Apostles and Prophets and Bears, oh my!

Well, okay, admittedly there aren’t any bears in this post. Not unless I count as a bear, and I did used to play a druid in World of Warcraft. RAWR!
The recent General Conference talk by Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the TwelveApostates Apostles, “Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children,” is available in text now, which means I can offer more in-depth thoughts. I was originally going to do one post, but I’m realizing now that the length would be annoying, so I think I’m going to do three.
Cook discusses the fact that other people “who are open to religious faith” have had trouble accepting the notion that prophets and apostles may still exist today along with additional revelation and scripture from heaven. I assume he has mainly non-LDS Christians in view here, and while I cannot deny that there are plenty of Christians out there who feel this way—these are the people who idiotically parrot Revelation 22:18 as if it were the final word on the subject—I just want to say that the principle of modern-day revelation and all that entails was never a problem for me personally. In fact, I found the notion of prophets, apostles, and new scriptures to be damn cool. In principle, I’m very open to the idea.
My issues with the LDS gospel had nothing to do with the suggestion of prophets and apostles then, it had to do with the practice. We’ve all seen my list, but to be more specific:
1) If I’m going to accept prophets and apostles today, their teaching needs to line up with that of the Bible. You can try to argue that the teachings of the LDS church do line up with the Bible, but I think that if that were the case, the 8th Article of Faith would not stipulate that the Bible is the word of God “as far as it is translated correctly.” That is a clause that provides grounds for contradicting and rejecting parts of the Bible as we have it.
2) Are the prophets infallible? Can they lead the church astray? Mormonism tries to answer “no” to both questions, but it just doesn’t work. You can’t have it both ways, they are contradictory concepts. The most generous answer I can come up with is that the prophets are not fallible and they can lead the church astray, but they have not done so yet. I think that answer has its own problems though.
3) I’m not going to go into great detail on this because I’ve spun my wheels on it in plenty of other places, but you will never convince me that it’s significant for there to be male prophets if you lack female prophets. They both existed in the Bible and they were both part of Joel’s vision for the last days (Joel 2:28). No, there are no female prophets in the LDS church today, please don’t patronize me.
I would like to close by quoting something Craig Blomberg argued in How Wide the Divide?on the notion that the canon is open in principle but closed in practice.
…[N]o work of any Jewish or Christian pedigree, however authentic, that was hidden from the world at large for centuries should ever qualify as Scripture. This is not narrow-minded prejudice against the LDS; all kinds of New Age movements, for example, claim to have uncovered hidden documents that rewrite the history of early Christianity. Some “unearth” alleged correspondence between Jewish and Roman officials about Jesus; some describe his travels as a young man to learn from Indian gurus or monastic Essenes; others revise New Testament documents to make them teach that Jesus was an alien from outer space who visited the planet via UFOs. The origins of all these documents are always shrouded in enough mystery or secrecy that it becomes virtually impossible to disprove their claims conclusively. There is much wisdom, therefore, in the early church’s refusal to treat as Scripture any book that God has not deemed worthy to preserve and to make accessible to people throughout the entire period from its composition onward. So even if Protestants can retain an open canon in principle, in practice our canon is closed, and it is difficult to see how any new book could ever successfully be added to it. (p. 44-45)
Stay tuned for the next part. RAWR!

Comments

Apostles and Prophets and Bears, oh my! — 29 Comments

  3. Jack, First to clear the air a little. I still think you’re cool. I was offended by your (jocular) statement about the DU typo, and that’s the only reason I included that statement in the other blog.
    Point 1: Would you rather believe the things that are falsely translated are still the word of God. Seriously people.
    Point 2: Except for the strength in numbers. For the Latter-day Saints, there is an infallibility in the majority of the quorum of the twelve apostles. There is security in the process of canonization. There is not a promise that any single man, acting outside of the office, will always be perfect.
