By what autority?

[Mudcat]

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.

That is bunk JL, your statement was, "I suggest that according to the arguments EVs use, God has to move according to man's thinking."

You tell me that you say EV's say that God has to bend to mans thinking, and belligerently decline sourcing it. Then you say this line of thinking is supported by Sola Scriptura... How does that make sense?

If you want to go on making the same assertion, that is fine with me. Give me some source for such a generalization and we can discuss it. If you would rather make blindsided commentaries based without any attempt to, " go dig some long lost quote that some EV made about the bible's completeness and inerrancy." Then that is also fine with me. It is your character your staking on assertions, not mine.

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?

The problem is that instead of addressing the discussion, you are taking two unrelated concepts a drawing parallels between them.

"...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?

My dad lives in my hometown and his mind is no more complex than the next fellows.

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.

Well......

At least we are on topic now. Thanks for that, though it does nothing to address the topic. There is no distinction.

For those that believe in a God, or any god for that matter, I suppose the same observation would be made.

[Honorentheos]

Hey Mudcat,

This is an interesting thread, especially since I came to it after briefly reading the first page or so of the Bill Maher movie thread and was thinking something similar.

You mentioned in a post somewhere back that you felt like the core topic of this thread suggests that something is being lost in the conflict between authority and the ability of later people to apply modern reason to past statements and reject them based on this more advanced knowledge rather than retaining faith as the mode of understanding the message (I read through the entire thread and haven't gone back to find it and am paraphrasing as it suits me).

And I think that is what it gets at for me - at it's core we are saying that divine truth can not be conveyed, understood, and simply stand on its own merits because it HAS to pass through human hands to be passed along.

Take BCSpace's process as an example of the problem instead of the solution - First, the prophet and the 12 have to take anything that they receive as revelation and run it through committee before it can be passed on to the body of the saints. And even still, this is no guarantee that future members of the church will not reject this information because better understanding, gained through human means, will show the flaws in the human elements that come from using this method of communicating the mind, will, and heart of God to man.

Second, all past prophecies can and have been subject to the same issues the secular knowledge has been subject to, that is - better knowledge changes what we perceive as truth. Think flood, origin of man, the nature of the various human races and prejudice, or any number of topics. Something as basic as where the BoM took place is subject to change, it has in the past and probably will again as soon as someone definitively shows that it could not have taken place in Mesoamerica.

So what do you lose in the process?

Maybe...God?

[Mudcat]

Hey Mudcat,

This is an interesting thread, especially since I came to it after briefly reading the first page or so of the Bill Maher movie thread and was thinking something similar.

You mentioned in a post somewhere back that you felt like the core topic of this thread suggests that something is being lost in the conflict between authority and the ability of later people to apply modern reason to past statements and reject them based on this more advanced knowledge rather than retaining faith as the mode of understanding the message (I read through the entire thread and haven't gone back to find it and am paraphrasing as it suits me).

And I think that is what it gets at for me - at it's core we are saying that divine truth can not be conveyed, understood, and simply stand on its own merits because it HAS to pass through human hands to be passed along.

Hi Honorentheos,

Thanks for your unique perspective and insights. The conflict between authority and ability is thing I can't seem to grasp. Especially in the sense of the words of these LDS authorities. Unlike the Bible, we aren't dealing with a text that has seen multiple translations over time. What is essentially presented is a simple transcription in our own language.

I think someone could debate the meaning of what has been said, but I don't know how any honest criticism could approach a concept that it hasn't been said. There seems to be no authority capable of addressing it. It would seem one would have to usurp authority from the past to address it in the present. But if the authority at present is no more potent than the past. There doesn't seem to be any way to do so without undermining something foundational.

Yet it has been done. Has faith been undermined in such a process?

Take BCSpace's process as an example of the problem instead of the solution - First, the prophet and the 12 have to take anything that they receive as revelation and run it through committee before it can be passed on to the body of the saints. And even still, this is no guarantee that future members of the church will not reject this information because better understanding, gained through human means, will show the flaws in the human elements that come from using this method of communicating the mind, will, and heart of God to man.

