The 14 Fundamentals: Number 1

[Anonymous]

[NOTE: I am going to post this despite some concerns about the tone the thread might take. I think this can be an excellent forum to discuss problems AND solutions / perspectives / paradigms / etc. – but it also has the potential to spiral out of control. I just want to make sure it’s clear up-front what the purpose of this thread is – as well as those that will follow, which I would summarize as:

A thread to discuss carefully and analytically what exactly is BOTH “good” AND “bad” about “doctrine” – and particularly how doctrine is interpreted and applied in the Church. My hope is that everyone can take the “14 fundamentals” one-by-one and talk about them thoroughly – disecting them, if you will, and seeing how each person feels about each one in both the abstract (theoretically) and the concrete (practical).

As I said in another thread, I think anything that has a title like “14 Fundamentals” is neither all-inclusive, exclusive, objective, True OR fundamental – but I also beleive there is lots of “truth” that can be gleaned from it, especially if we look at “what works” for many.]

With that introduction, here is the first of the “14 Fundamentals”:

Quote:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Discuss.

[Anonymous]

My initial, quick take on this is pretty simple:

In theory, I get this – and don’t really have a problem with it at that level, as long as “in everything” is focused with a caveat of “that pertains collectively to the Church as a general rule”.

When it gets problematic, imo, is when “everything” goes beyond the organizational bounds and moves into personal matters and individual situations – and when it gets twisted in translation into:

Quote:

The Prophet always speaks for the Lord in all things.

Those are two VERY different quotes – fundamentally.

For example, I have no problem at all with a CHI policy statement cautioning against vasectomies as nothing more than a means of limiting family size when people are young enough to have more children at no real increased risk if they might choose later to do so. Where I have a problem is when that general counsel is turned into a command and people try to enforce it at the individual level for all situations. Another good example is R-rated movies. As a general rule directed toward teenagers (as was the case with the original talk), I am totally fine with it; as a church-wide edict directed to all members, including adults, I disagree.

My only other disclaimer for now is that I don’t think the Lord speaks about lots of things we (including prophets) think He speaks about – like vasectomies and R-rated movies. (The CHI itself, and the training about it, makes this distinction, actually – as it is referred to as “the best guidance available to the leaders at this time” and explicitly NOT as “scripture”. [Elder Holland]) As the Orson Scott Card article linked in another recent thread says, I think we tend to over-apply personal “inspiration” and our own natural thoughts as “revelation” in a lot of cases where the Lord actually hasn’t spoken directly – or even inspired indirectly.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

[NOTE: I am going to post this despite some concerns about the tone the thread might take. I think this can be an excellent forum to discuss problems AND solutions / perspectives / paradigms / etc. – but it also has the potential to spiral out of control. I just want to make sure it’s clear up-front what the purpose of this thread is – as well as those that will follow, which I would summarize as:

A thread to discuss carefully and analytically what exactly is BOTH “good” AND “bad” about “doctrine” – and particularly how doctrine is interpreted and applied in the Church.

I think this is a good idea Ray. However, it needs to work both ways. I will participate and follow those rules, but I also expect it to be HONEST, logical and from a centrist standpoint, and void of all “TBMism”, cultural and traditional commandment type dogma and free from apologetic type beliefs. As soon as that happens I will call BS and become quite unpleasant, to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

In theory, I get this – and don’t really have a problem with it at that level, as long as “in everything” is focused with a caveat of “that pertains collectively to the Church as a general rule”.

When it gets problematic, imo, is when “everything” goes beyond the organizational bounds and moves into personal matters and individual situations – and when it gets twisted in translation into:

Quote:

The Prophet always speaks for the Lord in all things.

Those are two VERY different quotes – fundamentally.

Agreed. There is no question the church doctrine, before Oct. conference, agreed with this as well. I’m not sure that is the case now. This is perhaps the crux of the matter – how will the general membership see this? We have not done a good job learning from our mistakes on this issue. To be honest, I would be scared to death if I was monson right now to say ANYTHING, because as of right now, MANY members of the church WILL and DO interpret the first fundamental exactly how you said they shouldn’t.

I suppose the two earrings is the easiest example off hand. When GBH speaks, is he ALWAYS speaking for god? Nope – so the membership needs to back off on some of these things. I think the Prophet does and has a right to get/give direction related to the church organization. I don’t think he has a right to get/give direction dealing with individual, and the individual’s faith. God doesn’t care if a women wears two pairs of earrings, GBH does though, but why should that be church’s business? It shouldn’t. Personally I have no problem with the correct translation of the 1st principle. It’s the interpretation that I heard, and KNOW that many members are making that makes it dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The Prophet always speaks for the Lord in all things.

I should probably stay out of this, but I won’t. I was thinking about how to respond and realized that I’m not sure what the sentence even means. What’s a ‘prophet’? Who is the ‘Lord’? What does it mean to ‘speak for the Lord’, and what does ‘all things’ mean? There’s enough material there for months of worry and debate. Times 14.

The only real power that the church has over any of us is to withdraw temple attendance privileges or withdraw church membership. If either of those things are important to me then, fine, I need to do whatever it takes to maintain those privileges. If they’re not important, then it’s not a worry. While I disagree with the spirit in which the ’14 fundamentals’ talks were delivered, it is mostly a disagreement in degree. I can see lots of practical reasons why there needs to be top-down leadership in the church organization, and I’m okay with that, though beyond that it starts to get fuzzy. The important part is that I see nothing regarding any of the 14 fundamentals that I can’t deal with in my own way (by ignoring it, if necessary) and still keep a temple recommend, and (obviously) my church membership, so, even though I wish it hadn’t happened, it’s not a threat to me. They can say whatever they want and it won’t affect me in any practical way as long as it doesn’t show up on the list of temple recommend questions, for instance. Now, as soon as I have to swear an allegiance to the 14 points (or whatever) in order to remain a church member, then I will start to see things differently. In the meantime I will continue to see the church for what it is, play by the rules that I need to in order to participate at the level that is appropriate for me, and keep trying to understand what is really essential.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the most egregious part of the first fundamental is Benson’s commentary right after where he says,

Quote:

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words” — as if from the Lords’ own mouth.

To me, that is why this principle teaching is FALSE.

[Anonymous]

The pronouncements of Pres. Monson and the Twelve are not at all that frequent and after the backlash from prop 8, it’s rumored will be even less. Where the problem comes is not when the prophet speaks, it’s being told that when he does we have to snap to and inaddition when a mid level functionary flexes his muscle and tries to back it up with “follow the prophet” and the obediance card. I have no problem with giving heed to all his words but that’s different than saying that his every word is from God’s mouth to his ear.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Perhaps the most egregious part of the first fundamental is Benson’s commentary right after where he says,

Quote:

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words” — as if from the Lords’ own mouth.

To me, that is why this principle teaching is FALSE.

Blowing smoke, IMO. I choose to ignore it. Unless it resonates with you, what else can you do?

I think this is really an exercise in circular logic. The prophet or one of the Q12 says something about what they say always being ‘true’. In order to accept that statement at face value, logically one already has to believe that everything that they say it true. If one doesn’t believe that everything that they say is true, it’s easy enough to discount this latest assertion or to parse it in a way that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

I agree with your counter-conditions, cwald. 🙂

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

A thread to discuss carefully and analytically what exactly is BOTH “good” AND “bad” about “doctrine” – and particularly how doctrine is interpreted and applied in the Church. My hope is that everyone can take the “14 fundamentals” one-by-one and talk about them thoroughly – disecting them, if you will, and seeing how each person feels about each one in both the abstract (theoretically) and the concrete (practical)…I also beleive there is lots of “truth” that can be gleaned from it, especially if we look at “what works” for many.

Quote:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Discuss.

I guess the main thing this idea is good for is that for some TBMs it is comforting to have someone they trust telling them exactly what the Lord supposedly wants them to do. So they don’t need to worry about whether they should wear one pair of earrings or two because the prophet has already made it abundantly clear that they should only wear one pair of earrings. The same goes for R-rated movies and on and on down the list. Also, if you have one final decision maker it simplifies things and saves time so we don’t need any kind of vote and the prophet can just dictate policies directly and settle any disputes (“when the prophet speaks the debate is over”).

One problem with this idea in my opinion is that it sounds incredibly arrogant to claim that this one man speaks directly for the Lord when less than 1% of all the people in the world recognize this man’s supposed authority but at the same time there are over 2 billion Christians. How convenient for him and his followers that he has the good fortune of speaking for the Lord in such an exclusive way. Also, the way this is worded it makes it sound like the prophet can do no wrong because the Lord is supposedly directing him in almost everything he says publicly.

The problem is that it just doesn’t appear to be remotely accurate in hindsight. Do the Lord’s personality and opinions suddenly change dramatically depending on which prophet is speaking? It sure looks like that would have to be the case if this assertion was actually true. Seriously, if “everything” was really coming straight from the Lord then I just don’t understand why there should be so many haphazard changes in doctrine and policy as well as so much embarrassing history that Church leaders feel like they need to hide at this point.

[Anonymous]

It seems like such a basic concept, something taught in primary and is simple, right? Then why did I struggle with it for so long before making this post???

Quote:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Follow the prophet, he knows the way.

This is comforting, and is something I think we all hope for, someone who knows the way, so we can go on with our lives in confidence.

But DA makes some good points.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

The problem is that it just doesn’t appear to be remotely accurate in hindsight. Do the Lord’s personality and opinions suddenly change dramatically depending on which prophet is speaking?

It would be much more comforting if Joseph Smith didn’t secretly practice polygamy, or fail so horribly in a banking business, or if Brigham Young didn’t say any racial comments.

