Here’s your history lesson for the day.
On October 3rd 1918, then LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith received a vision regarding the redemption of the dead. The next day at General Conference,
“President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while his body was in the tomb, he had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference; on October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Introduction to Section 138)
Following this endorsement of President Smith’s October 3rd vision by Church leaders, the revelation was published in the December 1918 issue of the Improvement Era magazine and in the January 1919 issue of The Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine.
It wasn’t until 57 years later, at the April 1976 General Conference, that President Smith’s vision was presented to the general membership of the Church to be accepted as Scripture and approved for inclusion in the Pearl of Great Price. In June of 1979 the First Presidency of the Church announced that the vision would be removed from the Pearl of Great Price and added to the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 138, where it remains today.
I find it curious that this revelation — from God to His prophet (from the LDS perspective), written down, regarded as true by top Church leaders, and made public — was not actually presented to members of the Church (to be adopted and accepted) until more than half a century later.
I also wonder about the other “divine communications” which President Smith said he received in 1918. Only one (to date) has been canonized. Perhaps sometime in the future some of his other revelations will be presented to Church members for their approval and acceptance.
I don’t get it? If the living prophet speaks for God, what’s the hold up? I would think if the living prophet is legit, when he speaks it’s the end of the story. Right? But to be fair, the Catholic church took it’s time (I think at least 50 years) revealing the prophetic words spoken by Our Lady of Fatima to Bernedette.
Scripture is for our benefit, not God’s.
You don’t get an addition to the Mormon cannon without it being voted on and accepted as such by the membership. Acceptance of God’s word is always an individual matter in Mormonism.
Besides, the prophet isn’t some sort of absolute dictator. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has pretty-much equal authority to him as a body. New things don’t happen in the LDS Church without unanimity among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. God has determined that policy be hashed out among a large number of men with their own opinions and ideas. When consensus emerges, the Church moves forward.
Seth, I understand about the process of canonization, and all that (I agree, it should be something that is “voted” on, to some degree). What I think is my biggest question, to echo falcon, is “what’s the hold up?” If the head of the LDS church receives direct revelation from God, and it is accepted by all those others in leadership, why wait to go public with it? I find it hard to believe that God would say something to someone, and then say, “alright, this is going to be scripture, but I want you to wait 50 years before telling everyone else.”
Why is it hard to believe?
If the Mormon Church didn’t have checks and balances like this it wouldn’t be able to stop people like Brigham Young from permanently instilling doctrines that are later condemned by Mormon leaders as deadly, damnable heresies. It ironically needs the restraints because it has such a low view of prophets.
They’re just men who hear God’s voice. They don’t blow gold out of their noses when they have a cold.
Perhaps the late addition was an attempt to prop up a “prophet” who under oath professed a lack of prophecy during the Reed Smoot hearings before Congress
“‘Senator Dubios. – Have you received any revelations from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by that conference, through the upholding of their hands?
“‘Mr. [Joseph F.] Smith. – Since when?
“‘Senator Dubios. – Since you became President of the Church.
“‘Mr. Smith. – NO, SIR; NONE WHATEVER.
“‘Senator Dubios. – Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became President of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?
“‘Mr. Smith. – I CANNOT SAY THAT I HAVE.
“‘Senator Dubois. – Can you say that you have not?
“‘Mr. Smith. – No; I cannot say that I have not.
“‘Senator Dubois. – Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described or whether you have not?
“‘Mr. Smith. – Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I AM SUSCEPTIBLE, I THINK, of the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, JUST AS ANY GOOD METHODIST or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they ARE NOT IN THE SENSE OF REVELATIONS. ‘”
(Reed Smoot Case, Vol. 1, pages 483-484)
PG 99 ‘I have NEVER PRETENDED TO NOR DO I PROFESS TO HAVE RECEIVED REVELATIONS. ‘
In other words, we should be open to true prophets sneezing deadly, damnable heresies as non-negotiable doctrines.
*Ah chooo!*
That ain’t no gold. That sounds like a case of false-prophet-itus.
It does seem, though, that true prophets of God should at least be trustworthy in relating “divine communications” or in teaching doctrine in a formal setting. I agree with Aaron — the LDS Church appears to have a low view of [allegedly true] prophets; an attitude inherent in the Restoration but absent in the biblical church.
In the true church of God every member is a prophet of sorts.
So God speaks to our chosen leaders and then each member is responsible to go directly to God and personally confirm that God was indeed the source of the revelation.
Section snipped. Geoff, if you or anyone else is going to take vague swipes at the 3rd or 4th century of Christian history, then do so with specific facts and citations. We’re becoming increasingly intolerant of sweeping generalizations over these issues, especially after Blake’s “What I don’t accept about the Nicene creed is the right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days because they disagreed” debacle.
