Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time

[Katzpur]

I don't get how having 12 guys pick one of themselves ensures against a false prophet being chosen. There seems to be a gap in the logic here.

There is no conceivable answer that could satisfy an atheist. If I were to tell you that God picks the Prophet, you wouldn't like that any more than you like what I already said. It has nothing to do with "a gap in the logic." If you don't believe in God or in revelation, there is no right answer. So why are we even discussing this?

 

[Katzpur]

I think everyone deserves the truth.

Not everyone deserves the time it would take to cover this topic in sufficient depth for the "truth" to be told.

btw, at the point you answered that question (IIRC), your questioner had not yet exhibited the bad manners that "deserved" anything less than full disclosure.

I disagree.

 

[Katzpur]

You are confusing "revelation" and "doctrine." Then there's a third Mormon category, "policy."

These are not "categories" of anything. Our doctrines are based upon revelation. Period. Our policies and procedures may or may not be.

The question "What is Mormon doctrine?" is almost impossible to answer.

The question of "What is Mormon doctrine?" is easily answered. If AlwaysSeekingTruth would like to ask that question, she can start a thread on the topic, and any one of the Latter-day Saints would be happy to respond with an answer any ten-year-old ought be be able to understand.

It's not like Christianity, where you have your Bible and you're good to go. Because of their concept of continuing revelation, you have many different sources, which may conflict with each other. You also have the idea that every individual gets revelation from God. It has been said to be like pinning Jello to a wall. Even for the sincere and committed Mormon, it's difficult.

Yeah, with "Christianity," you have your Bible and your good to go -- in 30,000 different directions. I'm not going to waste my time responding to this nonsense on this thread. However, I would like to pose a question AlwaysSeekingTruth: If you were to want accurate information on the teachings of Islam, where do you think you could most likely find it? At the knee of a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest? If you wanted to learn about Catholicism, would you expect a Jehovah's Witness to be your best source of information? If you want to learn about Mormonism, why in Heaven's name would you ask Autodidact for information?

There is also an intrinsic tension between the concept of Prophets receiving divine revelation (which must therefore be true) and that revelation being continuing, which allows it to be revised. To reconcile this, you need to go back and decide that the earlier one must have either been incorrect, and therefore not really revelation, or that everyone was interpreting it wrong all along. Needless to say, this adds to the confusion.

Finally, a given statement may be regarded by some as doctrine, and others as policy, and this itself can be a point of disagreement.

You've got the scripture, including The Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Of course you have a problem right there, because these documents are not consistent, but at least you know what's in the mix.

Then you've got revelation from the Prophets. Again, same problem. The more of them you get, the more likely to conflict with the above and each other. There's a lot of wiggle room there, because you can consider something doctrine, get a new revelation that's different, and go back and realize it wasn't doctrine after all. Convenient, that.

Anyway, while all this is rife with problem, it's also rather cool and different from other churches. It makes the Mormon Church more flexible and adaptable, which I believe has contributed to its success. If you look at it from the point of view of meme theory, it allows the meme of Mormonism to evolve more quickly than other religious memes. However, it also means that Mormonism today looks very different from Mormonism of 150 years ago.

And the remainder of Auto's post proves my point. She can barely tolerate theists. She dislikes Christians even more. And her absolute abhorance of Mormons is clear to anyone who has ever read anything she has to say on the subject of their beliefs.

 

[Katzpur]

That tells you something about God. It tells you nothing about what he asked about, which is the status of people of different races in the Mormon religion. I think a more honest answer would be that for most of its history the Mormon Church had an official policy of discrimination against African-Americans, and this policy was changed by revelation in 1978. Don't you agree?

