God speaks

[prisonchaplain]

This is my posted response at YOUTUBE to the LDS video "God Speaks."

Pentecostals also believe in modern prophetic revelation. However, whenever one claims to give a message from God, the words are SUBMITTED to the already received written revelation. AS I understand it, in LDS teaching, the lastest revelations are allowed to define the biblical text, since they came later, and are assumed to be true.

Thoughts?

[tubaloth]

"since they came later, and are assumed to be true"

I would think anything that comes from God is assumed to be true. The point of revelation is to reveal what is needed now, for our time. To gain more revelation that you already have, is also good (adds another witness), but true revelation helps us for the here and now, not yesterday.

[a-train]

I think you are correct. To us Mormons, modern revelation casts more light on what has been previously revealed and is in our scriptures.

[Justice]

Yes, and it's not that those "newer" revelations change previous ones. It might appear that way to those outside the LDS faith. But, just as the New Testament did not change the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon changes neither the New or Old Testaments.

It's amazing how much clarification the New Testament gave the Old. I mean, think about it. Those who refused to accept the New Testament were unable to truly understand the Old. They thought they did, and would have given their lives in defense of the Old. Look at the conversion of Saul to Paul.

To those who recognize the divine authorship of the Book of Mormon, it's amazing how much clarity it gives the New and Old Testaments. Often, I am amazed as I read the Book of Mormon that anyone who reads it can deny it's truth.

Without the Book of Mormon, it's no wonder the Christian world is in the state that it's in.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Justice

[Traveler]

LDS believe that there is an actual and true “Kingdom” of G-d. As with any kingdom there is an organization. We believe that the kingdom utilizes Apostles as the living foundation of the organization. As the scriptures indicated Jesus is not the foundation but the chief cornerstone. With this in mind there are several important notions concerning revelation.

First: Revelation is given according to stewardship. For example a father and mother can receive revelation concerning their family – but not for their neighbor’s family. A bishop can receive revelation for his congregation but not for other congregations. Only those with stewardships for the “whole” kingdom or the world can receive revelation for that stewardship.

Second: Revelation becomes binding by common consent. For example, as person called by revelation does not become the bishop of a ward until they are “sustained” at a meeting for the purpose. All that serve do so from a sustaining vote by the members that are assigned to that stewardship.

LDS people live by covenant. Part of our covenant is specified in D&C section 84. Not only do we accept the scriptures as part of our covenant – we also accept, by covenant, the kingdom of G-d and his appointed servants. One of the biggest problems between Jesus and the Pharisees and Scribes (ancient experts in scripture) was that those that relied on scripture only as the authority quickly came into conflict with G-d, his Son and the appointed servants to the ancient kingdom.

Not only do we have the scriptures to guide us we also have servants (shepherds in Israel) appointed by G-d to assist in guiding us. What happens when there is conflict? According to covenant, we appeal to those servants appointed to the stewardship to oversee such things. Also according to the covenant we believe G-d will not abandon his covenant people in time of need. If a servant at the highest appointment of stewardship abuses their station then we believe G-d that called them to that stewardship will deal with them and preserve his people.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm gratified that I did not mischaracterize your position...it'll be interesting to see what responses the youtube site has. And, btw...I do understand...nearly all Christians (excepting a few Messianic groups) interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. The reason Pentecostals submit new revelations to the existing Bible is that we are commanded to discern the Spirit, and to test the spirits, to see if they be of God. So, we do not automatically accept them as revelation, but rather examine each message to see if it comports with already revealed revelation. And this is the difference between our belief in continuing revelation, and the LDS belief in Latter Day prophets with an Old Testament-like authority to reveal God's word unchallenged.

[Justice]

There have never been a group of people who contested a prophet of God who were right for doing so. If a prophet ever attempts to mislead God's people, it is between him and God.

As I have mentioned before, even if in different words, either Joseph was a prophet or he wasn't. There's no middle ground.

[Traveler]

I'm gratified that I did not mischaracterize your position...it'll be interesting to see what responses the youtube site has. And, btw...I do understand...nearly all Christians (excepting a few Messianic groups) interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. The reason Pentecostals submit new revelations to the existing Bible is that we are commanded to discern the Spirit, and to test the spirits, to see if they be of God. So, we do not automatically accept them as revelation, but rather examine each message to see if it comports with already revealed revelation. And this is the difference between our belief in continuing revelation, and the LDS belief in Latter Day prophets with an Old Testament-like authority to reveal God's word unchallenged.

Interesting - Is not the real question about G-d speaking? Why would he need to speak if something is already understood from scripture? It would seem to me he need speak only if scripture has not been understood correctly.

The Traveler

[Snow]

This is my posted response at YOUTUBE to the LDS video "God Speaks."

Pentecostals also believe in modern prophetic revelation. However, whenever one claims to give a message from God, the words are SUBMITTED to the already received written revelation. AS I understand it, in LDS teaching, the lastest revelations are allowed to define the biblical text, since they came later, and are assumed to be true.

Thoughts?

I don't understand exactly but are you saying that from the Pentecostal viewpoint, there is modern revelation, but it merely is a reaffirmation of prior revelation/scripture?

[lindsayjane]

Interesting - Is not the real question about G-d speaking? Why would he need to speak if something is already understood from scripture? It would seem to me he need speak only if scripture has not been understood correctly.

The Traveler

Exactly. I tend to view the history of prophetic revelation and canonized scripture operating like the childhood game of "telephone." God revealed truth to ancient prophets and they wrote it down. Then over thousands of years the written and oral history was rewritten and retold countless times. Also along the way, those truths were interpreted and reinterpreted from different points of view depending on differing social and historical contexts. It shouldn't be suprising to anyone that there would exist today so many different versions of Judaism and Christianity. Thus, in my mind, the crucial need for modern revelation. I don't think it has anything to do with God not revealing all of His gospel to previous civilizations or even necessarily the need for different revelation for the present day. I tend to think mankind has remained somewhat consistent in its humanity from the beginning, for better and worse. But simply the fact that God has been revealing His truths to imperfect humans and relying on imperfect records to deliver His perfect message throughout history would result in the need to intervene from time to time to clarify and "tidy up" the record.

I also don't think it should be suprising that he would call servants and ordain them with just as much authority to receive revelation and lead his children as the prophets of old were given. Even when non-LDS Christians accept the idea of modern revelation of some kind or another, why is there such a persistent fear of modern prophetic revelation? God has ordained prophets from the beginning. Why is that so improbable now?

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler & Snow: Generally speaking, pentecostal revelations are indeed reaffirmations of biblical truths--with a pointed focus on the group gathered, and for the time they are gathered. Exhortations to enter into deeper praise, to repent, to rejoice, to come to God for comfort, to be united not divided, to believe God and hold study, the storm will pass, etc. Occasionally, there will be messages that the Bible would be neutral towards, and so discernment of the Spirit is needed. Does the message glorify Jesus or the speaker, the church, the program, etc.?

I'd question the word "merely," though...it's one thing to know that God is love, and quite another, after a horrific week of hardships to hear, "God knows your suffering this week, and he stands ready, at this very moment, to bring comfort, peace and strength..."

[prisonchaplain]

Exactly. I tend to view the history of prophetic revelation and canonized scripture operating like the childhood game of "telephone." God revealed truth to ancient prophets and they wrote it down. Then over thousands of years the written and oral history was rewritten and retold countless times. Also along the way, those truths were interpreted and reinterpreted from different points of view depending on differing social and historical contexts. It shouldn't be suprising to anyone that there would exist today so many different versions of Judaism and Christianity. Thus, in my mind, the crucial need for modern revelation. I don't think it has anything to do with God not revealing all of His gospel to previous civilizations or even necessarily the need for different revelation for the present day. I tend to think mankind has remained somewhat consistent in its humanity from the beginning, for better and worse. But simply the fact that God has been revealing His truths to imperfect humans and relying on imperfect records to deliver His perfect message throughout history would result in the need to intervene from time to time to clarify and "tidy up" the record.

I also don't think it should be suprising that he would call servants and ordain them with just as much authority to receive revelation and lead his children as the prophets of old were given. Even when non-LDS Christians accept the idea of modern revelation of some kind or another, why is there such a persistent fear of modern prophetic revelation? God has ordained prophets from the beginning. Why is that so improbable now?

My view of the consistency and endurance of Scripture...that what we have today is God's intended Word for us, and that His hand has been upon the translation efforts, so that we can study and show ourselves approved, rightly dividing his written revelation, without doubts or 2nd guessing.

As to why most Protestants and Catholics find the idea of a revelation that is completely outside the parameters of the biblical witness...well, the example Joseph Smith provides calls in to question most major teachings of our churches, and indeed declares us to be in serious error. Who wants that? If it is so, those of us with sincere hearts and exposure to the truth will eventually embrace it. Otherwise, lacking any personal testimony to that effect, of course we'd be cautious.

[lindsayjane]

My view of the consistency and endurance of Scripture...that what we have today is God's intended Word for us, and that His hand has been upon the translation efforts, so that we can study and show ourselves approved, rightly dividing his written revelation, without doubts or 2nd guessing.

As to why most Protestants and Catholics find the idea of a revelation that is completely outside the parameters of the biblical witness...well, the example Joseph Smith provides calls in to question most major teachings of our churches, and indeed declares us to be in serious error. Who wants that? If it is so, those of us with sincere hearts and exposure to the truth will eventually embrace it. Otherwise, lacking any personal testimony to that effect, of course we'd be cautious.

I can understand where you're coming in feeling that God has had his hands on the translation effort all along, thereby ensuring that we have all that He intends for us to have in the Bible alone at this point. That is a valid argument and I understand that is the sentiment at the heart of mainstream Christianity's rejection of additional scripture. However, there are still doubts and second guessing because there are still contradictions, discrepancies, and centuries of differing opinion about interpretation. Today millions with sincere hearts, desiring to show themselves approved, read the bible and come up with countless versions of how to go about that. How is it not reasonable to consider that God could bring forth additional scripture to clarify existing scripture that is imperfect due to human error? I even accept that the Book of Mormon is imperfect and continues to need further clarification and that every piece of revealed scripture probably will.

Yes, Mormon doctrine does disagree with widely held interpretations of some things, but it does not necessarily disagree with the bible. Personally, I have always appreciated the logical clarifications offered by the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. Much of common Christian belief is simply illogical to me. LDS doctrine reveals a vision of God, man, and earth that makes much more sense in an eternal perspective and I can see the thread of that vision throughout the bible. I don't think LDS doctrine is at odds with existing scripture at all, but I do recognize that it is at odds with existing popular interpretation--and I understand completely that no one wants to believe they are in serious error and would be skeptical of the evidence claiming such. I agree that it would only be personal revelation which could convince someone of the truth of a claim like that. I'm just questioning the idea that many (and perhaps not you) hold that the possibility itself is completely illogical or unworthy of contemplation or prayer.

[a-train]

Virtually every facet of Mormonism is shared with some other Christian group whether extant or extinct.

[Traveler]

Traveler & Snow: Generally speaking, pentecostal revelations are indeed reaffirmations of biblical truths--with a pointed focus on the group gathered, and for the time they are gathered. Exhortations to enter into deeper praise, to repent, to rejoice, to come to God for comfort, to be united not divided, to believe God and hold study, the storm will pass, etc. Occasionally, there will be messages that the Bible would be neutral towards, and so discernment of the Spirit is needed. Does the message glorify Jesus or the speaker, the church, the program, etc.?

I'd question the word "merely," though...it's one thing to know that God is love, and quite another, after a horrific week of hardships to hear, "God knows your suffering this week, and he stands ready, at this very moment, to bring comfort, peace and strength..."

Am I correct in understanding that the revelation of which you speak is not "pure" or "valid" enought to be recorded, written down and added to your scripture?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Am I correct in understanding that the revelation of which you speak is not "pure" or "valid" enought to be recorded, written down and added to your scripture?

The Traveler

If the revelation is from the Spirit of God, then it's pure and valid. But, as I said above, in most cases, the message is specific to a particular group and time. God sees our hearts and is calling us to repentence--He might say to a church in Seattle, whereas a church in Florida might hear: God sees your anguish, and He is here to comfort and bring peace.

Both messages are true...but the one for Seattle might not be needed by the church in Florida. We find no instruction about recording or writing down interpetations of tongues or words of prophecy, in Acts or the 2 letters to the Corinthians. My guess is that much as John said that if all the miracles of Christ were recorded the earth could not contain the books, likewise, if every message from God for a particular group were recroded, the deluge would be undecipherable.

[prisonchaplain]

I can understand where you're coming in feeling that God has had his hands on the translation effort all along, thereby ensuring that we have all that He intends for us to have in the Bible alone at this point. That is a valid argument and I understand that is the sentiment at the heart of mainstream Christianity's rejection of additional scripture. However, there are still doubts and second guessing because there are still contradictions, discrepancies, and centuries of differing opinion about interpretation. Today millions with sincere hearts, desiring to show themselves approved, read the bible and come up with countless versions of how to go about that.

While it's easy to present Christianity has a hopelessly fractured and severely divided faith, I would suggest that the glass is not 10% empty, but is 90% full. In other words, most Protestant and Catholic Christians agree on most of what we believe.

1. I would guess that 98%+ of Christians believe in the Trinity.

2. All the groups I know of accept the 66 books of the Bible as canon.

3. Most agree that there is no salvation apart from Christ, and that grace is crucial. Even those who believe that certain sacraments are necessary would not consider themselves heroic and worthy for having completed them--they would give glory to God for their salvation.

4. Love God and neighbor would be the essence of Christian practice for most of them.

Yes, we have our disagreements, and some of them are signficant. Yet, most of us expect to see each other in the same heaven. So, I'm not disappointed with the state of the church after 2000 years, with the Bible, and with 1/3rd of the world proclaiming allegiance to Jesus.

How is it not reasonable to consider that God could bring forth additional scripture to clarify existing scripture that is imperfect due to human error?

While it's not impossible that God would bring us added Scriptures, I do not perceive God's word to be imperfect or corrupted by human error.

Yes, Mormon doctrine does disagree with widely held interpretations of some things, but it does not necessarily disagree with the bible. Personally, I have always appreciated the logical clarifications offered by the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. Much of common Christian belief is simply illogical to me. LDS doctrine reveals a vision of God, man, and earth that makes much more sense in an eternal perspective and I can see the thread of that vision throughout the bible. I don't think LDS doctrine is at odds with existing scripture at all, but I do recognize that it is at odds with existing popular interpretation--and I understand completely that no one wants to believe they are in serious error and would be skeptical of the evidence claiming such. I agree that it would only be personal revelation which could convince someone of the truth of a claim like that. I'm just questioning the idea that many (and perhaps not you) hold that the possibility itself is completely illogical or unworthy of contemplation or prayer.

The canon seems closed to us because nothing was added for at least 1700 years (even if the BoM is true). Further, Joseph Smith's additions do indeed run contrary to 1700 years of church teachings about the nature of God, the plan of salvation, and even the nature of humanity.

Evangelicalism, Protestantism, Catholicism, and LDS teachings do have a vocabularly that often overlaps, and our beliefs center on the same God, and call us to similar behavior. However, our understanding of the universe and what God is after is different. To convince anyone to adopt the other's perspective is quite a challenge.

And yet, there are conversions both ways, almost daily, aren't there.

[lindsayjane]

Prisonchaplain, all points are well taken. I can appreciate the logic and value of all of your arguments. I can see Christianity, scripture, and God from your point of view and agree that there is beauty and peace in that perspective. I realize that all of us find peace in the God and the gospel that is in greatest harmony with our minds and our life experience.

I am at peace with the God of my youth, the God whose divine plan was revealed to me through LDS doctrine. None of us knows the true personality or mind of God. We love and worship an image of Him in our hearts and minds, an image that is typically learned rather than inherently perceived. We have a sense of His love for us and feel His Spirit. I connect with a Heavenly Father figure--my own interpretation of his divine presence. I love a divine being named Jesus Christ, the son of the Father, which I learned about through the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I don't claim to comprehend everything about His life or His mission, but I believe that He exsisted, that He is divine, that He loves me, and that I cannot return to the Father without Him.

Likewise, other Christians are at peace with their own interpretation of God and Christ, with the personality and purpose that is in harmony with mainstream Christian doctrine. Yes, His divine plan is different than that of the God I worship, but I truly believe that the love and the Spirit we feel is of the same Being. In fact, I tend to believe that with most of the interpretations of deity throughout the world. Regardless of the doctrine or the scripture that we believe in, when humans feel that divine love and the Spirit of peace, we are feeling the true God that none of us will ever comprehend in this life.

I wish you peace and joy in your journey. I respect your God and your faith in Him, just as I love my God and find comfort in His doctrine. I think, in the end, we will all find that He was the same God all along. :)

[candyprpl]

The canon seems closed to us because nothing was added for at least 1700 years (even if the BoM is true).

While reading this part of your quote, I had a thought. Now bear in mind, even though I'm LDS, I have wondered (of course being a believer of the Book of Mormon) why so long for this to come forward (1700 years)?

My thought -- maybe we had to wander in the wilderness for a while -- maybe we had to prove our worthiness -- maybe we had TO ASK FOR MORE.