The fact that y’all think prophets need to be basically infallible is a signal to me that you don’t understand how real revelation from God works.
I talked to two Mormon soon-to-be-missionaries from California who believed God was “testing” his people by having his true prophet Brigham Young teach false doctrine that would later be condemned by Mormon leaders as deadly, damnable heresy. Is that “how real revelation from God works”? Is that one reason why I shouldn’t expect infallibility from Mormon prophets when it comes to prophecies and bold, authoritative, public doctrinal statements about the very nature of God?
Alright Aaron. See this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon
My main point was that the canonization process of modern scriptures at least claims a great deal more divine revelation and inspiration in the process than the canonization process of the various and sundry version of the Bible of there claimed.
Geoff, perhaps you misunderstand the very notion of scripture in evangelical Christianity (or haven’t thought through its implications). Scripture isn’t scripture because someone human says it is. It is inspired scripture, the very word of God—what God “says” and “tells”—the second it is written, even before anyone individually recognizes it or acknowledges it in a public setting. The historic process of canonization isn’t like in Mormonism where something goes from the status of non-scripture to scripture. Rather, scripture is publicly recognized for what it already is, and any valid council would simply be submitting to the inherent authority of God’s word. Again, by way of contrast this shows yet again how incredibly a low view Mormons have of prophets, revelation, inspiration, and scripture. Christians can confidently say, “we have something more sure” (2 Peter 1:19-21). Mormons have to wait for the checks and balances to filter out false, “deadly“, damnable heresies their “true” prophet has authoritatively taught from the pulpit of General Conference and integrated into the St. George temple ceremony (more allusions of mine to Adam-God).
Geoff wrote:
If that’s true then why need a prophet at all why not just go to God yourself? If a man is fallible how are you going to determine his word are correct? A good feeling, prayer? Seems to me Jehovah witnesses, Jim Jones, and other cults have prophets and the followers get good feelings, pray and believe even to the point of dying for their prophet.
Geoff wrote:
If we need a prophet to get God’s word and then we have to ask God if it’s true essentially are calling God a liar or the prophet? Where is the line drawn between prophet as a man and prophet as God’s mouth piece.
Seth wrote: “They’re just men who hear God’s voice. They don’t blow gold out of their noses when they have a cold.”
I don’t have a problem with a corruptible man marring several women including a 14 year. But when that man spouts off doctrine that is unbelievable and undoubtedly false. (IE God lives on a planet near the star Kolob, God was once a man and has a father) Then we have a false prophet.
Aaron: even before anyone individually recognizes it or publicly acknowledges it in a public setting
I don’t have much of a problem with this claim (although you are probably conflating “scripture” with “truth” here). But people don’t always recognize real revelation at first glance. So when something claims to be a revelation from God it is incumbent on us to seek confirmation from God that it really is a revelation.
The historic process of canonization isn’t like in Mormonism where something goes from the status of non-scripture to scripture.
What do you mean? The letters Paul wrote were not canonized until hundreds of years later. Until then they were just that — letters from an apostle. They may have been true and inspired already but they weren’t canonized until someone decided to declare them canonized.
Christians can confidently say, “we have something more sure”
Actually I would say that if you can’t even get God himself to confirm the veracity of scriptures for you you have something completely unsure. (You have to cross your fingers and hope the stuff that got chosen by the councils to make the canon really is true).
Anubis: If that’s true then why need a prophet at all why not just go to God yourself? If a man is fallible how are you going to determine his word are correct?
Prophets have varying levels of stewardship. If one has stewardship over the whole church (and thus the whole world) then one can receive revelation on behalf of that flock. Such general revelations serve to unify the body of Christ (the church). But each member of Christ’s church is responsible for his or her own personal relationship with Christ. Part of that is seeking direct confirmation on revelations that are presented to the entire body of Christ.
You are right that there are false prophets in the world — that is why we all must be able to check with God himself to verify the true prophets.
Geoff wrote: “Prophets have varying levels of stewardship.”
I don’t doubt the whole stewardship thing but lets say that Prophet Gordon B Hinckley is steward of the “whole world”. Why did God not let him know about 9/11 or Katrina? In fact what prophecies has Gordon made that have come to pass?
Geoff wrote: “You are right that there are false prophets in the world — that is why we all must be able to check with God himself to verify the true prophets.”
Your prayers say Gordon is a prophet and mine say he isn’t so who’s right? God (and common sense) gave a pretty good way to tell if a prophet is false or not in De 13. The prophet only hast to spout one false prophecy to be false. So let me ask you how to you know that Joesph Smith jr. is a prophet versus Charles Taze Russell or Jim Jones?
Let’s just for kicks say that Prophet Hinckley did give a divine revelation. Your answer (and good feeling) is that it’s true but later find out it was totally false from the next prophet. Who’s right and who’s the liar?
