When The Prophet Speaks, The Thinking Has Been Done?

[Magyar]

There is no new thing under the sun, said Ecclesiastes. Truly he spake. At some point in the restoration of the Church, some Mormon said, "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." Critics of the Church have never forgotten nor forgiven. It is as if that presumptuous soul invented out of whole cloth some loathsome new cultish doctrine.

This morning, I began to read Anne Fremantle's The Age of Belief, a collection of writings and commentary on early Christian philosophers. Lo and behold, Ms. Freemantle makes the observation that the early Christian Church veered between two poles of belief:

"From apostolic times on, there were two fairly well-defined Christian positions: the deliberately, and aggressively, anti-intellectual, whose supporters argued that since God has spoken to us, it is no longer necessary for us to think, and a more orthodox, but minority, position that whatever is true or good is ours."

She puts the likes of Tertullian in the former camp; Augustine in the latter.

It is perhaps human nature as we contemplate spiritual things, for these two positions to take shape. There is no new thing under the sun. We Mormons are heirs to the same human nature as the rest of our Christian brethren.

[cinepro]

For the record:

It's important to distinguish between the two different phrases that have been discussed over the years:

"When the Prophet speaks, the thinking is done."

"When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over."

Sometimes people use them interchangeably, or tell a story about one but thinking of the other.

Edited February 10, 2012 by cinepro

[cdowis]

Perhaps someone can find that quote from BY about having the church leaders do the thinking for us.

[Storm Rider]

Yet, there is a different position the Church has encourged. When the prophet speaks it is our resposibility to find a witness of the Holy Spirit for his message. I reject the concept of prophet speaks, thinking is done because it is not an acceptable position for a disciple of Christ. God has not taught that priinciple. He teaches, we receive a witness, and then we bear testimony to it.

[zerinus]

Perhaps someone can find that quote from BY about having the church leaders do the thinking for us.

Is this what you had in mind:

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right....

Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.

—Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150, 12 January 1862

See also here.

Edited February 11, 2012 by zerinus

[The Nehor]

To trust God is good.

To trust God with no consideration as to why he commands and to cease to seek understanding is to become less then human and much less then a god. I think I can say with certainty that such a person can never be exalted.

I suspect God has more hope for the person turning their back on Him due to what they perceive as His cruelty, injustice, indifference, or unfairness then He does for the blind 'saint' who can't be bothered with anything other then obeying. At least the former still has some desire for understanding.

[Xander]

To trust God is good.

But in what sense can someone trust God and also disobey the men running the LDS Church?

In the eyes of Mormons, this is not possible because the two are seen as synonymous.

The Mormon Church is highly legalistic and there is usually no room for debate. A perfect example of this took place when I was married. We found out at the last minute, after the wedding had been planned and paid for, that we were unable to have a civil marriage so my non-LDS family could attend... UNLESS I waited another full year to have a temple marriage. Of course, the rule book states something entirely different in Brazil. I tried to reason with the Stake President but to no avail. He kept saying the same stupid thing over and over, that it is in the rule book and he isn't allowed to make exceptions.

I was then warned not to disobey. I was told that if I had a civil wedding the day after my temple sealing, that I would have to attend a disciplinary meeting. Again, what's the logic behind all of this? How come thousands of Mormons in Brazil can do this every year but the second I step on US soil, the rules change and it becomes a great sin?

No room for discussion.

The thinking has been done. The law had been laid down. Just obey and shut up.

[why me]

Is this what you had in mind:

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right....

Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye.

—Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150, 12 January 1862

See also here.

This is one quotation that critics will ignore because it doesn't fit their agenda. Brigham said a lot of great things but what we receive from the critics is a cherry pick of quotations to make him look bad. In the journal of discourses, which many members had in their libraries in the old days, one could read everything and get the impression still that the man was good.

[Areabird]

I didn't think we were allowed to consider quotes in the Journal of Discourses because they weren't doctrine. Because if we are pointing to Brigham's quotes in this case, why not in other cases where his ideas might not fit so well in a particular debate....?

[Storm Rider]

I didn't think we were allowed to consider quotes in the Journal of Discourses because they weren't doctrine. Because if we are pointing to Brigham's quotes in this case, why not in other cases where his ideas might not fit so well in a particular debate....?

