From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:22:16 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1993Jan7.150848.6190@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <994Y02Jd30Fv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>In article <17970@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>>In article <0eZm02QL30Y201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>>
>>>>>That is why every person has the responsibility of receiving confirmation
>>>>>directly from God about these things.  This not only applies to utterances
>>>>>of the Mormon prophet, but the Bible.
>>>>
>>>>If this is true, then the person receiving the "confirmation" has a more
>>>>direct connection to God than the person giving the revelation.  Right?
>>>>Therefore, the need for a living prophet ceases.
>>>
>>>No, because my authority only extends to confirming whether something
>>>is from God or not.
>>
>>That is my point!  The final word comes to YOU!  My point is, when a
>>prophet makes a revelation, either it is from God or either it isn't!
>
>	There are two possible cases and two or more possible responses
>
>	Shall we do this as a matrix?
>
>			   Do I Follow         Do I ignore
>    This is a True
>    Revealation From       Case  A.             Case B
>    God
>
>    This isn't a True
>    Revealation From       Case  C.             Case A
>    God

I think you are missing my point.  Maybe I can explain it better this
way.  Sorry for the confusion from my part.  Look closely at your
diagram above.  IF, I said IF, John Doe IS a true prophet of God, then
he may not be perfect, but he will never give a prophecy that is false.
That is to say that anything he puts in the mouth of the Lord will be
accurate and correct.  Therefore, this would eliminate the possibility
of a revelation comimg from him that was not true. So we can erase the
bottom section of the diagram.  That leaves the top section with Case A
and Case B. IF, John Doe IS a true prophet, then we have no reason not
to follow what he says. So that eliminates Case B of that section.  Then
we are left with a true prophet and everything he claims came from the
Lord did actually come from the Lord.  So what I originally said stands
strong and firm. If he is a true prophet, he won't be giving false
prophecies, therefore, when he says, "God said this..." I don't have to
have "confirmation" of the truth of it.  If God has a living prophet on
the earth, then he wouldn't have him saying false things.  Therefore,
the need for extra "confirmation" is either unnecessary, or it gives the
final word to the individual and not the prophet.  This position is
supported by Wilford Woodruff, Mormon Apostle and later Church President:

    "...it has ever been a key with me that when the Prophet who
     leads presents a doctrine or principle or says thus saith
     the Lord I make it a point to receive it even if it comes in
     contact with my tradition or views being well satisfied
     that the Lord would reveal the truth unto his Prophet whom
     whom he has called to lead the Church before he would unto
     me, and the word of the Lord through the prophet is the End
     of the Law unto me." (The minutes of this session are found
     in the Wilford Woodruff Journal, under the date of January
     27th, 1860)

Speaking of the Prophet of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young, Mormon
Apostle Orson Hyde stated:

    "To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that there
     is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance
     incorrect doctrine is to lay the axe at the root of the tree.
     Will He suffer his mouthpiece to go into error? NO."
     ("Misc. Minutes" unpublished ms., Brigham Young Collection,
       Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, p.1)

Mormon Apostle and later President John Taylor also admitted this to be
the case:

    "If that mouthpiece has not the power to dictate I would throw
     all of Mormonism away." (Ibid, pp.6-7)

It is quite easy to see that there is no need for a prophet _and_ a
confirmation.  One or the other.  If LDS church claims to have a living
true prophet of God.  If this is itrue, then why is there a need to get
a confirmation about his revelations?  Do you doubt that he really is
a prophet?  All I am saying is that the two cancel one another out.
That is if he is a true prophet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>It can't be up to the individual that hears the revelation from the
>>Prophet. In Biblical times, when Moses and other prophets gave revelations
>>it was from God.  The people didn't have to get a confirmation on it.
>
>   But of course, it's up to the individual. Each individual is responsible
>   to God. Christ is the intermidary, but the relationship is with God.
>
>   In biblical times, the authority that certain prophets held, came from
>   the belief that that prophet spoke and the meaning of the speech
>   came from God. The power and Authority that Moses "had" was not
>   inheirent in his postion as "leader" of the hebrews, but came
>   because the people had confirmation that God was speaking through
>   Moses.  Their ability to descern Case A was very clear. Those
>   who followed Case B, in that part usually died. (swalled in ground),
>   cast out of Isreal etc.

You got Biblical references for "people getting confirmation" as you
speak of it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Because it was from God, or it wasn't.  The truth of wether the revelation
>>is from God or not, is based on the revelation, not on the people hearing
>>it.  
>
> But that _IS_ the point, the truth is subjective and if both parties are
> "recieving" and living by the spirit, then both will understand the
> same thing. If you define TRUTH as a knowledge of thing as they are,
> and as God understanding things.

Kermit, Truth is _NOT_ subjective.  For example. If a "prophet" says
that the sky is blue, that is speaking in a prophectic situation,
either the sky is blue or it isn't! If two people get "confirmed" and
one is confirmed that the prophecy is true and the other is confirmed
that it is not true, they both cannot be right!  In this case, then one
who was confirmed that it was not true WAS WRONG, because the sky really
is blue.  Truth is NOT subjective per person. I have seen this situation
before inreality. I remember two Mormon lady friends of mine that claimed
to both be "receiving and living by the spirit".  When the issue of
women staying home instead of working was prophicized by your prophet,
they were both "confirmed" with conflicting results.  They both cannot
be right! Either God said through the propeht that women should try to
stay at home, or He didn't say it. He couldn't have done both.

> My expierience is that the spirit of God is trustworthy, I understand
> that you have not had similar expierience and that you do _not_ trust
> God or his spirit, but that you place _your_ trust in the precepts of
> men and the preconcieve notions as contained in the tangible evidence
> in the Bible.

This is a strange comment. You know, men like Brigham Young and Joseph
Smith and others, are simply MEN. They haven't been around forever. God
has.  His Word is reliable. Anything that is verifiable with history,
science, archeology, etc.. has always proven to support what the Bible
claims to have happened. Nothing has ever been dug up or found to
conflict Biblical accuracy.  Many times in history people have thought
that they had found something that contridicted what the Bible claims,
but time has always proved them wrong, and God right. If you send me a
mailing address I can send you some literature on this subject to back
up what I am saying.If things about the Bible that we _can_ test come
back with a 100% record of accuracy (which they do), then we have a
pretty good reason to believe what it says about things that we cannot
test.

In addition, Scripture tells us that "In the beginning was the Word,
the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh."
(John 1:1,14). Crossreference that with Hebrews 1:1, "In the _past_ God
spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in
various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His son.."
(Hebrews 1:1-2).

Scripture also tells us that in the last days Satan "WILL perform many
signs and wonders to deceive even the elect"(Matt 24:24). He can even
give you confirmation of something he would like for you to think was
from God.  Believe me, if Satan can keep you from the true knowledge of
God by convincing you that you already have it, he certainly would do
so.  From these verses you should be able to see that to place your faith
in the Word of God makes much for sense than to trust an experience that
Satan can also create, or a prophet that doesn't pass the Biblical test
of being true (Deut 13:1-5; 18:22)

You trust your experiences that Satan can intervene with:

     "Dear friends do not believe every spirit, but test the
      spirits to see whether they are from God, because many
      false prophets have gone out into the world."  (1 John 4:1)

I do trust the Spirit of God, however, I live up to the commandment to
test ALL of the spirits to see if they are of God.  Any spirit that
testifies that Brigham Young was a true prophet, can NOT be from God.
Because he did exactly what God says a false prophet would do, in Deut
13:1-5, he led thousands to the worship of another God; Adam-God.
Something tells me that the spirit that confirms to you that Mormonism
is true, also confirms that Brigham was a true prophet.  But the
evidence shows otherwise.

>>     If you base it on the revelation you can come to one conclusion, and >>thus have truth.  If you base it on the individuals hearing it, you get
>>many different conclusions.  It can't be from God and not from God at the
>>same time. Have you ever been in a room (or even part of a discussion)
>>where two Mormons are discussing a certain "prophetic" revelation, and
>>one of the was "confirmed" and the other wasn't?  It is really interesting
>>when they draw the conclusion I have illistrated above. One testifies
>>that it is from God and the other testifies that it isn't.  They both
>>cannot be right!  One is wrong!  Maybe both?  Can't happen.
>
> Which in your opinion, would be right? Your opinon is that the method
> of determing truth is that, subjective feeling of the spirit should
> be ignored, while subjective understanding of written dogma is
> preferable?  Not to be inflamatory, but isn't _that_ the cause
> of differences in prodestant branch of western european catholic
> grouping of the Christian religion.  Isn't that why the EV'rs and
> the Chrasmatics and the other late offshoots of the prodestant sects
> can't agree on what is or isn't essential doctrine?

This is hogwash.  You don't understand Prodestantism nor Charasmatics.
All I am saying is that you cannot have a true prophecy from God, and
have two different people get difference "confirmations" and they both
be right.  The sky cannot be blue AND striped pink with purple polka-dots.
If the sky is blue, then the person who was confirmed otherwise was
confirmed incorrectly.  That is all I am saying.

Somethings in the Bible are hard to understand. I agree. And there are
different views on a lot of things.  However, there are things that are
written that are easy to understand, and are trustworthy.  Are you going
to base your eternity on what God has said was true, or on what your
"experiences" say is true? Even though God says:

     "There is a way that seems right to man, but the end is death."
                                        Proverbs 14:12

     "The heart is deceitful above all things, who can trust it?"
                                        Jer 17:9

     "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your
      own understanding"                Proverbs 3:5

Experiences are great! If they are from God.  Unfortunately, God isn't
the only one who is able to give you an experience.  Not _all_
experiences are from God.  Test it! What does it say about Brigham's God?

>>>The problem with you (as well as many Mormons) is that you can't
>>>stand to live with uncertainty.  You have to have it black and white.
>>>True or false, good or evil, saved or damned, etc., etc.
>>>Unfortunately, if you have it that way, you are fooling yourself.
>>
>>Was John the Baptist fooling himself when we wrote, "These things I have
>>written that you may KNOW that you have eternal life."...?
>
>  Are you sure that it was John the Baptist that said that? 
>
>  Jesus said (John 10:27-28) "My Sheep hear my voice and I know them,
>  and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life..."
>
>
> Let's assume that it was John the Baptist that made the quote as you 
> have above (I really couldn't find the reference).  John the B.
> talks about the written word, and Jesus talks about "hearing" the voice
> and then recieving (active tense) eternal life.
>
> Aside from the problem, that _none_ of the writing of John the Baptist
> are contained in the NT, I think the words of Christ are much more
> reliable because of the witness of the Holy Ghost.

For your doubt, yes I am sure that it was John:

     "I write these things to you who believe in the name of
      the Son of God so that you many _know_ that you have
      eternal life." 1 John 5:13

I don't understand the remark you are making about _none_ of John's
writings are in the NT.  Ever read the Gospel according to St. John? How
about 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John?  Ever read Revelation?  You sure you
can back that claim?

The point I was making was that John wrote that "you may KNOW that you
have eternal life.  In Mormonism, you can't say that you KNOW you have
eternal life without deceiving yourself.  You can HOPE, and TRY, and you
MIGHT receive it (according to Mormonism that is), but you don't KNOW, as
John says you should be able to; even for those who believe on the name!
(1 John 5:13).

Jesus does say "hear" which is active as you say. But look at the words.
He is talking about His sheep.  These are the ones whom He was given
eternal life!  Whom he has already given it to! He says that He _knows_
them.  Of course they follow Him.  He is not stating "because they
follow me I have given them eternal life" as you would imply that He is.
Again, they follow Him _because_, _as_a_result_of_ having eternal life
given to them.  They are not following _to_get_ eternal life. Notice
that the ones he is talking about he has already called "my sheep".

>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporatio
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie


-tony

P.S. Kermit, I enjoy dialoging with you.  If you respond, please address
     the issues and lets leave characters out of this one.  We have a
     good dialog here, lets not ruin it.  May God be with you!