Last week Eric Johnson blogged here on the topic of following the prophet and personal revelation. He cited a recent Salt Lake Tribune article by Peggy Fletcher Stack titled, “Are Leaders Infallible? LDS Faithful are Admonished to ‘Follow the Prophet.’” I would like to look at another point from Ms. Stack’s article.
After discussing different aspects of the ways Latter-day Saints view their leaders, Ms. Stack asks, regarding LDS leaders, “But are their words really scripture?”
According to John Fowles, a British Mormon interviewed for the article, Mormons have “unrealistic and unnecessary expectations” for their leaders. He suggests that turning LDS authorities’ words into scripture would betray the LDS canonization process. He believes LDS leaders would probably prefer that members understand their words as “deeply pondered and inspired counsel sincerely delivered as such.” Or, in other words, inspired suggestions, wise advice — yes. Scripture? No.
But here’s the problem: Official Mormonism doesn’t agree.
Twice at last October’s General Conference, speakers made positive reference to a speech delivered in 1980 by an LDS Apostle (who later became President of the Church). In this original speech, Mormons were told that, “The Prophet Does Not Have to Say ‘Thus Saith the Lord’ to Give Us Scripture.” The point the apostle was making was that a prophet’s words are always wholly authoritative and binding upon the Church; what he says is scripture. Brigham Young, another LDS President, was quoted in this speech as having said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Ezra Taft Benson, Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet, press copy, 6-7).
Conveying the idea of even more relevance for the 21st century LDS Church, this same speech has also been included in the newly updated Religion 333 Student Manual, Teachings of the Living Prophets, just released by the Church in March (2011, pp. 22-27).
The new edition of the Religion 333 Student Manual says, “What the First Presidency says is scripture” (43, 52). To support the point, the manual quotes Marion G. Romney:
“So I repeat again, what the presidency say as a presidency is what the Lord would say if he were here, and it is scripture. It should be studied, understood, and followed, even as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other scriptures” (53, included here is an excerpt from a longer quote in the manual).
The Student Manual also says, “The words of the prophets delivered through the Spirit during general conference are latter-day scripture” (71, 72) and quotes Joseph Fielding Smith:
“When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church… the word of the Lord, as spoken by other servants at the general conferences and stake conferences, or wherever they may be when they speak that which the Lord has put into their mouths, is just as much the word of the Lord as the writings and the words of other prophets in other dispensations” (73).
In January, Ensign magazine highlighted the topic of “The Scriptures” in its “What We Believe” column. It says,
“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accept the following as scripture: 1. The Bible… 2. The Book of Mormon… 3. The Doctrine and Covenants… 4. The Pearl of Great Price… 5. God continues to reveal truths to living prophets through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These truths are considered scripture (see D&C 68:4). They come to us primarily through general conference, held the first weekend in April and October, when members throughout the world hear addresses from our prophet and other Church leaders” (Ensign, January 2011, 14-15).
Of course, this is problematic for defenders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who like to say, for example, the Adam-God doctrine was just Brigham Young’s opinion. Or Orson Hyde’s statement that Jesus was the bridegroom at the wedding of Cana was mere speculation. Or Spencer Kimball’s insistence that American Indians who join the Church become lighter skinned was just his personal view. (All these teachings were delivered in General Conferences. See respectively, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; Journal of Discourses 2:82; Conference Report, October 1960, 34.)
So, as Ms. Stack asks, are the words of LDS leaders really scripture? Mr. Fowles (and other Mormons, perhaps those described by Ezra Taft Benson in his speech as “the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich”) suggest the answer is no. But according to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for members of the Church, the unequivocal answer is yes, they are.
Any body can see anything as scripture. Think of the Koran a lot of people believe that is from God. “The words of the prophets delivered through the Spirit during general conference are latter-day scripture. " Through the spirit is an interesting phrase because when you read or hear what is said the listener must also be receptive to the message. To a lot of people the bible is just a book but if people ponder the words and apply it to there lives the possibility of change is endless.
If this were not so true it might be funny, but I like to point out how rare it is we see LDS coming here to this blog and giving honest answers to these questions. It's also rare how we see LDS coming here and saying no these issues are not problems and here's why…..
I know LDS really want to believe JS and all he had to offer, but still is ricking your eternal life and spending eternity in hell apart from God really worth not asking questions or really seeking the truth?
If the prophets are Jesus' voice to the Church, actually to everyone in the world today, then the utmost reverence and sincere adherance to their words spoken should absolutely be the rule. To hear the voice of God speaking to us and turn away and reject even one thing this spokesperson says would be a rejection of God Himself. However, it is not us who don't believe these Mormon teachers are real prophets who discount and take-away the authority of their prophet who supposedly teaches in the place and stead of Jesus – no, it is not us – they do it themselves! Any troubling thing the prophets have spoken (and I agree, many things they have said are troubling) is discounted, voided of meaning, and cast aside.
Is it any wonder, when Mormons treat their own prophets whom they believe to be the voice of God, which such disrespect that they so easily cast aside God's Holy Scripture when it does not agree with their preconceptions?
As Christians we have the standard of God's Word given to us by God and preserved by God. Mormons have a pick-and-chose doctrine that does not even line up with their own statements on either the authority of Scripture nor the authority of the prophets.
So truth is relative and determined by the listener? Each person can have their own truth? Is this what you are saying? I thought Mormonism claimed to be true? If you are subscribing to each person determines his own truth, the Book of Mormon and Mormonism truly has nothing to offer.
On the other hand – if there is truth, and Holy Scripture is the true revelation of God to sinful and fallen people – offering forgiveness through Jesus death on the cross and resurrection, then that changes everything.
Interesting is the double reference to “The Prophet Does Not Have to Say ‘Thus Saith the Lord’ to Give Us Scripture.” I think this may reflect internal divisions generated by some of the newer mormon though – such as "New Order Mormons" iirc, who are questioning doctrine and sources. Perhaps there are other undercurrents that are challenging the authority of the prophet such as the apparent lack of 'prophecy'. Or just another tactic to keep mormons glued to their tv sets watching GC.
Hello, Clyde. Thanks for participating at this forum.
I agree with you that people can think of many things as being scripture. Yet considering something to be scripture does not necessarily make it so. Scripture is inspired; literally, God-breathed:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16),
Scripture provides us with comfort and encouragement. For instance, something that is of much comfort to me is that I have been forgiven. God has taken away my sins. He judged me long ago. Judged me in the person of another, on a cross. This did not happen because of who I am. But because of who God is. Forgiven.
So truth is relative and determined by the listener? Each person can have their own truth? Is this what you are saying?
Not entirely. The listener has to be receptive to the message. I am probably trying to hard to explain it but the idea is like two people listening to the same speaker and coming away from his talk with two different ideas.
Super job 4five.
As I was reading clyde's remarks I had the same thoughts you expressed. That indeed is relativism and from what I see it's the main strategy in Mormonism for defending Mormonism. When Mormons get their backs up against the wall it's all "well that's your opinion" or "that's your interpretation" and finally the attempt to turn criticism of the BoM or Mormonism by trying to find a link or example from the Bible and say, "see, it's the same thing". It's all in all a pretty pathetic manner of defending Mormonism, but that religion has so many holes in it, Mormons are kept very busy plugging them all. In exasperation they usually just throw up their hands and give their testimony or claim they are being persecuted.
Using clyde's argument then Mormonism is only true if you believe it. If you don't believe it it isn't true. So I might ask then, what's the point of spending all of that time, money and effort on trying to become a god if it's all just a figment of one's own imagination as he seems to be suggesting and which in fact it is?
4fivesolas, that was a great comment !
ww
Can anyone telling me how a Mormon becomes a Mormon prophet or apostle and is then qualified to speak scripture? I was wondering if Bruce McConkie was a general authority; say an apostle or prophet. If he was, then his book on Mormon doctrine should be the final word on the topic. But we all know that Mormonism is a giant shell game with the pea being hidden under one of three shells as the skillful manipulators move the pea about and the rube can never find it.
One of the real interesting things about Mormonism is what "counts" and what "doesn't count" when it comes to what their apostles and prophets have spoken forth. One of the big drawing features of Mormonism in its early days was Joseph Smith's proclamation that any man could receive direct revelation from God. That really appealed to a lot of men who wanted to be operating in that venue. Well Joe soon had a problem because if every and any man could receive direct revelation from God, who was to say whose revelations were superior to any other person's? So he had to dial that back some and yet today Mormons enjoy hearing from the Mormon god but there is a Celestial pecking order to who gets listened to. But it's still fun for the rank and file to play the role of mini-prophet.
Also, remember that Mormon prophesy doesn't have to be right and it all comes with an expiration or "use by" date. After that it's like old medicine that needs to be discarded.
Clyde,
There are a lot of works claimed to be scripture or revelation from different god or gods. If you really believe in the relative value of what is said, then what reason would anyone have for converting to Mormonism?
Have any of the LDS general authorities really thought about the weight of this belief? That puts a lot of responsibility on the speaker. If I am not mistaken people stoned people in ancient times, if what they said was not true, or if a prophecy failed to come to pass. In our current age, that would not happen, or at least I hope not. But it would be very bad to lead people astray if one was not really a prophet. I would have to be VERY sure that I really had that authority before I ever thought I spoke for a god or gods….
I just noticed something really odd about the photo above. it looks like they just cracked a good joke, probably on the publics expense. Where did you find this photo? has it been altered? Is it an official photo released by the lds church?
Engkei, the photo is from the LDS Newsroom Blog, under the entry "Mormon Images Available for Use." You can find it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/mormon-images-availa…
Falcon,
In Mormonism, revelation is all about one's authority. The president of the church, along with his two counselors, receive revelation for the entire Church (and this includes the world, as well). The authority of the apostles and seventies is right up there, but generally the first presidency edits what anyone else says. For a regular guy like me, I would receive revelation for my family and for those in my circle of influence regarding my call in the Church. However, the measuring stick for my revelations would be the General Authorities and what they have said. I could never receive revelation that contradicted what they taught. That would be considered uninspired. Therefore, a revelation that Joseph Smith was a fraud would be perceived as coming from Satan, and that one was on the road to apostasy.
Peace…
If someone would care to take a look in the Bible, OT or NT, it's pretty plain who apostles and prophets are in terms of their qualifications and what it is they do in terms of their function. Now right off the bat I'll say that what the Bible teaches will not impress a Mormon one bit. What comes out of the mouths of the Mormon hierarchy is what counts regardless of what the Bible teaches or for that matter, what the BoM teaches (which isn't scripture at all but the product of a guy with an undeveloped mind i.e. immature, using a magic rock as a guide).
Anyway take a look at a prophet by the name of Agabus (Acts 21:10-11) and how he functioned. Even Phillip the evangelist had four daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9). How many woman are in this office in the Mormon church?
Mormons always believed that their apostles had seen Jesus. Recently that has been changed to say they have had a witness, or some such escape clause, of Jesus.
Mormonism is false, the apostles are false and the prophets are false. What a recipe for spiritual disaster.
Thanks Brian.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16),
General Conference is like this passage, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".
Jackg,
"The president of the church…receive revelation for the…Church (and… the world…)" I guess that explains the term 'General authority', rather than just a church authority. Does this imply that they could also potentially function in a secular position as well? Some church members had a discussion of how lds leaders could function in this way, if a population was 100% LDS, and lds standards became law.
Why couldn't you have a revelation that JS was a fraud? I think thats totally possible, and it would be important to recieve if he really was.
Clyde,
"…the idea is like two people listening to the same speaker and coming away from his talk with two different ideas…"
Isn't that what happens in all communications anyways? What makes a conference talk any different? Many different religious organizations have talks, but there is something different isn't there? Usually people strictly take those speakers as being someone speaking about there understanding of things. Usually not as revelation, like LDS belief.
So how do these false prophets, and there have been many across the centuries, get people to believe their "revelations". First of all it's evident that there is, and always has been a market for false prophets and fantastic claims of the supernatural. There is always, in any generation, people who are drawn to this sort of thing. Why do some people flock to a restroom of an auto parts store in California to look at the floor because someone claims they saw the image of the Virgin Mary in the floor tile? Or the same could be said of the outside brick wall of a Catholic church in Ireland that ended up building a glass covering for the wall and building an international airport so that people could fly in to see the aperation of the Virgin Mary that was said to appear there?
One of the tricks of false prophets is that they proclaim they have a "new" message, or revelation or Word from the Lord. People like anything that's "new". But in order for the new to be accepted, the old must be said to be in error and need of a fix-up. In the case of Joseph Smith, not only was Christianity wrong, but the Bible was also in serious error. Now if you can get people to believe that you're home free because at that point the ground work for the "new" has been laid.
Some false prophets are more successful than others in promoting their new revelation. Mormonism is famous for producing false prophets with new revelations. Pick-up a copy of "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer for a good overview of what happens when men begin to believe that they are receiving special revelation from God that supplants the current, accepted orthodoxy.
There's something within the psychology of some people that almost presets them for accepting religious ideas that go against the grain of the established order. Whether they are born with this proclivity or if it is part of their own unique development is hard to say. But the desire to believe is so strong in some people that they are willing to suspend all credulity, common sense, and reason in the pursuit of a new idea.
So my point is that false prophets have to declare the "standard" for judging prophets or the accepted revelation null and void. Or one other trick is to give a creative interpretation to the "standard" so it appears to support the false prophet's new and vastly superior new revelation. Mormonism, as with all false religious cults, can't be validated by the Bible, the writings of the Church Fathers, or the traditions of the Christian Church. So Joseph Smith concocts a story that after the death of the original apostles the Church fell into apostasy and, of course, it now needs to be restored by his new super duper, hyper spiritual, new and improved revelation.
The problem with Smith's claim is that it's not supported by the historical record. Well that was no real problem for Smith and those who followed him because they also declared that there was this giant conspiracy to keep Mormonism out of the Bible and by extension I would surmise, the historical record. That's quite a conspiracy.
So Mormons know all of this because of more revelation. Isn't it amazing that people will believe this twisted and convoluted explanation?
Clyde, you said,
I have said this before, but their is a huge difference between just blindly believing something and using facts and truth to determine something. Look at the human court system we have, do we simply lock up or execute someone simply because someone said something? or do we use facts.
I could stand before a judge and say, Judge, Clyde needs to be executed because he killed my wife, The only evidence I have is, 1. my wife is not here, so that proves she is dead. 2. Since I cannot find her, the I believe Clyde must have done it. Thats really stupid dont you agree? Yes I know someone will reply many people go to jail or are executed with out evidence. Too that I would say two things. 1. We are all human and make mistakes, 2. some people lie to get others in Jail just like the false prophets lying.
Clyde said
The problem with what you said is, if it is something LDS want to believe then it is scripture, otherwise it is not. We have given you LDS tons of references that you guys so clearly ignore. Adam God was given during G.C, yet even though BY stated it was scripture, you guys claim to know more than him and say it was not, it was merely written down wrong. Funny how it is all of maybe 2 whole pages with BY claiming it is scripture in more than one place and you guys claim it's not. Yet JS never claimed the King Follet Discourse to be scripture, yet LDS view it as scripture, and that was not written down wrong? It was written by the same person and is 11 pages long.
Clyde said
O-Clyde, You really put your foot in your mouth with this one. Have you ever read the Adam God Doctrine? BY said OUR SALVATION HANGS UPON what we do with the information he gave us. You if your not receptive to what BY said then it does not apply? Is that what you meant. What about D and C 132.
Clyde here is D and C 132:3-4 for you.
Clyde, these verses CLEARLY SAY, Who ever hears this MUST OBEY, Otherwise YOU WILL BE DAMNED. So are you saying that if you choose not to believe it because you are not receptive to it, so therefore you do not need to obey it? How many LDS have read this chapter and really believe it and OBEY it? I would say very few if any. Boy your words really speak volumes since they show you clearly reject the truth.
4fives,
Great comment! I took a second to really ponder your answer to clyde and I have to tell you that as a mormon, I didn't know I had so much power!!! Why the heck was I following the prophet if the truth was my own truth or whatever I thought???? Craziness! Yes I'm floored. You know, while I was in mormonism, I was taught to obey and follow the teachings of the church and also the prophet. We were never taught that truth is whatever you perceive it to be. In fact we were taught that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done for you. I'm not sure where this new found free thinking for mormons is coming from. Maybe another change. I'm so glad that I am out.