Cute. The provided quote was given in response to a request. With those glasses on, I can understand how you missed it. See #3. Though CD was probably looking for another quote, this one provides the needed response.

So just to make clear; this is not an issue of doctrine, but an issue of a Non-doctrinal issue of if the prophet speaking LDS stop thinking. Again, this is not LDS Doctrine, it is not an accpetable position regardless of who has repeated or said.

[Storm Rider]

Legalistic? I am not sure this is an accurate position. As a LDS I don't immediately believe something because I leader states it. In saying that, I must admit that if it is something that is added to scripture, I am much more prone to accept it as inspired, however, I also feel it is my responsibility to gain a spiritual witness of its truthfulness; if I don't I would never bear witness to its truth.

Do people ever give up spinning the absolutely worst possible interpretation of things? Gads, I get so tired of such drivel. Pull back from breathing your own ether, its frying the brain.

I believe we have LDS who are faithful and will also think they need and will accept anything SL says to the Church or in meetings. However, I think you will find just as many who do not follow that at all. Since I am one of the later, I tend to think it is the more sizable group given my complete ordinariness. The Church teaches us that we must pray for a witness to all truth and without a witness we can bear no testimony. That does not sound very much like something you would say to sheeple (the oft heard refrain from the mindless).

[DH]

It seems to me that God wants us to question and think for ourselves. How else could we progress and become more like God, according to the Plan of Happiness?

People say it is our responsibility to ponder things the prophet says, pray about them, and get our own witness from the Spirit that what the prophet says is true. That kind of assumes that everything the prophet says is true, for if we receive a contrary answer from the Spirit, our leaders tell us the answer came from the Devil, or we're not worthy enough, or we didn't pray right. If the only acceptable answer is the prophet is right, then what's the point in thinking and praying about what he says?

[Storm Rider]

It seems to me that God wants us to question and think for ourselves. How else could we progress and become more like God, according to the Plan of Happiness?

People say it is our responsibility to ponder things the prophet says, pray about them, and get our own witness from the Spirit that what the prophet says is true. That kind of assumes that everything the prophet says is true, for if we receive a contrary answer from the Spirit, our leaders tell us the answer came from the Devil, or we're not worthy enough, or we didn't pray right. If the only acceptable answer is the prophet is right, then what's the point in thinking and praying about what he says?

I have never had one person tell me that. If I spend time in prayer and I don't receive an answer, it means I did not receive an answer and I will not bear witness of that thing. I am a skeptic at heart and I don't follow anyone just to be following. Generally I am very hard on the Brethren. Their mantle is separate from them as men and as men they are no better than you or any other person. Quite fallible and capable of making mistakes. I judge them vis-a-vis what I find in scripture and if it does not mesh, guess what I go with?

[Deborah]

I always think of that phrase of when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done along the lines of the Prophet, his counselors and the Twelve discussing and reviewing all the options and coming to a mutual agreement through prayer. So yes when he does speak the thinking has been done. Does that mean we are expected to follow without our own confirmation. Of course not. But we should be aware that men who are charged by God to lead the church have carefully discussed the issue, prayed about it and come to a consensus. In some cases the counsel may not even apply to our situations, in other cases we may need to truly contemplate and pray about why we should follow such counsel.

[blackstrap]

During the time of the first Declaration,a lot of thinking had been done and the prophet had spoken. The debate,however ,was far from over.Still isn't in some minds.

[zerinus]

This is one quotation that critics will ignore because it doesn't fit their agenda. Brigham said a lot of great things but what we receive from the critics is a cherry pick of quotations to make him look bad. In the journal of discourses, which many members had in their libraries in the old days, one could read everything and get the impression still that the man was good.

There are more interesting quotes from BY on the same theme given in that site. Perhaps more of them deserve to be quoted:

I have known many times I have preached wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves.

The great masses of the people neither think nor act for themselves. . . . I see too much of this gross ignorance among this chosen people of God.

How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?

I do not wish any Latter–day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied.

Seek diligently to know the will of God. How can you know it? In matters pertaining to yourselves as individuals, you can obtain it directly from the Lord; but in matters pertaining to public affairs, his will is ascertained through the proper channel, and may be known by the general counsel that is given you from the proper source.

It is your privilege and duty to live so that you know when the word of the Lord is spoken to you and when the mind of the Lord is revealed to you. . . . Suppose I were to teach you a false doctrine, how are you to know it if you do not possess the Spirit of God?

"Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not." Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not. That is the way we want all Saints to live. Will you do it? Yes, I hope you will, every one of you.

The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.

How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? And this is what I wish to urge upon you—live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God.

Edited February 11, 2012 by zerinus

[orion88]

When the prophet speaks it is our resposibility to find a witness of the Holy Spirit for his message.

Have you ever heard/read anything spoken/written by the current or past prophets in your church,

a General Authority, the two members of the First Presidency, or other members of the Quorum

of the Twelve Apostles that the Holy Spirit revealed to you was a false teaching or false opinion?

[Jeff K.]

Oh yes, I think more than a few GA's have had opinions I disagreed with. Do I need the Holy Spirit to ensure that someone elses opinion is false? I have had the Holy Spirit direct me, and sometimes it goes against a talk I read in the Ensign years and years ago.

But then revelation is like that... It moves you to do what is needed, not only adhere to what is written. That is what makes revelation in our church so important.

I have never heard false doctrine though.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Areabird]

I remember a talk by some apostle who said that women who were victims of abuse should consider their own role in why the abuse occurred. It was a conference talk so obviously it had been approved before he gave the talk. So I guess there were quite a few members of the 12 that I would consider to be in error in that instance.

[Duncan]

But in what sense can someone trust God and also disobey the men running the LDS Church?

In the eyes of Mormons, this is not possible because the two are seen as synonymous.

The Mormon Church is highly legalistic and there is usually no room for debate. A perfect example of this took place when I was married. We found out at the last minute, after the wedding had been planned and paid for, that we were unable to have a civil marriage so my non-LDS family could attend... UNLESS I waited another full year to have a temple marriage. Of course, the rule book states something entirely different in Brazil. I tried to reason with the Stake President but to no avail. He kept saying the same stupid thing over and over, that it is in the rule book and he isn't allowed to make exceptions.

I was then warned not to disobey. I was told that if I had a civil wedding the day after my temple sealing, that I would have to attend a disciplinary meeting. Again, what's the logic behind all of this? How come thousands of Mormons in Brazil can do this every year but the second I step on US soil, the rules change and it becomes a great sin?

No room for discussion.

The thinking has been done. The law had been laid down. Just obey and shut up.

you were told that in the US? Gadzooks! because when I got married in the Temple first we had a civil ceremony in the chapel a few days later and no one said boo about it. I thought it was bad or whatever to have a civil ceremony first then have a Temple ceremony, you have to wait a year or something-why is beyond me

[sethpayne]

Have you ever heard/read anything spoken/written by the current or past prophets in your church,

a General Authority, the two members of the First Presidency, or other members of the Quorum

of the Twelve Apostles that the Holy Spirit revealed to you was a false teaching or false opinion?

Yes.

[Calm]

for if we receive a contrary answer from the Spirit, our leaders tell us the answer came from the Devil, or we're not worthy enough, or we didn't pray right.

I have no doubt it happens for some people, but it has never happened for me or anyone I've spoken to about it in 'real life'.

[Calm]

It was a conference talk so obviously it had been approved before he gave the talk.

CFR that details of conference talks are approved prior to speaking.

[Storm Rider]

Yes.

As a self-described heretic, I would be curious what the Holy Spirit told you was false.

[Storm Rider]

Have you ever heard/read anything spoken/written by the current or past prophets in your church,

a General Authority, the two members of the First Presidency, or other members of the Quorum

of the Twelve Apostles that the Holy Spirit revealed to you was a false teaching or false opinion?

I have never received a personal witness that some things were false, but there are things that I think were not true. Whereas polygamy was true, the priesthood restrictions were not. Whereas the Word of Wisdom is true by revelation, elevating it to a requirement to enter the temple is not. Regional and local leaders can come up with policies that make me grind my teeth, but that has been years ago.

Some things just "fit" and I suppose they could be classified as having received a confirmation of the Spirit that they are true. Others, seem to fall flat, don't fit into what I understand the gospel of Christ to be, and I tend to struggle with them: some I put on the shelf to think about later and others I have just concluded that they are wrong.