Are scriptures treated as more important than modern prophets?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

In other words no matter how willing I may be to simply say “the church made a mistake”, to do so creates multiple states of doctrinal/teaching incongruence.  It becomes a domino effect that undermines multiple interrelated truths that I think subconsciously undermines faith if we do not take the time to genuinely understand the much deeper nuances that exist in this discussion. If we truly accept the concept that, all truth is circumscribed into one great whole, and I do, then the ramifications of we made a boo boo touch upon multiple other related concepts and not in positive ways.

If we are a bit too hasty to condemn the prophets without proper understanding then we condemn ourselves for believing them - and that false perception has and will perpetuate a sense of instability in people's hearts and minds that has, in many cases, dire consequences. 

So are you saying Joseph Smith shouldn't have admitted to making a mistake?

The problem with your analysis is there are situations which don't allow it to be applied - 

should we believe Brigham Young that Jesus was the Son of Adam as the Father or Kimball who denied the doctrine? 

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

We have several books canonized, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. These scriptures are held very sacred and aren't changed with the times and were written by men of their day. Since Joseph Smith we've had modern prophets up to Thomas S Monson. What's interesting is we don't discount what's in the scriptures, but we sometimes do with modern prophets, such as the Adam-God theory, Priesthood ban, and what some certain prophets have said about blacks and the mentally disabled or about doctrine that's changed. The modern church is changing and adapting over time, so old modern prophets words are gone against, yet no one will ever touch changing or taking something out of the canonized scriptures of the books we read. So are what Nephi, Alma, Old Testament prophets said more important than what Brigham Young, Spencer W Kimball, Bruce R McConkie, or Ezra Taft Benson say? It seems with modern prophets apologists will say, oh the prophets and apostles were just speaking as men of their time, but the people in the scriptures seem untouchable. Is that why we haven't had any canonized scripture since the Pearl of Great Price? Because modern prophets are just men and scripture prophets are special? The New Testament, for instance, was voted into canon by Roman Catholic Bishops. In the Old Testament, there's a vengeful God who kills a lot, and in the New Testament, we have a very calm and loving God. There's a lot of disturbing passages in the Old Testament, but they're all seen as divine canonized gospel. The word "scripture" just means writings. It seems that in the religious sphere, all a given writing needs is a patina of age.

Matthew 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Matthew 5:18

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Very true.  Thank goodness for Mormonism that doesn't dismiss any law and have prophets who help us understand which parts are fulfilled and which parts have yet to be fulfilled.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

should we believe Brigham Young that Jesus was the Son of Adam as the Father or Kimball who denied the doctrine?

Brigham, obviously. 

[Zakuska]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He probably did, but you will note that there is nothing there about Black skin, and the Pharaohs of the time of Abraham and earlier were not Black Africans.  So how could lack of right to hold priesthood by incorrect lineage be attached to a racial concept?

There is a Jewish talmudic tradition that Cush (Nubia) was cursed with a black skin as punishment for sexual crimes committed by Ham or Canaan (Talmud Babli Sanhedrin 108b), but nothing about priesthood.

It is  usually the much earlier and unrelated mark of Cain which some like to connect with "blackness" (Moses 7:22, JST Gen 9:50).

The picture painted by the Book of Abraham follows already familiar ancient Near Eastern and biblical lines – there is nothing at all anomalous in what appear to be the traditions and priestly emphases to be expected in a late (post-6th century B.C.) redaction of Abraham’s story by a tradent heavily influenced by the Priestly (P) tradition.  In my “Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham,” I demonstrated the complete absence of the influence of the Elohist and Deuteronomist – both evident in Jeremiah and the Book of Mormon – and that the Book of Abraham is composed mainly of Yahwistic and Priestly documents.  It is worth repeating here the facts of sacerdotal rivalry reflected in the transmission and redaction of the separate documents, ED and JP, or the like.  See my  “A Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham,” online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham .

This was a rivalry as old as Cain and Abel (going back to Sumerian prototypes), but most apparent within the Israelite tribal league in Mosaic and post-Mosaic times, when competing priesthoods transmitted variant traditions of legitimacy: According to Frank Moore Cross, Jr., the E and D documents are the vehicles behind which is recognizable the Mushite-Levite-Midianite-Qenite priestly coalition of Shiloh, Nob, Anathoth, Qadesh-Naphtali, Dan, Qadesh-Barnea, and Arad (cf. Leviticus 10, Numbers 12, Judges, Samuel, Kings, the Prophets, and Ezekiel), while the J and P documents are the carriers of the tradition supporting the Aaronide line of Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethel (cf. Numbers 16, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Chronicles).  This explains a multitude of apparently contradictory biblical parallels, and in the Book of Mormon may justify the presence of a non-Aaronic priesthood (II Nephi 5:26, Jacob 1:17-19).  Moreover, LDS Doctrine & Covenants 84:6-34 starkly distinguishes between two separate priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchizedek, which have very different lines of authority, and which specifically correlates with Frank Cross’ distinctions.  The point is that matters of lineage are of greater import here than might be realized in a casual study, and they dovetail remarkably well with sacerdotal matters.  See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 71-74,86,197-207,211,233, 293.

But there's where Doctrine comes into play.

Hams seed were traditionally associated with "black skin". Hams wife, an Egyptian is how the Dark skinned race made it through the flood. At least according to the Doctrine of JS & BY at the time the BOA came about.

 

 

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham, obviously. 

I think you are being a little facetious? 

I actually do believe Brigham in these ways. I believe Adam represents the first in priesthood but in an earthly capacity and as Elohim. As the Son, Christ can be viewed as being taken from the side of God in order to form the woman or church. Jesus was begotten in this process in accordance with the parable of Eden. In other words Adam and Eve played out a role or a parable in the spiritual creation. It is actually represented in our temple endowment. I think people just don't get it, so perhaps I should shut up. But as to whether Adam was actually the same being as the Father - no, he is not. He is given the keys of salvation under the direction of the Holy One who is Christ.

So as to who I believe more on the matter - Brigham Young or Kimball - I'll take Brigham Young and reject Kimball, along with a couple of his other modern snafus. Of course I don't have any temporal authority on the matter so am not telling others the present "official" church doctrine on the issue.

[Rivers]

Scriptures are cannon and therefore universally applicable to all generations. Teachings from modern prophets are current marching orders specifically for us that may or may not become universal canon later.

Teachings of Pres. Monson today are a lot more important than many things Pres. Young said to the saints in the 1800's.

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Rivers

[SamIam]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So are you saying Joseph Smith shouldn't have admitted to making a mistake?

The problem with your analysis is there are situations which don't allow it to be applied - 

should we believe Brigham Young that Jesus was the Son of Adam as the Father or Kimball who denied the doctrine? 

What an individual admits to and what we want to accuse of can be entirely two different things.  I can give you two examples from scripture and more if you wish, where it illustrates the difficulty of single dimensional thinking.

If you consider the precedent of scripture that spoke concerning Christ’s origins we can find a source that says he will come up out of Egypt, that he would be born in Bethlehem, and that he would be called a Nazarene.  Based on Jewish cultural expectations, (ie. a person is generally referenced after his local of citizenry, therefore a Bethlehemite would be more consistent with expectations.) it would be easy to spend hours of endless debate prior to fulfillment claiming that 3 such diverse predictions could not meet the test of prophetic infallibility.  Yet in hindsight, each is fulfilled and us on the other side of the debate, after fulfillment,  can see no confusion whatsoever.

As you considered upon my previous post it may be possible that you are not delving into the true point I am making and instead are focusing simply at the superficial nuances.  My point is that most of us accept paradigms of line upon line, precept upon precept foundations in our understandings of doctrinal matters.  Everything interconnects. If we can so easily dismiss that the Lord guides this church and that a hundred years of prophets and apostles could not hear his voice and taught falsely then other lines and precepts that are interconnected with these foundations must be examined for the impact that pulling a brick out of our testimonial foundation implies. 

However, if we as saints did our due diligence and felt to sustain these servants on points concerning the preexistent parameters that define the issue of all worthy males receiving the priesthood before the ban was lifted, are we now to sustain that we also have no clue as to how to be inspired?  Or is it possible that this is the result of a living organization that moves forward making suitable changes as the Lord directs.  If we also knew the day would come when all worthy males would receive the priesthood, as was also foretold by the same apostles and prophets who some want to claim as mistaken can we claim to have been prepared for the specifics of how the transition would take from one perspective to the other?

