2

Recently this question was asked what precedent is there in the bible for a 'further revelation'. It was tagged with lds and several of the references in the question were pertaining to the LDS faith (1829-when revelation to Joseph Smith was received), so I assumed that the OP wanted an LDS perspective. An hour later, and after a relevant answer given, the question was edited to be more broad and IMO out of scope of the original question.

So this seems not to have been done in good faith. From my POV:

  1. A validate question was asked about a denomination. Multiple people could have a similar question. What precedent is there in the bible for future revelation (of fundamental truths about Deity)?
  2. I provided an answer. (I don't care about the rep, just that the selected answer doesn't represent an answer & doesn't seem kind)
  3. IMO the OP didn't like offered precedent offered/answer so edited the question making it possible for other types of answers (ones not allowing precedent)
  4. Another answer provided didn't answer the original question (what precedent for revelation, not is there revelation any more)
    • came off as more of an attack on LDS beliefs (yes other faiths were mentioned, but 3/4 were specifically pertaining to the LDS). This could also be understandable a bit as the OP was about the LDS faith. I'm not offended as I understand different denominations obviously have different beliefs, but calling religious leaders or beliefs of other faiths preposterous doesn't seem nice
    • nothing against this perspective exactly, just that I feel it didn't answer the original question from an LDS perspective, which the question asked for (or seemed to ask for). Views presented here though, seem to deride any other denomination/person who has differing belief (in this case doctrine of trinity/God, which is disputed between denominations)
    • several questions were asked in the OP about prophecies, references, patterns (didn't use this word) etc in regards to the main question that weren't addressed, only the edited/added question was answered

So to me this signifies that OP did not ask a question in good faith. They asked a question about a denominations beliefs, changed the question after an answer was given that broadened the scope, allowing other answers that aren't from from an LDS perspective, and then accepting negative perspective answers.

What is the proper response?

  1. Edit the OP to omit references to the LDS faith and narrow it down to Is there biblical basis for future revelation after those found in the New Testament?? Then my question can be edited to address this (not referencing LDS sources) or be deleted.
  2. Just flag it and hope a mod/community agree? The reason I bring this to meta is hopes of discussing the reasons I see problem with this, see if I'm over reacting, and/or see how to handle it
  3. Ignore it. I don't like this option for several reasons.
    • It accepts that editing questions after answers are provided to allow answers that are opposite of OP or answers that align with held beliefs/bias is ok. Don't we ask questions to learn about other denominations beliefs, share our denominations beliefs, and try to understand one another? We don't agree on specific doctrines, that is kind of a given as we belong to different denominations. Why ask a question if you are just going to edit it afterward to broaden the scope and accept an answer that doesn't answer the OP from the relevant denomination's perspective.
    • It also accepts ridiculing beliefs held by other denominations (there would be much better ways to remain neutral if you want to say further revelation is not supported by the bible, because of verse X) Any answer that isn't aligned with my beliefs isn't an attack, but most answers do not blatantly make accusations against other denominations just because they have a differing perspective.
    • This can make other answers no longer valid (didn't happen in this particular case).

I really don't care about the reputation. Accepted answers appear at the top by default and said answer is both negative towards denominations and it doesn't answer all the OPs questions IMO. Also above mentioned reasons about bad faith questions

3
  • I’m voting to close this question because the facts are not exactly put forth in a manner that could lead to misunderstanding. Timelines must be read with more exactitude.
    – Ken Graham Mod
    Jul 27 at 3:44
  • Depperm, Your question was flagged, and after reviewing the matter I closed the question. If you are able to remove timeline errors and implied results, you can flag your post for reopening. Pax.
    – Ken Graham Mod
    Jul 27 at 3:48
  • @KenGraham have edited question
    – depperm
    Jul 28 at 1:00
3

Timeline

My edit to the question preceded the answer given by Anne which I then accepted.

The time-line shows that I did not edit the question after Anne's answer was made.

Header

My header question asked whether there was a biblical precedent to further revelation regarding fundamental truths about Deity.

Content

My question referred to an example of post-Johannine documentation which suggested a further revelation.

Aspect

The example was just that, an example that had much broader and further reaching aspect.

Answer

The answer which I chose was the only one which had picked up on the aspect of the question : that the example dealt with in a previous question had far more reaching consequences than just a single denomination.

Choice

One of the main reasons for choosing this answer is the following sentence contained within Anne's answer :

I am not picking on the LDS faith, because these points include ALL denominations that have produced their own Bible versions that can be seen to give support to some of their teachings ...

I felt this was fair, balanced and reasonable. I also felt that it was the best answer to the header of the question and to the last paragraph of the question, neither of which mention the example which had prompted the question.

This answer also astutely made mention of the Schofield bible which is an excellent example (which I had not thought of) within so-called 'Evangelical' Christianity (Trinitarian and Protestant and Baptist) which proves the point of my question and its wide aspect, that of claimed post-Johannine further revelation .

This answer showed no denominational bias and demonstrated that merely being Trinitarian, Protestant and Baptist would not exclude a movement or an organisation from fair comment (in regard to the topic of the question).

Suggestion

I suggest adding tags to cover any other denominations to which this question would apply. I only added one tag as I am not fully aware of the very broad spectrum of Christian thinking at the present time.

I am sure there are others on SE-C who would know better than I what denominations this would apply to.

I added the tag in relation to the question which prompted my own, since this was a theme that was relevant to the present discussions occurring on SE-C.

Denomination

I am not beholden to any denomination and I have no membership of any denomination, though I was baptised into the Church of Scotland at the age of five and then baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen into the Baptist Church of Scotland.

I would class myself as Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist.

2
  • I apologize about the timeline mix up, must of just hovered over edit as opposed to diving into the timeline. IMO the focus was on lds what support can be given from within the bible (Genesis to Revelation) of the further revelation which is said to have occurred in 1829 + tag. claiming to not do something to me doesn't hold much water when 3/4 of argument is that thing, maybe no denomination bias, but I would say anti-bias. You mention the tag that which would apply but accepted an answer that did not apply (if another denomination believes in future revelation, they also wouldnt agree)?
    – depperm
    Jul 23 at 1:00
  • @depperm No problem. Apology fully accepted. As I say, it was another question, in which an answer took a position, that drew my attention and I could see that there was a much broader aspect available for enquiry. I think Anne's answer (and particularly the mention of the Schofield bible) indicates the same : a very important matter that concerns every one of us who identify ourselves as 'Christian' and a matter which applies across all denominations without respect of persons.
    – Nigel J
    Jul 23 at 6:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .