- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sheldon wrote:
This is yet another essay that throws former prophets under the bus. The real question members should be asking today is what are the current beliefs that will be disavowed 100 years from now.
Cadence wrote:
Limited geography may fit but it is a long way from what I was taught, what Joseph taught and what we all believed for 150 years. To me it is just an other example of how the story shifts when the evidence refutes the current storyline.This is how I see it too. I’m glad they are putting these essays out there so members will finally know about it from the church, but it only hurts my view of the leaders. I guess in some weird way I thought maybe they would have better explanations than they do.
Serious question, Sheldon: What, exactly, is your point? – and I don’t mean to ask that aggressively or sarcastically or in any other negative way. I simply ask to understand.
In your last comment, you said:
Quote:This is yet another essay that throws former prophets under the bus. The real question members should be asking today is what are the current beliefs that will be disavowed 100 years from now.
If that is your concern, I understand and appreciate it. Is there anything else? I agree with the second part of that comment, but I don’t agree with the first part – at least, not in the way it’s worded.
Do you want the LDS Church to hang onto and continue to believe what former leaders believed simply because they believed them?
Again, I really am trying to understand.
I believe the following applies here in spades: mackay11 wrote:Responding to skeptics’ claims that “the God of the Hebrews is a capricious, jealous, tribal God, fighting the battles of his favored people and reveling in the defeat of their enemies,” Elder Stephen L. Richards asked:
Quote:
What if Hebrew prophets, conversant with only a small fraction of the surface of the earth, thinking and writing in terms of their own limited geography and tribal relations did interpret Him in terms of a tribal king and so limit His personality and the laws of the universe under His control to the dominion with which they were familiar? Can any interpreter even though he be inspired present his interpretation and conception in terms other than those with which he has had experience and acquaintance? Even under the assumption that Divinity may manifest to the prophet higher and more exalted truths than he has ever before known and unfold to his spiritual eyes visions of the past, forecasts of the future and circumstances of the utmost novelty, how will the inspired man interpret? Manifestly, I think, in the language he knows and in the terms of expression with which his knowledge and experience have made him familiar. So is it not therefore ungenerous, unfair and unreasonable to impugn the validity and the whole worth of the Bible merely because of the limited knowledge of astronomy and geography that its writers possessed.
An Open Letter to College Students
Elder Stephen L. Richards
of the Quorum of the Twelve
(Improvement Era 36:451-453, 484-485, June 1933)
http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Richards,%20Stephen%20L/RichardsSL_ALetterToCollegeStudents.html Turns out that people are wrong about all sorts of stuff and God doesn’t regularly step in to correct the error. Is it the blind leading the blind or is it the beauty of the human condition? Perhaps both!
I don’t see anything on that page that supports a limited geography model. It says people migrated “to the Americas” and the Book of Mormon “does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied.” There doesn’t seem to be any language regarding the geography except “the Americas.” Let me know if I missed something. I’ll go with this:
Quote:In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Shawn wrote:I don’t see anything on that page that supports a limited geography model. It says people migrated “to the Americas” and the Book of Mormon “does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied.” There doesn’t seem to be any language regarding the geography except “the Americas.” Let me know if I missed something.
The limited geography model is inferred by those statements. If the people described by the B of M were not the only people living there, then they must necessarily have lived in a limited geographic area. Unless they were completely integrated with those other people—which they were not, as described in the B of M, until much later.Curtis wrote:Serious question, Sheldon:
What, exactly, is your point – and I don’t mean to ask that aggressively or sarcastically or in any other negative way? I simply ask to understand.
I would like the church to come right out and say that the prophets can and will be wrong. They are trying to have it both ways. They publish essays that 80% of the members will never see, that say our prophets’ are fallible, and extremely influenced by their culture, and we can’t believe what they say when they speak like that. Then in GC we’ll get talk after talk of “follow the prophet” and “he’ll never lead us astray”. So which is it?
I would like a CG talk on the crutch of all these essays, given by TSM, where he says the past prophets have been wrong on very critical issues, and he and future Prophets will also be wrong, but they are doing the best they can.
I also realize that they probably can’t do the above with the current Q12. Too many vetoes.
Yes, I tend to come across flippant at times, and it probably does not help that you have to look at that snarky “Sheldon” in my avatar every time you read my posts. Thanks Curtis for being patience with me! I can’t talk like this at church, and this outlet helps me “Stay LDS”!
Ok, I’ve had this thought for a few days now and every time I go to post it I erase it, this time it sticks: Right or wrong, and I don’t know whether there is instruction to do this or if it is just a natural conclusion a TBM would come to…
When the BoM is shared among latinos, it is often presented as a historical record of their ancestors’ interaction with the savior. I wonder if this limited geographical model (or even the fact that many indigenous peoples of central and South America are now well mixed with European and African blood) will result in a reduction of this practice.
Thanks for the clarification, Sheldon. I thought that would be your response, but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions. Sheldon – I forbid you take down your Avatar. The pictures alone gives me a smile every time I see it. I don’t see Sheldon as snarky. His style is unique and humorous. I know you are working through things, but the avatar has to stay. It makes my day too much. Sheldon- You were a Bishop, correct? Have you thought about posting, one at a time the links to the essays on your personal facebook? You don’t need to comment, just say you found these as a great resource, post the link, and watch your comment thread. I don’t suggest this with an intent to bring on a faith crisis, but to open doors. Here’s where I take it from, there are lots of things done/said in church that are cultural. (I know your surprised. No body told you this. But there it is.) My specific thoughts are along the lines of quotes we use as doctrine, when they’re really not. “God won’t give us anything we can’t handle.” Lovely sentiment – spoken by Mother Theresa. Not scriptural, biblical or anything. But we’ve grabbed it and throw around like it is. All it took was this quote being written or read aloud and it took on a life of it’s own. So – we want to address things – kindly post them. They are church approved. They stand on their own, you didn’t write them or edit them. Just sharing.
Maybe it will start some conversation or balls rolling. I don’t know. It’s just a thought.
Shawn wrote:I don’t see anything on that page that supports a limited geography model. It says people migrated “to the Americas” and the Book of Mormon “does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied.” There doesn’t seem to be any language regarding the geography except “the Americas.” Let me know if I missed something.
I’ll go with this:
Quote:In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
I think it mainly addresses the theories of an empty continent populated by Lehites (and Mulekites, why are they so rarely mentioned, especially when there is more evidence they mingled with the local population, given their language corrupted so quickly).
If the Lehites were the originators of the American population then eventually there would have been a hemespheric population. By making references to the cataclysmic event that killed off the DNA it has to be a limited region in order to contain it all.
But it makes no reference to how limited it was nor where it was. There are still two factions in the ‘apologist’ camp – the majority for Central America, but still a significant minority (Rod Meldrum’s crew) who support the Great Lakes approach.
Sheldon wrote:…the past prophets have been wrong on very critical issues, and… future Prophets will also be wrong, but they are doing the best they can.
Last Summer I reached this conclusion. These essays also support this conclusion.
It tells me that the phrase “a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such” is incomplete. It should have “…and sometimes the prophet is not acting as a prophet, even when he
thinkshe is acting as such.” I liked this talk, though there was still a reluctance in it to just come out and say “sometimes we call it wrong, even when we’re teaching it as doctrine.”
Quote:At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5 President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:
“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …
“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”6
The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
ELDER D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON April 2012
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng This whole series of essays brings into question the process of our leaders receiving revelation.
Perhaps Joseph Smith really was something special, perhaps the heavens really did open to him and he really did receive and deliver God’s word (some of the time). But it seems today that the way our leaders receive “revelation” is by studying the scriptures, reaching a unanimous view, praying for a confirmation and then teaching it.
Two sources to support this:
Quote:“These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2).
Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.“
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng Quote:Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.
Gordon B Hinckleyhttp://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm When I read the detailed accounts of the restoration of the priesthood and temple blessings to black members, there is nothing more remarkable than Pres. Hinckley’s description. The studied the scriptures, studied past teachings, reached a unanimous conclusion that it should change and then prayed for confirmation to do so.
If prophets and apostles assume something is “so” and are not even willing to study and answer the question, then there will be no change and no “revelation.” I don’t think the church has even claimed to have received a “voice of the Lord”/”heavenly visitation” type of revelation for nearly 100 years. Section 138 is probably the last time that claim has been made, which was “A vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918”
Even that starts with him saying “As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me…”
Quote:It tells me that the phrase “a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such” is incomplete. It should have “…and sometimes the prophet is not acting as a prophet, even when he thinks he is acting as such.” I liked this talk, though there was still a reluctance in it to just come out and say “sometimes we call it wrong, even when we’re teaching it as doctrine.”
This is an excellent point. By omitting that phrase, it still implies that prophets
knowwhen they are just acting as men, but of course, the thing is that NOBODY knows when they are personally wrong about something. The best they could do is admit they are speculating absent spiritual inspiration, but it’s troubling that they don’t seem to know the difference in some cases. We never have the sensation of being wrong because as soon as we do, we are right again (about having been wrong). One troubling example was when BKP called the Proclamation on the Family “revelation” in his General Conference talk (which was later corrected – his published talk omits the word “revelation.” He also has said in other talks that it was written by a team of lawyers to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage in Hawaii (the church needed a written stance so that we could claim that law discriminated against our beliefs, which Hawaii then laughed off the table anyway). BKP knows how it was written; he has described the process. How can it meet his standard for “revelation”? So for him to claim that it’s revelation indicates to me that he doesn’t define revelation in a way I recognize, not the way that E. Scott has meticulously described revelation. E. Scott’s depiction makes sense to me.
I really like Fiona Givens’ take that Joseph Smith was chosen as a prophet not to demonstrate that righteous men can be called of God — but to show that God can work through the weak, mortal, and imperfect, …even as imperfect as a young Joseph Smith. The early members understood this in the beginning (the Whitmer’s etc.) but there has always been a tendency to elevate the man. When the Whitmers & assoc. left the church in the late 1830’s they didn’t “realize they had been wrong”; they still believed in the original founding and the BoM. They only felt that Joseph was leading the church astray, and that they could no longer follow his leadership. In the 1840’s there is evidence of new converts coming into Nauvoo and exercising the tendency to “elevate the man.” I read in some early letters of members praising Joseph’s character, it is apparent they connect a noble character to someone authentically being called of God. Yet in other places people were saying things like: “a drunk prophet is better than no prophet.” (Just to clarify that last statement did not come from a direct observation of Joseph being drunk – but may have been a response to outside accusations.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.