- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:
Assuming God exists, it looks to me like he is almost certainly not in the business of providing simple well-defined answers that everyone should be expected to agree on in most cases.
DA,
how do you respond to apologetic arguments that would suggest God has given us the answers defined well enough…to prophets and recorded in scriptures…so not only does He care, but he is giving us materials to find the answers, and fully expects we use the intellect (as Cadence referred to) to come to these answers?…(I’m not putting myself in that apologetic camp, just putting that hat on for a minute because I’m interested how you think about that.) The main problem I have with depending too much on “revealed knowledge” as a reliable source of undeniable truth is that some supposed revelations look like they are almost certainly inaccurate after the fact (Genesis) and then there are endless arguments between Muslims and different Christian sects about which revelations are valid or not and what exactly they are supposed to mean. Why is all this confusion necessary if it is really coming directly from God in a clear-cut way? That’s why I would rather take most scriptures and traditional doctrines as simply ideas to consider on a case by case basis. For example, I look at Paul’s letters mostly as what Paul thought and even if he had some legitimate revelations it doesn’t necessarily mean everything he said should be considered the literal word of God.
If Church leaders are so confident they are inspired and entitled to special revelations then why is it that most of our accepted scriptures were written before 1844? It looks to me like they have been depending almost exclusively on the Bible, Joseph Smith’s purported revelations and translations, and traditions inherited from previous generations for answers when sometimes simply relying on their own common sense, open discussions, and some of the best available outside information would be an easier and more effective way to solve problems and make the best possible decisions.
When I look at the overall results produced by Church leaders over time I see much more evidence to suggest that LDS prophets and apostles are quite often not inspired than there is to suggest revelation/inspiration works exactly the way the Church claims it should. Anyway, that would be my answer to TBM apologists about revelation and prophets. If others want to think whatever the Church says should automatically be given priority over other sources of information then that’s their choice but for me this story about prophets being nearly infallible is just not that easy to accept anymore.
Heber13 wrote:how do you respond to apologetic arguments that would suggest God has given us the answers defined well enough (even if not in total) to prophets and recorded in scriptures…so not only does He care, but he is giving us materials to find the answers, and fully expects we use the intellect (as Cadence referred to) to come to these answers?
Now that DA has responded I will chime in. This argument presupposes that there is one universal truth and that all one must do is ask God (with real intent and faith) about the different versions of truth until they come to the correct one.
Whether this universal truth is an all encompassing umbrella that covers all of Mormonism (BOM & POGP = Historical, D&C = God’s direct words, current church policies on such far flung issues as facial hair at BYU and number of earrings = what God would personally direct in this time and place) or as limited to just Mormonism holding the necessary priesthood authority and ordinances and all the rest being just speculation and stories, it really is irrelevant for this exercise.
Mormonism has the key that we need to unlock the door leading back to God? Yes or No? That is the question we expect God to answer. The information itself is so varied and contradictory, that the only way we can mount a case for a particular flavor of religious truth is the “cherry pick” our sources. No, the information itself is not enough – God must shape the information – must point us in the right directions.
While this approach has worked well for some and leads them to “unshakeable” faith, for others the heavens are as brass and God is seemingly silent. Everything depends on the personal experience of the individual. If we accept these different and divergent experiences as real and valid and “true,” then truth becomes relative and flexible and that destroys the main premise of this argument.
If anyone sees things differently, I welcome alternate viewpoints.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.