Emphasis mine, I think that a valid point. At least in my mind it is. What is being said now, seems to be the prevalent truth over what has been said.

LDS doctrine is relatively consistent, there are conflicts from past to present and the present holds the whip hand over the past. If this is normative, then what may be said in the future would likely have the same authority. Which, I can only perceive as the authority of immediacy.

The thing I fail to grasp is who is holding the whip? and how did they get?

Second, all past prophecies can and have been subject to the same issues the secular knowledge has been subject to, that is - better knowledge changes what we perceive as truth. Think flood, origin of man, the nature of the various human races and prejudice, or any number of topics. Something as basic as where the BoM took place is subject to change, it has in the past and probably will again as soon as someone definitively shows that it could not have taken place in Mesoamerica.

I think there is merit to this.

So what do you lose in the process?

Maybe...God?

I am not sure.

At least in regards to the topic, I would think past authority is sacrificed for the sake of immediate value and rationale. The problem I think it poses is that whatever present authority that LDS claim is dependent upon past authority. Doesn't diminishing the past, diminish the present in such a case?

[CMZ]

By the simple fact of official publication by the Church. If not so published, it's not doctrine. Never has been. The first presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are equal in authority and therefore, all must agree.

But something can be true without it being stated. Likewise, if an idea is not "published" that doesn't make it false.

Everyone has their own idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes doctrine. The final determinant is whether or not it was spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[JLFuller]

MC

"I suggest that according to the arguments EVs use, God has to move according to man's thinking.", "if it doesn't fit into EV thinking is isn't Godly or what God wants" and "EV made about the bible's completeness and inerrancy." That is an EV staple! You can personally disavow it but I think you have to turn in your magic decoder ring if you do.

In the sense that I can't tell you how many times I have heard and read that "if it isn't in the bible it doesn't count" or something close to it. If that is not exactly what I said then one of us needs glasses.

" Then that is also fine with me. It is your character your staking on assertions, not mine." Who bit you on the whatchamacallit?

[cinepro]

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 heard the sound of a giant can of worms opening, and got here as soon as I could.

LDS have two different kinds of "Official Doctrine".

We have the "Official Doctrine" which we believe is defined in some objective way (scriptures, published prophetic statements etc.). Then we have the "Operational Official Doctrine", where over time each member develops their own methodology to determine what they think is "Official Doctrine".

Usually, Operational Official Doctrine is developed and influenced by the following factors:

1. A person's interpretation of the scriptures.

2. How recently something was taught in Church (be it on the local, regional, or world-wide level)

3. How recently it was published in a Church manual or magazine, and the wording used (and authority of the author).

4. How much someone does or doesn't want to believe something

5. Hobby doctrines. (Some people just really like certain teachings and principles, and end up overestimating their importance).

6. Personal experience (upbringing, opinions of friends and relatives in the Church).

Once someone has developed their own theory of Operational Official Doctrine (OOD), past statements from Church leaders (especially dead Church leaders) are typically judged against it. Statements from current Church leaders that don't directly contradict a personal Official Doctrine are also easily accepted, and modern leaders rarely venture into areas that might contradict most members' OOD.

That is why, ultimately, there can be no truly objective standard for determining "Official Doctrine" or "Mormon Belief". Even the factors that we would use to support the truly "core" LDS beliefs (divinity of Christ, Fall and Atonement) can be equally applied to any number of dubious and debatable beliefs for which there is no universal agreement.

So how does this answer your question? It simply means that for the most part, LDS believe our leaders are speaking with inspiration if we agree with them, and expressing their personal opinions if we don't agree with them. It you study the subject, I challenge you to find any other standard by which the distinction is consistently made.

[Mudcat]

MC

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

That is an EV staple! You can personally disavow it but I think you have to turn in your magic decoder ring if you do.

In the sense that I can't tell you how many times I have heard and read that "if it isn't in the bible it doesn't count" or something close to it. If that is not exactly what I said then one of us needs glasses.

" Then that is also fine with me. It is your character your staking on assertions, not mine." Who bit you on the whatchamacallit?

The blind assertion monster. Apparently he has stopped using his teeth and has grabbed a Stapler to assault me with.

[Mudcat]

Cinepro!!!!!

Good to see you and thanks for a candid response. I am headed out and won't be able to respond till later.

It's good to see around. Hope you are doing well.

[ttribe]

I heard the sound of a giant can of worms opening, and got here as soon as I could.

LDS have two different kinds of "Official Doctrine".

We have the "Official Doctrine" which we believe is defined in some objective way (scriptures, published prophetic statements etc.). Then we have the "Operational Official Doctrine", where over time each member develops their own methodology to determine what they think is "Official Doctrine".

Usually, Operational Official Doctrine is developed and influenced by the following factors:

1. A person's interpretation of the scriptures.

2. How recently something was taught in Church (be it on the local, regional, or world-wide level)

3. How recently it was published in a Church manual or magazine, and the wording used (and authority of the author).

4. How much someone does or doesn't want to believe something

5. Hobby doctrines. (Some people just really like certain teachings and principles, and end up overestimating their importance).

6. Personal experience (upbringing, opinions of friends and relatives in the Church).

Once someone has developed their own theory of Operational Official Doctrine (OOD), past statements from Church leaders (especially dead Church leaders) are typically judged against it. Statements from current Church leaders that don't directly contradict a personal Official Doctrine are also easily accepted, and modern leaders rarely venture into areas that might contradict most members' OOD.

That is why, ultimately, there can be no truly objective standard for determining "Official Doctrine" or "Mormon Belief". Even the factors that we would use to support the truly "core" LDS beliefs (divinity of Christ, Fall and Atonement) can be equally applied to any number of dubious and debatable beliefs for which there is no universal agreement.

So how does this answer your question? It simply means that for the most part, LDS believe our leaders are speaking with inspiration if we agree with them, and expressing their personal opinions if we don't agree with them. It you study the subject, I challenge you to find any other standard by which the distinction is consistently made.

Let me be the first to point out that cinepro does not speak for all of us LDS with this assessment of "Official Doctrine".

[Mudcat]

Let me be the first to point out that cinepro does not speak for all of us LDS with this assessment of "Official Doctrine".

I suppose that means those rumors about him being an anonymous GA aren't true then.

[ttribe]

I suppose that means those rumors about him being an anonymous GA aren't true then.

No more so than he is actually Yoda.

[cinepro]

Let me be the first to point out that cinepro does not speak for all of us LDS with this assessment of "Official Doctrine".

But you use that methodology nevertheless.

John Larsen also had a good overview of practical Official Doctrine back in this thread:

As best as I can tell, if you wish to remain a member in good standing this is the doctrinal criteria:

* You are bound to believe the things required by the temple recommend questions (if you want to go to the temple).

* You cannot publicly disagree with any doctrine promoted by a current apostle.

* New doctrines do not have to be reconcilable to old doctrines.

* Old doctrines taught by apostles that have not be renounced or contradicted by later apostles may well have expired without further action.

* There is an "unwritten order of things" both doctrinal and procedural that you may be held to.

* The current brethren may be "speaking as men" but you can take no action on this fact. This only applies to dead apostles.

* The scriptures are not necessarily a doctrinal bind since non scriptural commentary on the scriptures by later brethren my change or obsolete the scripture.

To explore the subject, you could ask different LDS the following questions, and see what kind of answers you get:

1. When President Hinckley counseled against earrings for men, and multiple pairs of earrings for women, was he speaking as a man, or a prophet? (For whichever you answer, how would his statement have been different if it were the opposite?)*

2. If different LDS pray to know the truth of a "Doctrine" and they feel they receive different answers, is it an "Official Doctrine"?

3. Should the "age" of the counsel be considered when judging the veracity of a Doctrinal statement? Do doctrinal statements go stale or expire if they are not reiterated in a certain amount of time?