From then on how can you trust your feelings and/or the prophets words?
We have diaries from the times when Brigham spoke about Blood atonement. They certainly believed that it was Gods words. Several even believed it so faithfully they died by shedding of blood. I would suppose that’s why in Utah you can still be put to death by firing squad.
Yeah, us Christians have that annoying assumption that scripture by its very nature is truth. 🙂
“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.” (Psalm 119:160)
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17)
Interestingly, the NT even uses the phrase “word of truth”.
Trouble is, you’ll never find an instance in the Bible where someone is positively described as confirming something as revelation by praying for a private emotional experience. Rather you’ll see things like Acts 17:11. “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
Scripture is scripture (and indeed, Paul’s letters were recognized by immediate Christian communities as scripture; cf. 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter speaks of Paul’s letters as among scriptures) long before any councils publicly acknowledge them as such. Canonization doesn’t make anything more scriptural, or more inspired, or more true.
Modern Mormonism makes something into scripture by canonizing it. Christianity recognizes existing scripture (which is truth communicated by God himself) before any large councils are even thought of. You’d have to do some historical gymnastics to make any sort of argument that early Christians were waiting around for councils before treating the bulk of the Old and New Testament as we have it today as scripture.
Again, Geoff, you’re in left field on this one, and the main problem is that you don’t think that scripture is the very word of “God himself”, what God “says” and “tells”. When one consults the word of God, they are “check[ing] with God himself”. Ironically, Mormonism takes some of the very means that God himself has given us to test the validity of a prophet and spurns them as foolish.
The Lord is testing you, Geoff. Since Brigham Young authoritatively taught Adam-God from General Conference pulpit, which was later condemned by Mormon leaders as deadly, damnable heresy, will you listen to what God has said in Deuteronomy about the matter and reject Brigham? I would ask the same with Deuteronomy 18:22 and Joseph Smith’s patently false prophecy about selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon. As David Whitmer wrote in An Address to All Believers in Christ,
Hey Geoff, Why is it if the LDS prophet is a true Prophet of God, he did not know that mark Hoffman was a liar?
How come the LDS church has been around for 200 plus years and not one LDS prophet as of yet has set the Scriptures straight, to the Point where you can say they ARE translated correctly, instead of saying they are not?
If God speaks and we need to hear what God says, why do we need to wait 50 years for you guys to decide if it really was from him or not? I dont recall Moses hearing from God then waiting for 50 years, and voting on it, then telling every one what God said.
Then Geoff Said
Geoff, what if you are asking the wrong god or a false god? Do not forget, Satan is the god of this world as the Bible says, and satan can and does come in the form of an angel of Light to decive.
Then Paul rebuked the slave Girl in the Book of Acts, she was possesed by a demon, but that demon was speaking the truth about what Paul was doing. So we have a demon speaking truth, Satan might speak truth to decieve you. Rick b
I guess all of us Christians out here are caught in another case of a cross cultural communication glich with our Mormon friends. The author Debra Tannen wrote a book some years back titled “You Just Don’t Understand.” She is a social linguist and mused that men and women were talking out of different cultural communication rules and that’s why they often have difficulty understanding each other. I think that’s the way it is with the Mormons and we Christians. The Mormon world often doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, as a Biblical Christian. I look at our conversation here on the Mormon living prophet and given what our Mormon writers are sharing I would say what they have is a “prophet lite”. It’s like the Mormon prophet speaks the truth and then it’s voted on to determine if it’s “really” the truth. I just don’t understand!
I don’t know Rick. If Isaac in the Old Testament was a “true Prophet,” why didn’t he know that it was just Jacob posing as Esau that he was giving a blessing to?
I think the issue is utterly irrelevant.
There’s plenty of stuff that Joseph Smith received as revelation and immediately implemented. Like the entire organization of the modern Church for instance. Cherry-picking a few choice things that didn’t pan-out doesn’t negate the vast majority of Joseph’s programs and instructions from God that did pan out.
Furthermore, God’s time table is not our time table. I haven’t seen a single example of a “disputed” doctrine or practice in Mormonism that turned out to be really vital to our salvation in this life. God has given sufficient for our needs. It doesn’t concern me greatly that He has seen fit to allow us to hash out the peripherals on our own.
Incidentally, if you want an example of a “prophesy” from Joseph Smith – try his prediction of the American Civil War. He pretty-much nailed it.
Anubis wrote:
Probably because God isn’t following your (or my) pet social agendas. The thinking I’m seeing on prophets here is quite simplistic. Few seem to have really thought through what having a living, breathing, flawed, human prophet would actually be like – in any age. Several of you seem rather put out at the idea that God might not be micromanaging the affairs of His Church.
It is a slothful servant that needs to be commanded in all things.
Just for what it’s worth. I think it was Crazy Horse, prior to the battle of the Little Big Horn, who had a dream/vision of American soldiers falling from the sky. I’d say that was pretty prophetic or wishful thinking. Anyway, the Sioux didn’t vote on it.
“….not a single example of a “disputed” doctrine or practice in Mormonism that turned out to be vital for our salvation in this life.” ??????? Who’s doing the “disputing”? My opinion, the whole deal is disputed and that it does make a difference regarding salvation.
I haven’t seen anyone here compare the Mormon concept of the prophet with the Catholic Churches doctrine of papal infallibility. The Pope “…through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the CONSENSUS of the church.” A Pope cannot declare previous infallible pronouncements of the church void. Sounds like the Catholic “prophet” carries a little more weight than the Mormon’s.(from Christian Research Journal, “The Catholic Protestant Debate on Papal Infallibility, by Geissler and MacKenzie, Fall 1994 issue)
This would be ignoring Adam-God, as Brigham Young taught that rejecting it would bring damnation, and Bruce McConkie taught that if you taught it or believed it you would be damned. Of course, you’re welcome to believe that prophet Brigham Young and apostle Bruce McConkie were both wrong. But we’re not going to take your prophet-spurning and apostle-spurning opinion over your own church leaders when it comes to discerning the position of the church.
This is an interesting question given that Mormons often appeal to Amos 3:7, forgetting that the “for” in verse 7 connects it with verse 6:
You have to ask yourself: What was the last natural disaster that a Mormon prophet warned of? They certainly didn’t warn of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. I don’t expect Mormon prophets to know everything (like all large natural disasters to cities and all church-swindling deals with a forger), but their track record isn’t looking too good.
Seth R., plural marriage was once viewed as essential for salvation in the context of eternal progression. Now it’s not. I can cite some facts for you if you’d like. The issue of plural marriage is a real hot potato, but it’s the main thing that comes to my mind when I think about Mormon doctrines that were once viewed as essential but now are not.
First — This silly three comment per day policy is tipping the playing field more and more against the few Mormons around here. There are 2-3 times as many creedal Christians for us to respond to so we get no chance to even defend ourselves before we are done for the day and more volleys come in. I suspect I won’t be coming around as much because of that. It is as if y’all are afraid to give even the semblance of a level playing/debating field here.
Second — It is pretty clear to me that the creedals Christians here have this mythologized and lionized and totally untenable view of what a real prophet is like. That is not surprising of course — most Jews had a lionized and mythologized view of what the messiah would look and act like and they totally missed him when he came too. It is a classic case of looking beyond the mark. If people got more personal revelation of their own they would have a much better idea of what the process is like and would have a much more realistic view of what a real prophet is like. Viewing them as demigods as you seem to be doing is just naive in my opinion.
I think the biggest problem at the end of the road many people are on is it leads to worshiping the Bible in lieu of the real and living God. See my thoughts on that subject here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/10/scripture-worship/450/
On a related subject — complaining that modern prophets don’t predict every tragedy in the world is ludicrous. If you want to know why God didn’t warn the world go ask him yourself. Blaming the messenger who God didn’t warn makes no sense at all. (Unless you claim to be in charge of God I suppose).
Geoff, don’t feel like you have to respond to everything. Just make your cogent points in three posts and wait for the next day like other non-moderators have to. We’re actually hoping more Mormons will participate now that other Mormons can’t overwhelm the threads with their own comments. And it would only take a few more Mormons to even the playing field at this point.
Our expectation that prophets not give false prophecies and not authoritatively, formally, and publicly teach false doctrine is a borne out of the Bible’s own standards for prophets. A prophet is supposed to communicate the very word of God, and if such a prophet can give false prophecies and authoritative, public false doctrine then that brings reproach upon God. That is a big reason why Jesus tells us to actually consider the fruits of alleged prophets (instead of ignoring them and simply looking to internal feelings) and why Deuteronomy says we ought to recognize false prophets by their false teachings on God and false prophecies.
It’s strange to make such a huge distinction between God being infallible and his word being fallible. It calls God himself into question. It’d be like me saying to my wife, “Stacie, I trust you, but I don’t trust what you say.” If you really believe that the Bible is God’s very word, then it isn’t idolatry to lean on it and depend on it as being as dependable as God himself is. The New Testament frequently speaks of the Old Testament as what the Holy Spirit or God “spoke” (cf. Acts 1:16 and 2 Peter 1:21). It seems to have an incredibly higher view of God’s word than Mormonism does.
Straw man. Look two comments back. I wrote, “I don’t expect Mormon prophets to know everything (like all large natural disasters to cities and all church-swindling deals with a forger), but their track record isn’t looking too good.” That is especially true considering Amos 3:6-7.
