From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:35:55 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <22QT02wR24rc01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.163231.59245@cc.usu.edu> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>>In article <bfeB02QJ23eV01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
>>agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I asked them how come they considered the words of the Prophets to be
>>> Scripture, and they read to me the above passage from the D&C that I have
>>> quoted above. I said OK!  But now, when I refer to a passage that one of
>>> the Prophets said and taught as Doctrine, they say, "Oh no, that isn't
>>> LDS scripture!".  So I refer them to the above passage in the same way and
>>> context that they referred me to it, and they do just as you have, they
>>> tell me that I am misinterpreting it!  Well, if you guys can use it in
>>> that context, then why am I misinterpreting it when I do the same?  It is
>>> not logical!  So please, I reask the question, if I have indeed
>>> misquoted this "Scripture", please inform me of two things:
>>> (1) What is the above passage "REALLY" saying?
>>
>>That their words are scripture (but not necessarily canon) *when*
>>*they* *are* *moved* *to* *speak* *by* *the* *Holy* *Ghost*.
>>
>>How does one know whether or not the Holy Ghost is backing up
>>what they are saying?  The answer is in D&C 50:19-24.
>>
>>> (2) Why do my LDS friends use this passage to prove to me that the words
>>>     of the Prophet IS Scripture when I ask about item number 5 above?
>>
>>Because they *are* scripture (but not necessarily canon) *when*
>>the prophet is moved to speak by the Holy Ghost.  And the Holy
>>Chost will let those that receive the word that what he says is
>>true (or if it's not true), *if* the receiver searches for that
>>confirming witness.  (Again, see D&C 50:19-24.)
> 
> Jason:
> 
> From this discussion I feel that you are making a distinct difference
> between LDS Scripture and "Cannonization". 

Yes.

Many things *may* qualify as scripture.

"Canon", on the other hand, is that set of scriptures by which
all other "scripture" is judged.  Thus is becomes the standard
(or ruler) by which everything else which claims to be scripture
is measuered and weighed.

"Canon" and "*Standard* Works" or usually synonimous terms to
most LDS.

All canon is scripture, but not all scripture is canon.

[...]
> I do not feel that this is the true LDS position and that you 
> are misleading me and other readers of this newsgroup.

That may be.
Other LDS should then corroborate or denounce my position.

> What you are stating is that unless they are moved by the HS, then what
> they say is not true.  I can now see why you have consistantly referred
> me to D&C 50:19-24 instead of printing it here for everyone to see.
> 
>      "And again he that reveiveth 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 from God......And that which doth
>       not edify is not of God, and is darkness."
> 
> So you are saying that the things I have quoted from your Apostles and
> Prophets that you do not like is because that they are not of God and
> are "darkness".

Yes.
The presentation of the matterial has a lot to do with it too.
If it is not presented properly, the Spirit is offended and
withdraws, and the persons are left unto themselves.

Such things then, even if they are true, are not confirmed by the
Holy Ghost, because it has been offended; the communication
stops; and whatever is left is perceived as darkness instead of
light.

One of the things that offends the Spirit is contention and
stubornness, as opposed to love and humbleness.

> I do not feel that this is the LDS position.  My LDS
> friends tell me that the words of the Prophet ARE Scripture, and Brigham
> even said that too.  So since I am not getting the truth from you, here
> is what I have decided to do.  I am going to send a letter to the
> President of the Church and include your name, and tell him that you are
> telling me these things about him.  Because according to Scripture, a
> Prophet cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit and the Unholy Spirit at the
> same time.  If what your Prophets are speaking is from the Holy Spirit,
> then let's discuss what they say.  If they are from the unholy Spirit then
> I don't think we need to discuss any further because we have arrived at a
> conclusion.  You are telling me that these things that are not true that
> they say, that tells me which spirit you think they come from.  I will
> wait and see what the President of the Church tells me about all this.
> I assume that he will tell me what the other Bishops and church members
> do, that what is considered Scripture is also considered Cannonized.
> Which is in conflict with what you say.  I will share my letter with you
> when I get a response.

I will look forward to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:17250 alt.atheism:18095