CV75
-
Posts
1780 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by CV75
-
-
13 hours ago, Maverick said:
Again, I’m not interested in proving anything. The example I provided with Adam-God would be a textbook example of the Lord removing light and truth from the church, if what Brigham Young taught was true.
If what Brigham Young taught was false or the leaders after him removed this teaching against God’s will, then that’s of course a different story. And quite frankly both of these other possibilities are way more of a problem for continuing revelation in the church, than God removing a true teaching because the members couldn’t handle it.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Maverick said:
Oh boy, yes I reluctantly used Adam-God as an example of something that appears to be an instance of light and truth being taken away from the church because members couldn’t handle it, after you kept pressing me for one example showing that this possible.
At no point did I suggest in any way that every change in the church was an example of this. Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion).
At this point I think you are looking to find offense with my words, and I’m not really sure why that is. Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable. I don’t know. 🤷♂️
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.
-
1 hour ago, zil2 said:
Watch the video. It's perfectly clear what happened.
I trust your observation and conclusion.
25 minutes ago, Maverick said:I wasn’t suggesting that the clarification in the printed version of the talk is because the members are unable or willing to handle verbatim transcription. I have no idea how you got that idea.
The point is that Elder Packer or whoever “corrected” the talk clearly didn’t believe that it’s accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is by “definition a revelation.” The printed version has it correct. It’s a guide, not a revelation.
That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses.
20 minutes ago, Maverick said:This is just another way of saying that Brigham Young as president of the church taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years.
Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ of he isn’t. If he isn’t, Brigham Young taught false doctrine for 25 years. If he is, then the church has lost this truth. And God either took it away or the leaders after Brigham Young screwed up big time.
God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.
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
-
On 4/13/2024 at 12:38 PM, Maverick said:
No. And when it comes to Adam-God, it’s either
A) Light and truth being taken away because the members couldn’t handle it.
or
B) A prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.
Take your pick.
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?
- askandanswer and mordorbund
-
2
-
7 hours ago, Maverick said:
What if hypothetically the First Presidency does at some future point in time declare that in his infinite mercy for those who have same-sex attraction, God has authorized members to enter into same-sex civil marriages, and that as long as they only have sexual relations with their same-sex spouse, they aren’t breaking the law of chastity?
Would you accept this as continuing revelation?
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.
-
7 hours ago, Maverick said:
Elder Packer could have gone off script or the wording was changed. Or maybe it’s a combination of both.
But clearly it was decided that the Proclamation on the Family should be referred to as a “guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow” instead of declaring that it “qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation.”
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.
-
11 hours ago, askandanswer said:
I came to the same conclusion as @Vort and @NeuroTypical. And that led me to ponder how it can be said that as part of the atonement, Christ endured all and more that any mortal can, will, or has ever been called on to endure because all unbaptised mortals, and probably, occasionally, some baptised mortals, live without the influence or presence of any member of the Godhead in their lives. I’ve no doubt that Christ did descend below all, but I can’t see how He might have gone through the experience that is the ordinary condition of most mortals in not having a member of the Godhead present in their lives.
My lack of understanding of this experience in no way reduces the reality of it, it just raises, what is for the moment, a question to think about.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Maverick said:
The situation with what was taught and then discontinued about Adam-God does support the possibility that light and truth has been slowly taken away from the church because the majority of the members cannot bear it.
The alternative is that a prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.
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.
-
50 minutes ago, Maverick said:
I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Maverick said:
I provided a clear example of what could be considered the Lord taking away light and truth from the church. You're welcome to respond to this example or ignore it. That's up to you.
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.
-
On 3/25/2024 at 3:59 PM, Traveler said:
My family is the holder of the best known copy of the Rules of the United Order. For your fun and enjoyment I have printed out a copy (on my compurter not a photo copy) of the rules of the United Order.
The Traveler
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
-
8 hours ago, Maverick said:
I actually don't conclude that it is as a 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" because of the 100+ year absence of revelations quoting the words of God directly being presented before the church.
My conclusion is based on careful observation and study of the evolution of church teachings, policy, and practice over the past 100+ years.
I'm a little bit reluctant to provide specific examples, because I don't want to upset anyone or come of as criticizing the church or its leaders. And this discussion isn't about that, either, nor do I want it to turn into that. But I tell you what, I will give an example of something that could be considered evidence of this:
Brigham Young clearly, plainly, and repeatedly taught that Adam is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ. He taught that Adam and Eve came to this earth with Celestialized resurrected bodies, which they had received from being resurrected following a previous mortal probation on another planet. That they then fell and their bodies became mortal so they could provide physical bodies for all of their spirit children (all of mankind on this earth).
Brigham said that this truth was revealed to him by Joseph Smith and by revelation from God. He taught this for 25 years in the church. It was taught in the General Conference, priesthood meetings, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles, and in the temple.
But this teaching was very controversial and many members of the church had a very hard time accepting it. It was deeply troubling and even disturbing to many. Others readily accepted it as truth and rejoiced in what they had received. For many others it was somewhere in between. Eventually the leaders stopped talking about it and even told the members to stop talking about it. Then many years later some leaders even said that these teachings about Adam and Eve were false.
If what Brigham Young taught was true, and a higher truth and deeper doctrine (as he claimed), then this would be a textbook example of light and truth being taken from the church because the members couldn't handle it.
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.
-
13 hours ago, Maverick said:
It's not only theoretically possible, it's a very distinct possibility. And it wouldn't necessarily be because the brethren are asleep at the wheel, either. How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now.
There are many examples that I could provide. But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.
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.
-
7 hours ago, Maverick said:
Why must we assume that any changed teachings are in fact a correction and not an departure from light and truth?
There are a number of things that I could point to, but I think this would get us off track from the question in the OP.
I disagree with this. The scriptures make it clear that God will reveal his mysteries to those who are worthy and prepared to receive them, even if those around them are not.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
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?
-
11 hours ago, Maverick said:
Thank you for the clarification.
The problem I see with both of these potential explanations for the complete absence of official revelations quoting God’s words directly or visions being presented before the church, and instead only receiving teachings from our prophets in their own words, is that we can never say for sure which of their teachings really come from God or which are merely their well-reasoned opinions.
Plenty of teachings of past prophets, both presidents and apostles, have been abandoned by the church later on or later prophets have made contradictory or conflicting statements. How are we to know what is truly from God in these circumstances?
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.
-
3 hours ago, Maverick said:
1847 is the last official revelation that quoted the words of God directly and 1918 is the last recorded vision of a president of the church that have been added to our scriptures.
One being 177 years ago and the other 106 years ago. The question is why it’s been so long since we’ve had either presented to the church and added to our scriptures.
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.
-
16 hours ago, Maverick said:
So, if I understand you correctly you are suggesting that we haven’t had a single formal published revelation of God’s precise words since 1847 because the members have received their endowments in the temple and are therefore so in tune with the spirit that formal revelations of God’s direct words are no longer necessary?
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).
-
11 hours ago, Maverick said:
One of the boldest claims the church makes is that the church is led by continuing revelation from God to the President of the church, who along with his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 apostles, we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
While I don’t doubt that our leaders have often received inspiration and guidance in their callings, my question is why there hasn’t been a single revelation where the direct words of the Lord have been quoted added to our scriptural canon since the revelation Brigham Young received in 1847 in Winter Quarters (D&C 136)? This is literally the last “thus saith the Lord” type revelation quoting the words of the Lord directly added to our scriptures. This was 177 years ago.
Why hasn’t there been any more revelations like this since?
I understand that revelation doesn’t always have to come this way and that making prophecies of the future and declaring “thus saith the Lord” first person revelations isn’t all true prophets, seers, and revelators should be expected to do. But why hasn’t there been any of this in such a long time?
This is not a criticism of the brethern. It’s an honest question that has puzzled me for some time now. Any thoughts?
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.
-
On 4/1/2024 at 8:56 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:
Thanks CV75 for the information. It had been about five years ago when I posted that so I forgot.
Reading through the other comments on the previous posts it appears there is no answer for me. It will be one of those questions I will need to wait to find until later.
Edit: Pondering over this I believe I found the answer. In 1979 the Re-Organized Church of Jesus Christ gave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints permission to use the Inspired Version of the Bible. We put it into our King James Version Latter-Day Saint scriptures in the margins and into other extra study material in our Bibles around this time. The information I have been discussing probably was omitted by accident and so it is not in our scriptures.
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (Inspired Version) was never completed anyway according to Joseph Smith. Someday, in the future, we will be given the fullness of the scriptures including the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon when the world is ready for it.
"And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are." -- Ether 4:7
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.
-
17 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:
This is regarding a correction of translation in the Bible concerning Luke chapter 23 verses 42-43. A thief hanging on the cross conversed with Jesus as He was also crucified next to him:
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits. A correct translation of Luke chapter 23 verse 43 should read as follows according to Joseph Smith:
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in a world of spirits."
In the spirit world the thief would hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to him. (See page 96 of the New Testament 2019 Come Follow Me – For Individuals and Families.)
The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught this. Why is this not in the Inspired Version of the Bible or at least in our footnotes of the Latter-Day Saint edition of the King James Version?
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.
-
16 hours ago, askandanswer said:
The imagery/analogy is faulty given that the sun is a star.
The ancients did not know that, and from their perspective, the sun is brighter than a star.
-
18 minutes ago, laronius said:
So assuming the glory we inherit is relative to our faithfulness, will there be no one whose faithfulness is greater than the moon and yet less than the sun? This is what I'm trying to get at. It seems like there would be people all along the spectrum of faithfulness and yet the imagery suggests there are some pretty significant gaps in that spectrum. Perhaps that thinking is wrong and I'm totally open to other interpretations. But if it's not wrong, what is the cause for those gaps in faithfulness?
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.
-
1 minute ago, laronius said:
So do you feel that those towards the top of the Terrestrial Kingdom are not very far away (obedience/glory wise) from those in the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom?
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.
-
16 hours ago, laronius said:
While our beliefs entail a much broader spectrum of salvation (three kingdoms of glory with perhaps many levels of glory within them) as compared to the heaven and hell belief of most Christians, I still find it interesting that there is still such a significant chasm between the kingdoms of glory, at least as the imagery implies: sun vs moon vs stars. Their difference in glory is vast. This would seem to imply that no one is going to just barely miss one kingdom. If you are only worthy of a lesser kingdom then you are still quite a ways off from being worthy of the greater kingdom.
If that conclusion is accurate (and I'm equally interested in what you think if you feel it's not) then there must be a rather significant distinction in worthiness for there not being necessary a middle ground of worthiness, something in between the sun and moon and stars. For example, we know those in the Terrestrial Kingdom are labeled as not valiant in the testimony of Jesus whereas those in the Celestial Kingdom are. Will there not be anyone who is only sorta valiant, more than those in the Terrestrial but not up to snuff compared to the Celestial?
It's not something I had considered in the past but it does strike me that there must be a good answer out there somewhere, maybe in one of your noggins. Hopefully.
I guess what my question boils down to is if you believe there really is such a significant gap, what makes it so? Or if you think the top of one kingdom is close to the bottom of the next kingdom, why the imagery implying otherwise?
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.
Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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.