From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:08:48 GMT

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

>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.


>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.

 If you have the spirit (subjective), and you recieve confirmation
 that something is from God (Case A), then you "know"/have faith
 that it is from God.

 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.

>     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?


>>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.
>
>>I
>>can only argue my own position, and that is that there is no
>>such thing as infallibility.  Not the Bible, not the Prophet.
>
>What about God?  Is he infallible?  If so, would that show the falseness
>of your statement, "there is no such thing as infallibility?"  Wonder
>what else you say is false?
>

  The problem that you describe is the reliablity of information
  about God. And God isn't a thing, right?
>>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      
>  Tony Rose
-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie