DAVEH: I hope you two don't mind me injecting a thought about this.
I've never considered my voting (in the LDS Church) as being a deciding
factor as to whether or not something was revealed from God. We don't
vote as to what God has revealed, or what he does reveal. We only vote
to accept what we are willing to adopt in our life. I hope that makes
sense.
As I see it, it is merely an affirmation that we (LDS folks) are
willing to accept what was revealed as a commitment we are willing to
live. In essence, when we vote to accept the new commandment (or
calling, appointment or whatever), it is that we are definitively
saying that we will accept that commandment (or person) as a commitment
in our covenant as a Christian (follower of Christ).
I wonder if commitment of non LDS Christians is only found by
assuming everybody in the congregation agrees, and when somebody leaves
the congregation to begin attending another church, it is an indication
that the cannot be committed to what is taught (or happens) in the
church they left.
So Perry....I hope this clarifies the nature of voting in the LDS
Church. At least that's the way I see it. Maybe Blaine has a
different perspective though....if so, perhaps he'll comment further.
I might ask Perry....do you perceive what I said above as teaching
Mormonism? I view it as clarifying a question that was asked (by
you) and answered inadequately (no offense intended) by Blaine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 5/27/2005 6:49:45 PM Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine, it seems that 99 44/100 % of the D&C was
"revealed" to JS. Did he
have a "general constituency" that voted on whether or not what he
said was
was revealed to him was truly revelation from god? How about his
visions.
Was there a vote on those, too? Do you think Isaiah or Daniel or
Exekiel had
people that voted on their prophecies to see if they were really from
God?
Perry
Blaine: Good question, Perry, I would have to research that
one, but offhand, I would say with confidence that JS and Oliver
Cowdery's revelations were eventually voted upon and sustained by the
general membership. (Don't forget the second elder of the Church,
Oliver Cowdery, who was with JS as a second witness during most of the
restorative revelations received.)
I would have to comb the History of the Church for an answer.
Might even be a good question for a General Authority.
Regards the second part of your question, (Isaiah, Daniel,
Ezekial, etc), I think I remember certain bodies of Jews organized for
just such a purpose, as to accept or reject writings as being
scriptural versus not scriptural. No doubt these bodies were present
when King James of England and Scotland gathered his scholars together
for deciding what should be included or excluded in/from the KJV. The
Dewey Bible has scriptures the King James Bible does not have, for
example. The law of common consent is really an extension of these
rights and privileges to the common folk. Anything wrong with that? I
see this as a major effort to include the opinions of the many as
opposed to just a few scholars, wise men, etc. I am sure God knew this
was a procedure used in many Protestant Chutrches of JS's time, so as I
see it, the timing was right to implement it into the newly organized
church.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|
