The Things of Which I Know

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×

So, I swear I don’t go looking for these things, but somehow they keep jumping out at me.

I’m reading through some of the General Conference transcripts.

During the Sunday Morning Session of General Conference, Mr. Hinckley gave a speech entitled ?¢‚Ǩ?ìThe Things of Which I Know.

He states at one point:

>How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith . . .”

This leads me to believe that Joseph was not a man according to Mr. Hinckley.

Or, and I believe this is closer to the truth, Mr. Hinckley sees Mr. Smith as not actually have been talking but was in some way merely a conduit of direct communication from Heavenly Father.

Anyone care to discuss why this makes no sense?

Enlighten me. Please.

6 thoughts on “The Things of Which I Know

  1. My question would be “why are you reading the Conference addresses at all” if you aren’t looking for these imaginary inconsistencies that you seem to find.

    You asked to be enlightened and that is why I respond the way that I do. It’s not enlightenment, but rather the controversy that you might stimulate that charges your batteries.

    If you read the talk carefully you would understand that our definition of God came from Joseph’s experience in the Sacred Grove, not a debate on the nature of God, as was the case with the Nicene Creed. But somehow I think you already knew that. :>)

  2. Hmm…well even if Joseph wasn’t a man, wouldn’t he still have needed to use yet another man to pass on the message until it eventually go passed down to President Hinckley?

    It seems in this case that the only way to determine that one’s knowledge of the nature of diety is not man made would be if a)we ourselves received a direct visitation from God or b)we received a legitimate divine communication that Joseph did receive a direct visitation.

    I assume Pres. Hinckley was actually refering to his experience with option b. If, hypothetically speaking, option b occured in reality, then Pres. Hinckley could rationally assume that Joseph’s description is not man-made as compared to mere speculations.

  3. nermal, it seems to me that you’re deliberately missing the mark, just as rick is. What President Hinckley is addressing is that most of the Christian world developed its current definition of God and his attributes by pooling their own ideas and voting on which idea won. It’s simple–don’t know whether God is one or three? Just put it to a vote, and that answers the question! At least, the participants at the Nicene Council and other similar deliberations seem to think. The ridiculousness of that idea is self-evident. You don’t make God something by voting on it. Joseph Smith didn’t discover God’s attributes by compiling a list of man-made ideas and choosing his favorites. Instead, he made God’s direct acquaintance and reported his first-hand information.

    President Hinckley isn’t getting at anything more complicated than that.

  4. Google in “statement of faith” and read a variety of the statements used by other churches define their faith. You will soon see that many of these contradict our own Articles of Faith – penned by Brother Joseph. For someone that is LDS, many Christian statements of faith go against our own Articles of Faith – and we cannot sign them without renouncing our own faith.

    After you’ve read a few of these, Google in “statement of faith lds” and read how others show why our Articles of Faith vary from a “Christian” statement of faith.

    We are to acknowledge this great gift from Him through Jos. Smith. Contemporary statements of faith now penned by almost all Christian religious groups – after much discussion, debate, careful wording and as mentioned above, by vote. As I read the SoF of other groups, I do not come away feeling words have been inspired as I do with our Articles of Faith. That is what Pres. Hinckley was getting at.

    Groups with a statement of faith will ask potential church members, potential students and employees sign that statement. Many parents are faced with signing statements of faith for schools, colleges, and homeschool groups. It is increasingly, becoming a way to discriminate and even profile members of other religions and deny them services, employment, and admission to a variety of groups – and yes, even areas to live (a whole new topic for another day – how Christian realtors assist in the formation of Christian only communities and communities with Christian HoAs).

  5. The current prophet believes Joseph Smith was not a man. And face it. We all believe Joseph Smith was not a man. He is a legend. He is the legend of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    Last night I realized something the church teaches differs from what is in the Joseph Smith History.

    JS-H 1:17 reads:

    “. . . I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

    We are taught God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. This passage never says or clams who the personages are. So the phrase “When the Legend Becomes Fact, Print the Legend” does not apply here. But this phrase does. “When the print is found to be false, deny the evidence.”

  6. The current prophet believes Joseph Smith was not a man.

    When you start out with poppycock like that, how am I supposed to take the rest of your comment seriously?

    This passage never says or clams [sic] who the personages are.

    So we’re supposed to ignore everything else Joseph ever said in his life about speaking to God and Christ, and just focus on this one sentence?

    Why are you engaging in this foolishness?

Comments are closed.