Ashes of a rye straw...

[Teancum]

2 hours 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?

Benson was not.  And Kimball was ticked about what he said.

[bOObOO]

45 minutes ago, Fether said:

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”

 

I can't think of a better illustration than that.  Sitting right there was a man who had written or translated all of those books of scripture when some other man had the gall to say that what he had written was superior to anything else that prophet could write.

How blind some people can be.  Joseph Smith as a prophet vs the book of Doctrine & Covenants he had written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Same for the Book of Mormon and his translation of the Bible. Joseph Smith as a prophet was better, of course, than all that he had already written, since he could still have written much more.  And yet some other leading man in the Church, who presumably was told to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, thought the books already written were more important than a living prophet, even Joseph Smith himself.

Edited August 12, 2021 by bOObOO

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

And yet some other leading man in the Church, who presumably was told to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, thought the books already written were more important than a living prophet, even Joseph Smith himself.

I believe the other man in question was Hyrum Smith, which makes the whole situation more interesting. 

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Kimball was ticked about what he said.

Source?

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I believe the other man in question was Hyrum Smith, which makes the whole situation more interesting. 

Oh, that makes me sad to think it was him.  I believe Hyrum was a very good man.  Maybe he just had a more difficult time hearing from the Holy Spirit than his brother Joseph did.  That would explain a lot.  And yet he was still a very good man.

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

We are conflating two different questions. What is more important and what is more right?

Neither ETB and BY said prophets were more right or authoritative. They said that they would rather have the prophet. The modern prophet speaks directly about things that are happening today. With a prophet, we have constant and up to date direction from god. With scripture… well… one can look at all the opinions of all the denominations to see that scripture does not offer that same security.

As for what is more right. Scriptural canon seems to win out every time.

[OGHoosier]

1 minute ago, bOObOO said:

Oh, that makes me sad to think it was him.  I believe Hyrum was a very good man.  Maybe he just had a more difficult time hearing from the Holy Spirit than his brother Joseph did.  That would explain a lot.  And yet he was still a very good man.

He was a very good man, and as we all saw at Carthage, his brief moment of disagreement with prophetic authority did nothing to dampen his faith and devotion. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Do you think either of the church leaders you quoted in the OP would disagree with this statement?

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think either of the church leaders you quoted in the OP would disagree with this statement?

No, of course not. 

I posted this thread for two reasons. 

1. I found the Joseph Fielding Smith quote interesting but I can't locate the source.  And 2. I was curious who here leaned more "follow the prophet" and who leaned more "where is that in the scriptures".

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I recall when Joseph Field Smith was sustained as President of the Church, a reporter asked him, given his position, would he change any of the more controversial things he had written or said in the past. He replied that he would not. One of my religion professors at BYU claimed that with this statement President Smith canonized all his books and talks. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Source?

» In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."

Source: Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball --

https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_14287116

 

[Fether]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

» In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."

Source: Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball --

https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_14287116

 

There seems to be a little too much liberty taken on your part to say he was “ticked”. The talk has been referenced numerous times in general conferences over the years as well as republished as the “First Presidency Message” in the June 1981 ensign, which was only one year after the original speech and Spencer W Kimball was still the Prophet

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

The biblical Canon is diachronic, not synchronic.  Besides, the issue we are discussing is one of authoritative structure, which may take a variety of forms.

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

» In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."

Source: Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball --.................

Touché

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Actually, Brother Brigham picked the Holy Spirit.  The words of any given prophet might take any form, and over time conflict.  Ignoring the conflicts among the prophets is the road to doom.

Quote

Nothing short of the Holy Spirit … can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, either to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the Kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind (DBY, 430–31).

There is but one witness—one testimony, pertaining to the evidence of the Gospel of the Son of God, and that is the Spirit that he diffused among his disciples. Do his will, and we shall know whether he speaks by the authority of the Father or of himself. Do as he commands us to do, and we shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or not [see John 7:16–17]. It is only by the revelations of the Spirit that we can know the things of God (DBY, 431–32).

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.  JD 9:150, 12 January 1862.

An infinite regress leads to erewhon.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

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.  

All true observations about differing cultures, but which doesn't address my point -- which was about authoritative structures.  A narrow focus on modern religious organization leads to the erroneous belief that it is normative, and it never has been.  We need to take a diachronic view, and distill meaning from that, not from a synchronic modern view.  One purpose of our Scriptural Canon is to allay that sort of shallow approach.  After all, any fallible prophet may make any sort of claim:  That does not automatically make it true.  The Holy Spirit always has the last word, which is a notion which causes deep unease among evangelicals.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, bOObOO said:

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

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

I try to distinguish the BofM Samuel from the biblical Samuel.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Holy Spirit always has the last word, which is a notion which causes deep unease among evangelicals.

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I never met an evangelical who did not depend on the Holy Spirit to provide insight and enlightenment in his or her hermeneutics. Thanks.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I never met an evangelical who did not depend on the Holy Spirit to provide insight and enlightenment in his or her hermeneutics. Thanks.

Not trying to speak for Robert, but evangelicals largely treat that the Bible is the source of truth over the Spirit or revelation.  To use the terminology of this thread they choose canon over prophet.  Good old sola scriptura.

Edited August 13, 2021 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All true observations about differing cultures, but which doesn't address my point -- which was about authoritative structures.  A narrow focus on modern religious organization leads to the erroneous belief that it is normative, and it never has been.  We need to take a diachronic view, and distill meaning from that, not from a synchronic modern view.  One purpose of our Scriptural Canon is to allay that sort of shallow approach.  After all, any fallible prophet may make any sort of claim:  That does not automatically make it true.  The Holy Spirit always has the last word, which is a notion which causes deep unease among evangelicals.

Which creates the problem mentioned in the OP.

After hearing so many friends talk about how "the spirit" told them not to wear a mask or get vaccinated" even when that contradicts with what the spirit presumably has told church leaders, it is clear that people misinterpret "the spirit" quite regularly. Sometimes I wonder if "the Spirit" should be renamed "Confirmation Bias"

People often drop "the spirit" as a kind of trump card to end discussion. I am wary of people who refer to their own personal revelation too often because methinks they be trying to hard to drop the mic.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Which creates the problem mentioned in the OP.

After hearing so many friends talk about how "the spirit" told them not to wear a mask or get vaccinated" even when that contradicts with what the spirit presumably has told church leaders, it is clear that people misinterpret "the spirit" quite regularly. Sometimes I wonder if "the Spirit" should be renamed "Confirmation Bias"

People often drop "the spirit" as a kind of trump card to end discussion. I am wary of people who refer to their own personal revelation too often because methinks they be trying to hard to drop the mic.

I think confirmation bias as the spirit is a real thing.  The assumption that a decision that makes you feel good is spiritual confirmation should be looked upon with skepticism.
Sure, the spirit does make us feel at peace but so does getting to do exactly what we want.
I think those times when the spirit has prompted me to do something different than I expected are far more likely from the Lord than those times I felt to do exactly what I previously decided upon.
I look at all those times the prophets were told to do something that just forced them completely out of their comfort zone.  No confirmation bias there.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think confirmation bias as the spirit is a real thing.  The assumption that a decision that makes you feel good is spiritual confirmation should be looked upon with skepticism.
Sure, the spirit does make us feel at peace but so does getting to do exactly what we want.
I think those times when the spirit has prompted me to do something different than I expected are far more likely from the Lord than those times I felt to do exactly what I previously decided upon.
I look at all those times the prophets were told to do something that just forced them completely out of their comfort zone.  No confirmation bias there.

Wiser words have never been said.  Can I use that quote??  I've got some people on Facebook that could benefit from it.  

Seriously though, I struggle with not assuming that the Spirit is always going to want me to do the thing I don't want to do, as well as struggling with confusing feeling good about a decision with feeling the spirit.  So I'm a mess either way.

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sometimes I wonder if "the Spirit" should be renamed "Confirmation Bias"

I've looked into this at some length, and I've come to the conclusion that though confirmation bias1 can weigh in on our interpretations of spiritual experiences2, there are sufficient examples of spiritual experiences from a plenitude of faiths and even within the Latter-day Saint tradition itself that suggest that spiritual experience is not in any way reducible to confirmation bias. See: https://philpapers.org/archive/DUMECR-2.pdf

Notes:

1) I'm using "confirmation bias" in a folk sense, as I think that the science behind the phenomenon of confirmation bias is significantly more complicated than the usage of the popular term would imply.

There are some who suggest that the term "confirmation bias" has expanded so much that it should probably be retired. 

There are also some who argue that we've been thinking about biases and heuristics all wrong. See here and here.

2) As they can with any assessment or rational experience.

[bOObOO]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

They win as being more vital/important/necessary than scripture only because they are the ones who determine what is scripture and they are the ones who write it.  And someone needs to be able to know when words written by men are the words of God, otherwise those words will be regarded as only the words of men but not the words of God.

Consider any words written by men, for example.  Who is to know whether those words were written as men were inspired by God to write them?  Only a prophet can know for sure. Others may guess and guess correctly but they are only guessing unless they are also prophets, themselves, with the ability to know what is scripture.  A testimony of Jesus Christ is attained only by the spirit of prophecy.  That was how the apostle Peter knew Jesus was the son of God, our Father.  Our Father told Peter through the spirit of prophecy.  And he and Paul the NT apostle were enabled to write scripture only through the spirit of prophecy, too.  Just as all prophets are.  Prophets are the ones who write scripture and know what scripture is when they see it.  And we shouldn't just take their own word for what they say, either.  We should also seek to gain and understand the spirit of prophecy as a gift from the Holy Spirit.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think confirmation bias as the spirit is a real thing.  The assumption that a decision that makes you feel good is spiritual confirmation should be looked upon with skepticism.
Sure, the spirit does make us feel at peace but so does getting to do exactly what we want.
I think those times when the spirit has prompted me to do something different than I expected are far more likely from the Lord than those times I felt to do exactly what I previously decided upon.
I look at all those times the prophets were told to do something that just forced them completely out of their comfort zone.  No confirmation bias there.

Confirmation bias as The Spirit is somewhat baked in to many leadership/administrative functions in the church. 

I recall on many occasions being taught how to pray when I'm seeking a specific answer. I was taught (Am I the only one) to pray for the Lord's guidance but then tell God what I believe the right answer to my question should be and then ask God to correct me if I am wrong. That way, I was taught, if I didn't receive any firm confirmation either for or against I could have confidence to act, knowing that God would have stopped me if it was wrong.

The prayer might go something like this. "God please bless us with guidance as we decide who the new Sunday School President should be. We feel confident that Brother XX would be an excellent choice. If this is not according to your will, please let us know. Amen"

No discernable response would mean God was good with it. Confirmation bias wins. I think there are serious problems with that approach. However, I also believe there are problems with the opposite approach.

But I like what you say about receiving a prompting that is distinctly opposite from what I would have expected. I've experienced that and have been very glad for it. But that seems to be much more rare. I guess God and I just think alike most of the time