From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 9 Jan 93 09:41:27 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <e7lv023730Qj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>>> 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.

[...]
>> 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.  

What about abiguities or limitations of the language?

> Therefore, this would eliminate the possibility of a revelation
> coming from him that was not true.  So we can erase the bottom
> section of the diagram.  

Maybe you can, but I can't.

> 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.  

We most certainly do have a reason not to follow what he says. 
It's called free agency -- we have the right to choose.

> 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.  

"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, and
the power of God unto salvation."
(Doctrine and Covenants 68:4, emphasis mine -JBH)

"Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained to preach the word of
truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it
by the Spirit of truth or by some other way?

"And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

"And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive
it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

"If it be some other way it is not of God.

"Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he
that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it *as*
*it* *is* *preached* *by* *the* *Spirit* *of* *truth*?

"Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, *understand*
*one* *another*, *and* *both* *are* *edified* and rejoice
together.

"And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness."
(Doctrine and Covenants 50:17-23, emphasis mine -JBH)

(Compare 1 Corithians 2:11-16.)

[...]
> All I am saying is that the two cancel one another out.
> That is if he is a true prophet.

No, Tony, they re-inforce one another and build up one another.

>>> 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?

"Now when they heard this, they were *pricked* *in* *their*
*heart*, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men
and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

"Then they that *gladly* *received* *his* *word* were baptized
...." (Acts 2:37)

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jona: For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but
my father which is in heaven." (Matthew 15:17)

See also Hebrews 10:15; 2 Peter 1:18; Matthew 13:9, 13-16; 
1 Corinthians 2:10-14.

[...]
> 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.

And here I thought it was just good *counsel* of the way he
thought things *should* be if conditions permit.

I guess the application of "the word" varies from individual to
individual then, depending upon their circumstances (thank
goodness).

It is up to the individual to choose and decide how they will
implement "the word" or even *if* they will implement "the
word".

It will be between the individual and God to decide if the
implementation (or lack thereof) was appropriate or not.

>> 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.  

Where in Egypt is Goshen?
What archeological evidence is there that the Hebrews were ever in
Egypt during the time and in the quantity reported in Exodus?

[...]
> "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)

Another good example of counsel in the bible to get a
confirmation.

[...]
> 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

So, "the heart is deceitful above all things" and we should
therefore use it to "trust in the Lord".

Therefore when the multitude was "pricked in their heart" (Acts
2:37) they were being deceived and should *not* have followed
Peter.  Is that it?

> 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?

It tells me that it was BY's opinion for a little while.

cc: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan