What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[rameumptom]

Finrock,

You state the Church contains all truth and knowledge, yet admit we don't have all the truth and knowledge. Nice hedging there. Orwell would be proud of your Newspeak. I say that the Church will one day embrace all truth and knowledge, once all truth and knowledge are revealed.

Currently, the Church's official position on evolution is that it doesn't have a position. That is not embracing all truth and knowledge, but is just keeping out of the fray. Yet, many GAs, representing the Church and seeking to establish doctrine in the Church, fought against evolution for years. Elder McConkie's 7 Deadly Heresies talk is an example of imposing an anti-evolution view on the Church, regardless of its "official" stance. If the Church was officially on the sidelines, why did it allow one of its senior apostles to make such strong statements?

That the apostles do not agree on what could be key issues strongly suggests that the Church does NOT contain all truth and knowledge right now. That the Church has changed its stance on certain issues over the years suggests strongly that the Church has tried imposing doctrine in the past that may or may not have been based upon all truth and knowledge. And without an active ability to access all truth and knowledge in making a determination, there is no way for it to be perfect in the moment.

[ehkape]

But God will not let the Prophets lead us astray spiritually. At least not to the point where we lose the authority of God and the blessings of the gospel. We move in the general direction that God wants us to move, and He blesses us for it.

But how can you be sure? It happened before with the church that Christ and the apostles set up. Why not now?

You gave a few scriptures saying the Lord wasn't pleased with the early Saints at some occasions. Well, at least he told them, or in other words was still speaking with them. I haven't heard of any revelation that was given by the last couple pf prophets.

So how can we be sure? Its a big thing to put your trust in somebody else. If that somebody is human and bound to do mistakes it might not be the best idea...

Is there anybody in this forum who thinks this might at least be possible? Has there ever been a guarantee that the church cannot be led astray? How was it possible for Brigham to teach about Adam being God? If the doctrine is false, then how could he teach it and remain the prophet?

[marts1]

How was it possible for Brigham to teach about Adam being God?

Is this from a talk explaining that Adam has progressed to, or something else?

If you do a scripture search, you will find info that the restored church will survive and not be led astray.

[rameumptom]

This statement would apply to several here. Just a thought...It has been said that Jesus was a perfect man, lived a perfect, sinless life and yet He did not have all knowledge or power. So perhaps the word perfect can be used for the church as well or maybe we need to check the total meaning of every word and explain which one were refering to, making these posts even longer.lolol

I think D&C 93 explains it. One can be perfect to the level of truth and knowledge one has at that point. So as with Jesus, we can go from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until we gain a fullness. The Church may be perfect to its current level, but it does not yet have a fullness of perfection. For example, we do not have the keys of resurrection, yet. Nor do we have the sealed portions of the BoM, etc. Lots to still be revealed.

[rameumptom]

But how can you be sure? It happened before with the church that Christ and the apostles set up. Why not now?

You gave a few scriptures saying the Lord wasn't pleased with the early Saints at some occasions. Well, at least he told them, or in other words was still speaking with them. I haven't heard of any revelation that was given by the last couple pf prophets.

Has there ever been a guarantee that the church cannot be led astray? How was it possible for Brigham to teach about Adam being God? If the doctrine is false, then how could he teach it and remain the prophet?

There is a difference between the Church being imperfect, but still able to exalt people, and the Church being in apostasy.

We have been told by prophets, and it is in our D&C (OD 1) that the Prophet will not lead us astray. Brigham Young taught some wrong things, but the core doctrines, practices, and authority were still in place. And modern prophets have made course corrections.

Recent prophets HAVE had major revelations. They just have not couched them in those terms. Pres Hinckley was inspired to build small temples, partially fulfilling Brigham Young's statement that the earth would have hundreds of temples upon its face for the Millennium. Pres Hinckley in 1998 warned of a serious upcoming downturn, couching it in terms of Pharaoh's dreams Joseph interpreted, and the Great Depression. Pres Monson has recently updated the Mission of the Church with caring for the poor and needy, foreseeing (IMHO) greater destructions and disasters in the future. We have Area Authorities who have authority to conduct all the church's affairs in the area they are in, in case they are cut off from SLC.

