Mormon prophet

[lax16]

Virgin birth?

If the LDS Church “proclaims” something, is that doctrine?
What if BY states something that is to “be remembered for all time”, is that doctrine?

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

"These name titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon **Doctrine**, 1979, pp. 546-47)

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (**Ibid**., page 742)

   President Brigham Young maintained that "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115) In a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on April 9, 1852, President Young climaxed his teaching with the following explanation:

"...**remember from this time forth, and for ever**, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea — 'if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." (Journal of Discourses vol. 1, p. 51)

In The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, a book published in 1988, President Benson steadfastly maintains that God was the father of Christ "in the most literal sense":

"A fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. This doctrine is not generally comprehended by the world. The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the 'mysteries of godliness' comprehended only by the spiritually minded....

"Thus the testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of Jesus' mortal tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserved the title 'the Only Begotten Son of God.'...

**"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims **that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which he performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pages 6-7)

 

[KathleenGee]

I just got up. I look at these recent links…no way did Joseph Smith write all this…it had to be compiled…not by just one fellow, but several…

 

[TheExorcist]

Virgin birth?

If the LDS Church “proclaims” something, is that doctrine?
What if BY states something that is to “be remembered for all time”, is that doctrine?

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

"These name titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon **Doctrine**, 1979, pp. 546-47)

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (**Ibid**., page 742)

   President Brigham Young maintained that "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115) In a sermon delivered in the Tabernacle on April 9, 1852, President Young climaxed his teaching with the following explanation:

"...**remember from this time forth, and for ever**, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea — 'if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." (Journal of Discourses vol. 1, p. 51)

In The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, a book published in 1988, President Benson steadfastly maintains that God was the father of Christ "in the most literal sense":

"A fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. This doctrine is not generally comprehended by the world. The paternity of Jesus Christ is one of the 'mysteries of godliness' comprehended only by the spiritually minded....

"Thus the testimonies of appointed witnesses leave no question as to the paternity of Jesus Christ. God was the Father of Jesus' mortal tabernacle, and Mary, a mortal woman, was His mother. He is therefore the only person born who rightfully deserved the title 'the Only Begotten Son of God.'...

**"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims **that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which he performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pages 6-7)

But neither of these guys are alive any more so their “doctrine” is superseded. Right?

 

[soren1]

I am not sure what you mean by “But Mormons who take that stance are speaking for themselves…”?

From this and other responses I have gotten, I can see that I have been seriously misunderstood. Serves me right, I suppose, for stating things so confidently but so briefly. The point where you say you don’t understand me is critical to understanding all the rest of my views, so I will start here and see if we can agree before talking about your other points.

Mormon leaders have historically followed policies of public obfuscation concerning LDS doctrine. Historically, this is most commonly recognized in the way they have presented themselves to people outside the church: John Taylor denying polygamy in France, Joseph F. Smith denying his prophetic authority at the Reed Smoot hearings, Gordon B. Hinckley telling Larry King that he doesn’t know anything about progressing to godhood, etc. In modern times they have taken this habit to a new level by using controlled equivocation when speaking to their own followers, by appearing to deny historical teachings that they are actually affirming. This creates an appearance of change where none or little has occurred.

A good example is the LDS Church’s racist teachings. It is generally thought that Mormonism abandoned racism in 1978. I disagree. It is racist to this day, in principle though not in practice. One of the two changes that I grant has happened in the substance of Mormon doctrine since Smith’s time is that the 1978 official declaration issued a line item veto on one part of the Church’s traditional teaching on blacks and the priesthood. Previous doctrine had said blacks would receive the priesthood only after the resurrection, and after all other races had received the priesthood first. This teaching goes all the back back the Brigham Young and can be found expressed as a revealed doctrine in an official doctrinal statement by the First Presidency in 1948; it leaves no room for advancing the date to 1978. This is the only point in the church’s traditional, prophetic teaching that is at odds with the Official Declaration. Everything else in the church’s doctrines about blacks remains intact right down the line.

