In The Lds Church, Are New Revelations From The Prophet Allowed To Contradict The Standard Works Of The Church?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Polygamy, polyandry, etc. is not a current doctrinal practice in the Church. So I think as far as Pres. Hinckley went, he is correct. I do believe the basic concept is still doctrinal in theory, since it is allowed in temple sealing ceremonies, where one or more parties have passed on. But not practically speaking.

Surprisingly, people often conveniently overlook the polygamy practised in the Bible. It isn't something newly invented by Latter-day Saints.

Willow,

Distinct persons, one being. A multipersonal being. The persons can communicate, love and even being in different spatial locations. (and even though I don't believe God the Father has a literal body, the doctrine of the trinity does not (IMHO) rule out it as a possibilty.

Distinct persons, one being? I just can't get my head round the idea of a multipersonal being'.It sounds schizophrenic or just one step away from the Catholic church's different personages of Mary with 'Our Lady of Lourdes', 'Our Lady of Fatima', 'Our Lady of Walsingham' etc and praying to different ones for different purposes.

[Connolly]

Do you mean contradict the standard works?

Or contradict a particular interpretation, even thought it may be widely held, of the standard works?

I can think of a specific instances where the latter has occurred.

[CrimsonKairos]

I can think of a specific instances where the latter has occurred.

I'm curious...what instances do you have in mind?

[WillowTheWhisp]

There may have been times when new revelation has been required because things 'out there' have changed. That doesn't mean the Gospel has changed. It just means Heavenly Father is saying "Right now I want you to do it this way because they are doing that, that way."

[Dale]

I found an article explaining what President Hinckley meant in the Time magazine interview. I guess Time's report left out some of the citation.

Downplaying the King Follett Discourse - FAIRMormon

1 Kings 13:11-32 has an incident of a prophet who spoke falsely on behalf of God, lying, and later on giving a true revelation.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Well going off what President Hinckley said there "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it" I don't see anything contradictory in that. We don't actually teach it as such. I mean it never comes up in any of the Sunday lessons and it isn't considered as necessary for our salvation to know that. The important things to know are about the Atonement and Resurrection. He admits that although he understands what it's about he doesn't know much about the subject and doesn't think anyone else does either. I would say the same about our Heavenly Mother. I believe we have a mother in Heaven just as we have a Father, but we don't know much about her. Nothing is specifically taught about her and knowing about her isn't necessary to our salvation. But that doesn't mean she doesn't exist.

[Dale]

Other than Joseph smith's idea in the King Folett Sermon i do not know much beyond the idea than that. And i do not see LDS as knowing anything more than was in the sermon. The idea's of the sermon got repeated, but that's it.

[Maureen]

I know this isn't the subject matter of the thread but I found it very odd that you should say this. The main objection I have been given from Christians who believe in the Trinity is that our doctrine of seperate individual beings is wrong. They specifically argue that God is 'three in one and one in three' and not seperate personages. Even when I have directed them to verses of scripture which show Jesus praying to his father or talking about the Holy Ghost they still tell me I am wrong to believe that they are seperate beings.

When thinking Willow, of the Trinity doctrine sometimes terminology can get confusing. The doctrine does indeed say that the 3 persons of the Godhead (the essential being of God; the Supreme Being) are distinct from each other. For example, the Father is always the Father, he is never the Son or Holy Spirit; the same with the Son and HS. They have always existed like this, as God, before the beginning of time (since God even created time). If your conversations are speaking of 3 personages, then it is essential to clarify that these 3 personages are not 3 Gods, but are more synonymous with 3 persons. If others think that you might be implying the existence of 3 Gods in the Godhead, then you will get disagreement. Also, these 3 persons can also be identified as God individually (as in God the Father, God the Son or God the HS) or collectively (as in “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”); notice that it is name and not names. So when understanding the 3 persons of the Trinity doctrine, they are in fact distinct.

M.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Also, these 3 persons can also be identified as God individually (as in God the Father, God the Son or God the HS) or collectively (as in “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”); notice that it is name and not names. So when understanding the 3 persons of the Trinity doctrine, they are in fact distinct.

Ah but when it is said "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." then it's about 3 names.

[Maureen]

Ah but when it is said "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." then it's about 3 names.

You've changed it slightly but the meaning for a trinitarian is the same. The sentence proclaims a "oneness" with the three persons.

M.

[Dale]

I understand the definition of person has changed from the ancient sense to the modern. That the person's of the Trinity were compared to the person's of an actor to avoid saying the person's were God's. They knew the three were not mere role's of God. Saying they were mere role's of God is an insult to the individual intelligence of the three as mere role's of an actor are dumb. But creedal writer's chose the misleading word to avoid honestly confessing the three were intelligent individually like three men.

The modern definition of three person's applies to three of us. They knew darn well the three were aware of each other like three men are, but they chose the latin word persona anyway. It was a word having to do with an actor and his face mask's and the role's he take's in a play.

Try as i might i can't see God as an actor. I can't see the person's of God like the person's of an actor. I can see them as modern person's because i feel that definition fit's them closer. I know of know no other definition of person's outside persona that the creed's can escape my concern they mix mono-theism with aspect's of tri-theism. It's only by saying they are like the dumb person's an actor play's that they can be defined as non person's person's.

The creed's do not mean they are person's when they call the three person's. To call the three person's person's would turn them into God's not God.

A book i have entitled Understanding The Trinity by Alister E. McGrath that helped me to understand the creed's. Zondervan publishes his short book. I think anybody confused by the idea of the Trinity should read it.

[Maureen]

Typically we define person as a human being, but because we're limited in our finite way in describing God we need to use terms that we can relate to. Dictionary meanings come in handy to clarify:

per·son [pur-suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

9. an individual of distinction or importance.

per·son (pûr'sən) Pronunciation Key

n.

An individual of specified character: a person of importance.

The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.

M.

[Dale]

The creedal definition of person was not in the dictionary in application to God until the creedal writer's adopted it. The Son both his spirit consciousness and physical mind is aware of the Father. The Father is aware of the Son. The Holy Spirit is also self aware. That make's them like human being's who are also aware of each other.

What was the definition to define an aware person prior to the latin word persona? Can it be useful in defending the Trinity against Jewish concerns it is poly-theistic like. I think the idea of self aware part's of God come's close to tri-theism.

My Understanding the Trinity book say's that the modern definition of person came into existence after the more ancient definition. So i am basically looking for a finite term that is more ancient than the dictionary definition of person's. No Jewish understanding of God needed to use the latin word persona to defend God against tri-theistic concern's because they do not see God as three and one.

The latin word persona is key to defending the creedal definition of person popular Christianity uses. The creedal writer's felt calling the three God's was quite heretical. Some early Christian's i recall doing that and they got into trouble. I recall it was that kind of language that forced them to find a non-heretical way to call them something else. So that's why they picked out that important latin word persona.

It's really hard for me to see what you could call the three but God's without the latin word persona. My copy of Understanding the Trinity was published by Zondervan an important Evangelical publishing house. And the author is an Evangelical scholar who know's the creed's well.

[Maureen]

The creedal definition of person was not in the dictionary in application to God until the creedal writer's adopted it. The Son both his spirit consciousness and physical mind is aware of the Father. The Father is aware of the Son. The Holy Spirit is also self aware. That make's them like human being's who are also aware of each other.

I would disagree with the "like human beings" description since we humans are finite, and God's creation, and God is infinite and the Creator.

My reason for offering definitions was mainly for the present posters on this forum. Since many may interpret the term "persons" to mean human beings. That would be an error in describing God because God is not a human being. Jesus was incarnate through his mission on earth but he existed as God before he became man.

M

[Dale]

M-I meant like human being's in that the three are aware of each other like three human's are aware of each other. I do not see it an error in rejecting persona and admitting that the modern definition of person's fit's them closer. To be aware of another person make's you a person. I do not see the creedal idea of God if the term they adopted is spurious as being absolute mono-theism.

[Maureen]

M-I meant like human being's in that the three are aware of each other like three human's are aware of each other. I do not see it an error in rejecting persona and admitting that the modern definition of person's fit's them closer. To be aware of another person make's you a person.

Dale - I agree with you here. They are indeed aware of each other and relate to each other.

I do not see the creedal idea of God if the term they adopted is spurious as being absolute mono-theism.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

M.