In other words can we think a little deeper and with a hint more charitable approach realize that these conditions must be in order to make the prophesied transition denying the priesthood to blacks to the state of offering it to all worthy males.   The transition is a moot point and conditions in the before state are different from the conditions in the after state.  Does it not seem expected that, if there is a force of evil that attempts to undermine all of the forward progress God makes by spinning the debate to serve his needs, that this could be one such circumstance.  Would you not expect such? Thus the only way our foundation of line upon line and precept upon precept is able to be held together truly is if we can accept that God does lead this church and that in spite of all manner of convincing “logic” otherwise this is perfectly according to his will.

Does our proximity in time being so close to these events render us unable to see that even though events can be known in advance through prophetic instruction that the Egypt, Nazarene, and born in Bethlehem parallels in these prophecies of the Blacks receiving the priesthood have also culminated in a perfect execution of prophesied realities coming together, not in ways that we should condemn, but instead in ways that should acknowledge that truly His ways are not our ways and are indeed much higher than should enable us to accuse unnecessarily harshly the means by which this great event was achieved.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

But there's where Doctrine comes into play.

Hams seed were traditionally associated with "black skin". Hams wife, an Egyptian is how the Dark skinned race made it through the flood. At least according to the Doctrine of JS & BY at the time the BOA came about.

Sure, there are lots of traditional stories told by various people, but the one you point to is not Scripture or Doctrine.

[Zakuska]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure, there are lots of traditional stories told by various people, but the one you point to is not Scripture or Doctrine.

So then what you are saying is Joseph Smith was messed up on his doctrine then...

Quote

 

While Joseph Smith indicated his belief in the curse of Ham theory in a parenthetical reference as early as 1831,^[31] the only early reference to the curse or mark of Cain was in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which included the following statement: "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."^[32]

31 Manuscript History 19 June 1831[full citation needed]
32 Jump up ^ Moses 7:22 (LDS standard works); see also: Book of Moses

Notice: thats canonized scripture.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Zakuska

[consiglieri]

It has been my experience the modern LDS Church teaches modern prophets are more important than scripture.

Every time.

Edited December 11, 2015 by consiglieri

[strappinglad]

I also see this being another example of how " the first will be last and the last will be first " idea can be played out. By the way, does anyone have first hand knowledge of what the lineage assignments are for black Africans? My mother was of Germanic background and her Patriarchal Blessing says she was adopted into the tribe of Ephraim .

Edited December 11, 2015 by strappinglad

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, SamIam said:

What an individual admits to and what we want to accuse of can be entirely two different things.  I can give you two examples from scripture and more if you wish, where it illustrates the difficulty of single dimensional thinking.

As you considered upon my previous post it may be possible that you are not delving into the true point I am making and instead are focusing simply at the superficial nuances.  My point is that most of us accept paradigms of line upon line, precept upon precept foundations in our understandings of doctrinal matters.  Everything interconnects. If we can so easily dismiss that the Lord guides this church and that a hundred years of prophets and apostles could not hear his voice and taught falsely then other lines and precepts that are interconnected with these foundations must be examined for the impact that pulling a brick out of our testimonial foundation implies. 