Engkei,
I'm not so sure how the role of President of the Church would play out in such a society as you describe. It would definitely be interesting. I would say that the influence could be strong since your legislators and politicians would be LDS.
Yes, one can have a revelation that JS was a fraud. In such a case, the one receiving the revelation would probably cease to be LDS, as was my case.
Blessings…
Clyde,
"General Conference is like this passage, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Are there any exceptions to this rule? Is it only current general conferences? Or does this apply to all conferences and every talk given through out all LDS history?
~Through the spirit is an interesting phrase because when you read or hear what is said the listener must also be receptive to the message~
That's another defensive tactic mormons can eventually use. I've had this kind of conversation several times, when the person says to me that we have to feel the spirit confirming that what is said is true. Yet, that shouldn't be up for question since god already established the order of things, and you shouldn't have to be worried if those men will speak or not in behalf of god. I then ask, ok, if i feel by the spirit that those teachings were false, can i publicly oppose them? You know the answer.
So, that whole "receive confirmation by the spirit" thing is a deceptive ploy to give you the sensation that you're free to find out things for yourself, and yet that can't be different from what the authorities have spoken.
Funny though that they say those things not taking their apologists into consideration. It must suck to be a mormon apologist. Those guys have to do some serious mental gymnastics to be able to work through a bunch of nonsense taught by mormon leaders for decades, to then, in General Conference, hear stuff like that that completely discredits all work they had done so far…
Now, if it was the case that the Maxwell Institute is just something to show the public, because the GA's know members generally don't care for them, then their work is useless, because the outside world doesn't take them seriously enough and they are not considered a valid, trustworthy scholarly institution.
I'd hate to be in their skin, unless i'd been able to justify it in my mind in case the paycheck was good enough, and the work wasn't that hard after all(making up stuff isn't difficult). But even that isn't worth it.
" Does this imply that they could also potentially function in a secular position as well?"
That's exactly what that infers. Mormons believe that at Christ's second coming, they will rule the world. The Bishop is the ecclesiastical authority not just for mormons but for all members in the community as called and established by god. Mormonism and its structure is a government in waiting.
F Melo, Isn't the christian belief similiar? Something about 'the government shall be on his shoulders". Christ is supposed to be the king of kings etc…
"I would have to be VERY sure that I really had that authority before I ever thought I spoke for a god or gods….
That's a complicated thing though. You have to hear different witnesses from different leaders to see how they receive such inspiration that makes them believe they speak for god. They take a few things for granted, such as that they have the priesthood authority, they are living temple-worthy lives, and those things mean that the person is entitled by eternal law to receive god's instruction when requested.
How that instruction is received is a topic that has been discussed several times and there are some books written about it. Some people will say that they have a feeling when talking to a person they are thinking of calling to a certain position, they talk about meditating in prayer and having an impression, or a name coming to mind, or an idea popping up, etc. Since they assume that's how god answers them given what i've said before, they take those experiences promptly as the word of god.
So, while i'm sure the "apostles" are crooks, especially after receiving a visit from Elder Holland a while back and listening to the "interesting" message he delivered, to say the least, i am sure that many of those seventies and local authorities do fully believe they have the right to receive revelation and seek for those impressions, and look back to past experiences to guide them sincerely taking those as the word of god.
Another thing i noticed, in my misson, is that the mission president would present us with an inspired plan to help us raise the number of baptisms in the mission. When the plan proved to be ineffective, we would notice that at times the MP woud talk about that when something that you thought was inspired didn't work out the way it was supposed to, that meant that you failed to listen to the spirit, or that you weren't in tune enough. I took those things seriously as i struggled to listen to the "spirit" to know exactly how to act, expecting that things would work out like magick.
Kate,
That is exactly what i thought also, that the whole reason for the LDS prophet was to clearly tell members what to believe. I don't ever recall such free thinking. In fact that goes against the general structure and belief. If this is the case why bother having a church body, and doctrines, especially things like the articles of faith.
