CV75

I think God lets a lot of unimportant things go. How long did the Brother of Jared go in life incorrectly assuming that the Lord's flesh and blood form could not be seen (or whether He had such a form at all)? Only to be told to write and seal up the answer for a long-future date. Some things, correct or not, incomplete or confounded or not, simply are not impactful upon the Lord's timetable for certain things to happen in certain certain moments in certain dispensations.

Hypotheses are unsatisfactory answers to important questions, but they could be the beginning. Posing a hypothesis, “If unsubstantiated x is true, then unsubstantiated y is true” is just another way of asking the question, but in a most biased manner. Without further examination and exploration in the “real world,” constructing and comparing hypotheses based on personal preference and preset conclusions is ill-informed and does not answer the question.

No, I am looking for you to test your various hypotheses with documented instances and occurrences, not bias, opinion and possibilities. It might help if you list your questions with the facts you have gathered that can be used to answer them. I've asked for this before ( Posted Friday at 06:29 PM ) and you insisted a hypothesis was a "textbook example" -- which are far from the same things. If you don't understand the distinction, as indicated in the subsequent exchanges, maybe we can flesh that out, though with a little work you can get up speed on your own. Thank you.

I trust your observation and conclusion. That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses. No, they say saying other things, just as I wrote them. And you can even say they are examples that Brigham Young as president of the church did not teach false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years, or taught it correctly/completely in some ways and incompletely/incorrectly in others, for 25 years. It depends on your bias, spin, context and semantics. I choose not to employ black-and-white, dichotomous analysis to drive a predetermined conclusion. And you did use this as an example of it being "distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines..." as you did here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM

Why limit the choice to 2? How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council, or expediency in the Lord changing priorities and emphasis to best convey His plan of redemption?

Anyone's answer to this is simply a reflection of bias since the Holy Ghost confirms or corrects bias in the hour of actual need. It does not establish a rule that God changes the marriage covenant because the saints and the world agree that it is socially unpopular or straining. Even in permitting divorce and OD1, the standard of marriage remained intact.

I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.

All unbaptized mortals live with the influence of the light of Christ in their lives, even it is only to remain organized as a soul until death. Some are not accountable and some reject Hos light to the degree they are able, but none can sink below the reach of His light. As the source of that light, I can see how He could descend below all things and still maintain His existence, and the lowest mortal condition is still sustained by His light. Jesus' mission was in covenant with the Godhead, so as unique and independent as His role may have been, it was still part of the larger plan, agreement and mutual trust for fulfillment. The Father and the Holy Ghost were aware of what was going on in His mission, as completely forsaken as He may have felt for the sake of descending below all things. Jesus may have felt forsaken, but I do not think He forgot or abandoned the Godhead and it that sense it remained with Him.

But just about anything supports possibility. So what -- "O then, is not this real?" Bias does make an appealing possibility a working model us, but that dos not make the model reflective of what is light, good and known. "Real possibility," when it comes to answering spiritual truth, is an oxymoron. Faith in possibilities is not the same as faith in things not seen which are true.

I understand you did not want to create a discussion about the content of your hypothesis; this is why I asked you for some documented examples. Then we could discussion their applicability instead, as i began to do with the examples I offered up.

Sorry, you did not. You provided an acceptable hypothesis with no factual basis for a conclusion and seem to be ignoring the requirement to do so. That is up to you. There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling, bias, belief or opinion, but that is all it is, and I take discussion to be more than just sharing and refuting these for the sake of sharing and refuting. I provided a couple of examples of well documented examples; with a bit of work you can do the same for your specific hypothesis.

Which United Order was it connected with, and when? I understand there were a number of local iterations. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/united-orders?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/united-firm-united-order?lang=eng

But your proposition, "If what Brigham Young taught was true..." is still a hypothesis, and not presented an example of an documented event or a condition, as textbooks require. We need something more substantial. Jesus and Eder Oaks taught about the Lord permitting divorce without the stain of immorality as an exception to the higher law because of the hardness of our hearts (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19?lang=eng&id=8-9#p8). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/05/divorce?lang=eng. This is an example of a higher light and truth being excepted or excused, but not taken away. You need to identify a stronger example of a time when a higher law was rescinded by the Lord because of the wickedness or lack of faith among a threshold number of saints or the membership at large. An example from the D&C is the command to build the Jackson County temple was rescinded: (see D&C 124, but also101, 103). Try to identify an example like that which reflects your concerns. What other revelation or commandment has been rescinded because the members couldn't handle it? It needs to be something more substantial than policies, procedures and practices.

Since in your view it distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines," please describe how you conclude this from your observations concerning changes in how revelations are communicated since the phraseology, "This saith the Lord..." was last used. This is why examples are useful; please provide at least one to expand the discussions beyond an hypothesis or assertion. This is how Alma 32 works: you cannot attain knowledge without nourishing the seed, the seed in this case being the hypothesis, with observed facts or events and doing the work to make the connections.

Of course, changed teachings could theoretically represent a departure from the Lord’s will. Assumptions are optional of course. I have found that honestly knowing that my relationship with Lord is improving as a result of my good faith participation in the restored kingdom of God on earth indicates that this kingdom is indeed on the right trajectory and the Lord is in charge of it despite any distractions that may come our way. I would encourage you to provide examples and ask the same OP question concerning it. An academic, object lesson.: Why hasn’t there been a revelation to correct this departure from the original X “Thus saith the Lord…” revelation?

The first barrier that needs to be overcome is our own filters and fallibilities -- how are we hearing the prophets, how are we interpretating their message, and what are our well-reasoned opinions that arise from considering their message? The Holy Ghost helps with this, to align us with God's will and to know what is truly from God in the present. I believe that all God expects us to work with is what we experience in our own lifetime. The most important experience is a personal witness of the restored gospel and keeping the covenants. If a teaching of a president or apostle within our lifetime subsequently gets contradicted or corrected by later leaders in our lifetime, I would count it as a blessing that a correction has been made, or the product of continuing revelation. Or, if contradictions persist, seek the Lord's guidance on what to do. Do you have any examples of contradictions or corrections within your lifetime? Some of these seeming contradictions and corrections are addressed in the Gospel Topic Essays. God will not give us a testimony of a past principle that has changed since we are no longer bound to keep it. For example, should we expect the Holy Ghost to bear witness that the law of Moses was true, or are we expected to use our reasoning on that one since there are more germane principles we need to live by now? Will a testimony of the Book or Mormon be any different depending on the edition you read? In all circumstances, the basics are truly from God. And we can always pray and receive a witness of the truthfulness of any principle being taught. There is nothing else we can do in good faith but what we reason, accept or personally hear as coming from God. He will make sure we learn from our mistakes, and sometimes even intervene by grace after all we can do.

As far as new doctrine being revealed, I count the brethren presenting so many new/planned temples, media options to share the word, "programs" and "services" such as self reliance and humanitarian aid, and other non-traditional/unexpected forms of doctrinal revelation is a means of presenting members with opportunities to hear and act on God's voice. This kind of revelation -- both in the hearing and in the doing, in the "becoming" -- is new in the same way the "new and everlasting covenant" is new.

That makes it sound weird, so apologies, let me rephrase: I am suggesting that "Thus saith the Lord..." needn't preface every communicated or published revelation a) when the flow of revelation is constant, as it is with the brethren directing the countless everyday tasks and projects currently underway, and b) the members are spiritually mature enough to not require this to focus their attention and understanding. Both come from the proliferation of endowed priesthood power among the members and brethren. Perhaps a social backdrop to this, in the USA anyway, is that the common religious language has changed from the 19th century, probably due to secularization of the language overall, and the practical expediency for religious speakers (to combat resistance and alienation by potential converts) to frame their communication to the modern hearer. Those with ears to hear will hear as they always have (the saints will recognize the Lord's voice nevertheless).

I think it is a function of more saints having gotten endowed with priesthood power over time. They begin to understand and appreciate where the brethren are coming from and the constant flow of revelation doesn't necessarily require such a formal introduction when communicated or published.

My hypothesis, pending the information on the date Joseph Smith said/taught about "a world of spirits", is that he focused on his inspired reading and annotating from June 1830 - July 1833, but the project was an open-ended one. He may have obtained this particular inspiration after 1833, when things had gotten much busier that he lacked the wherewithal document it in his reading notes. So, it would be helpful to know when he said this.

Check out the timing of the inspired translation and when Joseph Smith said the above. PS as I Googled this, I saw that you posed the exact same question in 2019, but with some more detail: https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/67864-joseph-smith-translation-of-luke-chapter-23/ Would you provide the exact reference for the Joseph Smith quote (CFR), so we can see when he said it in relation to when he translated Luke? Thank you.

The ancients did not know that, and from their perspective, the sun is brighter than a star.

The faithfulness and the focus on Christ may be but an infinitesimally small particle off, but the eternal effects of lacking, or ever so slightly misdirecting, that tiny particle are infinite and eternal. This doesn't render celestial glory impossible to attain, it just explains the vast difference between it and terrestrial glory. The more graduated spectrum between kingdoms suggests, given the language in D&C 76, that there is an increase in the faithfulness of the wicked approaching celestial glory or a decrease in the faithfulness of the righteous falling short of it. But the latter doesn't make sense given President Nelson's teachings on spiritual momentum. In other words, do the wicked progress in faith and yet remain wicked so as to never obtain righteousness? (No). Do the righteous take a misstep and revert to progressing as wicked people, having proven their inability to maintain righteousness? (No). The element missing from this model, I think, is grace. Grace saves anyone who is willing, and at the same time creates a great gulf for those who are not willing, for they simply have not received God's grace unto joy. From the parable of the mustard seed, the tiny seed is faith, it grows by grace, and finally exhibits attributes infinitely greater than a mature tree. If it did not grow by grace, it would grow but just into a tree. The difference is infinite. There are no partially celestial trees that accommodate birds but no nests, nests but no birds, fungi, moss or bugs instead of birds, etc.

No, I think they are as infinitely distant in glory, as the brightest light of the fullest moon is infinitely (meaning indeterminately) less than the brightness of the sun from the perspective of the ancient, unaided human eye.

I think the the explanation behind the simple imagery is given in D&C 76: that each kingdom is distinguished by its ministers; that is, by terrestrial agents, celestial agents, or the agents of fulness, who are the Father and the Son in the Church of the Firstborn (D&C 76:86,87, 20, 56, 94). The comparative imagery is made from the perspective of the ancients looking up from the earth. There are many stars of varying brightness, and the moon also varies according to phases and distance. A star may appear to approach the brightness of the moon, but the moon can never appear as bright as the sun because the fulness of the sun is infinitely greater than any other heavenly body. Unlike any other heavenly body, if you stare at the sun you will lose your sight, and some smattering of sight is infinitely more sight than none.