I'm not sure that we are going to get into a productive conversation, but just so we are clear - Yes, I realize that scriptures can have more than one reasonable interpretation. Hebrews actually have words for about 4 types a single scripture can have. I also realize that openly criticizing church leaders can have undesired consequences. However, I will not necessarily shape my own personal testimony to conform to the latest things the brethren teach. I have my own opinions about a good many things. That doesn't mean I parade them around for all to see either. If I am wrong, that is obviously going to be between me and the Lord. I do not wish to damage the testimony of others, and this can be an easy thing to do. But, my personal belief is that continuing to maintain an air of infallibility has its own problems. I by no means am indicating that a hundred years of church presidents have "taught falsely." However, I do believe that some of the recent doctrines will fall. Does that mean the church is false? No, to me, I accept that they are from men who are capable of error. Do I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? Yes I do. That doesn't mean that I have to hinge my testimony on his every word or teaching tho. He did once state that about "56 years should wind up the scene." Yet, here we are about 170 years later. Clearly, he had opinions and was sometimes wrong. Indeed D&C records the Lord corrected him a few times. Current leaderships are always sensitive to criticism - that's just the way it always is. They are usually much more willing to look at potential errors of predecessors. My purpose is not to criticize leaders. My purpose is to seek after truth, so that is what I do. Sometimes that has seemed to bring me abreast of church teaching - usually more recent ones. Do these affect the salvation of others? I think not for the most part, hence the Lord is taking His time in bringing about change. Do I think I am going to hell for believing the mountain is the church and not the stone? No, They can jump and down on their podium and preach what they want on the subject, but it is not going to change my salvation one iota. Back in the days when the church tried to force everyone to believe like themselves, it was a very sad time for mankind - speaking of the Catholic church here. 

Quote

However, if we as saints did our due diligence and felt to sustain these servants on points concerning the preexistent parameters that define the issue of all worthy males receiving the priesthood before the ban was lifted, are we now to sustain that we also have no clue as to how to be inspired?  Or is it possible that this is the result of a living organization that moves forward making suitable changes as the Lord directs.  If we also knew the day would come when all worthy males would receive the priesthood, as was also foretold by the same apostles and prophets who some want to claim as mistaken can we claim to have been prepared for the specifics of how the transition would take from one perspective to the other?

In other words can we think a little deeper and with a hint more charitable approach realize that these conditions must be in order to make the prophesied transition denying the priesthood to blacks to the state of offering it to all worthy males.   The transition is a moot point and conditions in the before state are different from the conditions in the after state.  Does it not seem expected that, if there is a force of evil that attempts to undermine all of the forward progress God makes by spinning the debate to serve his needs, that this could be one such circumstance.  Would you not expect such? Thus the only way our foundation of line upon line and precept upon precept is able to be held together truly is if we can accept that God does lead this church and that in spite of all manner of convincing “logic” otherwise this is perfectly according to his will.

I actually brought up this subject with missionaries once upon a time, as it troubled me. I personally feel that the "ban" was wrong. It could be just a misunderstanding of what Joseph Smith said about slaves in the South - that they could be baptized with the permission of their masters but should not be offered the priesthood. However, I also realize that the Lord may have had his purposes that I am not privy to. I don't see Gentiles jumping up and down and screaming that it was unfair to wait until after Christ to receive the priesthood, nor that God was racist because of that. The Lord has his own predesigned plan, and I account myself fortunate to have been chosen for this time. That said, the President still holds the temporal keys, and is still the chosen leader of the church, and I lift my arm to the square and affirm his keys. I just don't believe that I have to believe exactly as he does to do so. I just personally wish they wouldn't go on and on about not going astray etc. Perhaps you should look at the other side of the coin as to why so many new converts leave. Perhaps insisting on an air of infallibility is injurious to testimonies of some who feel the church doctrines are true, but have difficulty reconciling one or two teachings. If the church leaders are not perfect, there is room for such people to be able to move forward in faith realizing that one day the particular teaching may change, and that if it is later denounced like Kimball denounced the "Adam-God doctrine," that doesn't mean the church is false.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So as to who I believe more on the matter - Brigham Young or Kimball - I'll take Brigham Young and reject Kimball, along with a couple of his other modern snafus.

Me too.

I do believe modern prophets are our guides for our day, sent specific instruction to guide through the situations and world in which we find ourselves.

However  I do not give them the privilege of dismissing former doctrines received by revelation out of hand without presenting new revelation on the subject, and even then that new revelation would be questionable based Joseph's teachings on how revelation works.

If President Monson is going to tell me that a recorded revelation received by an previous prophet is false doctrine, he'd absolutely better present a new revelation, because I'm not taking his word on it.  If President Monson wants to adjust the number of missionaries called to serve in Germany or close the temples for cleaning on a Thursday, that's entirely his business and right.

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

Scriptures are cannon and therefore universally applicable to all generations. Teachings from modern prophets are current marching orders specifically for us that may or may not become universal canon later.

