Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:09 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNopr1ZvCFg
I made a few comments on the manner in which Elder Bednar was attempting to teach something profound to the missionaries in the MTC. Come enjoy an 8 minute response, the length of the video.
Enjoy my reply as well:
Issue #1: Why no Q&A during sacrament meeting?
Answer: Different meetings in the church have different purposes, and so one would expect that the practices engaged in during the respective meetings would fit the purpose for those meetings. The purpose of sacrament meeting is primarily to partake of the sacrament. It is also a time of private and collective worship of Heavenly Father. It is also a time for declaring beliefs and sharing testimonies. As such, the practice of asking and answering questions, doesn't fit the purpose.
However, the purpose of meetings such as Sunday School, Priesthood and Relief Society, is to facilitate learning. Since learning is often achieve through questions and answers, then the practice of Q&A fits their purpose.
The purpose of Girls Camp is to "help young women draw closer to God; appreciate and feel reverence for nature; become more self-reliant; develop leadership skills; respect and protect the environment; serve others; build friendships; enjoy camping and have fun." As such, the practice of sleeping in tents and in sleeping bags, fits the purpose. Such practices do not fit the purpose of sacrament meeting or Sunday School.
Issue #2: The church removes scriptures (the Lectures on Faith) just as they claim others have done in the past with the Bible.
Response: A distinction should be drawn between what is considered as canonized revelation as differentiated from study and learning aids that are included in bounded copies of the canonized revelations. The Lectures on Faith, like footnotes, dictionaries, concordances, etc. have not been considered as revelation. As such, their inclusion or exclusion within the bound copies of canonized revelations does not impact the revelations, themselves, nor does it require a vote by the members of the church. Such decisions can be made by church leaders and committees. Please see our good friends at FAIR:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... th/Removed
Issue # 3: Associating the name "Jehovah" with God the Father by early church leaders indicates that they didn't have a correct understanding of His is character, perfections and attributes, and thus they couldn't exercise faith unto life and salvation as claimed in the Lectures on Faith.
Response: Name/titles, particularly of Hebrew origin, often indicate SOME attributes and character of the person or persons to whom the name/title has been assigned. The name/title of "Jehovah" conveys the following attributes: "Eternal One, the Unchangeable One, the One Who was, and is, and is to come. (see
https://housetohouse.com/what-is-the-si ... gods-name/ )
Logically, in terms of identifying and correctly understanding attributes, a name/title can rightly be used for and by any person or being who possess the attributes conveyed in the name/title. For example, the name/title of "Adam", means "ground or earth," and conveys the attribute of being a man/human. It was rightly used in reference to the husband of Eve as well as Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:45). The name/title "Joshua" means "a savior/deliverer" and has been given to ancient prophets as well as Jesus Christ. The same can be said for "Emmanuel/Immanuel/Manuel", which signifies "God with us."
So, as long as God the Father has the attributes and character of being eternal and unchangeable, etc., then calling Him "Jehovah" would appropriate, and, contrary to what the BYP claimed, it would indicate that one has a correct understanding of God the Father's attributes.
However, name/titles have also been used to distinguish this person from that person, or this God from that God. Unfortunately, over the history of God's people, various name/titles have been used interchangeably in relation to God the Father and God the Son. This is the case for such name/titles as: Jehovah, Adoni, El/Elohim, Lord/LORD, God, Father, Creator, etc.
To minimize the confusion, various conventions have been set forth at various times and by various organizations. In 1916, some 72 years after the death of Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint set forth the convention of using "Elohim" in relation to God the Father, and "Jehovah" in relation to God the Son.
https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Jehovah,_Jesus_Christ
It is unreasonable to not only use the 1916 convention to criticize different usages of name/titles by church leaders before then, but also to conflate those distinguishing usages with those usages indicating character and attributes. Unfortunately, the BYP did both. But, we love the guy anyway
Our friends at FAIR have more to say on this at:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... nd_Jehovah
Issue #4: Are changes in beliefs about the Godhead by ancient and modern prophets, "weird", and indicative of incoherent revelation?
Response: It depends on the nature of the change. If one rightly understand the history of God's people in terms of the principle of eternal progression, one would rightly expect that perception about the nature of God would develop and evolve over time. This principle applies not only to other religious beliefs, but the development of secular knowledge as well. The beliefs of science regarding the universe, physics, medicine, etc. have drastically changed over the centuries and millennium. My perception of God as a primary attendee is significantly different than as a 70-year-old adult. So, rather than considering such changes as "weird," they should be viewed as natural and healthy.
Development in gospel understanding, including in relation to the attributes and character of God, is intimated throughout the scriptures, though perhaps most notably in 1 Cor 13:9-12.
In terms of incoherent revelation, not a few critics make the mistake of viewing the restored gospel in academic terms as if it is a formal epistemology or systematic theology or the like. And, because it doesn't measure up, it is mistakenly considered as incoherent.
This is a mistake resulting from the critics not correctly understanding the primary purpose of the gospel or how that purpose is achieved. While there is an epistemological element within the gospel, it is but one of several means to an end, rather than the end, itself. The purpose of the gospel is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him. And, it is through this process of becoming that believers grow in their comprehension of Christ's attributes and character, from grace to grace, and grace for grace, until, as Paul puts it, we know him even as we are known. (1 Cor 13:12)
It is like the difference between taking academic courses on parenting, and actually becoming a parent, and parent for years.
Thanks, Wade Englund