I would agree. But an "official policy" is not the same thing as "doctrine." This is where you're missing the boat.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not actually, this is not a rare occurrence. O.K., to choose one of many examples, let's use a particularly vivid and heinous one, blood atonement. This is the idea that there are some sins which can only be atoned for through death (spilling the sinner's blood), either voluntarily or involuntarily. Or to put it in less religious terms, there are some things a Mormon can do that justify murdering them. [It should be noted that there is a lot of controversy and disagreement about what is meant by blood atonement and in what circumstances.) This doctrine was revealed to Prophet Brigham Young (amnog others) in several revelations and recorded several times in the Journal of Discourses, e.g.: Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. This is the way to love mankind. (That's just a sample.)

This doctrine was repudiated by the Mormon Church in 1978. Now, I don't think there's any dispute that, whatever it is, whenever it was supposed to be applied and for what, blood atonement was once Mormon doctrine as revealed to its prophet, Brigham Young, and this doctrine has since been repudiated. Of course, that's a good thing, and we encourage religions to make changes like this. Nevertheless, is puts the Church in the position of undoctrining something that was once doctrine. The main way they do this is to deny that it ever was doctrine. That resolves the problem nicely. The only problem with this approach is that it is a lie. The truth is that blood atonement once was doctrine, and now is not.

1. Blood Atonement has never been a doctrine, regardless of what you say.
2. What on earth was this 1978 repudiation all about?

 

[AlwaysSeekingTruth]

These are not "categories" of anything. Our doctrines are based upon revelation. Period. Our policies and procedures may or may not be.

The question of "What is Mormon doctrine?" is easily answered. If AlwaysSeekingTruth would like to ask that question, she can start a thread on the topic, and any one of the Latter-day Saints would be happy to respond with an answer any ten-year-old ought be be able to understand.

Yeah, with "Christianity," you have your Bible and your good to go -- in 30,000 different directions. I'm not going to waste my time responding to this nonsense on this thread. However, I would like to pose a question AlwaysSeekingTruth: If you were to want accurate information on the teachings of Islam, where do you think you could most likely find it? At the knee of a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest? If you wanted to learn about Catholicism, would you expect a Jehovah's Witness to be your best source of information? If you want to learn about Mormonism, why in Heaven's name would you ask Autodidact for information?

And the remainder of Auto's post proves my point. She can barely tolerate theists. She dislikes Christians even more. And her absolute abhorance of Mormons is clear to anyone who has ever read anything she has to say on the subject of their beliefs.

Um, you should go back and look.

I'm supporting you, not Auto.

I'm defending you, not Auto.

 

[Katzpur]

Um, you should go back and look.

I'm supporting you, not Auto.

I'm defending you, not Auto.

I know! And I thank you. I can easily see how my post came across as critical of you. I shouldn't have even used your name. Since Auto was telling you what Mormons believe, I simply responded by addressing you, and telling you not to pay any attention to what she was saying. I was trying to get a message across to anyone who thinks that the Church's enemies know more about it than its members. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[AlwaysSeekingTruth]

I know! And I thank you. I can easily see how my post came across as critical of you. I shouldn't have even used your name. Since Auto was telling you what Mormons believe, I simply responded by addressing you, and telling you not to pay any attention to what she was saying. I was trying to get a message across to anyone who thinks that the Church's enemies know more about it than its members. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Oh.

 

[Apex]

I think everyone deserves the truth. If you only include the nice bits that make you sound good, and leave out all the parts that actually address his question, you're not giving him the truth. That's bias. When you include both the non-racist part, and the racist part, that's lack of bias.

btw, at the point you answered that question (IIRC), your questioner had not yet exhibited the bad manners that "deserved" anything less than full disclosure.

Your bias is as obvious as the stench of a maggot infested bovine corpse...

 

[McBell]

That's what I figured.

Of course you did.
It was nothing more than a sorry attempt at diverting the topic at hand.
You are merely admitting to such with your post.

 

[cardero]

misanthropic_clown writes; One of the distinguishing elements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the concept of revelation continuing from God to man. This concept does not merely extend to the ability of the prophets to receive guidance from God concerning the direction of the church, but the ability of every member to utilise the gift of the Holy Ghost to receive answers to both personal issues and issues concerning any group over which they hold some official responsibility.

In other words, as the Prophet receives revelation for the whole church, a Bishop may do so for his ward and parents for their own families. This also allows individuals to receive confirmation of the truth of revelation received by the Prophet.

While the Mormons are very outspoken and encouraging of their member’s relationship with God, it would seem that this only extends to personal revelations. These personal revelations can be practically and purposefully applied to their personal and/or family life but it would seem that there is no outlet or social equality for universal revelations (or revelations dealing specifically with the fate of humankind or current more important spiritual doctrines). Whether this is an implied understanding amongst their members (in other words, if they are taught to doubt any profound revelations, prophecies or concerns that conflict with the fate of their church or the world) or the members are taught or told not to bother or encourage that kind of relationship or understanding with their God (preferring to leave this all-important responsibly to the assigned prophets) is an issue that needs to be further explored.

Ex. Elder Agamotto receives the universal revelation from God that marriage was, is now and no longer will apply as an essential staple to the Mormon religion or humankind.

Can Elder Agamotto equally, rightfully confront the Quorum with his revelation? What are the chances of his peers (who have presumably been given the freedom to communicate with God but have been taught that revelations of this magnitude only come from the Apostles) believing or taking this new revelation seriously as the word of God?

Elder Agamotto, if he is still steadfast with his revelation, does have options which I will discuss shortly.

If Elder Agamotto’s status and credentials are not enough to impress the Church Of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, let us proceed to use another example; this time of one of the members of the Council Of Twelve.

Douglas C. Dormammu is a well respected, long term member of the Quorum Of The Twelve in good standing who has (wholeheartedly) received the universal revelation that there is no longer (or ever was) a need for the ritual and practice of baptisms of any kind.

Again, I will position similar questions for LDS members to ponder as Elder Agamotto’s. Since this all-inclusive, universal revelation did not come from the President of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, can the revelation by Apostle Douglas C. Dormammu equally, rightfully be brought up and considered by the Quorum? What are the chances of his peers (prominently his fellow Apostles) believing or taking this new revelation seriously as the word of God? What chance do you think Douglas has to implement this revelation into current church procedure against the faith of the majority who do not want or feel that baptisms should be discontinued or for some reason have not received the same impressions as Douglas? If Douglas C. Dormammu remains steadfast in his revelation, what alternative does he have (or what does the church offer) to encourage or squelch this revelation?

Douglas C. Dormammu’s situation is more imperative because of his current status in the church. From my understanding, there is a responsible, lengthy and dedicated procedure to securing a seat amongst this Council. Douglas C. Dormammu may have spent most of his life devoted to procuring this position. Would a well respected, long term member of the Council Of Twelve in good standing risk his responsibility, reputation, relationship with the church on a revelation that he feels is faithfully true? Would this lead to Douglas doubting future revelations and eventually his relationship with God or with his church? How will anyone ever know if Douglas was correct in his revelation of baptisms? Would this be a reason for Douglas C. Dormammu to leave, convert or disavow his ministry of the LDS church?

These examples are nothing new to the Mormon religion and these conflicts and misunderstandings are part of their history (our current LDS members may have more insight into these examples and provide more information of these events). There have been a few people who have felt that their inspirations were true and faithful who have left the organization only to begin another faction of LDS teachings.

But please understand, that each faction of the original church completely underwhelms the traditional revelations and doctrines that have survived and loses credibly for the established Quorum Of The Twelve (the exception possibly being for members who are already part of the faith). From an outsider’s perspective, this can cause an unappealing, unimpressive (even suspicious) reason for opportunity to be involved in the process of believing and becoming a Mormon.

 

[AlwaysSeekingTruth]

Elder Agamotto
Douglas C. Dormammu

Is there a particular reason you are giving the fake Mormons in your story marvel comic names? Dormammu (Wikipedia) and Agamotto (Wikipedia). Do you do this to all religions (give them fake comic book names) or just the Mormons?

 

[Katzpur]

Ex. Elder Agamotto receives the universal revelation from God that marriage was, is now and no longer will apply as an essential staple to the Mormon religion or humankind.

Can Elder Agamotto equally, rightfully confront the Quorum with his revelation?

Nope. It doesn't work that way. The revelation would have come first to the prophet. 100% of the time.

Douglas C. Dormammu is a well respected, long term member of the Quorum Of The Twelve in good standing who has (wholeheartedly) received the universal revelation that there is no longer (or ever was) a need for the ritual and practice of baptisms of any kind.

Again, I will position similar questions for LDS members to ponder as Elder Agamotto’s. Since this all-inclusive, universal revelation did not come from the President of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, can the revelation by Apostle Douglas C. Dormammu equally, rightfully be brought up and considered by the Quorum?

Nope. And your post implies that you already know the answer.

 

[cardero]

Is there a particular reason you are giving the fake Mormons in your story marvel comic names? Dormammu (Wikipedia) and Agamotto (Wikipedia). Do you do this to all religions (give them fake comic book names) or just the Mormons?

I was reading Frank Brunner's run on Doctor Strange before posting, is all.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no conceivable answer that could satisfy an atheist. If I were to tell you that God picks the Prophet, you wouldn't like that any more than you like what I already said. It has nothing to do with "a gap in the logic." If you don't believe in God or in revelation, there is no right answer. So why are we even discussing this?

Again, what you have is a circular, self-confirming system, with no way to determine whether it's actually valid. Not amazing, as most religions do somewhere in their belief system. Mormonism has a special challenge, though, because of ongoing, new revelations, that change existing ones. How do you account for that? I mean, if Prophet A says x, and Prophet B says not x, then in your belief system, how do describe or account for that? Or do you assert that never happens?

 

[Autodidact]

These are not "categories" of anything. Our doctrines are based upon revelation. Period. Our policies and procedures may or may not be.

The question of "What is Mormon doctrine?" is easily answered. If AlwaysSeekingTruth would like to ask that question, she can start a thread on the topic, and any one of the Latter-day Saints would be happy to respond with an answer any ten-year-old ought be be able to understand.

“Doctrine” actually means “what a religion teaches.” Any false teaching in our past are still a “doctrine” of ours in this sense. But as members of the Church, we don’t use the word “doctrine” that way. Somewhat protectively, we transmuted “doctrine” to mean “that which we teach which is true and will not change.” We muddy the waters further by branding “true things that change” as “policy.” But here is the rub, if “doctrine” can only mean “that which is true that cannot change” then in fact Mormons have no “doctrine” at all except for the uninterrupted statements in scripture.

from here, a non-authoritative Mormon site.

And here it is directly from the Church:

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

Church Doctrine is a ubiquitous idea among Mormons, but in some ways it is quite mysterious. Mormons regularly invoke the idea of Church Doctrine to differentiate between those teachings and practices that have some claim on them and those teachings and practices that are merely opinions or suggestions. ...
Mormons lack a clear rule that allows them to identify what is or is not Church doctrine. The various possibilities – teachings that have been formally added to the Standard Works, statements that have been formally accepted in general conference, statements that have been made by prophets and apostles in the appropriate context, etc. – all turn out to be over- or under-inclusive when examined in detail. To be sure, all of these proposed rules are useful in orienting us toward Church Doctrine, even if they are not fool-proof methods for identifying it. Nevertheless, we do have unambiguous cases of Church Doctrine. It is clearly Church Doctrine that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind and that Mormons should not drink coffee or alcohol. Rather than relying on a rule of recognition for identifying Church Doctrine, Mormons rely on a hermeneutic approach. ... In offering this interpretation we seek to present Mormon texts, practices, and history in the best possible light, not for any apologetic purpose but rather because in seeking for what is normative we reject interpretations that we would regard as normatively less attractive. This does not mean that Church Doctrine is simply a matter of what we think is best. It is not. It is a matter of charitably interpreting Mormon practices, texts, and experience.
Because this is a complicated and inherently normative task, the precise contours of Church Doctrine are always contestable. This does not mean that there are necessarily no right answers to the question of whether or not something is Church Doctrine. Nor does it mean that we lack some clear instances of Church Doctrine. It simply means that we are unlikely to arrive at a formula that will allow us to answer definitively the question in every circumstance.

