- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think these 14 fundamentals are partly born out of a desire for the prophet to have utmost flexibility in leading others. I liken the whole 14 fundamentals to a list of what I called “invalid excuses” to my family for refusing to clean our house. I ended with the statement “Daddy can ask anyone to clean anything at any time.” I indicated I could ask anyone to do anyone else’s job, I could ask them to do it in the morning, in the evening, or at the regular time we do it — at any time whatsoever. I wrote my own 14 fundamentals of cleaning, so to speak.
I think the 14 fundamentals may well have the same partial motive behind them.
Granted, I think the leaders of our Church want to lead the members well, and feel a lot of accountability to do it right, but often, the waters are muddied significantly by motives to simply consolidate and establish authority to act freely in the position.
I think that is well said SD, and I think your analogy is accurate. Quote:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Vital = a characteristic of life or living beings; full of life and vigor – animated; existing as a manifestation of life.
(also of the utmost importance)
So using the “life” definition for vital, I might rephrase it like this:
“The words of our living prophet are more alive, animated and adapting to us than the standard works.”
I can agree with that. Like Ray and others said, it isn’t an all-or-nothing dichotomy. The original sentence just says “more vital [than] …” The Standard Works were written by “vital” prophets 180 years ago, or 1,800 years ago. They are in some ways less relevant because they belong in the context of a different time and place. They are still valuable on some level too though because the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I don’t have to blindly follow the living prophet or any dead prophet exclusively.
SilentDawning wrote:I think these 14 fundamentals are partly born out of a desire for the prophet to have utmost flexibility in leading others…Granted, I think the leaders of our Church want to lead the members well, and feel a lot of accountability to do it right, but often, the
waters are muddied significantly by motives to simply consolidate and establish authority to act freely in the position.Brian Johnston wrote:…Vital = a characteristic of life or living beings; full of life and vigor – animated; existing as a manifestation of life.
(also of the utmost importance)
So using the “life” definition for vital, I might rephrase it like this:
“The words of our living prophet are more alive, animated and adapting to us than the standard works.”
I can agree with that. Like Ray and others said, it isn’t an all-or-nothing dichotomy. The original sentence just says “more vital [than] …”
The Standard Works were written by “vital” prophets 180 years ago, or 1,800 years ago. They are in some ways less relevant because they belong in the context of a different time and place.They are still valuable on some level too though because the more things change, the more they stay the same. I guess it makes sense that it would be more “vital” for people to listen to a living dictator than what some dead dictator said or that a living leader can respond to situations that are slightly different than anything encountered in the past. However, I don’t really think that’s what Benson meant as much as simply the idea that if you had to choose between the scriptures and a living prophet then the obvious choice should supposedly be the prophet because he should theoretically be able to tell you everything you need to know through direct “revelation” from God without needing to rely on any books. This would be great if everything actually worked that way but unfortunately for us it looks like there are definite limitations in the level of consistency and reliability we can realistically expect out of LDS prophets based on their overall track record so far.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I guess it makes sense that it would be more “vital” for people to listen to a living dictator than what some dead dictator said or that a living leader can respond to situations that are slightly different than anything encountered in the past.
I’ll take that analogy and run with it. Dictator is a loaded word of course, but let’s use that. I would rather deal with a living dictator, one who MIGHT adapt and change their rulings based on the circumstances. A dead dictator is stuck in time, with only the rulings they administered while they were alive. What happens if the world changes? What if the past dictator said “you will only eat rice once a day, or you will be beheaded,” and now rice no longer grows, but we have potatoes growing in “the people’s” farm at the commune. We should all be executed, or starve, sitting around piles of potatoes. There are dictators either way, but at least the living tyrant can keep things running so they can continue their tyranny
😈 Does that make it win-win … sort of?:crazy: Brian Johnston wrote:I might rephrase it like this:
“The words of our living prophet are more alive, animated and adapting to us than the standard works.”
I can agree with that.
Yeah, I could agree with that too, except one small problem — he DIDN’T say it like that, and I’m not sure he meant it like that either.
🙂 cwald wrote:Yeah, I could agree with that too, except one small problem — he DIDN’T say it like that, and I’m not sure he meant it like that either.
🙂 Agreed. Just like last time in Number 1, this is what I choose to contemplate. I know they meant it the way they said it. Those guys and me? We’ll just have to agree to disagree
A theme I see in Brian’s responses is that he takes the words, and then interprets and acts upon them given his own personal meaning, even when it may not be the intended meaning. I think this is part of Stage 5 thinking perhaps. I use it now to answer TR questions, and to interpret the statements of others that may well be inflammatory. It’s like creating personal meaning from stimulii around you, even though that stimulii implies something different. In a sense, we create our own reality. And isn’t that what the space between stimulus and response is all about? Is it perhaps part of the secret for staying in the Church happily? Quote:“They become agents unto themselves, to act rather than to be acted upon.” – my best memory, since I’m too lazy to look it up right now
Pretty much my philosophy when it comes to life and these things. I don’t care really what the quotes meant to those who said them, if there’s a better way for me personally to take them now. I can recognize and accept what I perceive to be the “appropriate” fundamental without having to agree with the meaning of the speaker. I intentionally choose to act rather than be acted upon.
Quote:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Lots of good thoughts here from everyone already on this one.
I think the word “vital” is different than just saying it is “more important” or it is “better than”. Vital has to do with the impact to our lives (i.e. vital statistics, vital organs, vital resources). If I think about the standard works having all these great teachings, but Pres Monson is emphasizing a few particular principles, such as humanitarian aid…then I can see the logic in a prophet being more vital to our here and now…where as standard works cover a myriad of good teachings over many time periods that apply generally (the whole argument of Moses didn’t need to know how to build an ark, nor Noah to escape from Egypt …).
That doesn’t make the scriptures less important to me, however…maybe just less precise on what what specific things I need to be focused on when setting priorities. IMO, you can’t have one without the other, and they serve similar but different purposes, I think.
That makes me want to ask the group…
is it OK if not everything the prophet says stands the test of time if it is useful when and where it was said?I’ll be closing this thread soon – since I’m just needy enough to want some responses to the last part of this comment. 🙄 😳 I’m opening a new one on the 4th concept – since the 3rd one (“The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.”) is just another way to restate the 2nd one –
which kind of proves my point that getting to the alliteration of “Fourteen Fundamentals” was more important than there actually being 14 fundamentals. :shh: We couldn’t have an unlucky 13 fundamentals :wtf:
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 2’ is closed to new replies.