Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I want to discuss #14

14-The prophet and the presidency - the living prophet and the First Presidency - follow them and be blessed - reject them and suffer.

Reject in what terms?

Suffer in what terms?

I have rejected the innovative LDS teachings promulgated by LDS Church leaders, while repsecting their teachings on morality, faith, repentance, etc... what suffering should I be having? what blessings am I being denied?

[mercyngrace]

I would disagree in the sense that the Word of Wisdom has not diminished, if anything it has been strengthened under the same rule. Living prophets for example did not have to contend with "Joseph Smtih allowed this or that..." regarding the Word of Wisdom. They provided the context the Lord wanted them to in that generation. The break away fundamentalists for example, have ignored modern prophets because they believe the ones that have passed away set a permanent template versus a temporary or temporal one.

The WOW wasn't diminished - the words of Joseph Smith were in that they were completely altered by Brigham Young.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. How do we know that a future prophet won't describe doctrinal expositions by President Monson in the following words, "I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong"?

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Number 14 of ETB Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

[zelder]

zelder:

I don't know if you are being serious or not?

I'm 100% serious. When I first heard that the moon landings were faked I blew it off for years untill my curisoity finally drew me it. I've never seen a good explanation of why the moon landings were faked but I've been convinced that they were indeed faked. The last 100 years has been the greatest era of propaganda and fraud the world has ever known. We have seen the greatest scientific advancements but also the greatest lies. I'm optimistic about the future and believe the scientific advancments we have are but a foreshadowing of what is to come when we finally overcome the fraud and the lies and the cartels and cabals that are monopolizing the system.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

Number 14 of ETB Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

I think that this is the biggest strawman ever!

Wow, this is actually so silly I think that I might shed a tear or two for the braincells I just lost.

When you can produce anything legitimate answer of how President Benson has and President Monson is causing you to suffer, I am here to consider your argument and voice my opinion on the matter.

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

Que the Twilight Zone music.

Fortunately you can see the moon lands sites from earth.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html

[Kenngo1969]

Jeff K.:

Number 5 is problematic for me.

Say you have a heart valve problem. Is the first thing you do is grab a sharp knife and tell Thomas S. Monson to operate on you. I wouldn't.

Nor would that be the first thing I'd do. If you can point to a specific instance in which President Monson has dispensed a prophetic edict about how to deal with a heart problem (at least, without having talked to Elder Nelson first! ) I'll worry; until then ...

Say there is something wrong with your cars engine. Is the first thing you do is take your car to Thomas S. Monson for him to repair. I don't.

Nor would that be the first thing I would do (a "heart mechanic" is counted among the Twelve; I wonder if there are any expert auto mechanics who work have worked on cars in the Twelve, if not as a vocation, at least as an avocation? ) Again, if you can point to a specific instance in which President Monson has dispensed a prophetic edict about how to deal with an automobile problem, I'll worry; until then ...

But all of that having been said, either one believes that one, especially a prophet, conceivably could "know the truth of all things" by the power of the Holy Ghost (See Moroni 10:5), or one does not. The counter-balance to that is, I know some overzealous people in the Church who have prayed about what to eat or what to wear in the morning, and who claim to have received answers to those prayers; I'm sure most of us who have been in the Church for any length of time probably do know such people: "It is not meet that I should command thee in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant."

As long as there's a doctor in the hospital down the street who can treat any heart problem I might have whose services are readily accessible when the circumstances are not emergent, President Monson's services in that regard are unnecessary. The same is true of the mechanic scenario. On the other hand, is a set of circumstances conceivable (however unlikely) in which President Monson might be called upon to help me with a heart problem or with car trouble? Sure; such circumstances probably won't involve him picking up a scalpel or a wrench: more likely, they'll involve him putting his hands on my head or praying about my car.

As Moses said, "Would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." I probably "see through a glass, darkly" much more often than President Monson, and he has bigger things to worry about that my car or even, perhaps, than my heart. Is that because God, or President Monson, doesn't care about me? No; it's because, however imperfectly such a conduit might function, I have my own conduit to Heaven's help, either on my own or with the help of others who are closer to me than is President Monson.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

Thankfully President Monson has the good sense to ask Elder Nelson. But as it has been a whiles since Elder Nelson picked up that sharp knife I expect President Monson to get someone highly skilled and is current in his vocation.

But that doesn't negative Elder Benson's claims particularly number 5-The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act in any matter in any time.

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

Thankfully President Monson has the good sense to ask Elder Nelson. But as it has been a whiles since Elder Nelson picked up that sharp knife I expect President Monson to get someone highly skilled and is current in his vocation.

