This question was prompted by one of Mr. Bishop's comments following my talk (video hopefully coming soon, the program keeps crashing in the middle of the download; I must have a demon in my computer). He said that priesthood leaders are led by the Spirit and represent the Lord, but that they're also humans who make mistakes.
Um, I'm sorry, but which is it? Where is the line between Bishop X, the mouthpiece of God; and Bishop X, the average Joe who screws up just like the rest of us? And how the hell is the average Church member supposed to know where that line starts and stops?
"Think about it" Thursday: The line between divine authority and human foibles
If you enjoyed this post, I hope you'll check out my new blog.
Well, through the spirit. Duh! But then that begs the question: why bother with the intermediary at all? Oh, that's right. Because if you've sinned then the spirit gives you the old silent treatment. Which always seemed strange to me; wouldn't the spirit serve you better by drawing closer to you in times of sin so as to guide you back to the right path and all that? (Same deal goes for excommunication, IMO.)
ReplyDeleteGuess your only option is to throw yourself on the mercy of your fallible human leaders. That, or think for yourself.
So this is the only analogy I can think of.
ReplyDeleteLife is like a journey up an incredibly steep and treachorous mountain. God/the spirit is a kick-ass sherpa who knows exactly how to get to the top.
Except he's invisible.
The clergy can see the spirit. Well, most the time, anyways. When a clergymember is being more "human" than usual the spirit will kinda phase out of sight for a bit. At these points the clergy has to just take a guess at where the best path up the mountain is.
We can't see the spirit. But we can always see the clergy! So it's best to follow a somewhat un-blind clergy who's following an expert spirit sherpa then go up the mountain on our own and get easily distracted by sex drugs and rock and roll.
And there's skycake at the top of the mountain.
I so wish my religious family members would read your blog and the comments. Then they would see the real light! If they could ever get past their delusions that is. Which is never going to happen, let's face it. And so I'm forever sad about that. But I still love my family, even if I do take the piss at their religion every now and then. I'm so mean, I shouldn't want them to stay religious just so I can get my daily dose of humour at their expense! Ah well, there's nothing much else for it at the moment. They are too stuck in their ways.
ReplyDelete"Led by the Spirit" is one of those Christiany phrases that we're just supposed to let slide. But really, what does it mean? Sure, tons of ink has been spilled defining and refining the concept, but could Mr. Bishop provide a clear, consice and PRACTICAL statement as to how a member of the priesthood attains this status? Is it a status? Is it some deeper level of conciousness? Does it actually set you apart from other members of a church? If you decide not to enter the priesthood, but are still a firm believer, does this mean that you are led by the Spirit to a LESSER degree?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the line between Bishop X, the mouthpiece of God; and Bishop X, the average Joe who screws up just like the rest of us?
ReplyDeleteWhen you catch him doing something he shouldn't be doing, he's the average Joe screw up just like the rest of us. Everything else is led by the Spirit and how dare you question otherwise.
It's a nice gig, spokesman for God. Since he never shows up to tell people to correct you, you can put whatever words in his mouth that you need to at a particular moment. It's amazing how, even with sincere believers, so much of God says when he's speaking to them is exactly what they were brought up to believe...
Strange he should take that line of reasoning since it is out of the arena of Mormon theology. It's a borrowing of Protestantism, and well, Mormonism is to Protestant faith as Catholicism is to Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he's already interpolating other belief systems into his own religious convictions makes me question anything else he might be on about. I mean, it's one thing to hold a belief, it's another to be completely ignorant as to why you hold that belief. You can't just make up your faith as you go. But if you did, you could say things as the Bishop, apparently, has.
This concept that the Mormon chuch operates, that of from God/not from God, with has always bugged me. I don't like how they can shrug something off and say that it wasn't actually from God but from themselves. I think you can Biblically debunk the Mormon Church starting with its founder, Joseph Smith, fairly easily. The latter part of Deuteronomy 18 speaks about false prophets. In verse 18 it says, "But you may wonder, 'How will we know whether or not a prophesy is from the LORD?' If the prophet speaks in the LORD's name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared." I.e. that person is a false prophet.
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset Joseph Smith's revelation has been plagued with prophesies that supposedly came from God but did not come true. And the authors of the NT repeatedly warned of coming false prophets. It is in my opinion that if someone comes along (Joseph Smith or any other person claiming to have received a revelation from God) and then their prophesies fail to materialize then we should take the advise of Deuteronomy and the NT authors and shrug anything that person has off as nothing but a false prophet.
