Recently I was preparing for a lesson with my Sunday School class of 16-18 year olds. We’re studying the New Testament this year. I found it interesting that in the early Christian church, there was continuous revelation. The example in this lesson is found in the book of Acts chapter 15.
In this example, Paul and Barnabas come across some church members who are still requiring circumcision as in the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas are not certain if that should be a requirement, so they go to Jerusalem and meet with the apostles for guidance on the matter. After the apostles discuss the matter, they make a decision through guidance by the Holy Spirit (verses 19-28) and then they write an epistle for Paul and Barnabas to bring back to the church members for sustaining (verses 22-31). They also send an apostle (Judas) back with them to deliver the message.
This process of revelation to the church is similar for the LDS church of Jesus Christ. From what I understand, apostles contemplate an issue, pray for guidance by the Spirit, come up with a decision, then present it to the church for sustaining. On occasion, there will be a letter sent out to congregations from the apostles and read by the local bishop, or the apostles or prophet may read it to the whole body of the church in General Conference (or General Relief Society Conference as President Hinckley did with the Family Proclamation).
Rarely will revelation actually be canonized. Over the last 150 years, I can only think of a few revelations that were canonized: Official Declaration 1: that announced the disbanding of polygamy in the 1890s, Doctrine and Covenants section 138 that addresses a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith (Joseph Smith’s nephew) regarding where our spirits go after we die, and Official Declaration 2 that announces that the Priesthood can be given to all worthy males (prior to this revelation black men could not hold the Priesthood).
I have seen Mormon church antagonists take off-the-wall things that a prophet (usually Brigham Young) said or wrote in a book and highlight that as official church doctrine. LDS apologists will be quick to answer that in that situation, the prophet wasn’t inspired and spoke without the Spirit on that occasion and since it isn’t canonized it is not official revelation.
However, there are many things that Mormon prophets and apostles have officially stated either through a letter to congregations or announced in General Conference that are not necessarily canonized. Therefore, I can see how it could be hard for members of other faiths to see a distinction between what is revelation and what is opinion.
Personally, I feel that revelation is official as it is outlined in the New Testament example I shared. If the apostles have gathered together, prayed, and received guidance from the Spirit on a matter, then announced it to the church officially through writing, it is “official”. If an LDS leader decides to write a book, or say something off the cuff that’s wacky then that is not official revelation.
What are your thoughts?
Grace for Grace 
80 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 15, 2011 at 8:14 am
Doug Dwyer
The words “revelation” “Scripture” and “canon” mean very different things to LDS and Evangelicals-it makes conversation about these issues difficult. My sense is that in LDS circles it isn’t always clear which words and statments carry more weight than others and are thus revelation. My understanding is that anthing spoken at General Conference is considered Revelation/Scripture. Is that correct? Here’s a question for you-Is all revelation considered scripture?
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:00 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
I have heard people say that if it is spoken in conference than it should be considered scriptural. The problem with that is it is too black and white and it removes the need for hearers to stay close to the Spirit to recieve confirmation.
That being said, I’ve never heard anything I disagree with in conference or felt that the Spirit has not confirmed as truth.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 10:28 am
Richard Alger
Revelation is only official as it is confirmed to our minds and hearts by the Spirit of God.
The way teachings have evolved in the LDS church is that doctrines that are chosen as more important are emphasized more in GC in the curriculum, online and in other channels. Occasionally there will be speculation that rises high in the our collective attention.
I see the brethren as steadily pruning the tree of the church to take out the most bitter branches so that it may become wholly acceptable to God.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 10:37 am
Richard Alger
One example of how this process has worked is the recent talk by Boyd K Packer. http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng
Text:
“Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.”
Video:
“Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation, and it would do well that the members of the Church to read and to follow.”
The correction approved by the church states that the proclamation does not qualify as an official revelation, yet it is a guide to members who would do well to read and follow it.
There are many parts of the standard works that are looked over for the more important parts. The same occurs through the program of the church.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Clark
The bigger issue Doug is that something can be revelatory while still being quite fallible in LDS terms. We’ll give the benefit of doubt to texts but really don’t mind finding out it wasn’t fully correct.
So conference is inspired and in that sense revelatory but it isn’t anything like an inerrant text the way Evangelicals see the Bible. It doesn’t take much searching at LDS.org to find mistakes taught in conference.
Likewise something can be canon without it being seen as inspired. For instance Joseph Smith didn’t think Song of Solomon was inspired at all yet it is in our canon. Likewise The Lectures on Faith were once part of the D&C (and thus canon) but were removed and I don’t think were ever considered inspired in any normal sense.
So to me the issue is less what is revelation than what has strength for deriving a somewhat trustworthy doctrine. That’s trickier in some ways since pretty authoritative texts like the King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith (which was only a decade or so ago a two week focus of study in PH/RS manuals) are treated so differently by different people.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Doug
Thanks Richard and Clark for sharing your thoughts-we (Evangelicals) tend to see revelation and Scripture as fixed points where you see it as dynamic and evolving. For us, any revelation serves to give clarity to what has already been written-that is not true for you. Do some LDS take whatever statement comes from a General Authority as revelation? If so, doesn’t that cause confusion?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 10:10 am
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
I think that many LDS hang on every word of apostles and prophets.
Historically, there have been some funky things said or taught by some prophets, which have led to some confusion.
In recent years, however, I have seen that prophets and apostles stick more to basic doctrine in their writings and in General Conferences, which leads to much less confusion.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm
ezra
Also, from a Lutheran perspective, the LDS approach seems ambiguous–and perhaps that is what you are expressing. On the one hand it is spoken from a leader and assumed to be as from God–and yet, not necessarily so, unless officially endorsed by the LDS church.
The New Testament was canonized officially only because time was moving further on and the witnesses that could vouch for the authenticity were becoming second and third hand. Up to this time, the church did not have the privilege of meeting openly (because of persecution) and gnosticism was a continual threat to the true teachings of Christ. But, as with the Old Testament, many had already known what the true writings were and which were fictions to be avoided; canonization was an easy process. The canonical books were established and the “deutero-canonical” books were those that were determined to be helpful and devotional in part, but recognizably in error at some point. Even through the time of the Reformation in the 1500s, Luther held the same opinion about the “d-c” books, and also did not regard them as Holy Scripture.
There IS a similarity between the Catholic Church that emerged over time and the the Mormon church and that is that the spokesmen were increasingly claiming infallibility in their writings. The norm of faith and life had originally been the Bible alone, but the Church threw in “Tradition,” which literally means, “that which is handed down.” Tradition in that sense isn’t wrong, but Luther pointed out that the writings of popes and councils would occasionally contradict that of others.
