Elder Christofferson To Church News: Doctrine Is Not Changing

[DBMormon]

You missed the part I mentioned about personal revelation being key. Hindsight in this particular instance however does act as a good witness to the blind follower.

but all kinds of people receive revelation of different conclusions.  Some receive revelation that the Mormon church isn't true, others receive revelation that the Book of Mormon is false, others that our prophet is anything but.  How many people in the 60 knew by the holy ghost that blacks were cursed?  How many people knew in 1850 that Adam was God?   I wish it were that simple.

Also for some they have not the gift of faith and simply rely on the words of others.... You make it sound simple but our history and even God paints it as more complicated

[Buckeye]

I don't accept that it is a matter of Elder Christofferson "binding future leaders as to Church doctrine." Rather, I see him as declaring and teaching known truth that is immutable and will remain so throughout all eternity.

Furthermore, saying he is trying to do unauthorized binding of future Church leaders is quite an accusation to make, be it stated or implied.

DBMormon once remarked that Elder Christofferson "chooses his words carefully." I agree with that, although not in the context that DBMormon meant it. In effect, DBMormon was suggesting that Elder Christofferson was equivocating. That notion has quite clearly turned out to be false.

His most recent statement quoted in this thread is what it is. It is scarcely conceivable to me that a man like Elder Christofferson, with his legal background, his propensity to choose his words carefully, and with the ongoing inspiration and spiritual gifts to which he is entitled as an a apostle of the Lord and a prophet seer and revelator, would declare that a doctrine won't ever change unless he was absolutely certain and that knowledge was given to him from above.

Edited to add:

Is it "binding future Church leaders" to declare that Jesus is the Christ, that He rose from the dead and that He atoned for the sins of mankind? Or that the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth (see D&C 13)?

 

Scott, my comment made clear that I do not believe Elder Christofferson was speaking outside his authority. You and others may be trying to push his words outside his authority, but I read his words as an appropriate expression of his opinion. And his opinion may turn out to be right. But if so, it won't be because he had authority to speak for doctrine in the future. The simple fact is that doctrines change. Previous apostles held the same authority and acted with the same amount of clarity and inspiration as Elder Christofferson, but nevertheless they did not have authority to bind our current leaders and, at times, they made doctrinal statements which have now been renounced.

 

I doubt we will agree on the weight to give Elder Christofferson's statement. So let's focus on the underlying doctrinal principle. Do you believe that current apostles are bound by the doctrinal pronouncements of prior prophets and apostles? Yes or no? Because if yes, then you should be wearing the original garment design provided by Joseph Smith - the design which Joseph F. Smith taught was received from God and would never change (see below quote, taken from another post by JLHPROF) - rather than the current garment designs provided by our current leaders and which have changed to shorten sleeve and pant length.

 

Assuming you are following the teachings of current leaders over past ones, do you intend to change your practice in the future if a conflict should arise? Should a future apostle say - as did Elder McConkie - "Forget everything that I have said, or what President [Monson] or [Elder Christofferson] or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world" - would you nonetheless hold fast to the words of dead apostles, or would you embrace the greater light and knowledge that came through continued revelation?

 

 

 

"The Lord has given unto us garments of the holy priesthood, and you know what that means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them, in order that we may follow the foolish, vain and indecent practices of the world."

"In order that such people may imitate the fashions, they will not hesitate to mutilate that which should be held by them the most sacred of all things in the world, next to their own virtue, next to their own purity of life. They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them. Let us have the moral courage to stand against the opinions of fashion, and especially where fashion compels us to break a covenant and so commit a grievous sin."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

but all kinds of people receive revelation of different conclusions.  Some receive revelation that the Mormon church isn't true, others receive revelation that the Book of Mormon is false, others that our prophet is anything but.  How many people in the 60 knew by the holy ghost that blacks were cursed?  How many people knew in 1850 that Adam was God?   I wish it were that simple.

Also for some they have not the gift of faith and simply rely on the words of others.... You make it sound simple but our history and even God paints it as more complicated

 

DB what would you have me believe?  That God doesn't really speak to his prophets, or if he does, we can't know if or when he does?  Would you have me believe that our only tool of discernment is our limited and fallible intellect and perspective?  Are you suggesting that God deceives men into believing that a prophet is speaking truth when he is not, or that they are speaking falsehoods when he is actually speaking the truth?  Sounds like a lonely and confusing road for sure, with no one to trust, not even God.  The process of revelation is "simple" (I never said easy), but our complicated selves like to muddy things up. 

Edited February 10, 2015 by pogi

[Buckeye]

DB what would you have me believe?  That God doesn't really speak to his prophets, or if he does, we can't know if or when he does?  Would you have me believe that our only tool of discernment is our limited and fallible intellect and perspective?  Are you suggesting that God deceives men into believing that a prophet is speaking truth when he is not, or that they are speaking falsehoods when he is actually speaking the truth?  Sounds like a lonely and confusing road for sure, with no one to trust, not even God.  The process of revelation is "simple" (I never said easy), but our complicated selves like to muddy things up. 

 

I'll answer for myself. I believe in inspiration and revelation, but I do not believe any such interaction with deity is a "final word" (at least in this life). God meets us where we are, both individually and as a people. Quite often, instructions given in one era will be modified as a people's ability to abide God's word increases or decreases. Thus, we have Christ saying in the NT (my paraphrase) "It has been told to you X, but I say unto you Y." And we have Elder McConkie saying (my paraphrase) "forget the claims to revelation of yesterday because today we have more light and knowledge and God is saying something new."

 

A good example of this principle is the US Constitution. I believe the authors of the Constitution were inspired by God. The document was a marked improvement on governments existing at the time and moved the American people to system in which the restoration could take place and the people had more agency to pursue eternal happiness. In short, by following God's guidance, things got better.

 

But in saying the Constitution is inspired, I don't mean it is perfect, without error, or that we should stop seeking for even better guidance. As just one example, the Constitution codified slavery and the notion that blacks were only 3/5 of person for voting purposes - voting that, by the way, would be done by their owners. Certainly that is not a reflection of how God intends men to be treated in eternal realms. But it was included in an inspired document because the people at the time could not abide a higher law.

 

If I had a thesis it would be this: God does speak to us, but his communications are meant to keep us moving; he never says "you've made it; stop." Truth is not a fortress to be defended. It is living water that keeps moving forward. The water is a constant - it will always nourish us - but we have to keep walking to continue to partake. The minute we say "a doctrine a doctrine, we have a doctrine, so give up hope that additional light and knowledge could ever improve our doctrine" we start to step away from the water of life.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

DB what would you have me believe?  That God doesn't really speak to his prophets, or if he does, we can't know if or when he does?  Would you have me believe that our only tool of discernment is our limited and fallible intellect and perspective?  Are you suggesting that God deceives men into believing that a prophet is speaking truth when he is not, or that they are speaking falsehoods when he is actually speaking the truth?  Sounds like a lonely and confusing road for sure, with no one to trust, not even God.  The process of revelation is "simple" (I never said easy), but our complicated selves like to muddy things up.

 

 

Things are muddy because there is no conformity. If we believe a prophet can receive revelation and we can receive revelation and our neighbor can receive revelation, it becomes very muddy when those revelations don't match. So claiming personal revelation as the final arbiter of truth only works if 1- you're willing to accept that truth varies from person to person so there is no absolute for every person or 2- people (including leaders) misinterpret spiritual experiences.

 

The world is a muddy place. Good people of every faith believe they have the truth and have received spiritual witness of that. So is everyone else wrong but us? It's an impossible position. Instead of looking at spiritual experiences to define absolute truth perhaps we should allow them to work within us to transform us toward the person God would have us be. There is an important difference between those ideas. We must be willing to accept that we are just as wrong as we think everone else is.