I think christians have a little more 'play' but even christians are 'limited' by what the OT and NT says. But there can, and are a broad range of possible outcomes, but bodies of believers tend to be very similiar in belief when its only the Bible.
"Mormons always believed that their apostles had seen Jesus. Recently that has been changed to say they have had a witness, or some such escape clause, of Jesus. "
The new gospel principles edition was changed. Before it said that the apostles were special witness of Christ. Now it says that they are special witnesses of the name of Christ, which all of the members by baptism supposedly are.
I remember showing that a looong time ago to a friend, in church, and he said that was lame. It was definitely not the same. It's ridiculous how they place themselves as those important authorities when they are as ordinary members as a ward janitor. I wonder if a janitor would ever be an apostle, because these days it seems that you have to have been a successful business man to become one, i mean, how are you going to sit on so many boards of directors and run a multi-billion dollar business without the necessary qualifications, right?
"God-breathed"
I think that's the key-word here. To be God breathed it can't contradict what God has already revealed. Anybody can become a motivational speaker these days. But to speak for God is a whole different matter altogether.
I've watched general conference, as i don't want to become obsolete in my discussion with my family, and most of it was that, motivational, inspirational talks that didn't offer the Gospel, only the Law that condemned all that were watching. There was even a speaker who talked about keeping ALL of God's commandments and not cherry pick ones in favor of others. I just could feel the sense of despair in the air, because they have a looong list of stuff to do along with everyday work, family, etc.
I read that post having that Elder Poelman debacle in mind. For those who don't remember, Elder Poelman gave a talk in the October GC of 1984. His talk, from what i remember, was about how as people grew closer to God they would become more independent from the Church institution. After he was done, the other leaders took issue with his words, and made him re-write the talk, and they re-recorded it in the tabernacle, later adding crowd sound effects to pretend that it was his original talk and the tabernacle was full.
This is the original talk – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcM7koDc-jg
This is the edited talk, compared to the original – http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
As i read such quotes, as those of Joseph Fielding Smith, i have to wonder what made the GA's take such a severe action as to alter words as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost? What gave them that right? On what basis did they change, and why did they have to put emphasis on people depending on the church since mormons already believe that eventually the church will cease to exist? What's going on?
How can you take the conference, and that doctrine of inspiration of the GA's seriously after that? I mean, if Elder Poelman wasn't inspired, then why was he called to speak in the first place, wasn't he invited by inspiration as well? Why didn't the authorities pray about it before they made him redo the whole thing again? Why did they have to pretend that the tabernacle was full of people and the edited talk was his original talk? In those times they didn't have satellite transmission, so, everywhere else in the world only got to watch the edited talk. How dishonest of them.
Those "apostles and prophet" are just big pretenders and deceivers.
"F Melo, Isn't the christian belief similiar? Something about 'the government shall be on his shoulders". Christ is supposed to be the king of kings etc…"
Yes, but Christ is God, not a fallible, sinful man. His government is the government in the Kingdom of God. He's already the king of kings and Lord of lords, and as we read the account about Stephens's vision that He saw the Lord at the right hand of God, we can believe He's already got the government.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Oh, I get it! So when I go to church on Sunday and listen to a sermon it's like the words of the preacher are scripture. And for those folks who say belong to the Baptist Convention, when they have their annual meeting, what the president of the Baptist Conventions says is scripture.
WOW! I never thought about it that way. I could see where the Bible could become outdated as subsequent pastors and leaders preach messages and replace what was revealed in the first century.
Man, you learn something everyday!
……..and another thing, this gives me a whole new insight into the phrase; "the people listened to the speaker and fill it (what he said/is saying) up with their own meaning". Let's take that a little further, "they listened to the prophet and fill it (what he said) up with their own meaning".
So it really comes down to a person's subjective understanding of what is said by the prophet and how he (listener) feels about it. The feelings/emotions a person has, are how God's Spirit communicates regarding testifying to the truth of what someone interprets what the prophet has said.
As I understand this then, the prophet speaks words that are from God but the message is different for everyone despite the fact that the words are the same. So then, a person can kind of develop their own doctrine. This isn't just a matter of apply what the speaker says individually to our lives, it's bigger than that.
Man, have I grown today in wisdom and understanding!
Wow, you're finally catching on. You are now a near genius! I might ask you to solve Fermats equation.
I should have emphasised teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness more. Each verse can be singled out but it is the whole that effects the meaning. Hopefully the president of the Baptist convention can tell you how the affairs of the church are doing and maybe influence you in helping with church in local affairs.
In doing so it might help your training in righteousness.
I find this blog slightly comical at times. I have to laugh at how close some of you are to understanding how mormons believe yet end up over explaining and ending up in left field.
The old commenters at mormon coffee are probably the nicest people in the world and help any body out in a disaster. The same goes for the new commenters, too. I will not be commenting any more, but leave you with an anecdote.
There was once an indian and pastor engaged in a conversation about Jesus. The Pastor was explaining how important it was to accept Jesus as your savior. The Indian finally said 'I'll tell you what I will do. I will follow you around and see how He has effected your life." The Pastor looked at the Indian and walked away never to speak to him again.
I wonder if anybody can have somebody follow them around?
I think I will work on my righteousness without getting on my high horse. It might help attract people to something important in there lives.
F melo, That is amazing, how did you find this 1984 talk? I was an active member at the time, and probably heard the talk 'live'. Of course I was probably sleeping, but even if I was awake I might not have given the talk a critical review. its amazing that nonLDS people pick through this stuff more than active members. Its apparent that if you are not viewing things with a critical eye, you will miss a lot. ____The idea of eternal prinicples and ordinances, that doesn't hold up to critical review, if one knows anything about history and the number of cultures on earth. I would say that my ancestors could NOT have followed the gospel prior to contact with other cultures. Certainly what was happening in ancient Israel with the law of moses, they could NOT have followed the law or moses. ____Around the turn of the century Bible translators didn't know how to translate the lords prayer. Because of a simple word, "BREAD". That was NOT an item my ancestors were familiar with. In fact the first 'sacraments' were performed with animal lungs and hearts. They didn't have bread or wine! Sheep and lambs were other yet another translation problem.
LOL, indeed life of a mormon apologist is probably very difficult these days. Interesting that you mention Maxwell/FARMS – seems the GA are by default letting them as well as BYU professors drive the definition of doctrine these days. Is this evidence of a 'lack' of a living prophet when they have to defalt to them? Hmmmmm
There is only one truth. Socrates or Aristotle said three things and I can only remember two. Something is true or it is false. It cannot be both. And (2), there is no middle ground.
I know! That whole changing the BoM introduction was an absurd! They shamelessly altered the intro without so much as a sustaining vote in conference…
Well, i´d just let them go on with that, because they are shooting themselves in the foot. The next major discovery of ancient america would be more than what they could take, if the members were to rely on those scholars for their faith and doctrines.
And even then you could expect the "prophet" to show up saying that he got a brand new revelation where god said those things were given to the saints to prove their faith, to see if they would be faithful in order to receive greater light and knowledge(just like the blacks and the priesthood doctrines). Or that they weren´t factual, just its doctrines were true…
Clyde, honestly, you don´t have a clue what Christianity is. If religions exist just to make people be better by outward behavior, they are utterly useless because even the most devout people commit some regrettable and shameful acts, or thoughts.
Christianity goes far beyond that. It saved the thief on the cross, it can save the drug addict that can´t overcome his addiction, it even saved the murderer that persecuted and killed Christians just because they were Christians. Christianity is about God rescuing a people completely lost.
If you´re going to judge the validity of Christianity based solely on one person´s actions, let it be based on Jesus´ actions, not those of fallible men. I understand that Christians have to adorn God´s doctrine with good works, and do good works out of love for God and our fellow men, but remember, only God knows people´s hearts.
During the time of Jesus the Pharisees were considered the most pious and righteous group of believers among the Jews. They were far better in their behavior than the average Church goers these days, and would even put the Christian fundamentalists to shame. Yet, Jesus exposed them for who they really were inside.
So, keep on going like that, thinking you can be the author of your own spiritual growth and outward observance of your laws, but be warned that you´ll reach a point where you´ll be overwhelmed by your incompetence in complying with all, i said ALL, of god´s commandments according to your leaders. That´s when you´ll abandon the system and say, i´ve done all that i can, i can´t do any more, i´ll trust that Jesus knows my heart and all will be well in the last day.
When you get to that point, remember that that was the truth all along. Only Jesus was able to keep all of God´s commandments, and it´s through His righteousness that you´re saved, and there´s nothing you can do to add to that. But if you don´t get to that point it is because you´re not taking your own gospel seriously enough to actually try to keep it in its entirety, as you promised in your baptism.
Engkei, you´re right as to the fact that ex-mormons and critics of the LDS take notice of that stuff, because they understand that words and actions have meaning and that meaning matters, it has consequences. That´s something mormons are not encouraged to do.
I found out about that in multiple locations, varying from anti mormon websites, websites of people critic of mormonism, and in websites of new order mormons.
i honestly didn´t understand the other half of your comment at all…
What really amazes me is, If LDS here about the changes and stuff like that it seems not to bother them to much. I know some like you F_melo have left the church, but still so many stay, or even MM's that knock on our doors do not want to hear this stuff. Truly sad.
I also did not understand the last half of what you said Engkei, It almost seemed as if it was drunken rambling.
Hammer,
I was born into a mormon family. Leaving is not as easy as one might think. Especially if you live in Utah and right smack in the middle of mormonville. It's a culture and for me, my families are generational mormons. It's all we know. I think because of the "works" that mormons pride themselves in, it makes people very self righteous and judgmental. I truly believe that mormons who learn this stuff and stay mormon, are afraid of the rejection from family and the community. Some families are so into it that they can't even buy a piece of fruit without praying about it and getting a feeling. I'm not kidding. Fanatical. Let's say that a mormon man finds this stuff out and wants to leave. The wife is devastated because she fully believes that if they leave, they are going to hell and will be considered apostate from everyone they know (there is nothing worse in the mormon mind than to be an apostate) She goes to the Bishop about it, and I've heard more than once that when this happens, the husband is brought in and if he wants to leave the church, she is encouraged to leave him. If they have kids and a 15 year marriage, well you get the picture. It would be much easier for him to stay. I am so happy that I'm not in that situation. My husband is inactive and could care less. But I can see how it would be difficult for others.
What an important question for all Mormons ( and everyone) to seek the answer to : Can the words of
the Mormon prophet , especially when he is teaching in General Conference, be scripture.? I'd like to
ask a question that's related to that one: " The prophets and apostles of the Mormon church, are their
words trustworthy " ? Are they accurate in the pronouncements about God or salvation ? Are these men
reliable spiritual guides ? Well, it's necessary that we look at their claims. Take special notice of the
words I've capitalized as these come from Mormon church publications:
1. We can have CONFIDENCE in the prophet's counsel and teachings.
2. he RELAYS the Lord's words to the Mormon people.
3. a Mormon's greatest SAFETY in avoiding being misled in false teaching is to follow their prophet.
4. the instruction by the Mormon prophet is PURE UNPOLLUTED GUIDANCE.
[ references to these are available] part 1
LISTEN to General Conference. They have nothing 'newsbreaking' to say. Love, be kind, be good, do good works. Lots of very pedestrian, vanilla, be a good mormon-type things. Be a good mom, etc. Nothing really confrontational so of course, its from God. Follow the commandments, etc. Really listen to conference. Of course, the prophets are going to be agreeable. They don't really say, Michael The Arch Angel is Adam, or Joseph Smith was a polygamist and we think that was wonderful. There is nothing to dispute, so therefore, its all good.
Rick, even as a faithful mormon, to find out the Book of Mormon had been changed without notice, how sneaky that was and how that contradicted what i was taught and believed and even defended on my mission against those who would ridicule the BoM. I really felt like an idiot that was manipulated into defending a lie that the Church itself showed not to care about. That together with a bunch of other things were the beginning of the end.
There other people who will defend it, saying that the leaders were acting as the lord instructed… that they can change anything if they want to… that´s so sad.
(cool picture, btw)
F Melo,
In the Poelman talk, he spoke about eternal principles which are independent of time and location. I just said that didn't hold up to critical review.