4. Do Apostles always know when they are "acting as prophets", or is it possible for a GA to think he is speaking "as a prophet" when he is in fact speaking "as a man"?

*Here is the actual quote from the Priesthood Session of the October 2000 Conference:

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also "the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes." We do not, however, take any position "on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings"--one pair.

[Honorentheos]

Thanks for your unique perspective and insights. The conflict between authority and ability is thing I can't seem to grasp. Especially in the sense of the words of these LDS authorities. Unlike the Bible, we aren't dealing with a text that has seen multiple translations over time. What is essentially presented is a simple transcription in our own language.

I think someone could debate the meaning of what has been said, but I don't know how any honest criticism could approach a concept that it hasn't been said. There seems to be no authority capable of addressing it. It would seem one would have to usurp authority from the past to address it in the present. But if the authority at present is no more potent than the past. There doesn't seem to be any way to do so without undermining something foundational.

Hey, Mudcat. The pleasure is mine in seeing an interesting thread in what has seemed to be a drought of them recently.

To me, the issue is in considering what is really trying to be preserved here. IMO, the truth is the real, absolutely necessary goal is to maintain authority at all costs. If a person in authority makes a statement that is later shown to not be true one can either show that the person was acting within his authorized bounds, but the bounds have changed or that the person has stepped outside of the boundaries where they were given authority to speak or act. Or, in some cases, to show that the problem has nothing to do with the vehicle or its authority to act/speak but is one of misrepresenting the person with authority as in the case demonstrated in this thread regarding Adam-God.

But in the end, the result has to be that a direct route to authorized action and prophecy in the name of God is preserved.

Yet it has been done. Has faith been undermined in such a process?

It's interesting to think that, in the immediate sense faith is very important and especially so when it comes to having faith in the authority and calling of the people in question. While no one may be willing to say that the Journal of Discourses represents pure knowledge from God, most LDS will see the men who made these statements and priesthood held by these men as being something more than just humans speaking their opinions. Is faith undermined? Only in how applicable past statements are to present saints. But not in the priesthood.

And that is an interesting problem. When I first read your thread, I had a weird impression that is a kind of medical analogy that came to mind. Thinking of the church as a form of medicine that has roots in a past practise that conflicts with modern medicine, your question seems to ask modern believers in this modernized form of medical practise something akin to this - "If past "healing" was shown to be due to placebo effect, how do you know that modern healing is not due to placebo effect? How do you know there is real medicine involved?" To the faithful, the answer is, "The healing is real...that is what is important."

In the end, I think almost all of us require spiritual healing in some form and at different times in our lives.

As a Christian, I assume you see Christ as the perfect healer. To the LDS view, the church and it's authority provides access to this healing that, to the believer, is probably essential. I think that Scottie pointed in a direction that most of us agnostic/atheists tend to end up with this. That being, how does anyone really know that they are not the only physician doing the healing? Or that the effects perceived as being healing are really not the results of more "real-world" causes that are not directly tied to the literalness of the divine object of worship? To the believer, I think the answer is always, "All I know is that the healing is real." Everything else beyond this is really just commentary.

I try to respect that as I deal with people on boards like these. Usually I only get up tight about areas where people take this perception of authority and use it to impose their brand of medicine on others (i.e. - SSM, intellectual narrow-mindedness creeping into the realm of science, etc.)

Anyway, it's a good question you asked. Good questions shouldn't have easy answers. The challenge is in applying the Socratic view of examining the question from all angles, including from how it applies to one's self.

[Honorentheos]

I would like to add in an unrelated note that I see Ttribes sig line as being very weak. Where is anijen to enforce his rights as march madness royalty and exact his due?

Fraud investigator - heal thyself!

[ttribe]

I would like to add in an unrelated note that I see Ttribes sig line as being very weak. Where is anijen to enforce his rights as march madness royalty and exact his due?Fraud investigator - heal thyself!

I'm just including what I was told to...are you suggesting that it needs to be altered somehow? And, hey, you get no say in the matter given you didn't even participate in the "wager"!