Luther therefore deferred to the Word alone (sola Scriptura) as the “norm of norms” (the standard) of faith and life and rejected anything that departed from that. And really, that was the basis of canonization in the first place: to determine authenticity, relevance and agreement with Scripture, and the focus on Christ as Savior. Luther did also have to deal with the “Enthusiasts” (followers of Arminius, the reviver of Pentecostalism) who believed that revelation was a matter of every person’s heart, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; his lament was that they acted as if they “had swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all.”
Luther was steadfast about God’s revelation: The center of Scripture and the Christian faith is that forgiveness of sin comes through the salvation provided for by God himself, through the death of Jesus Christ offered up for us on the cross and through the resurrection of Christ from death. Here is God’s Will and Testament, that through faith in Christ comes divine forgiveness; and with divine forgiveness comes holiness; with this proclamation of holiness (justification by faith) comes eternal life. It is a package deal that begins and ends with Christ. Without Christ, as Jesus declared, there is no way to the Father.
As Luther wrote in his anthem, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,”
The Word they still shall let remain, nor any thanks have for it.
He’s by our side upon the plain, with His good gifts and Spirit.
And take they our life: goods, fame, child, and wife–
Let these all be gone…they yet have nothing won:
The Kingdom ours remaineth.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 7:30 am
Doug
Great points, Ezra-didn’t know you were Lutheran! I pray some of those Lutheran denominations that have strayed from the Scriptures so cherished by Luther come back to it! How is the authority of the head of the Latter-day Saint church different from that of the Pope? Any thoughts?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 10:24 am
graceforgrace
HI Doug,
You asked a great question about authority of the Pope vs. the Prophet of the LDS church.
The LDS church is very similar in organizational structure to the Catholic church.
Joseph Smith was much like Martin Luther in the sense that he was searching for truth and wanted to make sure it was in line with what was originally taught and intended by Jesus and the apostles.
According to Joseph Smith, God appeared to him and told him that authority had been corrupted and lost and also the church’s organization had been corrupted. God then restored the authority to Joseph Smith. This authority included the restoration of the priesthood (you can read more on the History of Joseph Smith in his own words here: http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng)
Therefore, the main difference according to the LDS is that the Pope doesn’t have authority. If you asked Catholics, they would say the opposite though.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm
ezra
Thanks Doug– and I agree re the libs that make up much of the ELCA churches here in America. Such a rich heritage has been hijacked, right?
My prayer is for them and for all who wish to proclaim Christ.
What can I say? It seems to me that the hierarchy of the LDS church is similar to that of the Roman Catholic, although radically different in many ways. The Prophet would be like the Pope (right?) and the 12 Apostles are his elected council, similar to the College of Cardinals in the RCC — and between the Prophet and the Apostles, the church is guided. There is a nice headquarters for both. Nothing wrong with any of that; it is very orderly and productive and special. Mandates from the Prophet and the Council would be binding directives, right? And theological pronouncements would seem binding, as would any Bull from the Pope. The guiding principles of revelation come into play along the way. The question I have is how often does “revelation” become a part of the pronouncements? Is it used with every decision or mandate? How about on lower levels, let’s say, at the local stake or among the congregations
But I’ll leave off there, again, deferring to others who know more than I.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Clark
I don’t think the church has ever claimed anything like inerrancy. Some Mormons like things simple so they’ll take things at face value. However this is only possible if you really limit the texts you read. Do any serious study and you’ll quickly find problems with this.
I think the better analogy to Mormon views is actually science where any reading is forever tentative. As Paul says we see but through a glass darkly.
When some try to say Mormons accept a de facto inerrancy I think they’re still wrong. I think most Mormons give the benefit of doubt to straightforward readings of texts – especially scriptural texts. But a burden of proof argument really isn’t the same as inerrancy. Especially since the leadership is fine with simply announcing some views were wrong. (Say the views of many GAs on blacks and the priesthood from 1850 through 1976) When even someone as dogmatic in doctrine as Bruce R. McConkie states forthrightly to take what he said as wrong then I think it’s really hard to say there’s much akin to inerrancy.
What you tend to see are some members who simply privilege any quote of an apostle above even science. I don’t think this is the majority of people but it does happen. However simply due to the more ambiguous hermeneutic Mormons apply to scripture even here you just don’t see the kind of literalism I think you find amongst a large class of conservative Evangelicals.
In practice I think what happens is that most people are ignorant of a lot of things: history, science, hermeneutics etc. So they’ll give the benefit of doubt to their straightforward readings. Nothing wrong with that – even if I think it often leads to incorrect interpretations of scripture. But it’s entirely understandable why they do this. In those cases, especially when they distrust various authorities (such as scientists) for political reasons it’s unsurprising they’ll put their more straightforward readings above those more open to science. It’s really more a burden of proof situation rather than anything akin to inerrancy. (In my view anyway)
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Clark
the question I have is how often does “revelation” become a part of the pronouncements? Is it used with every decision or mandate? How about on lower levels, let’s say, at the local stake or among the congregations
Revelation is sought for any decision at all levels. We’re even encouraged to seek it for all our personal decisions. Seeking it isn’t always getting it and there will be varying degrees of recognized revelatory input. And sometimes you’re left to your best wisdom and understanding.
But as I said a decision can be revelatory but still need changed. After all such decisions typically are focused on people and people have free will. You might be inspired to give a calling to someone and they freely chose to do a poor job or even engage in sinful behavior. Thus revision is needed. It doesn’t mean it was uninspired. (By way of analogy even Christ chose Judas – although there it was for the greater good since Christ’s atonement depended upon his betrayal)
And inspiration can be seen as a matter of degree. Further it still always needs interpretation. I can be inspired but misunderstand the inspiration. Some inspiration can’t even be noticed except in hindsight. And of course sometimes we think we are inspired when we aren’t.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Doug
Thanks Clark-I appreciate the insights. I was unaware of the fact that members of GA formally acknowledged they were wrong about a particuliar view-that’s pretty amazing. With such a strong central church government it sounds like individual Latter-day Saints are not always clear what statements are binding and revelation and what is not-is that true? Do you have a leadership role in the church?
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Cal
Clark said, “Pretty authoritative texts like the King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith (which was only a decade or so ago a two week focus of study in PH/RS manuals) are treated so differently by different people.”
What did you mean by “treated differently”? Please give a couple examples. Thanks.
