Follow The Prophet

[NotaMormon]

I’ve talked with quite a few Mormons over the past few years and many of them have made good points that made me seriously think about what I believe. But then other things I’ve heard from Mormons have pushed me even further away from the LDS church. This is one of those things that has pushed me away.

 

I heard someone quoting from Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, so I looked into it further and found the full book online, https://archive.org/stream/MiracleOfForgiveness/MoF#page/n0/mode/2up. I certainly disagreed with parts of it, but I found the responses I got from Mormons to be even more disturbing. For instance, take these quotes:

Trying Is Not Sufficient

Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. To try with weakness of attitude and effort is to assure failure in the face of Satan’s strong counteracting efforts. What is needed is resolute action. A story will perhaps illustrate this.

 

An army officer called a soldier to him and ordered him to take a message to another officer. The soldier saluted and said, “I’ll try, sir! I’ll try!” to this the officer responded: “I don’t want you to try, I want you to deliver this message.” The soldier, somewhat embarrassed, now replied: “I’ll do the best I can, sir.” At this the officer, now disgusted, rejoined with some vigor: “I don’t want you to try and I don’t want you to ‘do the best you can.’ I want you to deliver this message.” Now the young soldier, straightening to his full height, approached the matter magnificently, as he thought, when he saluted again and said: “I’ll do it or die, sir.” To this the now irate officer responded: “I don’t want you to die, and I don’t want you merely to do the best you can, and I don’t want you to try. Now, the request is a reasonable one; the message is important; the distance is not far; you are able-bodied; you can do what I have ordered. Now get out of here and accomplish your mission.

 

It is normal for children to try. They fall and get up numerous times before they can be certain of their footing. But adults, who have gone through these learning periods, must determine what they will do, then proceed to do it. To “try” is weak. To “do the best I can” is not strong. We must always do better than we can. This is true in every walk of life.

That is a very strict way of looking at faith.

 

I have referred previously to the significance of this life in the application of repentance but will emphasize it here in relation to the eventual judgment. One cannot delay repentance until the next life, the spirit world, and there prepare properly for the day of judgment while the ordinance work is done for him vicariously on earth. It must be remembered that vicarious work for the dead is for those who could not do the work for themselves. Men and women who live in mortality and who have heard the gospel here have had their day, their seventy years to put their lives in harmony, to perform the ordinances, to repent and perfect their lives.

And that adds a strong sense of urgency to the teaching on faith.

 

Yes, I know MoF was published in 1969 and Kimball wasn’t president until 1973, but it seems like Kimball continued to believe and teach this strict and urgent view of faith during his presidency. In a BYU devotional (1974), Kimball said, “Let me say, then, that perfection is still our goal. It is reached by climbing steadily upward, controlling all our desires, impulses, and urges. It is possible.” In a 1984 tract called “Repentance Brings Forgiveness,” Kimball wrote “The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again." I certainly never found anything about Kimball saying he went too far in the book.

 

I asked some missionaries how Kimball’s strict and urgent teachings should be interpreted, but they said they’ve never read the book. They suggested I read talks by Brad Wilcox and Elder D. Todd Christofferson, which I did, but they aren’t presidents of the church. Their talks may not contradict Kimball’s teachings, but they certainly didn’t have the same sense of urgency or strictness. Why should I take their teachings over the teachings of a president?

I looked up the amazon.com page for the book and read some reviews. One person said they’re an “active LDS member,” but gave the book a bad review because the book has “Kimball's personal views and many of his opinions on sins of omissions, etc are not necessarily inline with LDS doctrines.” He recommends another book by Stephen Robinson to better understand Christ and His atonement.

The missionaries also talked about the apostasy and how the early church ignored teachings of the prophets and followed other teachers. How is this any different? Have any president’s since Kimball taught about the same sense of strictness and urgency in faith? What’s the point of having a president leading the church if the other leaders in the church aren’t teaching the same thing about faith? How can I take the call to ‘follow the prophet’ seriously when none of the members I’ve met or leaders I’ve read about are following a prophet’s teachings on faith?

