tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post113191971491927907..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Questions for Fellow Christians to Consider: Why Would God Stop Communicating with Man?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1134368748597855452005-12-12T00:25:00.000-06:002005-12-12T00:25:00.000-06:00someone posted this statement and I want to know w...someone posted this statement and I want to know where they got it from, or when pres. hinckley said it...."President Hinckley once said that his biggest fear is to be remembered as the prophet no one heard."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132325024408226292005-11-18T08:43:00.000-06:002005-11-18T08:43:00.000-06:00Anon @3:37:"At what point was this apostasy comple...Anon @3:37:<BR/><BR/>"At what point was this apostasy complete?"<BR/><BR/>Answer: Some point before the Restoration. Prior to Spring 1820. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion that's the most complete answer anyone can give with authority, although there's plenty of evidence of apostasy being widespread long, long before that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132271724120047702005-11-17T17:55:00.000-06:002005-11-17T17:55:00.000-06:00DR: As the world leader of the the Church, how are...DR: As the world leader of the the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.<BR/><BR/>DR: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.<BR/><BR/>DR: And you receive........<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.<BR/><BR/>DR: You receive?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.<BR/><BR/>DR: And this is a Revelation?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: This is a Revelation.<BR/><BR/>DR: How often have you received such revelations?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I don’t know. I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation. It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.<BR/><BR/>Q: But it’s a special experience?<BR/><BR/>Gordon B. Hinckley: I think it’s a real thing. It’s a very real thing. And a special experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132250233016210572005-11-17T11:57:00.000-06:002005-11-17T11:57:00.000-06:00My understanding is that we draw a dividing line a...My understanding is that we draw a dividing line at the point when the last ancient apostle died, other than John who was translated. That is the dividing point at which the divine authority was gone. <BR/><BR/>But you're right that the loss of correct beliefs was gradual, and never 100% lost as some correct beliefs still remained.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132229796924729422005-11-17T06:16:00.000-06:002005-11-17T06:16:00.000-06:00Anon @3:37The apostacy was a gradual period. There...Anon @3:37<BR/><BR/>The apostacy was a gradual period. There is no timestamp on which you can say that the apostacy was complete. Since early the first century, the early church fathers were dealing with the apostacy. Even in the Apostles' days. Consider the pauline epistle to the Galatians. Paul is charging them with preaching <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/1/6-7#6" REL="nofollow"> another Gospel</A>, that was not in <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/1/8-12#8" REL="nofollow"> line with the apostles</A>. Therefore, it is not clear when this ocurred. <BR/><BR/>My personal believe is that near the third or fourth centuries, there was such a division, such falling away from the original doctrines that that could be considered where the apostacy was 'complete'. It should be said that even though the authority was gone to receive revelation for the whole Church, not all truth departed from the Earth. I would have a conflict calling a 'complete' apostacy, because that would indicate that the truth left the face of the Earth. But certainly the authority and the possibility to receive new revelations, which is the fundament of the Church, was gone of the Earth.AlexGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419111994859972886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132184254119072692005-11-16T17:37:00.000-06:002005-11-16T17:37:00.000-06:00At what point was this apostasy complete?At what point was this apostasy complete?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132099595352892032005-11-15T18:06:00.000-06:002005-11-15T18:06:00.000-06:00As we're now dealing with subjective interpretatio...As we're now dealing with subjective interpretations, I'm going to bow out and thank everyone for the discussion and for putting up with my contrary attitude.<BR/><BR/>Thanks all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132097177692550332005-11-15T17:26:00.000-06:002005-11-15T17:26:00.000-06:00While I admit this question of "thus saith the Lor...While I admit this question of "thus saith the Lord" is not as clear cut as Pres. Brown's talk, I do believe that Pres. Hinckley fits the criteria and in a very specified way. When I close my prayers, I am requesting a favor, contingent upon Father's will. However, when Pres. Hinckley promises something in the name of the Lord to the entire Church, that is quite a different matter. It is not a request of heaven, hoping that we will receive the blessings. It is a promise, only contingent upon our righteousness. I could never do such a thing with authority (at most, if I were in a position of stewardship, I could do so for my quorum, ward, stake, etc.) <BR/><BR/>Conceptual comparison is the key to understanding Brown's talk, in my opinion. If you hold up his "profile" to be an in-depth, nuanced catch-all description (which I don't think it was meant to be; the word "profile," after all does mean "outline), only then does it run into problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132095114527756542005-11-15T16:51:00.000-06:002005-11-15T16:51:00.000-06:00Walker,Your point about the cursory nature of Pres...Walker,<BR/><BR/>Your point about the cursory nature of President Brown's synopsis is a good one. As summarized, one could replace his thesis with the claim, "There never was an Apostacy," and his logic would apply equally well. I'm sure that he presented a more rigorous argument than this in his actual conversation.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Brown's (not mine) criteria, as I said before, they can be interpreted so broadly that they become impotent. For instance, if we can equate "Thus saith the Lord" with "in the name of the Lord", then I fulfill that requirement with every prayer I offer and every lesson I teach, and the requirement seems vacuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132089300222286362005-11-15T15:15:00.000-06:002005-11-15T15:15:00.000-06:00Will:You overgeneralize (and might I say, absurdif...Will:<BR/><BR/>You overgeneralize (and might I say, absurdify) his arguments. Please note that Brown himself was simplifying his 3-hour long brief for the confines of a 40 minute talk. Also note his audience--thousands of BYU students most of whom understand the principles of the Apostasy as they were taught since childhood. Brown had no need to discuss the fact that God had once stopped calling prophets, as that was a given. I would be very willing to suppose, on the other hand, that Brown discussed the Apostasy in some depth with the jurist. It would odd if he did not, considering that he discusses Saul and Joseph Smith without ever connecting the two. If we can take Brown's story at face value (which I believe we should), then a jurist of such intellect would hardly let such a major question of the Apostasy slip under the rug. <BR/><BR/>Additionally , at no time did Brown suggest that a cessation of the prophetic mantle was fundamentally opposed to God's standard operating procedure. Rather, Brown was focusing the prophetic profile of the recent past, an entirely appropriate method given his purpose of teaching the nature of prophets.)<BR/><BR/>As to our recent prophets, President Hinckley fits all of your criteria. Example ("God has spoken to me"): when Pres. Hinckley spoke of the need to increase convert baptisms, he referred to his fear of taking back such low numbers to the Lord. While not a verbatim restatement of Brown, it fits the concept of personal communion with Deity, which is what we are really looking for. <BR/><BR/>As to the "thus saith the Lord" concept, I have not heard President Hinckley repeat those words verbatim. But that is not what Brown's talk requires conceptually. It requires that he "speak in the name of the Lord" which I have heard President Hinckley do on several occasions (using the phrase, "in the name of the Lord, I bless you..." etc.)<BR/><BR/>There are more examples, however I am pressed for time now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132085884049264452005-11-15T14:18:00.000-06:002005-11-15T14:18:00.000-06:00Walker,1) President Brown's argument was a reducti...Walker,<BR/><BR/>1) President Brown's argument was a <I>reductio ad absurdum</I> in which he assumed that God had stopped calling prophets and then showed that the assumption was absurd. By positing a reason for God to stop calling prophets, you render Brown's argument invalid.<BR/><BR/>2) I'm interested to know how the requirements I mentioned in my first comment apply to our recent church presidents. Of course, it's possible to dilute Brown's definition of a prophet by interpreting the requirements <I>very</I> broadly, but then how would those requirements distinguish Joseph Smith from other religious leaders?<BR/><BR/>Regarding President Hinckley as prophet, it seems to me that the only clear distinction between him and everyone else is that he is authorized to lead the church. But this definition of <I>prophet</I> seems very different than President Brown's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132081017851655512005-11-15T12:56:00.000-06:002005-11-15T12:56:00.000-06:00Will:1) Simply because we didn't have prophets fo...Will:<BR/><BR/>1) Simply because we didn't have prophets for a long period of time during the apostasy does not compromise God's standard operating procedure. Indeed, Brown himself noted that one possible reason God does not send prophets is because "we don't need him anymore." While Brown was using this argument in a different context, one definitely juxtapose this argument to the time period of the Nicene creed (often cited as the epitome of the great apostasy, though it obviously was not the beginning), as the philosophizing at Nicea was more result of theological machinations than it was prayerful revelations.<BR/><BR/>2) All but (perhaps) the thus saith the Lord characteristic are arguably true. Now keep in mind, Brown was probably had this in mind, as he himself had not heard such a revelation with his own ears. Obviously, he was referring to something different than a mere utterance of "thus saith the lord"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132077517168299192005-11-15T11:58:00.000-06:002005-11-15T11:58:00.000-06:00I'm not questioning the authority or effectiveness...I'm not questioning the authority or effectiveness of our modern prophets. What I'm doing is pointing out some fundamental problems with President Brown's argument:<BR/><BR/>1) The argument rests on the claim that it would be unreasonable for God to stop sending prophets, but the Apostacy gives the lie to that claim.<BR/><BR/>2) Recent prophets don't meet all of President Brown's requirements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132068043234711942005-11-15T09:20:00.000-06:002005-11-15T09:20:00.000-06:00Do we really want more "thus saith the Lord" type ...Do we really <I>want</I> more "thus saith the Lord" type pronouncements from the 1st Presidency? Would we obey them?