I guess I have a hard time accepting that original statement as pure truth, because the prophet can’t be the ONLY man (there are apostles and church leaders that hold keys also), and he can’t speak for the Lord in EVERYTHING, or else you would think our leaders would have been in the forefront of the equal rights movements in our society, or numerous other times when it is hard to accept an all-knowing God would say or do the things our prophets have sometimes said or done.

I like the concept that there is a designated leader, like a judge, that can make policy/laws or provide a vision of hope…and we sustain that person, even if they’re not perfect, as the best we have on the earth apart from God Himself being here. But prophets are fallible, and prophets do not supersede my responsibility for personal revelation and free agency. Nor does my personal revelation not need the guidance from an inspired leader close to God to help me when exercising my free agency.

I’d be more comfortable with saying:

Quote:

The prophet is an authorized leader of the church to speak for the Lord in any number of matters from time to time, as moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

I would take out words like “the only man” and “everything” and “all the time”(which isn’t in the original quote, but I think it should be highlighted it isn’t all the time…sometimes the prophet is speaking his own opinion and not speaking for the Lord and that should be clarified), as they don’t hold true in my experience.

[Anonymous]

I don’t care for the debate about the 14 Fundamentals. If the prophet comes out with something, that’s easy and something I agree with, I’ll just do it. If the decree challenges me, then I’m going to invest in some soul searching, prayer, study, and then I’ll reach my own conclusions about what route is best.

If a prophet’s decree puts me in a position where I have to face wrath from the local ward if I choose not to follow that advice (because my non-compliance is highly visible, due to the nature of the decree), I’ll do a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of putting up with the cultural norm is greater than following the prophet, I’ll follow the prophet. If the cost is less, I’ll go with what I think and march to my own drum. Fire at will.

One thing I said that got major head-nodding from the TBM’s in my Gospel Essentials class was this:

“There is too much diversity in the human condition for EVERYTHING the GA’s say to be taken as directly applicable to every person’s situation”.

Dallin H. Oakes comment that all GA’s can do is teach general principles, and that we as individuals have to work out exceptions to their own situations with the Lord is my guiding principle. The fourteen fundamentals as they apply to a prophet fall into that same statement as far as I’m concerned.

[Anonymous]

I’m very confused. I don’t see how the 1st fundamental “The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. is fundamentally different from the twisted translation. The Prophet always speaks for the Lord in all things.

I’m really trying. I am actually more offended by the 1st fundamental because to me the words “only man” is so specific that I find that more dangerous. I don’t see a difference between “in everything” and “in all things”. My brain is just not getting the nuance (is that the word I want?).

I can accept that the prophet can receive revelation for the church and ideally he would receive revelation for the world at large if he was what we claim him to be but for him to be the ONLY man that speaks for the Godhead in everything. Yikes!

I have to agree with DA on this one. I just can’t do the mental gymnastics it takes I guess though I am open to being taught.

CG

[Anonymous]

OK, I’m wondering if I’m reading into this statement the correct way.

Quote:

The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

That doesn’t have to mean the prophet always speaks for the Lord about everything all the time, just that he is the only person holding the authority to speak for the Lord in everything. Right?

Quote:

Although each Apostle holds all the keys of the priesthood, it is the Lord’s plan that only one man at a time exercise these keys on behalf of the Church. For this reason the senior living Apostle (by date of ordination, not by age) is ordained President of the Church by the Quorum of the Twelve and given the right to exercise all the keys of the priesthood. When he dies, the remaining Apostles ordain the next senior living Apostle (the President of the Quorum of the Twelve) to use his apostolic keys in their fulness as President of the Church.

The President of the Church, therefore, is the only man on earth who has the power to exercise all of the keys of the priesthood (see D&C 132:7). However, he delegates certain keys to the leaders who preside in the Church.

Manual: Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood

“Lesson 2: The Keys of the Priesthood,”

Why is he the ONLY man, because no one else holds all those keys. The bishop may have his stewardship over his area of responsibility, but that does not allow him to speak for the Lord on EVERYTHING, only what he holds the keys for.

Because Apostles hold all the keys does not mean apostles speak individually for the church on everything all the time.

The prophet/president is the only one authorized to exercise all the keys. That is also different than saying they exercise those keys all the time about everything, just than they CAN exercise them about everything.

CanadianGirl…would you agree with those statements?

I can agree with them. However, I think some people use that to then say, “that means everything the prophet says comes directly from God, and we must obey everything he says.” That part, I cannot agree with, nor do I think I have to. I just can’t claim to get revelation for the Church, only for me personally.

[Anonymous]

It is sort of mute because I can not recall when the last time a prophet actually spoke for God. Sure if good or mediocre advice is speaking for God then everyone is really a prophet. It just seems to me if you are going to live by that fundamental then the prophet has to actually speak something of consequence.

In reality I really think it is a totally erroneous idea that one man speaks for god at all. If God really wanted to say something he would say it himself. Maybe some kind of mind meld or something.

[Author]

Posts