By what autority?

[Scottie]

Mudcat, I've asked this same question before.

The apologists LOVE to claim that prophets can and do give opinion, and even go so far as to dictate which statements were doctrine and which were opinon.

The simple fact is, they are guessing. They have no more insight as to what BY really meant than any critic does. BY may have meant every word of his blood atonement speech. He may not have. We just don't know.

This blade cuts both ways. Critics can no more know if BY said it in jest or whether he was dead serious.

[Mudcat]

The apologists LOVE to claim that prophets can and do give opinion, and even go so far as to dictate which statements were doctrine and which were opinon.

Hey Scottie!

Thanks for your comments thus far.

Emphasis mine, this is the key element I am trying to understand.

As I look at, the concept seems to undermine something that is foundational.

I can't quite articulate what it seems to be undermining though.

Any thoughts?

[CV75]

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

LDS members have no authority to determine when a general authority is speaking in their capacity as an authority or not (this is one of the great burdens of their calling), but LDS members do have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to assist them in acting upon what they hear, and their agency to motivate a search for the truth. Often the Holy Ghost inspires striving LDS members to do what they must do with the information they receive, regardless of the source anyway.

The Prophet is the authority for making this determination for the LDS Church as a whole, and he often operates within the purviews of the First Presidency or the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If a statement by a general authority requires a determination to be made for the benefit of the Church, it will come to the Prophet's attention and the clarifications will be made through proper channels. Not all such mis-statements need to be corrected for the Church as a whole, and that would determine how often the Lord would need to intervene, which isn't often.

The Lords trusts His people to a great degree, and he merits our trust. He knows all are imperfect, even His servants. He has given us a Prophet and the Gift of the Holy Ghost to see us through.

[JLFuller]

I won't bother taking a trip to the Quote Mine to bring up specific quotes on Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Men on the Moon and so forth. I am sure those who know what I referred to, are equally aware of their sources.

One of the most intriguing topics to me on this forum, has been in regards to when an LDS authority is speaking as one and when he isn't.

IMO, this concept of when a Prophet is prophetic is rather profound.

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

I am surprised we are talking about this yet again. MC, people are entitled to their opinions but there is only one source for doctrine and this the First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve when they speak en block, or publish their remarks in an official Church publication or deliver their remarks at Conference. But each member of those bodies only speak for their stewardship. That means that Brigham Young is entitled to his opinions. Even if he made a comment during a Conference or submitted a piece to an official publication, his words are in no way binding outside his stewardship, which was during his lifetime, unless they have been quoted by the current leadership in an official publication or during Conference. That is what is meant by a living prophet being better than a dead one. To suggest otherwise would be to disavow that God continues to speak to His people as he sees fit. You are making this more difficult than it is MC. It really is not that hard.

[Scottie]

I can't quite articulate what it seems to be undermining though.

Any thoughts?

They are undermining the words of the prophets themselves. If anyone can claim this was doctrine, or that wasn't doctrine, then what stops any of us from deciding for ourselves what we will and won't accept from the prophets both past and present?

Also, the common answer when asked this question is to ask the Holy Ghost to confirm what the prophet said. It has also been said that the Holy Ghost, when asked the exact same question and sending conflicting answers, is giving what the questioner needs to hear, not necessarily the truth.

This is so loaded with problems that I dare not even try and address them all in this thread.

[BCSpace]

Once again, BC, the link of your siggy is nothing more than an editorial in the commentaries section of the LDS web site. It could have been written by a housewife in Provo for all you know. There is nothing, let me say it again, NOTHING binding about your little pet link.

So you don't agree with the Church's own statement?

This is so loaded with problems that I dare not even try and address them all in this thread.

Why all the hypothesizing? Why not accept what the Church itself teaches? I'll tell you why. It's because both apologists and antiMormons alike lose some of their pet chestnuts.

[BCSpace]

Mudcat,

I may get a respond to you elsewhere eventually, but here is my favorite thread on what is and is not LDS doctrine. It occurred over 8 years ago and should definitely include a link to this too:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/inde...0004e94610aRCRD

Amen Tom. But some of the good people here think the article was posted by some housewife in Provo rather than it being a published statement by the Church.

[Mudcat]

LDS members have no authority to determine when a general authority is speaking in their capacity as an authority or not (this is one of the great burdens of their calling), but LDS members do have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to assist them in acting upon what they hear, and their agency to motivate a search for the truth. Often the Holy Ghost inspires striving LDS members to do what they must do with the information they receive, regardless of the source anyway.

The Prophet is the authority for making this determination for the LDS Church as a whole, and he often operates within the purviews of the First Presidency or the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If a statement by a general authority requires a determination to be made for the benefit of the Church, it will come to the Prophet's attention and the clarifications will be made through proper channels. Not all such mis-statements need to be corrected for the Church as a whole, and that would determine how often the Lord would need to intervene, which isn't often.

The Lords trusts His people to a great degree, and he merits our trust. He knows all are imperfect, even His servants. He has given us a Prophet and the Gift of the Holy Ghost to see us through.

Hi CV,

Bold and underline mine. I appreciate the acknowledgment mis-statements have been made, and that they may or may not need to be corrected in a church wide format. The fact that LDS appear to believe that "mis-statements" have been made, is part of the thing I am trying to understand. I think the fall back for such mis-statements relies upon the fallibility of general authorities.

I understand LDS efforts to guage things through the guidance of the Spirit. Essentially to recognize through the Spirit, that LDS leaders have made mis-statements and for your belief that it is a mis-statement seems to give you greater authority of a general authorities words, than they themselves have.

I am puzzled that some of these past LDS leaders didn't correct their own statements. Why didn't the Spirit guide them to do so?

I think the likely reason was that they believed they were speaking in the Spirit. Of course, it's only one of many possibilities.

Thanks for your input.

[Mudcat]

I am surprised we are talking about this yet again.

I didn't know we had a conversation about this before.

MC, people are entitled to their opinions but there is only one source for doctrine and this the First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve when they speak en block, or publish their remarks in an official Church publication or deliver their remarks at Conference.

Can you tell me when this was decided. BC proffered a link to a Church News article that was written last year. Is this what you are referring to?

But each member of those bodies only speak for their stewardship. That means that Brigham Young is entitled to his opinions. Even if he made a comment during a Conference or submitted a piece to an official publication, his words are in no way binding outside his stewardship, which was during his lifetime, unless they have been quoted by the current leadership in an official publication or during Conference.

That is what is meant by a living prophet being better than a dead one. To suggest otherwise would be to disavow that God continues to speak to His people as he sees fit. You are making this more difficult than it is MC. It really is not that hard.

I actually think the situation is more suggestive of a different concept. If the dead prophet didn't speak for God, then on what basis does a living one speak for anyone other than his own opinion.

[Notquitewetyet]

Correction:"Adam the Father and God of the Human Family."

That's quite a difference from what you are proposing. Are you sure Adam God isn't a favorite chestnut of yours that you've pinned a whole lot of things that come crashing down when the fact is realized that Adam God never was a doctrine of the Church or even taught by BY? I think the fact that you quoted it incorrectly and are ignoring the context by which Adam is considered a God shows that it is.

It could stand as is.

I wasn't even quoting the article there, I was elaborating on what it said. It plainly says "Adam the Father and God of the Human Family." Thus, if Adam is the Father and God of the Human Family, and we are members of the human family, can it not be said that Adam is Our God, and Our Father? Thus Our God the Father? Seems like a logical extension. I don't want to derail Mudcat's thread but your assertion that Adam God was never taught by Brigham Young is just ludicrous. It's found in hymns such as the original "Sons of Michael," "We believe in Our God," in books such as "Women of Mormondom," in dozens if not hundreds of journals from the period, in Orson Pratt's loud denunciation of it and his conflict with Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses and Millenial Star (which WAS a Church publication) and last but not least in a certain lecture in a certain place at the St. George Temple which all render any statement "BY didn't teach this" either uninformed or deliberate LDS apologetics/media spin. Are you sure you know what Adam God teachings are or are you assuming there the lies the Tanners push to sell books? Adam God teachings do not say that Michael is Eloheim. And the fact that you say it's a favorite chestnut on which I pin (by what I took as implication, correct me if I'm wrong) my current non-membership is not right at all. The bishop of my ward has told me that there's room for me in the Church, and that it's fine for there to be doctrinal disagreement over historical schools of thought. The only thing I pin this on is I've not received a revelation to (re)join the Church.

[Mudcat]

They are undermining the words of the prophets themselves. If anyone can claim this was doctrine, or that wasn't doctrine, then what stops any of us from deciding for ourselves what we will and won't accept from the prophets both past and present?

Also, the common answer when asked this question is to ask the Holy Ghost to confirm what the prophet said. It has also been said that the Holy Ghost, when asked the exact same question and sending conflicting answers, is giving what the questioner needs to hear, not necessarily the truth.

This is so loaded with problems that I dare not even try and address them all in this thread.

Thanks for your thoughts Scottie. You have echoed articulated a good bit of how I feel about this as well.

[jadams_4242]

I won't bother taking a trip to the Quote Mine to bring up specific quotes on Adam-God, Blood Atonement, Men on the Moon and so forth. I am sure those who know what I referred to, are equally aware of their sources.

One of the most intriguing topics to me on this forum, has been in regards to when an LDS authority is speaking as one and when he isn't.

IMO, this concept of when a Prophet is prophetic is rather profound.

By what authority do LDS make such a determination?

So when you use the words "l.d.s prophets" You must be supposing everything that ever came out of the apostle pauls mouth during his life on earth after he was commisioned of the lord; was Holy scripture given him by God?

[Scottie]

So when you use the words "l.d.s prophets" You must be supposing everything that ever came out of the apostle pauls mouth during his life on earth after he was commisioned of the lord; was Holy scripture given him by God?

Yes, Paul spoke for God exactly as much as the LDS Prophets have spoken for God.

Seriously though, you do raise a good point. Mudcat, do you believe that Biblical prophets were inerrant? If not, how do you decide which were speaking prophecy vs opinion?

[JLFuller]

I didn't know we had a conversation about this before.

Can you tell me when this was decided. BC proffered a link to a Church News article that was written last year. Is this what you are referring to?

I actually think the situation is more suggestive of a different concept. If the dead prophet didn't speak for God, then on what basis does a living one speak for anyone other than his own opinion.

This isn't that hard. Does your father speak for you now? I suggest not. He spoke for you for the first 18 years of your life because you were part of his stewardship. Now you speak for your self and your family. That doesn't mean you can't respect the decisions he made in earlier times but only if they work for you today. You are not bound by them however. Brigham Young was not charged with the stewardship of this generation, just his own. We revere his thinking, teaching and insights on many issues, but he does not speak for us today - Thomas S. Monson does. We are part of his stewardship. The concept of stewardship seems to be the key to understanding this concept for you and others MC.

[BCSpace]

Correction:"Adam the Father and God of the Human Family."

That's quite a difference from what you are proposing. Are you sure Adam God isn't a favorite chestnut of yours that you've pinned a whole lot of things that come crashing down when the fact is realized that Adam God never was a doctrine of the Church or even taught by BY? I think the fact that you quoted it incorrectly and are ignoring the context by which Adam is considered a God shows that it is.

It could stand as is.

I wasn't even quoting the article there,

Which is puzzling since you referenced it.

I was elaborating on what it said. It plainly says "Adam the Father and God of the Human Family."

Which is not what you said before.

The article itself plainly says what is meant by that statement and it happens to be quite far away from Adam-God. Adam is simply being referenced as one of the Gods, not God the Father.

[BCSpace]

Can you tell me when this was decided.

1835 when it was declared (D&C 107) that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. A prime example of this in operation is the Qo12 meeting to ratify Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto some months after it was given.

[Mudcat]

So when you use the words "l.d.s prophets" You must be supposing everything that ever came out of the apostle pauls mouth during his life on earth after he was commisioned of the lord; was Holy scripture given him by God?

I don't know if every single word Paul uttered after his conversion was Holy Scripture. I sincerely doubt it, though.

I do think the letters he wrote to various churches were Holy Scripture.

I know you are just trying to help me put things in perspective Jeff. But expanding the question of the OP to encompass my beliefs, as well as yours seems counter productive.

Yes, Paul spoke for God exactly as much as the LDS Prophets have spoken for God.

Seriously though, you do raise a good point. Mudcat, do you believe that Biblical prophets were inerrant? If not, how do you decide which were speaking prophecy vs opinion?

I don't know if the OT prophets were inerrant or not. I think what might be a more relevant question would be if the Hebrews believed them to be inerrant, or did they say.... "Well Moses couldn't have been right about that whole adultery thing. David committed adultery, so why don't we just go with that."

Seriously, my assumption would be their original writings were inerrant, though I feel translational and transmission errors are possible/probable. I feel similarly about the NT and Apostolic authorship.

As far as differentiating opinion vs scripture... The only opinion that I feel that is in it, is where we find textual criticisms, and our own personal opinion/interpretation. What I use to discern is prayer, study/logical analysis, and the direction of the Holy Spirit.

