2015 Curriculum

[Senator]

 I trust we'll all learn more and grow closer to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as we study and ponder his teachings.

 

Well, evidently your trust has been misplaced.

[ksfisher]

There are many of his teachings I'll be looking forward to, but I have many disagreements with the 14 fundamentals.

I don't think that lesson will be one I'll enjoy.

 

Out of curiosity, which ones do you disagree with?

Edited September 29, 2014 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

As you can guess, I adamantly "disavow" the 14 fundamentals, but I have issues with authority in general. What do you find in the 14 fundamentals that is contradictory to common Mormon practice?

 

Out of curiosity, which ones do you disagree with?

 

I have issues with #'s 2,3,4,6 (and minor phrasing quibbles with #'s 1 & 13).

 

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Agreed, although sometimes the Lord speaks for himself.

 

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Agreed, as long as he doesn't contradict them.

 

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

Agreed, as long as he doesn't contradict them.

 

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

Could be phrased better - D&C 43 tells us that the prophet can fall.  The prophet can be wrong, but it won't destroy the Church.

 

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Agreed

 

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

Could be phrased better - Any sermon given by the spirit can be considered scripture but a revelation from God should indicate that it came from God.  At least, that is the scriptural precedent.

 

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Agreed

 

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Agreed

 

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Agreed

 

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

Agreed

 

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Agreed

 

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Agreed

 

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Agreed - the highest quorum in the Church

 

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

Agreed, but worded a little strongly.

[HappyJackWagon]

When I read this I think of a big "Caution" sign. 

What do you mean? Caution from what?

[mormonnewb]

I have issues with #'s 2,3,4,6 (and minor phrasing quibbles with #'s 1 & 13).

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Agreed, although sometimes the Lord speaks for himself.

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Agreed, as long as he doesn't contradict them.

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

Agreed, as long as he doesn't contradict them.

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

Could be phrased better - D&C 43 tells us that the prophet can fall. The prophet can be wrong, but it won't destroy the Church.

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Agreed

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

Could be phrased better - Any sermon given by the spirit can be considered scripture but a revelation from God should indicate that it came from God. At least, that is the scriptural precedent.

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Agreed

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Agreed

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Agreed

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

Agreed

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Agreed

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Agreed

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Agreed - the highest quorum in the Church

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

Agreed, but worded a little strongly.

Wow! I'm blown away by how much we agree on this. You're one smart dude!

In re #2: So you believe that scripture takes precedent over the words of the prophet? Or is it more the case that you think a prophet will never declared something that is contradictory to scripture?

In re #3: How would you decide between conflicting prophets? Would you use scripture as a tie-breaker? What if they are speaking out of scriptural bounds and expounding on, say, Christ's exact birthday? Who wins then?

[teddyaware]

Then I am greatly disappointed that the church would deliberately use ambiguous language for such a sensitive subject instead of simply speaking forthrightly.

I was very pleased that the church was able to recognize it's wrongs. I am able to forgive people and institutions when they have such integrity.

Now, with your new apologetic approach, I am back to distrust.

Actually, I think I'll stick with the understanding that the church was actually genuine in it's disavowal of previous racist statements, and that you are wrong about this.

What it really amounts to is wishful thinking and jumping to conclusions. There were so many who had been waiting for so long with baited breath for the Church to offer up some sort of mea culpa on the ban, that when the recent statement was published they saw in the language what they wanted to see, rather than dispassionately analyzing the letter with hard, steely-eyed logic

In my first reading of the statement, I knew from the very instant I saw the word 'disavow" that it was carefully and deliberately chosen for the very reason the it has shades and gradations of meaning. It was also perfectly obvious to me that the disavowal was aimed at the controversial explanations that had been offered over the years as rationales for why the ban existed. Further, it must be understood that the disavowal was not at all targeted on the legitimacy and divine origins of the ban itself. Even so, people see what they want to see; and in all honesty, from time to time I've been guilty of doing the same thing myself. It often takes a lot of discipline and genuine courage to be willing to see, comprehend and absorb unvarnished truth. For this reason, speaking the truth in totalitarian societies is often the most dangerous thing anyone can do.

So where does this leave us? The fact is that in order to find real spiritual safety and security in these latter-days, each member must learn how to become a prophet or prophetess in his or her own right (the Book of Mormon explains in great detail how this can be done).

We've seen nothing yet. The time is coming when the storms of controversy will rage with far more ferocity than they have heretofore. And when that day comes the days of living on borrowed light will be over, and Lehi's prophetic dream of the pointing and laughing unbelievers gathered in the large and spacious building will be fully fulfilled. If any are to stand in such an onslaught, they must filled with light of personal revelation, independently knowing God's truth and will for themselves.

Edited September 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

Wow! I'm blown away by how much we agree on this. You're one smart dude!

In re #2: So you believe that scripture takes precedent over the words of the prophet? Or is it more the case that you think a prophet will never declared something that is contradictory to scripture?

In re #3: How would you decide between conflicting prophets? Would you use scripture as a tie-breaker? What if they are speaking out of scriptural bounds and expounding on, say, Christ's exact birthday? Who wins then?

 

 

Where scripture is concerned I have no issues with additional light, but the scriptures are clear:

 

 

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

Where the teachings of the prophets are concerned they are equally clear:

 

 

Oh ! I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling and your election sure ; and if any man preach any other Gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed ; and some of you who now hear me shall see it, and know that I testify the truth concerning them.  TPJS 151  and

 

The prophet Joseph Smith taught that: "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Contradicting a former revelation is not "further light".  Any revelation that contradicts the former, whether scriptural or prophetic, can be known to be from a bad source.

[Senator]

What it really amounts to is wishful thinking and jumping to conclusions.

 

 

That has happened I'm quite sure. However, I'm not certain that the assertion can even rise to the level of a generalization.

 

 

 

In my first reading of the statement, I knew from the very instant I saw the word 'disavow" that it was carefully and deliberately chosen for the very reason the it has shades and gradations of meaning.

 

 

Talk about jumping to conclusions!!

How about the word "condemn"? Is that also a noodle word?

 

 

It was also perfectly obvious to me that the disavowal was aimed at the controversial explanations that had been offered over the years as rationales for why the ban existed.

 

I was not arguing against that.

 

 

Further, it must be understood that the disavowal was not at all targeted on the legitimacy and divine origins of the ban itself.

 

Please demonstrate from the essay the affirmation of the divine origins of the ban itself.

 

 "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

So the question is, was the racial discrimination against blacks of African descent (the ban),  a form of racism?

 

My guess is you'll answer no.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Senator

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Contradicting a former revelation is not "further light".  Any revelation that contradicts the former, whether scriptural or prophetic, can be known to be from a bad source.

 

This is an unsustainable position if you accept the claim of continuing revelation. If you don't, then I guess it's just a matter of who speaks first. Do you recognize the possibility that one prophet may misinterpret God's will, as is evidenced by the theories/doctrines about race? Or do you accept that God may make corrections or broaden our understanding in a way that doesn't fit our current, narrow view?

[JLHPROF]

This is an unsustainable position if you accept the claim of continuing revelation. If you don't, then I guess it's just a matter of who speaks first. Do you recognize the possibility that one prophet may misinterpret God's will, as is evidenced by the theories/doctrines about race? Or do you accept that God may make corrections or broaden our understanding in a way that doesn't fit our current, narrow view?

 

I accept the teachings of Joseph Smith, that revelation does not contradict prior revelation and we should never seek a revelation where there is already one that answers the question.  Ever.

Continuing revelation means revealing MORE truth, not DIFFERENT truth, because truth is eternal and doesn't change.

 

Now, can a current prophet receive light and correct the non-revelatory opinion of a previous prophet?  Yes.  Can a current prophet receive a revelation and contradict a prior revelation?  No.  I would not accept the new revelation as being from God, but from another source.

 

Revelation trumps opinion.  When there are two differing opinions, I reserve to right to choose the one I agree with most.  When one is opinion and one is revelation I would follow the revelation.  When there are two differing revelations, assuming the first one was revealed by God, we can know for sure the second is false.

[cinepro]

The same principles from ETB were reiterated in October 2011 General Conference.

 

This is an important point, and it's been too conveniently ignored in this discussion.  It was reiterated not once but twice in that conference!

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I accept the teachings of Joseph Smith, that revelation does not contradict prior revelation and we should never seek a revelation where there is already one that answers the question.  Ever.

Continuing revelation means revealing MORE truth, not DIFFERENT truth, because truth is eternal and doesn't change.

I don't understand this approach. Do you not realize that More can also be Different? Eternal truth as God knows it may not change but presuming that we have a perfectly accurate understanding of God's knowledge is simplistic.

 

- Revelation on the word of wisdom- first it is viewed as Not a commandment but later it IS a commandment

- A ban on priesthood and temple overturned by revelation

- Adam God theory and Blood atonement being disavowed by later prophets

- Plural Marriage as necessary for receiving exaltation and then a manifesto prohibiting plural marriage.

