Measuring Modern Revelation

[Ray]

In one of those threads about polygmany, prisonchaplain and I were discussing the idea of measuring modern revelations against older revelations, such as those contained in the Bible, and I am now starting this thread for more open discussion.

Or in other words, I am now asking anyone to tell me how they would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

So far, I think prisonchaplain's most relevant reply was in saying:

My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity.

But when I gave him this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

He said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..."

Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism.

Which seems to indicate that he thinks most other people would NOT accept his idea of starting with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or modern revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

So at this point I am waiting for more information.

Or in other words, I'm waiting for prisonchaplain and anyone else to show me an example of how they would measure modern revelation against older scriptures, such as those contained in the Bible, and whether or not they believe they should should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or modern revelation) given specifically contradicts the Bible.

And btw, an example will probably be more effective if someone uses something which we LDS consider to be modern revelation, showing us how they would measure that revelation against other records of revelation, such as the Bible.

And for another suggested example, I am asking how anyone would use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

And for a more accurate account of what Joseph said happened, [anyone] can read his own words here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here. Are you asking for biblical support that is in opposition to Joseph Smith's account? Something like Matt 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Someone could hold up this verse as saying, "Joseph Smith's account of a 1700 years church apostasy (renunciation of a religious faith; abandonment of a previous loyalty) is not biblically supported." They might even go so far as to say, "If Joseph Smith's account is true, then according to Matt. 16:18 God must be a liar." Is that what you are asking for?

Dr. T

[Ray]

I believe you’re on the right track, Dr. T., but let’s see how your “measurement” holds up.

I asked for someone to tell me how they would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

You seem to be suggesting that the scripture in Matthew 16:18, which reads:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

…can be measured to deny the thought that God could have authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days.

Or in other words, you seem to be using Matthew 16:18 to suggest that when our Lord told Peter that once He (our Lord) established His church, His church would never need to be re-established or restored again, because according to your understanding of what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18, the “it” that “hell shall never prevail against” should be understood as a reference to the church of Christ.

Am I understanding you correctly so far?

If so, while I can understand how you might be inclined to use Matthew 16:18 to confirm that thought, I can also suggest the idea that there is another meaning to what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18.

Or in other words, I could use Matthew 16:18 to suggest the idea that while our Lord did build His church upon a rock, which hell shall never prevail against, the “it” that hell shall never prevail against doesn’t necessarily refer to the church of Christ.

Or in other words, I could suggest that the “it” which “hell shall never prevail against” refers to the rock of revelation, which Peter received by testimony from our Father in heaven, which assured him (Peter) that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and that the church would be built upon that rock, of revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, while you might use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that our Lord could never have authorized Joseph Smith to re-establish or restore His church upon the Earth, based on a certain interpretation of what our Lord meant in Matthew 16:18, I can also use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that there is no contradiction between the thought that our Lord established His church through Peter, and then later through Joseph Smith, based upon the idea that the “it” refers to revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, your “measurement” has been tried and tested, and it does not prove the idea you were suggesting, because I have another interpretation which makes just as much sense as your interpretation, if not more.

And btw, since we have now come up with 2 different interpretations, I suggest that you now ask God for more revelation to assure you and help you know which interpretation or how an interpretation is true. And I am suggesting that you do that because I already have, and I received His answer too. :)

[prisonchaplain]

I posted this in the Polygamy thread, but Ray is right. It probably belongs here...so, "here" it is:

prisonchaplain,

It appears as though I didn't make my point plain enough for you to understand.

Or, perhaps you missed part of mine, which I'll explain below...because I believe I did answer your question...just not to your agreement.

I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

And btw, I think your most relevant reply so far was when you said:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity.

But when I gave you this example to work with:

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

You only said:

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saith the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..."

Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism.

Which seems to indicate that you don't even accept your own idea about how you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

Here's what you missed in your restatement of my words: Non-LDS Christians in general do not accept that the Gates of Hell succeeded in prevailing against the Church for 1700 years. We do not believe in the general apostasy of Christianity as a historic event. So, since The Holy Spirit gave some to be teachers, some to be bishops (overseers), we accept doctrinal formation in the Church. In my own movement, any prophetic utterances that contradicted the Sixteen Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God (a statement similar to the What We Believe section at lds.org) would be seen as probably contradicting the Bible.

In other words, unlike the LDS, new prophecies do not supercede what we have already received.

So, in other words, please show me an example of how you would measure modern revelation against the Bible, with your own idea suggesting that you should start with the presumption of validity, unless the word (or revelation) given specifically contradicted the Bible.

