The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

How does this statement (especially the bold portion) hold up to what we were told in the 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet By President Benson?

#2 The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
#3 The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Does the word "vital" refer only to policies or to doctrine as well?

First, has President's Benson's 14 fundamentals been unanimously reviewed and approved by the first presidency, quorum of the 12 and accepted by common consent of the general membership?  If not, how can you consider his statement more authoritative then that which has been unanimously accepted as doctrine of the church?

More "Vital" and "important" is not to be dismissive of the authority of the doctrinal standard of the scriptures.  It is simply to state that the modern prophets give revelations (not to contradict the scriptures) which are relevant for our day and time.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Depends on what you mean by real.  The kind of revelation I've described seems the most real from my perspective.  

Except that God is not involved which is the common LDS definition.

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Except that God is not involved which is the common LDS definition.

Why would you assume God isn't involved in the way that I described?  I thought God worked through people.  

[The Nehor]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Why would you assume God isn't involved in the way that I described?  I thought God worked through people.  

Yeah, through people acting on revelations. The real kind. Not the deliberate and thunk up the best solution we can come up with.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Yeah, through people acting on revelations. The real kind. Not the deliberate and thunk up the best solution we can come up with.

Its really just a difference in description and perspective about how the mechanics of the process.  People with supernatural expectations think that they are receiving some insight from an external and divine source.  I think people are coming up with internal intuitive insights. 

Either way, its a person coming up with an idea, and sharing that idea with others.   I think the process should be more collaborative following the by common consent model.  You might prefer a more top down hierarchical approach with less collaboration.  

 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, through people acting on revelations. The real kind. Not the deliberate and thunk up the best solution we can come up with.

Honestly, how do you make big decisions in your own life.  Do you prefer to do your homework, research things, ask others for their opinions, gather data, analyze the problem, consider options, seek advice and inspiration.  (Deliberately thought up solutions)

Or do you put no effort into figuring out what to do, and then just pray that God will strike you with some out of nowhere insight that you couldn't possibly have dreamed up no matter how hard you tried?  Seriously, how do you think the church or any other successful organization in the history of the world works?  

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its really just a difference in description and perspective about how the mechanics of the process.  People with supernatural expectations think that they are receiving some insight from an external and divine source.  I think people are coming up with internal intuitive insights. 

Either way, its a person coming up with an idea, and sharing that idea with others.   I think the process should be more collaborative following the by common consent model.  You might prefer a more top down hierarchical approach with less collaboration.  

 

I disrespectfully disagree about everything you just said.

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, how do you make big decisions in your own life.  Do you prefer to do your homework, research things, ask others for their opinions, gather data, analyze the problem, consider options, seek advice and inspiration.  (Deliberately thought up solutions)

Or do you put no effort into figuring out what to do, and then just pray that God will strike you with some out of nowhere insight that you couldn't possibly have dreamed up no matter how hard you tried?  Seriously, how do you think the church or any other successful organization in the history of the world works?  

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its really just a difference in description and perspective about how the mechanics of the process.  People with supernatural expectations think that they are receiving some insight from an external and divine source.  I think people are coming up with internal intuitive insights. 

Either way, its a person coming up with an idea, and sharing that idea with others.   I think the process should be more collaborative following the by common consent model.  You might prefer a more top down hierarchical approach with less collaboration.  

 

I disrespectfully disagree about everything you just said.

Care to explain where you disagree.  Do you disagree with my statement that you're advocating a top down approach with less collaboration?  Do you disagree with my saying that some people have supernatural expectations and perceive they are receiving knowledge from an external source?  How do you see this differently?  

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, how do you make big decisions in your own life.  Do you prefer to do your homework, research things, ask others for their opinions, gather data, analyze the problem, consider options, seek advice and inspiration.  (Deliberately thought up solutions)

Or do you put no effort into figuring out what to do, and then just pray that God will strike you with some out of nowhere insight that you couldn't possibly have dreamed up no matter how hard you tried?  Seriously, how do you think the church or any other successful organization in the history of the world works?  

Both of what?  Do you think people should put zero effort into making big decisions and just pray and hope that God strikes them with some out of no where knowledge?  How is that Mormonism?  I thought we were supposed to study things out, to seek knowledge from the best books, to do our part?  You're making me sound like the orthodox person now.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by hope_for_things

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Both of what?  Do you think people should put zero effort into making big decisions and just pray and hope that God strikes them with some out of no where knowledge?  How is that Mormonism?  I thought we were supposed to study things out, to seek knowledge from the best books, to do our part?  You're making me sound like the orthodox person now.  

Seriously? You presented two options in the post I quoted. One was do your best to figure it out. The other was to seek revelation. The implication was to choose one or the other. I responded with a gif that clearly said we should do both and now you are smugly lecturing me about how LDS are taught to do both. Is this some kind of trolling?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me you're setting up a false dichotomy by ignoring hermeneutics and exegesis. Put an other way, you're making an assumption about what it means to accept the scriptures as binding. You're treating that as if the scriptures are akin to the law books the state and federal government makes. I think that an incorrect treatment. Understandable as conservative Christians who accept sola scripture and inerrancy make such a move. But I think it an incorrect one.

The second problem you're making is assuming that because scripture is the measure that means nothing else matters. However any carpenter who relies only on measurements will quickly find their wood project doesn't fit together. Yes measure twice, cut once. But you also have to adjust by how things show they fit together.

I would only be ignoring hermeneutics and exegesis if alternatives explanations have been offered.  I am all ears.  To me, when something is binding (in LDS lingo) it means that we will be held responsible accountable for upholding and abiding by the doctrines which we are bound by covenant to obey.  That to live contrariwise would bring upon us the judgments of God.  Do you have any alternative explanations? 

As to your second comment, I do like your analogy, but I am in no way saying that nothing else matters.  In fact, I am simply offering what seems to be the overwhelming and consistent position of the church as taught in official sources throughout the history of the church regarding the standard works, and not necessarily my own position on the subject.  Here is one of seemingly endless examples:

Quote

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.
https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng

And this from our current prophet (as an apostle at the time):

Quote

That brings us to the question of where do we obtain the guidance we need. We turn to Him who knows us best—our Creator. He allowed us to come to earth with freedom to choose our own course. In His great love, He did not leave us alone. He provided a guide—a spiritual road map—to help us achieve success in our journey. We call that guide the standard works, so named because they—the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—constitute the standard by which we should live. They serve as a standard of reference, as are standards of time, weights, and measures that are kept in national bureaus of standards.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/living-by-scriptural-guidance?lang=eng

Can you really argue that this is not the official position of the church?  I could post sources all day long.  

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Seriously? You presented two options in the post I quoted. One was do your best to figure it out. The other was to seek revelation. The implication was to choose one or the other. I responded with a gif that clearly said we should do both and now you are smugly lecturing me about how LDS are taught to do both. Is this some kind of trolling?

I used two examples, the first was how I see things happening, it was a deliberate process involving a great deal of research including a sprinkling of inspiration.  That is how revelation works from my perspective.

The second example was what I think a naive childlike approach to revelation.  Then I mentioned how this second example is contradicted by core LDS teachings as well as a mature understanding of how life works.  

I don't see how this is trolling or smug.  I'm trying to understand what your perspective is.  You said we should do both, and I completely reject that.  The second example I shared is not something we should do at all and is contrary to the whole approach of the first example.  They aren't compatible, so you can't do both.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

The short answer to your question is that there is nothing in the scriptures that the Church (at the direction of the Prophet) can't change or contradict.

In practice, that seems to be the case, even though the teachings seem to consistently say something else.  The consistent and repeated message of the church is found in the quotes from the OP (that is a very, very small sample). 

What is consistently taught is that the prophets will not contradict the scriptures.  They may fulfill previous laws or build upon them, but they will not and cannot contradict what has already been accepted as the revealed word of God.  If a new policy or commandment is to replace what is found in scripture, then it needs to be reviewed, accepted, and approved by the first presidency, quorum of the 12 and by the law of common consent - otherwise it is not binding upon us in the same way that scripture is.  To argue otherwise diminishes the law of common consent and covenant.  It weakens its significance and purpose.  That which has been accepted by common consent is more authoritative and binding upon us, otherwise it is all meaningless and the consistent teachings of the church are flat out wrong in this regard.   