Edited March 15, 2015 by NotaMormon

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps one source of your confusion may stem from the fact that no one who is not the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims God's will to members of the Church.  The Quorum of the Twelve collectively in conjunction with the First Presidency, may do so, but individual members of the Twelve do not.  See, e.g.:

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/36035_000_25_livingchrist.pdf, and

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

 

Further, just as no one member of the Twelve may speak for the Lord to the entire Church of Jesus Christ, other teachings that are to be included in curriculum, too, are subject to the approval of the First Presidency and of the Twelve.  How, as a matter of curriculum, has the Church of Jesus Christ handled The Miracle of Forgiveness?  While there may be much of value to individual members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the book as a whole (depending on each member's situation), only excerpts are included in current curriculum.  See:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-4?lang=eng

Edited March 15, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

He recommends another book by Stephen Robinson to better understand Christ and His atonement.

 

 

Can't speak to your thread topic, but I too recommend Robinson's book.  Best practical explanation of the atonement I've read.

[NotaMormon]

Perhaps one source of your confusion may stem from the fact that no one who is not the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims God's will to members of the Church.  The Quorum of the Twelve collectively in conjunction with the First Presidency, may do so, but individual members of the Twelve do not.  See, e.g.:

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/36035_000_25_livingchrist.pdf, and

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

What about the President himself? If he makes a statement about his beliefs on the gospel, are those basically considered God's words?

[NotaMormon]

Can't speak to your thread topic, but I too recommend Robinson's book.  Best practical explanation of the atonement I've read.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's the point of having living prophets at all if you look to non-prophets for the 'best explanation of the atonement'?

Edited March 15, 2015 by NotaMormon

[JLHPROF]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's the point of having prophets at all if you look to non-prophets for the 'best explanation of the atonement'?

 

Well the best doctrinal explanation of the atonement comes from a prophet - The Mediation and Atonement by John Taylor.  Not all prophets are the best experts on all areas of everything gospel related.  But they ARE the legal administrators for the ordinances and God's mouthpiece when confusion arises.

 

I think it's a mistake to assume all the prophets or apostles understand everything about the gospel better than anyone else.  I think some prophets understand the scriptures better than others.  Some understand the temple and ordinances better than other.  Some understand people better than others.  Some probably understand priesthood better than others.

Of any two intelligences one is always greater.  Why would we expect them all to know everything about everything?  It's more than enough that they have the authority to perform the saving ordinances and to receive revelation when serious doctrinal confusion arises.

[Uncle Dale]

I...

 

I heard someone quoting from Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, so I looked into it further and found the full book online

...

 

 

The single time in my life that I can say I was invited to

a private meeting with an LDS President, was more or less

an outcome of my having read that book.

 

I brought it with me to his office, and after some initial

misunderstandings, he happily autographed it for me.

It was long my one connection to the tail end of the '70s.

Now it's all just faded memories.

 

I did not have the words to say that I agreed more with the

title, than with some of the contents. I fully agreed that our

forgiving others, sincerely and without regret, is indeed a

miracle -- but more for ourselves than for the one(s) we

might wish forgiven.

 

And, I agree, that we learn the principle and the way, by

having obtained forgiveness ourselves. None of that do I

even begin to question.

 

What I did (and do) feel uneasy about, is the notion that

certain acts, ideas, attitudes, etc. require forgiveness in

the first place. But, more than that, the latter day mindset

that priesthood-holders and leaders have any special right,

power, duty or authority to "forgive," beyond expressing

their own feelings and hopefulness.

 

The idea of righteously forgiving, or of empowered forgiving,

or of acting as an intermediary between God and man, is a

notion foreign to my being -- as I said, an "uneasiness" that

goes back to the very first time I had the Catholic/Orthodox

mass explained to me -- the sacrament that "keeps one in

communion" with the worthy -- the proffered grace that must

not be partaken of "unworthily."

 

Was it Elder Holland, who was asked whether somebody's

wrongful actions could be "forgiven" in the church he was

representing? If not him, then one of his apostolic brethren.

And the answer "Certainly" or "Of course," seemed to say that

such religious leaders are right -- and the person seeking

rapprochement is wrong.

 

An "all or nothing" sort of attitude. It leaves me cold.

 

I half expect that Gandhi would have replied to a chela -- 

"I forgive you -- but you will also have to forgive me, if I do."

 

Isn't fellowship a two-way path?

 

UD

[JAHS]

"Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. To try with weakness of attitude and effort is to assure failure in the face of Satan’s strong counteracting efforts. What is needed is resolute action."

 

One of the main components of repentance is to abandon the sin. If we don't then we did not repent. So of course it is not enough to decide that we are only going to do our best or just try.  "Do or do not, there is no try" (Yoda).  He is telling us that we should have the attitude that we are going to do it no matter what. If we go into it with that attitude God will see that in our hearts and bless us accordingly. President Kimball is simply urging us to have a positive mental attitude and faith in God about the repentence process. I see nothing wrong with this.

[Garden Girl]

IIRC on a thread not long ago, there was discussion of MoF and SWKimball, and someone pointed out that some time after the book was published, when SWK was president, he did say that there were  parts he would like to have expressed somewhat differently... I think he saw some of the strictness or severity that was conveyed...  actually, I find the basic principle to be sound... just because we don't like the "tone" of the message doesn't make it invalid... That said, I too found his tone, even wording, in some places to be more severe than others in the FP or QofTwelve might have expressed. 

Also, I notice you say your example was "a very strict way of looking at faith."  Actually he was speaking of repentance... (true, faith is part of repentance, but the teaching was on repenting per se.)

 

GG

[NotaMormon]

Well the best doctrinal explanation of the atonement comes from a prophet - The Mediation and Atonement by John Taylor.  Not all prophets are the best experts on all areas of everything gospel related.  But they ARE the legal administrators for the ordinances and God's mouthpiece when confusion arises.

 

I think it's a mistake to assume all the prophets or apostles understand everything about the gospel better than anyone else.  I think some prophets understand the scriptures better than others.  Some understand the temple and ordinances better than other.  Some understand people better than others.  Some probably understand priesthood better than others.

Of any two intelligences one is always greater.  Why would we expect them all to know everything about everything?  It's more than enough that they have the authority to perform the saving ordinances and to receive revelation when serious doctrinal confusion arises.

Kimball spent about 10 years compiling scripture references and his thoughts for Miracle of Forgiveness. It may not go over everything gospel related, but it does say a lot about repentance and perfection, both of which are topics he continued to teach on during his presidency. If those topics weren't part of his expertise, he would be a false teacher for acting like they were.

 

If those quotes on strictness and urgency in MoF are just Kimball's misguided opinions on the topics, that doesn't explain the church's silence on the issue for decades. The leadership must know many people have read the book. If Kimball's teachings are true, why don't they continue to teach them? If they're not true, why doesn't the church make a statement to clarify the issue?

 

I thought the point of having living prophets was to have a foundation people could rely on to know what God's truth is, but the more I hear about what is authoritative and what isn't, what is official doctrine and what isn't, the more it looks like a chaotic, confusing mess.

[NotaMormon]

IIRC on a thread not long ago, there was discussion of MoF and SWKimball, and someone pointed out that some time after the book was published, when SWK was president, he did say that there were  parts he would like to have expressed somewhat differently... I think he saw some of the strictness or severity that was conveyed...  actually, I find the basic principle to be sound... just because we don't like the "tone" of the message doesn't make it invalid... That said, I too found his tone, even wording, in some places to be more severe than others in the FP or QofTwelve might have expressed. 

Also, I notice you say your example was "a very strict way of looking at faith."  Actually he was speaking of repentance... (true, faith is part of repentance, but the teaching was on repenting per se.)

 

GG

Do you have a link for that thread? I did a few searches and can't find it.

 

What's the difference between something with incorrect tone/wording and something that's false teaching? What about the quotes I posted? What is the valid message behind the tone?

[Glenn101]

   President Kimball's teachings on repentance in the Miracle of Forgiveness are well grounded scripturally  His advice was that it is best not to sin in the first place, but when sin occurs, prompt repentance is the next best course of action,

Generally speaking, there is no sin in this life that we cannot resist, I do not know the fate of those who get so deep that they cannot get out, as with drug addictions, 

I know of no false teachings in the Miracle of Forgiveness.

 

 

Glenn

[Duncan]

Kimball spent about 10 years compiling scripture references and his thoughts for Miracle of Forgiveness. It may not go over everything gospel related, but it does say a lot about repentance and perfection, both of which are topics he continued to teach on during his presidency. If those topics weren't part of his expertise, he would be a false teacher for acting like they were.

 

If those quotes on strictness and urgency in MoF are just Kimball's misguided opinions on the topics, that doesn't explain the church's silence on the issue for decades. The leadership must know many people have read the book. If Kimball's teachings are true, why don't they continue to teach them? If they're not true, why doesn't the church make a statement to clarify the issue?

 

I thought the point of having living prophets was to have a foundation people could rely on to know what God's truth is, but the more I hear about what is authoritative and what isn't, what is official doctrine and what isn't, the more it looks like a chaotic, confusing mess.

 

 

well, we believe in a living prophet, Pres. Kimball was a prophet for his time and so i'd say look to Pres. Monson or your local Bishop for teachings about repentance, line upon line precept upon precept

[Kenngo1969]

What about the President himself? If he makes a statement about his beliefs on the gospel, are those basically considered God's words?

In all of the cases of which I am aware, when new doctrine or a major policy is announced, it comes from "The Fifteen," speaking collectively.  See, e.g.: 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2 and

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

[Freedom]

If Kimball's teachings are true, why don't they continue to teach them? If they're not true, why doesn't the church make a statement to clarify the issue?

 

I thought the point of having living prophets was to have a foundation people could rely on to know what God's truth is, but the more I hear about what is authoritative and what isn't, what is official doctrine and what isn't, the more it looks like a chaotic, confusing mess.

 

If you know know what is authoritative, than why it is a confusing mess? The source of our doctrine is the scriptures and official proclamations. Nothing more or less. I think one of your challenges is the mindset of the inerrance of scripture. We reject that notion and accept that just because a prophet is inspired, he is not a machine that simply regurgitate Gods inerrant word. For example, Paul teaches the following; "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" 

Now, I suspect that if you found such a proclamation in MoF, you would be very concerned. If Paul did say this, and this is wrong, why didn't other new statement writers correct it? We believe scripture in inspired and profitable, not perfect and all encompasing. Now, if the scriptures can have errors, why should not accept that a book written by a church leader could have errors too? We do not consider the book in question to be scripture and there is no mandate that we should even read it. 

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

What's the difference between something with incorrect tone/wording and something that's false teaching?

...

.

I have frequently asked that same question. The answers are

from Reorganized LDS, but will probably apply equally well to

what Mormon leaders would say.

 

Dale: "Here is an 1830 Book of Mormon, is it true doctrine?"

 

GA: "Of course it is, except for any mistakes of men in its printing."

 

Dale: "But there are a few very substantial mistakes that were

corrected in later printings -- even a mention of the Mother of God.

Was that true or false doctrine, when printed in 1830?"

 

GA: "The book itself is true doctrine, except for any mistakes of men."

 

Dale: "Here is an 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, is it true doctrine?"

 

GA: "That part published as revelation was and is true doctrine."

