be unreliable as a source of doctrine for the Church. I just want to make that clear for any readers who might not know that.

well then let’s tell the whole story. The Journal of Discourses is a compilation of talks given by LDS leaders in general conference. It is still quoted from in numerous current LDS teaching manuals.

However, accepting accuracy…

These quotes of Young and Taylor admonish the Saints to follow the commandment of God, whatever commandment that may be. (Consequently, you can substitute the doctrine of baptism into the topic line and get the same sermon: Obedience to God.) President Hinckley’s quote does the same. The practice he speaks of is the illegal practice of polygamy being perpetrated in the name of God where God has clearly forbid it. All these quotes are in perfect harmony. There is no flip flop or change of doctrine. The doctrine taught by all of them is obedience where the Lord requires polygamy, obedience where he forbids it.

oh but there is…look at the D&C scripture specifically denouncing polygamy and calling it a crime. Look at when it was inserted and removed. it was CANONIZED scripture while polygamy was openly practiced.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

The Journal of Discourses is a compilation of talks given by LDS leaders in general conference. It is still quoted from in numerous current LDS teaching manuals.

Right. So, wherever you find a General Authority or official manual quoting a statement in the Journal of Discourses, I am happy to accept that statement as scripture. Until then, it is suspect. Deal?

oh but there is…look at the D&C scripture specifically denouncing polygamy and calling it a crime. Look at when it was inserted and removed. it was CANONIZED scripture while polygamy was openly practiced.

Brother, when the Lord forbids it, it is a crime. It was forbidden in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C. But, there were times it was not forbidden in those scriptures. When the Lord commands it, it is no longer a crime.

The Lord commands us not to kill, yet…He has commanded some to kill before. Adulterers were once to be stoned. Now? There is a higher law. What we think are “changes” in doctrine are not. They are demonstrations of God’s higher laws that we can only begin to understand.

 

[majick275]

Right. So, wherever you find a General Authority or official manual quoting a statement in the Journal of Discourses, I am happy to accept that statement as scripture. Until then, it is suspect. Deal?

are you serious? of course I’m not going to let you cherry pick quotes from the SAME talk and tell me the rest of the talk is suspect. the JoD speakers WERE general authorities!

Brother, when the Lord forbids it, it is a crime. It was forbidden in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the D&C. But, there were times it was not forbidden in those scriptures. When the Lord commands it, it is no longer a crime.

The Lord commands us not to kill, yet…He has commanded some to kill before. Adulterers were once to be stoned. Now? There is a higher law. What we think are “changes” in doctrine are not. They are demonstrations of God’s higher laws that we can only begin to understand.

dude! the prohibition in the D&C was CANONIZED until 1876. We know it was openly practiced then. the scripture contradicted the teaching and practice of the “prophet” and the church. the time it was forbidden was the same time they were doing it! there was also the phenomenon of now it’s required, now it’s forbidden, now it’s okay, now it’s not, multiple times. where’s the “higher law” there? what about Pres. Hinckley’s comments? he implies that it’s all about obeying the law and refernces the article of faith on that which was in effect back when the LDS church was openly disobeying the law on this.

 

[kellie]

It makes no sense at all. It is all wrong. It is blasphemy to try to shut the mouth of God, and say that having spoken once, He will not speak again. It goes completely contrary to the spirit and letter of the word of God—that He is “the same yesterday, to day and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8); and that He “changes not” (Malachi 3:6); and that He will “do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:1). It is the clearest possible indication of an apostate and a dead religion that tries to limit the power of God to speak to His people any time He chooses; and it is a great indictment against any church who espouses such an abominable and blasphemous theology.

zerinus

None of us are saying God will never talk again.

He talks to us all the time.

How do you think people see the Truth and convert to Catholicism? God talks to them through the Holy Spirit.

God talks to us every time we pray to Him.

He just won’t be giving us any new revelations when He talks.

But Him and me have great conversations.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

are you serious? of course I’m not going to let you cherry pick quotes from the SAME talk and tell me the rest of the talk is suspect. the JoD speakers WERE general authorities!

Except that the LDS Church (and the Catholic Church) hold that authorities do not always speak the mind and will of the Lord. You can use any quote you want to but it holds no water unless it is clearly the teaching and practice of the Church itself. That is why I say, any JoD quote you can find a General Authority citing in a conference talk or Ensign article is as good as scripture in these discussions, any quote that is not, is inherently suspect since the Church has declared the source unreliable and no other authority has confirmed the notion you quote.

dude! the prohibition in the D&C was CANONIZED until 1876. We know it was openly practiced then. the scripture contradicted the teaching and practice of the “prophet” and the church. the time it was forbidden was the same time they were doing it! there was also the phenomenon of now it’s required, now it’s forbidden, now it’s okay, now it’s not, multiple times. where’s the “higher law” there?

If the law is “polygamy can serve a godly purpose, but the practice of it is limited to God’s command” then it does not matter what the Lord commanded yesterday or last century. The only thing that matters is what He commands today. God’s laws only seem to change to us. He operates in a higher sphere, one that is not governed by our perceptions.

 

[majick275]

I find the notion that only curent GA’s can validate statements mad ini general conference by previous GA’s problematic. That’s like saying the Ensign isn’t trustworthy and nothing in it can be used unless specified by a GA on the LDS website.

Let’s look at your portrayal of God’s Law.

Canonized scripture was (section 101 D&C 1835 -1876 editions) the only scriptural refernce to polygamy that was explicitly commanding a practice. It said DON"T DO IT! it is a crime and LDS don’t do it. It seems pretty easy to understand yet during that time period it WAS being openly practiced by the LDS church. It appears that the LDS church was violating Gods command right then.

When put alongside the BoM (no polygamy allowed!) and the Bible(OT polygamy “tolerated”, NT prohibited) we don’t see Gods law saying it’s good. We do see LDS prophets and Apostles saying it’s NECESSARY at one point in time and explaining why in amnner that appears contradictory to current LDS prophet saying it’s wrong and explaining why in a way that appears to contradict the actual practice in the past.

Was it okay to practice polygamy when current, canonized scripture forbade it?

Was it okay to practice it when the Law forbade it?

What about now?

Why is this not a “change” in the Law itself but just our undeerstanding of it?

 

[zerinus]

None of us are saying God will never talk again.

He talks to us all the time.

How do you think people see the Truth and convert to Catholicism? God talks to them through the Holy Spirit.

God talks to us every time we pray to Him.

He just won’t be giving us any new revelations when He talks.

But Him and me have great conversations.

It is the characteristic of all apostate and dead religions to declare scripture to be closed, and their prophet to be the last prophet, and that there will be no more prophets, revelations, or scripture after that. The Jews say that Malachi was the last prophet, and there will never be any more prophets or scripture after that. The Moslems say that Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet, and there will be no more prophets or scripture after that. And Christians say that Jesus and His apostles were the last ones, and they have given us all the scripture and revelation we need, and there will never be any more. Did you notice a pattern there? And you know something? They were all wrong! Malachi was not the last prophet; neither was Mohammed; nor was Jesus and His Apostles. But God has never ceased to reveal His will to mankind through His chosen servants the prophets in every dispensation, and never will cease to do so as long as “time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved” (Moroni 7:32). The LDS Church is the only Church that bucks that trend. That should give you some food for thought.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

It is the characteristic of all apostate and dead religions to declare scripture to be closed, and their prophet to be the last prophet, and that there will be no more prophets, revelations, or scripture after that. The Jews say that Malachi was the last prophet, and there will never be any more prophets or scripture after that. The Moslems say that Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet, and there will be no more prophets or scripture after that. And Christians say that Jesus and His apostles were the last ones, and they have given us all the scripture and revelation we need, and there will never be any more. Did you notice a pattern there? And you know something? They were all wrong! Malachi was not the last prophet; neither was Mohammed; nor was Jesus and His Apostles. But God has never ceased to reveal His will to mankind through His chosen servants the prophets in every dispensation, and never will cease to do so as long as “time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved” (Moroni 7:32). The LDS Church is the only Church that bucks that trend. That should give you some food for thought.

zerinus

So who is the latest Prophet? Joseph Smith? Rev. Moon? David Koresh? We have prophets all over the place. The important thing to ask is do they really have any authority. There are all kinds of churches that claim prophets – not just the LDS Church. And was Brigham Young the prophet or Joseph Smith III? It seems to me that Joseph Smith III acted much more like a prophet than Brigham Young did. He even gave blacks the priesthood right after the Civil War. Who was on God’s side on that particular issue – Brigham Young who called the blacks cursed or Joseph Smith III who gave them the priesthood? I would say neither was a prophet, but Joseph Smith III certainly was more in line with the God of the Bible and even the statements in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith Jr.'s claims to prophet status are completely suspect because his revelations are so suspect.

 

[PaulDupre]

It is the characteristic of all apostate and dead religions to declare scripture to be closed, and their prophet to be the last prophet, and that there will be no more prophets, revelations, or scripture after that. The Jews say that Malachi was the last prophet, and there will never be any more prophets or scripture after that. The Moslems say that Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet, and there will be no more prophets or scripture after that. And Christians say that Jesus and His apostles were the last ones, and they have given us all the scripture and revelation we need, and there will never be any more. Did you notice a pattern there? And you know something? They were all wrong! Malachi was not the last prophet; neither was Mohammed; nor was Jesus and His Apostles. But God has never ceased to reveal His will to mankind through His chosen servants the prophets in every dispensation, and never will cease to do so as long as “time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved” (Moroni 7:32). The LDS Church is the only Church that bucks that trend. That should give you some food for thought.

zerinus

On the other hand, it is the characteristic of every modern cult of personality to declare that the bible is corrupted, so God needs to appoint a new prophet to reveal a new scripture.