Teachings of Pres. Monson today are a lot more important than many things Pres. Young said to the saints in the 1800's.

 

Are you able to name one thing President Monson has taught today that wasn't said by President Young in the 1800's?

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

If President Monson is going to tell me that a recorded revelation received by an previous prophet is false doctrine, he'd absolutely better present a new revelation, because I'm not taking his word on it. 

And yet, President Monson issued an essay two-years ago on the official Church website disavowing any past theories as to why blacks did not hold the priesthood.

Even though a First Presidency Letter written in 1949 declared this as "doctrine."

But President Monson presented no new revelation on the subject.

Are you taking his word on it?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And yet, President Monson issued an essay two-years ago on the official Church website disavowing any past theories as to why blacks did not hold the priesthood.

Even though a First Presidency Letter written in 1949 declared this as "doctrine."

But President Monson presented no new revelation on the subject.

Are you taking his word on it?

Yes, once again the source revelation for the doctrine was never claimed by anyone.

Very different from Adam-God which was attributed to revelation.  The first presidency may have declared the ban as doctrine in 1949, but they never provided a revelatory source for the doctrine.

The restored gospel is all about revelation.  Revelations from God don't change.  Some things considered to have come by revelation didn't.  Determining what is revelation and what is opinion is important.  The scriptures are just the words of men after all, and they have been accepted as revelation by most.

[consiglieri]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, once again the source revelation for the doctrine was never claimed by anyone.

Very different from Adam-God which was attributed to revelation.  The first presidency may have declared the ban as doctrine in 1949, but they never provided a revelatory source for the doctrine.

The restored gospel is all about revelation.  Revelations from God don't change.  Some things considered to have come by revelation didn't.  Determining what is revelation and what is opinion is important.  The scriptures are just the words of men after all, and they have been accepted as revelation by most.

So you would agree with me that the scriptures contain many things that are the opinions of men?

And First Presidency Statements?

And Q15 Proclamations?

Edited December 12, 2015 by consiglieri

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Me too.

I do believe modern prophets are our guides for our day, sent specific instruction to guide through the situations and world in which we find ourselves.

However  I do not give them the privilege of dismissing former doctrines received by revelation out of hand without presenting new revelation on the subject, and even then that new revelation would be questionable based Joseph's teachings on how revelation works.

If President Monson is going to tell me that a recorded revelation received by an previous prophet is false doctrine, he'd absolutely better present a new revelation, because I'm not taking his word on it.  If President Monson wants to adjust the number of missionaries called to serve in Germany or close the temples for cleaning on a Thursday, that's entirely his business and right.

Ok - I think I wasn't quite understanding you. 

I think we look at it very similarly, so I am glad someone here is willing to state this.

I will not follow blindly - I guess I just don't have that kind of faith. 

If a prophet told me to kill someone, they better be prepared to receive a no answer - 

If God told me to kill someone, I would probably think I was crazy unless it had some justification.

The "Adam-God Doctrine" is actually something I struggled with for a few years, but I sought to understand it, and just chose to kinda put it on the back burner rather than reject Brigham Young as a prophet. And after some years, I believe the Lord gave me understanding concerning it. I don't know if Brigham Young completely understood it, but we seem to be seeing about the same thing. I don't know what he would say if he were sitting in front of me tho. I don't believe Brigham Young was actually saying that Adam is El Elyon, the Most High Father, but was our spiritual Father in the word in the sense that D&C calls Adam "father" and in the sense that Paul called Adam Christ. In the parable Adam stands in the place of the first in priesthood as I see it.

Anyway, I'm sure Kimball was a fine man, and I don't wish to impugn him, but yeah, I now largely believe Brigham Young. What may seem a conflict with scripture can sometimes have an interpretation which does not conflict but on another level. 

Thanks for sharing

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So you would agree with me that the scriptures contain many things that are the opinions of men?

And First Presidency Statements?

And Q15 Proclamations?

Surprisingly yes - I would agree with you on this - except perhaps the word "many" (depending on how inflammatory you meant it to be).

• "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men;"  - Book of Mormon title page.
• "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." AOF 8
• "the Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture." - Joseph Smith
• Galatians 2 features Peter and Paul disagreeing on doctrine, a scriptural example of opinions.

