- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
I would change the word “scripture” to “revelation” – since I don’t like the most expanded definition of scripture. I see “scripture” as that which has been codified and officially sanctioned, not just something that is said at some point. I don’t believe everything the Prophets says is revelation, much less scripture.
With that change, I would say, “Duh!” – largely because I believe anyone can receive revelation, and it doesn’t have to be stated as “thus saith the Lord” to be revelation. I think our own Bible dictionary and lds.org support this view.
Quote:The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
I think ETB included this because of people’s tendency to say “he didn’t say thus saith the Lord, so it doesn’t count, so I’m off the hook.” If you’ve got the spiritual wax out of your ears, you can hear the Spirit let you know if it’s scripture/truth or not. The down side is that those of us, me included, that are spiritually hard of hearing, will take anything or nothing as scripture just to be on the safe side.
I would like to throw in my own two cents by saying “The Prophet doesn’t have to say ‘thus saith the Lord’ to give scripture — THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO HAVE A PERSONAL CONVICTION AND WITNESS OF THE PROPHETS WORDS TO CONSIDER THEM SCRIPTURE”. Sorry for the caps. Thought it might add emphasis.
So if the prophet doesn’t have to say “Thus sayeth the Lord”, how are we as members suppose to know when he is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man? Well, the cynical answer – is the church leaders will let you know, and if proves to be a bad idea, than he was only speaking as a man, but if it proves to be a good idea, than it came from the lord.
😈 Look. The concept is fine. The message is not. Like Brian said earlier – there can be no doubt what this talk was about. OBEDIENCE. OBEDIENCE. OBEDIENCE.
And it’s all the commentary that ETB throws into the mix that makes my stomach churn, such as
Quote:Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto
all his wordsand commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4). And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed”.
Said Brigham Young, “
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture”(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot], 13:95).
I call BS on that BY, and ETB. I don’t care if you are prophet or not. That is false and dangerous message to be preaching to folks.
Scripture means “that which is written”, and is related to the words “scribe”, “inscribe”, “script” etc Sorry, but I don’t like this one? Well, it doesn’t tell one what is and isn’t revelation. Prophets tell jokes, anecdotes etc, maybe they can even be sarcastic, all of which makes this a little too vague!
When you look at OT prophets and again words from Jesus and the apostles in the NT it comes down to prophecy, counsel and warning among other things. The counsel and warning are pretty standard, love God and love your neighbor. Then there’s the made up commandments like the WoW to see if you’re really serious. The prophecy part can be tricky when it involves change i.e. move to the promised land, sell out and go to St George, consecrate everything and live the united order, support prop 8, etc.. For me the prop 8 thing was the deal breaker. As I’ve said before, I’m not a spiritual person and have not had the experience of being led by the Spirit. But if I were, I don’t think the “thus saith the Lord” would be all that necessary. As it is I just have to fall back on does it make sense and is it consistent with scripture. If I can’t reconcile it with those two, then sorry, I’ll sit this hand out.
cwald wrote:So if the prophet doesn’t have to say “Thus sayeth the Lord”,
how are we as members suppose to know when he is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man?…Well, the cynical answer – is the church leaders will let you know, and if proves to be a bad idea, than he was only speaking as a man, but if it proves to be a good idea, than it came from the lord. And it’s all the commentary that ETB throws into the mix that makes my stomach churn, such as
Quote:…They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto
all his wordsand commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4). …Said Brigham Young, “
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture”
I call BS on that BY, and ETB. I don’t care if you are prophet or not. That is false and dangerous message to be preaching to folks.
Exactly, not only is this idea dangerous in terms of the potential for abuse and misleading members but it also opens up a can of worms because many of the other things Brigham Young said in the Journal of Discourses are so unpopular or absurd to members nowadays that the Church tries to pretend they don’t exist and apologists don’t even try to defend them at this point. Even more recently some members have still assumed that almost anything the prophet says is as good as inspired scripture like Gordon B. Hinckley’s counsel that women should only wear one pair of “modest” earrings or David O. McKay’s opinions about oral sex.
Personally, I would rather see them be more clear and upfront with members if something is expected to be considered inspired or an official commandment and not try to have it both ways with the “speaking as a man” escape clause in their back pocket. Until they come right out and say the equivalent of “thus saith the Lord” then I think the safest assumption to make is simply that almost everything they say is nothing more than their own personal opinions or interpretation of what the Bible and Joseph Smith’s supposed revelations and “translations” really mean and not anything original. If they really feel confident that there is something significant that the Lord would want them to say then I would rather see them add another “revelation” to the end of D&C unlike what they have done with changing the temple entrance requirements without any official canonized explanation.
Out of the same General Conference, we were also instructed that the Proclamation on the Family is scripture for our day (Packer). However, that statement was revised by the time it reached print (purportedly by Packer himself) to remove the “scriptural” claim of the Proclamation. We have also been recently instructed that all of the doctrines of the Church are canonized within our Standard Works, and that there is not a doctrine which we stand absolute on which is not found within the OT, NT, BoM, D&C, or PoGP.
I guess the confusion comes down to three often interwoven terms: revelation, scripture, and doctrine.
Can we have revelation without it being scripture or doctrine? I would incline towards yes, otherwise it seems that whenever our Prophets or Apostles claimed revelation on a matter, we would be frequently re-canonizing our D&C. Which, interestingly enough, is the practice of the CoC Church. (not a criticism)
What is scripture? It’s a collection of histories, parables, allegories, anecdotes, lamentations, principles, worship, war stories, commandments, prophecies, etc. In short, it’s a record of people and their dealings with God. If you take the phrase “Thus Saith the Lord” from a purely Biblical context, that would imply it is either a commandment or a prophecy. However, there is much more to scripture than being just a list of commandments and prophecies. The records we have today, according to Mormon belief system, is the writings and talks of our General Authorities. In that sense, everything our church leadership declares publicly is scripturally recorded, although not necessarily canonized within the Standard Works.
Can a “revelation” spoken by a Prophet or Apostle be “scripture” without being doctrine? Again, I would say yes. A “revelation” can be a strong feeling, counsel, or an admonition, but that does not necessarily make it a commandment or a prophesy. And, in order for it to be incorporated as official Doctrine, it would need to be canonized within our Standard Works, according to our own definition.
I dont think I have a thing to say on this. Quote:The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
Well of course not! Back to Joseph Smith: “A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet.” When’s that? You get to decide!
:eh: Complicating this is that the scriptures say the words of leaders are scripture only when moved by the Holy Ghost. Also, one prophet indicated that one has to distinguish between when a prophet is speaking as a prophet, and when he is not. How are you going to know unless they tell you with some cue, like “Thus saith the Lord”?.
At times, I’ve heard prophets disclaim their words as non-prophetic. GBH indicated that everyone should get out of debt or they will face hard times in the future. Then he followed up with the statement “I’m not prophesying when I say that”. So, even prophets recognize that their words can be miscronstrued as prophetic utterances and need clarification at times.
Nope, anything the prophets have to say needs to be crowned with a spiritual experience like the ones I’ve had in the past if I think it’s critical AND I have a problem with it. Some of what they say I will just do because it makes sense, but for the hard questions, I’m gonna need some personal revelation.
Joseph Smith had a lot in common with Henry Ford who believed the following about cars: Everyone should have one. Same is true with Joseph Smith about personal revelation: Everyone should have one. And that applies to figuring out if a prophet is speaking as a prophet.
I’ve come to a conclusion that the entire talk – the entire message – is nothing more than a mind virus. If applied the way Mr. Benson intended, it will destroy any kind of reasoning, logical thinking, questioning and personal revelation that one might have. Sorry, that’s the way I see it. It is a dangerous message and reeks of cultism. I REALLY hope that the church will sweep it under the rug before it causes any more causalities. I really do.
Tom Haws wrote:Quote:The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
Well of course not! Back to Joseph Smith: “A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet.” When’s that? You get to decide!
:eh: Maybe it’s when he’s surrounded by a bright light and thunder and lightning are all around.
Or carrying those big stones in his hand like ?Charlton Heston.
I see no evidence in the scriptures themselves that all prophets always started scripture with “Thus saith the Lord”. Actually, “And it came to pass” is more common, right? 
I think the role of the prophet is to bring God’s word and God’s will to the people. There is no prescribed method or script by which this is done. I have no problem with #6.
Is it all about obedience? Yep. I agree with Brian and cwald about that. And that’s not such a bad thing…prophets have always spoken to ask for the people to obey God’s will…out of love and concern for the welfare of their souls. It is what prophets do.
Obedience is a part of the plan of salvation. Blind obedience is the distorted imitation of truth that misses the mark.
I just realized that this thread has been open without comments for almost a week. Sorry, everyone. I’ll lock it now and post the next one.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 6’ is closed to new replies.