[Mudcat]

This isn't that hard. Does your father speak for you now? I suggest not. He spoke for you for the first 18 years of your life because you were part of his stewardship. Now you speak for your self and your family. That doesn't mean you can't respect the decisions he made in earlier times but only if they work for you today. You are not bound by them however. Brigham Young was not charged with the stewardship of this generation, just his own. We revere his thinking, teaching and insights on many issues, but he does not speak for us today - Thomas S. Monson does. We are part of his stewardship. The concept of stewardship seems to be the key to understanding this concept for you and others MC.

JL,

Your analogy seems flawed, aren't these authorities supposed to speaking on the behalf of one unchanging Father in Heaven.

[Mudcat]

1835 when it was declared (D&C 107) that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. A prime example of this in operation is the Qo12 meeting to ratify Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto some months after it was given.

I assume this is the section you are referring to. This seems to be setting up a system of checks and balances, much like the branches of government.

24 And they form a quorum, aequal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

25 The aSeventy are also called to bpreach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the worldâ??thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in aauthority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the aunanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the otherâ??

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwiseâ??

It does not seem to address in any specific way what was issues in 2007 news article you link to in your sig line.

In regards to OD-1 that was rendered some 55 years after D&C 107. Was this the first example of such a ratification?

[Uncertain]

Mudcat,

I may get a respond to you elsewhere eventually, but here is my favorite thread on what is and is not LDS doctrine. It occurred over 8 years ago and should definitely include a link to this too:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/inde...0004e94610aRCRD

Here is the thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/10382

Charity, TOm

Hi Tom,

It is a good thread. But I have got to tell you every time someone tells me LDS doctrine is found in the standard works. I have to shake my head and sigh such a statement is not helpful. I mean it would be great if I could hold the scriptures up to my forehead and receive a flow of pure doctrine but unfortunately it does not work that way. I think the more correct statement is that the interpretation of scripture is doctrine. Well how then do we know if a particular interpretation of scripture is doctrine? Saying doctrine is in the scriptures is entirely unhelpful without also stipulating how we can determine binding interpretation from nonbinding. Is it as BCspace would argue that which is consistently proclaimed in church proclamations? Under that definition it is difficult to exclude such things as a global flood. Certainly the global flood has been consistently proclaimed in church publications. For that matter suppose I was in the days of Brigham Young I dare say there was a near consensus among the brethren concerning a global flood. At least I have not come across any early teachings disputing a global flood. So for a saint of BYs day was a global flood doctrine but it is not today?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[JLFuller]

JL,

Your analogy seems flawed, aren't these authorities supposed to speaking on the behalf of one unchanging Father in Heaven.

En block, yes, within their appointed time. But God says He reserves the right to speak to His children as he sees fit, not according to man's misunderstanding of what scripture says. Are you limiting what God can say and do? Does He have to fit your understanding? I suggest that according to the arguments EVs use, God has to move according to man's thinking.

[Cold Steel]

The measure I use is to take everything they said and try to determine what they meant. I've read all the Adam-god stuff and it sounds strange and out of place, but then I read other statements by Brigham Young which indicate to me that he understood well the role of Adam in the scheme of things; namely, that he's Michael, not Elohim. That Jesus is his senior. Then I look at what others amongst the brethren were saying and balance it with the scriptures.

If Brigham Young were alive today, I'm sure that many would be anxious to hear his views. Some of the early brethren in the Christian church were divided on issues such as circumcision. Doesn't sound like much to get excited about now, but at the time it was a red hot issue. When you're going to go preaching to the Gentiles, I imagine that it could be a deal breaker in someone joining the church and being baptized. Eventually revelation works things out.

So I look at what's taught today. What is it that made it through the tumultuous times of the early LDS church and I'm quite satisfied by it. That's not to say that I don't think there are things to be revealed that are going to amaze us and go against everything we believe now. That's part of the history of religion. Someone said that the progression of religion is a progression of our knowledge of God. A Jew in the days of Isaiah would look at the Gospel of Christ and it would be like something from another planet. He just couldn't get his mind around the "triune" nature of God.

I've pointed this out before, but the New Testament makes a consistent distinction between "God" and "Jesus." They are not treated as the same in the gospels or even many of the epistles. I'm convinced this was for the benefit of the Jews. The Christians had to tread very carefully around making God the same as Jesus. Read the book of Acts, and Stephen says he saw "Jesus" on the right hand of, not the Father, but of "God." Show me one place where the two are equated as One. Yet it's in the Book of Mormon. Quite clearly.

So that's how I see the views of the early prophets. At the same time, I think there are many saints that still could not handle every bit of truth out there. We have to be fed in incremental amounts.