Question -- maybe you've said it before and I still don't get it. How does the Book of Mormon run contrary to the Bible? Maybe I'm missunderstanding but that's what you seem to be saying to me.

[prisonchaplain]

My thought -- maybe we had to wander in the wilderness for a while -- maybe we had to prove our worthiness -- maybe we had TO ASK FOR MORE.

That might explain why it took 1900 years to see a restoration of the gifts of the Spirit, as outlined in Acts and 1 Corinthians. In all seriousness, it's a question, but not an argument against the BoM, necessarily. Just makes those of us who are cautious a bit more so.

Question -- maybe you've said it before and I still don't get it. How does the Book of Mormon run contrary to the Bible? Maybe I'm missunderstanding but that's what you seem to be saying to me.

Actually, the BoM does not contain much at all that is contrary to the Bible. However, many of your church's distinctive beliefs do differ significantly from what most Protestant & Catholic churches teach. Since we believe we are right, then it would mean we disagree with you.

[Justice]

Actually, it's the understanding of the words, or the interpretation that varys. No where is this more plain than here:

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

beginning

God

created

heaven

earth

The divergence begins here, and already Christian religions are so far apart after only one verse.

So, it's as you say, PC, it's not that the Book of Mormon disagrees, but the interpretation of the words.

I actually had a non-member friend read the entire Book of Mormon one time and he told me if the Mormon Church understood and interpreted the Book of Mormon properly, then he might join the Church. :/

Edited September 9, 2008 by Justice

[Traveler]

If the revelation is from the Spirit of God, then it's pure and valid. But, as I said above, in most cases, the message is specific to a particular group and time. God sees our hearts and is calling us to repentence--He might say to a church in Seattle, whereas a church in Florida might hear: God sees your anguish, and He is here to comfort and bring peace.

Both messages are true...but the one for Seattle might not be needed by the church in Florida. We find no instruction about recording or writing down interpetations of tongues or words of prophecy, in Acts or the 2 letters to the Corinthians. My guess is that much as John said that if all the miracles of Christ were recorded the earth could not contain the books, likewise, if every message from God for a particular group were recroded, the deluge would be undecipherable.

May I add that perhaps the message to Cointh 2000 years ago does not apply or is not needed anywhere today. It is my understanding of the ancients that when G-d spoke, the covenant people made a record because of their covenant. But I agree with you when there was no longer a covenant with G-d to make a record - such things stopped.

The Traveler

[georgia2]

I think another issue regarding the initial question would be the fact that the original scriptures have been tampered with, rearranged, translated incorrectly, and some sections totally deleted!

Even though men who translated were trying to do it correctly, if they were not prophets, they would not be able to totally discern the truth. Some languages don't even have words to describe words in different languages. So, as a consequence, since the Bible has been translated so many times, it is bound to have some error. Hence Heavenly Father preserving The Book of Mormon to come forth in the last days so that it would only be translated ONCE and that by a true prophet of God.

So any revelations that would change the wording or meaning of a specific Bible verse would be accepted as truth if it comes from the prophet.

[prisonchaplain]

May I add that perhaps the message to Cointh 2000 years ago does not apply or is not needed anywhere today. It is my understanding of the ancients that when G-d spoke, the covenant people made a record because of their covenant. But I agree with you when there was no longer a covenant with G-d to make a record - such things stopped.

The Traveler

The entire Bible, including 1 & 2 Corinthians remains incredibly relevant today. Goodness, even pagans love 1 Corinthians 13.

[Traveler]

The entire Bible, including 1 & 2 Corinthians remains incredibly relevant today. Goodness, even pagans love 1 Corinthians 13.

It is my belief that only those scripture passages that relate to one's covenant with G-d can have any real relevance to them. Only when we understand someone of a religious nature according to their covenants with G-d do we understand their contribution to religious purpose. It is also my belief that if any people are not recording and publishing revelations from G-d that come among them that their covenants and understanding of sacred things are not complete. I do not say this to be critical – only to point out a divine principle I find to be of great importance – which seems to me to be important to people of the ancient covenant that I find somewhat lacking in our modern era. And may I add one other thing? The publications or announcements of revelation should not be for personal profit or wealth.

Might I add here that in the ancient worship services of Baal that those in attendance were encouraged to contribute to the priest(s) in accordance with the skill of the delivery and all were expected to give payment for attendance. In contrast Jesus offered his teachings to those that would listen; for free and without cost. In fact he claimed that all things came from G-d via covenant for free and without price – even to those that made offerings.

The Traveler