LDS--Why is it acceptable for prophets to ever teach error?

[majick275]

But in the end we are left with these facts, LDS leaders in the early days of the LDS church were very “pentecostal” in practice and made numerous pronouncements as “divine revelations”. These were not considered subject to intepretation or development as they were thought to be very clear specific instructions SPOKEN by God to “prophets” in answer to specific questions. These were used as the basis for universal LDS practices. With the sole exception of Brigham Youngs Adam-God teaching (which did not ppear to affect any practices) None of these has been denounced, renounced nor declared erroneous by any subsequent LDS prophets.

Practices have changed in a number of areas but always due to new instruction that rarely claimed “God spoke to me” type revelation such as was common in the early LDS church. The underlying basis for original teachings and practices is simply “not emphasized” any longer. We see, in fact, numerous examples of suppression and revision of LDS history to produce a chilling, Orwellian environment of doublethink.

The mental twist of LDS claiming that only the standard works contain the “real” divine revelations is proven false by the standard works themselves. Furthermore, much of what appears contradictory, false, etc. IS (or has) contained in these books.

So in the end I see a chain of false prophets being “spun” to the current vision of a more mainstream Christian wrapper that still contains (sometimes deep inside) obvious false doctrines that just can’t be done away with without destroying the foundation of
Joseph Smith Jr. upon which the LDS church is based.

LDS prophets have led the LDS church in beliefs and practices that are considered wrong by LDS today. Some just don’t think about that but many don’t sem to care. Others (like I was) get to the point where it’s obvious that the LDS prophecies are much like emperors new clothes.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Is the Book of the Law of the Lord inspired in Mormon circles?

BOOK OF THE LAW OF THE LORD
members.aol.com/strangites/

What if one of these 97 guys below was the true prophet?

Wyam Clark’s Pure Church of Christ
John Noah
Hoton’s Independent Church
Warren Parrish’s Church of Christ
Isaac’s Russell’s Alston Church
George Hinckle’s The Bride the Lamb’s Wife
Oliver Olney
Francis Bishop’s Church of Jesus Christ
Law, Foster and Higbee’s True Church of Jesus Christ
Sidney Rigdon’s Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion
John Page
James Strang’s Strangites
Aaron Smith’s Church of Christ
McLellin and Whitmer’s Church of Christ
George Miller
Charles Thompson’s Congregation of Jehovah’s Presybtery of Zion
William Smith’s Church of Jesus Christ
James Brewster’s Church of Christ
Lorenzo Oatman
Austin Cowles
Jacob Syrfritt’s The Bride, The Lamb’s Wife
William Smith as the head of his church.
Arnold Potter
Alpheus Cutler’s Church of Jesus Christ
George Hickenlooper
Walter Gibson’s Church of Jesus Christ
Joseph Morris’ Church of the First Born
William Bicketrton’s Church of Christ
George Adams’ Church of the Messiah
William Davies
William Godbe’s Church of Zion
Barnet Giles
David Whitmer’s Church of Christ
George Dove’s Church of the First Born
James Brighouse
John Koyle
Nathaniel Baldwin
Samuel Eastman
John Clark
Hannah Sorenso
Primitive Church of Jesus Christ
Moses Gudmundsen
John Zahnd’s Church of Christ
Thomas Williams’ Church of Jesus Christ
Frank Wipper’s Church of Christ Independent-Informal
Paul Feil
Otto Fetting’s Church of Christ
Temple Lot
E. J. Trapp’s Church of Christ
Davis County Co-Op Society
Church of Christ (Restored)
Long and Nerren’s Church of Christ
Church if Jesus Christ, Third Convention
J. H. Sherwood’s Church of Jesus Christ of Israel
W. A. Draves’ Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Martin Glendenning’s Order of Aaron
Pauline Hancock’s Church of Christ
Marl Kilgore’s Zion’s Order of the Sons of Levi
Clyde Fletcher’s Church of Jesus Christ
Theron Drew’s Church of Jesus Christ
Joel LeBaron’s Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times
Ross LeBaron’s Church of the First Born
John Leabo’s New American’s Mount Zion
United Outcasts of Israel
William Conway’s Perfected Church of Jesus Christ of Immaculate Latter-day Saints
E. E. Long’s Church of Christ
Noel Pratt’s American Indian Restoration Enterprises
Bruce David Longo
David Desmond’s United Order of the Family of Christ –
David Roberts’ True Church of Jesus Christ
Barney Fuller’s World Redemption
Stanley King’s Church of Jesus Christ Restored
F. Ellwood Russell’s Restored Church of Jesus Christ
N. S. Park’s Latter Day Saints Church
Ervil LeBaron’s Church of the Lamb
Kathryn Carter’s New Jerusalem Group
Nerren and Gayman’s Church of Israel
Miltenberg and Braun’s Watchmen on the Towers of Latter Day Israel
John Bryant’s Church of Christ (Patriarchal)
Daniel Rogers’ Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Ernest Strack – polygamist.
Gerald Peterson’s Christ’s Church
Eugene Walton’s Restored Church of Jesus Christ
Aryan Christian Church
Zion’s First International Church
Franklin Coleman’s Free Will Mormon Church
Peyote Way Church of God

Source of information: book, Divergent Paths of Restoration by one Steven Shields
tektonics.org/lp/mormondivide.html

Note: Utah Mormon god is a changing growing being, not the unchangable Eternal God of the Bible.

 

[Batjacboy]

Daniel Marsh:

What if one of these 97 guys below was the true prophet?

Wyam Clark’s Pure Church of Christ
John Noah
Hoton’s Independent Church
Warren Parrish’s Church of Christ
Isaac’s Russell’s Alston Church
George Hinckle’s The Bride the Lamb’s Wife
Oliver Olney
Francis Bishop’s Church of Jesus Christ
Law, Foster and Higbee’s True Church of Jesus Christ
Sidney Rigdon’s Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion
John Page
James Strang’s Strangites
Aaron Smith’s Church of Christ
McLellin and Whitmer’s Church of Christ
George Miller
Charles Thompson’s Congregation of Jehovah’s Presybtery of Zion
William Smith’s Church of Jesus Christ
James Brewster’s Church of Christ
Lorenzo Oatman
Austin Cowles
Jacob Syrfritt’s The Bride, The Lamb’s Wife
William Smith as the head of his church.
Arnold Potter
Alpheus Cutler’s Church of Jesus Christ
George Hickenlooper
Walter Gibson’s Church of Jesus Christ
Joseph Morris’ Church of the First Born
William Bicketrton’s Church of Christ
George Adams’ Church of the Messiah
William Davies
William Godbe’s Church of Zion
Barnet Giles
David Whitmer’s Church of Christ
George Dove’s Church of the First Born
James Brighouse
John Koyle
Nathaniel Baldwin
Samuel Eastman
John Clark
Hannah Sorenso
Primitive Church of Jesus Christ
Moses Gudmundsen
John Zahnd’s Church of Christ
Thomas Williams’ Church of Jesus Christ
Frank Wipper’s Church of Christ Independent-Informal
Paul Feil
Otto Fetting’s Church of Christ
Temple Lot
E. J. Trapp’s Church of Christ
Davis County Co-Op Society
Church of Christ (Restored)
Long and Nerren’s Church of Christ
Church if Jesus Christ, Third Convention
J. H. Sherwood’s Church of Jesus Christ of Israel
W. A. Draves’ Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Martin Glendenning’s Order of Aaron
Pauline Hancock’s Church of Christ
Marl Kilgore’s Zion’s Order of the Sons of Levi
Clyde Fletcher’s Church of Jesus Christ
Theron Drew’s Church of Jesus Christ
Joel LeBaron’s Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times
Ross LeBaron’s Church of the First Born
John Leabo’s New American’s Mount Zion
United Outcasts of Israel
William Conway’s Perfected Church of Jesus Christ of Immaculate Latter-day Saints
E. E. Long’s Church of Christ
Noel Pratt’s American Indian Restoration Enterprises
Bruce David Longo
David Desmond’s United Order of the Family of Christ –
David Roberts’ True Church of Jesus Christ
Barney Fuller’s World Redemption
Stanley King’s Church of Jesus Christ Restored
F. Ellwood Russell’s Restored Church of Jesus Christ
N. S. Park’s Latter Day Saints Church
Ervil LeBaron’s Church of the Lamb
Kathryn Carter’s New Jerusalem Group
Nerren and Gayman’s Church of Israel
Miltenberg and Braun’s Watchmen on the Towers of Latter Day Israel
John Bryant’s Church of Christ (Patriarchal)
Daniel Rogers’ Church of Christ with the Elijah Message
Ernest Strack – polygamist.
Gerald Peterson’s Christ’s Church
Eugene Walton’s Restored Church of Jesus Christ
Aryan Christian Church
Zion’s First International Church
Franklin Coleman’s Free Will Mormon Church
Peyote Way Church of God

Daniel,

Can you give us, in, say, one or two sentences, who these people are, for those of us unfamiliar with Mormon history?

Thanks!

 

[Batjacboy]

Mormon Fool,

I didn’t see any previous posts on abortion. Could you please answer this question:

The above posts have discussed changes in Mormon teaching over a 150 year history. But on abortion, the Mormons have changed their teaching, it would seem, 3 times in 5-6 years:

Prior to 1988: Mormon church is anti-abortion (presumably with no exceptions, or so I was told)

1988: “There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened” (Gospel Principles [a 1988 basic manual for church members], 241.)

1992: “There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when (1) pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; (2) the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or (3) the fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth” (Gospel Principles [1992], 251.)

Why the changes in so short a period? Is it common for there to be Doctrinal Development 3 times in 5 years?

 

[PaulDupre]

Batjacboy:

Daniel,

Can you give us, in, say, one or two sentences, who these people are, for those of us unfamiliar with Mormon history?

Thanks!

They are all splinter groups whose leaders each proclaimed themselves to be the “true prophet” after Joseph Smith was killed. Most of them are polygamous. Some proclaimed Joseph to be a fallen prophet, while others claimed to be preserving Joseph’s pure teachings. Sydney Rigdon was a former Campbellite preacher, co-president of the LDS Church and Joseph Smith’s right-hand man. Strang, McLellin and Whitney were apostles under Joseph Smith. The others split off between then and now, some from the Utah LDS, and some from other splinter groups.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Batjacboy:

Daniel,

Can you give us, in, say, one or two sentences, who these people are, for those of us unfamiliar with Mormon history?

Thanks!

Follow this link for more information of each of them in the list. It is too lengthly to post here, thus I editd out details of each.

tektonics.org/lp/mormondivide.html

 

[Mike_D30]

Daniel Marsh:

Follow this link for more information of each of them in the list. It is too lengthly to post here, thus I editd out details of each.

tektonics.org/lp/mormondivide.html

Do Mormons question their decision to be a Mormon because of this divide? I mean Protestants really say it doesn’t matter which denomination you are, as long as it’s Bible believing, and they don’t have a prophet. But Mormons believe essentially everything out of their prophet teaches as Gospel. And that they follow the living prophet. Yet there’s so many so called prophets and splinter groups, what if by the slight chance you’re following the wrong prophet in the main Church?

Joseph Smith did declare in the Doctrines and Covenants polygamy shall always be followed and it’s the only way to attain the Celestial Kingdom. The main Church deviated from this teaching, perhaps they’re apostate and the FLDS are now the true Church? And the FLDS are following the true prophet?

The splinter groups in Protestantism are confusing enough, but imagine if every single one of them declared their leader was Gods prophet on Earth? And their Church as the One True Church?

 

[mormon_fool]

Daniel Marsh:

Is the Book of the Law of the Lord inspired in Mormon circles?

It depends on which groups you classify as mormon. The dominant usage of the word *mormon *is narrowly defined as members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. But as this wikipedia article notes a broader scope is sometimes meant. So in the narrow sense, no mormon believes the Book of the Law of the Lord is inspired. In the broader sense (which I think is what you are asking), hardly any one believes in it. Strang’s once prosperous church has virtually disbanded, but some of his works still inspire a handful of believers. There was one that used to post on another board several years ago.

What if one of these 97 guys below was the true prophet?

I only recognize about 20 names, but I read *Divergent Paths of the Restoration *some 8-10 years ago. *Mormon Polygamy *by Wagoner gives some good details of some of the polygamous break-offs like the Lebarons. Even many other churches can be added to the list.

If someone wants to sincerely investigate whether these movements and men were divinely led, I will offer a few suggestions. I could give you my tentatively held conclusions, but I think it is better to teach someone how to fish rather than giving someone a fish

Whether to invest time in investigating claims is itself an interesting question. One should always prayerfully ask, with the rich young man, “What lack I yet?” It may be that the answer to the question has nothing to do with increasing one’s knowledge about other churches. It may be that a person is being entirely spiritually fulfilled or has adequate opportunities to become such in the context of their chosen faith. Even so their may be a variety of reasons to invest time. 1) Invitations to learn about another faith with a friendly person can be highly motivating and stimulating at times. 2) Sometimes one feels drawn for apologetic or evangelistic reasons. Learning about someone’s faith can help you communicate with them and be persuasive. Or you can be more persuasive to your co-religionists to not be drawn to another faith (boundary maintenance). Whatever the motivation for investigating other truth claims, the effort may very well be worth it to periodically re-evaluate one’s personal stance in light of newly learned information. I do this for Catholic claims.

The most important times to scrutinize a church’s truth claims are their current status and their beginnings. Think of a descendent chart of one of your ancestors. It is an upside down tree with its root at the top with more branches splitting off in subsequent generations. Impose the “true church” constraint that at most only one living descendent can be the true church.

With this in mind one can eliminate branches that have no living descendents from consideration. This is a practical because there is often a lack of need to perform boundary maintainence or be persuasive to non-existent church members, or to consider joining a defunct church. This helps inform the investing time question. Some might be reluctant to put away the pruning sheers. Tactically it might be better to play branches off against each other.

In regards to the posted list, many of these churches are now defunct. I would estimate that over 95% of individuals in the broader *mormon *sense are LDS. Of course, the number of adherents only loosely correlate to the authenticity of any group’s truth claims. One naturally suspects one of three things if their church isn’t being successful in the growth department. 1) They have saturated the market for valiant enough people that can live by their standards or the end is near. 2) Their members aren’t living up to potential. 3) God has withdrawn a measure of divine support.

Bottom up analysis of the tree indicates that the LDS church is the most vibrant candidate to be the heir of the root. Do the presence of other rotting branches discredit the whole tree? Give any church a big enough membership and long enough time and there will be dissent. Some dissenters will join other existing groups or start up a new one that has the valued structure. Some organizations do better at holding onto dissenters than others. The LDS church has a hard time retaining some dissenters because they a central authority structure and they wish to be unified on the primary beliefs. The dissenters that retain many LDS values but differ on a few pet issues frequently copy the LDS’s church organization, including claiming to be lead by a prophet. These self proclaimed prophets are perhaps driven by some combination of sincerity, delusional, fraudulent, or rationality.

[cont]

 

[mormon_fool]

The other place to focus Daniel’s question on is the root of the tree. There is an incredible time investment in evaluating all the varieties of claims at every branch. Most of these branches claim that they are the authentic sucessor of the root. Much of these claim depends on the root being authentic. The root to analyze with respect to the LDS faith is whether the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith were divinely inspired. If that step can be made, the final challenge for contending branches is to show they are the most inspired development of that initial deposit of faith. For some this step is unnecessary because both their current branch and the root are deemed to be divinely inspired, so by extension, all the connecting structure must be divinely guided as well.

So there is the tree level of view for evaluating truth claims that inherit a common denominator or beginning. The next level of abstraction, that of a garden of trees which sometimes are competitive can be found in Jacob 5-6.

Hope that helps,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

The splinter groups in Protestantism are confusing enough, but imagine if every single one of them declared their leader was Gods prophet on Earth? And their Church as the One True Church?

Nice post. I am glad that Protestant denominations don’t claim to be the One. It makes it easier to reject their claims.Being part of the true church and following God’s appointed mediator here on Earth is a common desire we share.

Joseph Smith did declare in the Doctrines and Covenants polygamy shall always be followed and it’s the only way to attain the Celestial Kingdom.

This interpretation of D&C (and some 19th century sermons as well) can be contested. I compiled my previous posts on doctrinal development on polygamy in my links above. But I wasn’t very thorough so I will redo it here. You are welcome to check them out if you wish to learn more.

Doctrinal Development – Polygamy, FLDS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Daniel Marsh:

Follow this link for more information of each of them in the list. It is too lengthly to post here, thus I editd out details of each.

tektonics.org/lp/mormondivide.html

Thanks for providing a source for you information. I like J.P. Holding. If you are going to gather information critical of the LDS faith, he is one of the most reliable out there. Holding makes a comment that seems at cross purposes with what I perceive to be your intent in posting this info.

Let us be clear about our intent: We are not striving, as Mormon apologists themselves do, to ascribe some negative meaning to the presence of schisms in the Mormon church. On the contrary, we are making the point that Mormon apologetic appeals to divisions within mainstream Christendom – as support for claims of apostasy, or of a need for prophgetic authority, or whatever – are themselves subject to be turned around upon Mormonism.

Me thinks it would be difficult getting around the draw Holding offers on this issue.

–fool

 

[Mike_D30]

mormon fool:

Nice post. I am glad that Protestant denominations don’t claim to be the One. It makes it easier to reject their claims.Being part of the true church and following God’s appointed mediator here on Earth is a common desire we share.

This interpretation of D&C (and some 19th century sermons as well) can be contested. I compiled my previous posts on doctrinal development on polygamy in my links above. But I wasn’t very thorough so I will redo it here. You are welcome to check them out if you wish to learn more.

–fool

Believe it or not, I’m well read on Mormon apologetics, so I heard everything before. This isn’t an indictment on who is right or wrong I’m not making a judgment, all I’m saying is the possibility for doubt is there. There are also splinter groups who appear to
have legitimate claims to be predecessor’s and rightful owners of Joseph Smith’s legacy. Doesn’t one of the splinter groups own the land where a temple must be built, and the original translation of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible? With 100 splinter groups all with some claim back to the original church, and all with a prophet, it muddies the waters a lot.

While the Pope is not a prophet, but merely a man guided by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church on matters of faith and morals. One could say we’re in a similar position, however there’s no one who steps up to try to take what Christ left to Peter. So it isn’t analogous. We have splinter groups, but none claim authority. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church refers to the Pope as first amongnst equals.

 

[Batjacboy]

Mormon Fool,

Are you going to answer this question?

Mormon Fool,

I didn’t see that you had any previous posts on abortion. Could you please answer this question:

The above posts have discussed changes in Mormon teaching over a 150-year history. But on abortion, the Mormons changed their teaching, it would seem, 3 times in 5-6 years:

Prior to 1988: Mormon church is anti-abortion (presumably with no exceptions, or so I was told)

1988: “There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened” (Gospel Principles [a 1988 basic manual for church members], 241.)

1992: “There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when (1) pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; (2) the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or (3) the fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth” (Gospel Principles [1992], 251.)

Why the changes in so short a period? Is it common for there to be Doctrinal Development 3 times in 5 years? If the Prophets are inspired by God, does this imply God changed His mind 3 times in 5 years?

 

[mormon_fool]

Batjacboy:

Mormon Fool,

Are you going to answer this question?

I went to bed this morning realizing I forgot to answer this question. Thanks for being persistent. May I recommend a couple of CA threads on abortion? One can easily find statements by LDS church officials before your citations that mention exceptions, as well as ones made afterwards that don’t mention them. It is not so much that the underlying position has changed. It is just the LDS position has been articulated with varying degrees of emphasis and nuance.

Hope that helps,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Mike_D30:

Believe it or not, I’m well read on Mormon apologetics

You certainly have the ability to add some valuable insights from you previous experiences. Sometimes it is difficult to assess someone’s subject knowledge from brief postings that miss opportunities to demonstrate a high level of sophistication. Maybe we should hand out quizzes to alleviate some of this difficulty.

so I heard everything before.

The more I discuss things with my peers and read scholarly literature, the more I realize I have many things yet to learn. So I am still learning about the complex issues surrounding polygamy. I share your desire not to retread already discussed subjects unless something new comes up. It all goes into the cost benefit analysis of whether to invest more time into a studying a subject.

This isn’t an indictment on who is right or wrong I’m not making a judgment, all I’m saying is the possibility for doubt is there.

Fair enough. If we were to discuss right or wrong, I would hope that my previous efforts on the CA boards be consulted. I think establishing possible interpretations of data is but one step. Deciding which (if any) interpretation is the most plausible through rational means takes quite a bit more effort.

There are also splinter groups who appear to have legitimate claims to be predecessor’s and rightful owners of Joseph Smith’s legacy.

I assume you mean successor instead of predecessor, here. With that you are essentially correct and my referenced posts discuss the legitimacy of the splinter groups at length.

Doesn’t one of the splinter groups own the land where a temple must be built

That would be the Temple Lot group. Since we are investigating possibilities, it is possible that the Independence temple does not have to be built.

and the original translation of the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible?

I assume you mean "original documents of the . . . " If so this splinter group is now called the Community of Christ.

While the Pope is not a prophet, but merely a man guided by the Holy Ghost to lead the Church on matters of faith and morals. One could say we’re in a similar position

,
Agreed.

however there’s no one who steps up to try to take what Christ left to Peter. So it isn’t analogous. We have splinter groups, but none claim authority.

I am not sure I follow. I have in mind not just the RCC and EOC but Protestants and every historical splinter group. If all these splinter groups aren’t claiming to have the authority of Peter in regards to being the earthly head of the church, they are in the very least usurping that authority.

later,
fool

 

[MercedesBents]

Tsuzuki:

The concept of Papal infallibility is alien to Mormonism.

If a member has a disagreement with the official church position on a matter, they are free to do as they please without interfering with the position of the church.

1. But when it comes to the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, they consider him as infallible as Catholics regard the Pope.
2. That’s a good way for a Mormon to get him/herself excommunicated.

 

[flameburns623]

mormon fool:

I am not sure I follow. I have in mind not just the RCC and EOC but Protestants and every historical splinter group. If all these splinter groups aren’t claiming to have the authority of Peter in regards to being the earthly head of the church, they are in the very least usurping that authority.

later,
fool

MF: Sorry but I can only post very briefly. You’ve done an admirable job in articulating a credible LDS pov, even if I don’t find it entirely persuasive and suspect that few others not already firmly committed to LDS theology will feel so either.

I will point out that not everyone presupposes the ‘lineal descent of authority’ theory by which the LDS, RCC, EO, some Anglicans, and a few other justify their systems of ecclesiology. Most Protestants think that authority is conveyed directy through the Word of God and/or by the annointing of the Holy Spirit. So such groups are not ‘usurping’ authority so much as they are disagreeing about the source of that authority. Just thought I’d mention that.

 

[flameburns623]

1) But when it comes to the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, they consider him as infallible as Catholics regard the Pope.

1. That’s a good way for a Mormon to get him/herself excommunicated.

1). I don’t think that Mormons consider the Prophet infallible. Evee the act of sustaining the Prophet via popular vote at critical junctures suggests that the LDS Church has a very different understanding of how the Holy spirit works within their leadership compared to how Catholics understand these things.

2). There is much greater latitude in the LDS Church for engaging in speculative theology. One cannot teach, and a Sunday-School teacher, in an LDS Sunday-school, that the Book of Mormon is simply pious fiction which teaches moral truths but lacks any historical merit. This would be shocking to many Mormons and not sufficiently faith-affirming to most. In fact, at this point one might get into trouble even just publishing such a theory in a venue intended for general LDS audiences. However, one could be free to affirm such ideas privately, and might even have latitude in some setting to articulate such views in a few limited setting within the Church. I have heard rather significantly-placed leaders in local stakes speculate in Priesthood Meetings that at some point in the long-distant future even the souls in Outer Darkness, including Lucifer himself, might be given the means to attain to the Celestial Kingdom.

Any number of other points of LDS theology are open to speculation as well. The primary obligation is to keep one’s public statements, especially within the context of ward and stake meetinghouses, faith-affirming and positive rather than engage in public debates within the body which might sow confusion, doubt, discord, and division among the membership-at-large.

 

[Batjacboy]

mormon fool:

One can easily find statements by LDS **church officials ** before your citations that mention exceptions, as well as ones made afterwards that don’t mention them.

Thanks for the response. I need some clarification.

Shouldn’t your Prophet, if he’s the inspired-by-God leader that Mormons think he is, straighten things out? In other words, what is God telling him about abortion, if your church leaders can’t agree? We know what the Pope says about it, and, for us, his opinion is the only binding one.

It is not so much that the underlying position has changed. It is just the LDS position has been articulated with varying degrees of emphasis and nuance.

How does a position which goes from (mostly) anti-abortion to one allowing abortion for every commonly known exception constitute a change in “emphasis and nuance”?

 

[mormon_fool]

Batjacboy:

Thanks for the response. I need some clarification.

Thanks for communicating with me about what you didn’t quite understand. I shudder to think that you would have taken away the understanding you describe below. Hopefully I can clear things up.

Shouldn’t your Prophet, if he’s the inspired-by-God leader that Mormons think he is, straighten things out?

The LDS prophets and authorities have kept things straight for many years. I just ran across some 19th century references to the evils of feticide as they called it back then. Simply put, one finds two types of quotes in LDS sources: one category lists exceptions to the general “no abortion” rule, the other category contain quotes that apparently do not find it worthwhile to list exceptions. The difference is on what the speaker or writer wished to emphasize. To prove doctrinal development one would have to show that the quotes from one time period all fit into one category and then there was a shift and the opposite category monopolized official statements. I claim this simply is not the case. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

In other words, what is God telling him about abortion, if your church leaders can’t agree?

I am not convinced that “church leaders” disagree on the main points of the LDS church’s stance. If you were to interview any of the church authors of the statements for clarification, they would present a uniform stance. You can ask author X who didn’t mention exceptions to the general rule, if there are exceptions and X will readily affirm there are. If you ask X why he didn’t mention them, X will say that he didn’t choose to mention them as a point of emphasis. As a general rule, LDS authorities teach general rules and allow individuals to discern exceptions for exceptional circumstances. The LDS church teaches “correct principles and lets [the members] govern themselves.”

Only 1-2% of abortions fall in the exception categories and LDS members are invited to counsel with LDS authorities and prayerfully consider what to do. I know that God gives personal revelation of his will in those exceptional situation to those who prayerfully seek it. That is the point of faith the LDS policy on exceptions revolves around. Given that the LDS church does complex, one on one tutoring in individual cases in the exception category, it may be counterproductive to bring up exceptions everytime someone wants to deliver a strong message against the unquestionably evil 98% of abortions that are carried out as a means of birth control. The message could get lost in legalism. Many commandments are listed in the scriptures with and without listing exceptions.

We know what the Pope says about it, and, for us, his opinion is the only binding one.

I admire the Pope’s clarity on the stance. However I think there is a few ways the LDS position compensates for its lack of ability to give a pre-judgment for every possible circumstance. I think Catholics in a position to make a decision already know what is right. In other words, there is confidence in the Pope’s stance. In some cases where a Catholic makes the wrong decision, one possible factor is that individual didn’t feel strong enough to do what is right. I don’t wish to single Catholics out here, I think sometimes the more strict a rule is, the easier it is to decide not to comply. Don’t get me wrong, it is a valuable to be theologically right about something, even if that rightness translates to a strictness which adversely decreases what happens in practice. The latter is my explanation why, in practice, statistics show Catholics receive much more abortions than LDS do. (See prior links for details.) Of course I am not a sociologist so I am open to alternative explanations.

On the other hand, LDS are invited to seek after, and obtain their own witness of what is right. On average, this probably motivates a longer period of deliberation and seeking out the counsels of their leaders (and less avoidance of this). Empowering an individual to receive personal revelation empowers them to feel strong enough to be able to follow strict ideals. When LDS people feel like God has given them personal instruction it confers a huge boost of confidence 1 Ne. 3:7. Again, in comparing LDS practice and Catholic practice, I am not pretending that the scenarios oulined above are uniform. I am just speaking in terms of liklihoods and probabilities.