The inspiration of these men is amazing. We are one of just a few churches with no debt. We are expanding while many churches continue to shrink in size. We have just printed the 150 millionth copy of the Book of Mormon, have sent out more than 1 million missionaries to the world in the last 180 years (1/2 million in the last decade or so), and etc.

Finally, I have a testimony of this Restored Church, the work we are doing, and of living prophets and apostles. They are called of God, as the Spirit has testified it to me. That won't change, even if I disagree with them on certain non-core doctrinal issues.

[marts1]

I think D&C 93 explains it. One can be perfect to the level of truth and knowledge one has at that point. So as with Jesus, we can go from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until we gain a fullness. The Church may be perfect to its current level, but it does not yet have a fullness of perfection. For example, we do not have the keys of resurrection, yet. Nor do we have the sealed portions of the BoM, etc. Lots to still be revealed.

That sounds better. I'm assuming you are probably aware of the different meanings of the word church as well.

[Finrock]

Good morning rameumptom. I hope your week has started out good! :)

Finrock,

You state the Church contains all truth and knowledge, yet admit we don't have all the truth and knowledge. Nice hedging there. Orwell would be proud of your Newspeak. I say that the Church will one day embrace all truth and knowledge, once all truth and knowledge are revealed.

Your position in this quote is supported by two logical fallacies. Equivocation and an ad hominem. Disregarding the ad hominem, I'll address the equivocation. I am speaking of The Church of Jesus Christ as a seperate entity from it's mortal members. I've provided reasons why this view is justified. Instead of addressing my evidence the assertion you provide equivocates by speaking to the Church as the collection of it's mortal members and indistinguishable from it's mortal members. This position is obviously false as is evidenced by the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ was taken from the earth during the apostasy but did not cease to exist, therefore proving that it's existence is not contingent upon it's mortal members. It is indeed a separate entity and this fact must be addressed if you are going to avoid the equivocation in the future.

The rest of your post, supported by the equivocation, continues to speak to individuals and their understanding of truth and speaks nothing of the actual Church.

Please allow me to attempt a different method to illustrate my point. I will ask a series of questions and instead of waiting on a response I will answer them because I think the answers are obvious to a Mormon audience. Of course, if you disagree with any of my answers we can address those concerns.

Reminder Legend:

"The Church of Jesus Christ" = "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Questions

1. Who's church is the Church of Jesus Christ? Answer: It is Jesus' Church.

2. Who is at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ? Answer: Jesus Christ is at the head.

3. Does Jesus Christ have all authority, all keys, and all truth? Answer: Yes

4. Is Jesus Christ perfect and infallible in every way? Answer: Yes

If The Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus' Church and Jesus is at the head of this Church then the status of this Church is contingent upon the status of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has all truth, all authority, all keys, and He is perfect and infallible, therefore by necessity His Church must contain all truth, all authority, all keys, and be perfect and infallible.

Conclusion: The Church of Jesus Christ contains all truth, all authority, all keys, and is perfect and infallible.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Once I realized that this was causing some confusing, I wanted to clarify that when I was using those three different names of God's (Jesus') Church, I was always and in each case speaking of the exact same Church. This is why I created the Legend so that it would be more clear as to what I had intended to communicate.

Ok.

However, my point doesn't fall or stand on what God's Church is named. Therefore, in order to simplify and clarify any further communication I will use the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" from here on out and please know that by this I mean the Church that was established on this earth by Jesus Christ during His mortal ministry, which was subsequently lost from the earth, and then later restored through Joseph Smith in 1830 and which is currently known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." My reason for using the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" is because it is shorter to write and it correctly describes who's church I am talking about.

Is this acceptable to you?

Kind of.

I appreciate that you have a large, non-worldly hugely encompassing viewpoint on the Church, which extends into the spiritual worlds beyond our view and knowledge. But I don't think you should expect to be able to discuss your views with me in a logical and clear way, since I would like, in this case, to limit my points of discussion to things that are a bit more in evidence in the world around us.

I am willing to discuss the Church as the physical institution that we can observe in both history and scripture. But to go beyond those things, I prefer not to make assertions that cannot be established on the evidence that others can refer to and evaluate for themselves. Therefore, I would not consider it useful to engage in this discussion as you have.

I am willing to discuss the Church of the Firstborn, as well as the Church of the Lamb of God and the Church of the Devil, as these are also attested to and defined, by name, in the scriptures. Even if Elder McConkie did get the definition and assignation of the Church of the Devil wrong, more's the pity.

But the way you have chosen to discuss the Church is not something I personally find meaningful or useful or even edifying. It is inherently confusing, and I decline further discussion for those reasons. No offense intended.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Is this from a talk explaining that Adam has progressed to, or something else?

No, it's from at least one General Conference talk, the St. George "lecture at the veil (temple), and several other talks by Brigham Young concerning Adam as our God and the Father of our spirits. He speaks at some length about Adam coming to earth as a resurrected being, and much, much more that is quite unusual from our 21-century perspective.

I think his comments were truth, but only if you understand them from a mystic and symbolic perspective that most people, both back then and today, haven't got a clue about. I only found it after decades of inquiry. I think Joseph Smith taught it in private to a select group, and that it came from his own studies and revelations.

Pres. Kimball declared (in General Conference, I believe) that the Adam-God theory was not true. I believe he was referring to the teachings of the fundamentalist Mormon offshoots in that, but as he was not specific, then of course it is open to debate exactly what he had reference to.

HiJolly

[marts1]

Without having read these talks, I can't comment.

[HiJolly]

Without having read these talks, I can't comment.

That is wise.

Online you can go to the Harold B. Lee library (BYU) and read the 1953 Master's Thesis of Rodney Turner entitled

"The Position Of Adam

In Latter-day Saint Scripture And Theology"

That is a pretty good place to start. IMO.

HiJolly

[marts1]

what ya do, read my mind lol

[Faded]

I am a member for 15 plus years. I have served a mission. But recently I was asked a question about Kolob that has completely changed my understanding of the Pearl of Great Price. For the first time I have doubts about the book of Abraham. Has anyone else gone through this?

I've not said much in this thread, but I would like to point something out.

The Christian Groups who focus their energies on accumulating scientific evidence to disprove the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are pretty hypocritical. There is a lot of scientific evidence that casts most of the Bible into question. There are facts and figures in the Biblical text that are contradicted by scientific evidence (case in point, the Exodus from Egypt supposedly saw the displacement of 1.5 million people, but it doesn't fit the historical archaeological record. Archaelogists concur that a displacement of that scale ever occurred at that time, regardless of what date you assign to the Exodus.) There is a ton of scientific evidence against long held traditional Christian teachings such as ex nihilo creation.

Since the Renaissance, Christendom and Science have been in an ever escalating war with each other.

Moses was shown only the things of this world (see the Book of Moses.) Abraham was shown greater things. We have the tiniest fraction of what he actually saw. There is much that we simply take on faith, anticipating a better understanding in the next life.

[Finrock]

Hello HiJolly. :)

I appreciate that you have a large, non-worldly hugely encompassing viewpoint on the Church, which extends into the spiritual worlds beyond our view and knowledge.

I don't think this correctly describes my position. I do claim that the Church of Jesus Christ is not only an earthly institution. However, it is not beyond our view or knowledge.

But I don't think you should expect to be able to discuss your views with me in a logical and clear way, since I would like, in this case, to limit my points of discussion to things that are a bit more in evidence in the world around us.

I think your view of the Church is artificially limited to only an earthly institution. I have illustrated how such a view is untenable based on the knowledge we have about the Church. And, despite your claims to the contrary I have provided logical proofs, arguments, and evidences to illustrate my point. None of them have been addressed thus far by any person in the course of this discussion. I'll make a synopsis of my evidences and proofs directly and also provide additional proofs.