(emphasis added) from here. (another Mormon site.)

Yeah, with "Christianity," you have your Bible and your good to go -- in 30,000 different directions. I'm not going to waste my time responding to this nonsense on this thread. However, I would like to pose a question AlwaysSeekingTruth: If you were to want accurate information on the teachings of Islam, where do you think you could most likely find it? At the knee of a Rabbi or a Catholic Priest? If you wanted to learn about Catholicism, would you expect a Jehovah's Witness to be your best source of information? If you want to learn about Mormonism, why in Heaven's name would you ask Autodidact for information?

I would go to anyone knowledgeable about that religion, such as a scholar. For example, I have seen many times Christians saying inaccurate things about Christianity, such as that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses or the like, and atheists having the correct information about this. Generally speaking, every religious practitioner loves and is devoted to their religion, and therefore has an extremely biased view toward it.

And the remainder of Auto's post proves my point. She can barely tolerate theists. She dislikes Christians even more. And her absolute abhorance of Mormons is clear to anyone who has ever read anything she has to say on the subject of their beliefs.

Where on earth are you getting that? I don't think I even said anything about theists, or Mormons, only about Mormon doctrine. I am trying to be as accurate as I can. If you think I'm incorrect, then it is incumbent on you to show--not tell, show--that my statement is inaccurate. Do as I have done, and cite sources. Stop attacking me as an individual, and show us where I am wrong. The thread and the discussion are not about me, they are about Mormon doctrine. Specifically, what am I saying that is not true? Did Brigham Young not repeatedly preach that he had received such revelation? (I can quote several times that he did.) Was he not a prophet? Was this not official Mormon doctrine for decades? Is it doctrine today? Point out where you think I'm wrong, and support your assertion with sources, preferably neutral ones.

btw, I have nothing against theists or Mormons. I have a lot against religion and Mormonism. I hope you appreciate the difference. I feel nothing but compassion for religionists, especially Mormons.

I know that doing research and supporting your statements is harder than just slamming me, but it's more educational for all of us.

 

[Enoch07]

Again, what you have is a circular, self-confirming system, with no way to determine whether it's actually valid. Not amazing, as most religions do somewhere in their belief system. Mormonism has a special challenge, though, because of ongoing, new revelations, that change existing ones. How do you account for that? I mean, if Prophet A says x, and Prophet B says not x, then in your belief system, how do describe or account for that? Or do you assert that never happens?

Is not this what happens in science every single day? Does that not make science the same thing?

 

[Autodidact]

Is not this what happens in science every single day? Does that not make science the same thing?

No, science is not a circular, self-confirming system. Science relies on observations of the natural world which are available to anyone. Any scientific advance or discovery is open to all scientists to confirm, and is not accepted until other observers obtain the same results.

 

[Katzpur]

I feel nothing but compassion for religionists, especially Mormons.

Would that be a nice way of saying you pity us? Thanks, but we don't need your pity, Auto.

 

[DadBurnett]

About "Revelation and the LDS Church – Question time" As a former member of the church, i find your statements to clearly represent what I once learned and believed. I am wondering, however, what it was you hoped to accomplish with your post.
I do know, from personal experience, that the pros and cons -specifically the cons - are not permitted by The Church, questions (such as you might seem to be soliciting) are prohibited. I'm wondering, are you attempting to use this thread as a missionary-teaching moment or are you genually interested in the perceptions of others regarding revelation and prophets?