Edited February 10, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

I'll answer for myself. I believe in inspiration and revelation, but I do not believe any such interaction with deity is a "final word" (at least in this life). God meets us where we are, both individually and as a people. Quite often, instructions given in one era will be modified as a people's ability to abide God's word increases or decreases. Thus, we have Christ saying in the NT (my paraphrase) "It has been told to you X, but I say unto you Y." And we have Elder McConkie saying (my paraphrase) "forget the claims to revelation of yesterday because today we have more light and knowledge and God is saying something new."

 

A good example of this principle is the US Constitution. I believe the authors of the Constitution were inspired by God. The document was a marked improvement on governments existing at the time and moved the American people to system in which the restoration could take place and the people had more agency to pursue eternal happiness. In short, by following God's guidance, things got better.

 

But in saying the Constitution is inspired, I don't mean it is perfect, without error, or that we should stop seeking for even better guidance. As just one example, the Constitution codified slavery and the notion that blacks were only 3/5 of person for voting purposes - voting that, by the way, would be done by their owners. Certainly that is not a reflection of how God intends men to be treated in eternal realms. But it was included in an inspired document because the people at the time could not abide a higher law.

 

If I had a thesis it would be this: God does speak to us, but his communications are meant to keep us moving; he never says "you've made it; stop." Truth is not a fortress to be defended. It is living water that keeps moving forward. The water is a constant - it will always nourish us - but we have to keep walking to continue to partake. The minute we say "a doctrine a doctrine, we have a doctrine, so give up hope that additional light and knowledge could ever improve our doctrine" we start to step away from the water of life.

 

24 ¶Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

 

Matthew 7

[pogi]

Buckeye, well said.  I agree with much of what you write.  That is my personal experience with revelation as well.  The more revelation we are given the better we understand previous revelations.  God will not cease to speak to man and give further light and knowledge.  Thus our understanding is constantly evolving as individuals and as a church.  I will say this however, if a revelation is from God, new light and knowledge might enhance our understanding or alter our perspective, but it will not contradict the original revelation if it is from God.  That is not how line upon line works.  The second line necessarily adds to and perhaps alters our understanding of the first, but it does not change it.  The first line stays the same. 

 

The example that you gave of how Christ came and "changed"everything is not what really happened.  Christ fulfilled the law, he did not change it.  It was never revealed that the law of Moses was an eternal law.  

 

This whole concept is really simple, if a prophet says something will never change, and he was inspired to do so, then it will never change.  It can't or that would make God a liar.  This is not to say that our understanding of homosexuality and marriage will not evolve, but simply that "never change" cannot mean "might change someday" if it was inspired.  

Edited February 10, 2015 by pogi

[Mars]

24 ¶Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

 28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

 

Matthew 7

 

fyi - i think it's against board rules to just cite scripture in a post without any elucidation

 

board guidlines like you to say why you cited them, what relevance you think it has, and what the general thrust is behind them - as you see it

 

otherwise it just comes across as bashing someone over the head with the Bible.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Mars

[Buckeye]

Buckeye, well said.  I agree with much of what you write.  That is my personal experience with revelation as well.  The more revelation we are given the better we understand previous revelations.  God will not cease to speak to man and give further light and knowledge.  Thus our understanding is constantly evolving as individuals and as a church.  I will say this however, if a revelation is from God, new light and knowledge might enhance our understanding or alter our perspective, but it will not contradict the original revelation if it is from God.  That is not how line upon line works.  The second line necessarily adds to and perhaps alters our understanding of the first, but it does not change it.  The first line stays the same. 

 

The example that you gave of how Christ came and "changed"everything is not what really happened.  Christ fulfilled the law, he did not change it.  It was never revealed that the law of Moses was an eternal law.  

 

This whole concept is really simple, if a prophet says something will never change, and he was inspired to do so, then it will never change.  It can't or that would make God a liar.  This is not to say that our understanding of homosexuality and marriage will not evolve, but simply that "never change" cannot mean "might change someday" if it was inspired.  

 

I tend to agree that new revelation will not directly contradict prior revelation, but I'm not sure that means much. When things change, we find ways to harmonize the old and the new. Sometimes this comes by concluding that things we thought were revelation must not have been. Sometimes it comes by altering our view of the prior law to make it seem less absolute.