[Mudcat]

En block, yes, within their appointed time. But God says He reserves the right to speak to His children as he sees fit, not according to man's misunderstanding of what scripture says. Are you limiting what God can say and do?

No I don't think I am saying that at all, though I think I have every expectation to believe that there are things that he won't say and do, sin being one of those things.

Emphasis mine. In fact, I think my post is trying to address that very notion. Are LDS limiting what God can say and do? By exercising the ability to omit statements from leaders is this not essentially what is being done? As I understand it the authority that was believed entitled to the speaker was at least equitable if not greater than those who would omit or disregard such statements.

Does He have to fit your understanding?

By no means to I have to be able to completely understand God to worship him. In fact I think his complexity and higher mind is one of the attributes that entitles him to such worship.

Are you suggesting that this is just an issue that can't be understood?

I suggest that according to the arguments EVs use, God has to move according to man's thinking.

I have never said that. Nor have I used it. I don't know if other EV's have or not but I reject the statement as asinine.

Was there a particular reference that made you think of this statement?

[JLFuller]

No I don't think I am saying that at all, though I think I have every expectation to believe that there are things that he won't say and do, sin being one of those things.

Emphasis mine. In fact, I think my post is trying to address that very notion. Are LDS limiting what God can say and do? By exercising the ability to omit statements from leaders is this not essentially what is being done? As I understand it the authority that was believed entitled to the speaker was at least equitable if not greater than those who would omit or disregard such statements.

By no means to I have to be able to completely understand God to worship him. In fact I think his complexity and higher mind is one of the attributes that entitles him to such worship.

Are you suggesting that this is just an issue that can't be understood?

I have never said that. Nor have I used it. I don't know if other EV's have or not but I reject the statement as asinine.

Was there a particular reference that made you think of this statement?

Let me take the last first. The notion that everything God wants us to know He put in the bible seems to fit my statement. The problem with that is the wide variety of different ideas about what the bible says. I hope you aren't going to ask me to go dig some long lost quote that some EV made about the bible's completeness and inerrancy. I think most people will agree that is a fundamental EV notion. Would I be wrong in suggesting that is a fundamental belief of all EVs?

"...his complexity and higher mind...". What is that? Sorry MC but that depersonalizes God. It makes Him sound like a piece of artwork. Would you say that when describing your own dad?

Lastly, my first comment about God reserving the right to speak to all his children as he sees fit - you either agree or disagree and no argument one way or the other will change that.

[Mudcat]

The measure I use is to take everything they said and try to determine what they meant. I've read all the Adam-god stuff and it sounds strange and out of place, but then I read other statements by Brigham Young which indicate to me that he understood well the role of Adam in the scheme of things; namely, that he's Michael, not Elohim. That Jesus is his senior. Then I look at what others amongst the brethren were saying and balance it with the scriptures.

If Brigham Young were alive today, I'm sure that many would be anxious to hear his views. Some of the early brethren in the Christian church were divided on issues such as circumcision. Doesn't sound like much to get excited about now, but at the time it was a red hot issue. When you're going to go preaching to the Gentiles, I imagine that it could be a deal breaker in someone joining the church and being baptized. Eventually revelation works things out.

So I look at what's taught today. What is it that made it through the tumultuous times of the early LDS church and I'm quite satisfied by it. That's not to say that I don't think there are things to be revealed that are going to amaze us and go against everything we believe now. That's part of the history of religion. Someone said that the progression of religion is a progression of our knowledge of God. A Jew in the days of Isaiah would look at the Gospel of Christ and it would be like something from another planet. He just couldn't get his mind around the "triune" nature of God.

Apparently this is something LDS struggle with as well.

I've pointed this out before, but the New Testament makes a consistent distinction between "God" and "Jesus." They are not treated as the same in the gospels or even many of the epistles. I'm convinced this was for the benefit of the Jews. The Christians had to tread very carefully around making God the same as Jesus. Read the book of Acts, and Stephen says he saw "Jesus" on the right hand of, not the Father, but of "God." Show me one place where the two are equated as One. Yet it's in the Book of Mormon. Quite clearly.

1st chapter of John comes to mind.

So that's how I see the views of the early prophets. At the same time, I think there are many saints that still could not handle every bit of truth out there. We have to be fed in incremental amounts.

See, that is thing CS. There is something about any LDS authority that has spoken prior to the current that makes their words prone to interpretation. It seems the current, doesn't suffer the stigma of having to have his own words splayed into alternative meanings. Is it because his human heart is still beating that he goes without question, even though those that have passed on before seemed to be questioned?