Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet

[Jeff K.]

So I find myself back at my original assessment. This doesn't seem internally consistent to me.

Not at all. Prophets in every age are fallible hence the conundrum.

So the present prophet is infallible? Is it only after he dies that he begins to have personal opinions?

So if someone disagrees with a prophet, maybe the best option is simply to wait him out.

Your opinion is erroneous on several levels.

To begin with you overlook the requirement of all members to presume revelation is available to them as confirmation of what is being presented as doctrine.

You also err in you position that there exists a conundrum when no such conundrum exists, especially among prophets. Prophets and revelation aren't the same thing.

1-Prophets receive revelation, but not everything a prophet states is revelation

2-Revelation is infallible, it comes from God who is not fallible, therefore when a prophet receives revelation from God, it is infallible.

3-Revelation of Doctrine for the church is placed in the "Doctrine" and Covenants. Hence the name.

There is clearly nothing in the 14 points that states a prophet is infallible in all of his comments.

There is clearly nothing in the 14 points that states every word from the prophets mouth is revelation.

There is however your interpretation that such exists, and I believe the church has been very clear that such is not the case, you as I have said, you err.

The issue (contrary to what LDS Guy supposes) isn't a matter of wanting to ignore the current prophet. On the contrary, my family and I live well within the standards of the church. What I find odd is that current prophets can dismiss previous prophets and apologists on this very board (myself included though I'd hardly claim to be much of an apologist given my limited knowledge) are quick to dismiss troublesome statements by previous church leaders with the "It was his opinion" claim but for some reason, the current leadership is exempt from the same standard.

Actually how you feel is irrelevant to what is. In other words prophets have often overridden prior prophets who have placed some revelations that had been in place. For instance polygamy was put in place by revelation given to the man who opened this dispensation. And yet do we hold to it? Do we still follow it? No, it was superceded by another revelation which removed from our temporal world. The same can be said of the United Order. Therefore to imply it is new, or hasn't happened in the past, or somehow should not happen in the future is erroneous and flies in the face of recent history.

Take for example the quote by Elder Holland that I posted earlier in the thread where he dismisses the attempts by earlier church leaders at explaining the priesthood ban. How do I know his dismissal isn't just an opinion? How do I know that Elder Holland is right instead of say, Joseph F. Smith who spoke of Cain fathering an inferior race? (I agree with Elder Holland, btw, but just for the sake of the argument...)

Elder Holland could die tomorrow and be contradicted by another prophet who supports both lifting the ban and President Smith's reasoning behind the ban.

For me a touchstone of revelation towards doctrine would be one in which it is placed in the Doctrine and Covenants. Such a clear revelation is voted upon by members who recieve comfirmation of such and then is placed in the Doctrine and Covenants. Both Joseph F Smith and Elder Holland's statements are not in the Doctrine and Covenants. To me both are equally open to review as opinions, even strongly held opinions. Neither has established doctrine. So your example simply doesn't work under those parameters.

Again, no where is infallibility implied, it is more likely your interpretation of revelation creates the conundrum you are presently finding yourself in.

[mercyngrace]

Your opinion is erroneous on several levels.

To begin with you overlook the requirement of all members to presume revelation is available to them as confirmation of what is being presented as doctrine.

You also err in you position that there exists a conundrum when no such conundrum exists, especially among prophets. Prophets and revelation aren't the same thing.

1-Prophets receive revelation, but not everything a prophet states is revelation

2-Revelation is infallible, it comes from God who is not fallible, therefore when a prophet receives revelation from God, it is infallible.

3-Revelation of Doctrine for the church is placed in the "Doctrine" and Covenants. Hence the name.

There is clearly nothing in the 14 points that states a prophet is infallible in all of his comments.

There is clearly nothing in the 14 points that states every word from the prophets mouth is revelation.

There is however your interpretation that such exists, and I believe the church has been very clear that such is not the case, you as I have said, you err.

Actually how you feel is irrelevant to what is. In other words prophets have often overridden prior prophets who have placed some revelations that had been in place. For instance polygamy was put in place by revelation given to the man who opened this dispensation. And yet do we hold to it? Do we still follow it? No, it was superceded by another revelation which removed from our temporal world. The same can be said of the United Order. Therefore to imply it is new, or hasn't happened in the past, or somehow should not happen in the future is erroneous and flies in the face of recent history.

For me a touchstone of revelation towards doctrine would be one in which it is placed in the Doctrine and Covenants. Such a clear revelation is voted upon by members who recieve comfirmation of such and then is placed in the Doctrine and Covenants. Both Joseph F Smith and Elder Holland's statements are not in the Doctrine and Covenants. To me both are equally open to review as opinions, even strongly held opinions. Neither has established doctrine. So your example simply doesn't work under those parameters.

Again, no where is infallibility implied, it is more likely your interpretation of revelation creates the conundrum you are presently finding yourself in.

Jeff,

What are you talking about? None of this has anything to do with fundamental number 3. You are going way outside the bounds of your own OP to respond defensively to a relatively minor issue. All this business about personal confirmation and using the standard works as the basis for judging doctrine is extraneous. But even taking all that into account, if a living prophet expresses an opinion that contradicts a doctrinal statement made by an earlier prophet, according to fundamental 3 the current opinion has higher priority. As you demonstrate, by dismissing both the Smith and Holland statements as opinions, this fundamental doesn't make sense.

MnG

PS An opinion can't be erroneous. You can disagree with it but it can't be wrong since by definition it's subjective.

[Jeff K.]

On the question of all opinions being right or non erroneous I would disagree....

An opinion can be wrong. Nor are all opinions the same. An opinion based on erroneous facts can indeed be wrong. An opinion based on correct facts is more likely to be correct. I do not see all opinions as being equally valid.

Nor am I defensive on the matter. I answered your question in the most complete way possible. I presented the difference between prophet and revelation. I presented the position that underlying all prophecy is the requirement of membership to also recieve confirmation that revelation was indeed given. I also stated that revelation from God when given cannot be fallible since it is from God.

All this business about personal confirmation and using the standard works as the basis for judging doctrine is extraneous.

What you call extraneous is in the core of our gospel, it is what began this dispensation. Personal revelation is important to the church, to its members and how Joseph Smith began his sojourn to the truth. I would not call it extraneous, I would call it important.

if a living prophet expresses an opinion that contradicts a doctrinal statement made by an earlier prophet,

Whoah nellie! Which living prophet has expressed an opinion that contradicts the Doctrine and Covenants? Or are you speaking to what you personally believe is doctrine?

fundamental 3 the current opinion has higher priority. As you demonstrate, by dismissing both the Smith and Holland statements as opinions, this fundamental doesn't make sense.

Current revelation from living prophets does indeed carry higher importance. The Lord sees to our needs now, as he saw to the needs of the saints in other times. That may entail revelations to what must be done "now" versus what was done a hundred or even two thousand years ago. I gave several real examples which I would like to review more closely.

3-The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

To the Saints who lived in 1830, who was more important, Samuel the prophet that chose Saul, or Joseph Smith the prophet that opened the dispensation, had the keys of the priesthood, and recieved revelations regarding both members and the new church? Which would you have followed?

The living prophet holds the keys to salvation for us. We cannot get it from a book reading about Samuel, or Moses, or even Paul. That alone makes the living prophet much more important.

The idea that prophets of the past are somehow more important simply doesn't make sense.

[mercyngrace]

The idea that prophets of the past are somehow more important simply doesn't make sense.

This is the argument you've been contesting since my first post. It's not an argument I've ever made.

I simply pointed out (repeatedly) that all living prophets end up being dead prophets at some point which makes the third fundamental inconsistent not to mention oddly self-serving.

[Jeff K.]

Then explain why it is inconsistent and self serving for President Monson to place it in conference talks.

I see it as merely stating a basic tenet that should already be known and acknowledged.

[mercyngrace]

Then explain why it is inconsistent and self serving for President Monson to place it in conference talks.

Are conference talks assigned now? Usually, the speakers choose their talks independently and some comment is made by the prophet at the close of the sessions about how amazing it is that all the speakers were on the same wavelength and chose to present such a cohesive message.

[consiglieri]

Are conference talks assigned now? Usually, the speakers choose their talks independently and some comment is made by the prophet at the close of the sessions about how amazing it is that all the speakers were on the same wavelength and chose to present such a cohesive message.

I am starting to get the feeling that is just so much balderdash . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I simply pointed out (repeatedly) that all living prophets end up being dead prophets at some point which makes the third fundamental inconsistent not to mention oddly self-serving.

Perhaps we could posit a new item on the list that goes something like this:

15. Only dead prophets have opinions.

Just a thought . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

I am starting to get the feeling that is just so much balderdash . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, pre-approved talks would eliminate the need to retape with cough track.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Of course the message is "cohesive"- there is a short, unspoken list of topics that are acceptable/proper in LDS meetings now.

[consiglieri]

Of course the message is "cohesive"- there is a short, unspoken list of topics that are acceptable/proper in LDS meetings now.

My understanding is that the number of permissible topics totals 72 and was first introduced circa 1970 by Harold B. Lee under the auspices of the then newly formed Correlation Committee over which he presided.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

My understanding is that the number of permissible topics totals 72 and was first introduced circa 1970 by Harold B. Lee under the auspices of the then newly formed Correlation Committee over which he presided.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Stop it!

It's a very good thing we're able to retain our testimonies even while we laugh at ourselves, eh? Otherwise threads like these could be threatening and make us defensive.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Good morning.

I've personally never witnessed a time when prophets directly contradicted each other in public. Nor have I had any issue with the Church over doctrine. Though I do seldom find a area of policy that doesn't work for me. So I don't see public disagreements as happening.

To me the fail safe of the Church is its laws for unanimity(AKA Common Consent). Maybe that is why I have a hard time with the 14 fundamentals it is too fundamentalistic for me. I allow all mortals to be fallible. So JS can be and was wrong in his science of the age of the earth, and JFS can be and was wrong about men landing on the moon. It is no big deal to me. Will following their teachings about the Restored Gospel get me to Heaven. I've spent the last 40 years believing that they will.

[semlogo]

I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that when ETB gave this talk, he was not the president of the church (he was president of the 12). Does that make his 14 fundamentals less binding on us than if he had delivered them when he was church president? I think it does.

My problem with the 14 fundamentals comes in the treatment of the scriptures. In theory I agree that the lving prophets can by new revelation supercede past revelation, but the scriptures have been formally accepted by the church leaders and the menmbership as a whole in formal votes, so I think they supercede comments that have not been through that vetting process.

Best,

Jeff

Excellent points.

[Jeff K.]

I am starting to get the feeling that is just so much balderdash . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I will have to agree with Consig. The talks are practiced to the t and assigned from my understanding of it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

Good morning.

I've personally never witnessed a time when prophets directly contradicted each other in public. Nor have I had any issue with the Church over doctrine. Though I do seldom find a area of policy that doesn't work for me. So I don't see public disagreements as happening.

To me the fail safe of the Church is its laws for unanimity(AKA Common Consent). Maybe that is why I have a hard time with the 14 fundamentals it is too fundamentalistic for me. I allow all mortals to be fallible. So JS can be and was wrong in his science of the age of the earth, and JFS can be and was wrong about men landing on the moon. It is no big deal to me. Will following their teachings about the Restored Gospel get me to Heaven. I've spent the last 40 years believing that they will.

I agree the failsafe is a question of Common Consent, it is not only a failsafe but also a signal when the membership perhaps has fallen away. A double edged sword, but a very good one. There were times when Joseph Smith felt the entire membership might have rejected him, especially during the height of the economic crisis (brought on by Andrew Jackson).

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps we could posit a new item on the list that goes something like this:

15. Only dead prophets have opinions.

Just a thought . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then you are stating that a prophet who is dead somehow has more authority over the living even though he no longer presides in this mortal realm? In other words polygamy should not have been removed, and the word of wisdom should have remained an "advisement" and not a commandment?

I find that inconsistent.

[LeSellers]

[Conference] talks are practiced to the t and assigned from my understanding of it.

Yet President Hinckley made a specific point, on several occasions, that the talks were not assigned.