But that doesn't negative Elder Benson's claims particularly number 5-The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act in any matter in any time.

And, as much as I hate to beat a dead horse (perhaps you paid them as much attention as you feel they were due), I refer you to the final three paragraphs of my previous post.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

I've never claimed that anything in my posts were anything other than my opinions. I do try to buttress my opinions with the opinions and idea's of others. But it is still just my opinion.

It is ETB claim that if I don't follow the prophet in ETB's number 5 of 14 fundamentals that I will suffer(number 14). Take it up with him about what it is he claimed.

[Jeff K.]

LDS Guy 1986:

I personally don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal, and mortals like us have been making claims about the earth/universe for a long time now. Some have been shown to be correct, a great many have been shown to be incorrect or at least unsubstantiated.

I have no problem with God or science. I do have a great many problems with mortals, like ourselves, making claims about the physical world that are incorrect. I have a huge problem with claims that God told some Prophet/Pope/Minister that "X" is fact and that gives them the right to make me suffer.

I agree that mortals often make claims about the physical world that is incorrect, we still do it, even with science credentials and so on. The question is really whether or not a prophet is making a claim about the physical world under the auspices of speaking for God versus rendering an opinion. I think the 14 Fundamental points allow for a difference of opinion in regard to any number of things, but that the underlying position for all forteen is when a prophet speaks directly for God. Then it matters not if he speaks of the physical or the spiritual, it is still from God.

[Jeff K.]

The WOW wasn't diminished - the words of Joseph Smith were in that they were completely altered by Brigham Young.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. How do we know that a future prophet won't describe doctrinal expositions by President Monson in the following words, "I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong"?

Should there be an issue with the doctrinal expositions? IE Polygamy for example? Can't you have an acceptance that polygamy can be removed, even when (at the time) prophets thought it would not be?

[daz2]

The address directs Mormons to follow the prophet without question, even if it were possible that the prophet could be wrong.

President Monson included the following in his talk:

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

[Jeff K.]

The address directs Mormons to follow the prophet without question, even if it were possible that the prophet could be wrong

No, it doesn't.

[Jeff K.]

The address directs Mormons to follow the prophet without question, even if it were possible that the prophet could be wrong.

President Monson included the following in his talk:

The never lead the Church astray is from a footnote to the D&C, and was never voted on (unlike other doctrinal additions, like the most recent addition of two sections). The footnote continues: "If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." Many members take that to mean that God would remove a prophet by allowing him to pass away, rather than lead the Church astray. They forget that the Doctrine & Covenants provides a way for the president of the high priesthood (i.e., the Prophet) to be tried for his membership.

Finally, the tenth point was changed in the most recent general conference from "The prophet may well advise on civic matters", in the original, to "The prophet may be involved in civic matters." (Take a look at both talks that quote the fourteen fundamentals)

It is a footnote, but it was put there for a reason. I would suggest the footnote is doctrine given other evidence. But I also concede it has never been voted on directly to my knowledge. However other evidence was placed in by the propeht....

President Harold B. Lee relates this incident from Church history:

[consiglieri]

Should there be an issue with the doctrinal expositions?

Has anybody ever wondered why prophets of God should be under the necessity of advancing "doctrinal expositions" rather than revelation?

Just wondering . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Hopefully you are correct and I'm reading more into it than is actually there. But I really don't like being threatened. Idle or not.

I accept Brigham Young as having been a Prophet, along with Ezra Taft Benson,and all the others. But I didn't much like Brother Brigham authoritarian style, and disagreed intensely with Ezra Taft Benson politically and his 14 fundamentals sticks me as advocating a infallibility that I'm not willing to grant to any mortal(scientist or not ).

[mercyngrace]

Should there be an issue with the doctrinal expositions? IE Polygamy for example? Can't you have an acceptance that polygamy can be removed, even when (at the time) prophets thought it would not be?

Of course you can. You're still missing the point.

The point isn't whether current revelation trumps past revelation.

The point is whether future revelation will trump what you presently practice and believe.

It isn't about whether you can accept that polygamy can be done away. It's about whether you can accept that one day same-sex unions could be solemnized in the temple. It isn't whether the WOW is given as a principle or by command and constraint, but whether one day, the WOW will forbid meat.

If what was revealed or spoken by past prophets can be rewritten, then what is revealed and spoken by present prophets can be rewritten. So why put stock in current teachings that may one day be superceded?

[LeSellers]

Has anybody ever wondered why prophets of God should be under the necessity of advancing "doctrinal expositions" rather than revelation?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Mostly it's because we Saints refuse to become a nation of prophets.

Lehi

[Whiskeypete]

We were discussing this in FHE the other night. The question was asked, Why would a living prophet ever contradict a dead prophet?

The example I gave was this:

Imagaine you have a very good stock broker. When ABC company is trading at $10 per share, he advises you to buy. When the company is trading at $50.00 per share, he advises you to sell. The second set of instructions are in direct contradiction to the first set of instructions (sell vs. buy)

Does that mean that he contradicted himself? Was he wrong when he told you to buy since he was just going to to turn around and tell you to sell later?

In this case, the underlying principle never changed (buy low, sell high) but the circumstances (the price of the stock) changed.

The specific instructions from our Prophets will change, depending on the time/circumstances, but the underlying principles don't change.

Take Polygamy for example, in the 1800's, the instructions from the Prophet to a specific group of men was that they were to take multiple wives. In our day, the instructions from the Prophet is that were are not to take multiple wives. The underlying principle is pretty clear in D&C 132, but since our circumstances have changed, the specific policy has changed.

[Whiskeypete]

Of course you can. You're still missing the point.

The point isn't whether current revelation trumps past revelation.

The point is whether future revelation will trump what you presently practice and believe.

It isn't about whether you can accept that polygamy can be done away. It's about whether you can accept that one day same-sex unions could be solemnized in the temple. It isn't whether the WOW is given as a principle or by command and constraint, but whether one day, the WOW will forbid meat.

If what was revealed or spoken by past prophets can be rewritten, then what is revealed and spoken by present prophets can be rewritten. So why put stock in current teachings that may one day be superceded?

The underlying principle behind the WOW is that our bodies are temples, and there are specific items that the Lord has specified in our day that we should avoid. What those specific items are may change from time to time. In 1830's, mild drinks made from barley were approved (and yes, this means Beer, not Postum). In our day, all alcoholic beverages are prohibited. If the prophet prohibits meat some day, then I stop eating meat. That doesn't mean that the earlier prophets who allowed meat were wrong, just that for some reason, the Lord would be concerned with the meat now.

I don't think Moses was wrong to prohibit pork and shellfish, and Peter wasn't wrong when he was instructed otherwise.

As far as same sex unions go, the underlying principle seems to be pretty clear in the Family Proclamation that from an eternal perspective, an eternal marriage must have both a Father and a Mother. Where I can see specific changes possible in the Word of Wisdom, I'm not sure how you could have a change in the definition of Wife or Mother to allow a same sex union in the temple.

[mercyngrace]

The underlying principle behind the WOW is that our bodies are temples, and there are specific items that the Lord has specified in our day that we should avoid. What those specific items are may change from time to time. In 1830's, mild drinks made from barley were approved (and yes, this means Beer, not Postum). In our day, all alcoholic beverages are prohibited. If the prophet prohibits meat some day, then I stop eating meat. That doesn't mean that the earlier prophets who allowed meat were wrong, just that for some reason, the Lord would be concerned with the meat now.

I don't think Moses was wrong to prohibit pork and shellfish, and Peter wasn't wrong when he was instructed otherwise.

As far as same sex unions go, the underlying principle seems to be pretty clear in the Family Proclamation that from an eternal perspective, an eternal marriage must have both a Father and a Mother. Where I can see specific changes possible in the Word of Wisdom, I'm not sure how you could have a change in the definition of Wife or Mother to allow a same sex union in the temple.

I don't disagree with you on anything here, WhiskeyPete. The question remains though ~ why bother putting stock in current teachings that may yet be superceded?

[Whiskeypete]

I don't disagree with you on anything here, WhiskeyPete. The question remains though ~ why bother putting stock in current teachings that may yet be superceded?

Because the current teachings will be beneficial for us now.

The future teachings will be beneficial for us then.

And the underlying principles WON'T be superceded, even if the specific application of them will.

To use a Old Testament/New Testament example, under the Mosaic Law, people were required to offer an external, physical sacrifice. With Christ, the Mosaic law was fullfilled. But that didn't mean that sacrfices were no longer required, just that what He now required was an internal sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Were the Jews wrong to "put stock in" the Mosaic law, even though it would be superceded with the coming of Christ?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Because the current teachings will be beneficial for us now.

The future teachings will be beneficial for us then.

Hit the nail right on the head here. I think most only use the "well it could change later" argument to try and justify ignoring the council of the living prophets, as we are told it is always easier for people to accept a dead prophet than a living prophet. At times I think that many people would reject even Peter and Paul if they lived today because people expect prophets to me more than mortal men, and no one can do that except Christ.

[Abaddon]

I believe President Benson's list may be as internally self-contradictory as the Nicene Creed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

8-The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

You need to think about it some more.