Grace for Grace said, “I have seen Mormon church antagonists take off-the-wall things that a prophet (usually Brigham Young) said or wrote in a book and highlight that as official church doctrine.”
Do the antagonists do the same with Joseph Smith? If so, how do you know which teachings of Joseph are official and which are not? (Anybody can answer.)
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 10:25 am
graceforgrace
Hi Cal,
For the most part, I have seen that apologists for the LDS church stick with what is written in the scriptures over what is written in a non-canonical text to highlight official church doctrine.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 10:37 am
Cal
Thanks.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 9:06 pm
ezra
So, I take it that anything con be determined to be inspired and relevatory, even the decision on where one would go out to eat. Correct?
Which of the following would be true, officially?
1. Mormons do not believe that the OT and /or NT is inerrant Word of God.
2. Mormons do believe the OT and / or NT is inerrant Word of God.
3. Mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is inerrant Word of God.
4. Mormons do belive the Book of Mormon is inerrant Word of God.
5. Mormons do not believe the Doctrine & Covanents is inerrant Word of God.
6. Mormons do believe the D & C is inerrant Word of God.
7. Mormons have to believe something to be saved.
8. Mormons do not have to believe anything to be saved.
I suppose my difficulty regards absolutes and essentials. Inspired and inerrant have particular relevance in Christian circles that don’t seem to be present in Mormon teaching. Do Mormons have discussions about “once saved, always saved?” IOW, if I’ve been through Baptism, done the mission work, done been married in the temple, …etc… am I done and acceptable to God?
If a Mormon were only allowed to carry one religious writing or be run through a paper shredder, what writing would it be?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:01 am
graceforgrace
Hi Ezra,
Revelation comes to people based on their jurisdiction. For example, a bishop can receive revelation for his congregation, a father for his family, an individual for him or herself, etc. However, revelation must be in line with what is approved in the scriptures.
I’ll also answer your questions you asked from my perspective. Keep in mind, what I say is my opinion and not necessarily “official”.
1. Mormons do not believe that the OT and /or NT is inerrant Word of God.
The official statement found in the LDS Articles of Faith written by Joseph Smith and considered LDS scripture is that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”. LDS believe that over the course of time, many things important to salvation were removed from the Bible. Therefore, the Bible provides a good basis for doctrine, but is not all conclusive.
2. Mormons do believe the OT and / or NT is inerrant Word of God.
It is not innerrant since doctrines were removed.
3. Mormons do not believe the Book of Mormon is inerrant Word of God.
The official statement about the Book of Mormon written by Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book on earth and man will come closer to God by abiding to it’s precepts than through any other book”.
4. Mormons do belive the Book of Mormon is inerrant Word of God.
No one has officially claimed the Book of Mormon to be inerrant, but the only official statement I know of is the one I outlined above.
Although there isn’t any official statement declaring the Book of Mormon to be inerrant, I think many LDS may think that it is.
5. Mormons do not believe the Doctrine & Covanents is inerrant Word of God.
I am not familiar with any statements on the inerrancy of the Doctrine and Covenants.
6. Mormons do believe the D & C is inerrant Word of God.
See above.
7. Mormons have to believe something to be saved.
The gospel according to LDS is faith, repentance, baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully to the end of our lives. After we are judged, we can be saved.
Because of this, Mormons are accused of “earning” their salvation and removing the need of Jesus. This isn’t true because enduring to the end means applying the gospel of Jesus in our lives faithfully throughout our lifetime. It is through his grace that we can be saved as long as we remain faithful.
8. Mormons do not have to believe anything to be saved.
See above.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm
ezra
A follow-up question comes to mind…
If every Mormon is allowed relevatory status, how can there be excommunication? Couldn’t the offender claim revelation to refute the order?
Could not any branch of Mormonism remain an authentic branch of Joseph Smith, by virtue of Apostolic Succession–Strang of Michigan, the Reorganized of Independence, MO, and any others that might be out there?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
graceforgrace
These are good questions.
Depending on one’s authority and jurisdiction, they can have revelation.
For example, an individual can have personal revelation (for a good talk on this process and what Mormon’s believe, see Elder David Bednar’s talk called “The Spirit of Revelation” http://lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/the-spirit-of-revelation?lang=eng&query=revelation).
A father or mother can receive revelation for their family. A bishop for their congregation, the apostles need to be unanimous, but they can get revelation for the church as a whole. (see the official definition here: http://lds.org/study/topics/revelation?lang=eng&query=revelation)
After Joseph Smith died, the mainstream LDS church believes that the authority went to the 12 apostles. Brigham Young was the president of the 12 apostles, and therefore he later became the president of the main LDS Church. Therefore, the other splinter groups of LDS are not “true” LDS and do not have authority.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:21 am
Cal
Hi Ezra,
Well, I’m obviously not totally qualified to answer all your questions, but I’ll tell you of my experience if it’s worth anything. I have visited Mormon wards over 30 times through the years and I am always amazed at how much like us they are. They do think for themselves extremely similarly to the way we do.
For example, the last time I visited an LDS Sunday school class, a lady near the back of the room said that since she had once been a Catholic, she knew that people from other churches experience the Holy Spirit the same way Mormons do.
What she said didn’t totally agree with what the instructor was teaching.
Even though I agreed with the lady and disagreed with the instructor/teacher/facilitator, I have to say he handled it very professionally and non-contentiously. He reiterated the LDS position without appearing arrogant or showing any irritation or any disrespect toward the lady—and they didn’t kick her out as far as I know!
My experience is also that their reverence for the Bible is also extremely similar to ours.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:22 am
Cal
Oops. Grace for Grace was writing while I was!
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Blake
Good comments all around. I have commented on how LDS deal with the issue of what is scripture, what is revelation, and what is authoritative. These are three very different concepts. See Here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/11/an-interpretive-tradition-rather-than-church-doctrine/471/
See also here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/12/does-mormonism-have-a-theologyies/478/
What makes Mormons different is that what is essential is not what God once said, but openness to what He is now saying.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:21 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Blake,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving your post!
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Doug
Most Evangelical Christians believe in personal revelation and we are really not so different in our unstanding from Latter-day Saints-we also believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the teachings and preaching of leaders in the church and give understanding and knowledge to those who hear-but the ruler of whether something is revelation or not is the Bible. Because of your understanding of Scripture (and continuing Revelation) you give personal revelation a lot more emphasis then we do. What are the tools used by the LDS believer to help them validate the revelation and determine whether it was indeed the Spirit or their own thoughts and emotions?
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 6:28 am
Cal
Blake, thanks for your links.
