Question has arisen in regard the idea of Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mothers needing to have "endless celestial sex" in order to produce the billions of spirit bodies required for our intelligences. After all there are billions of people on this planet alone. Therefore one could conclude that Heavenly Father needed to have sex billions of times. Yet is this the fact?
In addition to this question some aren't sure whether Gods engage in sex at all. Is God really our Heavenly Father or just our Heavenly Inventor? some pose. Is Heavenly Mother just really a Heavenly Nanny, that raised, but did not bear us?
Brigham Young stated _
"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122
So Brigham is declaring that the act of sex, conception, pregnancy and delivery is the only method by which any creation of any living entity takes place. Of course some animals and insects lay eggs etc. Yet parenthood is required. Families are truly eternal.
Joseph Smith confirms this _
"Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?" Teachings of the Prophet JS Section 6 1843-1844:373:1
Therefore all bodies have to be created by parental processes according to both Brigham and Joseph.
Paul confirms this further by presenting the relationship of Heavenly Father as a father relating to the way our fleshly fathers are fathers _
"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?" Hebrews 12:9
Jesus Christ also mentions this concept _
"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Matthew 7:9-11
If they meant something different than a father in the real sense then these texts would lose context, for how can you relate cheese to chalk?
D&C 77:2 informs us that _
"...the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created."
So the spirit bodies of all living creatures are in the likeness of their physical bodies. This means that all creatures had eternal parents that look the same as them. All those parents had them as spirit children in the pre-existence.
That there was a birth process rather than our spirit bodies being invented is additionally evidenced by the fact that Jesus Christ was the first born spirit.
In regard Christ Paul writes _
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Col 1:15
Then there is the fact that some are considered to have been brought forth in the morning of this process. Even Lucifer is one of those sons of the morning (D&C 76:26).
So if God just invented our spirit bodies, he surely could have just done a bulk lot and done us all together.
Bruce R. McConkie _"Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." Mormon Doctrine, p. 750
We know from the D&C that our intelligences were eternal, and therefore existed before we were born to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as spirit children.
"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." D&C 93:29
Naturally when it uses the term "man" it is referring to those who eventually become mankind. Man was not actually made as man until the creation of Adam and Eve. Yet our intelligences are eternal and we made the decision to go along with Heavenly Father's idea to become part of his family and receive spirit bodies. We grew and made decisions. But when it came to getting a physical body one third decided to go no further with our Heavenly Parents plan. They followed Satan and refused to get physical bodies.
Question is presented of how parents with physical bodies can produce spirit bodies? After all don't physical parents produce physical bodied children here on earth? Note the following from Brigham Young.
"the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth." Journal of Discourses : 4 : Brigham Young 1857/02/08 :215
So when our Heavenly Parents had Adam and Eve all that was necessary for them to produce children made from the dust of this earth was for them to partake of the dust of this earth until they had sufficient to produce the 2 children. Thus the babies that God and Goddesses produce are made of the substances that they eat. To produce physical bodies they eat physical matter and to produce spirit bodies they just eat spirit matter.
Note also that he is stating that the matter had to be inside Heavenly Father for the beings to be created. This also supports the idea of a birth rather than a popped up creation.
One would question why we need parents? The answer is that when our spirit is placed in our physical body it has no idea how to get a body to function. The time in the womb is a time when our spirit learns this skill. When we come out we have to additionally learn to move our bodies and speak. All this also takes time. How can you possibly take a spirit and just place it in a body and have the person live? It can't be done. Also our spirit bodies required similar adjustment to. We need parents.
Yet amidst all this the idea has been presented that our Heavenly Parents would need to be in a constant state of having sex to produce all these offspring. This is false.
When the average healthy male has sex with a woman he will place in her between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm in ejaculation. Unfortunately, us being fallen beings, there is a good chance that absolutely none of the sperm will obtain the objective. All those sperm will have died in vain.
Yet what if the producer of those sperm is a glorified immortal being? Will the multitude of sperm die? Of course not! They will live on and the mother can store them until required. (Sorry to those who may wish otherwise, but no endless celestial sex).
Additionally God's ability to produce the numbers required would obviously be far superior to the average healthy fallen male. Thus it may only be required for him to do so once with each wife to produce untold billions.
I must add to this that Godlike sex is absolutely nothing like what is commonly practiced among mankind. It is a spiritual activity that doesn't register physical responses (ie no lust). It works on a spirit to spirit love basis. Physical bodies are required, but no physical focus is done.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Arguments Against the LDS Church by Anti-Mormon Sites.
I am choosing one site and looking at the arguments presented from it. I will choose a site from time to time and examine those also. The site presents the idea that it is quoting Biblical texts to oppose church doctrine. I am just taking the first claims that it makes, for the moment, due to time and space restrictions.
Evidence for the Bible
While on the one hand I support the fact that the Bible is a true record, to claim archaeological evidence is a false claim. The only real EVIDENCE, is evidence to support the fact that Jerusalem existed and that names used in the NT were genuine names used by people in that area. Also we have evidence that a church following Christ existed a century later. Yet even that evidence came from the Catholic church itself.
The suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls could date at around 300-200 BC are extremely optomistic. The Wikipedia gives dates of 150 BC to 70 AD. Additionally there is difference in words given in these scrolls and those in the Old Testament. Some showing great diversity from what we have written in the Old Testament today.
While these texts provide a much older text of the Old Testament, that the Old Testament existed at that time should never really have been in doubt. After all the New Testament texts had quoted from it at that time, so why would we believe that it didn't exist at that time? The question is whether there is evidence of it being dated beyond that time?
One big problem we face in proving the Bible is that God's law forbad Israel from making any art _ "You shall not make any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in the sky above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." Deut 5:8. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles from other nations to do any carving that was required. Therefore archaeologists can only find crude artifacts and not many at that. There is no evidence of any great civilization having existing in that area.
Additionally the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and probably destroyed many other Jewish settlements in the surrounding area at the same time. So nothing remains there either.
Unfortunately no record has been found showing any Babylonian conquest of any people called Israelites or Jews. Neither has any Persian or Assyrian records been found of such. Yet records are found of other conquests they had. No record of Moses nor of any Egyptian King being drowned in the sea. No record of Joseph or Israel in Egypt either. No record of Philistines, King David or even Solomon's kingdom. Neither is there record of the Egyptians defeat of Josiah.
While claims are made of discovering Jericho no real evidence has been forthcoming to prove the town was really Jericho.
On the other hand evidence for the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming that it has been proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the Ancient American people. Thus in the front of the book the church has been permitted to mention that the book was "translated" by Joseph Smith rather than, as it used to have to say, "written by Joseph Smith." Protestants opposed it and lost the case. So if it is so obviously a fraud then why was it PROVEN authentic by an unbiased court system?
Ironically the greatest archaeological evidence for the Bible is the Book of Mormon; whether Protestants like it or not.
In regard the suggestion that the Bible is flawless, even protestant and Catholic leaders and writers say otherwise.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm states the following _
*No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
*The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
*Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
*The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning. Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
*Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
*All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
*Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Even the ultra Protestant site "Carm" admits the problem with the following absurdly optomistic claim _
"The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure." (http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)
The Wikipedia states in regard the ancient Sinaiticus Codex used in many Bible translations _
"The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus)
http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ states the following _
"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."
Also note _
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Bible---Original-Text-Versus-Translations&id=762720
In regard the arguments themselves.
1.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that whatever God says stands and will not fail. It mentions that the Bible text has been played with. The Bible quotes given don't prove to the contrary.
2.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that the Bible was an inspired document. What it is stating is that man has fiddled with it AFTERWARD.
3.The Church clearly declares that the fulness of the everlasting gospel is contained in the Bible. In fact it is contained in the New Testament. This, however, doesn't invalidate the advantages of additional understanding that can be obtained from reading the Old Testament nor any other Scripture that can be obtained, as all Scripture is profitable for all (2 Tim 3:16-17).
It should further be noted that according to the Bible the Old Testament and a testimony of Christ is sufficient for salvation without the New Testament at all. Paul tells Timothy, "and that from a child you have had the holy Scripture [obviously not the 2 books of Timothy for starters] which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures he was brought up with as a child can't have included the then unwritten books of the New Testament. So even the New Testament isn't necessary for salvation. Yet why would we go without these 27 extra books in the New Testament?
4.If this were true we wouldn't have the millions of "Christian" churches all claiming to follow the Bible, but seeing it differently.
5.No one has claimed that God's word should be changed. They have stated that it already has been changed and needs to be put back where it was.