Back to the topic of this post —
I can’t believe my eyes that creedal Christians are complaining about the way in which section 138 was officially accepted into the LDS canon and yet are trying to totally ignore the way that the Protestant (and Mormon) canon slowly fell into place over the course of a few hundred years and all sorts of debates and councils.
Aaron said: Scripture is scripture long before any councils publicly acknowledge them as such.
Fine. If we use that definition of scripture in this conversation then it is safe to say that the revelation found in sections 138 was scripture from the moment it was received. But it did not become canonized scripture until it was officially added to the canon years later. How is that different than the canonization process that occurred with the bible in the first 4 centuries A.D.?
BTW — see this revelation concerning “scriptures” in the looser (ie not necessarily canonized) sense we are using the term:
Last — this line of yours requires a response Aaron: you’ll never find an instance in the Bible where someone is positively described as confirming something as revelation by praying for a private emotional experience.
You’ll never find a latter-day saint “praying for a private emotional experience” either. We pray for real revelation and truth from God and we often receive it. Claiming we do that is disingenuous on your part considering how many times we have explained this to you.
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.”(John 16:13)
Geoff wrote: :”This silly three comment per day policy is tipping the playing field more and more against the few Mormons around here.”
Funny I’m not a creedal Christian but I am posting and I would suspect that since it’s a Christian board that more Christians then Mormons would frequent it. FARMS/FAIR boards seem a little tipped to Mormons.
Geoff Wrote: “I think the biggest problem at the end of the road many people are on is it leads to worshiping the Bible in lieu of the real and living God.”
Yes I would agree to only worship the living God (but what God is that to you? The living Christ or Heavenly father?)and remember some of the songs in the Mormon church (ie “Praise to the man”) that “worship” or honor Joseph Smith. Last time I attended a Mormon church I actually counted the times when I heard someone say Jesus or Joseph. It was a close call but Joseph won out that day.
Seth wrote :”Probably because God isn’t following your (or my) pet social agendas. ”
Seth I have a hard time believing that God would see fit to tell Gordon about women not wearing two earing’s but yet fail to mention something (like these disasters) that would bring people into the Mormon church in droves. Is one prophecy to much to ask from a self professed prophet?
Geoff wrote: “If you want to know why God didn’t warn the world go ask him yourself.”
I agree why do we need a prophet when I can “go and as God myself. What is the point? Skip the middle man and go directly to God. I believe Jesus said the same thing. No more temples or Priests are needed you can go directly to God yourself.
This ignores the difference between how creedal evangelicals view canonization and creedal Mormons view canonization. Canonization for us doesn’t make something scripture, it publicly recognizes it for what it already is (indeed, what the early Christian communities already recognized even before such councils existed). In modern Mormonism something has to be canonized in order for it to become fully treated as scripture.
Because in modern Mormonism scripture isn’t even treated as fully authoritative scripture until the top hats officially deem it as such.
To quote Gerald R. McDermott’s from his new book with Robert Millet, Claiming Christ (p. 22):
D&C 68:4 sounds pretty good to me, but I think you have demonstrated that you implicitly reject it, especially regarding the issue of scripture being the “voice” and “word” of the Lord.
You can sugar it up all you want, but your own M. Russell Ballard just perpetuated the notion that Mormons determine truth by feelings in the LDS Newsroom.
“Religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel, and that’s the way Heavenly Father answers prayers.” See video 7 here.
Page 39 of Preach the Gospel reads:
It’s pretty obvious that Mormonism equates private emotional experiences (particularly those that affirm what the Salt Lake City hierarchy teach) with “revelation and truth from God”. Quoting John 16:13 won’t get you off the hook, because you have to further demonstrate that “the Spirit of truth” should be understood with the extra-Biblical Mormon notion of how the Spirit helps people determine whether basic religious truth claims are in fact true.
Anubis: Funny I’m not a creedal Christian but I am posting and I would suspect that since it’s a Christian board that more Christians then Mormons would frequent it. FARMS/FAIR boards seem a little tipped to Mormons.
Really? So you aren’t a Christian at all? Are you an angry exmo? An atheist? A member of some other non-Christian religion.
And this is a blog, not a board. Boards in my opinion is where like minded people get together to high five each other and slam there ideological opponents. I thought this project was supposed to be better than those inane boards. I suppose that was hoping too much.
Aaron — Obviously we have reached an impasse. You think I don’t treat the Bible with enough reverence and believe various false doctrines; I think you worship the Bible instead of the real God. You think that Mormons are praying for and getting hollow emotional feelings; I think Mormons are way better at receiving real personal revelation from God than Creedals are. You think all that is needed to defend the veracity of the Bible is to read it because basically “it’s soooo obvious” that it is his “very word” (the same thing Muslims say about the Qur’an I might add); I think that God’s very word comes directly from his spirit to prophets then they, in their weakness, have to try to write that down and try to synthesize and convey the pure truth they received from God, so the Bible is God’s word as reported through fallible humans. You think no Bible prophets gave false prophecies; I think there are plenty of examples of false prophecies in the Bible and yet the Bible still remains scripture.