I am willing to discuss the Church as the physical institution that we can observe in both history and scripture. But to go beyond those things, I prefer not to make assertions that cannot be established on the evidence that others can refer to and evaluate for themselves. Therefore, I would not consider it useful to engage in this discussion as you have.

Each point I've made I've established and provided evidence for. Please consider my convenient collection of evidences and proofs that I have provided in the various posts to support my position. All of them are points that others can refer to and evaluate if one only takes the time to do so.

Evidences and Proofs Supporting Finrock's Position

1. The Church of Jesus Christ is not just an earthly institution. One support I provided for this assertion was that I showed that the Church was taken from the earth during the Apostasy, later restored through Joseph Smith, but it never ceased to exist. This position is supported by scripture.

2. The Church of Jesus Christ is not contingent upon the mortal members of the Church. This point is also proven by virtue of the fact that the Church continued to exist even when it was no longer established on the earth.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect and infallible. This conclusion is supported by the following logical proof:

a.) If the Church is Jesus' church and Jesus Christ is at the head of His Church, then the status of the Church of Jesus Christ is contingent upon the status of Jesus

b.) The status of Jesus Christ is that he has all truth, all authority, all keys, and He is perfect and infallible.

c.) Therefore the status of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it has all truth, all authority, all keys, and the Church is perfect and infallible.

Conclusion: The Church of Jesus Christ is perfect and infallible and contains all truth, all authority, and all keys.

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect and infallible. This conclusion is supported by the following logical proof:

a.) If any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is (P)perfect and (I)infallible, has all (T)truth, all (A)authority, all (K)keys, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints necessarily contains the qualities P, I, T, A, and K.

b.) Jesus Christ is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

c.) Jesus Christ has the qualities P, I, T, A, and K

d.) Therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains P, I, T, A, and K

Provided is my proofs and evidences. One cannot justifiably claim that my position cannot be logically argued, or that the evidence cannot be tested by others. If one disagrees with my conclusions, one need only to demonstrate that my premises are false.

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

I've read Finrock's mind, too, and I want nothing of this. I'm done. Best wishes to anyone else who wants to play. Snow? (heh).

HiJolly

[Finrock]

Good evening HiJolly! :)

I've read Finrock's mind, too, and I want nothing of this. I'm done. Best wishes to anyone else who wants to play. Snow? (heh).

HiJolly

Thank you for taking the time that you did to take part in this discussion and respond to my posts. Although I sense that you did so against your better judgment, it has not been a waste of time for me.

Regards,

Finrock

[Elphaba]

The First Presidency never recently apologized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

When did that happen?

Elphaba

[Snow]

What to do when you question a book of scripture?

Pray for forgiveness and hope you don't burn in hellfire.

Believe me - I've seen it more than once. The flames of Gozer burned hot that day I can tell you.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Snow

[Dravin]

When did that happen?

Elphaba

Depends what you mean by recent and by apologize:

150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre - LDS Newsroom

Edited March 23, 2010 by Dravin

[Elphaba]

Depends what you mean by recent and by apologize:

150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre - LDS Newsroom

Yes, I knew about that, but according to the Church spokesman at the time, that was an expression of regret, not an apology. His distinction made it very clear there was a difference.

The First Presidency has not apologized for the MMM that I am aware of.

Elphaba

[marts1]

If that is the case perhaps it is because it was caused by local leaders, not any general authorities.

[Dravin]

Yes, I knew about that, but according to the Church spokesman at the time, that was an expression of regret, not an apology. His distinction made it very clear there was a difference.

The First Presidency has not apologized for the MMM that I am aware of.

Elphaba

Then it would be a case of what you consider an apology.

[rameumptom]

That sounds better. I'm assuming you are probably aware of the different meanings of the word church as well.

What??? You mean a word can have more than one meaning??? When did that happen?

[marts1]

What??? You mean a word can have more than one meaning??? When did that happen?

@ the tower of babel :)

[rameumptom]

When did that happen?

Elphaba

2007 at the dedication of the MMM monument. Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon public relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia