The Debate Is Over.

[dirtius maximus]

For purpose of discussion any references/claims/accusation/denials including any synonym of the same concerning "blindly" following, made by LDS friend or foe, is a thread derail and I ask that you refrain from such comments. And yes, I deliberately edited out President Tanner comment on "blindly" following.

Elaine Cannon Ensign Nov. 78

We must secure those traditions which are sacred to good people everywhere. In each country as you hear this program by direct line, your course should become clear, your priorities ought to be known to you as a daughter of God. Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over. So I urge us all to provide powerful unity as women for those things we can agree upon—family, chastity, accountability to the Lord, responsibility in the community, sharing the gospel.

and

N. Elden Tanner Ensign Aug. 79

Latter-day Saints should be able to accept the words of the prophets without having to wait for science to prove the validity of their words. We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages. Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity.

Observing discussions here and else where, on a few occasions it seems "the debate is over" when a LDS General Authority is quoted and proving of the claim made is not required because it was spoken by a General Authority of the LDS Church. I am torn on this issue. I would say concerning spiritual matters "the debate" is over when the Prophet speaks. Concerning temporal matters, I am not as accepting of what seems to be a common position of LDS members to take that being "because a LDS General Authority made the claim, the claim is true and the claim is proven by virtue of being spoken by a General Authority."

I have heard the comment "the debate is over" from critics, I never knew till 20minutes ago, "the debate is over" is essentially Doctrine of the Church - by virtue of publication in the Ensign. In reading the quotes I wonder "Who can end the debate?" Does the debate end with the Prophet or can the debate end with the Apostles or other General Authorities? N. Elden Tanner suggests it is the Prophet "the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities." Sister Cannon also refers specifically to "the prophet". I think the term "the prophet" commonly and most reasonably understood as the actual prophet i.e. for our current time Thomas S. Monson.

For purpose of discussion any references/claims/accusation/denials including any synonym of the same concerning "blindly" following, made by LDS friend or foe, is a thread derail and I ask that you refrain from such comments. And yes, I deliberately edited out President Tanner comment on "blindly" following.

[KevinG]

Given every child of God has the right and responsibility to receive personal revelation, even up to verifying the revelations of their priesthood authority, I'd say the debate end when God gives us a personal answer.

Criticism and apologetics makes for an interesting intellectual exercise but will never end any debate that one side or the other is determined to carry on or justify their own opinion. Some of our endless threads that result in hair splitting over already split hairs are a great example of this.

As far as appeal to authority I think the scritptures and cannonized doctrine are purer sources, but as far as someone defining what LDS beliefs are I'd trust a loving prophet over the third hand account of what a dead one supposedly said. We have more than a few critics that attempt to define our own beliefs for us by elevating second hand rumor and outdated opinions as current doctrine.

Edited July 17, 2011 by DaddyG

[Jeff K.]

The doctrine of the church tends to follow the counsel of James....

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:5-

The debate ends there, that is where the Lord verifies whether or not we are on the right track.

If you are questioning where the church is heading, then the prophet and apostles in agreement do end the debate, they are charged with leading the church and making decisions for the church. This is their mantle given to them by God. I suggest a reading of Doctrine and Covenants 107 in order to see the process by which decisions are made.

I have seen no instance on this board, by which the words of the prophet alone ended debate. So it seems the question is answered by the very practice of posters here that no, the prophet alone does not end debate, even as we diligently carry out our callings, responsibilities and directives from those self same prophets and apostles.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

Declaring the debate over speaks to arrogance or ignorance on the part of the participant. Sometimes both.

[ERayR]

There are those who think that science is the last word and when a scientist speaks the debate is over. I tend to take the word of the prophets and seek reassurance through personal revelation on things that are important to my eternal well being. On other things. not esential to my eternal well being, I tend to accept the scientific answers in vogue at the time.

Note: I am the sole determiner and arbiter of things things I determine to be important to my eternal well being.

On those things I deem possibly important but to which I haven't yet formed an opinion or received personal revelation I take a wait and see attitude while I study and meditate on it. I must say I have some different and interesting ideas and possibilities concerning seversl topics.

The one constant that I have which, has been confirmed to me through personal study, prayer and revelation, is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ as promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true.

Edited July 17, 2011 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

In a church with an open canon, and a God who eternally progresses, the debate is never over.

Anyone who thinks it is does not understand these points.

[BCSpace]

Observing discussions here and else where, on a few occasions it seems "the debate is over" when a LDS General Authority is quoted and proving of the claim made is not required because it was spoken by a General Authority of the LDS Church. I am torn on this issue

With regards to what is doctrine, the debate is over when the Church publishes. However, since continuing revelation and inspiration are part of our systematic theology, what is doctrine now might not be doctrine in the future. Consider though how many doctrines actually changed over the years and how many doctrines our critics think have changed (blacks and the priesthood and plural marriage etc.) but have not.

You might be thinking (pun intended) of this. In that case, the answer is provided in the link if you need one.

[juliann]

I have heard the comment "the debate is over" from critics, I never knew till 20minutes ago, "the debate is over" is essentially Doctrine of the Church - by virtue of publication in the Ensign.

Why are you only using statements made over 30 years ago? If you are going to stop time in 1978 we will be fretting over blacks not having the priesthood. I do support you in applying canonical status to every Ensign article written by a woman, however. When it comes to the men, however, you are going to have to explain Elder Oak's much more recent comment calling his own Ensign article "commentary".

[Kenngo1969]

Why are you only using statements made over 30 years ago? If you are going to stop time in 1978 we will be fretting over blacks not having the priesthood. I do support you in applying canonical status to every Ensign article written by a woman, however. When it comes to the men, however, you are going to have to explain Elder Oak's much more recent comment calling his own Ensign article "commentary".

Just so I know what I can debate and what I cannot, which Ensign article is that, again?

[BCSpace]

I have heard the comment "the debate is over" from critics, I never knew till 20minutes ago, "the debate is over" is essentially Doctrine of the Church - by virtue of publication in the Ensign. In reading the quotes I wonder "Who can end the debate?" Does the debate end with the Prophet or can the debate end with the Apostles or other General Authorities? N. Elden Tanner suggests it is the Prophet "the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities." Sister Cannon also refers specifically to "the prophet". I think the term "the prophet" commonly and most reasonably understood as the actual prophet i.e. for our current time Thomas S. Monson.

Not an unreasonable assumption. Typically when the prophet "speaks", the rest of the apostles and prophets have already agreed which is a necessary principle that has it's origins in D&C 107 (the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority). Such it the case with say, the Manifesto which wasn't enforced until it had been agreed upon by both bodies. The 1978 revelation also.

However, this is not always the case which is why Approaching Mormon Doctrine (link in my siggy) states:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

It then goes on to show us how we can identify what the Church doesn't consider to be opinion; that which it publishes. And that of course is when the debate is over as far as the Church is concerned. Such publication can include that which has been spoken by those who are not prophets or apostles and those words are just as much official doctrine as if they had been spoken by the prophets themselves (because they agree).

[juliann]

Just so I know what I can debate and what I cannot, which Ensign article is that, again?

http://lds.org/ensign/1995/01/scripture-reading-and-revelation?lang=eng&query=commentary

Dallin Oaks refers to his own Ensign article as "commentary" which should not be substituted for the scriptures.

Commentaries are not a substitute for the scriptures any more than a good cookbook is a substitute for food. (When I refer to “commentaries,” I refer to everything that interprets scripture, from the comprehensive book-length commentary to the brief interpretation embodied in a lesson or an article, such as this one.)

One trouble with commentaries is that their authors sometimes focus on only one meaning, to the exclusion of others. As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. This is why the teaching of the Holy Ghost is a better guide to scriptural interpretation than even the best commentary.

[stYro]

In a church with an open canon, and a God who eternally progresses, the debate is never over.

Very well said.

If you don't want me adding that to my signature line, let me know and I'll remove it.

[Storm Rider]

In a church with an open canon, and a God who eternally progresses, the debate is never over.

Anyone who thinks it is does not understand these points.

God is not progressing; that is a false teaching of the LDS Church.

Jesus taught us that we each needed to gain a testimony of Him and the most preferred method would be through learning from God.

As far as prophets speaking and that making it the end of the argument, I must reject it. I join others that there is only one arbitrator of truth and that is the Holy Spirit. The Prophet is never our intermediary to God. In addition, I recognize that prophets are just men and as such, they are falliable. This does not invalidate their prophethood, but it demands that I live my life in such a way to hear the Holy Spirit confirm their words as truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

God is always progressing. Eternal Progression applies even the Gods.

Ps. Back to OP.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/think.htm

Generally, pronouncements from the prophets become doctrine only after they are voted upon by the Church members and canonized. Revelations and admonitions from our church leaders should be pondered, then prayerfully submitted before the Lord by individual members, that they may know for themselves whether the Lord has spoken. Contrary to what anti-Mormon detractors say, when our leaders speak, it is time for thinking to begin, not to end.

As a people we should listen closely to every word the prophets state. Anything less would be pure foolishness. Because God loves us, he has blessed us with prophets through all dispensations. He has not changed. He has also blessed us with great minds and promised us answers to our prayers, after we have done our own careful thinking.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider:

God is always progressing. Eternal Progression applies even the Gods.

Ps. Back to OP.

Aside: McConkie said it best, " There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths. This is false–utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression…"

This is one of those timse when he was spot on. Peace

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

I didn't say God was progressing in knowledge, though he MIGHT in some expansive sense of the word. I have no idea as to what that might be.

What I was in reference to is: "This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". So God is progressing in glory.

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider:

I didn't say God was progressing in knowledge, though he MIGHT in some expansive sense of the word. I have no idea as to what that might be.

What I was in reference to is: "This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". So God is progressing in glory.

So the progressing you are talking about is the expansion of his creation, but God himself, as a God, is not increasing in knowledge, not increasing in wisdom, etc. This is one area where we need to be very careful. We must not be too careless and leave any option for critics to take statements out of context. Thank you for kindly clarifying.

[thesometimesaint]

Storm Rider:

My experience with the critics is that it doesn't matter what we say we believe. They're going to tell us what we believe anyway. As my dad used to say: He'd complain if I went to all the trouble of hanging him with a new rope.

[mfbukowski]

God is not progressing; that is a false teaching of the LDS Church.

Jesus taught us that we each needed to gain a testimony of Him and the most preferred method would be through learning from God.

As far as prophets speaking and that making it the end of the argument, I must reject it. I join others that there is only one arbitrator of truth and that is the Holy Spirit. The Prophet is never our intermediary to God. In addition, I recognize that prophets are just men and as such, they are falliable. This does not invalidate their prophethood, but it demands that I live my life in such a way to hear the Holy Spirit confirm their words as truth.

Can God hear your prayers and answer them?

Then he is progressing.

[mfbukowski]

So the progressing you are talking about is the expansion of his creation, but God himself, as a God, is not increasing in knowledge, not increasing in wisdom, etc. This is one area where we need to be very careful. We must not be too careless and leave any option for critics to take statements out of context. Thank you for kindly clarifying.

You don't need to worry about critics.

They aren't going away. You need to worry about what is true

[CV75]

Observing discussions here and else where, on a few occasions it seems "the debate is over" when a LDS General Authority is quoted and proving of the claim made is not required because it was spoken by a General Authority of the LDS Church.

I think debate against the prophet is over for the faithful who really think about what they are doing to themselves and others when they argue against the prophet’s direction.

Debate against the prophet is different than debating within oneself over the acceptance of something he says, or seeking to understand him better through discussion with others. The resolution of course is eventually found in keeping the covenants and without stirring up dissension / contention so as to receive personal divine guidance on the issue.

Obviously arguments between those debating for or against the prophet’s statements have to be supported by ideas and insights outside the prophet’s statements themselves.

[Ahab]

I think using the phrase "the debate is over" is just another way of saying "I've stated my position and I'm not going to change it".

I don't think it's meant to mean that everyone is going to agree with the person who uses that phrase.

It's like someone saying "the argument is over" when they are done with their side of the argument.

It takes at least 2 to debate or argue over something, you know, and not everybody is ready to finish at the same time.

That's it. I'm done now.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

Sometimes we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Declaring the debate over speaks to arrogance or ignorance on the part of the participant. Sometimes both.

[Jeff K.]

Except in debate competition where replies are timed.