- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What Roy said – and I have no problem accepting Joseph as a prophet. I am okay with the tension between those two positions, largely since I accept the full implications of there being opposition in ALL things.
Old-Timer wrote:What Roy said – and I have no problem accepting Joseph as a prophet.
I am okay with the tension between those two positions, largely since I accept the full implications of there being opposition in ALL things.
Ray,…I’m not picking a fight, but I want to know more of this. Roy said he can not assume this is scripture. If JS is a prophet, then this IS scripture–or else a prophet provided false revelation.
You say that you accept JS as a prophet, and yet this is not scripture? Can you explain this more…I want to see if I can understand your angle on this better.
Who decides whether the text in question is scripture, JS or the reader? This is an extension of the infallibility argument. Is a prophet infallible? If not what might that imply? Are the people that canonized the various revelations as scripture infallible? If not what might that imply? If the standard is that every saying spoken by a prophet must be true in order for someone to be a prophet then I imagine we’re left with a very short list of prophets.
If infallibility (or even anything close to it) is the standard, there have been no prophets in the history of the world. If, otoh, we can accept most of the prophets described in the Bible, and if we accept the idea of continuing revelation and/or evolution of understanding, that allows us to broaden the definition of prophet greatly – almost without bounds, frankly, given what we have written about quite a few prophets. (including murder) Regarding Joseph, he is, by far, the most chastised person in the D&C – and his own plea for God to exercise unrighteousness dominion led to the insightful statement that, “WE have learned BY SAD EXPERIENCE that it is the nature and disposition of ALMOST ALL men . . . authority AS THEY SUPPOSE . . . unrighteousness dominion.”
Nearly everyone who has done uniquely extraordinary things on a large scale has done something, at some point, on the bad side of the fulcrum. Moses, Jesus (if viewed non-religiously), Mohammed, Ghandi, King, Churchill, Smith, etc. – each of them is recorded as having failed spectacularly in some way.
Going back to the concept of scripture, there are things in EVERY canon that we don’t believe and follow currently. That is true of the Book of Mormon, as well, even though many members don’t understand what it says well enough to understand that they don’t believe some things in it.
Rob4Hope wrote:If JS is a prophet, then this IS scripture–or else a prophet provided false revelation.
You say that you accept JS as a prophet, and yet this is not scripture? Can you explain this more…I want to see if I can understand your angle on this better.
I’m not speaking for Ray, but here is my perspective on the issue. The if/then fallacy, which is arguably perpetuated by church teachings and manuals, has led to many a faith crisis. Just because Joseph Smith had some sort of divine interaction (thus becoming a prophet) does not mean he couldn’t have made up the Book of Mormon. Likewise, the Book of Mormon could be divinely inspired or actually be what it’s claimed to be, yet Joseph himself not actually be a prophet in the larger sense of the word – it is possible that if the book is inspired that’s all the inspiration he ever got. It is entirely possible Joseph got some revelations and made other things up to serve his purposes, and it is entirely possible Joseph believed all of what he said even though some of it was not really of God just because he believed it. In my own experience with revelation it seems quite easy to not clearly understand what the feelings or impressions mean – they’re not words, and putting such abstract things into words is challenging at best.
In other words, if/then does not stand up. Joseph could be a prophet (in that he had at least one divine experience) and all the rest of the stuff could be made up, or some of the stuff could be true and of God but Joseph received no inspiration or revelation in regard to it.
It could be helpful in this conversation to have common definitions of the words, and I’m not sure everyone is speaking the same language. That is, my definition of prophet might be quite different from yours. If, as I do, one sees the prophet as a teacher, it is easy to classify Joseph and all of his successors as prophets. That doesn’t necessarily make any of them seers or revelators, and as a people I think we tend to lump that all into one definition of the word “prophet” and automatically associate all of that with the president of the church.
My take on the if/then proposal comes from the Ten Commandments. According to Jewish and Biblical texts, there were 2 separate sets of stone tablets. Jews and Christian’s alike give The Finger of God credit for the first stone set. The second set, which housed what we call The Ten Commandments, are debated as to the origin. Jewish history has Moses writing the second set, that the writing was part of his maturing. Christianity often claims God wrote a easier set. I don’t know which happened. I do know that all my life those ten items on that list have been the backbone of the community I lived in. From there I choose to let go of the other details. I have no way to prove any opinion, and I am not sure it matters in the long run. And Moses by Judaism and Christianity is considered a Prophet. Even the Mormon’s think so.
Everyone has good input. A somewhat common thread is that the scripture I mentioned are not necessarily “from God”….yet JS can still be a prophet. This “either/or” thing I mentioned wasn’t from me–the Church has had several talks where this idea was presented. I don’t want to detour into that topic,..I want to stay on the “goodness of God” idea as it relates to these scriptures. Lets shift here. Assume JS is still a prophet, but now let this scripture mentioned NOT be from God. This opens up additional questions.
For example, I was taught my whole life that JC is the cornerstone of the Church. He is the foundation as it were: it is His church, and He directs it.
If this “scripture” in question is not from Him, then it paints a picture of God being uninvolved in critical ways with His church (if it is His church), or more specifically, His prophet JS. If God could allow a false doctrine to be promoted as His word, irrespective of the hurt it has caused, then how can this be a testament to a loving kind God? It paints a picture of a God who is more aloof, uninvolved, and disengaged.
And, if God is disengaged, aloof, and uninvolved, this is not the kind of “goodness” I need to have faith in Him.
Or, it paints a picture of a God who is LESS engaged and LESS involved than many assume but not necessarily aloof. Or, it paints a picture of a God who teaches correct principles and allows his children to govern themselves.
