What is canonized scripture?

[manol]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The problems we have I think are historical in nature which doesn't bother me at all, we still have literalists who accept the bible as history, worry about Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, Joseph's personal life, etc.

We are all humans and have a humanist God, we worship, effectively the IDEA of Human perfection and how to achieve it.

How the heck could anyone argue against THAT!!??

How pragmatic of you!

I haven't really tried to codify my beliefs because a) one of my current beliefs is that I don't like "creeds"; and b) my beliefs are still evolving.

Here's a snapshot, and maybe this is just playing with words, but what if there is a next level of evolution beyond Human, a level which might be characterized as more like a Vine with Branches?  Or, borrowing a page from @Calm's playbook, more like a living Web?

Edited July 11, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, manol said:

How pragmatic of you!

I haven't really tried to codify my beliefs because a) one of my current beliefs is that I don't like "creeds"; and b) my beliefs are still evolving.

Here's a snapshot, and maybe this is just playing with words, but what if there is a next level of evolution beyond Human, a level which might be characterized as more like a Vine with Branches?  Or, borrowing a page from @Calm's playbook, more like a living Web?

A key part of being human is being isolated in our own minds.  Coping with that isolation, taking advantage of being able to hide our thoughts from others, being unsure about how others feel about us, not being able to trust or trusting too much, etc…all these and more are major motivators of our behavior, our choices.  The only one that can communicate with us in there is God…assuming it is God and not our imagination or some other form of being that is not divine, but eavesdrops (got to look up the etymology of that word) on our thoughts and adds some commentary every now and then.

When humans evolve to the point of being able to share thought between us, to know each other’s thoughts as if it were our own, will we be human any more or will that push us into some significantly different?  I think it will and I think our current label for that is “exaltation”.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, manol said:

How pragmatic of you!

I haven't really tried to codify my beliefs because a) one of my current beliefs is that I don't like "creeds"; and b) my beliefs are still evolving.

Here's a snapshot, and maybe this is just playing with words, but what if there is a next level of evolution beyond Human, a level which might be characterized as more like a Vine with Branches?  Or, borrowing a page from @Calm's playbook, more like a living Web?

Well generally I don't look at mechanism, I look at what the theory/paradigm does for me so that I want to believe it.

So my advice always would be to take it up a notch and see what difference it makes if it is a vine or web or nothing, a rabbit or a duck.

It's never about "reality" because we don'tsee it- It's about how you WANT to see reality while you construct your world

What tells the more believable story for you- because all we ultimately have are words anyway 

You have to watch that word "is"- the world IS this or that, because it automatically makes you "incorrect" because there IS no "correct"  except your experience!

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[manol]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

A key part of being human is being isolated in our own minds... 

When humans evolve to the point of being able to share thought between us, to know each other’s thoughts as if it were our own, will we be human any more or will that push us into some significantly different?  I think it will and I think our current label for that is “exaltation”.

I think the isolation you mention, the separation from one another and from God, is not our natural state.  Whether it's because of the Fall or the Veil or whatever, I don't think it's what Home is like. 

15 hours ago, Calm said:

The only one that can communicate with us in there is God…

Yes, our experience here need not be limited to separation!  Imo a good paradigm would be one that gives us permission to remove the barriers we have placed between us and the awareness of God's presence, which is to say the awareness of Love's presence, and then as we tune our "radios" to a high spiritual "frequency", we start to get communion instead of separation. 

(We are accustomed to the idea that "we are here" and "God is There", but if all things are continually manifest to God, then that concept of the applicable "geography" is incomplete.  I think God is present right here, just not on our habitual low-vibration wavelengths.)

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well generally I don't look at mechanism, I look at what the theory/paradigm does for me so that I want to believe it.

So my advice always would be to take it up a notch and see what difference it makes if it is a vine or web or nothing, a rabbit or a duck.

Agreed!  The specifics of the theory/paradigm don't really matter, as long as it gives us permission to progress unfettered, hopefully along with some tools to raise our spiritual energy, the "radio frequency" that we are tuned-in to (and broadcasting), with "the pure love of Christ" being a description of that higher "frequency".  

There's a story about a Gurka soldier which circulated back during the Falklands War, I don't know whether it's factual but that may not be a critical detail:

During World War Two a Gurka serving in the British Army was captured by the Japanese.  He was sent to a POW camp hundreds of miles behind the Japanese lines.  At the POW camp he reported to the ranking British officer and informed him that he intended to escape.  The officer told him the attempt would be futile, but the Gurka was insistent.  So the officer said, if you escape, you will need a map to make it back to the British base.  So he gave the Gurka a map that he had hidden away.  The Gurka escaped and eventually made his way back to the British base.  He reported to his commanding officer, who asked how he found his way back.  He said that he had a map.  The officer asked to see the map, so the Gurka handed it to him.  It was a street map of London.

The paradigm doesn't need to be perfect; the spiritual energy of the man or woman is what matters most. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by manol

[pogi]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.

But there are limits to that authority for both. Specifically God can't lie so while he can change directions the modern day prophet shouldn't contradict doctrine established in previous revelation.

But yes, revelation trumps canon.

God can't lie, but prophets can make mistakes, and those mistakes can be canonized. 

I agree that revelation trumps canon though. Canon comes from prophets, so prophets are more important.    In order of ascending importance I would list it as such - canon, prophetic revelation, personal revelation.  That is the three legged stool.

Quote

 

Personal revelation is the way we know for ourselves the most important truths of our existence: the living reality of God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ; the truthfulness of the restored gospel; and God’s purpose and direction for us.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/personal-revelation-the-teachings-and-examples-of-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

 

Quote

 

David O. McKay (President)
I think we pay too little attention to the value of meditation, a principle of devotion. In our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our own meditation; the other, instruction from others, particularly from those who have authority to guide and instruct us. Of the two, the more profitable introspectively is the meditation...

Meditation is a form of prayer...

Meditation is one of the most secret, most sacred doors
through which we pass into the presence of the Lord.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, manol said:

The paradigm doesn't need to be perfect;

It can't be!

No such thing. Paradigms are stories we make up to fit experiences; they work until they don't anymore!

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, pogi said:

God can't lie, but prophets can make mistakes, and those mistakes can be canonized. 

I agree that revelation trumps canon though. Canon comes from prophets, so prophets are more important.    In order of ascending importance I would list it as such - canon, prophetic revelation, personal revelation.  That is the three legged stool.

 

 

Wow. Thanks

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Specifically God can't lie so while he can change directions the modern day prophet shouldn't contradict doctrine established in previous revelation.

Who's the "he" here?

God or the prophet?

So the prophet should reiterate what is no longer the latest paradigm?

Why?

Doesn't that MAKE God "the liar" ?

God cannot teach us a more advanced paradigms for our now more advanced world?

I thought that was the purpose of revelation and an open canon.

[manol]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Paradigms are stories we make up to fit experiences; they work until they don't anymore!

Yes!  Our paradigms are useful until they are not, even our favorite ones.  This rung on the ladder is useful to me until I have the intention to move up higher, and then I let go of it.  This wine-skin meets all of my needs, until along comes new wine, which the old wine-skin paradigm cannot contain, so I need a NEW wine-skin, a NEW paradigm.  I think this is a pattern moreso than a one-time event, and it's actually a lot of fun. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by manol

[Freedom]

I am of the opinion that we have cannon simply because it was the norm of the day in Joseph Smiths time. The ancient church did not have canonized scripture - this notion of official sacred text emerged during the apostasy, coming about as Christianity formally broke from Judaism, and the church leaders wanted to get control of what was being used so they came up with an official list of acceptable books. There is no evidence in any of our scripture of any requirement to canonize certain statements and not others. 

Having said that, our doctrine is found in our canonized scriptures and in official proclamations and declaration of the church. Although conference talks will contain doctrine, they are not a source of doctrine. There is a difference between doctrine (the atonement of Jesus Christ) and modern day revelation that guides us (drug addiction is bad). Conference talks are carefully reviewed and corrected for doctrine. You will notice a difference between the talk that is given in conference and the one published in the magazine and online. I recall on talk that referenced 'The Lord' and was replaced with 'Heavenly Father'. A talk given by Redland had political overtones and had entire paragraphs removed and replaced. 

I would go even further and say that anything we read in the bible should be compared to The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. If a Book of Mormon prophet would not do it, such as slaughtering men women and children, then it is likely that Old Testament prophets did not do it. 

 

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Obehave said:

The only one that can communicate with us in there is God…assuming it is God and not our imagination or some other form of being that is not divine, but eavesdrops (got to look up the etymology of that word) on our thoughts and adds some commentary every now and then.

Which is unknowable and therefore sinless anyway if we DO follow it when deceived, if we cannot tell the difference.

As far as "imagination" is concerned, IF the cause of ANY experience is unknowable (see Rorty below) and IF God is just AND IF the paradigm/rule generated is pragmatically beneficial to mankind,  alleged imagination becomes irrelevant.

You just imagined a good and useful paradigm!

So what?  Congratulations! 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Obehave said:

When humans evolve to the point of being able to share thought between us, to know each other’s thoughts as if it were our own, will we be human any more or will that push us into some significantly different?  I think it will and I think our current label for that is “exaltation”.

Evolution theoretically allows an adaptation to a change in environment to be "successful".

I think we could call this cataclysmic change in environment "The Millenium" and subsequent future history

I mean it would be a little hard to live on a glowing "sea of glass".

No McDonald's!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

  I will say that I believe our Father's ability to communicate his thoughts and feelings to us, and ours to him, has more to do with him being our actual parent than because of how perfect and perfectly good he is.  In a sense, he is in us, and we are in him.  And the same for our Mother, too, I believe, by virtue of us being reproductions of them as they reproduced themselves to create us.  

That may be what is crucial about being sealed to each other. Perhaps there is an actual spiritual change that takes us to a level of family that allows for a better, more immediate  communication.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

APOLOGY

APPARENTLY I MISQUOTED TWO POSTS WRITTEN BY OBHAVE AND ATTRIBUTED THEM TO CALM.

IF SOMEONE FINDS THEM AND LETS ME KNOW, I WILL CORRECT  THEM.

SORRY , BOTH CALM  AND OBEHAVE

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

APOLOGY

APPARENTLY I MISQUOTED TWO POSTS WRITTEN BY OBHAVE AND ATTRIBUTED THEM TO CALM.

IF SOMEONE FINDS THEM AND LETS ME KNOW, I WILL CORRECT  THEM.

SORRY , BOTH CALM  AND OBEHAVE

Doesn’t bother me. 
 

But if it bothers you or him, it is in this post I believe. You likely used his quote of my comment, which then puts my comment as his comment since it was from his post. 

[smac97]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

What is canonized scripture?

See here:

Quote

Canonized scripture is a collection of divine revelations given by the Lord to His prophets for the edification of mankind.

 

Themes

1. The Lord gave a definition of scripture.

2. Living prophets give us additional scripture.

3. The standard works are the official body of written scripture for the Church.

4. Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

5. Prophets may refine scripture.

...

4. Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

Explain the meaning of canon, and describe the process by which scripture is canonized.

“A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness,’ now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

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.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.

And here:

Quote

Canon

A word of Greek origin, originally meaning “a rod for testing straightness,” now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works. The history of the process by which the books of the Bible were collected and recognized as a sacred authority is almost hidden in obscurity. There are several legends extant and these may have some truth in them but certainly are not complete or totally accurate. Though many of the details have not been preserved, we know that the servants of the Lord have been commanded to keep records even from the earliest times, and that those records have been revered by the faithful and handed down from generation to generation.

Much of the information we now have on this subject has come to us through latter-day revelation. For example, we learn that Adam was an intelligent being who could read and write and had a pure and perfect language. Sacred records were kept by him and handed down to succeeding patriarchs, even to Enoch and Abraham, who also added their own writings to the collection (Moses 6:3–6, 46; Abr. 1:31). Likewise Moses kept a record in his day (Moses 1:40–41). A collection of Old Testament documents and other writings was available in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., written upon plates of brass, and was obtained by Nephi from Laban (1 Ne. 4; 5:10–19).

The various Old Testament prophets wrote or dictated to scribes who recorded (such as Jeremiah to Baruch, Jer. 36), and thus the sacred books were produced and collected.

In New Testament times the apostles and prophets kept records, giving an official testimony of the earthly ministry of the Savior and the progress and teachings of the Church. Many of the details, such as time and place involved in the production and the preservation of the records, are not available, but the general concept is clear that the servants of the Lord wrote what they knew to be true of Jesus. Thus came the Gospels. The epistles were primarily written to regulate affairs among the members of the Church.

With the multiplicity of true books, of both Old and New Testament origin, there was also a proliferation of false writings from apostates and from authors who for one reason or another wished to propagate some particular thesis. From time to time decisions needed to be made as to which books were authoritative and which were false. A council of Jewish scholars met for this purpose in Jamnia, or Javneh (near Joppa), in about A.D. 90, and some determinations were made as to what were the official and accepted books of the Jews’ religion. This probably was a defensive reaction to the rise of Christian writings, and perhaps also from the fact that the Christians freely used the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) as well as the writings of the Apostles and the early Christian leaders. It appears that the rabbis wanted to make clear the distinction between the two.

Councils were held in early Christianity to determine which of the writings were authoritative and which were heretical. Some good judgment was used, and many spurious books were rejected, while our present New Testament was preserved. Times of persecution also precipitated decisions as to which books were true and which false. If a Christian is forced by the Roman government to burn his books, he most likely will surrender those that are nonauthoritative and conceal the more valuable documents. In order to do this, he must know which are which.

No doubt many writings, of both Old and New Testament times, have been lost, and perhaps even willfully destroyed (see Lost books). When the Church was in apostasy, whether before or after the time of Christ, some valuable writings were misjudged to be in error (because the judges lacked the truth) and so were discarded. Likewise some books of lesser value may have been judged to be good. In the main, however, sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the authoritative books. Among these rules were the following: (1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle? (2) Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith? (3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church? By application of these tests the books now contained in the Bible have been preserved.

Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.

And here: The Latter-day Saint Concept of Canon

An excerpt:

Quote

The Process of Canonizing

The ways by which revelations become canonized, and hence binding on the faithful, provide an additional check and balance to the openness of the Latter-day Saint canon. The basic principle involved is that of common consent: “And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith” (D&C 26:2).

Scripture to be canonized is presented to the people assembled in conference for their sustaining vote. This occurred, for example, with Official Declaration 2, which was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner on behalf of the First Presidency at the semi-annual general conference of the Church on 30 September 1978. The revelation on the priesthood, received by President Spencer W. Kimball, had first been presented to the counselors in the First Presidency, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other general authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously. Finally, Official Declaration 2 was presented to all general and local priesthood officers of the Church throughout the world.

What would happen (and it never has and, I warrant, never will) if the people were to reject a proposal for canonization? Elder B. H. Roberts answered that questions as follows: “The truth remains. The action of the Church has not affected it in the least. The truth remains just as true as if the Church had accepted it. Its action simply determines the relationship of the members to that truth; and if they reject it, the truth still remains; and it is my opinion that they would not make further progress until they accepted the rejected truth. The truth remains.” [18]

 

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

Is canonized scripture meant to be a tool so we can dispel false doctrine from others (including our latter-day prophets - ie. the scriptures don't teach anything gender so there isn't anything wrong with being transgender)?

Yes.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

These words of President Joseph Fielding Smith should guide all of us in our gospel study: “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.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

“Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:203–4; also cited in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], p. 609.)

And here:

Quote

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. 

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context, and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

 

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

Should we be weighing everything The Church says against the canonized scripture?

Yes.  But not in an adversarial way.  We must recognize that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).  

Further, the Brethren have substantial authority to declare doctrine:

Quote

Revelation may come to …

The President of the Church Individually

The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see Acts 10; Official Declaration 2).

Prophets Acting in Council

The disciples in the Americas prayed to know what they should name the Church. Christ appeared to them and answered, “Whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name” (3 Nephi 27:7).

 

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

Are we justified to, or even expected to, go against the bretheren when they say somehting that isn't found in canonized scripture?

Broadly speaking, I think not.

By way of comparison: As an attorney, I regularly litigate in state and federal courts in Utah.  A judge is, of course, bound and obligated to follow the law.  That is, the U.S. Constitution, the Utah Constitution, state and federal statutes, state procedural rules, and so on.  That said, judges are also given substantial latitude and discretion at the "brass tacks" level of things.

A somewhat similar dynamic plays out in the Church in terms of the Brethren's authority relative to matters of Church governance.  No, they can't make up doctrines.  No, they can't disregard doctrines.  But they have substantial authority in terms of how doctrine is applied, interpreted, and so on.  

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

Can canon be changed?

Sure.  That's the whole point of an open canon.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoC 1:9.)

On 7/10/2022 at 9:43 AM, Fether said:

According to our faith, are there other soures that have equal or more religious authority than canonized scripture?

I believe so.  From above: "The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

According to Pres. Benson:

Quote

To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead, I am going to give you today several aspects of a grand key which, if you will honor, will crown you with God’s glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan’s fury.

Soon we will be honoring our prophet on his 85th birthday. As a Church we sing the hymn, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet.” (Hymn no. 196). Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet—and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
...
Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
...
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
...
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
...
Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
...
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
...
Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
...
Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
...
Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
...
Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
...
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
...
Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
...
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
...
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

These were apparently cited in General Conference as recently as 2010 (here and here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Doesn’t bother me. 
 

But if it bothers you or him, it is in this post I believe. You likely used his quote of my comment, which then puts my comment as his comment since it was from his post. 

Thanks, yes I have done that before and I agree it is no big deal, but I tried to identify where it happened this time and couldn't.   Oops, there goes my Pulitzer!

But at least now we know the correct authorship, should anyone care.  Thanks a ton, you are truly an amazing researcher and editor!!

[Fether]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I believe so.  From above: "The prophet and President of the Church can receive revelation individually that becomes doctrine when it is sustained by the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."

There are many members today that are becoming “protestantized” (ie adopting the sola scriptura approach to their faith). 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/14/2022 at 7:53 AM, Fether said:

There are many members today that are becoming “protestantized” (ie adopting the sola scriptura approach to their faith). 

I am glad they are following their hearts.   In my opinion sola scriptura and that way of reasoning does not fit well with a church which relies on personal revelation.  I hope some day they will "get it", but if not, they are for God to judge, not us.   It is sometimes very comforting to have easy answers to complex questions and following rules others have set than working out the truth on your own.