But you use that methodology nevertheless.

I do? When did I do such a thing?

[Honorentheos]

You're right. I missed the opportunity because someone hid the invite in the social hall where I did not see it until it was too late.

But...come on man. Weak sauce in adding a disclaimer.

[ttribe]

You're right. I missed the opportunity because someone hid the invite in the social hall where I did not see it until it was too late.

But...come on man. Weak sauce in adding a disclaimer.

Ahh, I see. Well, until Anijen objects, its stays as is...and the statue of limitations has almost run out...I think next Monday is the end of my "punishment".

[Honorentheos]

To be fair, this was not my year in March Madness so it was probably for the best I missed it. But in the interest of seeing gentleman's bets honored, you should ask yourself...what would mudcat do?

[ttribe]

To be fair, this was not my year in March Madness so it was probably for the best I missed it. But in the interest of seeing gentleman's bets honored, you should ask yourself...what would mudcat do?

You're right...I shall repent...and I can never let myself be outdone by Mudcat.

[Honorentheos]

Ah, ttribe, despite those PAC10 leaning I knew you were a good guy at heart.

[Mudcat]

OK, I am back and can give a more thorough response.

I heard the sound of a giant can of worms opening, and got here as soon as I could.

LDS have two different kinds of "Official Doctrine".

We have the "Official Doctrine" which we believe is defined in some objective way (scriptures, published prophetic statements etc.). Then we have the "Operational Official Doctrine", where over time each member develops their own methodology to determine what they think is "Official Doctrine".

Usually, Operational Official Doctrine is developed and influenced by the following factors:

1. A person's interpretation of the scriptures.

2. How recently something was taught in Church (be it on the local, regional, or world-wide level)

3. How recently it was published in a Church manual or magazine, and the wording used (and authority of the author).

4. How much someone does or doesn't want to believe something

5. Hobby doctrines. (Some people just really like certain teachings and principles, and end up overestimating their importance).

6. Personal experience (upbringing, opinions of friends and relatives in the Church).

I can't agree or disagree directly with anything you have said. I am not LDS nor have I been. But given differing beliefs among LDS on the topic of "Grace" for instance. I can see exactly what you mean.

The problem is what might be percieved a departure from the norm. Who can actually define what is "normative"?

As you seem to indicate in another post you made, what is normative is as self perception based as anything else.

I suppose the only guide to what the normative belief is, is what the nominal belief is. By that I mean, what are the minimal beliefs you must maintain to be LDS. IOW, the base requirement = LDS doctrine. What are the basic guidelines that must be followed to be LDS? Is there anything that isn't really open to interpretation? I would start a thread on it, but I think the resultant answers would be to conflicting to establish a baseline.

Regardless, you seem to be declaring LDS are individualistic in belief, though there are some interpretationaly indefinite boundaries that they define their beliefs within. I don't quite know what to make of that.

Once someone has developed their own theory of Operational Official Doctrine (OOD), past statements from Church leaders (especially dead Church leaders) are typically judged against it. Statements from current Church leaders that don't directly contradict a personal Official Doctrine are also easily accepted, and modern leaders rarely venture into areas that might contradict most members' OOD.

That is notable. There seems to have been a transition from potentially abrasive points of thought, to a perspective of maintenance.

That is why, ultimately, there can be no truly objective standard for determining "Official Doctrine" or "Mormon Belief". Even the factors that we would use to support the truly "core" LDS beliefs (divinity of Christ, Fall and Atonement) can be equally applied to any number of dubious and debatable beliefs for which there is no universal agreement.

We are on the same page here.

So how does this answer your question? It simply means that for the most part, LDS believe our leaders are speaking with inspiration if we agree with them, and expressing their personal opinions if we don't agree with them. It you study the subject, I challenge you to find any other standard by which the distinction is consistently made.