 

Dale: "What about the 'Lectures on Faith' -- true doctrine or not?"

 

GA: "Since those pages in the book were not given by revelation,

we have never considered them doctrine in the first place."

 

Dale: "But, does not the very word "doctrine" in "D&C" come from

those same teaching lectures. Isn't teaching the same as doctrine?

Was the teaching given in those pages false? Thus false doctrine?"

 

GA: "From your attitude, it is plain to see that you are in the gall of

bitterness and held by the bonds of iniquity. If you had more faith

you would not ask such insipid, useless questions..."

 

UD

[rockpond]

Perhaps one source of your confusion may stem from the fact that no one who is not the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims God's will to members of the Church.  The Quorum of the Twelve collectively in conjunction with the First Presidency, may do so, but individual members of the Twelve do not.  See, e.g.:

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/36035_000_25_livingchrist.pdf, and

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

 

Further, just as no one member of the Twelve may speak for the Lord to the entire Church of Jesus Christ, other teachings that are to be included in curriculum, too, are subject to the approval of the First Presidency and of the Twelve.  How, as a matter of curriculum, has the Church of Jesus Christ handled The Miracle of Forgiveness?  While there may be much of value to individual members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the book as a whole (depending on each member's situation), only excerpts are included in current curriculum.  See:

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-4?lang=eng

 

When I went on my mission, MoF was one of four books (outside of the scriptures) that we were required to take with us.  Sure seemed like it had the endorsement of the Church to me at that time.  Though I realize now that it does not.

[rockpond]

If you know know what is authoritative, than why it is a confusing mess?

 

Because over time, our prophets and apostles have taught things that seemingly contradict.

 

A lot here depends on how you define doctrine.  The simplest definition I am aware of is:  a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

By that definition we see a lot of disagreement within the ranks of Mormonism.  But, if we fall back on the Joseph Smith statement about the doctrine of Christ (where all else is an appendage), I think we find a lot of clarity.

[NotaMormon]

well, we believe in a living prophet, Pres. Kimball was a prophet for his time and so i'd say look to Pres. Monson or your local Bishop for teachings about repentance, line upon line precept upon precept

But the Gospel hasn't changed during the last 40 years. If Kimball was right in his strict and urgent teachings, then why isn't Monson or any of the other current leaders teaching the same thing?

 

In all of the cases of which I am aware, when new doctrine or a major policy is announced, it comes from "The Fifteen," speaking collectively.  See, e.g.: 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2 and

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng

I'm not asking about a new doctrine or policy. Kimball's quotes in the OP are about repentance, faith and the gospel. So when a president teaches his beliefs about those topics, how should we take that teaching? Can we trust that teaching to be from God?

 

If you know know what is authoritative, than why it is a confusing mess? The source of our doctrine is the scriptures and official proclamations. Nothing more or less. I think one of your challenges is the mindset of the inerrance of scripture. We reject that notion and accept that just because a prophet is inspired, he is not a machine that simply regurgitate Gods inerrant word. For example, Paul teaches the following; "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" 

Now, I suspect that if you found such a proclamation in MoF, you would be very concerned. If Paul did say this, and this is wrong, why didn't other new statement writers correct it? We believe scripture in inspired and profitable, not perfect and all encompasing. Now, if the scriptures can have errors, why should not accept that a book written by a church leader could have errors too? We do not consider the book in question to be scripture and there is no mandate that we should even read it. 

If you ignore the context, many verses can sound confusing. Do you believe people need to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood to be saved? If not, then was Christ wrong when He said that? No, because the context shows us that wasn't a literal teaching. Paul also says women shouldn't have their hair braided in church. Was Paul obsessed with making rules for women or was there something in the culture we need to consider? One of the fashion trends of the time among the rich was to braid strands of gold into hair to show off wealth. It was their bling. Paul didn't want bringing bling to church which would distract from the message. He wanted the focus on God, not making church a fashion show. I don't recall the culture dealing with women speaking in church, but it was probably something similar. If the church let's itself believe scripture can have errors like that, then that's a very slippery slope for false teachers to exploit.

 

So are those quotes from MoF authoritative or not? Kimball did extensive research in the scriptures while writing the book and quotes many verses. Why wouldn't a prophet's teaching from scripture be authoritative?

[Coreyb]

The mantra or "doctrine" of follow the prophet is a cultural phenomenon not required by any of the revelations we have received as a church. There is in fact no office of "prophet" in the church. The president of the church need only be a high priest to function in that position. The only person called a prophet by The Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants is Joseph Smith, and people at the time were admonished to stand by him and support him in his calling. It is true most Mormons sustain fifteen living men as prophets, and many testify that the president of the church is a prophet of God. What this sustaining vote and testimony means to each person individually I don't know, you will have to ask us each individually. The same goes for what a person means when they say "follow the prophet".

[Uncle Dale]

The mantra or "doctrine" of follow the prophet is a cultural phenomenon not required by any of the revelations we have received as a church. There is in fact no office of "prophet" in the church. The president of the church need only be a high priest to function in that position. The only person called a prophet by The Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants is Joseph Smith, and people at the time were admonished to stand by him and support him in his calling. It is true most Mormons sustain fifteen living men as prophets, and many testify that the president of the church is a prophet of God. What this sustaining vote and testimony means to each person individually I don't know, you will have to ask us each individually. The same goes for what a person means when they say "follow the prophet".

 

.

Are LDS Apostles still ordained as prophet, seer, revelator, and translator?

 

Or was the fourth office dropped in ordinations beginning with that

of President John Taylor?

 

UD

(As I recall, the first three titles (callings?) are still bestowed upon Apostles)

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Coreyb]

.

Are LDS Apostles still ordained as prophet, seer, revelator, and translator?

 

Or was the fourth office dropped in ordinations beginning with that

of President John Taylor?

 

UD

(As I recall, the first three titles (callings?) are still bestowed upon Apostles)

As a matter of tradition. Their calling as an Apostle does not require those extra titles. Brigham Young refused them to be sustained as such for most of his presidency.

[Uncle Dale]

As a matter of tradition. Their calling as an Apostle does not require those extra titles. Brigham Young refused them to be sustained as such for most of his presidency.

 

.

I am more interested in the wording of the initial

apostolic ordination (not that of Pres. of HP).

However, if that apostolic ordination is bestowed

in the Temple, I can understand why you might

feel restrained from quoting the exact wording.

 

UD

[NotaMormon]

The mantra or "doctrine" of follow the prophet is a cultural phenomenon not required by any of the revelations we have received as a church. There is in fact no office of "prophet" in the church. The president of the church need only be a high priest to function in that position. The only person called a prophet by The Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants is Joseph Smith, and people at the time were admonished to stand by him and support him in his calling. It is true most Mormons sustain fifteen living men as prophets, and many testify that the president of the church is a prophet of God. What this sustaining vote and testimony means to each person individually I don't know, you will have to ask us each individually. The same goes for what a person means when they say "follow the prophet".

What??? I've heard many Mormons quote Amos 3:7 and say the true church would always have a prophet leading it. Yet you're saying the LDS church hasn't had a prophet for about 150 years?

 

Plus, that doesn't answer the question about why current LDS leadership and members seem to be ignoring Kimball's strict and urgent teachings.

[Duncan]

What??? I've heard many Mormons quote Amos 3:7 and say the true church would always have a prophet leading it. Yet you're saying the LDS church hasn't had a prophet for about 150 years?

 

Plus, that doesn't answer the question about why current LDS leadership and members seem to be ignoring Kimball's strict and urgent teachings.

 

 

Maybe other people have other ideas about repentance, that's entirely possible............You are aware that he wished he had toned down the book right?