Fallibility of prophets and scripture and revelation -- slavery


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

If any of your people--Hebrew men or women--sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free.  Deuteronomy 15:12

Since the New Testament tells us that all men are brothers, Galatians 3:28, then I think that the above verse would make it clear, in my humble opinion,  that if Christians held slaves then those slaves should have been freed after 7 years.  But again, that is only my opinion with my looking back 20 centuries.

But lets be honest, we are dealing with another time and place.  

1)  Only a tiny percentage of the people in the Roman Empire during the first century were Christian.

2)  Half the population of the Roman Empire was slave and his admonitions to slaves and masters was a recognition of this fact

3) Later abolitionist groups drew inspiration from the Bible for their push to end a practice that is probably as old as humanity itself

4)  The fact that slavery exists today says more work needs to be done

I would humbly suggest that you are making the mistake of taking scripture out of context - both historically and culturally.  Perhaps in retrospect it is easy for us to point back  almost two millennium and say, "perhaps the scriptures should have said this or that", but again we weren't there.  

I do not say any of the above to "minimize" the evil of slavery, because it is and was a horrible practice.  I'm just attempting to provide some context.  

But the point I would make is that where ever the gospel goes, the condition of humanity inevitably improves.  Where ever you find someone living a life worthy of our calling to Christ, inevitably you will find others who are drawn into that light.

Conversely, where that light shines, you will find the enemy rising up to oppose it.  You will find the proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing rising to oppose it.  How else would one explain why else were so many "Christians" out there violently opposing abolition or oppressing the early Saints as we were driven from place to place?

 But as it applies to me, I don't think it is profitable to point fingers at others in the past and say, "you should have done better or done otherwise" I think it is more profitable that I point the finger at myself and ask, like those abolitionist of the 19th century, "what can I do to make things better."  

God Bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to sound terrible (and I haven't read the entire thread yet, so this may have been stated already).  Slavery is NOT necessarily evil.  It is not necessarily something that the Lord forbids, and in some instances, is perhaps condoned by the Lord.  We are viewing and rating the Scriptures and bible according to our own WESTERN MORALITY rather than the morality the Lord has defined.

We have examples of slavery in the past that show that a slave can be of a higher standing than a freeman.  Joseph in Egypt was second ONLY to Pharoah...however...it should not be forgotten that he was also Pharoah's slave.  As Pharoah's property, he was an extension of Pharaoh himself and the  mouthpiece of Pharoah.  As a slave, he hence was the second most powerful person in Egypt above all other nobles, royalty and freemen. 

In Egypt, once again, we have the Mamluks, the supreme fighting power during their age, and rulers of all of Egypt and beyond.  They were ALSO a slave caste and the only way to be a Mamluk was to be a slave.

Again, we have the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire.  Owned by the Rulers of the Ottoman empire, they were also all slaves, but also only overruled by their master.  They held precedence over nobles, royalty, and freemen.  Those who were in subject nations to the ottomans many times preferred to offer their children up as slaves in the jannisarries due to how high in esteem this slave caste was held up to, and the power that they wielded.

WE tend to view slavery from our western eyes in the view of how slaves were handled and treated in the Americas between the 15th and 20th centuries.  This is also how slaves were treated in many nations, but it is not the only way in how slavery works.  This occurs in many instances where we try to apply our Western morality to that of the Lord's commandments.  It does not always fit and is not always something that is perfectly aligned.  In some instances, they are VERY different.

The Lord's ways are not the world's ways.  We should accept what the Lord has told us and commanded us and be humble to accept that his way is better than our ways, and his understanding is greater than our understanding.

That does not mean I condone slavery (as we understand it in the West) today, and in fact, I would condemn it.  It does mean, however, that I do not have difficulty in accepting the Lord's statements in regards to issues some may find difficulty when read within the folds of our scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Old Testament laws on slavery were the most enlightened and humane in the Middle East at the time. 

As for the New Testament, Paul strongly hinted to Philemon that he wanted him to free Onesimus, and the NT commands slaveholders to treat their slaves kindly and humanely. If the NT authors had overtly called for an end to slavery, the Church would have faced the full wrath of the Roman Empire for advocating "dangerous" and "radical" views that would directly impact the Roman economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had not intended to encourage the resurrection of the thread, but I guess there are enough new responses to warrant some kind of acknowledgement.

I will agree that we must not apply "presentism" to ancient scripture. Even trying to apply 21st century morality to the 19th century can be problematic. As I tried to indicate in the OP, this isn't so much about the specific question of slavery as the question discerning how God speaks to man and what truths are eternal and which are not.

Another example that was brought up in this thread was the question of birth control. It seems to me that early 20th century LDS attitudes towards birth control were much less tolerant than they are today. Is the shift in attitude moving closer to God's eternal truth, or is it like Vort suggested earlier, God's "accomodating" our current cultural attitudes?

Perhaps more challenging -- the LGBT question? Progressive Mormons would say that we will/may someday be even more tolerant of LGBT people and behaviors as the younger generation (who, if the opinion polls are to be believed) consistently show more acceptance of LGBT issues and that this trend will represent a trend towards God's eternal truth (where the current position is "accommodating" our unenlightened cultural attitudes. On the other hand, I see some decrying the Church's current softened stance (compared to the '70's or so) as moving away from God's eternal truth and towards more cultural accommodation.

I guess it just comes down to something like this. Hindsight is 20/20, so it is easier to look back and say that "God was accommodating the culture of the time, but we know better now." In the controversial topics of today, it seems more difficult to know what part of what we teach is God accommodating our cultural opinions and what is real, eternal truth.

I can accept St. Paul and Moses as apostles and prophets -- even if I believe that they were "wrong" about slavery. How does that translate into modern controversies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Jesus himself made failed prophecies, so if the saviour himself can be wrong about something then surely we must give the prophets some wiggle room! 

 “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Edited by truthseaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, truthseaker said:

Even Jesus himself made failed prophecies, so if the saviour himself can be wrong about something then surely we must give the prophets some wiggle room! 

 “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

How is either of those failed?  They are yet to come. 

The first footnote for Mark 13 in the LDS edition of the bible includes the following:

Quote

The text of JST Mark 13 is the same as JST Matthew 24. See Pearl of Great Price, JS—M.

...and the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) version of Matthew 24 translates the "this generation will not pass away" bit as (emphasis mine):

Quote

34 Verily, I say unto you, this generation, in which these things shall be shown forth, shall not pass away until all I have told you shall be fulfilled.

And for the Matthew 16 reference, the one "standing here who will not taste death until" then is John the Beloved (there may be others about whom we know nothing, but we know about him).  (See "John" in the Bible Dictionary.)

Just in case the JST (links to explanation) is new to you, see also:

Quote

Article of Faith 8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, zil said:

How is either of those failed?  They are yet to come. 

The first footnote for Mark 13 in the LDS edition of the bible includes the following:

...and the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) version of Matthew 24 translates the "this generation will not pass away" bit as (emphasis mine):

And for the Matthew 16 reference, the one "standing here who will not taste death until" then is John the Beloved (there may be others about whom we know nothing, but we know about him).  (See "John" in the Bible Dictionary.)

Just in case the JST (links to explanation) is new to you, see also:

 

He said 'before this generation passes away' that generation is long gone.  I've read a lot of the arguments for interpretation on this scripture (and the many others like it, those are just the two I know off the top of my head) meaning thousands of years in the future vs what it actually says.

To each their own, I personally take it for what it says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

He said 'before this generation passes away' that generation is long gone.  I've read a lot of the arguments for interpretation on this scripture (and the many others like it, those are just the two I know off the top of my head) meaning thousands of years in the future vs what it actually says.

To each their own, I personally take it for what it says

I take it for what it originally said - not what the erroneous translation says.  But we believe in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  So, yeah, if you don't believe in the JST, then it looks like Christ made a mistake (seems rather faith-shattering - what other mistakes did he make?).  But if you do believe in the JST, then it's no problem, because the correct translation makes perfect sense and is yet to come - no worries about reconciling whether Christ made a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zil said:

I take it for what it originally said - not what the erroneous translation says.  But we believe in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  So, yeah, if you don't believe in the JST, then it looks like Christ made a mistake (seems rather faith-shattering - what other mistakes did he make?).  But if you do believe in the JST, then it's no problem, because the correct translation makes perfect sense and is yet to come - no worries about reconciling whether Christ made a mistake.

Thats so cool, I'll have to read the JST and check it out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 4:46 AM, truthseaker said:

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place

there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until

13 hours ago, truthseaker said:

He said 'before this generation passes away' that generation is long gone.  I've read a lot of the arguments for interpretation on this scripture (and the many others like it, those are just the two I know off the top of my head) meaning thousands of years in the future vs what it actually says.

To each their own, I personally take it for what it says

Regardless of what the JST says, just look at what you quoted.

1) This generation will not pass away...

2)There are some of those who are standing here...

The first statement, isolated, may be taken either way.  Either he was talking about "the generation" as in that age or dispensation or that group as a whole...  OR  he could be talking about every single individual alive in that generation.  By itself, it is ambiguous. That is one reason why we have multiple sources -- to clarify the meaning.

The second statement clearly states that if even a single person there still lived, then the prophecy is fulfilled.  Similar statements.  Same prophecy.  But one statement is much more clear regarding that condition than the other.

The very fact that there were two different wordings of supposedly the same quote should tell you that something was NOT a direct quote, but a paraphrasing or a secondhand account or so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am of much different understanding and persuasion than most.  I will begin by saying what I believe to be a step towards apostasy.  That is the idea of certain truths necessary for salvation as opposed to things that may be true but are not necessary for salvation.   This idea of categories of doctrinal truths that we can pick from for our salvation is to my understanding a cleaver temptation of Satan to carefully lead saints away from the pursuit of truth.

Hopefully I now have the reader’s attention.  According to Isaiah there are 3 great principles that comprise the “Gospel”.  The 3 principles are, 1. The Law.  2. The Ordinances. And 3. The Everlasting Covenant.  Please note specifically that "Doctrine" is not on this list.

Too many, it seems to believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is completely comprised of one and only one thing – Doctrine.  Because many believe salvation and divine power is manifested completely in doctrine and nothing else – they read scripture and search divine revelation to satisfy their appetite for doctrine and ignore all other things in scripture.  So focused are they on doctrine that they do not understand the Law and often have no concept of what any particular law is.  Even the sacred ordinances of the gospel become secondary to devotions to doctrine that is sought for above all else.

In short everything is backwards in seeking doctrine – when doctrine is everything and always comes first.  The Law, Ordinances and Covenant exist only to satisfy doctrine.  I believe doctrine is only useful when employed to help us understand our Law, Ordinances, and Covenants given to us from G-d.  The gospel allows Law, Ordinances and Covenants for the slave, or freeman – not as doctrine but “things” given and allowed for all – including even slaves or freeman.  Not to be understood as doctrine to allow such thing but as principles to all in every time and circumstance.  But as explanations of divine law, ordiances and covenant.

 

The Traveler

 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Hopefully I now have the reader’s attention.  According to Isaiah there are 3 great principles that comprise the “Gospel”.  The 3 principles are, 1. The Law.  2. The Ordinances. And 3. The Everlasting Covenant.  Please note specifically that "Doctrine" is not on this list.

That's because doctrine is a word that simply means what is believed and taught. Clearly principles are things that are believed and taught.

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Too many, it seems to believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is completely comprised of one and only one thing – Doctrine. 

I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone thinks or believes that. Well...maybe one or two nutcases out there. But "too many". Well, I suppose even one nutcase is too many. but the implication that lots of people believe this way...I'm not buying it. Most people, very reasonably, understand that "doctrine" is the teachings of the church, to be learned, understood, and acted upon for the salvation of their souls, and that understanding "doctrine" without acting upon it is meaningless.

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Because many believe salvation and divine power is manifested completely in doctrine and nothing else –

Once again, I think "many believe" is false here. Almost everyone in the church understands the plain concept that salvation and divine power comes through Christ by accepting Him and doing His will. Learning doctrine is simply part of the process of knowing what His will is. Covenants and ordinances being a key concept therein. Knowing that taking upon oneself covenants through gospel ordinances is Christ's will. You seem to be trying to say that we can know this truth without knowing the doctrine. But how does that work? If you know the truth you know the doctrine. If you learn the truth, you've learned the doctrine. Understanding principles of truth is learning doctrine.

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In short everything is backwards in seeking doctrine – when doctrine is everything and always comes first. 

Only by some strange definition of "doctrine" that doesn't actually mean what the word means. Doctrine is "what is taught". Christ's doctrine is "what Christ taught". 

Therefore.....

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The Law, Ordinances and Covenant exist only to satisfy doctrine. 

...the law, ordinances, covenants, and all other aspects of the gospel, being "taught", are doctrine. 

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe doctrine is only useful when employed to help us understand our Law, Ordinances, and Covenants given to us from G-d. 

In other words, ignoring some doctrines in favor of others is a flawed approach, particularly when the doctrine being ignored is key to the gospel.

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The gospel allows Law, Ordinances and Covenants for the slave, or freeman – not as doctrine

Wrong. You can't learn a truth without learning a doctrine. They are the same. Whether you recognize it as doctrine or not, that which is learned from God (which means, accordingly, that it was taught by God) is the doctrine of God.

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

but “things” given and allowed for all

"things" that are taught -- meaning doctrine.

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not to be understood as doctrine to allow such thing but as principles to all in every time and circumstance.  But as explanations of divine law, ordiances and covenant.

Understanding things as doctrine is equivalent to principles explained.

If someone say, "I'm going to explain this principle to you" and another person says, "I'm going to teach this doctrine to you" they're saying the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
21 minutes ago, changed said:

I was thinking about this the other day as well (recent events - involving a bishopric member who is now in jail for the rest of their life - have caused me to not trust church leaders as much as I once did...)  

That's awful. 

In a case like that, we need to remember that 99% of bishops and church leaders are wonderful people who wouldn't harm a fly-but there are some bad guys out there from every religion, including our own. 

I've read stories about priesthood leaders running Ponzi schemes or large scale frauds of that type. We can't let our faith contradict our common sense. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulled from Appendix notes in The Doctrine of Christ Study Guide by Project Doctrine of Christ (https://projectdoctrineofchrist.com/):

Truth’s Prophetic Order of Operations

The Order of Legitimacy of Truth

  1. Personal Revelation (Celestial Truth). Principles of personal revelation and why personal revelation always trumps other sources of truth—always.

a. Their Truth—Personal revelation is communication with God or the Godhead, the source of all truth and They cannot lie or They would cease to be God. (see Topical Guide—God, Omniscience of)

b. Arm of FleshEverything other than communication from God, Himself, is considered the “arm-of-flesh”--yes, everything. (Topical Guide—Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh)

c. Principle of Infallibility—Contrary to culture or tradition of some, there is no such thing as the infallibility of any church leader including church presidents, yes, including LDS prophets, seers and revelators. Thus the term, “arm-of-flesh”. (See Modern Day Idolatry section below)

d. Idolatry—Since the restoration of the gospel through the prophet, Joseph Smith, prophets have been trying to wean the children of God from dependence on prophets and the arm-of-flesh in hopes that they would turn to God, Himself. The purpose of all prophets has been to declare God’s words and “bring His children to Christ” or “turn or direct His children to Him, personally” but never to replace God Himself. When His children place their trust and confidence solely in anything that stands between themselves and God, including LDS prophets, this is idolatry. The phrase “follow the prophet” is not scriptural or official church doctrine and may lead to modern day idolatry. Not every word of prophets or church leaders are prophetic or “of God” leaving it to be that person’s opinion. Decades and generations of words from church leaders has created a culture of hanging on every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of church leaders--especially since not all church leaders in church history agree with one another on various subjects. Consequently, talks, lessons, training sessions, conferences and more are often dedicated to quoting church leaders at the expense of feasting on the word of God in scripture. This includes church leaders recycling or quoting the words of other church leaders. (See OT Exodus 19-34—Children of Israel attitude toward Moses, See D&C 84:23-26, See Modern Day Idolatry section below).

e. All Are to Be Prophets—While the living prophet is the caretaker of the church, it was always intended for all to be prophets (Numbers 11:24-29). When speaking prophetically, it should benefit the body of Christ as we have been counseled to “appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege” (D&C 88:122).

f. Seeking for Prophetic Authority—The “arm-of-flesh” may speak prophetically and on behalf of God. However, office in the church, keys, calling or assignment alone does not guarantee or assure they are always speaking prophetically. One must have permission of God, by asking and seeking for His Spirit to declare it, in order to speak on His behalf—After all, it is His truth.

g. Discerning the Word—Even after a prophet, seer, revelator (modern or historical), or any other child of God has declared words (spoken or written) it is the responsibility of any other person to receive personal revelation and receive God’s assurance that it is “truth” or whether it is one’s opinion—by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:3-5). Since the restoration to today, standing prophets, apostles and other general authorities of the church have disagreed with one another on various subjects and even points of doctrine. It is the responsibility of a person to be a hearer of the word and yet determine what portion is truth, if not all. It is also the responsibility of a person, as a hearer of the word, to identify which truths are relevant to their unique journey at that given time.

h. Hearers and Doers of the Word—“Keep My commandments” is a term used throughout the scriptures by the Lord, God Himself, that refers to both His written word/commands and His spoken words/commands. These occur in the minds of an individual via the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost. It must be noted there is a difference between the two.

 

2. Written or Spoken Words of Prophets (Telestial Truth)

2a.    Written Word in Scriptures (God’s own words as revealed through prophets, scribes, etc.). Again, whether the scriptural prophets reveal truth is a matter of one determining that through personal revelation (See Moroni 10:3-5).

2b.    Words of Current or Past Prophets or Prophetesses (Church leaders and any other God-inspired brothers or sisters). This is 2b because modern prophets have the discretion to clarify or denounce revelation from previous prophets, seers and revelators when it is no longer necessary or applicable. Remember, not all words of prophets or church leaders are prophetic or “of God” which therefore would be that person’s opinion.

Are All Three Sources of Truth Needed to Receive Christ’s Truth and Christ, Himself?

No! He is the great Teacher. Nothing else compares. For example, to receive a testimony of the truth of the existence of God, His role as Creator, Father and so forth, one needs only the Light of Christ to declare it to that person. If a person will follow the truth of the Light of Christ it will lead them on their unique and personal mortal journey to more truth and ultimately into His presence.

“The light of Christ is just what the words imply: enlightenment, knowledge, and an uplifting, ennobling, persevering influence that comes upon mankind because of Jesus Christ. For instance, Christ is “the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 93:2; see John 1:9). The light of Christ fills the “immensity of space” and is the means by which Christ is able to be “in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things.” It “giveth life to all things” and is “the law by which all things are governed.” It is also “the light that quickeneth” man’s understanding (see D&C 88:6–13, 41).” Source: Bible Dictionary, Light of Christ)

 

Per the infallibility of church leaders with titles, the following are prophetic comments from some of our favorite church leaders telling us to avoid this excessive dependence upon leaders in the latter and modern day:

  • Joseph Smith: “Because of...the apparent imperfections of men on whom God confers authority, the question is sometimes asked,—to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do any thing they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God, who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty (!) authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their Presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. “When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves, and wish to pave the way to accomplish that wrong; or else because they have done wrong, and wish to use the cloak of their authority to cover it with, lest it should be discovered by their superiors, who would require an atonement at their hands.” [Priesthood," Millennial Star 14/38 (13 November 1852)]

  • “The obligation of revelation for the individual is often referred to as an “ascent vision experience.” It remains of paramount importance to all believers to seek the Lord’s face. Brigham Young said, “What a pity it would be if we were led by one man [or men – the arm of flesh] to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, pps. 149-50).

  • President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that “the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. … We should be careful of them.” (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

  • Ezra Taft Benson:

“The world largely ignores the first and great commandment–to love God–but talks a lot about loving their brother. They worship at the altar of man. Would Nephi have slain Laban if he had put the love of neighbor above the love of God? Would Abraham have taken Isaac up for a sacrifice if he had put the second commandment first? "It is from within the Church that the greatest hindrance comes. Six of the original Twelve Apostles selected by Joseph Smith were excommunicated. The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the Church. Three of Joseph Smith’s Counselors fell - one even helped plot his death. A natural question that might arise would be, that if the Lord knew in advance that these men would fall, as he undoubtedly did, why did he have his Prophet call them to such high office? The answer is: to fill the Lord’s purposes. For even the Master followed the will the will of the Father by selecting Judas.

“Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. And this would parallel Lehi’s warning; put not your “. . . trust in the arm of flesh. . . .” (2 Nephi 4:34). What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders."

“Precepts of men or principles of God: Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most. Increasingly the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that "the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood . . . We should be careful of them." (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

“The Lord does not always give reasons for each commandment. Sometimes faithful members, like Adam of old, are called upon to obey an injunction of the Lord even though they do not know the reason why it was given. Those who trust in God will obey him, knowing full well that time will provide the reasons and vindicate their obedience.

“The arm of flesh may not approve nor understand why God has not bestowed the priesthood on women or the seed of Cain, but God's ways are not man's ways (Isa. 55:8-9). God does not have to justify all his ways for the puny mind of man. If a man gets in tune with the Lord, he will know that God's course of action is right, even though he may not know all the reasons why.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith understood this principle when he said, ". . . the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 438.)

SOURCE: Be Not Deceived, Elder Ezra Taft Benson Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1963, p. 15-19, http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1286

  • President George Q. Cannon once taught, “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside.” (DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).
  • James E. Talmage: “The same principle applies to persons and to the Church as a whole today. God has not established His Church to make of its members irresponsible automatons, nor to exact from them blind obedience. Albeit, blessed is the man who, while unable to fathom or comprehend in full the Divine purpose underlying commandment and law, has such faith as to obey. So did Adam in offering sacrifice, yet, when questioned as to the significance of his service, he answered with faith and assurance worthy the patriarch of the race: "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." [James E. Talmage, The Vitality of Mormonism, p. 42.]

 

Edited by Project Doctrine of Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

That's because doctrine is a word that simply means what is believed and taught. Clearly principles are things that are believed and taught.

I think you're wrong. I don't think anyone thinks or believes that. Well...maybe one or two nutcases out there. But "too many". Well, I suppose even one nutcase is too many. but the implication that lots of people believe this way...I'm not buying it. Most people, very reasonably, understand that "doctrine" is the teachings of the church, to be learned, understood, and acted upon for the salvation of their souls, and that understanding "doctrine" without acting upon it is meaningless.

Once again, I think "many believe" is false here. Almost everyone in the church understands the plain concept that salvation and divine power comes through Christ by accepting Him and doing His will. Learning doctrine is simply part of the process of knowing what His will is. Covenants and ordinances being a key concept therein. Knowing that taking upon oneself covenants through gospel ordinances is Christ's will. You seem to be trying to say that we can know this truth without knowing the doctrine. But how does that work? If you know the truth you know the doctrine. If you learn the truth, you've learned the doctrine. Understanding principles of truth is learning doctrine.

Only by some strange definition of "doctrine" that doesn't actually mean what the word means. Doctrine is "what is taught". Christ's doctrine is "what Christ taught". 

Therefore.....

...the law, ordinances, covenants, and all other aspects of the gospel, being "taught", are doctrine. 

In other words, ignoring some doctrines in favor of others is a flawed approach, particularly when the doctrine being ignored is key to the gospel.

Wrong. You can't learn a truth without learning a doctrine. They are the same. Whether you recognize it as doctrine or not, that which is learned from God (which means, accordingly, that it was taught by God) is the doctrine of God.

"things" that are taught -- meaning doctrine.

Understanding things as doctrine is equivalent to principles explained.

If someone say, "I'm going to explain this principle to you" and another person says, "I'm going to teach this doctrine to you" they're saying the exact same thing.

 

A while back I posted about the difference between what a person cannot do and will not do.  It does not matter the reason - the fact that you fail to recognize any possible difference between doctrine (anything taught in any place and time) and - divine Law, sacred Ordinances, and eternal Covenants leaves me perplexed.   G-d is not doctrine – Sacred ordinances are not doctrine.  Just because someone teaches something does not mean that something is doctrine.  For example, even though someone teaches something about New York city – does not make the city of New York “doctrine”.  Dah!  There is a difference between doctrine and what it is that doctrine describes. 

For those other than TFP - Obviously the very broad brush that defines the full extent of the term “doctrines” have and will continue to change for many reasons and circumstances but divine Law, sacred Ordinances and eternal Covenants, do not change – except that it may seem that our thoughts and impressions (doctrine) of such eternal things do change.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

the fact that you fail to recognize any possible difference between doctrine (anything taught in any place and time) and - divine Law, sacred Ordinances, and eternal Covenants leaves me perplexed. 

Lying is a sin.

Oh...wait...you're not lying....you just don't understand.

Let me clarify:

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

G-d is not doctrine

What we teach about God is.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Sacred ordinances are not doctrine.

What we teach about sacred ordinances is.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just because someone teaches something does not mean that something is doctrine.

doc·trine
ˈdäktrən/
noun
 
  1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

For example, even though someone teaches something about New York city – does not make the city of New York “doctrine”. 

See clarification in the definition above.

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is a difference between doctrine and what it is that doctrine describes. 

I never said there wasn't.

What I said and what I mean is that understanding the doctrine of any given thing is key.  An ordinance isn't meaningful without understanding the doctrine behind that ordinance. You can't truly take upon yourself a covenant without know what a covenant is. (You can go through the motions, but it will have no meaning to you until you can understand it). You can't know God without knowing God's words, God's teachings, etc. You can't understand a principle without understanding the doctrine of that principle.

That is what I am saying. Are you confused or are you twisting what I've said to push me aside so you don't have to deal with my actual comments?

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Obviously the very broad brush that defines the full extent of the term “doctrines” have and will continue to change for many reasons and circumstances but divine Law, sacred Ordinances and eternal Covenants, do not change 

But let's just say you're 100% right -- and you are from a certain perspective -- divine law, sacred ordinances, and eternal covenants do not change. (Obviously at some level they remain the same...but in every regard? Do we use the same words to baptize the we find in all instances in the scriptures? No we do not. Are the temple ordinances the exact same as they were when originated by Joseph? No they are not.) But there are certain aspects of these things that do not change, as best we understand it.

I'm going to enlarge the following because you seem to be missing the point of what I'm trying to get at:

What does that have to do with the importance of learning and understanding doctrine concerning those matters? You seem to be casting aside the doctrine of these things as if it's not important. Can you explain to me how I can be engaged in the things of God without understanding and knowing the true doctrine of those things first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 An ordinance isn't meaningful without understanding the doctrine behind that ordinance.

 

 

This statement is false and it contridicts many things you has said concerning faith.  I have thought you have insisted that we live by faith and not by understanding.  Please make up your mind.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This statement is false and it contridicts many things you has said concerning faith.  I have thought you have insisted that we live by faith and not by understanding.  Please make up your mind.

If you really want to get hostile with me we can go at it. I thought you were just posting how we shouldn't dispute though. Is this hypocrisy? Or did you just slip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you really want to get hostile with me we can go at it. I thought you were just posting how we shouldn't dispute though. Is this hypocrisy? Or did you just slip?

It is my impression that you are hostile - I thought you would see the mistake - but it appears that the mistake is mine.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

It is my impression that you are hostile - I thought you would see the mistake - but it appears that the mistake is mine.

You think there's a mistake because you like to presume what I mean.

There is no opposition in the need to understand and know doctrine (gain knowledge) and the need to live by faith. You are clearly presuming things that you think I believe because you don't understand them yourself.

So, yes, the mistake is yours, and telling me to "make up my mind" is based on an false premise that my ideas are at odds with each other. They are not. If you want me to explain, I will. If you want to throw strawmen at each other then let's enjoy it because we sure won't get anywhere useful this way.

But just because you don't understand the relationship and balance between the need for BOTH knowledge and faith and how they work hand in hand one with another does not mean that I do not.

And, yes, I am hostile when you start claiming a bunch of stuff I never said and accusing me thereby. I did not say doctrine and ordinances, etc., were the EXACT same thing. I did not say that "just" because someone teaches something it is doctrine. And the fact that I only implied "by an organization" rather than specifying it outright should be obvious because we're talking about an organization. Inferring that I mean any old individual who teaches any given thing makes that thing itself doctrine is at best an imbecilic interpretation of what I said and at worst a twisted falsehood to discredit my ideas and score points in some sort of pseudo debate you think you're in. I didn't start out hostile. When you start twisting everything I say and attacking me with that kind of garbage, what do you expect? 

If you want to continue this conversation then why don't you try again in your response to this post:

in which I tried to engage you logically and civilly, and point-by-point, as I did, respond to what I'm saying reasonably and logically rather than just jumping to false conclusions about what I said and then attacking me with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

Carborendum, do you have a secret love interest or fascination with Denver Snuffer? You come across like you have a great deal of fear. I am not quite sure what you fear but it is really apparent. Someone uses a term from 2 Nephi 31 in the Book of Mormon and they all of a sudden are some crazy person. Have you read the Book of Mormon and did you know it teaches the Doctrine of Christ and actually uses that phrase (whahhh, GASP)? Do you have something personally against citing scriptures that discuss redemption? Are you the doctrine police?  Does it make you feel superior to "label" people and put them in a box or even condemn them for opening up the conversation about it? I have heard of people in the NT like that.  I thought reverence and worship of an almighty God and His Beloved Son was ok as a Christian, and certainly ok for a desiring member of the LDS Church?

Formal Disclaimer for Carborendum's Personal Fears: I have never read ANY snuffer literature. I have never met him and don't have a desire to. I have never read anything about him other than a local news report from 2017 in an online newspaper.  From what very little I read in that online news report, I don't subscribe to his methods of leading people away from the LDS Church.

Remember everyone, He's (Carborendum) not afraid!

Why are you reacting like that?  I was merely defending you from accusers based on what I FEAR others might impugn on your character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Formal Disclaimer for Carborendum's Personal Fears: I have never read ANY snuffer literature. I have never met him and don't have a desire to. I have never read anything about him other than a local news report from 2017 in an online newspaper.  From what very little I read in that online news report, I don't subscribe to his methods of leading people away from the LDS Church."

@Project Doctrine of Christ, So what's the deal then? Because here's my take: Someone with the name Project Doctrine of Christ posts a message with a link to a website called Project Doctrine of Christ and then proceeds to express sentiments that are pretty much exactly in line with what I'd expect from people who associate with the "Doctrine of Christ fellowships" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Christ_fellowships_(Latter_Day_Saint)). So the natural conclusion seems...pretty natural.

 

Nevermind. Found this thread:

I guess one misses stuff when one leaves off from the forum for a while.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share