The concept of infallibilty in humans is preposterous. Why, because it goes against what the Bible says about humans. If someone came to me and said that they had a new revelation from God I'd scrutinize everything they say against the Bible. 1 John tells us, "Do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world." What is to be our guide? The Word that has already been provided to us as a guide. If someone feels the spirit leading them in one direction or another I think it is a good idea to see if this "feeling" agrees with what we have already been told through the authors of the Bible or if the "feeling" is just our own thoughts and desires tempting us to do what we want.
Blindly follow the clergy up the mountain? Nope. Questioning the clergy's direction when it sounds iffy against the Bible? Yep.
On a side note, it is interesting that Xuxana infers that this blog is the true light!
Soo... what about Jesus? He predicted that the people who were alive when he was alive would not die, but would live to see the end times (Mark 9:1, Matthew 16:28). By your own criteria, doesn't that make Jesus just as phony as Joseph Smith?
ReplyDeleteAnd why follow the bible blindly up the mountain? Why is the bible the ultimate guide to truth? It came through fallible humans, right? Oh, wait— the bible's infallible because a fallible human said it's the word of God and that God is infallible and therefore the bible's infallible, right? I'm getting dizzy...
Actually none of the Gospels say they will live to see the end times. They say that they will see Jesus coming in His Kingdom. The three Gospels that recount this prediction all immediately follow it up with the Transfiguration of Jesus. The disciples were able to see Jesus for who He really was in His glorified state. Because all three Gospels follow up this statement with the Transfiguration most Bible scholars agree that this was the fulfillment of the prophesy. Peter later rights in II Peter that they saw with their own eyes the majestic splendor of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteTrue, a fallible human (Paul) says in II Timothy that "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives." However, an infallible man (Jesus) repeatedly quoted the scripture with authority in his ministry. If God Himself uses scripture to correct and teach then it gives me some confidence in its authoratative power. I just read last night in Hebrews the following, "The Word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires."
But, Patrik, you're still trying to use the bible to prove the infallibility of the bible. How do you know Jesus is infallible? Well, because the bible says he is. How do you know the bible is infallible? Well, because infallible Jesus quotes it with confidence. Can you see why that approach doesn't work?
ReplyDeleteIf I said "I'm God," and you said, "Prove it," and I said "Well, I'm God, and God never lies, so you know I'm telling the truth about being God," would you consider that a logically sound argument?
I would not believe your claim that you were God solely based on your word. Jesus didn't just come and start telling everyone he was God and expect them to take Him at His word. He spent 3 years performing miracles to back up what He claimed. In fact, you can see this theme throughout the Bible. People prophesying in the name of God backed up their prophesies with miracles.
ReplyDeleteDoes an eyewitness testimony loose it's credibilty with time? What if I said to you that the British soldiers associated with the Boston Massacre really did shoot down the Bostonians in cold blooded murder? You might say that what I said was false because they were found not guilty in a court of law. To which I might reply that there is no way for us to know for sure because none of the eyewitnesses are present to validate their claims or testify to the accuracy of the court documents and who knows what sort of tampering has been done to the evidence in the last two hundred years. Are you going to then doubt the historical reliability of the court documents that attest to the innocence of the soldiers purely because none of the eyewitnesses are standing before you today to back up their claims?
If the Bible were to stand trial in court on it's historicity I'm confident that it's historical reliability would be held up in that court of law. It would then be left up to those claiming the eyewitnesses made it all up or that it has since been alterated to provide the evidence to refute what they had to say.
If you are not satisfied with using the Bible as an authoritative document then there are outside sources to lend support to it's credibility. There are writings by both Jewish and Roman historians that help support the claims that were made about Jesus.
Actually none of the Gospels say they will live to see the end times. They say that they will see Jesus coming in His Kingdom. The three Gospels that recount this prediction all immediately follow it up with the Transfiguration of Jesus. The disciples were able to see Jesus for who He really was in His glorified state. Because all three Gospels follow up this statement with the Transfiguration most Bible scholars agree that this was the fulfillment of the prophesy. Peter later rights in II Peter that they saw with their own eyes the majestic splendor of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteTrue, a fallible human (Paul) says in II Timothy that "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives." However, an infallible man (Jesus) repeatedly quoted the scripture with authority in his ministry. If God Himself uses scripture to correct and teach then it gives me some confidence in its authoratative power. I just read last night in Hebrews the following, "The Word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires."