Lectures On Faith-

[CCRW]

Did Christ appear to the School of the Prophets at one point?  Not sure if I'm remembering right?

[Scott Lloyd]

Did Christ appear to the School of the Prophets at one point?  Not sure if I'm remembering right?

Perhaps you are remembering an entry in the minute record of the meetings as found here.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Well, I, for one, don't cop to being a "cafeteria Mormon." And I don't buy that everyone does.

 

There a very simple reason for that my friend.  You appear based on the responses I've read to accept whatever the official Church teaching is on every subject at any given time.  Therefore, you never have a conflicting belief and when you do you seem to just adjust your belief to match whatever is the current teaching regardless of anything else.

 

I don't know very many members that are like that.  Most have at least one unique belief outside of what's written in the manuals.

In order to be a cafeteria Mormon all that is required is to select what you believe and discard what you don't or what you disagree with.  I don't think I've ever known anyone who believes 100% all of everything that is current Church teaching exactly as it is taught at this exact moment in Church history.  If you are that person, I am pleased to say I know someone now.

[sethpayne]

Well, I, for one, don't cop to being a "cafeteria Mormon." And I don't buy that everyone does.

 

Scott -- very sincere question here.

 

How can you not be at least somewhat selective in what you personally accept/believe when it comes to the various ideas and doctrines of the Church that have been taught/presented over the years?  Of course the core doctrines have never changed.  But there have been doctrines that were taught from both the pulpit and during the temple ceremony (Adam-God) that are completely rejected today.  I imagine that you reject Adam-God.  By so doing aren't you acknowledging that Brigham Young was mistaken in this specific instance?

 

Elder Benson said that the living Prophet is more important to us than anything else.  Elder McConkie taught that the scriptures trump even the Prophet's words (as he was putting to rest some of BY's teachings).  Both statements can't be correct as they contradict one another.  Which one do you find more persuasive?

 

In order for current Church leadership to be right, some of our past leaders must have been mistaken.  Conversely, if our past leaders were correct, our current leaders are incorrect.

 

How do you harmonize this without being, at least somewhat, a "cafeteria" Mormon?

[JLHPROF]

Elder Benson said that the living Prophet is more important to us than anything else.  Elder McConkie taught that the scriptures trump even the Prophet's words (as he was putting to rest some of BY's teachings). 

 

President Benson was correct in this one.  At least, he wasn't alone in it.  Joseph, Brigham, and others taught the same thing.  Just another McConkie teaching I have to disagree with.

[CCRW]

Perhaps you are remembering an entry in the minute record of the meetings as found here.

 

Oh my ... thank you Scott ... does that ever bring back the memories of a desire so strong to partake of the way the School was organized here. Pray God that we might all find each other worthy of the salutation.

 

"Art thou a brother or brethren? I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever. Amen."

 

I myself just can not put aside anything that was associated with this: see D&C 88 125 to end (i.e. LoF)

Edited April 16, 2015 by CCRW

[Thinking]

First, it seems to have become the common practice of those who don't like the content of "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," to dismiss it as being "just guidelines." It won't do to so trivialize it. The document is far more than that. It is a solemn declaration, a "proclamation,' just as the title states, setting forth the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and being directed to the world at large as well as to the Latter-day Saints.

 

I'm not sure why you brought up "The Family: A Proclamation To The World."

 

Second, the comparison of the Lectures on Faith to study aids, is actually a very apt one. Or, we might regard the lectures in some ways as an early-day equivalent to a lesson manual for priesthood quorums and groups. That they would be bound for the sake of convenience with the earliest form of a volume of latter-day scripture is not surprising, and their subsequent removal from that binding is not all that momentous.

 

CFR that they were bound for the sake of convenience. According to the preface the were included because they embraced the important doctrine of salvation.

[Teancum]

That is not clear. What we can say is that they are not included now. What does that tell you? They are not doctrine. Plain and simple. I can only go off of what is now. Not what they were 100 years ago.

Perhaps not doctrine now but the Lectures were clearly the doctrine part of the D&C of 1835. At least those who compiled the book, reviewed it and voted to approve it thought so and that is what the historical record shows. I think I will take their word for it,

[Teancum]

I have to object to this on a couple of points.

 

First, it seems to have become the common practice of those who don't like the content of "The Family: a Proclamation to the World," to dismiss it as being "just guidelines." It won't do to so trivialize it. The document is far more than that. It is a solemn declaration, a "proclamation,' just as the title states, setting forth the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and being directed to the world at large as well as to the Latter-day Saints.

 

Second, the comparison of the Lectures on Faith to study aids, is actually a very apt one. Or, we might regard the lectures in some ways as an early-day equivalent to a lesson manual for priesthood quorums and groups. That they would be bound for the sake of convenience with the earliest form of a volume of latter-day scripture is not surprising, and their subsequent removal from that binding is not all that momentous.

 

It just occurred to me while typing this that it could be argued that the family proclamation, given its timeless and essential nature, has far greater stature than do the Lectures on Faith, which, today, are viewed as interesting and potentially beneficial reading, but certainly not essential.

Of course today the Proclomation of the Family has far greater status then The Lectures on Faith. My guess is many members are not even aware of them. Stil it seems at least initially they were viewed on a high level with important status. They are really quite good in my opinion. Lecture 5 is the most problematic in seeming to disagree with the later theological developments particularly where the Father is referred to as a personage of spirit. This lecture is most likely the reason they were later removed. Interestingly as I noted Elder McConkie quite liked Lecture 5. I am aways from my PC for a few daysbut I may be able to find that quote when I get back to it.

[pogi]

Well, I, for one, don't cop to being a "cafeteria Mormon." And I don't buy that everyone does.

 

Have you ever met a single Mormon that believes the exact same as you in every single way?  Not even the brethren agree on every teaching, they pick and choose different teachings from the buffet set before them.

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

Ouch...you wound me sir! 

 

I think every Mormon is a cafeteria Mormon.  In the grand scope of all prophetic teaching, scripture, revelation, etc there is always something that we don't agree with.  So we pick and choose, sometimes based on sound reasoning, sometimes based on human emotion, sometimes based on what's "popular/accepted".  We all have our own approach to the cafeteria line...

Are all believers in all religions "cafeteria" believers, or is that something unique to Mormons?

[Robert F. Smith]

So...when the Lectures were taken out in 1921, why wasn't the title changed back to The Book of Commandments?

Inertia?

[pogi]

Are all believers in all religions "cafeteria" believers, or is that something unique to Mormons?

 

Definitely not unique. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by pogi

[CCRW]

To me, the lectures presented a totally different view of faith than the age old ... "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" to a much stronger faith of full expectation.  The whole concept of "the moving cause of all action".  A faith strong enough to indeed lead one to seeing the face of God.  

 

[ALarson]

Are all believers in all religions "cafeteria" believers, or is that something unique to Mormons?

I think it's all religions.  Some just won't admit to that terminology.

 

I have close family members who are staunch Catholics (very orthodox and they attend mass at least once a week...or more) and they are not overly happy with the new Pope (they just say that the jury is still out with him) and they disagree with many of his more liberal public statements.  Are they cafeteria Catholics?  I'd say so.

[Gray]

President Benson was correct in this one.  At least, he wasn't alone in it.  Joseph, Brigham, and others taught the same thing.  Just another McConkie teaching I have to disagree with.

 

You'll have to add Harold B. Lee to the list as well:

 

If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

[JLHPROF]

You'll have to add Harold B. Lee to the list as well:

 

 

I like this one:

Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” - Wilford Woodruff.

 

 

Now I don't think that means the prophet gets to contradict scripture, and I don't think that's what Brigham meant either.

But we have to understand that scripture are recorded sermons/letters/revelations of prophets and apostles.  That's all they are.  There is no reason why the sermons/letters/revelations of the Apostle Paul should carry one iota more importance than the sermons/letters/revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or any other Prophet.  They are all apostles and prophets equally (and should be in harmony).

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

Brigham also said this...

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”

Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

This is a very healthy view of scripture and frankly it would seem living oracles would be every bit as fallible.

[sethpayne]

Brigham also said this...

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”

Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

This is a very healthy view of scripture and frankly it would seem living oracles would be every bit as fallible.

 

That is a fantastic view of scripture!!!  Take what's inspired and have the discernment to know what principles are most important to our own commitment to the Gospel.

[JLHPROF]

Brigham also said this...

“I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them “you believe more than I do.” I believe the words of God are there; I believe the words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the words of angels are there;”

Brigham Young - pp. 276-281 - Journal of Discourses

Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 124 : - Discourses of Brigham Young : 11 : 129 : 5

This is a very healthy view of scripture and frankly it would seem living oracles would be every bit as fallible.

 

Don't forget the most important bit:

Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness.

[CCRW]

hey jlhprof,

 

I know you love BY, I wonder if you are aware of his steam engine story?

[JLHPROF]

hey jlhprof,

 

I know you love BY, I wonder if you are aware of his steam engine story?

 

Vaguely.  I don't have all the particulars.  I know his detractors like to claim he allowed some handcart pioneers to suffer by using resources on a pet project involving one.

It's been a while since I heard anything about it.  Seems to me like it's probably another MMM type claim, a who said what to who and who knew what when kind of thing.  I prefer to give Brigham the benefit of the doubt on such things since history is at best unclear.

If Brigham did indeed choose a steam engine over helping some pioneers then it was a mistake and he will answer for it.

Didn't change the office that he held.

[Gray]

I like this one:

 

Now I don't think that means the prophet gets to contradict scripture, and I don't think that's what Brigham meant either.

But we have to understand that scripture are recorded sermons/letters/revelations of prophets and apostles.  That's all they are.  There is no reason why the sermons/letters/revelations of the Apostle Paul should carry one iota more importance than the sermons/letters/revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or any other Prophet.  They are all apostles and prophets equally (and should be in harmony).

 

I actually agree with you more than Harold B. Lee on this, but my assumption is that both the scriptures and teachings of living prophets are good-faith attempts at teaching good spiritual messages, and that neither represent the literal words of God. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

I actually agree with you more than Harold B. Lee on this, but my assumption is that both the scriptures and teachings of living prophets are good-faith attempts at teaching good spiritual messages, and that neither represent the literal words of God. 

 

That's because you don't believe God literally speaks to us.  I don't see how he can hold us accountable to much then.  We would get to say "you never said".  We can only be held accountable for what we know and do with it.  I don't see how we can be held accountable if we are left to draw our own flawed conclusions on EVERYTHING.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

That's because you don't believe God literally speaks to us.  I don't see how he can hold us accountable to much then.  We would get to say "you never said".  We can only be held accountable for what we know and do with it.  I don't see how we can be held accountable if we are left to draw our own flawed conclusions on EVERYTHING.

 

It's amazing how that question opens up so many more for consideration.