Quote

 

I suspect if you research different off-shoot movements from the Church Joseph Smith started, you'll find that many of them base their entity on a more strict reading of the scriptures than the LDS Church follows. 

Ultimately, LDS have been comfortable treating the scriptures more like the Pirate Code.  It's "guidelines."

 

Again, this is true in practice.  But, that is not what we teach.  It is not the repeatedly spoken position of the church. 

Quote

 

The scriptures contain the doctrine and principles that serve as the rules and models by which Latter-day Saints are to live. Hence, they become the standard by which spiritual and other matters are to be judged or measured.

The standard works are different from other writings in the Church, for they have been formally accepted by the Church as revelation and are viewed as containing the word of God. It is his voice that has given them through his prophets (see D&C 18:34-36). Latter-day Saints accept the Bible as the word of God, but recognize that some errors and omissions have occurred in the processes of transmission and translation (A of F 8). The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, brought forth in modern times by the Prophet Joseph Smith, are likewise accepted as the word of God (see MD, p. 364).
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Standard_Works

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

This is true most observably in recent cases such as Brigham Young’s Adam-God doctrine (denounced by Spencer W. Kimball)(http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng&query=adam+god+theory), the Church’s recent denunciation of President Young’s doctrine on Blood Atonement (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041267/Mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement.html), and the Church’s recent denunciation of the previous doctrines on Blacks and the Priesthood originating with Brigham Young, which were inherited from the environment of the time (http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood).

To me, this seems to me more of a description of an evolution of what is culturally acceptable ideas, and what sounds wacky at times change.  The church as an institution has a natural incentive to conform to societal norms to some extent, and as slavery and Adam-God, and Blood Atonement became increasingly archaic, the church moved away from those teachings.  I think the same will happen to same-sex and patriarchal policies and doctrines with time.  The church is a conservative organization and is slow to change, but they don't want to be isolated from society, they are too integrated already and can't afford the label of extreme fundamentalist if they want to continue to grow, bring in revenue and be a relevant player in society.  

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

This is not about how the Church is to be run though, because doctrine as it ought to be preached at a certain point in time ought to be about what is accepted by correlation.  So even if someone is speaking truth, that person can be disciplined if that truth is not doctrinal at the time, meaning that the Church may not catch up for many years until after the time.  It doesn't mean that just because a person is speaking truth, that that truth is doctrinal at the time.  Doctrine has to do with that which is accepted at the time.  It doesn't necessarily mean that what is accepted will turn out to be ultimately true in the ultimate sense.  Therefore, people that have truth revealed to them independently before the time that the Church does as an institution ought to keep silent and keep it personal, because such things could still be considered non-authoritative and non-doctrinal, and ought not to be preached until the right time.

Good points, I completely agree.  I define doctrine as just another word for teachings.  I don't see any of it universal and an ultimate truth.  Mormonism reaches relative truth that is contextual and pragmatic, the idea that doctrine is an unchanging ultimate truth isn't a core value of Mormonism.  

3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Therefore, people need to be careful to not dismiss science, just because LDS tradition may go contrary to what has been revealed in certain areas of science.  It may be that in time to come, official LDS positions may get closer to the positions of current science than some scriptural literalist fundamentalist thinkers may be comfortable with.  Therefore, scripture interpretations are key, because if science turns out to ultimately be right about such things as evolution, then the interpretations of scripture that were very literalist in times past will be abandoned in favor of increasingly non-literal interpretations that harmonize more with science.

Absolutely, and thats why our interpretations will change and should change as we get a greater understanding of how the world works through science and other means.  I think many of the literalists and fundamentalists out there are good people, but are essentially operating in a bubble of their own creation.  And I was one of these people just a few years ago.  I might be operating in a different kind of bubble now,, who knows, but at least that bubble includes a very healthy dose of humility and desire to question my assumptions and think critically.  Learning those tools and being willing to follow the evidence and trying to understand the flaws of human thinking and bias are the secret sauce that will enable me to continue to break through barriers of ignorance.  

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

A literal/physical measuring rod is an objective tool that can be used in very practical ways and that can be agreed upon in a group setting.  I don't see how the Holy Spirit could be used in the same way.  Its subjective and personal.  

...and yet when a revelation is put before the brethren for review, it can be unanimously received by revelation and confirmation by the same spirit.  The same is true for the general membership.  That is how it is done.  If the Holy Spirit is not the source of truth, what/who is?  Man?  The source?  I don't think so.  Man is not the source of truth, he is the seeker/finder. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

...and yet when a revelation is put before the brethren for review, it can be unanimously received by revelation and confirmation by the same spirit.  The same is true for the general membership.  That is how it is done.  If the Holy Spirit is not the source of truth, what/who is?  Man?  The source?  I don't think so.  Man is not the source of truth, he is the seeker/finder. 

How is presenting an idea for review and vote of the brethren a measuring stick use of the Holy Ghost?  I don't see how that works in practice.  So in essence the unanimity of a group of 15 men is the mechanism for how we as lay member are to know if the Holy Ghost condones the decisions that come from the brethren.  Unanimous votes = Holy Ghost approved, lack of unanimity = Holy Ghost denied.  

Is the Holy Spirit the source of truth, perhaps, but I don't believe the HG is a separate entity from us humans, I think its just a way of describing an experience that we humans have.  And since we humans also are flawed mortals, then that means this experience of the HG is flawed by nature because we can't separate the human from the experience of the human.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

How is presenting an idea for review and vote of the brethren is a measuring stick use of the Holy Ghost?  I don't see how that works in practice.  So in essence the unanimity of a group of 15 men is the mechanism for how we as lay member are to know if the Holy Ghost condones the decisions that come from the brethren.  Unanimous votes = Holy Ghost approved, lack of unanimity = Holy Ghost denied.  

I think you missed my point.  You were dismissing the Holy Spirit as a reliable measuring stick because it is a subjective experience.  First, how could you trust it if it was not a subjective experience?  Anything that is not a subjective experience is beyond the realms of being knowable.

Here is what you said:

Quote

A literal/physical measuring rod is an objective tool that can be used in very practical ways and that can be agreed upon in a group setting.  I don't see how the Holy Spirit could be used in the same way.  Its subjective and personal.  

There is no such thing as objective experience.  Our experience with this "objective" tool is a personal and subjective experience, and yet we can all agree upon what this "objective" tool is telling us.  When that happens, we accept our subjective experience as reliable. The Holy Spirit and the law of common consent is no different.  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I used two examples, the first was how I see things happening, it was a deliberate process involving a great deal of research including a sprinkling of inspiration.  That is how revelation works from my perspective.

The second example was what I think a naive childlike approach to revelation.  Then I mentioned how this second example is contradicted by core LDS teachings as well as a mature understanding of how life works.  

I don't see how this is trolling or smug.  I'm trying to understand what your perspective is.  You said we should do both, and I completely reject that.  The second example I shared is not something we should do at all and is contrary to the whole approach of the first example.  They aren't compatible, so you can't do both.  

Sure you can. Study it, do all the research you reasonably can and then sit back and wait for revelation. I do them both all the time. As to being childlike thank you for the compliment. Maybe I can get into the kingdom of heaven after all.  

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Sure you can. Study it, do all the research you reasonably can and then sit back and wait for revelation. I do them both all the time. As to being childlike thank you for the compliment. Maybe I can get into the kingdom of heaven after all.  

What you just described better fits my first example.  The revelation/insight/ah hah doesn’t come without the study.  

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

I would only be ignoring hermeneutics and exegesis if alternatives explanations have been offered.  I am all ears.  To me, when something is binding (in LDS lingo) it means that we will be held responsible accountable for upholding and abiding by the doctrines which we are bound by covenant to obey.  That to live contrariwise would bring upon us the judgments of God.  Do you have any alternative explanations? 

As to your second comment, I do like your analogy, but I am in no way saying that nothing else matters.  In fact, I am simply offering what seems to be the overwhelming and consistent position of the church as taught in official sources throughout the history of the church regarding the standard works, and not necessarily my own position on the subject.