But this point is lost on most Mormons. I have often had Mormons, who think the church has substantively repudiated racism, cite to me Bruce McConkie’s request that church members disregard everything he and others had spoken “in ignorance” prior to 1978 that is contracted by the new revelation. What these Mormons do not notice is that since the only point of contradiction is a matter of dates, McConkie has not denied historical claims about the causes and reasons underlying the ban’s existence. They jump without warrant to a maximalist interpretation of McConkie’s words. That they err in doing so can be proved from McConkie’s reissue of Mormon Doctrine later that year. He changes the sections on blacks to keep pace with the new revelation, but still refers to them as “Hamites.” If you know McConkie, or have read Abraham 1:24, you know what that means. This is the last example I know of in which a Mormon General authority has opened espoused the “Curse of Ham” theory, but it comes after the Official Declaration, not before, from an apostle who is often claimed to have “humbly” repudiated that very teaching.

The same pattern, but in less obvious ways, holds for other Mormon leaders. On recent, amazing example occurs in an interview of Elder Jeffry Holland some years ago for the PBS series “The Mormons.” When asked about the basis of the priesthood ban in the preexistence, Holland said that the traditional “folklore” was “inadequate and/or false.” And/or false? Those who want to hear repudiation in these words, hear it; those who listen to learn, don’t. Everything I have read from any Mormon General Authority trying to distance the LDS Church from its racist teachings, from the 1950s to the present, is like this. It creates an appearance of change, which keeps them from losing members, but does not amount to any change. A similar account can be given of other doctrines like polygamy, blood atonement, the physical procreation of Jesus by Elohim and Mary, etc. The only other thing Mormonism has really changed in substance is the Adam-God Doctrine.

This the kind of thing I had in mind when I said that LDS members who read change and discontinuity into Mormon history speak only for themselves, not for their church. The church’s leadership really believes in their own authority, takes it seriously, and understands its implications clearly. I would be shocked, for instance, if there is a single current Mormon Apostle who does not believe black skin is a curse, or at least originated as one. Because they believe it, they do not repudiate it, but since asserting it is bad PR, they pick their words to create an impression that things have changed. They suggest a false interpretation of their own teachings, which becomes the dominant opinion of the church’s membership, while never having an actual basis in Mormon doctrine.

I highly doubt when their prophet received a revelation that is now okay to drink soda that anyone would consider that doctrine.

LOL

 

[lax16]

But neither of these guys are alive any more so their “doctrine” is superseded. Right?

(edited for length/bold mine)

**Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet **President Ezra Taft Benson,

Of the Quorum of the Twelve

---

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet—and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

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 Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets 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 go to the podium 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.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet,** “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and 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:

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, 13:95.)

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters. When a people are righteous, they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord himself said, “Great are the words of Isaiah.” (3 Ne. 23:1.)

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

 

[soren1]

What about Blood Atonement - not in practice anymore I presume.
How many are we up to now?

If a prophet uses the word doctrine can they now say it never was doctrine?

Brigham Young:
There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness … and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone, for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine, but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood… I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit… There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54; also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

Blood atonement has not changed. Church leaders have left off making any statements on the subject for quite a while, but silence does not mean repudiation. I have talked to a fair number of Mormons who have defended blood atonement, and they do so on good warrant. It is a doctrine, publicly declared by the first Presidency in the 1850’s and stated as revelation by all three members of the First Presidency.

You can see in modern LDS literature that official teaching on the atonement of Christ always leaves room for blood atonement. Here is a text from Gospel Principles (1999 ed.):

Jesus also qualified to be our Savior because he is the only person who has ever lived on the earth who did not sin. This made him a worthy sacrifice to pay for the sins of others. (p. 73)

It sounds innocuous, but look at the last two words. Why add the qualification “of others”? Well, by itself it might mean little, but in the context of blood atonement it is weighty. Blood atonement teaches that a sinner’s blood can be shed as a sacrifice for himself. Hence, Christ’s unique sinlessness does not make him the only adequate sacrifice for for sins simply speaking, but only with qualification. Other official literature on the atonement contains similar loopholes.

