Acceptability of Gospel versions

IN my personal and humble opinion, much of the Doctrine and Covenants consists of the writings of the Apostle Paul, John the Beloved aka Revelator, and the book of Isaiah, synthesized into a consistent fabric that applies to a 19th century context. I will juxtapose the Bible text to a section of the Doctrine and Covenants and go wow, what a nice sketch of elaboration of doctrine! Robert J. Matthews (now deceased) was the only true LDS scholar on the JST, actually seeing the Inspired translation manuscripts with permission of the RLDS. As a researcher, he concluded from his first hand investigation that much of the D&C coincides with the historical doctrinal revelations of the D&C. I followed his analysis and probably agree with him 90% that the D&C mainly manifests itself as a continuation of the ebb and flow of the JST, yet intended for an immediate purpose in the 19th century.

I was studying section 84 on the oath and covenant of the priesthood, and I finally realized after rereading Hebrews in the NT, that the oath and covenant of the Priesthood was already in Hebrews; Paul already talks about Christ as a great high priest after the order of Melchizedek and that the only reason why we can see HF is because Christ the great high priest made his way through the veil of the temple first. Paul also had to assert why a priest needed to be through the Melchizedek order and not the Levitical (Aaronic) to show the transition from Judaisim (law of Moses) to Christianity; reflecting the change from the lesser law (of Moses) to the higher or “Elder” law of the gospel of JC. This clarifies why Melchizedek priesthood holder are called Elders (I always thought that was a stupid title), but I didn’t realize that we are bearers of the elder or higher priesthood. Joseph Smith elaborates upon both Paul and John through the writings in D&C.

I have often felt that dang if Joseph Smith was not a Prophet, he sure was a darn good theologian, much better than Martin Luther. Joseph Smith didn’t take credit for it though. He didn’t put his name on the D&C, I guess the song Praise to the Man does him justice.

It’s a very hard thing to figure out God’s rules because even the clearest of instructions get “bastardized” by the interests of men trying to lead organizations.

I think even if He wrote a very clear manual about how to do things, and then left us alone for a couple centuries, you would find splinter groups everywhere. Some ideas would be commented upon by men, declared as revelatory, and interpereted differently as a result (just as there are scores of splinter groups from Mormonism that all use the Book of Mormon in various degrees). Others would be poo-pooed as not from God, or as a mere guide, you name it…

That is why the individual’s interpretation to their own life is critical to all this…and remaining silent about such interpretations is critical to remaining a part of whatever community you are part of.

Amen, Roy. I have nothing to add to your last comment.

To answer wjClerk’s question, those of who frequent this site have found inconsistentcies (some of us) with the words of the prophets, as well as things that don’t make sense. Further there are gaps in the official doctrine — which often starts answering questions, but then doesn’t finish them. Some of us have a hard time believing that everything that falls from the lips of a GA or even a prophet is necessarily doctrine or scripture — it’s not always clear when the prophet is speaking as a prophet, or as a good man with an opinion.

Therefore, we read, we think, and conclude according to the dictates of our conscience. After all, one of our scriptures says “We believe in worshipping God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow other men the same priviledge…..”. I think these comments here represent serious personal thought.

And to quote Brian Johnson in a radio interview, this site has its share of unorthodox Mormons who are likely to see the scriptures in different ways that are also edifying. I also think there is some scriptural evidence, however, that in the end, there will be a lot of reconciliation among people of different religions. At one time, I would be chomping on the bit to find these scriptures and explore them, but for the time being, I feel content knowing they exist…

Roy wrote:

So, If God permits such contradiction, and schism, and evolution, in even the churches and peoples that He is personally charged with shepherding – I think that God must also create allowances for all that. That men will be evaluated, not by what they did or did not believe but rather how they lived their beliefs. And then our Heavenly Father will take their hand and guide them into more… more glory, more joy, more love.

This “feels good” to me and I would like it to be true. But do we have scriptural or prophetic justification for this as an interpretation that would seem to affect the relationship all of humanity has with God? The scriptures are the reported dealings God has had with his children down through the ages. We also believe in the concept of “continuing revelation” that, simplified, would indicate that God is still having dealings with his children. But is God declaring that, after all the reported history and experiences codified by previous peoples, that we now have the more correct understanding of him: that he cares more about “how they lived their beliefs” than he cares about obedience to what he has said through his prophets? I can read “obey my statues” in every book of scripture we have in the standard works. “Don’t worry about the details, just live a good life,” is a nice idea, but is it from the same source as all the rest of what he said?

Like I said, I’d love to believe this, but is this what he himself is having taught to his authorized mouthpieces, or is this an interpretation that we arrive at just on our own and thus is not the “official” position on God for us? Wouldn’t this be “new scripture?”

Thanks for asking this Wjclerk, and I appreciate SD’s and Ray’s responses.

I could quote scriptures in support of my position, but that would just be a continuation of the “Proof-text method” mentioned above.

In the Old Testament, God is a god of vengeance. In the New Testament, God is a god of love. In the Book of Mormon, God seems to have both characteristics. And in the early history of the Church (Doctrine & Covenants) God is a demanding teacher. From this perspective God appears to suffering from multiple personality disorder and the control he wields over our lives highly suspect. (Whow knows when you will be Nephi confronting a Laban?)

The purpose of this thread is that even from my very limited study into the beliefs and practices of the various gospel dispensations, and then again in the pre/post Nauvoo period, and then ultimately in what might be termed modern Mormonism things vary wildly. Which gospel do we follow? Is our modern gospel more refined, advanced, and ultimately closer to the heavenly order of things than it was in the meridian of time or in Abraham’s day? Should an immortal person have lived through the history of the time and always been a member of the earthly religion we believe to have been the standard bearer for God at that time, they would have had to have joined what would amount to very different churches at different times/dispensations and then withdraw from those churches when they became too corrupt and divergent for God to support them any longer. (Must God extend or withdraw his support for a church all at once or can it be diluted and dimmed gradually?)

If we are to say that these dispensations were lead by God, and that they were different in their methodology and theology – we may conclude either that God instituted different things depending on the receptiveness of his people or that God allowed his people (yes, even his mouthpieces) to teach different things depending on their cultural norms as long as they got some core things, somewhat right. Either way, we have a God that does make allowances for the limitations of his people (this, BTW, is very scriptural)!

So when we go to the next world, even the CK, will TSM feel more at home than BY? Will BY feel more at home than Paul? Will Paul feel more at home than Jeremiah? Will Jeremiah feel more at home than Moses….?

When we get to the next world it is possible that everyone (including all of the religious leaders mentioned above) will need to make some adjustments (of greater or lesser extent) to their thinking. If God allows a period of adjustment for people that had the privilege of living in an actual gospel dispensation and under the tutelage of duly appointed prophets, how much more so might he be charitable to people that walked in the relative darkness of apostasy.

Given that we all “see through a glass darkly,” believe the teachings of men mingled with scripture, and are born into the traditions of our fathers – I believe that God must also create allowances for all that. That I won’t be punished for feeling my way toward my God with skinned knees and an open heart just as my neighbor won’t be punished for feeling such safety in Mormonism that he never thinks to question why he does what he does and believes what he believes. I do not think of this as “new scripture,” this is my feeble attempt to reconcile all of what has been said in the name of God in this and all previous gospel dispensations.

I also feel to tell you that Heavenly Father does acknowledge you and love you – not in the “I’m so disappointed, but I still love you” way, but in the “I am so excited to experience the journey of your life through you” way. If this “feels good” to you, perhaps that should tell you something. Sometimes we say that certain things only work if you believe in them. I can tell you that if you believe in this, it can have real power (“how precious was the grace that did appear, the hour I first believed?”), but you need to come upon it in your own way and work through it in a way that may be unique to you.

Good luck, and thanks for bringing us along for the ride!