If any of the antis who read this wish for me to answer their site I am quite happy to do so provided it has something worth answering in it. Many sites just contain inuendo and quote from dubious sources. Also posing arguments about dead people is meaningless as they aren't here to explain their words. You need to have something either from the Bible, additional scripture or life to demonstrate your opinion that the church is incorrect. Any links to anti sites made in comments will be removed, unless I deem them relevant.
| The Bible & Christianity | The Book of Mormon & Mormonism |
| On The Bible | |
My words shall not pass away. Mat 24:35 Not the smallest letter shall disappear Mat 5:18 Forever, thy word is settled Psa 119:89 Word of God shall stand forever 1Pe 1:25 Grass Wither, Word stands forever. Isa 40:8 All scripture inspired. 2Ti 3:16, 17 Holy Spirit author of Bible 2Pe 1:21 The word of God, living and active Hbr 4:12 Absolutely trustworthy 1Ki 8:56 The Lord speaks it will be fulfilled Eze 12:25 Power of God for salvation Rom 1:16 Gives hope Rom 15:4 Gives, knowledge of eternal life. 1Jo 5:13 Gives light in dark places 2Pe 1:19 Purifies the life Psa 119:9 Believers share a common teacher, the Holy Spirit Eph 4:4, 5 If he does not depend mans wisdom 2Cr 2:9-14 If he lets the Bible instruct him 2Ti 3:16 If he searches the scriptures regularly, daily Act 17:11 If he seeks to get his approval from the Bible 2Ti 2:15 If Christ is his only Master. Mat 23:8-12 Do not add or take away. Deu 12:32 Do not add to His words Psa 30:6 If any man add, God will add plagues Rev 22:18 If any one takes away, God will take away Rev 22:19 | (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Pg 764). NOTE: The Mormon Church makes this statement about the Bible: |
Evidence for the Bible
While on the one hand I support the fact that the Bible is a true record, to claim archaeological evidence is a false claim. The only real EVIDENCE, is evidence to support the fact that Jerusalem existed and that names used in the NT were genuine names used by people in that area. Also we have evidence that a church following Christ existed a century later. Yet even that evidence came from the Catholic church itself.
The suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls could date at around 300-200 BC are extremely optomistic. The Wikipedia gives dates of 150 BC to 70 AD. Additionally there is difference in words given in these scrolls and those in the Old Testament. Some showing great diversity from what we have written in the Old Testament today.
While these texts provide a much older text of the Old Testament, that the Old Testament existed at that time should never really have been in doubt. After all the New Testament texts had quoted from it at that time, so why would we believe that it didn't exist at that time? The question is whether there is evidence of it being dated beyond that time?
One big problem we face in proving the Bible is that God's law forbad Israel from making any art _ "You shall not make any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in the sky above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth." Deut 5:8. When Solomon built the temple he had to get Gentiles from other nations to do any carving that was required. Therefore archaeologists can only find crude artifacts and not many at that. There is no evidence of any great civilization having existing in that area.
Additionally the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and probably destroyed many other Jewish settlements in the surrounding area at the same time. So nothing remains there either.
Unfortunately no record has been found showing any Babylonian conquest of any people called Israelites or Jews. Neither has any Persian or Assyrian records been found of such. Yet records are found of other conquests they had. No record of Moses nor of any Egyptian King being drowned in the sea. No record of Joseph or Israel in Egypt either. No record of Philistines, King David or even Solomon's kingdom. Neither is there record of the Egyptians defeat of Josiah.
While claims are made of discovering Jericho no real evidence has been forthcoming to prove the town was really Jericho.
On the other hand evidence for the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming that it has been proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the Ancient American people. Thus in the front of the book the church has been permitted to mention that the book was "translated" by Joseph Smith rather than, as it used to have to say, "written by Joseph Smith." Protestants opposed it and lost the case. So if it is so obviously a fraud then why was it PROVEN authentic by an unbiased court system?
Ironically the greatest archaeological evidence for the Bible is the Book of Mormon; whether Protestants like it or not.
In regard the suggestion that the Bible is flawless, even protestant and Catholic leaders and writers say otherwise.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm states the following _
*No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
*The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
*Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
*The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning. Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
*Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
*All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
*Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Even the ultra Protestant site "Carm" admits the problem with the following absurdly optomistic claim _
"The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure." (http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)
The Wikipedia states in regard the ancient Sinaiticus Codex used in many Bible translations _
"The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus)
http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ states the following _
"The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.
For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."
Also note _
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Bible---Original-Text-Versus-Translations&id=762720
In regard the arguments themselves.
1.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that whatever God says stands and will not fail. It mentions that the Bible text has been played with. The Bible quotes given don't prove to the contrary.
2.The Book of Mormon doesn't dispute that the Bible was an inspired document. What it is stating is that man has fiddled with it AFTERWARD.
3.The Church clearly declares that the fulness of the everlasting gospel is contained in the Bible. In fact it is contained in the New Testament. This, however, doesn't invalidate the advantages of additional understanding that can be obtained from reading the Old Testament nor any other Scripture that can be obtained, as all Scripture is profitable for all (2 Tim 3:16-17).
It should further be noted that according to the Bible the Old Testament and a testimony of Christ is sufficient for salvation without the New Testament at all. Paul tells Timothy, "and that from a child you have had the holy Scripture [obviously not the 2 books of Timothy for starters] which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures he was brought up with as a child can't have included the then unwritten books of the New Testament. So even the New Testament isn't necessary for salvation. Yet why would we go without these 27 extra books in the New Testament?
4.If this were true we wouldn't have the millions of "Christian" churches all claiming to follow the Bible, but seeing it differently.
5.No one has claimed that God's word should be changed. They have stated that it already has been changed and needs to be put back where it was.
If any of the antis who read this wish for me to answer their site I am quite happy to do so provided it has something worth answering in it. Many sites just contain inuendo and quote from dubious sources. Also posing arguments about dead people is meaningless as they aren't here to explain their words. You need to have something either from the Bible, additional scripture or life to demonstrate your opinion that the church is incorrect. Any links to anti sites made in comments will be removed, unless I deem them relevant.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Fourteen Fundamentals Examined Part 1
Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles at the time, gave a talk entitled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” (Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University).
His claims are somewhat contraversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have ripped them to pieces of late, not just the DAMs. In fairness to him I thought it wise to do examinations of the claims of this talk. I won't do all 14 at once though.
It is neither my intention to defend falsehood on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims.
In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).
Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.
Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.
First Claim: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
To support this claim he quotes the following
"In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
'There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.'
Then in section 21 verses 4–6, the Lord states:
'Wherefore, meaning the church, you shall give heed to all his words and commandments which he shall give to you as he receives them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word you shall receive, as if from my own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.'”
Firstly we have an incredibly ambiguous statement. It needs a LOT of defining. What does he mean; the president speaks for the Lord in "EVERYTHING?" For example, the president couldn't instruct on how to fly a Concorde. And we know Brother Benson's not implying he could. So we need to examine just what he is proposing.
His real meaning should be revealed by the references he's quoted.
The first one points out that only the president has the full set of keys (entitlement to automatic revelation for an office). The second reference informs us that WHEN a president receives revelation from God that revelation should be accepted as if God himself had said it.
In regard this latter I think it important to mention that this promise isn't unique to the president of the church.
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38
So if God speaks to ANY of his servants and they pass that message on, it is the same as if God himself has said it.
In regard to anyone sent forth to preach the gospel the D&C states,
"And this is the example to them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatever 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, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4.
I would further expand that and say that anyone who is moved upon by the Holy Ghost to say anything, is speaking for the Lord. And what they say in that regard is to be taken as if God himself were speaking.
It should be noted that the texts quoted by Brother Benson don't claim that all things the president says are the words of God. What they say is that IF he is walking in all holiness before God then the words God has GIVEN him come from God. Not everything that the president says has been received by revelation. He has many of his own opinions, as we all do.
So considering all the disecting that is going on, his first claim would be better to have stated,
"The president of the church is the only man who is automatically entitled to speak for the Lord in all things relative to the church organisation and its basic teachings. And he also joins all his brothers and sisters in that when any of God's servants are instructed of God they may speak as if God himself has spoken."
Second Claim: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
To support this claim he refers to a statement that was made by Brigham Young and supported by Joseph Smith, after an erroneous claim was made by a particular local leader. The claim was the following,
"You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them."
Brother Brigham got up and made a statement to the extreme opposite of this extreme statement. Amidst it he said,
"When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."
Are we serious? Did he really think before saying this or has he just gone off to the other extreme, to combat the nonsense he has just heard? I believe that if I spoke to Brigham today he would admit it was the latter.
The words of the Savior in the sermon on the mount are the most important things that can be said. Nothing ANY person speaking today says is "more vital". This is why he delivered the same message when he came to the Americas. This is why this same message is taught by disguise in the temple.
Yet, as God was restoring many truths to the earth at that time, it is reasonable to see Joseph Smith's message as extremely vital to Brigham. Yet Thomas S. Monson hasn't come up with any new doctrine. His use is in administrative areas within the church and encouragement.
Brother Benson's claim could have been better to have said,
"Continued revelation to a living president is vital, to keep the church and basic doctrines taught, where God would have them at this time."
You can find the other 4 sections to this posted on the following dates:
Part 2 Nov 29
Part 3 Oct 18
Part 4 Sep 19
Part 5 Aug 20
His claims are somewhat contraversial. In fact even some relatively conservative members have ripped them to pieces of late, not just the DAMs. In fairness to him I thought it wise to do examinations of the claims of this talk. I won't do all 14 at once though.
It is neither my intention to defend falsehood on the one hand, nor to find fault where it doesn't exist, on the other. So I am seeking to do a realistic appraisal of his claims.
In looking at his statements I think we have to remember that he was talking at BYU. He wasn't anticipating that his words would be analysed under a microscope on the internet. Also I think the talk was anticipated to be simplistic, not used as a doctrinal backing for a particular line of thought (as has occurred).
Also we need to observe that, except for one, these qualities aren't entirely unique to the president of the church. He has only attempted to inform us what to keep in mind in following instructions from the president.
Brother Benson states the following, "Here then is the grand key — Follow the prophet — and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet." He then qualifies that when he uses the term "the prophet," he means "the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This qualifying of the title "the prophet" is important to the subject, as we view the claims.
First Claim: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
To support this claim he quotes the following
"In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
'There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.'
Then in section 21 verses 4–6, the Lord states:
'Wherefore, meaning the church, you shall give heed to all his words and commandments which he shall give to you as he receives them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word you shall receive, as if from my own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.'”
Firstly we have an incredibly ambiguous statement. It needs a LOT of defining. What does he mean; the president speaks for the Lord in "EVERYTHING?" For example, the president couldn't instruct on how to fly a Concorde. And we know Brother Benson's not implying he could. So we need to examine just what he is proposing.
His real meaning should be revealed by the references he's quoted.
The first one points out that only the president has the full set of keys (entitlement to automatic revelation for an office). The second reference informs us that WHEN a president receives revelation from God that revelation should be accepted as if God himself had said it.
In regard this latter I think it important to mention that this promise isn't unique to the president of the church.
"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38
So if God speaks to ANY of his servants and they pass that message on, it is the same as if God himself has said it.
In regard to anyone sent forth to preach the gospel the D&C states,
"And this is the example to them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatever 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, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4.
I would further expand that and say that anyone who is moved upon by the Holy Ghost to say anything, is speaking for the Lord. And what they say in that regard is to be taken as if God himself were speaking.
It should be noted that the texts quoted by Brother Benson don't claim that all things the president says are the words of God. What they say is that IF he is walking in all holiness before God then the words God has GIVEN him come from God. Not everything that the president says has been received by revelation. He has many of his own opinions, as we all do.
So considering all the disecting that is going on, his first claim would be better to have stated,
"The president of the church is the only man who is automatically entitled to speak for the Lord in all things relative to the church organisation and its basic teachings. And he also joins all his brothers and sisters in that when any of God's servants are instructed of God they may speak as if God himself has spoken."
Second Claim: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
To support this claim he refers to a statement that was made by Brigham Young and supported by Joseph Smith, after an erroneous claim was made by a particular local leader. The claim was the following,
"You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them."
Brother Brigham got up and made a statement to the extreme opposite of this extreme statement. Amidst it he said,
"When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books."
Are we serious? Did he really think before saying this or has he just gone off to the other extreme, to combat the nonsense he has just heard? I believe that if I spoke to Brigham today he would admit it was the latter.
The words of the Savior in the sermon on the mount are the most important things that can be said. Nothing ANY person speaking today says is "more vital". This is why he delivered the same message when he came to the Americas. This is why this same message is taught by disguise in the temple.
Yet, as God was restoring many truths to the earth at that time, it is reasonable to see Joseph Smith's message as extremely vital to Brigham. Yet Thomas S. Monson hasn't come up with any new doctrine. His use is in administrative areas within the church and encouragement.
Brother Benson's claim could have been better to have said,
"Continued revelation to a living president is vital, to keep the church and basic doctrines taught, where God would have them at this time."
You can find the other 4 sections to this posted on the following dates:
Part 2 Nov 29
Part 3 Oct 18
Part 4 Sep 19
Part 5 Aug 20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
