Ashes of a rye straw...

[JLHPROF]

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

were both of them prophets when the statements were made?

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

I think "more important" is the wrong frame. The living oracles get their training and lessons and preparation from the scriptures. We're all supposed to develop in grace until we can become like prophets, no? But we can't do that without the scriptures. You can't have one without the other. 

I wouldn't say any prophets had it backwards. I would say that categorically declaring one more important than the other is a mistake. Sometimes the prophet could be mistaken. Sometimes the scripture is in need of further light and knowledge. Defining one as "more important" than the other seems like an attempt at making a quick and easy heuristic for future doctrinal concerns, which is basically a get-out-of-jail free card for the wrestle with God that is more important and beneficial than a rote response.

If I have to be pinned down to any one model of Latter-day Saint epistemology, I choose Dan Ellsworth's. Primarily because it directly eschews categorical judgments like this. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Metis_LDS]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?

If you made me choose,  I would go with a living oracle.  He can bring higher laws to the children of God. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[Fether]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What say you?  Which prevails? 

The reference of JFS seems to be more of a hypothetical situation that would never happen. Similar to questions like “what if your prophet tells you to murder your friend?”. I don’t think it was a genuine warning that a prophet is going to mislead you so you should follow scripture.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

were both of them prophets when the statements were made?

Good answer.
Because if the one who wasn't a prophet said to follow the prophet then we only have to follow the one who was the prophet when he said not to prioritize the prophet.

Right?

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

'No man can know for himself what is scripture unless he is a prophet himself, and yet that man can be wrong on occasions.  Thus the word of God always prevails.'

[rongo]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good answer.
Because if the one who wasn't a prophet said to follow the prophet then we only have to follow the one who was the prophet when he said not to prioritize the prophet.

Right?

To me, it depends on what is actually true/truth, not who held what position when he said it. D&C 68:2-3, etc. 

Protests to the contrary, many of us really are practical infallibility people. Whatever the current president says is, even if that means we've never been at war with Eastasia.  

For me, it's what the truth is (things as they were, are, and will be), and we have the tools to discern this using the canon, current president, and our own revelation. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

To me, it depends on what is actually true/truth, not who held what position when he said it.

Dingdingding...we have a winner.

We may need to follow our priesthood head but when it comes to doctrine true is true regardless of whether the current prophet says so.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

The reference of JFS seems to be more of a hypothetical situation that would never happen. Similar to questions like “what if your prophet tells you to murder your friend?”. I don’t think it was a genuine warning that a prophet is going to mislead you so you should follow scripture.

You don't think a prophet has ever contradicted scripture?  According to the pharisees even Christ contradicted their scripture.  Because he had a higher law.  Joseph Smith contradicted their scriptures of the day.  There were numerous disagreements over scripture among the 12 from time to time.   And if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with your leader's?   It happens. 

The topic is canon vs prophet on doctrine.  It's not about one encouraging a sin.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

Both are wrong. The Q12 speaks the word of God.  The FP is only the Q12's delegee. To execute policy.  To speak on authorized subjects.  The Q12 votes the FP and can vote them out.  The Q12'S authority does not diminish when there is a FP.  The Q12 can operate without the FP but that is unwieldy. 

An apostle may go off the reservation.  Moses Thatcher, Richard Lyman and perhaps Brigham Young.  Among many others.  But the Q12?  No.  

When Jesus died He didn't leave behind one successor.  He left 12. 

Brigham Young and John Taylor led the Church for years as President of the Q12.  Pres Young had counselors drawn from the Q12. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

Both are wrong. The Q12 speaks the word of God.  The FP is only the Q12's delegee. To execute policy.  To speak on authorized subjects.  

Revelation by committee?  Not according to scripture.  So do we follow the canon or that prophetic policy?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

..............................Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

LDS history makes it very clear that prophets can disagree among themselves and make mistakes.  Since no one is infallible, those observations are doubly important.  Even more crucial is the lack of understanding of the Canon -- especially the Bible, which comes to us in an archaic English translation, subject to manifold and mutually exclusive interpretations.  Indeed, all Scripture is supposed to be interpreted via the Holy Spirit, and not by human understanding (including even the best scholarship).   Rampant and continuing denominationalism among christians ought to be indicative.

In the end, each person of faith is on his own to decide what is true and false.  He cannot depend upon others for his understanding -- living on borrowed light.  Brother Brigham thought that the best approach:  That each person know for himself through earnest prayer and inspiration whether what the Brethren say now and have said in yesteryear is true.  He had no patience for those who lived on borrowed light.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Good answer.
Because if the one who wasn't a prophet said to follow the prophet then we only have to follow the one who was the prophet when he said not to prioritize the prophet.

Right?

I'd just like a bit of context on who said what and when.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Both are wrong. The Q12 speaks the word of God.  The FP is only the Q12's delegee. To execute policy.  To speak on authorized subjects.  The Q12 votes the FP and can vote them out.  The Q12'S authority does not diminish when there is a FP.  The Q12 can operate without the FP but that is unwieldy. 

Coming out of Shiloh, the Prophet Samuel would have thought that to be utter nonsense.

[bOObOO]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coming out of Shiloh, the Prophet Samuel would have thought that to be utter nonsense.