That they practice them, I can't imagine anyone would deny. There are extremely tight time constraints on the speakers. With the exception of the spouses of newly called Apostles, or released Presidencies, these are well researched and rehearsed sermons. As I have heard, what difference does it make if the inspiration they pray for comes while they are speaking or two weeks earlier?

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

That was a tough time for the Church and the US for sure. The Church also had a rough spot, economically, in the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties. I didn't see any real decline in Church membership participation(or other measures of support for the Church) beyond which the Depression created. But I haven't studied it extensively enough to say definitively. I do know that at one point in the Depression the Church was financially broke.

[Jeff K.]

Yet President Hinckley made a specific point, on several occasions, that the talks were not assigned.

That they practice them, I can't imagine anyone would deny. There are extremely tight time constraints on the speakers. With the exception of the spouses of newly called Apostles, or released Presidencies, these are well researched and rehearsed sermons. As I have heard, what difference does it make if the inspiration they pray for comes while they are speaking or two weeks earlier?

Lehi

They are practiced in front of the brethern. Suggestions are made. It may be a nuanced discussion to say the talks aren't assigned while suggestions are made.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

That was a tough time for the Church and the US for sure. The Church also had a rough spot, economically, in the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties. I didn't see any real decline in Church membership participation(or other measures of support for the Church) beyond which the Depression created. But I haven't studied it extensively enough to say definitively. I do know that at one point in the Depression the Church was financially broke.

The difference was the church's involvement in the real estate bubble of the 1830's. The purchase of land at inflated prices because of the flush banks Andrew Jacksons "pet" banks received. The additional cash (from the movement of the monies from the Second National Bank to local banks. This instigated a wild rise in land prices followed by the bubble bursting. Joseph Smith also purchased land for the church and when those asset values collapsed many saints lost their shirts in that time.

[LeSellers]

They are practiced in front of the brethern. Suggestions are made. It may be a nuanced discussion to say the talks aren't assigned while suggestions are made.

And still, there were two talks on essentially the same topic (oddly this very one) last conference. It seems that such a thing would not happen if they practiced their talks in front of each other, and took suggestions from each other. I know I'd change topics if it had been me, but maybe it'd be me acting like a girl at the prom wearing the same dress as another.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

And still, there were two talks on essentially the same topic (oddly this very one) last conference. It seems that such a thing would not happen if they practiced their talks in front of each other, and took suggestions from each other. I know I'd change topics if it had been me, but maybe it'd be me acting like a girl at the prom wearing the same dress as another.

Lehi

I know.

Amazing isn't it.

The way it usually works is a theme is listed, then the talks are reviewed and "suggestions" made. No one is "assigned" but everyone knows what is expected. President Hinckly and Monson are well aware of the content of all talks long before they are given and so no talk is a surprise to anyone during conference.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I know.

Amazing isn't it.

The way it usually works is a theme is listed, then the talks are reviewed and "suggestions" made. No one is "assigned" but everyone knows what is expected. President Hinckly and Monson are well aware of the content of all talks long before they are given and so no talk is a surprise to anyone during conference.

Did you mean President Hinckley?

He passed away almost 3 years ago, so I think he is doing much more important work in the spirit world right now and doesn't worry over the content of General Conference talks anymore!

[cinepro]

And still, there were two talks on essentially the same topic (oddly this very one) last conference. It seems that such a thing would not happen if they practiced their talks in front of each other, and took suggestions from each other. I know I'd change topics if it had been me, but maybe it'd be me acting like a girl at the prom wearing the same dress as another.

Lehi

I suspect that some LDS would view such repetition as divine coordination of the messages to reinforce the importance of what is being said.

Honestly, I can't imagine what the odds are of two Seventies both citing a relatively obscure 30-year old talk in the same General Conference.

For example, this blog says:

- Elder Claudio R. M. Costa of the Council of the Seventy in the opening morning session

- Elder Kevin R. Duncan, also of the Seventy [his first Conference talk assignment since newly called this year].

Both of these men seperately felt inspired to turn to a speech given by the late President Ezra Taft Benson in 1980 at a BYU devotional, entitled "Fourteen Fundamentals In Following The Prophet".

Although I can't help but wonder if Elder Duncan was thinking "What the heck...?!" when he heard Elder Costa's talk...