    Point 3: Does that mean the entire Old Testament was false because there were no female priests? In the modern church we have equated the the office of presiding high priest with the leadership of the church. We believe this was done by revelation. But this does not mean that women can’t be or aren’t truly inspired by God to actions, or even that their inspiriation isn’t binding on those over whom they have stewardship. Plus, you also need to take this historical evidence into account: Joseph was much more open with the definition of prophet. Remember, Joseph wanted all people to be prophets, who know that Jesus was the Christ by the spirit of prophecy. That is, we certainly want Joel’s prophecy to be fulfilled. Where we differ, Jack, is if being filled with the spirit of Prophecy means that they will preside over the church. I just don’t think you have any textual, historical, or traditional backing to insist that your reading is the only way to interpret that verse.
    About Blomberg’s quote. I’ll say, I’ve never understood the circular argument of “open in theory but closed in practice.” It seems like, if we’re going to impose arguments on the canon, like, scripture can only be written from the beginning of time until 200 years after Christ, that that argument should at least be found in the book itself? Jack you’re not making sense to me, you quote Joel about the need for prophecy and then use a quote about how there can’t be any new scripture? What’s the point of the prophecy if it isn’t binding? “Well, sure we believe God can still speak to us, but He can’t say anything important, worth writing down, believing, or obeying?” Help me understand your viewpoint better…
  4. Rob & MadChemist ~ I’m not sorry for joking about the DU’s “apostates” slip-up, either in my last post or this one, and I find guilt trips really annoying.
    Stephen ~ Welcome to the blog. I’m aware that one could argue that the Bible contradicts itself in many places, but what can I say, I write from the perspective of inerrancy.
    MadChemist ~ 1. The Bible wasn’t “falsely translated” (whatever that means) so I guess we’re good there.
    2. How do you know that the entire group can’t be wrong?
    3. It’s not significant to me that women could not be Levitical priests because gender was far from the only restriction on the Aaronic priesthood. Assuming an even amount of men and women and equal numbers among the tribes (which isn’t accurate but I don’t have time to look up how big the tribe of Levi was), 91.7% of men could not be Levitical priests, either. Roughly 95.8% of the people of Israel could not hold the Aaronic priesthood, so women were in the majority on that. It was actually even more restrictive than that since people with certain disabilities and physical deformities could not be priests either, but I digress. If the other restrictions on the Levitical priesthood weren’t eternally significant, I don’t know why the gender one should be.
    It is significant to me that women were prophets who wielded authority and presided; any honest reading of the passages involving Deborah or Huldah has to conclude that. So my reasoning is simple: if we’re supposed to have male prophets today who preside and hold authority, why not female prophets?
    My viewpoint on Scripture is that I’m open to the possibility of more of it, I simply don’t believe it exists because I haven’t seen it. Prophesy can happen without it needing to become new and binding scripture, even Mormons would agree with that.
  5. If I’m going to accept prophets and apostles today, their teaching needs to line up with that of the Bible.
    How did the early Christians do it? (especially the former pagans who knew jack about the OT?) What, for example, did the Saints in Corinth have to weigh the words of Paul against? No Bible in sight. The easy answer is, they had been baptized and received the Holy Spirit who “will teach you everything…”
    Sure, I weigh the words of living prophets against the scriptures – because I have that luxury. I read the Bible every day and am so grateful for it. But prayer and personal revelation I give the most weight of all.
    I’m sure you’ve heard this before…
    …but you will never convince me that it’s significant for there to be male prophets if you lack female prophets. They both existed in the Bible and they were both part of Joel’s vision for the last days
    I’m not aware of any statement saying there will never be any female prophets before the 2nd coming of Jesus. That’s not patronizing – its just the way Restored Christianity works.
    We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
    There are certainly times in the Bible when there is only a male prophet. Who’s to say this isn’t one of those times?
    C’mon Jack, this is Mormonism 101. Our doctrine doesn’t require us to paint God into the same theological corners that Evangelicals MUST (because of the inerrancy claim). (I know – its infuriating)
  6. CJ ~ How did the early Christians do it? (especially the former pagans who knew jack about the OT?) What, for example, did the Saints in Corinth have to weigh the words of Paul against?
    The earliest Christians had the apostles themselves among them. After that the letters and books that eventually became the New Testament were circulating. And you’ll never catch me denying that the gift of the Holy Spirit is an important tool for determining truth—I am Pentecostal, after all.
    There are certainly times in the Bible when there is only a male prophet. Who’s to say this isn’t one of those times?
    Do we know that? That seems like an argument from silence to me. Miriam served simultaneously with Moses and Aaron. Huldah was a prophet at the same time as Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The mere presence of male prophets doesn’t mean there weren’t female prophets. I’m sure there were plenty of prophets in ancient Israel, male and female, who were never mentioned in the Old Testament. And we certainly don’t know of a time when women were forcibly barred from being prophets.
    Still, I think your answer is the best one that I’ve heard in years, and I like it much better than the usual gamut of minimizing women prophets of the Bible or trying to insist that the Relief Society General President is somehow a prophet, so I’ll give you credit for that. I wish more Mormons thought like you on this subject.
    Our doctrine doesn’t require us to paint God into the same theological corners that Evangelicals MUST (because of the inerrancy claim).
    Sticks and stones, CJ.
  7. Oh, my bad. I misunderstood your first question.
    I would say the saints in Corinth had the miracles of the apostles to testify to the truthfulness of their words, in addition to the Spirit’s witness. Those who did know the words of the Old Testament of course had that.
  8. Long-time lurker, first-time commenter.
    If the other restrictions on the Levitical priesthood weren’t eternally significant, I don’t know why the gender one should be.
    Agreed with the previous commenters that there is no eternal signifance to the current gender restriction on the priesthood. Since priesthood power is in essence the power of God and both men and women are partakers of the divine nature, it follows that both men and women will have access to the same powers. A powerless godess is a contradiction of terms. This was my reasoning when I thought about this question growing up. Then I went to the temple.
    I think Joseph Smith very likely would have given women the priesthood had he lived longer. He definitely seemed to be on that track, since women practically hold the priesthood already as they exercise it in the temple. I think it goes beyond matters of modesty and propriety, as you have suggested elsewhere, since the most overtly priesthoodish aspects of the ceremony don’t involve anything beyond the laying on of hands. I was just thinking the other day, if the Big Love people really wanted to do something novel, they could have showed women performing priesthood ordinances in the temple –but of course that would never happen since it might give viewers the mistaken idea that mainstream Mormons are not the racists/sexists/homophobes we all know and love. Anyways I’m rambling now.
  9. You didn’t make a joke about the DU’s slipup, the second time. If that was an attempt, it was too obtuse and fell flat. Not funny twice.
    As to point 1, you’ll need to show that the Bible’s stewards were inspired by God through all of the history of the Bibles existence as the Bible. Also, explain why the canon differs between various denominations.
    The claim of inerrancy is not Mormon, and thus the burden of supporting the claim is not Mormons’ work.
    Show, in enough detail, that the Bible is inerrant, without self-reference. The burden of the proof is yours. Without it, we ought to be free to assume that human hands wrote the words and copied them over the centuries, one document to another.
    If your perspective is inerrancy, you should be able to support your case, and provide tests for others to verify your claims.
    2. To be wrong, 15 very experienced and basically calm people would have to be in complete agreement about the scope and direction of the error, acting as though they all consent, without disputation, on the matter.
    Hypothetically, they could all be wrong on something. Practically, it hasn’t happened yet and wouldn’t have any lasting disruptive effect if it did: The Seventy are also a quorum equal in authority to the First Presidency and the Twelve.
    3. It’s a brush-off. But your description supports the case of a priesthood with limited and apparently arbitrary membership requirements. Back then, you had to be a Cohen. Today, among Mormons, you have to be a committed covenanted male. The specific membership requirements are different, but the pattern is the same: Some people didn’t get the priesthood but got to go to God anyway.
    The countering question (“Why have female prophets?” is precisely as valid as your question. The answers are just as meaningless, since the solidly testable answer is, “We don’t know. Maybe God will change things in the future.”
    That sort of thing has happened before, both in your preferred denomination and in the LDS Church. The idea that it could happen again is not far-fetched.
    Of course, we’d actually have to be part of a culture that treated women with equality. American culture objectifies and demeans women, to a very large degree, in my opinion, and its ideals are not the ideals I think God would approve of to carry an egalitarian people forward.
    (Before you knee-jerk that, I’m talking about “romantic hedonism” as the set of ideals offered as toxic, not some blue-sky notion about universal suffrage or civil rights.)
    Fundamentally, though, it’s a non-starter with Mormon women, whose concerns, as I’ve seen them voiced, are either steeped in the error of American hedonistic feminism (a set of attitudes which demean men, more often than not), or more concerned with the fact that Mormon men ignore the fundamental principles under which the priesthood operates, and without which it has absolutely no power over women.
    (Besides which, you forgot Sariah and Abish, for two examples of charismatic women from the Book of Mormon itself!)
    Of course you’ve seen additional scripture. It’s before your eyes, and you’ve even studied it for a class. There’s even a test (actually, more than three such tests are offered) of efficacy offered to verify its claims, using an external source. I’d expect nothing less about Biblical inerrancy or the defacto state of the canon. MC is logical about this: Blomberg’s argument is circular, because his claim is that the canon is open but it’s really closed because nobody really wants to add to it therefore it’s closed. That’s logical hash; not reason.
  10. Whoops, sorry! Read your “/sigh” post. Don’t feel obligated to reply to any of that; just take care and don’t get infected or anything.
    All the best!
  11. There is a class of theologians (Reinhold Neibuhr, Karl Barth, and others) whom I’ve heard referred to in other theological literature (academic) as modern-day prophets. (This makes me wish I had a source at my fingertips… I can probably find one if I have to.) What do you think about these sorts of expressions? Do they hold water, are they allegorical, or are they way off–track to your way of thinking?
  12. 1. If you want to stick to Biblical inerrancy that’s fine. I suspect you have some reconciliation strategies in place to retain that. I suspect you allow your Mormon friends the same type of reconciliations.
    2. An entire group can be wrong. In fact many are. One’s own personal revelation is what religious belief eventually comes down to.
    3. Others have said this pretty well. Sure, there are certain callings that a woman can’t have in the Mormon church. But all can receive personal revelation. The real blessings of the restored gospel come from the results of the priesthood, not in the personally having of it.
  13. Rob ~ You didn’t make a joke about the DU’s slipup, the second time.
    Yes, I did. See that link on the word Apostates? That means I was referencing the DU’s slip-up.
    And I don’t really care if one person didn’t find it funny.
    General answers (@everyone who has replied).
    1. Current revelation has to line up with past revelation. I can accept changes in practice and new information; I can’t accept that the old revelation as we have it was so corrupt that it might as well say something completely different. I don’t have to show that every believer down through the ages literally had something in written text comparable to our Bible, I only have to show why that’s my frame of reference for determining truth now.
    Inerrancy is it’s own ball of wax and I expect that I’m able to reference it without having to back it up from scratch every time. I don’t expect Mormons to lay down arguments from scratch for their version of the priesthood every time they want to mention it. For example, here is a paper covering the basic arguments for inerrancy with references to further reading. Mormons don’t have to accept inerrancy; for the purposes of this article Mormons only need to recognize why it’s part of my frame of reference.
    2. If the entire group of apostles can be wrong, what’s the point? How are they different from Protestant leaders who can be wrong and whose leadership has to be backed up and confirmed through democratic channels like personal revelation? In other words, if Mormonism is headed by a bunch of old men who are usually giving “just their opinion” and their words may or may not be inspired and believers have to decide this for themselves through personal revelation, and Protestantism is headed by a bunch of old men who are usually giving “just their opinion” and their words may or may not be inspired and believers have to decide this for themselves through personal revelation, what’s the practical difference between us?
    3. This is not a “women and the priesthood” issue. I can see why Mormons would want it to be since they can prove that a type of priesthood was restricted in the Old Testament, but the notion that you must hold a priesthood to be a prophet is completely unsupported by the Bible. And besides, what exactly is that arguing? Did Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah’s wife, and Anna hold the Melchizedek priesthood?
    The issue is that there is no evidence that the calling of prophet or the gift of prophesy was ever withheld from women. Miriam was a prophet in Exodus and Anna was a prophet in Luke. Paul references women with the the ability to prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5) and Luke mentions the four unmarried daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). There certainly are no women prophets in the LDS church today, and whether or not women in the LDS church can prophesy is highly debatable.
    I firmly believe that women could do these things in the LDS church without formally being given the priesthood. If you’re satisfied that it’s a temporary lapse that will change someday, okay, but I’m not.
    Mephibosheth ~ I completely agree that Joseph Smith seemed to be on his way to giving women the priesthood, or at least setting up a system for women that actually complements the priesthood instead of being supplementary. It’s a shame that later leaders didn’t expand on his vision.
    I’m not so down with the notion that women do hold the priesthood in LDS temples because the functions they can perform are so limited. Seems to me that if they actually held the priesthood in temples, they’d be allowed to perform baptisms and sealings and stand as official witnesses for them.
    Neal Davis ~ What do you think about these sorts of expressions? Do they hold water, are they allegorical, or are they way off–track to your way of thinking?
    It’s a tricky question. I’m certain that the Spirit of God was on them, but I’m not sure that I’d call them prophets. It’s possible, but I don’t think I have enough basis for judgment.
  14. I need to apologize if my tone comes off as abrasive in any of this. As I said in my other post, it’s been a long week and I’m on a short fuse.
    I’m reading over my comment and I think I sound like a jerk sometimes. I’m very, very sorry for that. I mean, I am a jerk in real life, but I try not to be.
  15. 1.
    The Bible contradicts itself in so many places, it’s difficult for me to understand how those not of the LDS faith can criticize it for not having complete congruency with the Bible. The book of James, for example, throws “saved only by grace” out the window. The law of Moses vs the law of the Jesus Christ contradicts each other. I like to think of the new commandments/revelations of the LDS church as “The Third Testament”. The LDS church, for example, deviates less from the New Testament, than the New Testament deviates from the Old Testament. So how can we use inerrancy as a guide for infallibilty?
    2.
    I believe it “is” possible for Prophets/Apostles to err and for the church to not be led astray. The sons of Aaron, who were charged as keepers of the Priesthood were destroyed because they broke commandments, yet it changed nothing. Judas, the Apostle, also was “fallible” (to understate it), but that did not destroy Christ’s mission. Joseph Smith lost 116 pages, yet we still have the Book of Mormon. There are examples of the prophets/apostles making mistakes all through Biblical history.
    3.
    I believe we have quite a few “Prophetesses” in the LDS church, or those who “utter by or as if by divine inspiration” (as merriam-webster.com defines it). The Relief Society general presidency, the Young Women’s General Presidency, many female ward members through which their calling permits and even my mother, at times, have uttered “divine inspiration”. Some of the best “prophecy” in my life has come from my own wife.
    Just as the Old Testament, and (in the case of Anna) in the New Testament, there is no evidence that these women received the Priesthood.
    So the way I see it, women in the Bible Prophecied and women in the LDS church prophecy as well.
  16. Yeah, I made the classic evangelical/Mormon terminology error. When you said authority earlier, in my mind it registered as keys and offices. My bad.
    So I have to agree with Casey, if all being a prophet to you is the gift of prophesy and presiding, then why do the women in the auxilaries not qualify? Because they’re not in charge of men? That seems like a stretch.
  17. Re point 1: thank you for the link. No, you don’t have to rephrase things and I could have just opened the Blomberg book.
    Point 2: The Church (oJCoLdS) is organized with controls, like any good large organizations. Organizationally, the Seventy can lead the Church if the Apostles lose their way, and the Apostles can (and do) lead the Church if the First Presidency loses their way.
    The possibility of unified error, though, is *rhetorical*. These quorums have always been careful with organizational change, and have recognized error in the past and corrected it. Usually, they simply do it slowly.
    Point 3: Thank you for the clarification. However, I remain convinced that the limitation towards women is a culturally local phenomenon, and is a superficial distraction from more fundamental issues. It’s all right with me for other people to disagree, as long as it’s done in peace.
  18. Casey April – That’s kind of a general definition of prophetess. I doubt it will satisfy Jack.
    What about Eliza R. Snow? She’s regarded by many as a prophetess (the Deborah/Anna kind).
  19. I’m not a Bible scholar, by any stretch of the imagination, and I will readily admit that I have not studied the concept of inerrancy, but I did look it over the article posted and, connecting that with my own experiences, I still struggle to see how the clause on the 8th article of faith concerning correct translation is relevant to the discussion of your first point.
    I don’t have “Original Manuscripts” of the any of the books, letters, and collections of writings that are found in the Bible. Most people rely on a translation that is in their native language (or close enough, if you wish to argue, for example, that the KJV is not a “native” language). And as an English-language speaker, I rely on my translations of the Bible in English. But I find myself asking a two questions immediately:
    First, which translation is the one I should rely on? I have at least a dozen English language Bibles, and each one has distinct differences. Second, which version of the Bible should I accept? By this second question, I refer to the number of books in the Bible. Am I meant to limit myself to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible? What about the Apocrypha? Should I consider the Dead Sea Scrolls when contemplating Holy Writ?
    The article on inerrancy claims, as far as I can, in my limited way, gather, that IF we had ALL of the ORIGINAL manuscripts, then we would find no contradictions. Well, yeah, DUH. But we DON’T have that. So when I claim that I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly, I mean that. If I believed that every translation was accurate, I would find myself struggling to know the name(s) of Deity, the members of the Godhead, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ, among many, many, many other things. So which version of the Bible, is the one that I can safely trust as the one without error?
    I do recognise that LDS doctrines should line up with the Bible, but I also recognise that the Bible clearly shows that things change. And no, there isn’t a contradiction in these two statements. For example, if the LDS church started teaching that Jesus was not the Saviour of mankind, there’d be a pretty big problem there. But if we are teaching that women are allowed to speak in the churches and cut their hair, I don’t see that to be an issue.
    If the Word of God, once revealed, was an eternally-binding law, then the entire concept of Christ coming with a higher law that fulfilled the old law becomes contradictory. There are heaps of passages in the Old Testament that contain phrases like, “and this shall be a binding law among my people forever” but then Christ came and said, “Okay, old law: out. New law: in.” So when the Lord Himself reveals new doctrines in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and I can’t find the same doctrines found explicitly within the pages of the Bible, I don’t see the need to get all worked up about it. Especially since the Bible isn’t exactly a concise collection of everything ever revealed. And finally, as a person who believes in continuing revelation, I believe that this means that God has things to say that He hasn’t said before.
  20. Just so you guys know, I’ll get back to you on this later tonight. I wasn’t expecting so much interest in this post.
    I think I certainly need to do a better job of defining my terms, and for that lapse I apologize. I’ll try to do a better job in the future.
  21. A few thoughts . . .
    1. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a good starter for LDS. And sure, this is even being challenged by certain evangelicals today in 2009 through some of the latest books hot off the press.
    2. I found the “Apostates” misprint very funny. I needed some comic relief in the middle of the week. Yes, God does have a sense of humor.
    3. The universal priesthood of all believers – this is fundamental to Christian faith. At least mine.
    BJM, have a good day tomorrow.
  22. Todd. Do you really think God is behind a typo? Seriously, is that how explain the Johannine comma? Seriously.
    Point 3 is a very good point. Do you note Todd, how you equate Christianity with your own belief? Have you ever considered that Christianity is bigger (and better) than just your belief? There are a lot of Christians, who are Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox that don’t understand Paul’s writings to mean the priesthood of all believers that Luther invented.
    Everyone, Happy Easter!
  23. With respect to the Chicago statement, my notions are that a normative Mormon would find no argument with much of it.
    What disagreements come up would have to do with a) the circular reasoning which affirms that Scripture is inerrant because it says so in Scripture, and b) issues with denials of modern normative revelations.
    The “mode of divine Inspiration” is, further, not a mystery (Article VII) to Mormons, many of whom can lay a plausible claim to it on a daily basis, if only for personal or limited-scope ministerial use and not for the wider scope for which the Scriptures are intended.
    An extrabiblical proof for Article X (the denial that the absence of autographs is a problem) would be nice, but Mormonism lacks more than individual personal proofs for the Book of Mormon itself, so it’s not really an argument against inerrancy.
    Even so, Article X gets to the center of “as far as is translated correctly,” which carries no wider meaning in the Articles of Faith 8 than that of the Article X in the statement.
    And, of course, a claim of Mormonism is that the Book of Mormon provides a second kind of control for the doctrines offered in the Bible, by furnishing a second source for the same doctrines, and some interpretations of very old revelations which contextualize them for the modern age.
  24. I agree with Rob.
    I also agree with MadChemist against Todd that the “Priesthood of All Believers” is by no means common to all Christianity. As I’ve said before on Todd’s blog, it seems like a reformers’ innovation in response to the embarrassment of having ejected themselves from the Christian (catholic) church. The biblical support for it is weak.
    Also, I may be in the minority, but I do not believe that measuring LDS doctrines against the Biblical doctrines is a valid way of testing their validity. After all, isn’t this what the Pharisees did to Jesus’ messianic claims? Their example illustrates that they could not escape their own readings of the texts and Jesus rebuked them for it (<a href=”John 5:39). We should expect the doctrines of Mormonism to appear new and somewhat unattested in Biblical literature. Wouldn’t God be wasting His time otherwise? Why call a prophet and give new scripture, after all, if the Bible was simply to be replicated? This does not mean that Mormonism is inconsistent with the economy of God, but merely that it is inconsistent with human perspective on the economy of God. After all, if Joseph Smith really did see God and Jesus Christ, many evangelicals will have to reverse their understanding of the Bible, no matter how well they study it.
    I therefore recommend what the missionaries recommend: read and pray. The Holy Spirit is only thing that can speak past human religious preconceptions and fallible convictions–no matter how cherished or deep-rooted.
    Therefore, Jack, I think you are in a much stronger position by saying that the Holy Spirit has moved you in opposite doctrinal directions to your Mormon friends, which I believe it has. No one can argue with that.
  25. PS,
    Sorry about the unfinished link up there. Woops.
    I don’t cease to enjoy the “Apostates” joke. Mostly because of my antipathy for the DU. But I suspect that not a few of the Quorum of 12 had a good chuckle over it too.
  27. Rob ~ Don’t worry about it, like I told you in e-mail, I was in a bad mood that day as well.
    Priesthood of Believers ~ If Todd wants to discuss this further, more power to him, but I’m not going to address it here as it would be tangential to the discussion.
    Inerrancy ~ Towards the bottom of the article I linked to on inerrancy, it says:
    Limiting inerrancy to the original autographs could be such a hedge, but it need not be. This qualification of inerrancy grows out of the recognition that errors crop up in the transmission of any text. There is, however, a great difference between a text that is initially inerrant and one that is not. The former, through textual criticism, can be restored to a state very near the inerrant original; the latter leaves far more doubt as to what was really said.
    We may all agree that the originals were inerrant, but it’s the bold part that Mormons would disagree with. I believe that if we account for minor copyist errors and variations in transmission, in addition to obvious interpolations, then we have the text essentially as it was originally written. I don’t know a single Mormon who would agree with that.
    I can’t tell you which English translation of the Bible to use, most of them have strengths and weaknesses and I’m not claiming any of them is inerrant. But with careful study and prayer and the Spirit’s guidance, I do believe people can hear the message of the biblical writers as it was intended from the Bible itself.
    So, to get back to my basic point:
    1) I think the Bible as we have it is more or less what was originally written and that what it teaches about God is accurate.
    2) I think what the LDS prophets and apostles have taught about God—that He was once a man on another earth who had to progress to become God and He had a God before Him who had a God before Him, etc.—contradicts what the Bible teaches about God.