<BR/><BR/>We already make excuses for not doing what the prophets admonish us to do. If we neglected to do those things even after the prophet used the "thus saith the Lord" prefix, we would have no excuse, and greater condemnation would come upon us. <BR/><BR/>Like someone mentioned recently, we would probably turn it into a "Simon Says" game, rationalizing: "He didn't say 'Thus saith the Lord' about the earing thing, so I don't have to do it."<BR/><BR/>The more I think of it, the better the current way of prophets speaking to us is. We get more of a blessing by following the prophet's counsel without a direct commandment, and if we disregard it (for whatever reason) the condemnation is less.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if we were commanded, the blessing would be less, and the condemnation greater.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132042683031298812005-11-15T02:18:00.000-06:002005-11-15T02:18:00.000-06:00Will:Good points you raise. Elder Neal A. Maxwell ...Will:<BR/><BR/>Good points you raise. Elder Neal A. Maxwell said that much of the revelation received after Joseph Smith was <I>'tactical'</I>, i. e., it enables the Church to operate within the needs of the day. Much of the doctrinal revelation was received when the Church was established. I guess that Joseph, as the head of this dispensation, received an overflowing of revelation and doctrine that was needed in order to establish the Church and restore the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not think that revelation ceased with him, but he got the majority of it down. Still, Official Declaration 1 and 2 did not come to Joseph Smith. David O. McKay would have loved to receive the permission to lift the ban on the priesthood but, alas, it was Spencer W. Kimball. Lorenzo Snow prompted the Saints to pay full tithing to bless themselves and the Church. Joseph F. Smith received the vision of the preaching of the Gospel to the dead. I do not measure the importance of a prophet in the number of revelations. Consider how Christ refered John the Baptist as the greatest of all the prophets. I think that the minimal requirements President Brown was discussing were intended to Joseph Smith and his calling as a prophet. Since his counterpart did not believe that God would speak to a man such as him, President Brown was making the case for Joseph Smith, not necessarily for all latter day prophets. <BR/><BR/>A while ago, a friend was investigating the Church and raised a similar issue. What makes a prophet a prophet. He said that Moses drove out of Egypt the children of Israel, Noah built an Ark, so what was the measure of a prophet. The answer was that God has a specific task for each one and none can be consider greater for the magnitude of their task. <BR/><BR/>I have often pondered on President Howard W. Hunter's ministry. It was so short, but it was sufficient to make people realise the importance of the temple and make people have a temple recommend. President Hinckley once said that his biggest fear is to be remembered as the prophet no one heard. It would be tragic if it were true.<BR/><BR/>I do not measure any prophet against another, it is quite futile. All men called to be prophets have had a specific task the Lord imposes on them.AlexGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419111994859972886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132019377790623062005-11-14T19:49:00.000-06:002005-11-14T19:49:00.000-06:00Actual quote was: "And we urge, in the strongest t...Actual quote was: "And we urge, in the strongest terms possible, that fathers and mothers regard most seriously this opportunity and challenge to make of Monday evening a time sacred to the family."<BR/><BR/>October 2002 conference, (Nov 2002 Ensign), and also in First Presidency message in Ensign March 2003.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132004797174743962005-11-14T15:46:00.000-06:002005-11-14T15:46:00.000-06:00Ian, Why doesn't Pres Hinckley prophesy like Jose...Ian, <BR/>Why doesn't Pres Hinckley prophesy like Joseph Smith? Look where it got Joseph Smith.<BR/><BR/>Even Brigham Young didn't prophesy like JS. I think Brigham Young said something like Heber was better at prophesying, or that Heber was his prophet.<BR/><BR/>In "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, Brigham Young" he said something like "Blessed is he who obeys a direct commandment, but more blessed is he who obeys without a direct commandment."<BR/><BR/>And I think it would follow that the punishment is greater for disobeying a direct "thus saith the Lord" type order than for disobeying what the prophets encourage or urge us to do.<BR/><BR/>Did anyone catch Pres Hinckley's choice of words a couple years ago in regards to family home evening? (italics mine) "We encourage parents <I>in the strongest terms possible</I> to keep Monday night sacred."Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132001901919207132005-11-14T14:58:00.000-06:002005-11-14T14:58:00.000-06:00I think that the lord could speak through Presiden...I think that the lord could speak through President Hinckley the way he did through Joseph Smith or any of the other Modern Day Prophets, but he chooses not to. I think that the time for prophecy like Joseph Smith received it is not currently needed. There is other work for the modern prophets to do. It seems that each Prophet has had their own distinct mission. There may come a day when the current prophet will prophecy in the same manner that Joseph Smith did.<BR/><BR/>Besides, the presidents of the church are not only Prophets but seers and revelators as well. Just my two cents.