And btw, your example will probably be more effective if you use something which we [LDS] consider to be modern revelation, showing us how you would measure that revelation against the Bible.

What you really want is an example of a prophecy found lacking. In the 19-teens a prophecy went out, suggesting that Christians must be baptised in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38). Very quickly it became clear that the outcome was a denial of the Holy Trinity, in favor of monarchial modalism (Jesus = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and acts out these different "modes"). Since the prophecy contradicted core church teachings, it was denounced. The result, a terribly wrenching split in Pentecostalism. Today, Oneness Pentecostalism (those who embraced the heresy) represents a very small % of the movement, much like the Mormon off-shoot schismatics.

And for perhaps what might be an easier example, how would you use the Bible to measure, either to confirm or deny, the thought that our heavenly Father and our Lord both personally appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees, now referred to as the sacred grove, in answer to his prayer asking God which church he should join, with our Lord telling him that he should join none of them, citing some specific reasons why he shouldn't join with them, and then later telling him that he (Joseph) would be an instrument in His hands to restore His church to the Earth.

Since JS started with a denunciation of all existing Christian churches, it was a pretty quick call, I'm sure. JS started with a line in the sand, more or less saying, stay with the corrupt, incomplete Christian churches, or come join the restoration. Many have intimated here that there was intemperance on both sides of the line throughout the 19th century (no need to argue who was worse--irrelevent to this conversation). So, there was no attempt to win the hearts of churches, to build consensus for the new revelations. The appeal was for individuals to abandon their communities of faith in favor of a new community with pretty radical new understandings.

I believe you’re on the right track, Dr. T., but let’s see how your “measurement” holds up.

I asked for someone to tell me how they would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

You seem to be suggesting that the scripture in Matthew 16:18, which reads:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

…can be measured to deny the thought that God could have authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days.

Or in other words, you seem to be using Matthew 16:18 to suggest that when our Lord told Peter that once He (our Lord) established His church, His church would never need to be re-established or restored again, because according to your understanding of what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18, the “it” that “hell shall never prevail against” should be understood as a reference to the church of Christ.

Am I understanding you correctly so far?

If so, while I can understand how you might be inclined to use Matthew 16:18 to confirm that thought, I can also suggest the idea that there is another meaning to what our Lord was saying in Matthew 16:18.

Or in other words, I could use Matthew 16:18 to suggest the idea that while our Lord did build His church upon a rock, which hell shall never prevail against, the “it” that hell shall never prevail against doesn’t refer to the church of Christ.

Or in other words, I could suggest that the “it” which “hell shall never prevail against” refers to the rock of revelation, which Peter received by testimony from our Father in heaven, which assured him (Peter) that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and that the church would be built upon that rock, of revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, while you might use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that our Lord could never have authorized Joseph Smith to re-establish or restore His church upon the Earth, based on a certain interpretation of what our Lord meant in Matthew 16:18, I can also use Matthew 16:18 to suggest that there is no contradiction between the thought that our Lord established His church through Peter, and then later through Joseph Smith, based upon the idea that the “it” refers to revelation, which hell shall never prevail against.

Or in other words, your “measurement” has been tried and tested, and it does not prove the idea you were suggesting, because I have another interpretation which makes just as much sense as your interpretation, if not more.

And btw, since we have now come up with 2 different interpretations, I suggest that you now ask God for more revelation to assure you and help you know which interpretation is the truth, because I have already done that, and I have received His answer too. :)

I hate leaving long quotes, but in this case will do so, because my comments rest on almost everything already exchanged.

Ray, how would a non-LDS Christian, who, at the time of JS' revelation had only the interpretation that Dr. T outlined, possibly conclude that JS was right? There's been debate over whether Jesus meant Peter himself, or the confession of faith, when He said "Upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH." However, there's been no debate about what the Gates of Hell would not prevail against--it's always been that the Church would be victorious.

It's not enough for someone to come along and say, the whole church is wrong--the whole history, all the teachings, all the prayers, all the traditions--everything is wrong. Martin Luther was far more reticent.

Then again, I guess it is enough for the 12 million members, and those who have gone before. But, within the paradigm of those non-LDS churches that leave room for modern revelation, JS' prophecies would carry such a tremendous burden of proof, that they would not likely gain traction. Which, I suppose, is why he did not try to work from within--or, from your point of view, why the Holy Spirit directed him to start fresh.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

I have no contention with your reading. It is a common belief that Christ was talking about Himself, not Simon Barjona (Peter/Petros/Rock) that He would build his church upon. This, following the correct proclamation from Peter, that "Thou [Jesus] art the Christ, the Son of the living God" makes the most logical sense when reading this passage in context. As P.C. pointed out Ray, that is not the conflict in this verse. It is about the gates of Hell not overpowering the church. Logically though, if the church was completely out for 1700 years as was suggested by J.Smith-the gates of hell did prevail over the church for 1700 years. These are non-commensurate revelations.