I think you're missing my point. The issue isn't whether scriptures are of prime importance. Of course they are and I agree with most of the quotes you offer. The question is what does that mean in practice.  When I raise hermeneutics it's because we have to interpret the scriptures. That was the point of my earlier Brigham Young quote. Merely saying the scriptures are the measuring tape isn't helpful unless we explain how we interpret them.

To get at my point about Paul in the other thread, I can see scriptures as the measuring rod yet surely it matters whether Paul is giving his opinion or inspiration in a quote. It matters whether he's speaking with authority from the Apostles in Jerusalem or giving his own best wisdom. I can see the scriptures as key, but unless I adopt a sola scripture and inerrancy view, then the meaning I take from Paul can vary a great deal.

The presumption by many (and I admit I'm assuming you share this presumption) is that the scriptures are straightforward and these questions don't matter. But Brigham Young's point is that it matters very much who is speaking in scripture, upon what basis and upon what authority. One can't simply say that because scriptures are our measuring tape that everything in them is on the same footing.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What you just described better fits my first example.  The revelation/insight/ah hah doesn’t come without the study.  

No, it does not fit at all because you left out the whole “God talking” thing that makes it revelation.

[Marginal Gains]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it does not fit at all because you left out the whole “God talking” thing that makes it revelation.

How do you reliably and objectively differentiate between ‘God Talking’ and - confirmation bias; erroneous human interpretation, mental illness, Satan playing games, someone else’s God talking etc?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

How do you reliably and objectively differentiate between ‘God Talking’ and - confirmation bias; erroneous human interpretation, mental illness, Satan playing games, someone else’s God talking etc?

Practice. If by objectively you mean how does someone else figure it out they don’t without a similar revelation.

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

How do you reliably and objectively differentiate between ‘God Talking’ and - confirmation bias; erroneous human interpretation, mental illness, Satan playing games, someone else’s God talking etc?

 

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Practice. If by objectively you mean how does someone else figure it out they don’t without a similar revelation.

How, specifically, do you practice identifying God Talking and differentiating between those other potential sources I mentioned?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Garden Girl]

21 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How do you read it?

Hello Marginal...

I like Abraham 4 because it opens up possibilities not found in other creation scriptures. i.e., Genesis.  In my musings on the creation process, I like that Ab allows for various lengths of "time" during the process, calling the various stages "times" vs. "days"  which could even be the b/millions of years alluded to via science as the Gods organized and ordered the various components and then would sit back and wait and watch what they had  organized and ordered until they were obeyed... and they saw that their plan was good.  We don't know how long each of these "times" took... I like to think of the Gods using natural laws, natural selection, even a form of evolution as they ordered, prepared, organized, and watched each of the aspects.  Finally the Gods counseled among themselves and agreed to go down and form man and woman in their image, after their likeness.  And they said, "We will do everything we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient."  And this they numbered the "sixth time."

I think you do know that in "Mormonism" not only do we emphasize the importance of being obedient, but our purpose is indeed to grow and progress as we strive to walk the path home to our Father through the Savior... 

GG

Edited April 12, 2018 by Garden Girl

[Marginal Gains]

3 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Marginal...

I like Abraham 4 because it opens up possibilities not found in other creation scriptures. i.e., Genesis.  In my musings on the creation process, I like that Ab allows for various lengths of "time" during the process, calling the various stages "times" vs. "days"  which could even be the b/millions of years alluded to via science as the Gods organized and ordered the various components and then would sit back and wait and watch what they had  organized and ordered until they were obeyed... and they saw that their plan was good.  We don't know how long each of these "times" took... I like to think of the Gods using natural laws, natural selection, even a form of evolution as they ordered, prepared, organized, and watched each of the aspects.  Finally the Gods counseled among themselves and agreed to go down and form man and woman in their image, after their likeness.  And they said, "We will do everything we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient."  And this they numbered the "sixth time."

I think you do know that in "Mormonism" not only do we emphasize the importance of being obedient, but our purpose is indeed to grow and progress as we strive to walk the path home to our Father through the Savior... 

GG

Grow and progress how, if not in simply and ultimately in being obedient to leadership?