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17109430531198187222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132001221119259012005-11-14T14:47:00.000-06:002005-11-14T14:47:00.000-06:00AlexG, I do believe that we have a living prophet ...AlexG, I do believe that we have a living prophet that speaks to God and receives his will. I note, however, that Joseph Smith would seem to meet all of President Brown's minimal requirements, while his successors do not, which leads me to conclude that they are not prophets in the sense that President Brown is describing.<BR/><BR/>Which raises the point that Jeff's question isn't really hypothetical. Why doesn't God communicate to us through President Hinckley in the same way that he did through Joseph Smith? And why has he not communicated with so many people who have lived in times and places that preclude accessibility to a prophet? If Jeff has an answer to his titular question, I'd be interested to hear it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131992430857086522005-11-14T12:20:00.000-06:002005-11-14T12:20:00.000-06:00Journaling immediately after the fact.Journaling immediately after the fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131983202080089572005-11-14T09:46:00.000-06:002005-11-14T09:46:00.000-06:00How is President Brown able to relate a conversati...How is President Brown able to relate a conversation in such colorful detail given the fact that it occurred 28 years earlier?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131955855837883612005-11-14T02:10:00.000-06:002005-11-14T02:10:00.000-06:00Anon@4:15 & 4:37Who wrote Heb1:1? Didn't Paul spea...Anon@4:15 & 4:37<BR/><BR/>Who wrote Heb1:1? Didn't Paul speak directly with Jesus Christ, after the resurrection? Did not Peter received a <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/10/11-16#11" REL="nofollow"> revelation on preaching the gospel</A> after Christ had risen? Did not Christ said that he would <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/23/34#34" REL="nofollow"> send prophets</A> and that we were to <A HERF="http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/41#41"> receive them</A>? Did not Agabus prophesied on a <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/11/28#28" REL="nofollow"> drought</A> and <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/21/10-11#10" REL="nofollow"> Paul's imprisonment</A>? And furthermore, does not the Book of Revelation state that there will be <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/11/3#3" REL="nofollow"> two prophets</A> in the land of Jerusalem that would die and resurrect? I would further ask, who speaks for Jesus Christ? The whole Church? The whole point of Hebrews 1:1 is precisely to convince them that prophets would still come to the Earth. Paul also mentions this to the Ephesians. The Church was founded on <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/eph/4/11-14#11" REL="nofollow"> apostles and prophets</A> so that the Church would not be tossed away. Consider the first Christians in Antioch. There are more prophets to come. <BR/><BR/>The extra credit would take an interesting view. I believe that the announcement of the Perpetual Education Fund, together with the construction of smaller temples could qualify for this, even though the phrase <I>Thus said the Lord</I> was not utilised.<BR/><BR/>Will, I believe that all modern day prophets have done that, in their own words. Consider Howard W. Hunter admonishing the Saints to hold a temple recommend. Said he: <I>It would be pleasing unto the Lord that each member carried and possesed a current temple recommend.</I> Or consider how <A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2" REL="nofollow"> Official Declaration 2</A> was given. Consider the edition of the Scriptures done by the Church. Now, if after those examples you do not believe that we have a living prophets that speaks to God and receive his will, I do not know what will satisfy you.AlexGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419111994859972886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131940405086851662005-11-13T21:53:00.000-06:002005-11-13T21:53:00.000-06:00I think the Compass Article published in Australia...I think the Compass Article published in Australia in 1997 with the Prophets interview says a lot about how our current Prophet receives revelation and guides the Church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131929239905922862005-11-13T18:47:00.000-06:002005-11-13T18:47:00.000-06:00Jeff, President Brown's talk is certainly interest...Jeff, President Brown's talk is certainly interesting, but don't you think it poses some problems vis-a-vis our recent prophets? Do they all meet President Brown's minimal requirements, including:<BR/><BR/>- He will boldly but humbly declare, "God has spoken to me." <BR/>- He will simply but earnestly tell what he has seen and heard. <BR/>- He will boldly declare, "Thus saith the Lord!" <BR/>- He will predict future events in the name of the Lord, events that he could not control, events that only God could bring to pass. <BR/>- He will do superhuman things, things that only a man inspired of God could do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1131928770716140822005-11-13T18:39:00.000-06:002005-11-13T18:39:00.000-06:00If Hebrews 1:1 REALLY meant there was no more reve...If Hebrews 1:1 REALLY meant there was no more revelation, what was Paul doing writing the letter in the first place? If he was just another believer in Christ, then why would the Saints have valued his testimony more than good old Apollos next door ("Apollos" being the equivalent of "John Doe)? Paul was not, as he later points out (in the same letter, no less) that a man must be called of God. If Paul was not, then he was committing an act of high hypocrisy. Bottom line: If Heb. 1:1 limits revelation to Jesus Christ's mortal ministry, then Paul is cutting his own throat, theologically speaking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com