Dr. T

[Dr T]

Hello Ray/all,

Sorry I took so long, I was digging through some of my book boxes to find my LDS books that I picked up while in Salt Lake. In talking to my LDS neighbor in SLC, I read the 4 LDS standard works and other LDS lit. that I picked up at the local DI. As I read and talked to Nate (my neighbor), I wrote some notes. Again, you are the LDS expert and your OP asked for apparent revelation discrepancies. I assure you that you have done much more LDS standard work reading than I have. I'm a beginner, so this may not be correct. From my novice reading though, here was one that I found as inconsistent: The whole concept of grace in the N.T. vs. 2 Nephi 25:23 which says "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." emphasis mine seems like two different revelations. This verse juxtaposed with Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." I look forward to your reply. Also note, this verse is not talking about the "Faith without works is dead" type idea. One side is saved by grace (period) and the other is adding, "after all we can do."

P.S. I really am enjoying this type of dialogue.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

As you seem to realize now, many of the thoughts you brought up in the first part of your last post in this thread were already addressed in my last post to Dr. T., so I will now continue our discussion by responding to the remainder of your post in this thread.

Ray, how would a non-LDS Christian, who, at the time of JS' revelation had only the interpretation that Dr. T outlined, possibly conclude that JS was right?

Heh, weren’t you the one who was suggesting that they should accept the new or modern revelation, as long as it didn’t go against the Scriptures already given?

And btw, while I and many other people also see scripture study as a good way to begin an investigation of revelation from God, I would also follow that up with asking God for His assurance to help us know whether a revelation, and our understanding of that revelation, is true.

There's been debate over whether Jesus meant Peter himself, or the confession of faith, when He said "Upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH." However, there's been no debate about what the Gates of Hell would not prevail against--it's always been that the Church would be victorious.

Heh, are you suggesting that until I brought it up, there was never any debate about what the “it” referred to? If so, contrary to what you may think, I am not the first person who has brought up the idea that the “it” could refer to “revelation”. And whether or not you’ve ever heard it before you can starting thinking about it now.

And to try to make this perfectly clear for you, I’m saying that when Matthew wrote:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against “it”.

The words of our Lord according to Matthew could be interpreted to mean Jesus was saying:

...I will build my church upon this rock which the gates of hell shall not prevail against. - Matthew 16:13-18

And btw, you might also want to discuss this with someone who can explain the rules of grammar, but according to the rules I know, the “it” could easily refer to the "rock" depending upon punctuation... which is dependent upon written translations. And then when you tie that in with the idea that Jesus was referring to the revelation Peter had just received, it seems that "revelation" is the "logical" choice. But I don't suggest that you take my word for it, or even the word of a grammar teacher, because I believe nobody knows and can understand the truth any better than God.

And btw, I can also see a third option, which I'm not mentioning here, because I think it might suggest there is only one thing necessary to be able to know ALL truth.

It's not enough for someone to come along and say, the whole church is wrong--the whole history, all the teachings, all the prayers, all the traditions--everything is wrong. Martin Luther was far more reticent.

What do you mean by saying “it is not enough” to say those things? Are you trying to suggest that there was nothing else said about the issue of the church or churches all being wrong? Perhaps you should read everything else our Lord said to Joseph Smith, and you can start right here: http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

Then again, I guess it is enough for the 12 million members, and those who have gone before. But, within the paradigm of those non-LDS churches that leave room for modern revelation, JS' prophecies would carry such a tremendous burden of proof, that they would not likely gain traction. Which, I suppose, is why he did not try to work from within--or, from your point of view, why the Holy Spirit directed him to start fresh.

You seem to be suggesting that the Church has grown simply because people have put their faith in what Joseph Smith told them, and that it was enough for Joseph to simply say, “the whole church is wrong--the whole history, all the teachings, all the prayers, all the traditions--everything is wrong”, to get those people to believe him. But as I have told you before, I believe Joseph Smith only because God has given me personal revelation to assure me that Joseph was telling the truth, concerning EVERYTHING Joseph Smith revealed concerning the knowledge God revealed to him. And I also know I’m not the only person to join the Church after receiving revelation from God.

And btw, the Holy Spirit was not the only person directing Joseph to "start afresh", because Joseph also received revelations and personal appearances from our heavenly Father, our Lord, and many angels and resurrected beings.

[Ray]

Hello Ray/all,

Sorry I took so long, I was digging through some of my book boxes to find my LDS books that I picked up while in Salt Lake. In talking to my LDS neighbor in SLC, I read the 4 LDS standard works and other LDS lit. that I picked up at the local DI. As I read and talked to Nate (my neighbor), I wrote some notes. Again, you are the LDS expert and your OP asked for apparent revelation discrepancies. I assure you that you have done much more LDS standard work reading than I have. I'm a beginner, so this may not be correct. From my novice reading though, here was one that I found as inconsistent: The whole concept of grace in the N.T. vs. 2 Nephi 25:23 which says "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." emphasis mine seems like two different revelations. This verse juxtaposed with Eph. 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." I look forward to your reply. Also note, this verse is not talking about the "Faith without works is dead" type idea. One side is saved by grace (period) and the other is adding, "after all we can do."

P.S. I really am enjoying this type of dialogue.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Dr. T.,

To put it simply, there is nothing and there never will be anything we can do to earn our salvation.

Or in other words, even “after doing all we can do” to do or believe everything God tells us to do or believe, we will still not earn our salvation. Period. End of story.

Now, does that mean that if God tells us to do something, we shouldn’t do it? I don’t think so. If God tell us to do something, or to believe something, I believe we should do or believe “all that we can do” to do or believe what God tells us. But still, no matter what we do or believe, we will never earn our salvation.

Or in other words, there is nothing and there never will be anything we can do to earn the love of God, or anything else God will give us because of His love for us, but I believe we should still do “all we can do” to show our love for Him.

And btw, congratulations on your decision to purchase the Standard Works, and I hope you will profit from them, but don't forget you still need to develop a personal relationship with God as well as to learn from others who did.

[Maureen]

There's been debate over whether Jesus meant Peter himself, or the confession of faith, when He said "Upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH." However, there's been no debate about what the Gates of Hell would not prevail against--it's always been that the Church would be victorious.

Heh, are you suggesting that until I brought it up, there was never any debate about what the “it” referred to?...

He's saying just the opposite Ray, re-read what PC said: There's been debate... - meaning people have discussed this scripture.

And to try to make this perfectly clear for you, I’m saying that when our Lord said:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against “it”.

The words of Matthew recording the words of our Lord could be interpreted as if saying:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against “revelation”.

If you're really interested Ray in Matthew 16:18, give this link a try and see what you think:

The Exegetical Examination of Matthew 16:18

By: Brittany C. Burnette

Summary

While some exegetes and theologians assert that the pevtra of this verse points to Jesus or the confession of Peter, the deliberate use of the pevtra-Pevtro" pun in 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT that contains both words, seems to indicate the Jesus specifically singled out the apostle Simon Peter as the “rock” in question. Peter is not given this position because he is inherently worthy; instead, he receives this title because he confessed his faith in the Messiah. Under the leadership of Peter, Jesus will build his own community (as seen in Acts), and nothing, not even death itself, will overcome the establishment of this body throughout history. Despite the fact that this exegesis points to Peter as the pevtra, the verse states nothing about Peter’s apostleship being passed down to future successors. It is the historical Peter who remains the “rock” of the Church156, and the exegesis of Matt 16:18 gives no indication that Jesus was establishing a permanent apostolic see for future Bishops of Rome.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2701

M.

[Ray]

Okay, Maureen, I re-read what prisonchaplain said, and while I can still see he was saying there has been some debate about this scripture, his words still seem to indicate that he believes there has been no debate over the issue of whether the “it’ refers to the church... or Peter... or revelation.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain seems to be saying that the “it’ refers only to the church, and that there is no debate about that, but I am suggesting that the “it” refers or also refers to receiving revelation from God.

And btw, I already know what some other people say, and I can see how those other options could be understood to be true, but from my standpoint of knowing that the church of Christ is built upon this Earth as people receive revelation… as Peter received revelation, assuring him and others who become members that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, as well as assuring us of other things which are true... I know the “rock” also refers to revelation… and not even the gates of hell can prevent it.

And you know what else? It really doesn't matter whether or not I convince other people that the "it" refers or also refers to revelation, because the plain truth is that there are optional translations and with revelation we can know which option or how the options are true.

And as I just showed you, in a sense, ALL of the options are or were true... and NONE of them conflicts with the fact that our Lord restored the Church through Joseph Smith. :)

[Ray]

I somehow overlooked this post earlier.

…It is a common belief that Christ was talking about Himself, not Simon Barjona (Peter/Petros/Rock) that He would build his church upon. This, following the correct proclamation from Peter, that "Thou [Jesus] art the Christ, the Son of the living God" makes the most logical sense when reading this passage in context.

That’s a subjective statement, and I think it makes just as much sense to say the church was also built upon Peter, after Peter received the keys of the kingdom, and the church was also built upon revelation, as Peter had received revelation.

And btw, the idea that the church of Christ was and continues to be built upon Christ does not mean that Christ is the only thing the church was and is to be built upon, meaning that although Christ was and continues to be the “chief cornerstone” of His church, there are other central components or “building blocks” in His church, such as how Peter and the apostles were “pillars”, and how the Book of Mormon is now the “keystone” of our religion… the religion of Jesus Christ.

…the conflict in this verse… is about the gates of Hell not overpowering the church. Logically though, if the church was completely out for 1700 years as was suggested by Joseph Smith-the gates of hell did prevail over the church for 1700 years.

You’re making more subjective statements here by inferring that IF our Lord did restore His church through Joseph Smith, as Joseph Smith claimed in 1830, the church had been overcome or “prevailed against” for 1700 years, and that it was the gates of Hell that had overcome or “prevailed against” the church.

I will now ask you to provide more information in support of your claims, as I now share my understanding that although I do believe the church that Christ established through Peter had fallen into apostasy by the year 1830, that did not mean that it was the “gates of hell” that had prevailed against the Church, or that the church had been in apostasy for 1700 years.

Or in other words, I can see other reasons to explain how the church fell into apostasy, without believing that it was the “gates of hell” that had prevailed against it.

And btw, the fact that the church had fallen into apostasy also wouldn't mean that our Lord had no alternative but to authorize other people to form another organization to restore His truths to the Earth, because He could have chosen another way, but the way He chose was the same way He had chosen to establish His church during His mortal ministry... when He ordained apostles instead of trying to convert or correct the Sanhedrin.

And btw, I’d also like you to give your interpretation of the word “prevailed”, which in my mind suggests the thought that the “adversary” is at the point of being totally and forever triumphant.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

That’s a subjective statement, and I think it makes just as much sense to say the church was also built upon Peter, after Peter received the keys of the kingdom, and the church was also built upon revelation, as Peter had received revelation.

And btw, the idea that the church of Christ was and continues to be built upon Christ does not mean that Christ is the only thing the church was and is to be built upon, meaning that although Christ was and continues to be the “chief cornerstone” of His church, there are other central components or “building blocks” in His church, such as how Peter and the apostles were “pillars”, and how the Book of Mormon is now the “keystone” of our religion… the religion of Jesus Christ.

Just for clarification, Ray, are you telling me that my reading of that text is “formed, (as in opinions), based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning?” Or did you use the wrong word there? Were you also using that in a pejoritive sense? Finally, just for arguments sake, lets say it was subjective, and you were using it in a derogitory way, how is that “subjective reading” any different than your reading in both paragraphs above? I’m not upset at all and not on the defensive, I’m merely asking as that I can understand where you are coming from with your reply. It helps me get a better sense of the person with whom I’m talking.

You’re making more subjective statements here by inferring that IF our Lord did restore His church through Joseph Smith, as Joseph Smith claimed in 1830, the church had been overcome or “prevailed against” for 1700 years, and that it was the gates of Hell that had overcome or “prevailed against” the church.

If, as we read in the BOM, none of the churches were right and they were all apostate, what else could it be than “prevailed against”? If you do not think that it was the foe of God, Satan and his minions, what lead the church astray, Ray? Remember, if you are not for God, you are against Him and doing the work of Satan. Are you not? Please educate my on this.

… I do believe the church that Christ established through Peter had fallen into apostasy by the year 1830, that did not mean that it was the “gates of hell” that had prevailed against the Church, or that the church had been in apostasy for 1700 years.

Ok the amount of time could easily be wrong. The real question is do you or do you not believe the church was in apostasy?

Or in other words, I can see other reasons to explain how the church fell into apostasy, without believing that it was the “gates of hell” that had prevailed against it.

What is your explanation?

... when He ordained apostles instead of trying to convert or correct the Sanhedrin.

I think your using the wrong word (group) here again. The Sanhedrin constituted the supreme court and legislative body of Ancient Israel. I don’t see the connection in your last sentence. Ray, do you use the word “inconceivable” a lot? Just kidding. If you take offense to that joke, I sincerely apologize to you.

And btw, I’d also like you to give your interpretation of the word “prevailed”, which in my mind suggests the thought that the “adversary” is at the point of being totally and forever triumphant.

1 : to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority

2 : to be or become effective or effectual

3 : to use persuasion successfully <as in prevailed on him to sing>

Was this not what Joseph Smith meant when reporting that God said the church was apostate; that Satan had led all astray? Maybe you should define for me what is meant by the word “apostasy” in your church.

Having fun,

Dr. T

[Dr T]

Hey Ray,

As for the 2 Nephi 25:23 verse which says, "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." Thanks for your reply to that but I'm having a hard time reconciling what you said and what the verse says. Since you are the LDS expert (and I am sooo not) please educated me then on what the AFTER means in that verse. It doesn't say "and then" or the like-so how did you get what you got from that AFTER in that verse?

Just seeking,

Dr. T

_______________________________________________

“To base thought only on speech is to try nailing whispers to the wall. Writing freezes thought and offers it up for inspection.” Jack Rosenthal in New York Times Magazine.

[Ray]

Dr. T.: …It is a common belief that Christ was talking about Himself, not Simon Barjona (Peter/Petros/Rock) that He would build his church upon. This, following the correct proclamation from Peter, that "Thou [Jesus] art the Christ, the Son of the living God" makes the most logical sense when reading this passage in context.

Ray: That’s a subjective statement, and I think it makes just as much sense to say the church was also built upon Peter, after Peter received the keys of the kingdom, and the church was also built upon revelation, as Peter had received revelation…

Dr. T.: Just for clarification, Ray, are you telling me that my reading of that text is “formed, (as in opinions), based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning?” Or did you use the wrong word there? Were you also using that in a pejorative sense? Finally, just for arguments sake, lets say it was subjective, and you were using it in a derogatory way, how is that “subjective reading” any different than your reading in both paragraphs above? I’m not upset at all and not on the defensive, I’m merely asking as that I can understand where you are coming from with your reply. It helps me get a better sense of the person with whom I’m talking.

Sorry for the confusion. I only meant that your interpretation, or the interpretation you were suggesting of the scriptures we were discussing, is based upon a person belief or personal understanding of what those scripture mean.

Or in other words, when you referred to that interpretation as “a common belief … <which> makes the most logical sense”, you were being subjective in making that statement, meaning that you were showing a bias toward that particular interpretation.

And no, I was not saying anything derogatory about you or that interpretation. I was merely pointing out that you were being subjective, or giving a personal belief, rather than being open to any other possibilities, which I mentioned.

Dr. T.: If, as we read in the BOM, none of the churches were right and they were all apostate, what else could it be than “prevailed against”? If you do not think that it was the foe of God, Satan and his minions, what lead the church astray, Ray? Remember, if you are not for God, you are against Him and doing the work of Satan. Are you not? Please educate me on this.

Did you not read the rest of my post before writing this? I was explaining how I believe the Church fell into apostasy, or turned away from some of the truth, and how that did NOT imply that the gates of hell had “prevailed” against the Church.

And yes, if you are willfully working against the Lord or His church, you are doing the work of Satan, but the battle isn’t over until the battle has been won… and there is still some time to do some work and a lot of work to be done.

Dr. T.: … do you or do you not believe the church was in apostasy?

Yes, I do.

Ray: …I can see other reasons to explain how the church fell into apostasy, without believing that it was the “gates of hell” that had prevailed against it.

Dr. T.: What is your explanation?

My belief is that some members and leaders of the Church back then were basing their beliefs on their own ideas rather than on personal revelation from God, but I would not go so far as to say that all who did so were opening the gates of hell or willfully working against our Lord or His church, because it could be that those people simply didn’t realize the truth or the leaders they should have followed.

Ray: ... <our Lord> ordained apostles instead of trying to convert or correct the Sanhedrin.

Dr. T.: I think your using the wrong word (group) here again. The Sanhedrin constituted the supreme court and legislative body of Ancient Israel. I don’t see the connection in your last sentence. Ray, do you use the word “inconceivable” a lot? Just kidding. If you take offense to that joke, I sincerely apologize to you.

I was referring to how our Lord ordained apostles to establish a new organization composed of people who would follow Him, rather than trying to convert or correct the organizations or bodies of believers who thought they were following Him.

And btw, the Sanhedrin not only represented the final authority for people who thought they were following our Lord in that day, because it was also composed of people who thought they were following our Lord in that day.

Ray: And btw, I’d also like you to give your interpretation of the word “prevailed”, which in my mind suggests the thought that the “adversary” is at the point of being totally and forever triumphant.

Dr. T.:

1 : to gain ascendancy through strength or superiority

2 : to be or become effective or effectual

3 : to use persuasion successfully <as in prevailed on him to sing>

Was this not what Joseph Smith meant when reporting that God said the church was apostate; that Satan had led all astray? Maybe you should define for me what is meant by the word “apostasy” in your church.

Thank you for providing your understanding of what the word “prevail” means to you, and I hope you can now understand why I don’t believe the gates of hell had or have prevailed against the Church.

But if not, perhaps the following tidbits will help:

The church of Christ refers to all the people who follow Christ by receiving all of His revelations.

Apostasy refers to turning away from something, such as Christ or any of His revelations.

And prevailing against something refers to overcoming something, such as Christ or His revelations.

And as I said before, the battle isn’t over until the battle has been won,

and we will ALL declare the Victor once the work has all been done.

Heh, and btw, I’m also having some fun as I talk with you about this too. :)

[Ray]

Hey Ray,

As for the 2 Nephi 25:23 verse which says, "We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." Thanks for your reply to that but I'm having a hard time reconciling what you said and what the verse says. Since you are the LDS expert (and I am sooo not) please educated me then on what the AFTER means in that verse. It doesn't say "and then" or the like-so how did you get what you got from that AFTER in that verse?

Oh come now, doc.

Is it really so hard for you to understand what Nephi meant after I have said all this???…

To put it simply, there is nothing and there never will be anything we can do to earn our salvation.

Or in other words, even “after doing all we can do” to do or believe everything God tells us to do or believe, we will still not earn our salvation. Period. End of story.

Now, does that mean that if God tells us to do something, we shouldn’t do it? I don’t think so. If God tell us to do something, or to believe something, I believe we should do or believe “all that we can do” to do or believe what God tells us. But still, no matter what we do or believe, we will never earn our salvation.

Or in other words, there is nothing and there never will be anything we can do to earn the love of God, or anything else God will give us because of His love for us, but I believe we should still do “all we can do” to show our love for Him.

Heh, but since you’re asking, I’ll guess it truly is, so I’ll now tell you a story, and let you tell me the moral, or what you may call the message.

There was once a man in Louisiana, at home alone in a storm.

For days he was warned about a hurricane, but he decided to stay at home.

The first day, it was raining, and a friend came by with a car.

But the man believed our God would save him, and decided to keep waiting at home.

The second day, it was still raining, and a friend came by with a truck.

But the man believed our God would save him, and decided to keep waiting at home.

The third day, it was still raining, and a friend came by with a raft.

But the man believed our God would save him, and decided to keep waiting at home.

The fourth day, it was still raining, and a friend came by with a boat.

But the man believed our God would save him, and decided to keep waiting at home.

The fifth day, it was still raining, and a friend came by with a helicopter.

But the man believed our God would save him, and decided to keep waiting at home.

The sixth day, the man drowned, and God asked him why he didn’t leave home.

But the man asked God why He didn’t save him, while he had waited at home.

(And btw, if you still don't get what I got, you can still ask God for His help)

[Traveler]

In the arena of modern discovery of truth verses traditional Christian understanding of truth, as in science verses religion and personal freedom and responsibility verses traditional religious ideals – It appears to me that traditional Christians have been slow to realize truth and have only made progress kicking and screaming (sort of speaking).

Examples would follow the Galileo fiasco and the fact that it when considering social freedoms and reforms, it was not until 1600’s before any law was passed allowing individuals to seek a religion other than the one in power without threat of losing their lives. And how long was it before woman’s suffrage or the end of slavery?

I have attempted to communicate in other threads that one of the biggest problems seems to stem from a belief that the Bible has all significant truth and any investigation outside of what is taught in the Bible is heresy.

On the other hand I personally believe that a true disciple of Christ will always be on the leading edge of discovering truth. And it does not matter if it is religious, scientific, social, family or personal.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I concur, Traveler.

And whether or not any other member of LDStalk concurs with you, I will still concur.

So, does anyone else concur?

Because I do, and Traveler does too.

We concur with each other.

:)

[Outshined]

I concur with your concurrence! B)

[Dr T]

Hey Ray,

Sorry for doing this but I don't understand. Your last post did not explain my question. What does the word "after" mean in that verse? and how does your story relate? Sorry. I'm not usually a dense person. I can usually handle concepts.