 

As an example, the law of Moses did contain the teaching "eye for an eye." Christ changed that law. We can try to harmonize it by saying some underlying principle still exists in both laws - say "justice" - but the fact still remains that actions acceptable previously were not acceptable after the change.

 

Another example - the LDS FP previously taught that interracial marriage was contrary to doctrine from God (see the Lowry Nelson letters). This teaching has completely changed. We now seal interracial couples for time and all eternity in our temples. That's a tough one to harmonize. My conclusion is that the FP simply got it wrong. I'm okay with that. It doesn't mean that God's word changed, just that sometimes God's servants are wrong in their understanding of his word. That's why Elder McConkie had to say "forget everything I said on the matter" - because the 1978 revelation directly contradicted his and others' doctrinal pronouncements that blacks would never receive the priesthood until after all non-cursed had the opportunity to accept it. I'm much more comfortable saying he and others were sincere, but nonetheless got it wrong, than I am to say that God "changed his mind."

[pogi]

As an example, the law of Moses did contain the teaching "eye for an eye." Christ changed that law. We can try to harmonize it by saying some underlying principle still exists in both laws - say "justice" - but the fact still remains that actions acceptable previously were not acceptable after the change.

 

Laws do not change so much as they are fulfilled.  "Not one jot or title shall pass away until all is fulfilled."  Some are given to serve a temporary purpose, while others are eternal.  We have revelation which explains of higher and lower laws (tithing and consecration for example). We also learn about some of them in the temple. As we fulfill covenants and lower laws, we are introduced to higher laws.  This is in harmony with what has been revealed and is not contradictory.  If a prophet however, was indeed inspired to prophecy that a law is eternal and will "never" change, then that specific law cannot and will not change. 

 

Another example - the LDS FP previously taught that interracial marriage was contrary to doctrine from God (see the Lowry Nelson letters). This teaching has completely changed. We now seal interracial couples for time and all eternity in our temples. That's a tough one to harmonize. My conclusion is that the FP simply got it wrong. I'm okay with that. It doesn't mean that God's word changed, just that sometimes God's servants are wrong in their understanding of his word. That's why Elder McConkie had to say "forget everything I said on the matter" - because the 1978 revelation directly contradicted his and others' doctrinal pronouncements that blacks would never receive the priesthood until after all non-cursed had the opportunity to accept it. I'm much more comfortable saying he and others were sincere, but nonetheless got it wrong, than I am to say that God "changed his mind."

 

Right

Edited February 10, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

Well if it's stuff that has since been disavowed by the Church, then there's no truth in it, revelatory or otherwise, and raising it as an argument to apply today can only serve to cloud the issue.

 

 

Nonsense.

Nobody has shown me yet why we should accept the Church teachings today as more correct than the early Church teachings.

Both came from prophets.  Both claimed revelation.  Both were accepted in their day as true doctrine.

When they conflict there is NO reason to accept modern over early except personal preference.

[KevinG]

Just because Elder McConkie said it was doctrinal (or used the word Doctrine in the title of a book) does not mean it was eternal, doctrinal, or even a good idea.  Granted he did have a lot of good writings and ideas.  Blacks being restricted from the Priesthood, we now know, was neither doctrinal or a good idea.

[JLHPROF]

The simple fact is that doctrines change. Previous apostles held the same authority and acted with the same amount of clarity and inspiration as Elder Christofferson,

 

So let's focus on the underlying doctrinal principle. Do you believe that current apostles are bound by the doctrinal pronouncements of prior prophets and apostles? Yes or no?

 

Assuming you are following the teachings of current leaders over past ones, do you intend to change your practice in the future if a conflict should arise? Should a future apostle say - as did Elder McConkie - "Forget everything that I have said, or what President [Monson] or [Elder Christofferson] or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world" - would you nonetheless hold fast to the words of dead apostles, or would you embrace the greater light and knowledge that came through continued revelation?

 

 

This, almost exactly, is my feeling.  However, I DON'T believe "continuing revelation" can contradict previous revelation.  It can contradict previous teachings, but NEVER anything recorded as coming by revelation.