    It isn’t a matter of adding new revelation or changing old rules and policies, it’s changing what was previously revealed about God Himself.
    Women prophets ~ We’re coming from different paradigms on priesthood & authority here, so I don’t think we’re seeing eye to eye on this. Let me try to put it in terms that apply to the LDS paradigm.
    Observations about women prophets in the Bible:
    1) The Hebrew word for prophet is נָבִיא. The Hebrew word for prophetess is נְּבִיאָה, and five women are called this: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, and the wife of Isaiah. Likewise, the Greek word for prophet is προφήτης, while the word for prophetess is προφῆτις. It is the exact same root word in both cases, only differentiated by masculine and feminine endings. That implies that it is the same job.
    (I believe there are some other words for prophet, but I can’t remember where they’re found off of the top of my head, and the words I listed are used in significant passages about the role of a prophet.)
    2) Deborah is the most significant example. Judges 4:4 calls her a prophetess then tells us that she was “judging Israel at that time.” Judges 2:16ff. makes it pretty clear that the judges were the leaders of Israel for that era.
    3) The accounts of Huldah (2 Kings 22:11-20 & 2 Chronicles 34:14-28) are brief but significant. The king tells the high priest Hilkiah to “go and inquire of the LORD” for him. Hilkiah seeks out Huldah even though Jeremiah and Zephaniah were active in Israel at that time. Huldah speaks authoritatively to Hilkiah with a “Thus saith the LORD” formula, same as any prophet would.
    4) Some people think Exodus 15:20 indicates that Miriam’s leadership only applied to the women of Israel. I think that Micah 6:4 implies that Miriam was just as important to Israel’s leadership as Moses and Aaron.
    5) I don’t believe women in the current LDS church qualify as “prophetesses” in the same sense as Miriam, Deborah and Huldah for a lot of reasons. Their callings are not lifetime callings, their teachings are rarely cited in church lesson and instruction manuals, and they never preside over men in any sense of the word. I guess you could argue that they do instruct men when they speak in the general sessions of Conference, but the fact that they never address the Priesthood sessions makes it pretty clear that the church doesn’t think they have anything authoritative to teach men.
    So, here are some questions:
    Would a woman have to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood in order to lead Israel like Deborah and Miriam did? Would she have to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood to speak for God like Huldah did?
    If yes, then do you think Deborah, Miriam and Huldah were special exceptions who were ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, for whatever reason? Or is it possible that women in general were ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood back then?
    If no—women have never been intentionally ordained to either the Melchizedek or Aaronic priesthoods—then why can’t women in the LDS church today be prophets and exercise authority over male organizations even though they don’t hold the priesthood?
    For the record, I did once hear from an LDS guy on the old, old FAIR message board who believed that women like Deborah were special exceptions who were ordained to the priesthood. I find that position much more consistent than most of the alternatives.
    Eliza R. Snow ~ I believe that Eliza R. Snow is the closest thing the LDS church has ever had to a prophetess, especially since she is pretty much responsible for the revelation on Heavenly Mother. However, she came from an era when women in Mormonism had considerable more authority and autonomy than they do now, when women were openly allowed to perform blessings and such. I don’t see Mormonism producing another woman like Eliza R. Snow without some substantial policy changes.
  28. Also, I forgot to say earlier…
    Jon ~ Therefore, Jack, I think you are in a much stronger position by saying that the Holy Spirit has moved you in opposite doctrinal directions to your Mormon friends, which I believe it has. No one can argue with that.
    I agree with you 100%. I think the witness of the power of the Holy Spirit is the strongest testimony of truth that there is.
    Unfortunately, it’s also highly subjective and doesn’t leave much room for discussion. I’m kind of just shooting the breeze with this stuff and hoping everyone can understand each other better. :)
  29. I read the inerrancy article. Doesn’t seem to address which books count. III Corinthians? Used by more Christians than there are evangelicals, yet abandoned in the 1950s (used to be part of come cannons)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians ]
    What about The Pearl and The Shepherd of Hermes? Gospel of Thomas? Apocrypha?
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity