Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, some disagree on this.  It is not uncommon to sidestep or ignore a commandment, or to re-define it, or to create a rationalization for exempting oneself from it, and then claim to "put God first."

Virtually all commandments come through prophets and apostles.  Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Every commandment can be sidestepped by this way of thinking.  Alma touches on this in Alma 42:

"How could he sin if there was no law?"  If the individual denies the existence of the law, then he can deny the sin that comes from violating it.  

"But there is a law given."  And these laws come through prophets and apostles.  

You are not accurately stating what I believe.  I believe there is ample and sufficient scriptural and prophetic guidance on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  

First, I don't think there are many in this community who subscribe to this re-definition of the Law of Chastity.  The tendency is to entirely disregard the Restored Gospel.

Second, this line of reasoning - avoiding a truth by re-defining it - just does not hold.  Consider this anecdote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

Respectfully, the individual cannot exempt himself from the Law of Chastity by re-defining it (and/or re-defining marriage), or by simply asserting that the law does not apply to him, or that he understands the law better than those charged with formulating, interpreting and enforcing it.

Over the last several years I have been paying attention to the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, the adherents of which attempt to utilize argumentation similar to what you are presenting here, namely, disregarding the law, or re-defining it so as to declare themselves exempt from it.  Some examples:

The fellow in the blue cap makes an impassioned argument that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the laws the judge is about to enforce do not apply to him.  It doesn't work.  Even though these folks feel strongly about the issues facing them, their idiosyncratic and ad hoc interpretation and preferred application of the law do not work.

I once had a pair of borrowers try to argue that they did not need to re-pay their residential loan because it was only a "credit" loan, and was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox.  This argument failed at the trial court, so they appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals.  It failed there, too:

These folks sought to avoid the application of the law by re-defining it in a way that justified his behavior, or else exempted them from the law.  This reasoning does not work.

"Until recently" marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman, such that "inserting between a man and woman" would have been redundant and unnecessary.  Once civil society decided to re-define marriage to include same-sex couples, the addition became appropriate and necessary.

And you are assuming that your interpretation is "the correct" one.  Again, this is a "sovereign citizen"-style argument.  It does not work.

I am not making any such assumption, though.  "Jurisdiction" refers to "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law."  In the context of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the "jurisdiction" over the doctrines and laws of the Church belongs to the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  It is their role and responsibility, not yours or mine, to definitively establish and maintain the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

Of course, this is all in a purely ecclesiastical context.  A sovereign citizen can have his way by moving out of the United States, and thus remove himself from the jurisdiction of this country's laws.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the country and insist that his say-so supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the courts of this country.

Similarly, an individual can leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus remove himself from the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the Church and insist that his say-so about the Law of Chastity supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the prophets and apostles who administer and preside in the Church.

So I am not "assuming" anything here.  I am acknowledging the proverbial "law of the land."

Sovereign citizens use this sort of reasoning all the time to claim that state and federal courts and their adjudication of the law are illegitimate.  It doesn't work.

There is ample scriptural and prophetic guidance on the marriage being between a man and woman, and on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  You choose to disregard this authority, or craft a rationalization that purportedly exempts you from it.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

There are plenty of examples where prophets and apostles have been incorrect on their beliefs that supposably came from God but later retracted those beliefs.  I will let my answer stand.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are plenty of examples where prophets and apostles have been incorrect on their beliefs that supposably came from God but later retracted those beliefs.  I will let my answer stand.  

This is an Infinite Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.  If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This is pat, ad hoc, unreasoned, untethered, and flawed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 5, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does this apply to the prophetic guidance that Black people were cursed for their pre-mortal behavior, or only to the guidance that you like?

 

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Neither

So some "prophetic guidance" is safe to reject then. Correct?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, smac97 said:

If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This pat, unreasoned, and flawed.

Careful. You are describing your church, and every other church ever made. They all ignore the commandments that they don't like. 

[Nofear]

40 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except according to Jesus, living as a Eunuch (celibate not castrated) for the Kingdom of God is a higher calling. Paul says the same thing. You have decided that these commandments are inconvenient and so have rationalized them away. But you strictly adhere to Paul's (not Jesus') prohibitions against certain same sex behaviors. It appears from the outside that you are less concerned with what the authors of the scriptures taught and meant and are more interested in whatever is convenient to your social group.

I'm persuaded by neither your declaration of what I believe or your proclamation of how the scriptures must be interpreted. /shrug

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm persuaded by neither your declaration of what I believe or your proclamation of how the scriptures must be interpreted. /shrug

I merely pointing out that your interpretation of scripture is selective and arbitrary. If you’re fine with that good for you. Most Latter-day Saints claim otherwise.

Edited June 5, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So some "prophetic guidance" is safe to reject then. Correct?

In a sense, yes.  I have addressed this any number of times.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Pres. J. Reuben Clark said:

Quote

“Only the President of the Church … has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth” (“When Are the Writings,” 12).

See also these remarks from then-Elder Harold B. Lee (same link) :

Quote

“How do we measure whether or not one’s teachings are true or false? If anyone teaches beyond what the scriptures teach, we may put it down as speculation except one man who has the right to bring forth any new doctrine—that is the one man who holds the keys—the prophet, seer, and revelator who presides in that high place. And no one else. If anyone presumes to bring forth what he claims to be new doctrine you may know that it is purely his own opinion and you label it as such regardless of his position in the Church. If it contradicts something that is in the scriptures, you may label it immediately that it is false. That is why we call the scriptures our four Standard Church Works. They are the standards by which we measure all doctrine and if anything is taught which is contrary to that which is in the scriptures, it is false. It is just that simple” (“Viewpoint of a Giant,” 6).

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "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…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And these remarks by President Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

Moreover, the Church is operated and governed by councils and commandments, not an individual's fiat.  We sometimes make mistakes in that governance.  I think that is what happened with the ban.  In my view, the primary evidence for the {priesthood} ban being an error is . . . "we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance."

And here:

Quote

And then there is this excellent compilation from FAIR:

Quote

Nineteenth Century

Joseph Smith

“a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” [1]

Altho’ I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charg’d with doing—the wrong that I do is thro’ the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here would be without fault in your eyes? They said all manner of evil against him—they all watch’d for iniquity….When I do the best I can—when I am accomplishing the greatest good, then the most evils are got up against me. – 31 August 1842 [2]

I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought? – 12 May 1844 [3]
1854

…it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong. [4]

1867

We must all learn to depend upon God and upon Him alone. Why, the very man upon whom we think we can rely with unbounded confidence, and trust with all we possess, may disappoint us sometimes, but trust in God and He never fails. [5] The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men; they are fallible men. … No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. … [6]

1858

Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. [7]

1879

I hope what I have said may be blessed to your profit. If I have said any unwise thing, forget it. If I have said any improper thing, I hope it will pass from your minds, and that which is good, cling to you. [8] And then, we have bishops among us. We will treat them courteously. Have they weaknesses? Yes, they are men just like we are. “What,” say you, “have you weaknesses?” Yes, lots of them. I wish I had not sometimes, and then again I don’t wish so. [9]

1883

Now, was not Joseph Smith a mortal man? Yes. A fallible man? Yes. Had he not weaknesses? Yes, he acknowledged them himself, and did not fail to put the revelations on record in this book [10] wherein God reproved him. His weaknesses were not concealed from the people. He was willing that people should know that he was mortal, and had failings. And so with Brigham Young. Was not he a mortal man, a man who had weaknesses? He was not a God. He was not an immortal being. He was not infallible. No, he was fallible. And yet when he spoke by the power of God, it was the word of God to this people. [11] The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. [12]

1891

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming. [13]

1898

I saw Joseph Smith the Prophet do things which I did not approve of; and yet…I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him…for I knew I myself had weaknesses and I thought there was a chance for me. These same weaknesses…I knew were in Heber C. Kimball, but my knowing this did not impair them in my estimation. I thanked God I saw these imperfection. [14]

Twentieth Century

1907

We can and do know the truth with reference to the matters that concern our salvation . . . But with reference to matters involving merely questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do not involve the great and central truths of the gospel—these afford a margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even of prophets and apostles, may be displayed…. when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre–conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre–conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God’s Spirit. [15]

1941

Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President. [16]

1954

There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet….This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost. How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. [17] We are not infallible in our judgment, and we err, but our constant prayer is that the Lord will guide us in our decisions, and we are trying so to live that our minds will be open to His inspiration. [18] Hugh B. Brown: The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted ot the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church…I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis—perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation—of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people. Again, we are only bound by the four standard works and are not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them. [19]

1956

If I should say something which is contrary to that which is written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to accept it. Everything that I say and everything that any other person says must square itself with that which the Lord has revealed, or it should be rejected. [20]

1959

Joseph Smith, as prophets were and as prophets are, was subject to disappointment, even to despair; to illness, to fatigue, to frustration, and even to failure. He was just a man, after all, and he had no special immunity from any of the realities of life that prevail for all the other beings who have ever been born. [21]

1964

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator––please note that one exception––you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”––it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. [22]

1965

There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of general conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. [23]

1966

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.) Since “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. [24] Whether that happened or not, it illustrates a principle: that the Lord can move upon His people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions. [25]

1980

The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: “While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can.” Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior’s earthly mission as in former and later eras. [26]

1981

Now my divine commission and your divine commission is number one, to teach the principles of the gospel; number two, to teach them out of the standard works; number three, to teach them by the power of the Holy Ghost; number four, to apply them to the situation at hand; and number five, to bear a personal witness, a witness born of the Spirit that the doctrine that is taught is true. That is the teacher’s divine commission. I do not always measure up to that by any means. I guess the brethren of whom I am one do as much preaching and speaking in Church congregations as anyone, unless it is the seminary and institute teachers. There are times when I struggle and strive to get a message over and just do not seem to myself to be getting in tune with the Spirit. The fact is, it is a lot harder for me to choose what ought to be said, what subject ought to be considered, than it is for me to get up and preach it. I am always struggling and trying to get the inspiration to know what ought to be said at general conference, or in a stake conference, or whatever. If we labor at it and if we struggle, the Spirit will be given by the prayer of faith. If we do our part we will improve and grow in the things of the Spirit until we get to a position where we can, being in tune, say what the Lord wants said. That is what is expected of us. [27]

1987

To keep ourselves unspotted from the world….includes being aware that God’s work on earth is done by human beings, all of whom have some weaknesses. It encompasses the ability to look for the good accomplished rather than being disillusioned when human failings surface. It includes resisting the urge to proclaim such weaknesses so adamantly that the basic good is overshadowed and testimonies waver. [28]

1989

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. [29] We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities struggling to administer a church which grows at such a pace as to astound even those who watch it closely. Some are disposed to find fault with us; surely that is easy for them to do. But they do not examine us more searchingly than we examine ourselves. A call to lead is not an exemption from the challenges of life. We seek for inspiration in the same way that you do, and we must obey the same laws which apply to every member of the Church. We are sorry for our inadequacies, sorry we are not better than we are. We can feel, as you can see, the effect of the aging process as it imposes limitations upon His leaders before your very eyes. [30]

1991

Every student of church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among church leaders since the Church was organized. [31] …even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work. [32]

1994

The members’ faith in the Brethren as living Apostles and prophets not only provides the needed direction but also clearly sustains those leaders in their arduous chores. There is more to it than this, however. Sustaining them also means that we realize those select men are conscious of their own imperfections; each is even grateful that the other Brethren have strengths and talents he may not have. The gratitude of the Brethren for being so sustained thus includes appreciation for members’ willingness to overlook the imperfections of the overseers. The faithful realize the Apostles are working out their salvation, too, including the further development of the Christlike virtues. Serious discipleship requires us all to be “on the way to perfection” rather than thinking we are already in the arrival lounge. [33]

1995

I’ve known a few prophets. You’ll hear them criticized and attacked, and people will sometimes talk about their failures or their weaknesses, because they’re not perfect. [34] Clearly, my problem and your problem is to hear the word of God from and through imperfect teachers and leaders. [35]

Twenty-First Century

2001

Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy.” Near the end, the Prophet noted, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” The Prophet Joseph, then and since, has been subjected to intense mortal scrutiny. Yet, as prophesied, many in the world ever continue to “inquire after [his]name” (D&C 122:1). [36]

2012

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6). [37] At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. [38]

2013

We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” And he had commented earlier, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs I’m charged with doing. The wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against him, and they all watched for iniquity in him.” Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable. [39] And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. [40]

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible/Quotations

My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it. 

And here:

Quote

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a person opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

Consider, by way of example, Amasa Lyman, who while serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Imagine the confusion, and perhaps even apostasy, that would be caused if members of the Church today uncritically accepted remarks similar to what Elder Lyman taught.  And then consider the wisdom of the counsel we have received about reliance on "the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."  So the counsel we have given on this point is, I think, sound and reasonable.  

I note, however, that the foregoing points of counsel are susceptible to abuse by dissidents and critics, who may seize upon such remarks and use them as some sort of carte blanche to publicly disagree and defy the Brethren on any issue they (the critics/dissidents) deem significant, and also to work to persuade members of the Church to listen to them rather than the Brethren.  Hence we end up with substantial disagreements over socially popular themes like same-sex marriage, female ordination, and so on.  And with the advent of the Internet, critics and dissidents have markedly increased opportunities to persuade members of the Church to accept their point of view on such issues, and to ignore or disregard the counsel given to us by the Brethren, and to instead adopt the preferences of the self-selected few who have set themselves up as alternative voices of authority.

I don't think this is what the Lord has in mind for His people.  I don't think the wise words given above were intended to give critics and dissidents leave to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, to set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the Brethren, or to foment discord and disunity in the Church.

So I think the Church really does teach that we have "freedom to figure out for ourselves whether or not our leaders are inspired and whether or not we should be obedient."  This is exemplified in 2 Nephi 2:27:

Quote

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and call things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

And Moses 6:56:

Quote

And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

And Helaman 14:30:

Quote

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

And here:

Quote

Quote

I respect you a ton, but who says my personal revelation isn't as substantial as yours, what of those that don't have the personal revelation that the LDS church has the most truth. 

In the paradigm held by members of the Church, there is an answer to your question.  President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "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…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

I think Michael Ash has also summed up this concept well:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

And here:

Quote

Quote

How do you square this with Elder Maxwell's prophecy and counsel? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Quote

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

Those days have arrived far sooner than I ever imagined they would.

If we are to doubt their inspiration and pick and choose the parts we think are inspired, are we not halting between two opinions?

I would not say that we should "doubt their inspiration."  Perhaps a better verb would be "analyze" or "evaluate" or "determine for ourselves" their inspiration.  I think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true."  I think such a presumption would a healthy thing.  I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  (There are way too many "I thinks" in this paragraph, I think.)

However, this presumption should not be unthinking or devoid of analysis.  To the contrary, we are supposed to examine the words of our leaders

In contrast, by CB's and your reasoning (such as it is), any and all prophetic guidance "is safe to reject," for any reason or no reason at all.  Just trot out a comparison to the priesthood ban, or else resort to some ad hominem-style attempt to discredit a prophet based on his flaws and mistakes, and poof!, no need to listen to or obey any principle you dislike or don't want to accept in the moment.

This is just a re-tread of Korihor's philosophy:

Quote

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

Denigrate prophets?  Check.  You and CB are doing this.

Characterize "prophecies" as "foolish traditions"?  Check.

Call obedience to the commandments "a foolish and vain hope," and prophetic guidance "foolish things"?  Check and check.

Quote

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

Use the presumptive situation of God's children - walking by faith, not by sure knowledge or "surety" - as a justification to disregard the commandments of God?  Check.

Quote

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

Characterize revealed doctrines as error, as "the effect of a frenzied mind," as mere "traditions," as "a belief of things which are not so"?  Check.  You and CB are doing this.

Quote

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

"{A}nd whatsoever a man did was no crime."

There it is. 

How very convenient this philosophy is.  If a person likes a precept, then he goes along with it (in the moment, anyway).  If he doesn't like a precept, or if just doesn't want to obey it, then he can just disregard the commandment, or else contrive a justification to exempt himself from it.

This just does not work for me.

Quote

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

 Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 5, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A}nd whatsoever a man did was no crime."

There it is. 

How very convenient this philosophy is.  If a person likes a precept, then he goes along with it (in the moment, anyway).  If he doesn't like a precept, or if just doesn't want to obey it, then he can just disregard the commandment, or else contrive a justification to exempt himself from it.

This just does not work for me.

How easy it is to set up and knock over a strawman. 
 

The philosophy is this: what is right and wrong is determined by real world consequences on real world things. It is not based on made up consequences imposed by a vengeful imagined deity in the afterlife.
 

I have never met a person that says anything goes. Ever. Instead people talk about consent, mutual benefit, etc. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In a sense, yes. 

So your statement as written was woefully incomplete then. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

In a sense, yes. 

So your statement as written was woefully incomplete then. 

Sigh.

I am often faulted for being verbose, and elsewhere I am faulted for not saying things in this or that thread I have said many times before.

The pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you will always succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is an Infinite Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.  If you dislike a commandment, you simply ignore it by claiming what you do above.  This is pat, ad hoc, unreasoned, untethered, and flawed.

Thanks,

-Smac

So do you think it’s better to ignore what you believe the Spirit is telling you to do and place the prophets in that place instead?  
 

Would you say the same thing to members of other faiths who have what they believe are the teachings of prophets and apostles as doctrines of their faith such as Catholics?  serious question as how do you, Smac, believe people in general can know that the set of apostles and prophets they look to or rather the interpretations of their teachings are the set that God means people to follow and it’s not another faith’s interpretation that is correct?  
 

 

Edited June 5, 2024 by Calm

[Nofear]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I merely pointing out that your interpretation of scripture is selective and arbitrary. If you’re fine with that good for you. Most Latter-day Saints claim otherwise.

I reject your interpretation of that too. But by all means go on insulting people as capricious, arbitrary, ignorant, and/or gullible. This is the interwebs afterall.

For my own part, though I am guilty of this often enough, I generally find it very poor form to fiat dictate what others must believe or understand such and such, as opposed to say, oh, I don't know, asking how one interprets/understands such and such. It is particularly inspiring when one explains to another how they must believe when they don't believe it themselves.

I'll give other's credit for being patient enough to engage you. For my part I prefer to ad-hominem dismiss you. 😈

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.

I am often faulted for being verbose, and elsewhere I am faulted for not saying things in this or that thread I have said many times before.

The pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you will always succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dude, you used the line to accuse CB of “[eviscerating] the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Maybe care is needed. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The philosophy is this: what is right and wrong is determined by real world consequences on real world things. It is not based on made up consequences imposed by a vengeful imagined deity in the afterlife.

"{E}very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

Scary stuff, this.

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have never met a person that says anything goes. Ever.

It is understandable that adherents of Korihor-style philosophies will generally refrain from saying the quiet part out loud.  Overt hedonism/licentiousness just does not hold up well.  So incrementalism is the order of the day.

I also note that broad disputations about obeying God frequently arise with or pertain to discussions about constraints on sexual behavior.  Again, we see this in the narrative about Korihor.  His "hey, toss out any commandments you don't like" worldview culminated in his "leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms."  I don't think this is a coincidence.  I think sexual desires are potent, so we are eager to look for justifications to act on them without regard to external constraints, with the ultimate externality being God.

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Instead people talk about consent, mutual benefit, etc. 

Ah.  So there are parameters to prescribe and proscribe behaviors.  It's just a matter of who authors those parameters.

Judeo-Christian Ethic are what allows you to come to this board and denigrate our beliefs with absolute impunity, fabricate vague and infinitely malleable and ad hoc moral claims, and so on.  You live and breathe and act in reliance on the very precepts you disparage above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited June 5, 2024 by smac97

[teddyaware]

On 6/2/2024 at 1:20 AM, The Nehor said:

Just stop.

The cancel culture hivemind in action. On a discussion board dedicated to discussing the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one isn’t supposed to mention the downside of breaking one of the gospel’s most important covenants, the law of chastity, nor is it acceptable to discuss the upside of keeping the law of chastity. Makes a lot of sense. 

[Nofear]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

So do you think it’s better to ignore what you believe the Spirit is telling you to do and place the prophets in that place instead?  

While I can't speak for smac97, I myself believe prophets are a good check and balance. We humans are good at believing what we want to believe and learning to be humble enough to hearken to the Spirit irrespective of our inclinations is a lifelong challenge. But still, if the two colflict (after all, prophets are fallible too)? In most cases I personally would hold my personal opinion in abeyance and wait on the Lord to resolve the disparity.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So do you think it’s better to ignore what you believe the Spirit is telling you to do and place the prophets in that place instead?  

See here for my thoughts on this subject.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you say the same thing to members of other faiths who have what they believe are the teachings of prophets and apostles as doctrines of their faith such as Catholics?  

What "same thing" are you referencing here?

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

serious question as how do you (generally speaking) know that the set of apostles and prophets you look to or rather the interpretations of their teachings are the set that God means people to follow and it’s not another faith’s interpretation that is correct?  

Again, see here for my thoughts on this subject.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "same thing" are you referencing here?

Would you tell members of other churches who question the correctness of their faith’s teachings and therefore choose to ignore some of the teachings or even go looking for what they believe are better spiritual principles to live by that they are inappropriately treating their faith using an “infinite get out of jail free” approach rather than being strong in following the prophets and apostles and therefore they should stop questioning their faith’s teachings that are backed by what they believe are teachings of the prophets and apostles?

Edited June 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, see here for my thoughts on this subject.

As far as I can tell your approach is tailored for members of the Restored Gospel.  Are you going to tell members of other faith to follow the same standard in regard to their leaders?

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'll give other's credit for being patient enough to engage you. For my part I prefer to ad-hominem dismiss you. 😈

I find that to be the best track with him for my own sanity.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

What "same thing" are you referencing here?

Would you tell members of other churches who question the correctness of their faith’s teachings and therefore choose to ignore some of the teachings or even go looking for what they believe are better spiritual principles to live by that they are inappropriately treating their faith using an “infinite get out of jail free” approach rather than being strong in following the prophets and apostles and therefore they should stop questioning their faith’s teachings that are backed by what they believe are teachings of the prophets and apostles?

First, I am not in the habit of telling members of other churches what they ought to do or not do vis-à-vis the teachings of their faith group.

Second, my comments here have been in the context of the Restored Gospel as housed in and espoused by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Third, you would need to be more specific about what "teachings" are being "question{ed}" and/or set aside.  This is particularly so when the teaching is an important one that goes into orthopraxy.  For example, I am largely indifferent to internecine disputes about the nature of the Trinity, as this is mostly an abstraction and mired in conjecture and philosophical meanderings.  In contrast, a dispute about whether a person should set aside the proscription against adultery is a very different scenario.  When teachings prescribe or proscribe important behaviors, then that deserves some real attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Again, see here for my thoughts on this subject.

As far as I can tell your approach is tailored for members of the Restored Gospel.  

Yes.  More particularly, it is tailored for me (and for those within my stewardship).  For everyone else, my comments are merely advisory/explanatory.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you going to tell members of other faith to follow the same standard in regard to their leaders?

No.  Again, I am not in the habit of telling members of other churches what they ought to do or not do vis-à-vis the teachings of their faith group.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Judeo-Christian Ethic are what allows you to come to this board and denigrate our beliefs with absolute impunity

This is a load of horse poop. Judeo-Christian values are all over the map. The Bible endorses genocide, slavery, and rape. It’s humanism and the enlightenment that have led people to reject these “Judeo-Christian values.” Not the other way around. Whenever the church is criticized for being a hundred years late on race issues, it is defended by people claiming that the gospel is never an institution to drive for social change. This is clearly true. Social change for the better comes despite religion, not because of it. 

Edited June 5, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Doctor Steuss]

20 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The cancel culture hivemind in action. On a discussion board dedicated to discussing the beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, one isn’t supposed to mention the downside of breaking one of the gospel’s most important covenants, the law of chastity, nor is it acceptable to discuss the upside of keeping the law of chastity. Makes a lot of sense. 

I'm sorry The Nehor's post triggered you.  Please know that this is a safe space, and big feelings are ok.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm sorry The Nehor's post triggered you.  Please know that this is a safe space, and big feelings are ok.

Don’t coddle the snowflakes 😜