Thanks for your time,

Dr. T

[Ray]

Okay. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and try one more time to help you understand what Nephi meant by using the word “after”, and after this time, if you still don’t get what I’m trying to tell you, I suggest that you ask God for His help to understand this issue with faith that He can help you.

What does the word "after" mean in that verse?

The word “after” in that verse means the same thing implied by the word “after” in any other verse, or in any other context, in which a person might use the word “after”.

And to apply that thought to your original question, Nephi meant the same thing he would have meant had he chosen to say what he thought in other words, such as:

After we exercise Faith in Jesus Christ, and

After we are baptized in obedience to our Lord’s commandments, and

After we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and

After we walk in obedience to ALL of our Lord’s commandments,

or in other words,

After we have done and continue to do everything we can possibly do…

... it is still by grace that we are saved, even after we do all we can do to do everything our Lord wants us to do to show our love for Him and our Father in heaven.

And btw, it might also you to realize that God has placed no time limit on developing your ability to understand the truth, so take some time to think and ponder and pray about what I have said, and what Nephi said, before you totally give up on the idea of being able to understand us.

Take all the time you need. :)

[Dr T]

Ray, thank you for your patience. Would you say the word "after" here is alluding to a prerequisite for salvation by grace or not? What I was getting hung up on was the idea that we are only saved by grace, “following everything WE do.” I didn't read it as saying we are saved because of Gods grace (because of what GOD does) and then we attempt to follow after Him. Do you see my confusion?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Ray]

Ray, thank you for your patience. Would you say the word "after" here is alluding to a prerequisite for salvation by grace or not?

If you’re asking if there is anything we did or could have done to require God to save us, the answer is No, there is nothing we did or ever could have done to earn the grace of God, or to earn the salvation He offers us because of His grace and love.

But if you’re asking if there is anything we must to do to be saved, the answer is Yes, there are many things we must do to receive the salvation we have available to us because of the grace of God, and yet after we do all that we can and could have done, we will still never earn our salvation, or any of His grace and love.

For instance, we must have Faith in Jesus Christ, and without Faith in Him we cannot be saved, but that doesn’t mean that if we have Faith in Jesus Christ we will then have earned the salvation we now have available to us because of the grace of God.

And btw, there are many, many, many other things we must do to receive the salvation we have available to us because of the grace of God, and all of those things we must do to be saved are in essence contained in what are known as His two greatest commandments.

What I was getting hung up on was the idea that we are only saved by grace, “following everything WE do.” I didn't read it as saying we are saved because of Gods grace (because of what GOD does) and then we attempt to follow after Him. Do you see my confusion?

Are you now trying to tell me that you are still confused?

If so, while I think I can understood why you might have had trouble understanding what Nephi meant by what he wrote in 2 Nephi 25:23, I’m now having trouble understanding why you’re still having so much trouble understanding Nephi even after I have told you what he meant in several different ways and on several different occasions.

Heh, but anyway, as I said, it is now between you and God, because I have given you enough to think about while you kneel and talk with God. But, to go yet another mile with you to try to help you understand this, I will now recommend that you go back to the scriptures and read verse by verse, starting with verse 1 of 2 Nephi 25.

And btw, it might also interest you to know that Nephi said he was writing in plainness, so that his people could not err in understanding him, and yet you and I’m sure many other people who read his words still have and had trouble understanding him.

Heh, anyway, go figure. :)

[Dr T]

Hi Ray,

Since we disagree about the understanding of the word "after" in that verse, we can move on to other questions I had for my neighbor while in SLC. He was unable to give me an answer and you asked for modern revelation vs. the Bible here is the conflict I found. In the Bible, we read:

"For I am God, and not man-the Holy One among you" (Hos. 11:9).

"God is spirit" (John 4:24)

"A spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39)

and in the D&C we read:

"The Faher has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" 130:22.

Thoughts?

Dr. T

[Ray]

Our Father has a spirit as well as a body.

And if you can't understand that one, please just let me know. :)

And btw, even though we may not agree on that other point, you should at least be willing to acknowledge the fact that it is at least possible that there is no contradiction between those scriptures.

Or in other words, when measuring modern revelation against other revelations received before, be careful to make sure you are measuring revelations against revelations, and not your interpretation of those revelations.

Or in other words, if I or anyone else can find a way to harmonize the interpretation of modern revelations with the interpretation of other revelations received before, then those revelations do not contradict each other, and in essence they are one.

Or in other words, if I or anyone else can find a way to find harmony between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, then those books are records of revelation from the one and only God.

And btw, the fact that you may be able to find a way to show that they are not in harmony proves nothing, if there is still a way for them to be in harmony.