- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
D&C 138 (in the year 1918) was certainly an example of ongoing prophecy and revelation, and I think the official declarations and proclamations are pretty close to additional sections to the D&C as you can get. It seems Joseph Smith was the prophet with a unique calling in this dispensation, seeing God and Christ and working as more of a dictatorial or authoritarian figure for the church prior to church organization and structure. Once the church was more established and organized, councils and committees did the work collectively without needing a prophet to declare “Thus saith the Lord”.
The institution of Tithing and Word of Wisdom, and the changes to polygamy and the blacks and the priesthood didn’t come about by a new section of the D&C, but they certainly came by the prophet claiming revelation for them. These things have become binding in the church. It just seems the church has become more bureaucratic in determining policy, and less about prophecy from one man as in the days of Joseph.
I think it seems they have just decided to keep the D&C as the canon, unlike the CoC that has added sections to it. But I still feel like the church functions the same, placing prophetic emphasis on the words of the Presidents and Apostles at the highest levels.
What Brian said – word-for-word. If most of the Old and New Testament prophets (and even Jesus himself) were rejected by most of the people who knew them . . . Yes, I agree with Brian too. Brian Johnston wrote:I think the biggest problem the Church has created for itself in the last 100 years or so is the religious narrative of “correlation.” And specifically within that narrative is the idea that the one true Church has always been exactly the same over the entire course of human history.
I remember a D&C prof at BYU in the 60s (arguably the worst teacher I’ve ever had) that considered correlation as the greatest example of revelation ever. I really had not clue at the time what he was talking about since that whole business was going on pretty much apart from student wards. The idea of the church being the same as in Christ’s and the apostle’s time was something that was part of the old six discussions we taught but it was pretty plain to me even then it was just a made up construct to get people to think the LDS church really was restored. I expect JS and all the others in the restorationist movement back in the late 1700 early 1800s thought they were bringing back the “primitive church” but it’s morphed into something pretty different. Revelation or just being practical and trying to make something work? Go figure.
GBSmith wrote:I expect JS and all the others in the restorationist movement back in the late 1700 early 1800s thought they were bringing back the “primitive church” but it’s morphed into something pretty different. Revelation or just being practical and trying to make something work? Go figure.
What we have today is a confirmed “morphing” of the Joseph Smith movement. The current “correlated” church is nothing like Primitive Christianity. But then again, I don’t personally think the historical Jesus formed an organized church either. So I am not sure that point matters. I think Primitive Christianity was a similar “morphing” of the Jesus movement.
Brian Johnston wrote:But then again, I don’t personally think the historical Jesus formed an organized church either. So I am not sure that point matters. I think Primitive Christianity was a similar “morphing” of the Jesus movement.
Great point. I will add my voice to the “What Brian said” movement.I agree a lot with Brian, however, I tend to still operate on a fundamental disagreement on the idea of prophecy. I’ll explain more when I have more than 5 minutes to comment (stupid college, getting in the way of my learning). Is the “i’m with Brian movement” a restoration of the primitive Brian movement or is it more of a modern morph of a classic? mikhail wrote:Is the “i’m with Brian movement” a restoration of the primitive Brian movement or is it more of a modern morph of a classic?
Perhaps Brian is not one literal person, but a collection of wise bloggers posting under the pseudonym of Brian Johnston. Surely such wisdom could not all come from one person, could it?
In the Primitive Brian movement, we have the following quote:
Quote:Brian:Please, please, please listen! I’ve got one or two things to say. The Crowd (said in unison):Tell us! Tell us both of them! Brian:Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t NEED to follow ME, You don’t NEED to follow ANYBODY! You’ve got to think for your selves! You’re ALL individuals! The Crowd:Yes! We’re all individuals! Brian:You’re all different! The Crowd:Yes, we ARE all different! Man in crowd, possibly named Ray:I’m not… The Crowd:Sch! 
I have snuck away from homework. Here is the promised post. @Sambee
Quote:I think that’s a gross oversimplification. Of course there were many, but that doesn’t mean anything in and of itself other than it was a big movement.
There are many 18th century novelists (less than today, but still enough). But that doesn’t mean that they are equally good, or that their works are as good as one another, and the large number doesn’t invalidate them individually.
First off, Stephanie Meyers is totally on par with Thoreau so your statement is a complete non-sequitor–110% sarcastic. In all reality, I agree with your statement. Richard Bushman continued on in this forum to explain why Joseph Smith excelled and was far more successful than the others. Your comment also leads me to point out something I think is interesting. According to the Bible of Etymology–the Oxford English Dictionary–we see a more general use of the word prophet following Joseph Smith’s time. The first example is in the early 1840s with Emerson. The definition that I find best represents my views on Smith is as follows, “a prominent proponent of or spokesperson for a particular cause, movement, principle, etc.; a visionary leader or representative.”
So, a couple questions; first, is it possible that Joseph Smith saw himself as a literal prophet but, in reality, he was more of a figurative prophet as seen in the liberalization of the title in the years following the second great awakening? Second, regarding application, is it possible to be a temple recommend holding member of the church if you believe the figurative when the church maintains the literal?
Brian Johnston wrote:GBSmith wrote:I expect JS and all the others in the restorationist movement back in the late 1700 early 1800s thought they were bringing back the “primitive church” but it’s morphed into something pretty different. Revelation or just being practical and trying to make something work? Go figure.
What we have today is a confirmed “morphing” of the Joseph Smith movement. The current “correlated” church is nothing like Primitive Christianity. But then again, I don’t personally think the historical Jesus formed an organized church either. So I am not sure that point matters. I think Primitive Christianity was a similar “morphing” of the Jesus movement.
Depends what you mean by organized. He certainly called people, and organized groups, but didn’t come up with a church in the “organizational” modern sense.
mikhail wrote:I have snuck away from homework. Here is the promised post.
@Sambee
Quote:I think that’s a gross oversimplification. Of course there were many, but that doesn’t mean anything in and of itself other than it was a big movement.
There are many 18th century novelists (less than today, but still enough). But that doesn’t mean that they are equally good, or that their works are as good as one another, and the large number doesn’t invalidate them individually.
First off, Stephanie Meyers is totally on par with Thoreau so your statement is a complete non-sequitor–110% sarcastic. In all reality, I agree with your statement. Richard Bushman continued on in this forum to explain why Joseph Smith excelled and was far more successful than the others. Your comment also leads me to point out something I think is interesting. According to the Bible of Etymology–the Oxford English Dictionary–we see a more general use of the word prophet following Joseph Smith’s time. The first example is in the early 1840s with Emerson. The definition that I find best represents my views on Smith is as follows, “a prominent proponent of or spokesperson for a particular cause, movement, principle, etc.; a visionary leader or representative.”
So, a couple questions; first, is it possible that Joseph Smith saw himself as a literal prophet but, in reality, he was more of a figurative prophet as seen in the liberalization of the title in the years following the second great awakening? Second, regarding application, is it possible to be a temple recommend holding member of the church if you believe the figurative when the church maintains the literal?
I have looked at quite a few of these prophets. They are a bit like non-canonical scriptures… i.e. they vary a lot in quality as you might expect. Some of them are outrageous, but sometimes outrage wakes people up.
Joseph Smith was certainly charismatic, so not just another “weirdo”! I also think while he had some megalomaniac tendencies, he was no Jim Jones or Koresh either.
“So, a couple questions; first, is it possible that Joseph Smith saw himself as a literal prophet but, in reality, he was more of a figurative prophet as seen in the liberalization of the title in the years following the second great awakening? “
Both – he realized some of his prophecies were “wrong”. That doesn’t invalidate the whole. He got things wrong.
I wish we’d move away from the perfected Joseph Smith and towards a human one. His humanity makes him more appealing to me.
“Second, regarding application, is it possible to be a temple recommend holding member of the church if you believe the figurative when the church maintains the literal?”
That’s a difficult one. I believe we are all prophets, of a kind.
Quote:Is it possible to be a temple recommend holding member of the church if you believe the figurative when the church maintains the literal?”
Absolutely. Unequivocally, yes. For me, this isn’t even a hard question – but, as I’ve said previously, I’ve been living it as long as I can remember. Also, I would maintain that the person about whom you ask has served and still serves within groups as high up as the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency – and the Presidency, itself.
SamBee wrote:Depends what you mean by organized. He certainly called people, and organized groups, but didn’t come up with a church in the “organizational” modern sense.
That is why I qualified my statement by saying the “historical Jesus.” I agree with you that the Christ, the Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament, organized a church. I don’t think we see it in the Gospels, unless you include Acts with Luke. It mostly fleshes out in Hebrews and all the Epistles (Paul, etc.).
So yeah, you can read the New Testament and come up with a concept of a primitive church. But I think that concept belongs to much later people who put the New Testament together.
The actual dude we call Jesus (Rabbi Yeshua ben Yusef), the real historical person; I doubt he formed a an organized religion. I doubt he even called people to title positions except maybe loosely as “followers.”
mikhail wrote:Is the “i’m with Brian movement” a restoration of the primitive Brian movement or is it more of a modern morph of a classic?
My movement is constantly morphing into deeper and deeper levels of nonsense. It all ends in a bowel movement. That is the summation of the modern and classic Brian movements.
😆 😆 😆 Didn’t Monty Python make a film about that? 😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.