From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:53:01 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Reference: <1993Jan9.094127.62569@cc.usu.edu>

From:	IN%"agr00@sim.mfg.amdahl.com"  9-JAN-1993 14:31:46.34

>> What about abiguities or limitations of the language?
>
> No Bibical prophet ever uttered words "in the name of the Lord"
> that didn't "come to pass". Either on is a true prophet of God,
> or either they aren't.  If they are, then they won't credit words
> to the mouth of God that are incorrect.  Their own opinions on
> things may not be accurate, but when they say "this is the word
> of the Lord", if it is, then it will be accurate.  To say
> otherwise is to say that God can be wrong.

What about Jonah?  He prophesied that Ninevah would be destroyed
within 40 days and it wasn't.  Peter said that Christians needed
to be circumcised, and later that was reversed and proved wrong. 
Moses said that the Lord would carry Israel like an eagle carries
its young on its wings.  Eagles don't carry their young on their
wings -- on their backs maybe, but not on their wings.  I t was a
popular notion in Moses' day, and it may only be a metaphor, but
it is an incorrect metaphor.  So by your standard, Moses, Peter,
and Jonah were all false prophets.

Also, for example, what about Exodous 33:11.  Did Moses really
see God face to face?  Does that mean God has a face?  If that is
not what really happened, but it is the only way the prophet new
how to express it to others, then does than mean God can be
wrong, or does it mean that the language is inadequate and/or
ambiguous?

My point is that the will of God as revealed to the prophets
was/is correct.  However, because prophets are human and subject
to human weakness, and also because language may be unable to
express certain ideas or concepts which the prophets need to
express, an element of falibility enters in.  More possibilities
for misunderstanding the original intent of the prophet arise
when his writings are translated, because come words and ideas
have no real corresponding idea or expresion in another language.

Take for example the Italian word "dolce" the closest English
approcimation is "sweet", but there is more to the idea in
Italian that can't be expressed using English words.

>>> 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)
>
> This and the other verses you quoted say exactly what I was
> saying.  I  said that when a prophet credits the words to the
> Lord. "Word of the Lord", "when moved by the Holy Spirit".  Same
> thing!  I included this  pre-requisite, sorry you missed it.

No, Tony, D&C 68:4 effectively states that a prophet is only a
prophet when acting as such.

D&C 50:17-23 tell how one can determine if a prophet is acting as
such.

Thus a prophet can say: "thus saith the Lord ..." and still just
be expressing his own opinion or personal world-view.  Thus the
importance of D&C 50:17-23. I might go so far as to say that D&C
50:17-23 tells us *how* to try and test the spirits as 1 John 4:1
directs.

>>> 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.
>  
> You cannot have a true prophet of God uttering false words and 
> saying that they are from God.  If so, then you are saying God is
> faultful.  Is that way you are saying?

No you misunderstood me.
WRT the above, all I am saying is that the prophets are fallible,
but God is not.

WRT what I originally meant, when the prophet speaks by the power of
the Holy Ghost, and the listener heard by the power of the Holy
Ghost, both the prophet and the listener are edified.  When this
is not the case, the communication is not from God.

It looks like this:

From God:                           Not From God:

  +---<--Holy--->---+
  | +->--Ghost-->-+ |
  | |             | |               Prophet-->--Receiver
  v v             v v
Prophet         Receiver


>>> 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)
>
> I asked for a reference "as you speak of it". You speak of if as
> a "buring in the bosum".  This "pricking in the heart" is not
> the same.

To Mormons it is the same influence.  The Holy Ghost influences
us in many ways.  A "buring in the bosom" is only one of those
ways.  Being "pricked in the heart" is another way.

> If you read the NIV you can get a clearer understanding of what the
> greek says:
> 
> 	"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart,
> 	and said to Peter.......what shall we do..."
> 	
> The implementations here are clearer in the NIV than the KJV, but
> the Greek really puts it better. These people are getting
> convicted of  the truth, in their hearts.  There is not support
> here for a "physical" feeling.

"Convicted of the the truth, in their hearts" and "cut to the
heart" sound like conscience to me.  Speaking to our sense of
conscience is yet another way the Holy Ghost influences us.

>> "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)
>
> This doesn't prove a "physical" rendering of the truth. 

Perhaps not, but it does illustrate the model I rendered above.

>>> 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.
>
> Whatever.... I was talking about absolutes. You have a way to 
> "spiritualize" everything I say and make it up to the person. Sure,
> they way it is put to use will be different per person.  

That is my point. we are responsible to God for what we do or do
not do in this mortal existence.  If we choose to do something,
God will judge whether or not what we chose whas righteous or
appropriate given out varied circumstances.  There are very few
absolutes.

For example, the concept of tithing.  God has commanded that we
be tithed.  Tithing is defined as 10% of one's annual increase.
Now, what constitutes "one's annual increase" is up to the
individual.  Is it before or after taxes?  Does it include gifts
(ie Christmas gifts) scholarship monies, benefits (ie company
car, etc.) capital gains?

> But my  point was, that either God said it to your prophet, or
> either He didn't.  He could not have done both.  The peophet
> claimed it came from God.  Either it did or either it didn't. 
> Can't be both! That was my point.

Well if he did, and it didn't, then he was being a fallible
human, and the principles of D&C 50:17-23 would reveal that to
those that sought for confirmation.

[...]
>>> "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.
>
> This doesn't not imply to getting a confirmation.  The next verses
> say that anyone who doesn't say that Jesus Christ has "come in the 
> flesh" is the antichrist.  Brigham didn't teach this!  He taught that
> the physical and spiritual father of Jesus Christ was the same 
> character that was in the garden of Eden; Adam!  Not hardly the same!

I don't see what this has to do with whether or not Jesus was
incarnated or not (1 John 4:2-3).

Also:

"Wherefore I give unto you to understand, that no man speaking by
the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."
(1 Corinthians 12:3)

>>> 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.
>
> Brigham Young _never_ said that it was his opinion.  He said that it
> was "the word of the Lord". There is _no_ evidence of Adam_God being
> his opinion.  There is extrodinary evidence that he believed and 
> taught that Adam was our God and the Father of our spirits, the same
> character that was in the Garden of Eden. He believed it to be the
> word of the Lord, he taught it to be, and the people believed it to 
> be.  Today, they denouce it as "false doctrine", but deny the fact that
> he taught it as "the word of the Lord" when he did.  That makes
> Brigham a false prophet, and all of Mormonism falls to the ground.
> Checkmate!

Checkmate only of you hold that prophets are infallable.
By that standard, Jonah was a false prophet because Ninevah
wasn't destroyed.

I'm going to withdraw all my statments about Brigham Young and
the so called Adam_God doctrine while I wait for my brother to
send me some information from another net (Fidonet?).

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc