The Written Word and the Spoken Word

[Saint Bonaventure]

Does the LDS Church privilege the written word over the spoken word (or vice versa)?

Does context matter?

Does process matter?

 

I'll give an example:

Let's imagine that President Nelson speaks at the general meeting and says, "I've decided that Latter-day Saints are okay to partake of coffee in moderation."

Would people cite LDS Scripture and "throw the book at him?"

Would he need to take a vote or something and have an affirming spoken word from the Church?

Would he need to have his statement added to LDS Scripture in order for it to be authoritative?

Would putting his statement in a written form other than LDS Scripture suffice?

Would he have to follow a particular process in order for his spoken word to be authoritative?

What if he changes his mind and edits that line out of the printed version of his speech? Which version, spoken or written, would be authoritative (if any)?

What if he's not speaking at the general meeting, but is just walking down the street in Salt Lake City and is making a remark to passersby?

 

Bottom line: I guess I'm asking if there is an authoritative hierarchy/structure in the LDS Church that accounts for form (written or spoken), context, and process.

I'm also imagining long lines at the Starbucks in Utah, and a coming 2-for-1 sale on hot cocoa at the Albertson's.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[the narrator]

23 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Does the LDS Church privilege the written word over the spoken word (or vice versa)?

Does context matter?

Does process matter?

 

I'll give an example:

Let's imagine that President Nelson speaks at the general meeting and says, "I've decided that Latter-day Saints are okay to partake of coffee in moderation."

Would people cite LDS Scripture and "throw the book at him?"

Would he need to take a vote or something and have an affirming spoken word from the Church?

Would he need to have his statement added to LDS Scripture in order for it to be authoritative?

Would putting his statement in a written form other than LDS Scripture suffice?

Would he have to follow a particular process in order for his spoken word to be authoritative?

What if he changes his mind and edits that line out of the printed version of his speech? Which version, spoken or written, would be authoritative (if any)?

What if he's not speaking at the general meeting, but is just walking down the street in Salt Lake City and is making a remark to passersby?

 

Bottom line: I guess I'm asking if there is an authoritative hierarchy/structure in the LDS Church that accounts for form (written or spoken), context, and process.

I'm also imagining long lines at the Starbucks in Utah, and a coming 2-for-1 sale on hot cocoa at the Albertson's.

 

The answer is simple:

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."

Ezra Taft Benson: "Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."

Hope that settles things.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Does the LDS Church privilege the written word over the spoken word (or vice versa)?

Does context matter?

Does process matter?

 

I'll give an example:

Let's imagine that President Nelson speaks at the general meeting and says, "I've decided that Latter-day Saints are okay to partake of coffee in moderation."

Would people cite LDS Scripture and "throw the book at him?"

Would he need to take a vote or something and have an affirming spoken word from the Church?

Would he need to have his statement added to LDS Scripture in order for it to be authoritative?

Would putting his statement in a written form other than LDS Scripture suffice?

Would he have to follow a particular process in order for his spoken word to be authoritative?

What if he changes his mind and edits that line out of the printed version of his speech? Which version, spoken or written, would be authoritative (if any)?

What if he's not speaking at the general meeting, but is just walking down the street in Salt Lake City and is making a remark to passersby?

 

Bottom line: I guess I'm asking if there is an authoritative hierarchy/structure in the LDS Church that accounts for form (written or spoken), context, and process.

I'm also imagining long lines at the Starbucks in Utah, and a coming 2-for-1 sale on hot cocoa at the Albertson's.

 

This is kind of a hard topic to use to figure this stuff out because not drinking coffee is an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, which says right in the revelation that it's not given as a commandment.  The change that made the WoW into a commandment is not recorded anywhere in scripture (and I don't think it's recorded anywhere in other forms either, though I might be forgetting something).  It just showed up gradually as it began to be enforced.

So there is some pretty good leeway for a prophet to change how we observe the WoW without too much pushback (though there would be some no matter what). 

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter whether it's written or spoken--because we are a religion founded on the principle of continuing revelation--what would matter more is the topic.  Is it something that members believe could be changed by revelation, or is it a fundamental doctrine that can never be changed.

Edited April 11, 2022 by bluebell

[Saint Bonaventure]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter whether it's written or spoken--because we are a religion founded on the principle of continuing revelation--what would matter more is the topic.  Is it something that members believe could be changed by revelation, or is it a fundamental doctrine that can never be changed.

This resonates in my world. Dogmas don't change; the Church won't somehow show up and say, "You know, Jesus being fully God and fully man? Well, we need to walk that back a little bit." That won't happen.

But doctrines? Those can change over time. Leo XIII can be critical of capitalism as a threat to the family and John Paul II can be approving of capitalism as a liberating force in communist countries.

 

[the narrator]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

The answer is simple:

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."

Ezra Taft Benson: "Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."

Hope that settles things.

Joking aside--well, not really joking because the contradiction here is quite funny--David R. Holland (of Harvard Divinity and son of Apostle Jeff Holland) has an excellent article on the topic. His " The Triangle and the Sovereign: Logics, Histories, and an Open Canon" can be read here.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Does the LDS Church privilege the written word over the spoken word (or vice versa)?

Does context matter?

Does process matter?

 

I'll give an example:

Let's imagine that President Nelson speaks at the general meeting and says, "I've decided that Latter-day Saints are okay to partake of coffee in moderation."

Would people cite LDS Scripture and "throw the book at him?"

Would he need to take a vote or something and have an affirming spoken word from the Church?

Would he need to have his statement added to LDS Scripture in order for it to be authoritative?

Would putting his statement in a written form other than LDS Scripture suffice?

Would he have to follow a particular process in order for his spoken word to be authoritative?

What if he changes his mind and edits that line out of the printed version of his speech? Which version, spoken or written, would be authoritative (if any)?

What if he's not speaking at the general meeting, but is just walking down the street in Salt Lake City and is making a remark to passersby?

 

Bottom line: I guess I'm asking if there is an authoritative hierarchy/structure in the LDS Church that accounts for form (written or spoken), context, and process.

I'm also imagining long lines at the Starbucks in Utah, and a coming 2-for-1 sale on hot cocoa at the Albertson's.

 

Good use of an example, I do believe the use of coffee would be a shock to member's system having heard it come out of a current prophet's mouth. 

[Fether]

It gets more confusing when the written version of a talk does not match what was said in conference xD

I remember a few conferences ago, elder Stevenson (at least I believe it was him) told a story where he was going to be out of town for a while and he told his so. That because he is the priesthood holder of the home, he was in charge of directing the family. I found that interesting because his wife was still home. When the written version was released, I went to where he said it and it was changed to say that because he had the priesthood, he and Elder Stevenson’s wife were in charge of directing the home.

Not actually the big of a deal but I thought it was interesting and was the first time I had noticed a change like that.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

Hope that settles things.

Perfect.   

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

Not actually the big of a deal

I am very glad they changed it.  I don’t think it is a good idea to suddenly drop the burden an adult carries on the shoulders of a kid.

[Doctrine 612]

The word of wisdom doesn’t say no coffee or tea. It says hot drink that the church says it means coffee or tea.

the interpretation could change to hot drink meaning hard alcohol like whiskey which is hot to the taste.

Whiskey was home remedy for swollen gums as a kid.

[JustAnAustralian]

30 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

The word of wisdom doesn’t say no coffee or tea. It says hot drink that the church says it means coffee or tea.

No it doesn't specify tea or coffee, but the tea and coffee reading is contemporaneous to JS.

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

No it doesn't specify tea or coffee, but the tea and coffee reading is contemporaneous to JS.

Yes, skepticism of hot drinks was contemporaneous to JS, but it is important to note that this was about medicinal us, not mere consumption. Also, hot drinks would have included hot chocolate as well, but this was likely not mentioned in Hyrum's definition of hot drinks due to it being a somewhat rare and luxurious commodity that would have been far out of the hands of most Saints. The other prohibitions in this section of the WofW are all concerning medicinal use as well. This is why the focus of their use on the body and belly are mentioned. Strong drink: okay for topical use (body) but not for medicinal consumption (body). Hot drinks: not for topical use (body); not for medicinal consumption (belly) [this follows the still common prescription of either immersing part of the body in very hot or very cold liquids, or consuming very hot beverages, as a cure, which was part of the dying humor theory of medicine]. Tobacco: not for topical human use, but okay for topical animal use; not for medicinal consumption (swallowing tobacco was sometimes prescribed then for purging) [very important to note that the WofW says *nothing* about smoking or chewing tobacco].

[The Nehor]

On 4/11/2022 at 12:12 PM, the narrator said:

The answer is simple:

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine."

Ezra Taft Benson: "Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."

Hope that settles things.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/11/2022 at 9:44 PM, Doctrine 612 said:

Whiskey was home remedy for swollen gums as a kid.

It beats "accidentally" swallowing Listerine.😎

[mfbukowski]

On 4/11/2022 at 9:47 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Does the LDS Church privilege the written word over the spoken word (or vice versa)?

Does context matter?

Does process matter?

 

I'll give an example:

Let's imagine that President Nelson speaks at the general meeting and says, "I've decided that Latter-day Saints are okay to partake of coffee in moderation."

Would people cite LDS Scripture and "throw the book at him?"

Would he need to take a vote or something and have an affirming spoken word from the Church?

Would he need to have his statement added to LDS Scripture in order for it to be authoritative?

Would putting his statement in a written form other than LDS Scripture suffice?

Would he have to follow a particular process in order for his spoken word to be authoritative?

What if he changes his mind and edits that line out of the printed version of his speech? Which version, spoken or written, would be authoritative (if any)?

What if he's not speaking at the general meeting, but is just walking down the street in Salt Lake City and is making a remark to passersby?

 

Bottom line: I guess I'm asking if there is an authoritative hierarchy/structure in the LDS Church that accounts for form (written or spoken), context, and process.

I'm also imagining long lines at the Starbucks in Utah, and a coming 2-for-1 sale on hot cocoa at the Albertson's.

 

How teaching becomes scripture is a long and laborious process that takes years and is finally presented at Conference to be sustained by all AS scripture, and added to the Standard Works.  It's like defining something as "ex cathedra"

Teachings given at conference are seen not as part of the "standard works" ie: equivalent to the Bible, but more as statements to be seriously considered and inspired, and even spoken of as "scripture" but the context of that usage is entirely different.

Yes, context is everything.

Good question, the ambiguity used to get to me too, but after a while you get used to, and appreciate, the nuances.

A lot of it is showing respect for other's opinions, when one hears something like "every conference talk is scripture", but that is seldom taken literally or seriously, except by perhaps some who are scriptural fundamentalists, who take scripture literally.

So yes, context is the key, and one must get used to the ambiguity, consider the source and ALWAYS get your own spiritual confirmation of EVERYTHING.