So we disagree. Such is life I guess.
Geoff said
Funny you should say that, Because here is what your Church teaches.
All of this info about Exaltation is taken from the Book Gospel principles chapter 47.
What Is Exaltation?
Requirements for Exaltation
The time to fulfill the requirements for exaltation is now (see Alma 34:32-34). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “In order to obtain the exaltation we must accept the gospel and all its covenants; and take upon us the obligations which the Lord has offered; and walk in the light and understanding of the truth; and ‘live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God’ ” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43).
To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.
He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:
In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord commands all of us to–
17. Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.
It gets better, but so I do not double post I will wait. Rick B
Problem is, Geoff, that the Bible speaks of “prophecy” and “prophetic word” and “prophecy of scripture” as more intimately connected, which is the reason “we have something more sure” (2 Peter 1:19). What you’re basically saying is that when prophets write down revelation the words become fallible since the scripture itself “comes from someone’s own interpretation” (i.e. the prophet’s), which happens to be what Peter addresses in one of his letters:
It seems that Mormonism implicitly promotes the idea that authors of scripture were “carried along by the Holy Spirit”, but not when they were writing the “prophecy of scripture” itself. All things considered, what you end up having in Mormonism is scripture:
And yes, Mormonism says that this is OK since one has more direct access to God via private emotional experiences, but sadly what Mormons end up with is a human hierarchy to which they much submit and go through to get to God and be right with God. It’s a great scheme to get someone under the control of a hierarchy. In fact, the private emotional experiences are only deemed to be appropriate when they conform to the teachings and leadership of the hierarchy.
Geoff said
So Geoff, we could ALL be Prophets of the LDS church then.
Well to add to what I said before, Not only does the LDS church teach, 17. Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord
Why Should I listen to the Prophets if I either can be one like you pointed out, or If I can simply seek revelation myself why do I need a prophet?
Then add the LDS church teaches,
If Evangelicals are guilty of setting the bar too high when it comes to prophets, then I would say Mormons are guilty of setting the bar too low or removing the bar altogether. I hear words/terms like “foibles” and “warts and all” thrown around alot but it seems as though there is nothing that a “prophet” can do to be proven a false.
I would really like to know (from the Mormons that post here), “what would be a problem” when it comes to your prophets and scipture. When does a fallible human being go beyond just being fallible? It seems as though requiring prophets to prophecy and to do so accurately is a logical standard to have. Requiring that your prophets to not believe or teach damnable heresies is another. It seems simple to me but if one gives a false prophecy then one is a false prophet.
I understand that many LDS do not believe in the 14 fundamentals. I don’t know if you all do or do not. I also understand that when Ezra Taft Benson gave the 14 fundamentals, he was not a prophet. After he became the Prophet, he never recanted them, nor did any other Prophet that came after him. If this is true, then why don’t all LDS believe them?
This seems to be key in the LDS church theology. Am I wrong? To say our salvation hangs on this, and it was not recanted by any other Prophets, would it not be a serious error for this not to be corrected? I would think if you knew it was false doctrine, someone would have corrected it so as not to lead people astray.
Geoff wrote: “Really? So you aren’t a Christian at all? Are you an angry exmo? An atheist? A member of some other non-Christian religion.”
Argumentum ad hominem, Geoff?
If revelation continues today through the General Authorities of the Church, we MUST accept the following:
1. God chooses NOT to warn his people regarding impending calamities (WTC attack, tsunami, hurricanes).
2. That current prophets can contradict dead prophets and Church members must accept the changes without question.
3. In a world filled with moral dilemmas, God has felt compelled to reveal that the number of ear piercings of member women is an important show of obedience and worthy of attention at the highest level.