 

The list goes on and on and on. If we expect all future revelation to match exactly what we have then what's the point? Things will change. The understand of men and prophets changes as they struggle to interpret God's will.

[JLHPROF]

I don't understand this approach. Do you not realize that More can also be Different? Eternal truth as God knows it may not change but presuming that we have a perfectly accurate understanding of God's knowledge is simplistic.

 

If God speaks I take his word. I don't assume our interpretation of God's will is flawless.  But when we have the word of the Lord on a subject and a new revelation appears saying different, I cannot believe that the new revelation is anything but false.

We are not talking disagreements over interpretation here.  We are talking God changing his mind or contradicting himself.  That doesn't happen.

 

 

- Revelation on the word of wisdom- first it is viewed as Not a commandment but later it IS a commandment

Nothing was changed in the nature of the revelation - it still doesn't include Coca Cola, it still recommends against eating too much meat.  The revelation's teachings weren't changed. 

- A ban on priesthood and temple overturned by revelation

And an absence of the originating revelation.

- Adam God theory and Blood atonement being disavowed by later prophet

If Adam-God and Blood Atonement were revealed to Brigham Young by revelation then they are still true.  If they were just his speculative theories then further light could disavow them.

- Plural Marriage as necessary for receiving exaltation and then a manifesto prohibiting plural marriage.

If the teaching that PM was necessary for exaltation came in a revelation, then it still is necessary, regardless of the manifesto.  If the teaching was the opinion of a GA then further light may well have been revealed.

 

 

 

This is very simple.  In NONE of these was an original revelation supplanted by a new revelation. 

 

 The list goes on and on and on. If we expect all future revelation to match exactly what we have then what's the point? Things will change. The understand of men and prophets changes as they struggle to interpret God's will.

 

I'll say it again, eternal truth cannot be changed or altered.  It is one of the founding principles of Mormonism.  Joseph Smith taught this many, many times.  We can learn more information.  We can receive further light.  We can even receive correction to false beliefs we may have acquired.  But no two claimed revelations can be in contradiction and if the first is true have the contradicting revelation be from God.

[HappyJackWagon]

Your trust that leaders understand God's will perfectly and then communicate God's will perfectly is much greater than mine. Frankly, I think you're living in lala land.

 

 

We are not talking disagreements over interpretation here.  We are talking God changing his mind or contradicting himself.  That doesn't happen.

How could you possibly know that there aren't errors of interpretation in the revelations?

[JLHPROF]

Your trust that leaders understand God's will perfectly and then communicate God's will perfectly is much greater than mine. Frankly, I think you're living in lala land.

 

How could you possibly know that there aren't errors of interpretation in the revelations?

 

Because revelations are identified as God speaking, not interpretations of God's will.

When God says "I am God and this is my will" that is the word of God to me and not subject to any interpretation.

 

In addition to Joseph's teachings on contradictory revelation he also taught "What is the rule of interpretation?” he asked. “Just no interpretation at all.  It should be “understood precisely as it reads.”

[Buzzard]

I wonder which lesson will be the one that the church is under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon.

[teddyaware]

So the question is, was the racial discrimination against blacks of African descent (the ban),  a form of racism?

 

My guess is you'll answer no.

Why does the ban necessarily have to be racist in origin and nature? You seem to jump to the conclusion that the only possible motivation for the ban was racism. I do not.

Was it racist that until a special revelation was received by Peter that the Gospel was only extended to the Jews and not to the Gentiles? Was it racist that during the Mosaic dispensation the Aaronic Priesthood could only be held and exercised by the descendants of Aaron? Was it racist that during the Old Testament period there was a strict prohibition that the Lord's "peculiar people" not marry outside of the Hebrew nation? Or was racism the motivation when the Lamanites, according to the Book of Mormon, were cursed by God with an outward change in physical appearance? I answer all four of these questions with a resounding no. God works in mysterious ways but I do not at all believe that He or His prophetic servants are racist in any way -- despite the fact that some may believe there is no other possible explanation.

In very fact, it was the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob who condemned his Nephite brethren for reviling the Lamanites because of the differences in their outward physical characterists:

9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers. (Jacob 3:9)

In other words, although the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were cursed by the Lord with a change in physical appearance, they were born innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, in the mysterious economy of God the curse continued through the generations to serve a wise a purpose that for now only the Lord Himself fully understands. But this much we do know:

24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. (2 Nephi 26)

Further, there is no denying the fact that race and lineage have always played an important part in holy writ. For some reason, not yet fully understood by Yours Truly, focusing in on bloodlines seems to be very important to God. At very least, He sure does seem to talk a lot about race and lineage. Some lineages are singled out for great blessings and glorious promises if they continue in faithfulness; but those same promises are always immediately followed by solemn warnings of cursings if they fail to live up to their great opportunities. Other lineages are singled out for cursings, but those curses are always followed with the heartening promise of a bright future day when the curse will be removed, and all will be again be right with God and the world.

Finally, I look forward to that glorious future day when the Lord and His servants will fully vindicated before the eyes of all those who once doubted them. Throughout all of human history the true prophets of God have always been misunderstood and castigated by members of His kingdom who should have known better. In the year of our Lord 2014, it appears history is repeating itself. But no mistake about it, those of the Lord's people who decried the prophets of the past always felt fully justified in their hearts, convinced that they -- not the prophets -- were the ones who were right. Nothing new under the sun...

Edited September 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[AndyDnom]

i love his politics, especially from the 60's, and especially his ideas on race. but then when i quote them in sacrament meeting, i get called into a disciplinary counsel. Whats up with that?

[Calm]

 Any revelation that contradicts the former, whether scriptural or prophetic, can be known to be from a bad source.

how do you know the first revelation and not the one that contradicts it is from the correct source?

[Calm]

 It was also perfectly obvious to me that the disavowal was aimed at the controversial explanations that had been offered over the years as rationales for why the ban existed.

 

Are you saying in the use of the word "disavow" for these "controversial" explanations they are not saying the explanations were wrong, but that they don't know and/or not binding on the Church?

[Coreyb]

If God speaks I take his word. I don't assume our interpretation of God's will is flawless.  But when we have the word of the Lord on a subject and a new revelation appears saying different, I cannot believe that the new revelation is anything but false.

We are not talking disagreements over interpretation here.  We are talking God changing his mind or contradicting himself.  That doesn't happen.

 

 

 

This is very simple.  In NONE of these was an original revelation supplanted by a new revelation. 

 

 

I'll say it again, eternal truth cannot be changed or altered.  It is one of the founding principles of Mormonism.  Joseph Smith taught this many, many times.  We can learn more information.  We can receive further light.  We can even receive correction to false beliefs we may have acquired.  But no two claimed revelations can be in contradiction and if the first is true have the contradicting revelation be from God.

The problem with this is which version of a revelation is Gods unchanging truth? I am not necessarily talking about the Bible here but the D&C. Do you accept the revelations as recorded in the book of commandments or the D&C, or do you go to the Joseph Smith Papers? How do you deal with changes made by the same prophet that contradict the former wording of the same revelation? Yes there are contradictory changes, check out the first chapter of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power for a good study of the changes made to priesthood offices and duties within the first few years of the Churchs' organization. It seems to me that this line of thinking puts you into an unworkable position in regards to the history of our standard works. How does learning about things like the revisions Orson Pratt made in the D&C in the 1870s not shatter this view to pieces?

[JLHPROF]

how do you know the first revelation and not the one that contradicts it is from the correct source?

 

Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

The problem with this is which version of a revelation is Gods unchanging truth? I am not necessarily talking about the Bible here but the D&C. Do you accept the revelations as recorded in the book of commandments or the D&C, or do you go to the Joseph Smith Papers? How do you deal with changes made by the same prophet that contradict the former wording of the same revelation? Yes there are contradictory changes, check out the first chapter of The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power for a good study of the changes made to priesthood offices and duties within the first few years of the Churchs' organization. It seems to me that this line of thinking puts you into an unworkable position in regards to the history of our standard works. How does learning about things like the revisions Orson Pratt made in the D&C in the 1870s not shatter this view to pieces?

 

Actually, if we can't trust the scriptures because they can be altered at will or have been altered already, and we can't trust the teachings of the prophets because they might just be opinion or a future prophet disavowed them, our entire religion becomes untenable and might as well be tossed.

 

There have to be unalterable eternal truths in Mormonism or I wouldn't give a fig for it.  And they have to have a source somewhere.

[Coreyb]

Actually, if we can't trust the scriptures because they can be altered at will or have been altered already, and we can't trust the teachings of the prophets because they might just be opinion or a future prophet disavowed them, our entire religion becomes untenable and might as well be tossed.

 

There have to be unalterable eternal truths in Mormonism or I wouldn't give a fig for it.  And they have to have a source somewhere

Agreed, but you wont find them in the revelations in their pure form. There is just to much ambiguity. I would suppose that only God in heaven could reveal those truths to you in a pristine condition.

[volgadon]

Please elaborate. I just assumed that the teachings were pretty much the same regardless of the actual president on the cover. What was I missing?

 

Reading the manuals?