Or, it paints a picture of a God who sees far more than we can comprehend and has it all established to work out in the end.
Or, it paints a picture of something like reincarnation (or, in Mormon terms, eternal progression through stages of existence).
Or, it paints a picture of a Calvinist God who predestined everything so he could save and damn whomever he loved and didn’t love.
Or . . . (Fill in the blank.)
Things rarely are as black-and-white as most people want them to be. Security and certainty are important (even critical) to SO many people. Exploration, even with its dangers, is important to me. Therefore, I am much more prone to see things in terms of “and” rather than “either/or” – but I understand and don’t begrudge the need for either/or in most people. For some, that is the only path to joy – so I am fine with accepting “and” even in this.
Quote:If this “scripture” in question is not from Him, then it paints a picture of God being uninvolved in critical ways with His church (if it is His church), or more specifically, His prophet JS. If God could allow a false doctrine to be promoted as His word, irrespective of the hurt it has caused, then how can this be a testament to a loving kind God? It paints a picture of a God who is more aloof, uninvolved, and disengaged.
And, if God is disengaged, aloof, and uninvolved, this is not the kind of “goodness” I need to have faith in Him.
If God truly is God, He can do whatever he wants, and it is our job to honor and worship him anyway.
Once I moved away from the “God as Santa Claus” theory and “God Guides Every Step of HIS Church” theory .. God can allow horrible things to happen and allow horrific suffering, but that doesn’t change the requirement that I maintain a relationship with Him.
Consider the beginning of the LDS Church. Wouldn’t have been more rational for God to appear to the Pope in Rome, and restore the gospel and priesthood power through the Catholic Church?
We don’t get to decide which religious traditions we are born into. We do get to decide which ones we pass on to the next generation, and which ones work in our personal lives.
amateurparent wrote:Consider the beginning of the LDS Church. Wouldn’t have been more rational for God to appear to the Pope in Rome, and restore the gospel and priesthood power through the Catholic Church?
Interesting questionLookingHard, I thought about posting the question as a separate thread. When I start thinking along those lines, my gospel boat rocks quite a bit.
I’ve heard that question brushed calmly aside with a “new wine into old wineskins.” They may have a point. Once a religion becomes an orthodoxy unto itself it becomes increasingly more difficult for that religion to receive new revelations. Traditions often trump change. If god wanted to introduce a new radical way of viewing life would it be easier to apply pressure on a bunch of stalwarts or would it be easier to start a new religion?
When Jesus was around the religious leaders of the day didn’t really take a shine to the types of changes he was bringing about. A restoration of the priesthood to the Catholic church may very well have been met with:
I don’t think he’ll be very keen. He’s already got one you see.
[attachment=0]got_one.jpg[/attachment] amateurparent wrote:
If God truly is God, He can do whatever he wants, and it is our job to honor and worship him anyway.
Go back to the first couple centuries of Christianity and there were concepts floating about that the God of OT was an inferior, jealous and demanding God and Jesus was sent to overcome that power and provide access to the greater God – Heavenly Father. According to Marcion, this True God didn’t rule the world the way that Yahweh did, but was a merciful, loving God. Given this view, it’s easier to envision God as an ideal to reach toward – an invitation for something greater, rather that the personification of a set of rules.amateurparent wrote:
Consider the beginning of the LDS Church. Wouldn’t have been more rational for God to appear to the Pope in Rome, and restore the gospel and priesthood power through the Catholic Church?
Nah. I quite like the notion of a new start. After all, Jesus was not born into a priestly family of the Temple Cult, but was the illegitimate son of an inconsequential family from the fringe; raised in the Hellenized outskirts of Judaism, far from Jerusalem. And those who followed his teachings in the next generations lived in the margins; not belonging either to the religious traditions of their fathers or to the world culture around them, but forced to create their own traditions and culture.
Rob4Hope wrote:When it all comes down to it, my FC has made me question the very concept of the goodness of God.
It says in the bible that God so loved the world, he gave JC to save us. But in the D&C, there is this scripture:
132 wrote:
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things
(women are to be ruled over as things?); for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. 54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed
(God is forcing her? what of her agency?), saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. I know there is a discussion about whether 132 is even scripture, but it is canonized and is considered scripture by the LDS church authority.
So, lets proceed on the premise it really is scripture and came from God.Has anyone been able to resolve this scripture with the love of God and harmonize the LDS viewpoint on this? How have you done that?
I struggle to believe in the goodness of God. This is part of that.
I think it’s nearly impossible to assume any scripture that is canonized therefore came directly from and is authorized by God, without assuming a lot of messed up things about God. But that said, I don’t think this verse is that impossible to deal with. We don’t believe agency negates consequences. I never understand the logic of why someone thinks that heavy consequences for an action precludes agency. I have a right to do anything I want, but I can’t control the consequences. God may even destroy me for something I do, if it’s bad enough and if he’s that kind of God, I guess.But I think it’s preferable to assume good things about God and bad things about scripture, than vice versa.
amateurparent wrote:
If God truly is God, He can do whatever he wants, and it is our job to honor and worship him anyway.Once I moved away from the “God as Santa Claus” theory and “God Guides Every Step of HIS Church” theory .. God can allow horrible things to happen and allow horrific suffering, but that doesn’t change the requirement that I maintain a relationship with Him.
AP…I’m interested in your take on the first question. If God can do whatever he wants, then could D&C 132 be from Him, JS still be a prophet completely and not acting on his own accord when he dictated that section, and we have to have faith in God and His purpose in that scripture regardless?
It seems no one took on the idea that JS didn’t write D&C 132, but that it was a revelation after all.
And, just so you know, I don’t subscribe to it being a revelation, but I’m exploring that possibility (which seems unlikely).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.