Just to be clear, that was Shiloh, not to be confused with Shallow

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by bOObOO

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coming out of Shiloh, the Prophet Samuel would have thought that to be utter nonsense.

I suspect much of what we do today would be thought utter nonsense by the Prophet Samuel.  And much of what the Prophet Samuel did, would be utter nonsense to us.  Doesn't mean we are wrong, Doesn't mean Samuel was wrong. Different times and different places.  That is the whole point of modern revelation. To reveal to us the will of god.  We don't need to know what the will of God was to Samuel and Samuel didn't need to know the will of God to us.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by Danzo

[strappinglad]

Christ had His 12, the Nephites had their 12. Did Moses, or Joshua, or Isaiah , or Noah or Adam for that matter? Those prophets who wrote the scriptures , for the most part, stood alone without the backing of 12 good men and true. Joseph Smith introduced doctrine before the 12 were set apart. 

[Bob Crockett]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coming out of Shiloh, the Prophet Samuel would have thought that to be utter nonsense.

The Ot model is not the Christian model. JS seemed to follow the OT model.  The Reed Smoot transcripts reveal how revelation is recd. 

[rchorse]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

For me personally, when scripture and a prophet contradict each other in a way I need to act or decide on, the sensible course would be to ask God and get a personal witness as to which I should follow.

That said, I've never had the prophets contradict canon or vice versa in any way that had any bearing on my life. So it's a moot point for me so far, and I suspect for most members of the church.

[Fether]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't think a prophet has ever contradicted scripture?  According to the pharisees even Christ contradicted their scripture.  Because he had a higher law.  Joseph Smith contradicted their scriptures of the day.  There were numerous disagreements over scripture among the 12 from time to time.   And if your interpretation of scripture disagrees with your leader's?   It happens. 

The topic is canon vs prophet on doctrine.  It's not about one encouraging a sin.

Do you have all link to the specific quote from JFS?

The specific words being used can take the intent of what he said in many different directions

[Fether]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon

Also, this is NOT what ETB said. ETB’s comments were not about doctrinal priority and who is more right. His comments were about the importance of a modern day prophets to provide modern day direction. He isn’t pitting modern day prophets with dead ones

 

“The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living 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

The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.
Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence”

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Fether

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails.

What is the source of this statement?  I don't think a prophet has ever directly contradicted scripture. He might have contradicted interpretation of scripture made by other prophets or he may have received new revelation that is more appropriate for our time compared to what was said in scripture that was appropriate for the time it was written. In that case what the current prophet says is what we go with. I wouldn't call it contradiction though; I call it latter-day revelation.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Revelation by committee?  Not according to scripture.  So do we follow the canon or that prophetic policy?

I think it's according to scripture. The best scriptural model for how to run a New-Covenant transnational institutionalized Kingdom of God (as opposed to an Old-Covenant ethnocentric traditionalist faith, which plausibly requires a different style of administration) comes from the book of Acts, where we see how the apostles of our Lord actually did it. See the Jerusalem Council, for instance. The Primitive Church faced an ENORMOUS doctrinal conundrum, frankly beyond any which the Church in our dispensation has ever faced - whether or not to jettison the Mosaic code which had been the light of the Jews for centuries. How did God act regarding this? He sent a vision to Peter which pointed him in the right direction, and then sent Peter over to the Jerusalem Council where the leaders of the Church gathered and discussed. Note that God did not spell out the new doctrine for Peter in the vision, nor did Peter dictate terms to the Council, and the final proposal which the Council accepted and sent out as doctrine came not from Peter but from James. 

Never mind that the Doctrine and Covenants invests authority in the quorums of First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as opposed to specific offices therein, and that during apostolic interregnums the guidance of the Church is commended to the Quorum of the Twelve. I think that both scripture and practice heartily recommend the idea that God teaches us in quorums, including how to run His church. 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Blurb from new book on continuing revelation.  https://www.signaturebooks.com/books/p/continuing-revelation

• "Continuing Revelation: Essays on Doctrine
  edited by Bryan Buchanan
  
  Determining what is and what is not Mormon doctrine is a difficult endeavor. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces four books of scripture as its canon, but also believes the church is led by a living prophet. Additions to the canon have been rare since the death of church founder Joseph Smith. Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth church president, said that if the prophet ever contradicts canon, canon prevails. On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson, the church’s thirteenth president, said that the living prophet’s words are more important than canon. Such messages create no shortage of confusion among church members."

What say you?  Which prevails?  Canon (ie, scripture) or the living prophet?
I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting.  I'm not sure I've heard that before.  I know Brigham Young leaned towards the Benson view and once commented that he "would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books [The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine & Covenants] so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man that lives, without the living oracles of God."  But Joseph Smith taught "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".

Which is more important - scripture or a living oracle?  And which prophets had it backwards?

 

Well it is a conundrum for all the true believers is it not?  Seems to conflict.  I know when I was an apologist I took the canon only approach. Much easier to defend because of all the nonsense that comes from the mouths of the LDS prophets and apostles.  Brigham Young made a the comment in public when JS asked him which was more important. Scripture or the living oracles.  Brigham picked the latter and JS said he was right.  So it appears that the LDS leaders think their words are more important than canon.  And Benson's address is getting a lot of mileage in conference over the past few years.  Looks to me that the prophets win.