4. That historians cannot be trusted to report history because they “idolize the truth”. (B.K. Packer)
5. That General Authorities can be deceived by criminals (Mark Hofmann deceiving Hinckley and Oaks and others).
6. That the biggest challenges to the Church today are gays, lesbians, and intellectuals. (B.K. Packer)
7. That God chooses to reveal major new doctrines/policies under extreme duress (Manifesto, Blacks & Priesthood)
And we are to accept all this as sure knowledge based on a spiritual/emotional “witness” which supplants all reason and rational thought and sets them at naught. Using the emotional response as the ultimate truth test is not something unique to the LDS Church. It is/has been used widely throughout the world. An example: 80 million people embraced this method in 1939:
Reason can treacherously deceive a man, but emotion is always sure and never leaves him. – Adolph Hitler
Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains, you will find him with your hearts. – Rudolf Hess
The above was a direct quote from Lyndon Lamborn’s “Search for Thruth 6/07”
Wow! A lot has been going on since I’ve been out. Just an impresson I’ve had while reading the above. In the 60’s we used to talk about people being on a “head trip”. It seems to me that the “head trip” for Mormons is their claim of personal revelation from God. It’s kind of a nah, nah, nah, nah, nah deal. I hate to break the news to our LDS friends, but I’ve been around Creedal Christians (I love that term)who are constantly hearing from God. And they’re always moving the cosmic tumblers and puzzle pieces around to see what God is saying and doing. Sorry Mormon friends I don’t buy it when my Creedal compatriots do it and I certainly don’t buy it when you do. And for the 1,000th time. The gift of prophecy operates in the creedal church today along with the other gifts of the Spirit.
The Creedal Falcon
Geoff, I think Aaron did a fantastic job of refuting your claims, but I wanted to pipe up on something you said.
Geoff – “You’ll never find a latter-day saint “praying for a private emotional experience” either. We pray for real revelation and truth from God and we often receive it. Claiming we do that is disingenuous on your part considering how many times we have explained this to you.”
I went to Mormon.org on a couple different occasions this week and just asked personal questions of the people in the chat with a member thing. I first asked how long they have been a member (both were their entire lives) and then I asked if they did Moroni’s challenge in regards to the prophet Joseph Smith being true and the BOM being true. They both said yes and I found they both had pretty much the same thing to say when I asked them to describe what the spiritual confirmation was like. Both of them said (paraphrasing) “I FELT very peaceful and assured, and happy.” Notice they right away listed of their feelings. I asked my brother in law who is a convert to the LDS faith and he said he felt calm but also excited, and physically he experienced “tingling or chills” up and down his spine. My brother in law and the two members on the wesbite all said they have felt the same way when wonderful things happened in their life like when one of their children was born. In my brother in laws case it was a promotion. The only difference is that they feel it more often when reading scriptures and praying.. Perhaps maybe because someone reads scriptures and prays more than they have children or get a promotion.
Anyways, this along with the quotes from Mr. Ballard Aaron pointed out clearly shows your above statement comes off downright deceitful. Like Aaron said, you can sugar it up all you want but your fellow brethren and a quorum of the 12 authority contradict your statements.
Only when you are cherry-picking from quotes and experiences to meet your own forgone conclusions.
More on the practice of Mormons using feelings to confirm what they hope to be true:
Washington Post’s Faithbook posted a new entry by a Latter-day Saint college student explaining his faith. He wrote in part,
Seth, I definitely wouldn’t see the LDS notion of confirming truth by seeking emotional experiences (which are thought to be direct, prophetic, revelatory experiences) as exceptional or rare. It seems to be the norm as indicated by correlated literature, the Sunday-ritual of bearing testimony (which reflects how they think they received confirmation), and in how missionaries are taught to seek converts.
On a side note, my friend Daniel from Ohio (who posts here sometimes), brought up 1 Thessalonians 2:13, a relevant passage on the topic of whether something can be considered the very “word of God” when it is communicated through the “word of men”:
I happened on a blog and an “article” by a young, appears to be bright, college age student. While he admits to having gone through a season of doubt, he remains in the LDS fold but on the fringe of practice. He writes “The most striking witness of the Mormon faith is the spirit of God, our Heavenly Father, along with the spirit of his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. LDS members have a faith that is rooted in a literal sensation, the spirit, which is felt within the body and proves the church to be true.” OK, the proof that the Mormon church is true, is a literal sensation that is felt in the body. He admits to all of the intellectual arguments against the “truth” but settles the matter by the “literal sensation” test. A couple of the hooks in Mormonism; we have a living prophet (shhh we vote on what he says and what we put in our…gasp…creeds), and I got the feeling so I know the church is true.
Sorry y’all. The officials have “fixed” the game here so I’m likely gonna quit playing here for a while. If you want to bring your arguments about why evangelical theology is not totally inane to my blog you are welcome to post there — with no 3 comment limitations! (though I do enjoy banning the occasional troll). My post on why many evangelicals have become idolaters who have begun worshiping the Bible in place of God would be a fine place for you to defend your positions if you’d like. http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/10/scripture-worship/450/
A few last responses:
Anubis<: Argumentum ad hominem, Geoff?
They weren’t arguments at all Anubis. They were questions. And not very hard ones at that. Why not just answer them?
Falcon: I’ve been around Creedal Christians (I love that term)who are constantly hearing from God
Dude — don’t tell Aaron and his friends around here. They think God can only speak through the Bible nowadays. If they find out we agree on this they might become anti-Falcons too!
Jeff B: Geoff, I think Aaron did a fantastic job of refuting your claims
Really? I don’t think that at all. (Maybe we are reading a different thread or something)
Anyway — I never said real revelation doesn’t have feelings that are associated with the pure knowledge that God reveals to the mind. You are assuming it must be one or the other but that is fallacious.
(Falcon — tell him about the experience Wesley had with personal revelation. It was knowledge with as certain divine warmth associated with it right?)
These conversations further reinforce how I see the situation: Most evangelicals just don’t know how to hear and understand the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit. As a result they mock even real revelation from God as empty emotional experiences. Hearing God’s voice takes practice and patience and humility. I recommend you keep trying. If you need any advice, you could try asking a Mormon…
Seth – “Only when you are cherry-picking from quotes and experiences to meet your own forgone conclusions.”
There was no cherry picking. I even got on the chat thing on mormon.org yesterday and asked the same question of a different fellow. Once again he admitted “People receive confirmation through thoughts/audible voice/and feelings. The majority of spiritual confirmations comes through feelings.”
I did the leg work here and have 5 Mormon’s (wife included) and that Quorum 12 fellow all saying the same thing (have to provide credit to Aaron for the quorum fellow’s quote). This is something called “eye-witness evidence”. Until you have your own research to show that its more than just feelings, your house is built upon sand.
Geoff – “I never said real revelation doesn’t have feelings that are associated with the pure knowledge that God reveals to the mind”
I didn’t say that you weren’t having “feelings” when you were praying. I was saying there’s a good possibility that you translate those feeling as the holy spirit witnessing truth to you. Now tell me this. You say God GIVES you pure knowledge by revealing it to your mind. Now, as we all know, information is always passed through a medium, whether it be audible, visual (like on here), or the possibility of “feeling” information, or knowledge as you call it. Which medium does God use to GIVE you that knowledge? You’re going to have to try and describe it, because just stating that knowledge is revealed to you doesn’t help anyone understand HOW you obtain that knowledge.
The game is “fixed” so that more people (including Mormons) feel less stifled by a flood of comments and more free to participate. Specifically, non-moderators are limited to three posts a day. This simply means you have to pick and choose what you respond to, make your points cogently, and wait for the next day to participate if you reach your limit of three comments.
Many evang. on here have already given reasons as to why the Bible can be trusted as God’s final, authortative word, so I will not do the same. There have been several LDS posts both on this thread and on others who have accused evang. of “worshipping the Bible”. Fair is fair, though. Do LDS in turn worship their feelings then? I want to hear some reasons why this is not the case.
And don’t tell me LDS don’t depend on their feelings to hear from God. Mormonism is replete with descriptions of “burning feelings in the bosom”, etc. Indeed, the primary way people are encouraged to convert to Mormonism is to pray over the BOM and ask God for the physical feeling of “burning in the bosom” to prove its veracity.
One thing I haven’t seen through all of this that we spew lies about Mormons. Kinda like all the quotes of the prophets being taken out of context, or that they never really said that (Young’s Ada/God in the JoD).
To be honest, and this article seems to support this view, it seems Mormonism is slippery, as they are able to switch views and adapt, and not have to face up to some of the negative truths about their current views, and especially those of the past.
“Seth, I definitely wouldn’t see the LDS notion of confirming truth by seeking emotional experiences (which are thought to be direct, prophetic, revelatory experiences) as exceptional or rare.”
No, it isn’t rare. It’s quite common. It’s quite important. But you are missing the point. There is PLENTY of commentary out there advocating studying and pondering scriptures as well. I get it from general authorities, I get it from the pulpit in local congregations, I get it in our scriptures.
You guys are picking one side of the Mormon equation and hammering it to make a point. Sure a testimony is an emotional thing for Mormons. But it’s also a very reasoned thing for Mormons as well.
It’s like we Mormons have put together a house using both wood and bricks and some guy comes along and says “you Mormons don’t believe in using wood – just look at all the instances where you’ve used bricks.”
No, you are cherry-picking what you want to hear to prove your own points. The fact that emotion is very common in the Mormon testimonies (possibly even a little too common) proves only that it’s an important component or overemphasized (although you’ve got precious little date that isn’t pure anecdote to back that up). It might even be the dominant component. But to assert that it’s the only component shows either opportunistic or reductionist thinking.
And for the record, I too am wondering how long it will be before I’m nailed with a 2 comment limit. Perhaps next week… Hard to have a conversation here. If there were more of a balance in positions between commenters here, I probably wouldn’t mind so much. But since the majority of the commenters here are opposed to the LDS position, the real effect of the comment limit is to ensure that the anti-Mormon message remains dominant on this forum. I’ll assume that was unintentional, but it’s hard enough dealing with the debate topics without continually wondering if someone is deliberately stacking the deck against you.