 

If there is no revelation or insufficient revelation on a subject then we might expect continuing revelation to give us further light and knowledge.

 

However, continuing revelation can never contradict previous revelation without us knowing it is not from the right source.  Joseph Smith (and the scriptures) make that very clear.

 

So the question unavoidably becomes: What was received by revelation and what wasn't?

 

Answering this correctly lets us know what continuing revelation can change and what it can't.  If everything can change, then the "gospel" is absolutely worthless and I wouldn't waste my time with it.

Edited February 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

So let's focus on the underlying doctrinal principle. Do you believe that current apostles are bound by the doctrinal pronouncements of prior prophets and apostles?

***

Assuming you are following the teachings of current leaders over past ones, do you intend to change your practice in the future if a conflict should arise?

I think the expected responses would be "no" and "yes" because the underlying doctrinal principle is that true progress is defined by the Lord through His servants. But some dispute the pronouncements and changes made by current prophets and apostles by resisting them. Others dispute their teachings by declaring a coming change justified by their own wisdom. Both these responses run contrary to that underlying principle.

[CV75]

If I had a thesis it would be this: God does speak to us, but his communications are meant to keep us moving; he never says "you've made it; stop." Truth is not a fortress to be defended. It is living water that keeps moving forward. The water is a constant - it will always nourish us - but we have to keep walking to continue to partake. The minute we say "a doctrine a doctrine, we have a doctrine, so give up hope that additional light and knowledge could ever improve our doctrine" we start to step away from the water of life.

The plan of happiness is about more than progress in gaining light and knowledge; it is also about progress in actual competence in the ways of righteousness (becoming perfect). When one counters or disputes what has been revealed for the present, or nurses discontent because something more palatable hasn’t been revealed yet, he is neglecting competence by not exercising the right spirit, no matter how wrong he supposes the Lord’s servants are, were, or could be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nonsense.

Nobody has shown me yet why we should accept the Church teachings today as more correct than the early Church teachings.

Both came from prophets.  Both claimed revelation.  Both were accepted in their day as true doctrine.

When they conflict there is NO reason to accept modern over early except personal preference.

I daresay every apostate schismatic group that ever broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ was formed on that premise.

[pogi]

Things are muddy because there is no conformity. 

 

I don't disagree that things are muddy.  I was speaking about the process of revelation however, which is very simple (not necessarily easy).  In fact, what makes it difficult is lack of conformity to God.  We conform to culture, we conform to our judgement, we conform to fear, we conform to worldliness, all while attempting to conform to and hear God.  It doesn't work so well that way.  We have to cleanse the inner vessel and clear out the mud for our hearts to understand.  In other words, we need to empty our cups before they can be filled.  Simplicity.  Purity.  Oneness.  We are never all going to have the same perspective of truth in this life, just aint gonna happen.  That is not to say that the Lord cannot and will not assure us when a prophet of God is speaking His word.  We can be assured of his word, we may not all agree at this stage in the process, on what it means however.  If I can't learn discernment through the spirit and light of Christ, then all hope is lost and I cannot trust anything or anyone, not even myself. 

[JLHPROF]

I daresay every apostate schismatic group that ever broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ was formed on that premise.

 

Not an answer.  There is no doctrinal reason in established "canon" as to why we should accept the teachings of current leaders over the teachings of past leaders when a contradiction arises.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, my comment made clear that I do not believe Elder Christofferson was speaking outside his authority. You and others may be trying to push his words outside his authority, but I read his words as an appropriate expression of his opinion.

Le me reiterate here for the sake of convenience what Elder Christofferson said in the Church News interview:

 

“Some even suppose that those standards will someday change. That is simply not true,” he said. “The law of chastity has applied since the very beginning, when the Lord commanded a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and to none else. Our doctrine, not just belief but doctrine, that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change.”

 

The author of the article asked me to read and edit the article for clarity and mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) before it was submitted to Elder Christofferson for vetting prior to its publication. To the best of my recollection, it came back unchanged or substantially unchanged (f there were changes, they were minor) from the way it was submitted to him.

 

The quoted comments in the article, including the above, are very clear, deliberate, direct and unequivocal, made by one who, by background and temperament, is very precise and careful in his expression. In no wise did he say pertaining to the above, "I give this as my opinion" or "this might change in the future depending on circumstances" or even imply such. He had every opportunity to include such qualifiers had he chosen to do so; he did not. We would have readily included them had he done so.

 

So you are, in effect, contradicting what he said, and yes, in so doing, you are in effect charging him with exceeding his authority. Again, I say I find that a remarkable accusation to make.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Not an answer.  There is no doctrinal reason in established "canon" as to why we should accept the teachings of current leaders over the teachings of past leaders when a contradiction arises.

I predict you will reject this, but it is published by the Church, and I present it here for the sake of others who might be reading.

 

It is from the Teachings  of the Living Prophets Student Manual prepared by the Church Educational System:

 

 

Some People Will Believe in Past Prophets but Reject the Living Prophets

• •

  Many people revere the prophets of the past but refuse to accept the prophet the Lord has sent to guide them in their day (see Helaman 13:24–26). President Harold B. Lee shared an experience that illustrates this tendency:

  “I have a banker friend in New York. Years ago when I met him in company with President Jacobson, who was then presiding over the Eastern States Mission, we had quite a discussion. President Jacobson had given him a copy of the Book of Mormon, which he had read, and he spoke very glowingly of what he called its ‘tremendous philosophies.’ Near the close of the business hour he invited us to ride to the mission home in his limousine, and we accepted. On the way, as he talked about the Book of Mormon and his reverence for its teachings, I said, ‘Well, why don’t you do something about it? If you accept the Book of Mormon, what is holding you back? Why don’t you join the Church? Why don’t you accept Joseph Smith, then, as a prophet?’

  “And he said, very thoughtfully and carefully, ‘Well, I suppose the whole reason is that Joseph Smith is too close to me. If he had lived two thousand years ago, I suppose I would believe. But because he is so close, I guess that is the reason I can’t accept him as a prophet.’

  “Here was a young man saying, ‘I believe in the dead prophets that lived a thousand-plus years ago, but I have great difficulty believing in a living prophet.’ That attitude is also taken toward God. To say that the heavens are sealed and there is no revelation today is saying that we do not believe in a living Christ today, or a living God today—we believe in one long-since dead and gone. So this term living prophet has real significance” (“The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. [1982], 105).

• •

  Claiming a belief in dead prophets while rejecting the living prophet is a very old problem. Some of the Pharisees of Jesus Christ’s day rejected the living Christ but accepted the prophet Moses, who had led Israel over 1,000 years earlier. They reviled a man whom Jesus had healed, saying:

  “Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

  “We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow [Jesus], we know not from whence he is” (John 9:28–29; see also Matthew 23:29–30, 34; Helaman 13:24–29).

• •

  President Harold B. Lee taught that a belief in revelation must include the teachings of our current prophet:

  “Soon after President David O. McKay announced to the Church that members of the First Council of the Seventy were being ordained high priests in order to extend their usefulness and to give them authority to act when no other General Authority could be present, a seventy I met … was very much disturbed. He said to me, ‘Didn’t the Prophet Joseph Smith say that this was contrary to the order of heaven to name high priests as presidents of the First Council of the Seventy?’ And I said, ‘Well, I have understood that he did, but have you ever thought that what was contrary to the order of heaven in 1840 might not be contrary to the order of heaven in 1960?’ He had not thought of that. He again was following a dead prophet, and he was forgetting that there is a living prophet today. Hence the importance of our stressing that word living.

  “Years ago as a young missionary I visited Nauvoo and Carthage with my mission president, and we were holding a missionary meeting in the jail room where Joseph and Hyrum had met their deaths. The mission president related the historical events that led up to the martyrdom and then he closed with this very significant statement: ‘When the Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred, there were many saints who died spiritually with Joseph.’ So it was when Brigham Young died: so it was when John Taylor died. … Some Church members died spiritually with Wilford Woodruff, with Lorenzo Snow, with Joseph F. Smith, with Heber J. Grant, with George Albert Smith. We have some today willing to believe someone who is dead and gone and to accept his words as having more authority than the words of a living authority today” (Stand Ye in Holy Places [1974], 152–53; emphasis added).

 

•  

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

fyi - i think it's against board rules to just cite scripture in a post without any elucidation

 

board guidlines like you to say why you cited them, what relevance you think it has, and what the general thrust is behind them - as you see it

 

otherwise it just comes across as bashing someone over the head with the Bible.

 

If Buckeye feels bashed over the head with the Bible I hope that he would let me know.

[Buckeye]

Le me reiterate here for the sake of convenience what Elder Christofferson said in the Church News interview:

 

The author of the article asked me to read and edit the article for clarity and mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) before it was submitted to Elder Christofferson for vetting prior to its publication. To the best of my recollection, it came back unchanged or substantially unchanged (f there were changes, they were minor) from the way it was submitted to him.

 

The quoted comments in the article, including the above, are very clear, deliberate and direct, made by one who, by background and temperament, is very precise and careful in his expression. In no wise did he say pertaining to the above, "I give this as my opinion" or "this might change in the future depending on circumstances" or even imply such. He had every opportunity to include such qualifiers had he chosen to do so; he did not.

 

So you are, in effect, contradicting what he said, and yes, in so doing, you are in effect charging him with exceeding his authority. Again, I say I find that a remarkable accusation to make.

 

Okay. I'll take this is a non-answer and go plow other fields.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay. I'll take this is a non-answer and go plow other fields.

Oh, it's an answer all right. You just don't like the answer.

[DBMormon]

DB what would you have me believe?  That God doesn't really speak to his prophets, or if he does, we can't know if or when he does?  Would you have me believe that our only tool of discernment is our limited and fallible intellect and perspective?  Are you suggesting that God deceives men into believing that a prophet is speaking truth when he is not, or that they are speaking falsehoods when he is actually speaking the truth?  Sounds like a lonely and confusing road for sure, with no one to trust, not even God.  The process of revelation is "simple" (I never said easy), but our complicated selves like to muddy things up. 

I am saying it is messy.  We each can hold to what we feel is God's truth but knowing that others receive truth that absolutely contradicts our experience.  and Secondly even God himself states that some don't get this experience at all and have not the gift of faith and simply must rely on the words of others.

 

Pogi, does your experience trump others?  Does your spiritual experience have more weight than the others who claim similar experiences but different conclusions.

Edited February 10, 2015 by DBMormon

[california boy]

Le me reiterate here for the sake of convenience what Elder Christofferson said in the Church News interview:

 

The author of the article asked me to read and edit the article for clarity and mechanics (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) before it was submitted to Elder Christofferson for vetting prior to its publication. To the best of my recollection, it came back unchanged or substantially unchanged (f there were changes, they were minor) from the way it was submitted to him.

 

The quoted comments in the article, including the above, are very clear, deliberate, direct and unequivocal, made by one who, by background and temperament, is very precise and careful in his expression. In no wise did he say pertaining to the above, "I give this as my opinion" or "this might change in the future depending on circumstances" or even imply such. He had every opportunity to include such qualifiers had he chosen to do so; he did not. We would have readily included them had he done so.

 

So you are, in effect, contradicting what he said, and yes, in so doing, you are in effect charging him with exceeding his authority. Again, I say I find that a remarkable accusation to make.

 

According to the doctrine of Brigham Young, the church no longer even has the priesthood.  Here is his revelation on interracial marriage.

 

 

We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed.  

Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852,

located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah)

 

 

 

Just how serious is interracial marriage?

 

After listening to a Brigham Young speech in the Tabernacle, Wilford Woodruff records the following Brigham Young quote in his journal:

 

 

"Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

 

 

Two prophets, giving very absolute doctrine on interracial marrriage.  One apostle giving absolute doctrine on SSM.  Should we believe all of them. or just the ones we want to believe?

Edited February 10, 2015 by california boy