 

[lax16]

Blood atonement has not changed. Church leaders have left off making any statements on the subject for quite a while, but silence does not mean repudiation. I have talked to a fair number of Mormons who have defended blood atonement, and they do so on good warrant. It is a doctrine, publicly declared by the first Presidency in the 1850’s and stated as revelation by all three members of the First Presidency.

You can see in modern LDS literature that official teaching on the atonement of Christ always leaves room for blood atonement. Here is a text from Gospel Principles (1999 ed.):

Jesus also qualified to be our Savior because he is the only person who has ever lived on the earth who did not sin. This made him a worthy sacrifice to pay for the sins of others. (p. 73)

It sounds innocuous, but look at the last two words. Why add the qualification “of others”? Well, by itself it might mean little, but in the context of blood atonement it is weighty. Blood atonement teaches that a sinner’s blood can be shed as a sacrifice for himself. Hence, Christ’s unique sinlessness does not make him the only adequate sacrifice for for sins simply speaking, but only with qualification. Other official literature on the atonement contains similar loopholes.

Hi soren - Yes, I follow what you are saying now.

Would it take an actual statement from a prophet denouncing these beliefs to make them a changed doctrine as opposed to no longer practicing it?

What is the purpose of the silence (not repudiation) - is it because they (LDS leadership)still believe it and don’t want to denounce it - or - by denouncing it would be calling attention to something in their past that is now an embarrassment?

As we know, many LDS leave once they learn the truth about certain aspects of Mormon history (namely JS).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Oh, shoot. That makes three. I suppose I should have said that only two doctrines have changed since Smith’s time. Though again, I must say I am conservative here. I find less inconsistency in Smith’s doctrine of deity than most of his critics. A lot of the time, what seem like different teachings about the nature of god actually reflect Smith thinking about different gods.

Does the change in doctrine concerning Heavenly Father’s coming down to earth to have intercourse with the Virgin Mary that resulted in the birth of Jesus count?

 

[soren1]

Does the change in doctrine concerning Heavenly Father’s coming down to earth to have intercourse with the Virgin Mary that resulted in the birth of Jesus count?

God’s physical paternity of Jesus has been affirmed by every Mormon General authority who has ever commented on the topic. It is not restricted to nineteenth century speculation, but is in fact more clearly taught throughout the twentieth century than the nineteenth. Their has been one change here though. The other change that I grant in Mormon teaching is a shift in the Adam-God Doctrine, that bears on the paternity issue. In the nineteenth century, the god that conceived Jesus with Mary was Adam, though it is been officially defined as Elohim since 1916.

But this too is an example of equivocation by LDS leadership. Normally, they affirm the traditional doctrine only obliquely, by saying that God is the “literal” father of Jesus, by which they mean “physical.” (This is an improper use of “literal,” by the way. We believe, and can prove from Eph 3:14-15, that literal fatherhood refers to the eternal generation of the son and is applied figuratively to physical fatherhood, though Mormon leaders and apologists never acknowledge, and usually deny, the we believe this.)

Yet while subtly sticking to their guns on Jesus’ paternity, the same leaders will vigorously assert the reality of the “virgin birth” against their critics, leading people to believe that they hold a view similar to ours. The trick is in the definition of “virgin.” In the definition intended by the General Authorities, a virgin is someone who has never had relations with a mortal, as opposed to an immortal, man. Note the words of Joseph F. Smith: “Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother.” Hmmmm. Consider as well that Bruce McConkie, who is probably the most explicit of recent Mormon leaders to teach God’s physical paternity of Jesus, still has no problem saying in Mormon Doctrine: “Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father.” Hmmmm.

 

[TheExorcist]

I’ll admit to never having read this talk until now. Many of these are not too surprising but I think this one is the most hair raising

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium 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.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Essentially setting up living GAs to be more authoritative than the scriptures. I wonder what many people in my own ward would think about this.

 

[KathleenGee]

Post 88…Been waiting for this…I am sorry to say but my woman’s tuition and observing the many comments here on Mormon beliefs, they are indeed considered by their founders as above and…the Bible…

 

[lax16]

I’ll admit to never having read this talk until now. Many of these are not too surprising but I think this one is the most hair raising

A talk at BYU in 1980 - seems hard to believe a President would repeat such a story!
It is very interesting to see how JS and BY played off of each other when answering the concerns of fellow members.
It is good to see that others called in question the fact that they were preaching things not in line with sacred scripture.

Essentially setting up living GAs to be more authoritative than the scriptures. I wonder what many people in my own ward would think about this.

Yes, I wonder this as well.

 

[soren1]

A talk at BYU in 1980 - seems hard to believe a President would repeat such a story!
It is very interesting to see how JS and BY played off of each other when answering the concerns of fellow members.
It is good to see that others called in question the fact that they were preaching things not in line with sacred scripture.

Yes, I wonder this as well.

I think the point you are making is strong, but I’m not sure I want to jump to reading this text as teaching a supercessionist view, whereby modern prophecy revises the old. Even though in practice, Mormon leaders do that, I still don’t see that they teach it in principle. I think one could fairly read Young’s words as a subjective rather objective statement of prophetic power. He is not saying that living prophets are objectively more inspired that dead ones were, or that spoken words are objectively more inspired than written ones. Instead, he is saying that a present prophet is more proximate to our experience, and addressed us with a greater force and power of conviction, and also that a living agent, a man, has a greater than a written medium.

This is still, of course, a dangerous teaching, quite at odds with the attitude that the Jesus and the New Testament writers show towards scripture. They all view scripture as unbreakable and convincing. Anyone who has read scripture has heard God’s voice. Had I been present, I would have advised Brother Young to read any account in the gospels in which Christ reasons from scripture and holds people accountable for its teachings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormonism is pragmatic, that is, what is good is relative to time and circumstances. Their prophet takes on the roll of defining what is good today, which may or may not correspond to what was good yesterday. Polygamy being the best example of Mormon pragmatism in action. It was good for a time, but not now.

Also, the Mormon belief that murder can be good if it is for the good of many, such as their story in the Book of Mormon about murdering Laban to steal his family records. One has to have a pragmatic view of morality to go along with that one.

Catholic morality relies on the premise that the end does not justify the means. One cannot commit a grave sin and justify it by the goal that was being sought.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I guess LDS and Islam are the two fastest growing religions, percentage-wise. I don’t think they still teach in the LDS that the longer a “person of color” practices the religion, then the whiter his or her skin will become. A black friend of mine tells me that is why his grandmother joined the LDS Church. Nobody has noticed any pigment change over her thirty years of membership.

 

[soren1]

Mormonism is pragmatic, that is, what is good is relative to time and circumstances. Their prophet takes on the roll of defining what is good today, which may or may not correspond to what was good yesterday. Polygamy being the best example of Mormon pragmatism in action. It was good for a time, but not now.

Also, the Mormon belief that murder can be good if it is for the good of many, such as their story in the Book of Mormon about murdering Laban to steal his family records. One has to have a pragmatic view of morality to go along with that one.

Catholic morality relies on the premise that the end does not justify the means. One cannot commit a grave sin and justify it by the goal that was being sought.

I’m not sure killing Laban would have to count as murder. He was, according to the story, acting in defiance of God, so it is reasonable to think that Nephi’s slew him as an executor of divine justice.