 

Edited December 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Zakuska said:

So then what you are saying is Joseph Smith was messed up on his doctrine then...

Notice: thats canonized scripture.

Moses 7:22 is indeed Scripture with a capital S, but it says nothing about priesthood, nor does your Joseph Smith quotation -- which does not constitute LDS doctrine. Just because a prophet says something does not make it doctrine, as Joseph Smith himself made clear.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

..............................................................................

The restored gospel is all about revelation.  Revelations from God don't change.  .......................................

.............................

Of course revelations can change from time to time, and for very good reasons.  Noah's admonition to the people of the Earth was time-bound, and his boat was only needed on one occasion.  Likewise, the specific revelations to Moses do not all continue currently because many of them were done away (fulfilled) in Christ.

Polygyny, for example, can be commanded at one time (Jacob 2:30), and withdrawn at another (command to Lehi, Jacob 2:27, 3:5).

In many respects, revelation is dispensational.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course revelations can change from time to time, and for very good reasons.  Noah's admonition to the people of the Earth was time-bound, and his boat was only needed on one occasion.  Likewise, the specific revelations to Moses do not all continue currently because many of them were done away (fulfilled) in Christ.

Polygyny, for example, can be commanded at one time (Jacob 2:30), and withdrawn at another (command to Lehi, Jacob 2:27, 3:5).

In many respects, revelation is dispensational.

 

This is always the response when I make that claim.

Noah's revelation to build a boat was dispensational.  Noah's revelation from God to multiply and replenish the earth was NOT dispensational, but eternal.  Priesthood is eternal, whether priesthood meeting is held before or after sunday school is dispensational.   The law of Moses is dispensational, the principles and laws it taught (sacrifice, atonement, etc) are eternal.  Polygamy is an eternal law.  God revoking it (along with the blessings) is temporal.

God's laws and doctrines DON'T change.  Truth is eternal and cannot be changed.  Taking a dispensational instruction and comparing it to an eternal revelation is creating a false comparison.  I don't know why people insist on confusing dispensational revelations with eternal laws.

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is always the response when I make that claim.

Noah's revelation to build a boat was dispensational.  Noah's revelation from God to multiply and replenish the earth was NOT dispensational, but eternal.  Priesthood is eternal, whether priesthood meeting is held before or after sunday school is dispensational.   The law of Moses is dispensational, the principles and laws it taught (sacrifice, atonement, etc) are eternal.  Polygamy is an eternal law.  God revoking it (along with the blessings) is temporal.

God's laws and doctrines DON'T change.  Truth is eternal and cannot be changed.  Taking a dispensational instruction and comparing it to an eternal revelation is creating a false comparison.  I don't know why people insist on confusing dispensational revelations with eternal laws.

They just do confuse such matters, JLH, and I had to point it out because your comments suggested that revelations don't change, and they in fact do.  Even the revelations in the 1833 BofC changed (were edited) before they were published as the 1835 D&C, and I see nothing wrong with that.  The Bible is full of such differences and changes, which anti-Bible critics frequently latch onto to deny validity to the Bible.  The Tanners used the same approach to the Book of Mormon, pointing out the thousands of changes made over the years.

Moreover, the way in which a local congregation is organized, and the schedule it keeps (the place of priesthood mtg in the block) is not dispensational, but just local policy (dispensations are Adamic, Noachic, etc.).  In fact, church organization and terminology is quite malleable, and the church is merely an extension of the purpose of the priesthood -- it make take whatever form and meet on whatever day the priesthood decides it should (LDS branches in Israel meet on Saturday), depending of course on the decisions taken in council by the President of the High Priesthood (who is currently Thomas S. Monson, but could as easily be Samuel the Prophet who anointed Kings Saul and David).  There are nuances and semantics here which must not be ignored.

[theplains]

On 12/12/2015 at 6:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Even the revelations in the 1833 BofC changed (were edited) before they were published as the 1835 D&C, and I see nothing wrong with that.

What do you think about the de-canonizing of the Lectures on Faith?  Did they enter 
and leave canon by revelation?

Thanks,
Jim