For someone who is dedicated to the word of God, this question almost sounds faithless or perhaps even blasphemous but the historical record really suggests that we look at this question carefully.
my problem is that the current SLC guys assume that anything that pops into there heads replaces any written word or traditional understanding of the Tradition, which leaves us with no objective standard at all.
It's a tricky conundrum because the scriptures are our foundation and yet we know there are errors in some of them (well, most) and we were to trust Joseph to fix that but without any real standard of how to identify who else had that specific calling and appeals to authority are problematic for several reasons.
I ended up falling in line with the Ogden Kraut method: There was a received tradition that was in dialogue with the written Canon. But the way things are now there is no way of pushing back by appealing to scripture or tradition, since whatever the current guy says is the ONLY thing that counts...🥴
The mainstream LDS Church uses this exact argument to justify their abandonment of the scriptures and changing the ordinances. How do you explain that conundrum?
It’s probably also worth noting that for a prophet to be trusted to reverse scripture or rewrite it like Joseph, seems to be something reserved for a prophet that God himself ordains (D&C 132:45 and TPJS, 180), which act, very few in this dispensation have claimed.
Interesting parallel … I think changing the ordinances is an entirely different topic. I address the issue heavily in Changing Ordinances, Losing Priesthood? but broadly speaking, I would say (speaking to scriptures) that living oracles are to clarify and expound upon scripture and principles so that the saints understand them better - their job isn’t to reject them wholesale (though there are some few instances of Joseph reversing the meaning of scriptures).
my problem is that the current SLC guys assume that anything that pops into there heads replaces any written word or traditional understanding of the Tradition, which leaves us with no objective standard at all.
It's a tricky conundrum because the scriptures are our foundation and yet we know there are errors in some of them (well, most) and we were to trust Joseph to fix that but without any real standard of how to identify who else had that specific calling and appeals to authority are problematic for several reasons.
I ended up falling in line with the Ogden Kraut method: There was a received tradition that was in dialogue with the written Canon. But the way things are now there is no way of pushing back by appealing to scripture or tradition, since whatever the current guy says is the ONLY thing that counts...🥴
The mainstream LDS Church uses this exact argument to justify their abandonment of the scriptures and changing the ordinances. How do you explain that conundrum?
It’s probably also worth noting that for a prophet to be trusted to reverse scripture or rewrite it like Joseph, seems to be something reserved for a prophet that God himself ordains (D&C 132:45 and TPJS, 180), which act, very few in this dispensation have claimed.
Interesting parallel … I think changing the ordinances is an entirely different topic. I address the issue heavily in Changing Ordinances, Losing Priesthood? but broadly speaking, I would say (speaking to scriptures) that living oracles are to clarify and expound upon scripture and principles so that the saints understand them better - their job isn’t to reject them wholesale (though there are some few instances of Joseph reversing the meaning of scriptures).