Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ] |
David,
I do not agree. You have
>not shown that the statement you quoted at the
>beginning of this thread was part of a revelation from
>God. If it was, where is it found in the Doctrine
>& Covenants? Just because it is recorded in
>church history does not mean it qualifies as a
>"thus saith the Lord".
>
Very interesting reply Cezoram and
>very surprising. Joseph Smith III was thought to be a
>living prophet, (and I personally believe he was) one
>in tune with the will of God. He was also privy to the
>conversations, teachings and inspiration of our early
>church leaders. To me, (and note: I do not expect you
>to accept it.) the significance of these few words,
>from the pulpit of a conference that was foretold,
>spoken by the man many believed was the seer,
>revelator and prophet of almighty God weighs
>heavy.
David,
I find it interesting to what extent you hold the office of prophet. From your post, it would seem that you believe every word that proceeded out of the mouth of Joseph Smith III was revelation directly from God. You seem to look at Joseph Smith III as infallible, with no brain of his own to make choices throughtout his life, about whether he was going to follow the will of God, or not. I feel that you view Grant in the same way. It would seem that you believe that if a prophet's lips are moving, he must be prophesying. I can understand the need to be in tune with the will of God, but Joseph Smith III was not deity, and surely was as prone to error as any human.
At the time Joseph Smith III was introduced to the men of the conference, had he received any prophecies or revelations from God? If so, where is it written? A prophet is not a prophet until he prophesies. Just as a writer is not a writer until he writes something, and a painter is not a painter until he paints something.
You say that Joseph Smith was believed to be the seer, revelator, and prophet of Almighty God when he was introduced at the conference. At what point before the conference had these offices been ordained to him?
Further, you say that he was privy to "the conversations, teachings and inspiration of our early church leaders". The early church leaders could be mistaken also. I would much rather have Joseph be privy to "the conversations, teachings and inspiration" of God.
As far as I can ascertain, this
>statement was given as Joseph's opinion. He can be
>mistaken. He is human. I feel that if Joseph Smith
>III made this statement, he did not understand what
>the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants
>really are.
Many people
>changed their lives based upon Joseph's opinion. His
>words carried much influence on the restoration. I am
>a bit taken aback at your response to it "only" being
>his opinion. Especially since you seem to judge the
>entire body of Christ today on the utterances of one
>man now.
That is the danger of speaking when you are revered as a prophet. Nothing you say will probably be viewed as an opinion. In fact, I doubt that some people will even believe that a prophet can have an opinion anymore. How would you know what was direct revelation from God and what was opinion when you analyze the speech and writings of Joseph Smith III? Is a prophet just a servant of God who chooses to serve God in the office in which he is called? Or is a prophet a puppet of God who no longer has the agency to act or speak on his own? How do you view a prophet?
I feel that if Joseph Smith III influenced people with that statement, he has done them a great injustice.
Further, what do you mean when you say I "seem to judge the entire body of Christ today on the utterances of one man now"? Which man? If you are referring to Grant McMurray, I do not see the organization that he leads to be the entire body of Christ. Perhaps you believe that it is, but you are a bit vague when making this comment to people that feel the Community of Christ is in apostasy. Again, by which man am I judging the entire body of Christ today?
The Book of Mormon does not
>limit itself to being just an additional witness or
>auxiliary of the Bible. The Book of Mormon is quite
>clear that it is a record of a fallen people which
>lived in the Americas. As I have already said, the
>Bible is a record of the Jews in the Middle East.
>Both books would have to cover the same group of
>people in the same region of the world at the same
>period of time, in order for one of the books to be
>an auxiliary of the other.
Would you
>forgive me if I disagreed? First... the three books
>are telling the same story. They all share the same
>purpose. They are trying to teach the world about God
>and His creation. They are all trying to help the
>world learn from the mistakes of the past so we can
>grow as a people. They all have one message. They all
>are trying to get a sinful world to accept salvation
>in Christ and approach the Holy throne of God through
>the Grace of the ultimate sacrifice. So, with this in
>mind, I can safely say the Bible is an auxiliary of
>the Book of Mormon. Second... (Webster:
>1a: Offering or providing help b: functioning in a
>subsidiary capacity {an auxiliary branch of the state
>university.})
I see that you disagree, but I feel that you are misled. You are looking at the three books as teaching the same doctrines, rather than "telling the same story". You would be less than honest (now I'm speaking like Grant) if you did not confess that the histories in each of the three books are different than the other two books. You would be less than honest if you did not confess that environment and situations that the people in each of the three books were different. So different, in fact, that certain parts of the doctrine and gospel of Christ in each of the three books are expounded upon in differing degrees. What you must confess is that each book contains a record that is separate from each of the other two books. The only thing holding the books together is the emphasis on Christ, His gospel, and His doctrine.
But let's compare it to the development of the United States. If we were to have a record of each nation that helped develop this country we live in, such as a record of France's involvement, and the record of Germany's involvement, and the record of England's involvement, etc. When we look at each record, we will see a completely different story of the struggles of the people of each country to help develop the United States as we have it today. Each record would lead us to an understanding of the foundation this nation is built on, but each record would be completely different. Same thing with the scriptures. That is one of the things that makes them so wonderful. Each civilization found in each of the three books did not intermingle with the civilizations of the other books. The only connection physically is the visitation of Jesus Christ. Once Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, they were lost to the knowledge of the people in the Middle East.
From your comments, I believe that you are missing my point.
>If the statement you
>quoted was actually given by Joseph Smith III, it
>demonstrates that he lacked understanding of the
>importance and the role of the Book of
>Mormon.
Or, it
>demonstrates that our scriptures work in concert with
>one another. A violin is beautiful to listen to, a
>viola is also mesmerizing and a cello speaks to the
>emotion of my heart. Played separately they are
>beautiful. Bring those same three instruments
>together, reading from the same 'guidance' and
>attempting to achieve the same goal, they are more
>full and rich. Each playing their own part to bring a
>melody that inspires the heart. Throw in the classical
>base (the disciple) and this quartet can make a
>difference to all those that hear it. (That was better
>than I intended... I'm going to have to use that
>elsewhere... grin)
>You have not shown
>that this statement is from God, so I do not view it
>as "one of many examples of how God continues to
> reveal His purpose for us today as in years
>past". Sorry.
Cezoram
>
Well, I tried... you gotta give me
>that much.
David