I think the lack of consistency that I have observed so far finds a great deal of consistency with what you have stated.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am sure there are those who will take issue with your statements but from my own observations I find myself embracing a good bit of what you have said as a tacit understanding.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Anijen]

You guys were great sports and I was surprised I won, luck, luck, luck... Till next year, see if I can repeat

[Mudcat]

You guys were great sports and I was surprised I won, luck, luck, luck... Till next year, see if I can repeat

Though my 2 weeks of sig line penance to King Anijen are done.... I should say.

Luck is irrelevant King Anijen, you won the day. You are the best. You are the King.

.....

Now that I have dispensed with formalities. I must confess, next March, I plan to crush you... crush, crush, crush... just like one of those red soldier Nutcrackers crushes nuts.

The throne will be mine!!!.. (laughs maniacally)... if its the last thing I ever do. It will be mine.

[Mudcat]

To me, the issue is in considering what is really trying to be preserved here. IMO, the truth is the real, absolutely necessary goal is to maintain authority at all costs. If a person in authority makes a statement that is later shown to not be true one can either show that the person was acting within his authorized bounds, but the bounds have changed or that the person has stepped outside of the boundaries where they were given authority to speak or act. Or, in some cases, to show that the problem has nothing to do with the vehicle or its authority to act/speak but is one of misrepresenting the person with authority as in the case demonstrated in this thread regarding Adam-God.

But in the end, the result has to be that a direct route to authorized action and prophecy in the name of God is preserved.

Underline mine. As I view it, its an intractable situation. As you bolded, the preservation of authority seems pinnacle. The only avenue, given your posited alternatives, is to promote that actions were within the authorized bounds. Any other alternative implies greater power or diminshing for any power.

It's interesting to think that, in the immediate sense faith is very important and especially so when it comes to having faith in the authority and calling of the people in question. While no one may be willing to say that the Journal of Discourses represents pure knowledge from God, most LDS will see the men who made these statements and priesthood held by these men as being something more than just humans speaking their opinions. Is faith undermined? Only in how applicable past statements are to present saints. But not in the priesthood.

Could you expand (bold mine) on that a bit more? Why is "the priesthood" the sanctum?

[jadams_4242]

Underline mine. As I view it, its an intractable situation. As you bolded, the preservation of authority seems pinnacle. The only avenue, given your posited alternatives, is to promote that actions were within the authorized bounds. Any other alternative implies greater power or diminshing for any power.

Could you expand (bold mine) on that a bit more? Why is "the priesthood" the sanctum?

Mudcat,, this thread is a very good one and is commanding a lot of response, and very intersting and thought provocking ideas on the subject matter. but i just simply canott deny myself to ask once again, how do l.d.s latter day restoration prophets differ from ancient biblical prophets in the underling basis of this threads initial queastion?

Let me give you just one example i;E...

{quote}

Even when moral or temporal conditions are not articulated, they may be implied by the speaker or inferred by the hearers. A notable case is the flat prediction by Micah (Micah 3:12) that Jerusalem will be destroyed. A century later, Jeremiah quotes the passage not to show that the prophecy was unfulfilled (Jerusalem had not been destroyed and was still standing), or much less to indict Micah as a false prophet, but rather to argue that as a result of the prophecy, the king (Hezekiah) and the people repented, and hence Yahweh (Jehovah) forgave them and spared the city (Jer. 26:16-19). It was the prophet's message that produced the result, and therefore both he and his message were vindicated as coming from God.

Anyway this type of stuff happened many, many times in the bible, why doesnt anybody take these things into consideration when all the time trying to accuse the l.d.s prophet of not being perfect?

I think its nice and fun to have a discussion with lots of people involved and differant ideas, as each contributer gives there own opinions and apologetic ideas, but the bottom line this new idea that prophets are not perfect in modern days, is not a new idea in itself. We all need to look into the mirror and the past; the biblical past. Nothimg has changed in 10, 000 years, as far as human understanding is concerned, we al have ideas and personal interpritations of divine issues, so if you pr anyone else challenges l.d.s doctrine and trueness of l.d.s authotity. then that same person needs to challenge God himself and all biblical history of prophets, cause aint nuttin changed.