Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 27 Aug 90 02:31:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: IDE, San Francisco Lines: 85 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu (sorry for the non-attribution. it was lost during the edit session.) >The Journal of Discourses is not and has not ever been accepted as LDS >doctrine, further, just because an apostle or prophet says something >does not make it doctrine, for it up to the membership of the church >to pray about the "revelation" for the truthfulness of it, before we >can sustain it as doctrine. terrific. if the revelation of a "prophet of God" can be decided upon concerning its "trutfullness" then how seriously can such a prophet or his revelations be taken? I don't recall Isaiah or Elijah or Nehemiah having the truth of their words "voted on" by the people. Certainly King David, a man whom God truly loved, never questioned the words of the prophets God sent, though Nehemiah's words condemned him. Even Ahab, though he hated Elijah and sought to kill him, never questioned the authority of Elijah's words as God's Prophet. (of course, these prophets had something going for them; rather, i should say, some ONE. and everything they prophesied came to pass, because it was God who had spoken, not them. it must have been a truly awesomely frightening thing to be God's Prophet, since they knew that what had been spoken would surely come to pass; perhaps not in the current generation, but it was sure nontheless.) now, you're telling us that (for instance) Apostle Bruce McConkie's *very* interesting condemnation of the seeking of a personal relation- ship with Christ, as a *heresy*, might not be necessarily "correct"? as a Christian, i have to really wonder about such a condemnation, since having a personal relationship with Christ is what it *means* to be a Christian! (if you doubt that McConkie said this, i *can* find it for you, tho it might take me a little while - the text of his message was pub- lished verbatim in the deseret news, a utah newspaper more often noted for its coverage of "church news" than "events".) i keep hearing about how "we don't believe anymore" from mormon aquaintances, regarding things that joseph smith, brigham young, and various and sundry other mormon prophets have said was "the word of God." personally, i have lots of trouble with a God who can't seem to make up His mind. as far as i know, my God hasn't changed a whit - He is the Self-Existent One, the Alpha and Omega. if He is God, then wouldn't it seem logical that He and His Word are Perfect and Consistent, in no need of updating? (please don't suggest that God changed His mind about saving Gentiles as well as Jews (now THERE is a peculiar term i've heard from the mouths of mormons, regarding the rest of the world - including Jews!) after Christ's ministry. Paul notes in Romans that Isaiah had already proph- esied that this would happen; long before Jesus was born in bethlehem. and before you say that He changed his mind about destroying Nineveh, it *was* ultimately destroyed, but a generation after Jonah's prophesy. God didn't say to Nineveh that it would be destroyed in a specific time period - though Jonah may not have wanted Nineveh to be spared at the time.) from the most ancient days, God has never changed his tune that men are saved by GRACE, not works. the Mosaic Law was never a ministry of Life, it was a ministry of Death - it *condemned* man, by showing him to be wretched in sin. But Christ's coming didn't change God's rules - Jesus was just making absolutely clear that men could not trust in their works or lineage (the pharisees were notoriously pompous in loudly saying that they had Abraham as their father - as though that made them somehow superior) to justify them before God. the point, naturally, is that it seems odd to need to be constantly aware of what pronounciations are and are not considered current "official doctrine." fortunately, a Christian doesn't have this problem - he can open his Bible, and see for himself what God has to say to him. Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!" [I'm not sure why you find it odd to think of testing a prophet's words. Both the OT and NT refer to the possibility of false prophets, and talk about testing them. See e.g. Deut 8:20ff and I John 4:1ff. --clh]