How do Mormons tell the difference?

[AMDGtoo]

I realize that sometimes Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, etc. “spoke as a man”. But they were once (and still are considered) revered prophets. How does the Mormon “in the pew” know that what they said in regards to their church is to be or is not to be regarded as truth for their church? What they said used to be considered “gospel”, why not now**? (In fact why are some of their writings in the Journal of Discourses now considered an embarrassment when the Journal used to be seen as important.?)

And what is this “no development of LDS doctrine” where what is spoken by a living prophet can trump the words of a prophet that has gone before? Always? Does who the prophet was–say the founder–make a difference? How do the people tell what’s what when one minute things are okay and the next they’re not and no one can be relied upon?**

 

[why_me]

Antimormons tend to bring up Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses as proof that BY was not a prophet. But these discourses are not doctrine nor has his ideas been canonized as found in his discourses. Both JS and BY spoke as men and they also spoke as prophets. However, the discourses are not canonized doctrine. They are just discourses.

Both JS and BY were products of their age and they had no problem speaking what they thought. Hence the problem.

 

[chewchoo]

the question still goes unanswered, how do mormons tell the difference?

 

[ralphinal]

Further, please put these statements into context

“I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life…If there is any elder here, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, 16:161).

“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 (vol 13, page 95),1870)

So, according to BY, everything he said was correct. If he was wrong about not being protected from being wrong, how can we say he was right about anything?

 

[AMDGtoo]

Antimormons

That brings up another question then–what is meant by “antimormon”? Someone who quotes the Journal of Discourses? Someone who can’t tell how the LDS know the difference of when someone is speaking “like a man” and when that same person is speaking like a prophet (especially since his words are taken as “gospel” in both ways.)

 

[teancum79]

The best indicator as to the correctness of any teaching is to follow the living prophet. It think it is safe to say that some people misspeak some people have poor memories as to what was said and some people flat out lie as a means to attack others.

It is hard to know 100% for sure what in the JOD or any other recored was said and under what context it was in. However a living prophet can know the will of God and provide understanding to doctrines and teachigns that may be confusing or are in dispute.

Many here have claimed that the Bible can’t be understood outside of the CC. clearly the Catholic view of the bible needs the church structure to make sense.

Many scriptures can be made to appear like a contradiction as also many words of modern day prophets. However when one has an open heart and heads the council of the living prophet they may recieve the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This those I know tell the difference

 

[mark_a]

How does the Mormon “in the pew” know that what they said in regards to their church is to be or is ****not to be regarded as truth for their church?

Here ya go:

• Must teach or in some way clarify
• Can’t contradict previous teachings
• Must involve faith and morals
• To be held by all
• Statement made of his own free will
• He must invoke the full authority of his office
  Oops, silly me, these are the conditions that must be met for a papal statement to be infallible.

 

[majick275]

Antimormons tend to bring up Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses as proof that BY was not a prophet. But these discourses are not doctrine nor has his ideas been canonized as found in his discourses. Both JS and BY spoke as men and they also spoke as prophets. However, the discourses are not canonized doctrine. They are just discourses.

Both JS and BY were products of their age and they had no problem speaking what they thought. Hence the problem.

this is a non-answer and incorrect. the journal of discourses contined the talks given in general conference bu the LDs prophets and apostles during the early utah years.this is no different than today’s issues of the ensign that follow conference. it is considered instruction from the lord. many LDS doctrines and practices that are considered esential to exaltation are not contained in canonized scripture anyway. (like the temple ceremony). in the case of JS and BY it is important to look at what THEY said about their talks. it is quite obvious from that when they were intending to speak as prophets.

cafeteria mormons, just like cafeteria catholics believe what they agree with was divine revelation and what they disagree with is speculation. this is easier to do in mormonism because there is no CCC equivalent.

other mormons know what the doctrine really is but may “filter” it in discussions with non-members as “milk before meat”.

