- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Conceptually, I have no problem with this
IFI were in a situation where I had to pick one to the exclusion of the other. I really do love the concept of on-going revelation that can change the course of the Church even drastically and radically, and that would disappear largely without such a “fundamental” belief. So, in theory, I am totally fine with this – as long as it is restricted to the actual wording of the quote and viewed as strictly an either/or. My core issues with this again are in the extrapolations that are taken from it:
1) We live in a world where we don’t have to make that choice – and I really don’t want to ignore the words of God in other times and ages, even if I interpreted them as loosely as possible to be what those people believed God was saying to them. I do believe we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past if we don’t learn from it, and I believe that applies to our understanding of God and church, as well. In that way, it is easy to make an argument that the prophet is AS vital to us as the standard works – but not MORE vital. That’s how I personally would word it if I were doing the wording.
2) If this is taken to mean that every single word a living prophet speaks is superior to every word in canonized scripture, I disagree vehemently.
3) If this is taken to mean that any time a living prophet contradicts something in the standard works, the living prophet is right, I disagree strongly. That would make the prophet infallible, and I don’t accept that – nor do I accept that the actual quote has to mean that.
I didn’t get a chance to comment on F1, but it doesn’t really matter, because much that can be said about one can be said about another. The Good:As the DA said, most people want and like this kind of direction. As my dad said, “Most people are sheep.” People want to be commanded in all things. F1: People want a charismatic and mythic leader to listen to. F2: People want a living guru who speaks clearly and unequivocally in their own language.
The Bad:“The prophet”. Only one prophet? They clearly intend this to mean “President Thomas Spencer Monson”. This is clearly in violation of the principles of agency and personal revelation. Frankly, it’s idolatry. But that’s okay.
:shh: The Spiritual (StayLDS-er) Sense of the Word:The Living Prophet is a mystic inside the soul of each of us.
Only the Living Prophet has authority to speak for the Lord in everything. The ego or the conditioned mind has no authority to speak for the Lord.
The Living Prophet is more vital (alive) than any sacred text. The Living Prophet interprets and corrects misunderstandings about sacred texts. The Living Prophet breathes life into sacred texts.
Have you heard the Living Prophet lately?I really like the focus on the “living prophet” being each of us and the implications of that on how this “fundamental” can be viewed, Tom. Thanks for sharing that, even if it’s not at all what Pres. Benson meant – or those who quoted him. It certainly is in harmony with the idea that we all can have the gift of prophecy. Quote:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Even though I don’t believe in the literal truth of much of what we read in our standard works I can definitely see the advantage of putting some limitations on what we want to try to call inspired and maybe even having some kind of vote or consensus about what is canonized scripture or not rather than just assuming most of what any one man says is beyond reproach. The problem with thinking anything current prophets say should automatically trump any traditionally accepted doctrines is that we have already seen them say so many questionable things even in fairly recent years.
As far as I’m concerned, it is easier to defend the New Testament than it is to defend the Book of Mormon and D&C and even though I have a problem with some of the historical and scientific claims made by the Book of Mormon I think it still requires less mental gymnastics to defend than many more recent comments made by LDS prophets. For example, the Church and apologists don’t even try to defend many of the things that Brigham Young said in the Journal of Discourses but at the time they were the words of the “living prophet” and supposedly more important than anything in the standard works based on the general logic of the 14 fundamentals.
I could see the living prophets being more useful or helpful than the standard works if they would actually try do more to address current problems and questions that people have. Instead it seems like lately they just rely mostly on the standard works and traditional doctrines themselves for most of their decisions and teachings anyway more than giving the impression that they really seek out new answers or really have that much confidence in their own judgment, wisdom, inspiration, or “revelations.” Like Gordon B. Hinckley said:
Quote:Now
we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation.But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly. Quote:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
I love the concept of continuing revelation. The issue I have with F2 is the nonsense that Benson says immediately after the quote about how one can get rid of all standards scriptures because we have a living prophet. In the case of my HC – he even added we could “burn all the scripture and other sources of wisdom…” Or really? If the church wants to claim to be the church of JESUS CHRIST, than shouldn’t we hold those TEACHINGS and the “history” of his SAYINGS as the pinnacle of our focus? You know, that person we claim to worship – JESUS CHRIST. Well of course we should. It is the church of JESUS CHRIST, not the church of Monson, or Moses or Paul etc etc etc.
This fundalmental supports my argument that many in the church “worship” the prophet and are more concerned about following the prophet than we are about following the savior. Of course I don’t think this is the official stance of the church – but it is the cultural truth in a lot of cases. Prophet worship is a big problem in the LDS church in my opinion.
I think this is the fundamental that has caused much of my angst – because I really see the leaders focusing SO much on the TEACHINGS of the prophets and their opinions and the way they WANT things to be, at the expense many times of the teachings of Jesus. Case in point. You can find church material readily for almost any topic — I THOUGHT. But when I wanted to do a lesson about FORGIVING OTHERS, there just isn’t anything to be had. There is no lesson in our correlated materials specifically on this topic. There are plenty of talks and manual lessons about RECEIVING FORGIVENESS, but zilch on the former. Don’t believe me – go ahead and do a search on LDS.org and find out for yourself. My point is, forgiveness of others is CORE! It’s a core tenant of the Gospel if one believes in the teaching of Jesus – but we don’t talk about it much – no time I guess because we have made up so many other commandments that we have to promote. SHOULDN”T WE BE MORE FOCUSED ON FORGIVING OTHERS than some of these other issues like WoW, tithing, temples etc etc?
cwald, I don’t want to turn this into a thread about forgiveness and what principles are taught best and worst in the Church, but I did a quick lds.org search (since I really was curious). I will post the results in another thread, so I don’t derail this one. Suffice it to say that you might want to re-consider. 🙂 Nor do I Ray. I was just trying to make a point about the folly of claiming the church of Jesus Christcan do away with the scriptures, the basis and core of our teachings of the savior, because we have a prophet and continuing revelation. Perhaps theoretically we COULD I suppose, but why would EVER say such a thing — it comes across as extremely arrogantand cultishand gives our critics a ton of merited ammunition, AND it is a DANGEROUS teaching that I hope my kids never buy into. I guess once again – the actual fundamental is not NEAR as repulsive as the commentary that Benson spills to justify his remark.
Quote:President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtiand in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”
When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “
when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me;those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now,as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [in Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18-19)
Yup – the justifications for the extrapolations are what bother me the most, and that’s true of SO many things in the Church and in life – and just about everywhere else in life. If a person believes in a living prophet, I don’t have a problem with F2. The scriptures were written for specific time, place and circumstance. When we take something written and apply it now, we’re taking a risk of changing the context and intent. If you believe that the prophet speaks what the Spirit tells him for something here and now then the context and intent are not in question. The bottom line is do you believe Pres Monson and the 12 are that sort of prophets, seers, and revelators. Good point, GB. How someone interprets this one hangs almost entirely on how they view the role of a prophet. I still would say the living prophet is AS important, not MORE important, than the earlier prophets (and I don’t include Jesus in that category of “prophet”), but I certainly can see the rationale behind the wording as it is.
Again, it’s the inner compass. If the living prophet says something that conflicts with established scripture, then I’m going to have to pray about it and use my own sense of reason and spirituality to arrive at what I feel is best. By the way, you can look at these 14 fundamentals two ways….one, as a way of ensuring man stays in harmony with God’s will. This requires everyone to know and believe that the current prophet’s advice is to be followed near absolutely.
You can also look at it through a more secular means — that it’s the attempt of an organization to establish obedience from its membership so it can more effectively perpetuate itself and ensure its ongoing existence and interests.
1.0 The Analogy of Ben FranklinI’m reminded of what Ben Franklin said. He once attended the presbyterian church with a view to potentially joining. The minister gave a talk based on a scripture in the new testament which spoke of general virtues. The minister then threw his own interpretation on the scripture, indicating that one of the virtues meant the membership should “obey their ministers”. Franklin was put off by this, and felt the purpose of the talk was meant to make the crowd into good Presbyterians rather than good Christians.
Therefore, you can look at F2 both ways — as a means of ensuring people are in-step with the most current release of God’s guide to thinking and acting, or you can look at it as a invention of men to further the interests of their organization.
2.0 Example: GBH’s Directive To Get Out Of DebtYou can look at the GBH’s comment to “get out of debt” (a new, re-emphasis of something mentioned a couple times in D&C) as advice for the members to improve their lives, or, you can look at it as stemming from the self-interest of the Church to avoid having to dole out welfare funds, with benefits to the members as incidental to the impact on Church bank balances.
3.0 Example: President Hinckley’s Directive For Men To Get Education
Similarily, GBH made a comment in a meeting once that the Church likes it when its members get education. This is something that appends to the scriptures, in my view, although it does spin off the “seek learning out of the best books” scripture. President Hinckley went on to describe concerns that more women than men were getting bachelors degrees, and that the men were declining in their pursuit of higher education. I thought the primary reason for this advice is because education blesses individuals through greater mobility in their jobs, better salaries to improve their family situations, etcetera. Also, that education is desireable because of the general enobling of the spirit that happens through study and association in higher education.
Then, he came out with a stunning conclusion — that he likes education because it improves members ability to serve in the Church!!!
4.0 The Conclusion
So, I think each person needs to weigh the extent to which directives from the prophet which put new spins on scripture are born out of direct benefis to the individual, or direct benefits to the Church as a whole.
I have no problem if the church wants/willing to “burn all the standards works” and to put all the emphasis on the current Prophet rather than the teachings and life of Jesus Christ — but if that is the case, they need to quit calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ. Call a spade a spade – it would be the Church of Thomas S. Monson. cwald wrote:I have no problem if the church wants/willing to “burn all the standards works” and to put all the emphasis on the current Prophet rather than the teachings and life of Jesus Christ — but if that is the case, they need to quit calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ. Call a spade a spade – it would be the Church of Thomas S. Monson.
Good point cWald — the name would be “The Church of Latter-Day Prophets of Latter-Day Saints”.
I take the position that both are rampant with errors and both have truths. Neither has a hold on the precise information needed to gain salvation or exaltation or some heavenly reward. If you really think about it the scriptures were just some guy saying his thing along time ago. So today we have some guy saying what he thinks is correct. It is just a long line of men saying what they want. Most of it is good, some of it is bad. Take the good and ignore the rest regardless of the source. Quote:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
For me, #2 is just as useless as #1. The more I become aware of the dark issues, the historical problems, the disagreements, the heated debates at the top levels, the excommunications and dismissals of church historians, the many changes made to a “perfect” church, and so many things that BY guy said, the more I realize the obvious.
f4h1
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 2’ is closed to new replies.