Nevertheless I agree with your basic point. Mormonism is the most utilitarian religion I know.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m sure killing Laban would have to count as murder. He was, according to the story, acting in defiance of God, so it is reasonable to think that Nephi’s slew him as an executor of divine justice.

Nevertheless I agree with your basic point. Mormonism is the most utilitarian religion I know.

“Executor of divine justice” is a dangerous path to go down, one that we visited in our own history. No one is God’s executioner.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess LDS and Islam are the two fastest growing religions, percentage-wise. I don’t think they still teach in the LDS that the longer a “person of color” practices the religion, then the whiter his or her skin will become. A black friend of mine tells me that is why his grandmother joined the LDS Church. Nobody has noticed any pigment change over her thirty years of membership.

Well that’s a different way to view growing “white and delightsome”.

 

[lax16]

I think the point you are making is strong, but I’m not sure I want to jump to reading this text as teaching a supercessionist view, whereby modern prophecy revises the old. Even though in practice, Mormon leaders do that, I still don’t see that they teach it in principle. I think one could fairly read Young’s words as a subjective rather objective statement of prophetic power. He is not saying that living prophets are objectively more inspired that dead ones were, or that spoken words are objectively more inspired than written ones. Instead, he is saying that a present prophet is more proximate to our experience, and addressed us with a greater force and power of conviction, and also that a living agent, a man, has a greater than a written medium.

I hear what you are saying. However, JS and BY were responding to concerns that they were teaching things not in scripture. Their response was, in my opinion, not that they were more proximate to the experience, but that they were to be followed, no questions asked, even if in contradiction to sacred scripture.
I believe the main purpose of telling this story to those at BYU in 1980 was to remind them to follow the prophet, no matter what.
For a prophet and a future prophet to speak about their own importance in this manner is very telling:

‘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.’

I am going to paraphrase what BY said at the prompting of JS:
‘when compared with Joseph Smith the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and LDS scripture are nothing to me, Brigham Young, (future prophet)’.

The word of God needs to be interpreted by an LDS prophet, even if he contradicts it, not to be questioned by any other, making the followers totally dependent upon him and his prophecies, no matter what?

Then, years later, most of what was said by these two has been rejected as not doctrine or prophetic? Hard to imagine!

This is still, of course, a dangerous teaching, quite at odds with the attitude that the Jesus and the New Testament writers show towards scripture. They all view scripture as unbreakable and convincing. Anyone who has read scripture has heard God’s voice. Had I been present, I would have advised Brother Young to read any account in the gospels in which Christ reasons from scripture and holds people accountable for its teachings.

Yes, to be present at that meeting would have been interesting, indeed!
When I read and re-read the account, I can feel the tension in the room. It seems to me that some members were very concerned about staying true to the Bible and to LDS scripture. It also seems to me that JS and BY did what they could to shut them down.

 

[soren1]

When I read and re-read the account, I can feel the tension in the room. It seems to me that some members were very concerned about staying true to the Bible and to LDS scripture. It also seems to me that JS and BY did what they could to shut them down.

One text that makes an interesting comparison with the one you have given is from Young in 1873:

What I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise. Men talk about what has been accomplished under my direction, and attribute it to my wisdom and ability; but it is all by the power of God, and by intelligence received from him. I say to the whole world, receive the truth, no matter who presents it to you. Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (JOD 16:46)

This text is often quoted, fairly I think, to show Mormons a warrant from their own authorities for why it is legitimate to test Mormon theology by comparison to accepted scripture. One curious point about its context, however, is that Young has just talked about his certainty of Joseph as a prophet, claiming that no one can disprove it, and how his experiences prove to him that Joseph had real visions. He doesn’t even seem to notice that his reliance on subjective experience, on which he bases his belief, if a different standard of judgment that what he concluded his sermon by advocating. Would it be good advice for Young to judge his feelings about his testimony by comparison to Scripture? I don’t think he would grant that, though it would follow from what he ends up saying.