 

[Chris-WA]

Antimormons tend to bring up Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses as proof that BY was not a prophet. But these discourses are not doctrine nor has his ideas been canonized as found in his discourses. Both JS and BY spoke as men and they also spoke as prophets. However, the discourses are not canonized doctrine. They are just discourses.

No they certainly are not. Those “discourses” were talks given to the church, sometimes at General Conference. You are expected to believe what your prophet teaches, right?

Both JS and BY were products of their age and they had no problem speaking what they thought. Hence the problem.

Wow, this came up in another forum and I posted in response to why me there and thought it would fit even better here:

I’m sorry why me, but I just can’t let you get away with this one. This excuse is used by Mormon apologists all the time. It’s used so much in fact, that we really need to give it it’s own name–let’s call it the “speculation defense.” It’s the defense Mormons use to excuse outrageous teachings by early Mormon prophets and apostles. Mormons use it when one of these guys teaches something so weird that even faithful Mormons can’t defend it. Knowing full well that to argue against said teachings would be to call into question the very validity of someone like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as a true prophet, LDS choose a “safer” option–the speculation defense. The speculation defense allows the Mormon to sit on the fence between two sides of a controversial teaching given by one of their prophets. By not directly arguing against a prophet’s teaching, the Mormon doesn’t call into question the prophet’s validity. And by calling said teaching “speculation,” the Mormon doesn’t have to support the teaching either. It’s really a way of sliding around an issue rather than facing it directly. And it’s nonsense.

For the love of truth, I would ask all LDS to stop using the speculation defense. Please, please stop. We’ve been over this again and again and again. It doesn’t work. It may postpone having to directly deal with certain issues, but that’s all it does.

Why doesn’t it work? Simple. When Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, or any LDS prophet gives a sermon to the Mormon church, he is not “speculating.” If he was, he would tell you, so as not to confuse you as to what is true doctrine and what is merely his own speculation. Did Joseph and Brigham differentiate between the two? No. When you Mormons watch General Conference every six months and then go home, do you say to yourselves,“Boy, I really enjoyed President Monson’s speculation today.”? No, of course not. And neither did your ancestors in the church. When Joseph or Brigham spoke, they took it all as the word of God. It’s only in later times as these things are brought up that the Monday-morning quarterbacks say, “Hmm, that must have been Joseph just speculating, because what he said about xxxxxx doesn’t fit with what we believe.”

I beg all of you Mormons out there to abandon the speculation defense and deal more directly with these types of issues. Stop sitting on the fence. Choose a side and defend it.

 

[majick275]

The best indicator as to the correctness of any teaching is to follow the living prophet. It think it is safe to say that some people misspeak some people have poor memories as to what was said and some people flat out lie as a means to attack others.

It is hard to know 100% for sure what in the JOD or any other recored was said and under what context it was in. However a living prophet can know the will of God and provide understanding to doctrines and teachigns that may be confusing or are in dispute.

Many here have claimed that the Bible can’t be understood outside of the CC. clearly the Catholic view of the bible needs the church structure to make sense.

Many scriptures can be made to appear like a contradiction as also many words of modern day prophets. However when one has an open heart and heads the council of the living prophet they may recieve the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This those I know tell the difference

i believe this to be an accurate protrayal of the majority sentiment amongst today’s LDS.

I think it problematic though in light of the late gordon hinkley’s publicized statements on certain controversial doctrines.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I think it problematic though in light of the late gordon hinkley’s publicized statements on certain controversial doctrines.

I know what you mean there. I heard the interview where Gordon Hinkley ( then a living prophet) said “I don’t know if we teach that anymore”. I just about choked. I remember thinking, “well, if he doesn’t know, who does?”

Well, now Gordon Hinkley doesn’t have to wonder anymore–I believe it’s now up to Monson, but does that mean that whatever Hinkley said is just “speaking like a man” now (even though now we can be quite sure of what Hinkley said). With nothing that the leaders said considered doctrine (or at least being questionable at all times), is LDS doctrine just whatever a person wants it to be? Gee, that sounds confusing and disorganized.