Muhammed claimed to be the new prophet and produced the Koran.

Baha’u’llah appointed himself the new prophet and gave us the kitab-i-aqdas and many other sacred writings.

Mary Baker Eddy claimed to be a prophet and produced “Science and Health”.

The Shakers gave us “The Holy Book of Divine and Eternal Wisdom”

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet and gave us the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price because the bible is corrupted and untrustworthy.

Do you notice a pattern there? We do.
And you know something? All their writings are garbage.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

On the other hand, it is the characteristic of every modern cult of personality to declare that the bible is corrupted, so God needs to appoint a new prophet to reveal a new scripture.

Muhammed claimed to be the new prophet and produced the Koran.

Baha’u’llah appointed himself the new prophet and gave us the kitab-i-aqdas and many other sacred writings.

Mary Baker Eddy claimed to be a prophet and produced “Science and Health”.

The Shakers gave us “The Holy Book of Divine and Eternal Wisdom”

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet and gave us the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price because the bible is corrupted and untrustworthy.

Do you notice a pattern there? We do.
And you know something? All their writings are garbage.

Paul

Be that as it may, my characterization of an apostate and dead religion is valid. If the LDS Church is not true, then God will have to restore His true church on earth some other way, because the old one has apostatized, for the obvious reasons that I have just described.

zerinus

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I find the notion that only curent GA’s can validate statements mad ini general conference by previous GA’s problematic. That’s like saying the Ensign isn’t trustworthy and nothing in it can be used unless specified by a GA on the LDS website.

Except that the Ensign has not been held by the Church to be unreliable for Church doctrine.

Why is this not a “change” in the Law itself but just our undeerstanding of it?

Because the law of polygamy here is not “do” or “do not.” The law is “do when I require, don’t when I forbid.” The law remains unchanged no matter which the Lord required yesterday or will require tomorrow.

*** NOTE ***

I have to attend to a 40 page term paper that is due in two weeks. I am a little behind and will be giving the paper all of my free time for the next little while. I apologize but I will be posting very infrequently, if at all, for the next week or so. I am also going to forgo posting a new thread on the Restoration this Sunday and hold off until the 12th. I don’t want to miss that discussion.

Thanks, all. Wish me luck.

 

[zerinus]

So who is the latest Prophet? Joseph Smith? Rev. Moon? David Koresh? We have prophets all over the place. The important thing to ask is do they really have any authority. There are all kinds of churches that claim prophets – not just the LDS Church. . . .

Actually, they don’t. The LDS Church is the only church as far as I know (apart from LDS splinter groups who are in a different category) which claims to have been established by direct divine communication, authintication, angelic ministration, priesthood restoration, and a whole new dispensation of the gospel. No other church does.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Except that the Ensign has not been held by the Church to be unreliable for Church doctrine.

and I point out the seeming contradiction of saying (without citing source) of claiming JoD is untrustworthy while still quoting form it in current teaching manuals. (see www.lds.org)

Because the law of polygamy here is not “do” or “do not.” The law is “do when I require, don’t when I forbid.” The law remains unchanged no matter which the Lord required yesterday or will require tomorrow.

i understand but you are missing the point. In 1870 mormons were practicing polygamy because their prophets and apostles told them that’s what God wanted. Their scriptures on that day said in D&C 101 that polygamy was a crime and that they did NOT practice it. same day. Do you see the problem there? either canonized scripture was wrong or the prophet and apostles were.
either way mormonism was wrong.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

In 1870 mormons were practicing polygamy because their prophets and apostles told them that’s what God wanted. Their scriptures on that day said in D&C 101 that polygamy was a crime and that they did NOT practice it. same day. Do you see the problem there?

I sure do. Hence, our topic of this thread.

 

[kellie]

Be that as it may, my characterization of an apostate and dead religion is valid. If the LDS Church is not true, then God will have to restore His true church on earth some other way, because the old one has apostatized, for the obvious reasons that I have just described.

zerinus

Yes, your definition of an apostate and dead religion is true, it just happens that the Catholic Church is not one.

God never left His church, nor did the church apostasize.

God told us in Scripture He would never leave us, as has been quoted many times in these forums.

He sends His Holy Spirit down to each Pope to help guide us through the centuries.

We have a successive line of Popes going back to Peter. They may have been called different names, as “pope” isnt in Scripture, but it is the same position that Peter held that has been successive since then, and guided always by God.

The church has never needed restoration. The LDS church is not true.

 

[christianley]

The church has never needed restoration. The LDS church is not true.

You know, even if the church did need a restoration, the LDS Church is definitely not it. All you have to do is study their scriptures well to figure out they are bogus. Add to that the problematic history of Joseph Smith and you simply could not trust it for your salvation. All of the facts are simply against Mormonism. I’m happy to put my faith in the Jesus who started the Catholic Church anciently rather than the Jesus Joseph Smith claimed visited him.