Doug, good question. I agree that “most Evangelical Christians believe in personal revelation.” Especially charismatics.
I’m always amused when Mormon missionaries tell me the LDS believes in modern revelation, as if the rest of Christianity was oblivious to it! I always ask, “Have you ever visited a charismatic church?” Things have changed since 1830.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 8:48 am
Blake
Doug: There are no “tools” to distinguish true from false revelation since the revelation arises out of an interpersonal relationship. The test is the knowing of our hearts that distinguishes false from true. It is a mistake to reduce the experience to mere feeling since it involves the entire person, including our minds. The test is very simply authenticity that one knows in one’s own heart and mind and it cannot be conveyed to another in some list to be checked off or some objective test — indeed, it to misunderstand the experience of revelation and knowing in one’s heart altogether to ask for such a test. it is like asking for a logical or evidentiary proof of God’s existence before you will have faith in his presence in your life that you have already experienced.
What is different between some Protestants and LDS is not that answers are given to prayers or that we are guided by the spirit whereas others are not; but that there are prophets who have keys to receive revelation that has authority of as scripture. A prophet could receive a revelation that changes a past belief or practice like Peter did when table fellowship and following that aspect of the Law of Moses were clarified as no longer necessary for Christians. An individual member could not have such an authoritative revelation for others that changes what God asks of us — or changes the law that is binding on us. It doesn’t happen frequently, but it does happen.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Doug Dwyer
Do Latter-day Saints treally believe that there are no tools to discern whether a revelation is true or not and that “the test is the knowing of our hearts that distinquishes false from true” or is that Blake’s view on this issue. (Blake-what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9 that says our hearts are deceitful above all things?) Regarding the role of the Prophet in the Church-I already understand that the prophet receives new revelation but I was speaking about personal revelation. Regarding the word of the Prophet of the Church-it sounded like some Latter-day Saints were distancing themselves from some of the words spoken by past prophets-I don’t think it’s always clear to Latter-day Saints when a Prophet is speaking “thus saith the Lord” and when he is expressing an opinion. Was the manifesto of 1890 and the admittance of black male members to the Priesthood a new revelation or a policy change?
LikeLike
September 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
These are very good and important questions that you ask.
Blake is referring to a scripture in Doctrine and Covenants section 8 that reads:
“Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses abrought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.”
I have experienced the difference between revelation from God that is undeniable in my heart and mind.
What tools do you use to know if something is from God?
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Cal
Blake, do you believe there are, or could be, prophets of God outside the LDS?
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Blake
I definitely that there are “prophets” outside the LDS church in the sense of people who receive revelation. Wilford Woodruff had a good friend before he joined the Church whom he considered to be prophet. The Book of Mormon says that all nations received revelation. However, there are not prophets in the sense that they have the priesthood keys to receive revelation to change God’s law binding on us or to officiate in the ordinances of exaltation or glorification.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Blake
Doug: Of course an evil heart can lead you astray, that has nothing to do with the knowledge burning in the heart of LDS revelation. When one has the experience, one knows that one knows. You’re confusing two very different references to the heart as metaphor and heart as instrument of knowledge. Look at any dictionary of Hebrew and it will tell you that Lib (Hebrew for heart) refers to the place and source of our deepest and most authentic spiritual knowledge. An evil heart is simply an evil will or evil disposition. They are not referring to the same thing at all.
LikeLike
September 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Doug Dwyer
I really didn’t mean to bring in broader LDS revelation (although I did go down that bunny trail) but was more focused on personal revelation-and how one “tests” whether or not the revelation is from the Lord. I sense you saying it’s the heart that is the guage-and my understanding of the heart in Scripture is that it is open to influences from above and below. Scripture speaks of the physical heart, the psychological heart and the religious heart-and the religious heart can be an altar of divine love and the Spirit-as you implied (Romans 5:5) and/or wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). I don’t trust my heart enough to rely on it alone-but I check with what is written in Scripture to be sure that is is correct. That’s the point I’m making. I assumed that was what LDS did as well-but I don’t hear that from you (I assume you’re LDS).
LikeLike
September 22, 2011 at 3:59 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the additional comments. I appreciate your perspective and agree with you. Scripture is a good measuring stick for believers who have already received a witness. For one who is approaching faith and God for the first time though, I believe that there needs to be something that tells the potential believer that the scriptures are indeed from God. This is where a witness from the Spirit comes into play, which, in my experience comes in ways unique to the person. For me, when I say it came to my heart, it is something that is hard to describe, but you know it is from God. An impression to my mind and heart so deep and unique that I can not compare it with anything other than inexpressible joy and an overwhelming feeling of love. These impressions and feelings I have received are why I believe the Book of Mormon and Bible are the word of God and scripture.
Once I have had a personal witness that the scriptures are true, then moving forward I can do as you suggest and use them as a measuring stick with even greater faith than before.
LikeLike
September 22, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Doug
Thanks – Ama -that helps. I wasn’t talking about initial revelation about the Lord but ongoing revelation but some of you were speaking about the initial revelation. I too had the experience of the Holy Spirit revealing to me the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when I was in my teens. A Jewish man in my church was visiting Israel as a young man and had a revelation literally in the Upper Room that Jesus was the Messiah-knowledge he was afraid to share with his family for many years.
LikeLike
September 23, 2011 at 6:05 am
Cal
Thanks, Blake.
LikeLike
September 23, 2011 at 11:19 am
Paul
GfG, thanks for this post.
The simplest definition for LDS is in Doctrine & Covenants 1:38: God’s word comes through his mouth and the mouth of his servants. Section 68:4 says, “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”
So when God’s servants speak when moved upon by the spirit: revelation.
It becomes difficult to tell when that happens sometimes, particularly when we read the words of (even latter-day) prophets who have died, though as other commenters have indicated, there is the opportunity for each member to receive his own confirmation of the spirit.
For me, personally, I’m helped by recognizing when a particular teaching:
1. Is taught often or by more than one of the apostles or prophets — obsure “doctrines” espoused by only one person and never revisited carry less weight for me than basic principles that are regularly taught.
2. Is consistent with canonized scripture. If the doctrine is new or different from what has already been canonized, I would expect some declaration to that effect and a discussion of why we are changing.
3. Is taught more than once in the scriptures. Elder Theodore Burton taught me on my mission (in a zone conference) that when the Lord repeats himself is when we should pay greatest attention. If a topic is taught repeatedly by the Lord, it is important. If it appears as half a verse in an obsure or obtuse discussion, it’s less likely so.
Frankly, the basic doctrines haven’t changed much: We are God’s children and His creation. He sent us to earth to learn to walk by faith and follow his teachings. He sent his son to atone for our sins; the blessings of the atonement are available to all: all will be resurrected, and those who repent will enjoy the redemption Christ’s sacrifice makes possible. Families can exist beyond the grave through holy ordinances of the temple. We are to love God and love our fellow man. The Lord requires us to enter into priesthood ordinances as a sign of our faith and commitment to him; he’s restored his priesthood to make that possible.
There has been little new doctrine revealed since the founding days of our dispensation; most things revealed are as clarification to what we already have, or represent policies based on the revealed doctrines, or represents specific counsel tuned to our day in light of those doctrines.
LikeLike
September 23, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Cal
Thanks for your good & informative words, Paul.
As an evangelical charismatic, I agree with your basic doctrines except for the part about temple ordinances being necessary for families to continue in heaven, and the part about the priesthood needing to be restored.
In support of your belief that families continue in heaven:
Non-LDS Prophet Rick Joyner had a series of very realistic visions of heaven. He tells about some of them in his book “Final Quest.” He said he learned that “all relationships we have here continue.”
Pastor Todd Burpo’s book “Heaven is For Real” tells about his 4-year-old son’s experiences in heaven while on an operating table. The little boy Colton said Mary still loves Jesus like a mom!
Incidentally, little Colton also said on the Trinity Broadcasting Network that Jesus has a smile that “lights up the heavens”!
LikeLike
September 23, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Blake
Cal: Would such visions be considered on par with scripture in terms of being authoritative and as a basis for doctrine? If not, why not?
LikeLike
September 24, 2011 at 5:23 am
Doug
I believe this is where the difference lies between LDS and Evangelicals-many evangelicals (including myself) believe in ongoing revelation-however we believe it gives clarity to what has been previously expressed-there cannot be contradiction between a new revelation and what is expressed in Scripture (the Bible). It sounds like, to me, that in LDS thought allows for the possibility that a new revelation can contradict what has been previously written and that a strong sense or feeling that something is true (a testimony) is help on par with Scripture-am I on the right track here? It feels like the word “Scripture” means something different to LDS (I don’t just mean the additional books added) but the very concept of what Scripture is-LDS have a broader view of that word then we do. My general conference edition of the ENSIGN is (in some sense) Scripture-what are your thoughts?
LikeLike
September 24, 2011 at 7:59 am
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
I think that you are right in your assumptions and that the official LDS view of scripture is even broader than that. Here’s the definition from the LDS bible dictionary on what scripture is (notice the last sentance):
Scripture. The word scripture means a writing, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15). For an account of the process by which the books of the O.T. and N.T. came to be recognized as scripture, see Canon. Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68:1–4)..
If you look in the LDS bible dictionary on the definition for Canon, the last paragraph also denotes a very open approach to what scriptures are, will, or can be:
“Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.”
.
LikeLike
September 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Blake
Doug: if there are only clarifying revelations that must be consistent with prior scripture, then how would Evangelicals explain the revelation to Peter that contradicted the Law of Moses by setting aside the fellowship laws of the Law? How would Evangelical who accept clarifying revelation that doesn’t contradict prior revelations in scripture explain the decision by the council of Jerusalem to not require circumcision? At the time these revelations were given, the scriptures forbade Jews under the covenant from having table fellowship and proscribed circumcision.
Why wouldn’t a clarifying revelation be entitled be scripture? After all, abortion is not specifically addressed in the Bible. If someone received a clarifying revelation it would be important to add that to scripture so that there is clarity as to whether it is allowed, allowed in certain circumstances or disallowed.
graceforgrace; if everything said under inspiration were scripture, then it would include writings of Ghandi, statements by Martin Luther and a lot of clearly contradictory assertions in things like the Journal of Discourses and various church magazine. Regardless of D&C 68, scripture is that which is accepted and designated as such by common consent of the Saints. It seems that you are using “scripture” to be synonymous with anything that is stated in conference. That is rather too broad it seems to me. Perhaps there is a narrow sense of scripture (accepted by common consent by a vote of the Saints as scripture) and a broad view (anything spoken under inspiration). But the broad view appears to become vacuous because what is stated under inspiration cannot be identified.
LikeLike
September 24, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Cal
Blake asked, “Would such visions be considered on par with scripture in terms of being authoritative and as a basis for doctrine? If not, why not?”
Good question. The visions would not be considered on par with the Bible as a basis for doctrine. In fact, at the beginning of the book Rick Joyner made that very clear.
Why not? That’s a whopper of a question. Maybe Doug can help me out. My limited answer would be that we would consider it dangerous to put Rick’s book on par with Scripture. Some of Rick’s fleshly biases could have sneaked their way into his recording of the vision without him being aware of it. What if something in it disagreed with the Bible? This might confuse some and begin to cause others to stray slightly from the truth. It might cause some to begin to doubt the Bible.
——
What would the LDS Apostles do if Thomas Monson said something that disagreed with your scriptures while he claimed it was inspired?
——
Blake asked, “How would Evangelicals explain the revelation to Peter that contradicted the Law of Moses by setting aside the fellowship laws of the Law?”
I would say that the new covenant doesn’t contradict the old covenant because the Law of Moses was never intended to be permanent (Gal. 3:19). “The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24).
Blake stated, “Abortion is not specifically addressed in the Bible. If someone received a clarifying revelation it would be important to add that to scripture so that there is clarity as to whether it is allowed, allowed in certain circumstances or disallowed.”
I may not be representing evangelicals at this point but I wouldn’t have any problem with putting such a revelation in some official book for long-term guidance. Could we call such a book scripture? According to your definition, yes. According to ours, I don’t know.
With the church (I mean all followers of Christ) so disjointed, however, I doubt many would recognize the book as authoritative.
——-
I like these kinds of discussions. I think they are constructive and press us to ask ourselves why we believe what we do.
LikeLike
September 24, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Doug
I would have to agree with Cal-we do not see Peter’s vision as a contradiction as the concept of faith and grace is clearly taught throughout the OT. Indeed-the NT builds upon the OT and gives clarity but does not contradict it. This is a great conversation though-I really love this stuff!
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 4:58 am
Paul
Cal: “Incidentally, little Colton also said on the Trinity Broadcasting Network that Jesus has a smile that “lights up the heavens”!”
That makes me smile, too. 🙂
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 10:36 am
graceforgrace
Doug, Cal:
I like your responses to Blake’s question about Peter’s revelation and can see where and why you would want to measure what a prophet says with scripture.
Cal, your response on how dis-connected the body of Christ is stands out to me. This is a fundamental reason why I feel the Church needs to have a prophet that leads the church and guides it as Peter did after Jesus died. Without leadership, various branches of the church take doctrines and go off in their own thing. We see in the Bible that Peter did stand up and have revelations (that support scripture, as you’ve shown) for the church. I may write another post on this topic, but thanks for brining it up.
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 10:48 am
graceforgrace
Blake,
You asked about the definition of scripture I cited and the fact that many other people from other faiths and religions share things by the Spirit and therefore could be scripture, but shouldn’t be.
What I quoted was from the LDS Bible Dictionary and it appears that there are two separate conversations surrounding scripture (which is why I wrote this post anyways b/c of the confusion).
From the definitions and also from our discussion I take the following:
Scripture defined according to LDS is very broad and is that which is spoken by the power of the Spirit. I would add here (from our conversation) that it should also be in line with what is found in the scriptures for it to be defined as scriptural.
This still leads back to the question though of how binding is a “scripture” if it is not included in the Canon of scripture. I would argue that it isn’t as binding.
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Cal
graceforgrace said, “I would add here (from our conversation) that it should also be in line with what is found in the scriptures for it to be defined as scriptural.”
That’s helpful. I think I can conclude from that that the LDS believes that all their modern scriptures agree with the Bible—or at least that none of them disagree with the Bible. Is that right?
——-
This discussion makes me think of the three branches of our U.S. government, wisely set up by our founders. I remember learning in school that each branch was supposed to keep the other two honest.
In determining God’s will, we have three checkpoints (that I can think of), each one keeping the other two honest: the Bible (or in LDS, anything inspired), the witness of the Spirit, and the action or fruit produced by adherence to the viewpoint.
Any comments?
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Cal
graceforgrace said, “I feel the Church needs to have a prophet that leads the church.”
And who might that be? 😉
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 10:24 am
graceforgrace
Hi Cal,
Did you get a chance to check conference out? For us the prophet is Thomas S Monson right now.
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Cal
Hi Grace,
Although I thought of it a few times during the weekend, I didn’t quite get around to checking it out. Sorry to let you down.
I have watched BYU-TV on occasions.
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 7:47 pm
graceforgrace
Hey Cal,
You’re not letting me down man! Do you know much about Thomas Monson? If not, maybe I’ll have to put up a post on him.
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 12:47 am
Overcoming Anxiety And Depression - The Core Energy Meditation Technique - Anxiety and Panic Attacks Self Help
[…] the Cool WayQ&A: Does anyone have any practical ,self-taught methods of coping with depression?Is Revelation to the LDS Church “Official” if it’s not Canonized? .broken_link, a.broken_link { text-decoration: line-through; […]
LikeLike
September 29, 2011 at 10:54 am
Preparing for, Resources, and History of LDS General Conference « Grace for Grace
[…] been having a very good discussion in a recent post with members of various Christian faiths surrounding the concept of revelation and what is […]
LikeLike
October 1, 2011 at 11:56 am
Jettboy
This is a fascinating discussion, and I am very happy that the two “guests” have shown respectful discourse. This reminds me of my own The Mormons and KJV Bible that touches on what has been talked about here. Probably in relation to questions posed here it would be good to start reading around comment 22 on my post.
To quote in relation to the “levels” of Scripture:
“I think we are back to square two (and one was a misunderstanding of my own position on KJV-only-ism) where we are in agreement that re-translation for a new version is possible, if not a positive. My only concern is with the tiers. To make things clear, I will define tier 1 as un-amendable (although in Mormonism that doesn’t mean un-correctable). Tier 2 is amendable with better translations and use of original source materials. Finally, tier 3 can be accepted and rejected as part of the canon.
I can think of the Book of Mormon as tier 1 without hesitation. The KJV might be a tier 3 ideally, but the books it contains are all tier 2. The Doctrine and Covenants is a tier 1, but there are and have been tier 3 sections both in it and out of it, with a few tier 2 that should still remain included. The Pearl of Great Price is similarly a tier 1, but I don’t think contains tier 2, and yet has had and does currently contain tier 3. Examples of tier 3 would be the History of the Church now and Lectures on Faith nearly 100 years ago (as an aside, if you haven’t read the Lectures on Faith in your Mormon studies, I would suggest it. Some of its theology is outdated, but the majority is fascinating and instructive).”
Cal, I like your three branches of our U.S. government analogy and have heard it a lot to describe Mormon revelation.
LikeLike
October 1, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Jettboy
I also suggest reading this discussion about Mormon Theology as it hashes out more of the same kinds of questions.
“Mormonism is not ‘lists of doctrines,’ but a conversation with God and itself. Think of it as case laws. The more the precedence, the stronger the case. However, if a stronger argument comes along or is developed by putting together ideas that weren’t before, then a new precedent can form. One generation might seem to work off of doctrines different than the other, but both legitimate for their times.”
Ezra asks, with a series of questions, “Which of the following would be true, officially?” and then talks about inerrant as a yes or no. For a Mormon all Scripture and Revelation is imperfect. The term “inerrant” is foreign to the faith. Truth as communicated to mortals at best is approximate. When Joseph Smith says that the Book of Mormon is the, “most correct book on earth,” he means the closest in approximation to God’s intentions. In theory a better translation (through revelation) could be done that supersedes the original. Since humans have limitations that include different languages and cultures, then any divine communication will reflect those conditions.
LikeLike
October 1, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Cal
Jettboy, I liked your last paragraph.
Even most of those who call the Bible inerrant do not literally apply to their lives the first part of 1 Corinthians 11 where women are instructed to wear a covering on their heads and men are not. They say it applies only to the culture of that time (although the principles still apply).
On the other hand, if the OT Hebrew text isn’t inerrant, how in the heck did God hide countless codes behind the surface text? It blows me away.
——–
Doug, thanks so much for recommending the movie “Baptists at Our Barbecue.” My wife & I just watched it. Everyone on this blog oughta see it. It’s a cute comedy/romance taking place in a rural town of 262 Baptists & 262 Mormons. Not surprisingly, they have troubles getting along.
The actors don’t discuss deep theological issues but the moral of the story is a powerful spiritual principle reflected by a quotation that appears on the screen before the movie starts. Harold Bloom, a Yale theologian, says, “The most significant development of 21st century religion will be the relationship between Mormons and Baptists.” (!)
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 8:19 am
Jettboy
“how in the heck did God hide countless codes behind the surface text?”
Considering the fact I don’t believe in a “Bible code” for various reasons, I can’t seriously answer. For instance, read the criticism section of Wikipedia. What manuscript is used when there are more than one that has significant changes in places that the code is supposed to exist? There is the “Texas Fallacy” where the information is found while ignoring those instances of no relationship. Above all, there has never been any predictive discoveries beyond pointing out similarities in the past. I have the same problems with Nostradamus prophecy. The same was done with Moby Dick to contrast.
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Doug
Hey Jettboy-by the way very cool name-while I really don’t buy into the Bible code I do love the meaning of the various numbers in the Bible and what they represent. My understanding of Scripture is that it is “God breathed” and though written by many different personalities-which remain intact and unique-a cohesive message is presented. I hold to the conviction that the oriiginal text was perfect. I do not believe any of our English BIbles are perfect and think the whole KJ only view is silly. I use a variety of translations and I also have a basic understanding of the original language (although not as strong as I would like!). I find a stolid Gospel message presented in the BOM (although I do not hold to it’s inspiration as an evangelical) and have read large porions of it.
Hey graceforgrace-did you ever think you would have such a response to this issue of revelation?!
Cal-I thought you would get a kick out of that movie!
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 7:49 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Doug,
I knew this was a hot topic, and I’m glad to see so much response and new people like Jettboy coming on here to share even more thoughtful and insightful things.
Thanks for all the links, Jettboy! Stop by anytime!
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Cal
Grace,
I don’t know much about Thomas Monson besides that he is old!
I would find a post on him interesting.
LikeLike
October 2, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Cal
Jettboy, I find Wikipedia’s info on the Bible Codes non-helpful.
I saw a program that the History Channel did on the Bible Codes.
I’ve also seen several programs about them on the Christian channels, programs that I taped and watched several times.
From what I gathered from these programs, their predictive value is questionable, although there is one instance where some researchers found info about Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s pending assassination. They tried to warn him but he didn’t pay much if any attention to the warning. He was later assassinated in 1995.
I remember one particular Christian Rabbi who did not use a computer to find codes but he would hear the Spirit of the Lord tell him to look at such & such a place (he knew Hebrew). Sure enough! Over and over again he would find a message like “Jesus is our Redeemer.” Not only that, but the topic of the code would match the topic of the surface text!!!!
One program showed the location of many codes that were of amazing specificity. One I recall was about the Oklahoma City bombing of . . . was it about 15 years ago? The name Timothy McVey (my spelling is probably wrong) was found and on the same page there were about nine other key words that described the bombing event!!!!!
When I first heard about these, I felt chills go down my spine!—something like what Joseph Smith must have felt when he saw the Father & the Son—well, not THAT dramatic! The host of the program kept repeating the likelihood of these codes occurring by chance. It is virtually—”virtually” not being anywhere NEAR a strong enough word—impossible!
——–
Do you know about the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? If God did that, he could put codes in the Bible.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 10:02 am
Jettboy
This is a test. I don’t know why my last one will not post.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 10:07 am
Jettboy
“Do you know about the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?”
Yes I do. The subject is fascinating and it shows that the words used in the translation were thought out and not hastily put down, even though the short months of time frame would not be conducive to the complexity. However, I don’t think it is the best evidence, not counting a spiritual witness, for its divinity. There are the same problems with it as the Bible Code; reproducibility in unrelated works.
“My understanding of Scripture is that it is “God breathed” and though written by many different personalities-which remain intact and unique-a cohesive message is presented. I hold to the conviction that the original text was perfect.”
I can agree with you, and Mormons might use “inspired” where you use “God breathed” to describe the Bible. My and for most Mormon’s major disagreement would be the last sentence of the quote. There is no such thing as perfect in mortality no matter how much it came from God. If there is a reason for a cohesive message, its because the Gospel itself is cohesive and not to do with any textual conditions.
As for the main question of how to tell what is “official” doctrine, I’m still thinking of how to answer. If I have to give a short and immediate answer, I would say there is no such thing; not in any traditional definition. We start with the canon as the litmus test of all other teachings, but work with the rest on a case-by-case and generation by generation basis. Personal revelation fills in the blanks until a better and more authoritative understanding is revealed. I really liked the scientific analogy above. Its an ongoing process of discovery, hypothesis, and conclusions or shifts in viewpoints. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the basic structure that forms a scaffolding for all other teachings, doctrines, and speculations. If the whole outside suddenly crumbled (because of new revelation), the scaffolding would still remain intact. Before we can answer “what is official Mormon doctrine” the question must be answered “what is the Gospel as understood by Mormons?” That lays the groundwork for understanding what is the essentials and what is probabilities.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Doug
I was actually quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (NIV)
Anyone have any thoughts what “God-breathed” might mean? Another question: Why is there no such thing as perfect in mortality? I’m not sure I understand what you mean in regard to the issue of Scripture and revelation.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Cal
The New International Biblical Commentary has no earth-shattering or problem-solving revelation on the meaning of “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy 3:16. It says it means “of divine origin.” It also mentions two versions that translate it as “inspired by God.”
Returning to Grace’s question of how to tell what is “official” LDS doctrine, I looked again at Grace’s comment/feeling that “if the apostles have gathered together, prayed, and received guidance from the Spirit on a matter, then announced it to the church officially through writing, it is ‘official’.”
Personally, I had concluded that the LDS book “Gospel Principles” is closer to the core of Mormonism than the Book of Mormon is. I say this because if I went straight to the Book of Mormon I could make the LDS look better than it is. Likewise, if we wanted to know what Lutherans believe, I don’t think any of us would go straight to the Bible to find out. We would go to their “statement of beliefs,” would we not?
GraceforGrace, I have a question for you: When you said, “If an LDS leader decides to . . . say something off the cuff that’s wacky then that is not official revelation,” were you thinking of any particular off the cuff stuff?
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 8:49 am
graceforgrace
Hi Cal,
Great question about the “wacky” things prophets have said. Back in the day, Brigham Young said some very “wacky” and downright mean and false things. Here are some examples taken from his Journal of Discourses:
Brigham Young comments about blacks
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy.
“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).
Brigham Young said your own blood must atone for some sins.
“There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247; see also, vol. 4, p. 53-54, 219-220).
There are more that you can view on this site: http://carm.org/brigham-young-quotes
I just gave you a handful of them, non of which I believe to be inspired by God. For this reason, LDS apologists shy away from saying what is not written in canon is scriptural. Prophets have said weird things and sometimes, as pointed out, completely wrong things.
However, given the LDS definition of what Revelation is and what scripture is, it makes it hard for people to discern between truth and error sometimes if they just accept everything the Prophet says as truth. Hence the reason for this post.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Ken
Many of the stories in the Old Testament do not match up with the archeological evidence being found over the past several years. Many biblical scholars now believe that the 7th century Israelites made some significant changes to the history in an effort to explain how it was that the chosen people fell to the Assyrian gentiles.
If in deed the records were modified and changes, as does appear to be the case, then were these changes inspired by God? If so why? And if there were no changes how do we explain the discrepancies between the text and the archeological evidence?
I would assume that Paul is including the Old Testament when is says “all Scripture…”
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Cal
You’d have to show me the evidence before I would believe that.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Ken
Up until about the 1970’s most archeological research used the bible as a guide to locate sites and information, but after the 70’s there was a shift in which archeology was used to locate and verify information in the Bible. This switch has resulted in several researchers finding discrepancies in what they are finding vs what the Bible stories tell. One of the best books out there is “The Bible unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein. William Dever is another archeologist who has put several books out dealing with this subject.
If you go into youtude and type in “The Bible unearthed” there is a 4 part video that talks about the development of the book by Israel Finkelstein. Very festinating what is being learned through modern archeology.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Ken
The most resent book I have read on the subject is “Did God have a wife?” by William Dever. He goes into the archeology of ancient Israel quite deeply. Although as an LDS this concept is not outrageous, it would most likely come across to many Christian Groups as blasphemy. The mere title is enough to make most Christians not to even want to pick up the book, let alone read it. But is a very well written book that does a great job in really understanding the thinking of the Israelite people. Don’t let the title scare you, it is worth the read.
Again, if you don’t want to buy the book there is another youtube video series by another archeologist dealing with the same topic Francesca Starrakopoulou. Do a search for “Did God have a wife” She comes at it from a little more of a feminist view, but the coverage of the archeology is still very well done.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Cal
The question of whether God had a wife and whether discrepancies exist between what archeologists are finding and what the Bible stories tell seem totally unrelated. How did they end up in the same book? Did God’s wife leave a cooking pot somewhere? 🙂
I can’t comment on the second question, not knowing anything about it, but I do know the devil has his advocates planted around every corner.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 7:35 am
Ken
You would have to read the books to see how the two are related. It was not a cooking pot they found, but a piece of pottery that had two images and an inscription that referred to Yahweh and his consort Asherah. All references to Asherah in the Bible today suggest that this was something that was not accepted in proper Israelite worship, yet her images are so frequent and prominent in archeological digs throughout the settled areas of the Hebrew people. Either she once was an accepted part of their ancient religion, but was later written out, or idle worship was never really successfully removed from their practices as the Bible stories suggest. As more is understood about ancient Judaism, more biblical scholars are going with the first option.
It is true that the devil has advocates everywhere in an effort to hide the truth from our understanding. For that reason we should never run from those who are searching for answers, but learn with them. Archeology does not lie, we just have to understand it’s truth.
But getting back to the topic at hand. One thing that both archeology and ancient writings now tell us is that the original writings that were used to put together the story of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, started out as separate stories in different regions of the area. It is believed that once the Assyrians captured the northern kingdoms of Israel the refugees that fled south to Judah were more than 5 times the number of people currently occupying that area. As all these groups got mixed, it was clear that they had different stories passed down through the centuries. For some Abraham was the chief patriarch, for other Isaac and for others it was Jacob. So in an effort to unify the people the stories were combined to make one history that blended all the original components. So did God reveal this to these writers? Or is this just a story in part based on true events in the lives of these people, but not completely accurate in the connection and time line of these people’s lives?
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Ken
The devil definitely planting his advocates among the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ, although you’re not going to get many people of the Jewish faith to agree with that. So if he was able to get his plants in at this time among these people, did he manage to get any in during any of the periods when the ancient records were being passed down and translated?
LikeLike
October 7, 2011 at 7:50 am
Ken
Here is why I ask that question in my last post. When reading in the Old Testament that God instructed Moses to have the people kill all the inhabitants of Canaan including children, but if they wanted they could keep the little girls alive if they want them, something just doesn’t seem right to me about that. Is that something that God really revealed to a prophet?
But when I read about the archeological findings that are being discovered today, the evidence is showing that these lands were not concurred as the Bible story suggests. There was not a sudden sweep of the Israelites coming in during that period and wiping out the local people.
Based on this evidence, is it possible that God never told Moses to kill the local people? Is it possible that this was a revision to the history made by the 7th century writers, perhaps to justify some killing that was done during that period of unrest and warring going on with Assyria? Israel Finkelstein asserts that these records fit much better in a 7th century setting than they do in the 12th or 13th.
LikeLike
October 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Doug
Ken-what is your purpose in questioning the historicity of the OT? What is your view of the BoM timeline and historical truthworthiness?
LikeLike
October 8, 2011 at 8:34 am
Kem
Please don’t get me wrong, I love the Bible, and do believe that it is the word of God. I also believe that every truth should be able to stand in the face of questioning. Just as the book of Mormon writers said “if there be mistakes, they are mistakes of men”. The Book of Mormon has gone through and will continue to go through critical questioning. And that is the way it should be. These things do not shack my faith in either the Bible or BOM, but rather it strengthens it. God has always worked through men (prophets) to reveal his truths. And all men make mistakes, sometimes more deliberate than others.
The most important part of both of these books of both history and revelation is that they testify to us today that Jesus is the Christ. Even if there are errors in the history, or changes made to the record, it does not change that truth.
I love the study of archaeology. I love the fact that we now have technology that allows us to learn more than ever before about the past. I hope that in my life time more research is done around the BOM lands. Do I believe that there will be found discrepancies with the record, sure but this does not in itself make the record false. It only shows that humans are not perfect. And for this reason we must always depend on God who will always reveal his never-ending truth through his prophets, so long as there are men on earth that have the faith, those to be prophets and those to listen.
LikeLike
October 10, 2011 at 5:34 am
Doug
Thanks Ken for your thoughts-I have to confess that it would challenge me to believe that the Lord would give us Scriptures so filled with discrepancies and human flaws. I subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review-are you familiar with it?
LikeLike
October 10, 2011 at 8:24 am
Ken
Doug,
Thanks for the reference. I will check it out. If you know of any articles that deal specifically with the discrepancies pointed out by Israel Finkelstein in his research that would be very helpful. In his book he acknowledges that there is much evidence in support of the written record, but there are also a lot of details that don’t match the record.
We know these people were there, and there is an extreme amount of evidence to support that, but did the history happen they way the Bible now says it happened? Any articles you can point me to would be very helpful
LikeLike