Mormon prophet

[lax16]

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)

Funny, here BY is claiming that the Bible and LDS religion are compatible when in the other quote he is defending the fact that their prophecies don’t match up to bible/LDS scripture and shouldn’t matter.

The lack of consistency is a tell-tale sign of a false prophet.
It reminds me of the testimonies of St. Joan of Arc - despite imprisonment, lack of nourishment, no formal education, no access to legal counsel, attempts to confuse her…she never contradicted herself. This, to the amazement of all who were present at her trials or have since read the documents.

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.

You are very generous, Soren! To me, anytime a so-called prophet contradicts himself he has been proven false - that is all it says to me.

 

[soren1]

You are very generous, Soren! To me, anytime a so-called prophet contradicts himself he has been proven false - that is all it says to me.

Generous, am I? Thanks, but let me be clear: I think the original Mormon view of prophetic authority is plenary. And I have more respect for that view than the usual minimalist stance of modern Mormons. The distinctions about when a prophet does or does not speak authoritatively are anachronistic, and did not originate until the time of Wilford Woodruff, when he chose to shelve to Adam-God doctrine. (Woodruff of course knew, and records in his journals, that Young claimed the Adam-God doctrine was inspired and taught by Joseph Smith, but he later denied it, saying Young was just speculating on his own opinions.)

Mormons sometimes think we use a double-standard by criticizing their prophets for inconsistency, while making distinctions about when a pope is speaking authoritatively. This is not inconsistent, because a pope is not the same thing as a prophet. Peter was pope but still denied Christ three times. Yet the biblical standards for testing prophets are much higher than that. The law for ancient Israel was: Any false prophecy or command to worship new gods = Stone the prophet. This law, given in Deut 13:1-5, makes no distinction about when or how a prophet teaches falsehood, and is hence to be enforced without distinction. If a man leads people into error he is simply not a prophet.

 

[soren1]

Addendum to my previous post: I am not saying that Wilford Woodruff was the first person, or even the first LDS leader, to disbelieve a teaching by a previous or sitting prophet. Rather, he was the first to justify that disbelief by drawing a distinction between official and unofficial teaching. The initial, high view of prophetic authority eroded slowly, with no dramatic turning points, although as far as I yet know, Woodruff’s dismissal of Adam-God is the first really big signpost on the road.

 

[Johnn1]

Great website for Mormon and Freemasonry, beliefs are very simular - Ed Decker’s “Saints Alive in Jesus”

 

[catholic-rcia]

Addendum to my previous post: I am not saying that Wilford Woodruff was the first person, or even the first LDS leader, to disbelieve a teaching by a previous or sitting prophet. Rather, he was the first to justify that disbelief by drawing a distinction between official and unofficial teaching. The initial, high view of prophetic authority eroded slowly, with no dramatic turning points, although as far as I yet know, Woodruff’s dismissal of Adam-God is the first really big signpost on the road.

This sign post was read by an LDS’S Bishops daughter. A few years back in a small town in Southern Idaho a young women heard about this teaching. She asked her dad and he brushed her question off as not important. When she spoke to him again he simply said that the LDS do not believe in it. But she now knew what Brigham Young taught about it and also knew that if a LDS prophet speaks about such things it had to be true. This is what she was taught all of her life. So there she was in the middle, in a place she never thought she would find herself. She actually drove down to Salt Lake City and began to look into the matter. She found the truth in the LDS Library.

This sign post that you speak of led this brave girl to deepen her knowledge about God. For whatever reason she walked through our doors wanting to know what Catholics believed. Can you imagine what she went through as her family began to find out that she was spending two hours a week in a Catholic Church?

To make a long story short she was told she could loose her family, also that she would not be with them in Heaven. She persisted in this picking up of the cross all the way to Baptism one year later. Do you know what her father gave to her at her Baptism?
“A Rosary”
A gift to his Catholic daughter. “Love”

 

[soren1]

Great website for Mormon and Freemasonry, beliefs are very simular - Ed Decker’s “Saints Alive in Jesus”

While it is true that Mormonism borrows from freemasonry, Decker is a wild sensationalist, who shows no interest is engaging any of the responses Mormons have. A crude amateur who has done more than probably anyone to ruin Christian outreach to Mormons. Steer clear of him. Read Isaiah Bennett instead.

 

[lax16]

Generous, am I? Thanks, but let me be clear: I think the original Mormon view of prophetic authority is plenary. And I have more respect for that view than the usual minimalist stance of modern Mormons. The distinctions about when a prophet does or does not speak authoritatively are anachronistic, and did not originate until the time of Wilford Woodruff, when he chose to shelve to Adam-God doctrine. (Woodruff of course knew, and records in his journals, that Young claimed the Adam-God doctrine was inspired and taught by Joseph Smith, but he later denied it, saying Young was just speculating on his own opinions.)

Isn’t this the same Wilford Woodruff that claimed the Founding Fathers appeared to him after their death wanting to become LDS through temple rituals?
One would think that if he later denied knowing about Adam-God that he would be deemed not credible in all matters.

I agree about the original Mormon view of their prophets being complete. The whole point about Mormonism was that it was truly different - a break-away from all other religions. To believe that one would have to follow their prophet and deviate from the bible is to be expected. They (BY and JS) took a stand and told their followers the way it was going to be. However, once they began to *contradict themselves *the whole thing should have fallen apart.

Funny, when I see polygamists in Costco (which is almost every time I am there) I often think that they are the orthodox Mormons practicing original doctrine despite popular opinion. They dress in a very unique way (although some polygamists are very current in their fashion and the women go to work etc) and really don’t care what others think. It is like seeing Orthodox Jews in their distinct clothing praying in the airport…

Mormons sometimes think we use a double-standard by criticizing their prophets for inconsistency, while making distinctions about when a pope is speaking authoritatively. This is not inconsistent, because a pope is not the same thing as a prophet. Peter was pope but still denied Christ three times. Yet the biblical standards for testing prophets are much higher than that. The law for ancient Israel was: Any false prophecy or command to worship new gods = Stone the prophet. This law, given in Deut 13:1-5, makes no distinction about when or how a prophet teaches falsehood, and is hence to be enforced without distinction. If a man leads people into error he is simply not a prophet.

Yes, the pope is head of the church on earth but is not a prophet. I just can’t understand how JS and BY were able to move the church forward if their followers were familiar with OT scripture on false prophets?

 

[Defender1]

Isn’t this the same Wilford Woodruff that claimed the Founding Fathers appeared to him after their death wanting to become LDS through temple rituals?
One would think that if he later denied knowing about Adam-God that he would be deemed not credible in all matters.

I agree about the original Mormon view of their prophets being complete. The whole point about Mormonism was that it was truly different - a break-away from all other religions. To believe that one would have to follow their prophet and deviate from the bible is to be expected. They (BY and JS) took a stand and told their followers the way it was going to be. However, once they began to *contradict themselves *the whole thing should have fallen apart.

Funny, when I see polygamists in Costco (which is almost every time I am there) I often think that they are the orthodox Mormons practicing original doctrine despite popular opinion. They dress in a very unique way (although some polygamists are very current in their fashion and the women go to work etc) and really don’t care what others think. It is like seeing Orthodox Jews in their distinct clothing praying in the airport…

Yes, the pope is head of the church on earth but is not a prophet. I just can’t understand how JS and BY were able to move the church forward if their followers were familiar with OT scripture on false prophets?

Their followers were very ignorant of scripture,just as Muhammad’s followers were ignorant of the Christian religion .

 

[soren1]

I just can’t understand how JS and BY were able to move the church forward if their followers were familiar with OT scripture on false prophets?

The problem isn’t intellecutal; it’s moral. Anyone can read and know what Scripture teaches, at least on the key points that matter most. Yet not everyone is willing to submit to its teachings.

 

[Telstar]

The problem isn’t intellecutal; it’s moral. Anyone can read and know what Scripture teaches, at least on the key points that matter most. Yet not everyone is willing to submit to its teachings.

And, if JS & BY stated that all previous scriptures can be ignored if they conflict with what the ‘new’ prophet tells them to believe, then all true Scripture could be effectively rendered completely useless and meaningless to them. I find it interesting that they seem to put so much emphasis on the fact that they alone possess the only complete ‘gospel’, when their own founder and early leaders told them that all of them could be considered to be that irrelevant, depending on one man’s teaching.

 

[lax16]

Their followers were very ignorant of scripture,just as Muhammad’s followers were ignorant of the Christian religion .

Yes, I am sure this is true.

However if you read the exchange between BY and the questioning member it is clear that they were concerned that JS and BY were not following scripture.

I was quite impressed that at least one of the early followers knew enough to question their leaders!

 

[lax16]

The problem isn’t intellecutal; it’s moral. Anyone can read and know what Scripture teaches, at least on the key points that matter most. Yet not everyone is willing to submit to its teachings.

Good point.

Or to stand up against the majority…

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, I am sure this is true.

However if you read the exchange between BY and the questioning member it is clear that they were concerned that JS and BY were not following scripture.

I was quite impressed that at least one of the early followers knew enough to question their leaders!

Lax16,

As you know, I read the reference you had cited about the “questioning member”, and it doesn’t say anything about the topic of discussion. What the “not following scripture” was about was that it meant the questioning member was saying they should confine their talks to taking existing scriptures and talking specifically about what was written in the scriptures.

Later, Brigham Young would be asking for some of the members to go colonize extensively, and the case of the handcart pioneers in their dire circumstance when BY asked the members who could to go rescue them, asking them to start immediately to prepare to go for the rescue as soon as he had heard about where they were and their dire circumstance.

Those actions were not written up in the scriptures, but they were actions that required the faith of the people, a believing heart and a willing heart.

What it boils down to is that the prophet may have an interest in the temporal well-being of people within Zion, and there may be a need for the followers to understand that their temporal well-being, as a group and a community and as seekers for Zion where the pure in heart dwell together in peace, has a temporal element as well as the spiritual element of Zion.

Enoch’s people understood this, and this is why Enoch’s people–his city–was caught up off of the earth and why Enoch’s group was thus “translated”.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

As you know, I read the reference you had cited about the “questioning member”, and it doesn’t say anything about the topic of discussion. What the “not following scripture” was about was that it meant the questioning member was saying they should confine their talks to taking existing scriptures and talking specifically about what was written in the scriptures.

Later, Brigham Young would be asking for some of the members to go colonize extensively, and the case of the handcart pioneers in their dire circumstance when BY asked the members who could to go rescue them, asking them to start immediately to prepare to go for the rescue as soon as he had heard about where they were and their dire circumstance.

Those actions were not written up in the scriptures, but they were actions that required the faith of the people, a believing heart and a willing heart.

What it boils down to is that the prophet may have an interest in the temporal well-being of people within Zion, and there may be a need for the followers to understand that their temporal well-being, as a group and a community and as seekers for Zion where the pure in heart dwell together in peace, has a temporal element as well as the spiritual element of Zion.

Enoch’s people understood this, and this is why Enoch’s people–his city–was caught up off of the earth and why Enoch’s group was thus “translated”.

Hello Parker -

The point of the talk, given by Benson, was to tell BYU students the 14 fundamentals of following a prophet.

He (Benson) chose to repeat only that part of the story. Why? To show that JS and then BY were above sacred scripture and must be followed no matter what. BY was somewhat to blame, as scholars have pointed out, for sending out those handcart pioneers too late in the season. Therefore, the fact that he was listened to “as the final say” possibly led to their demise.

"Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”—as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

“The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works”.

Really Parker, you must think how this sounds to others - two men claiming that one of them is above the Bible. Isn’t that going too far?

 

[ParkerD]

Hello Parker -

The point of the talk, given by Benson, was to tell BYU students the 14 fundamentals of following a prophet.

He (Benson) chose to repeat only that part of the story. Why? To show that JS and then BY were above sacred scripture and must be followed no matter what. BY was somewhat to blame, as scholars have pointed out, for sending out those handcart pioneers too late in the season. Therefore, the fact that he was listened to “as the final say” possibly led to their demise.

"Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”—as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

“The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works”.

Really Parker, you must think how this sounds to others - two men claiming that one of them is above the Bible. Isn’t that going too far?

Lax16,

As I asked on the other thread, since the pope does not confine his words to the Bible, then he would be in the same position as JS and BY by the description you have offered.

The Bible would be your “standard works” I suppose. Are you saying the pope should confine his speaking and writing to just reading the Bible aloud and writing about specific Biblical topics?

As far as the handcart pioneers who left late in the season, someone must be kidding themselves if they thought BY mandated they leave that late in the season.

Wilford Woodruff’s journal was quoted by President Benson, and WW’s journal didn’t have many more details of that situation–so I don’t know what you expect President Benson to have done?

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

As I asked on the other thread, since the pope does not confine his words to the Bible, then he would be in the same position as JS and BY by the description you have offered.

The pope cannot contradict the Bible.

The Bible would be your “standard works” I suppose. Are you saying the pope should confine his speaking and writing to just reading the Bible aloud and writing about specific Biblical topics?

The pope cannot teach anything that contradicts the Bible.
Recently, the Pope wrote two books about Jesus Christ. They do not deviate from history or the Bible, however it is not a teaching that anyone needs to follow or agree with. I do not think anyone would find it a contradictory account of Our Lord, but they are free to disagree.

As far as the handcart pioneers who left late in the season, someone must be kidding themselves if they thought BY mandated they leave that late in the season.

I never said BY mandated it - I said many scholars have pointed out that he was probably involved in the decision-making. Read for yourself as there is quite a bit written about the handcart tragedy.

Wilford Woodruff’s journal was quoted by President Benson, and WW’s journal didn’t have many more details of that situation–so I don’t know what you expect President Benson to have done?

Benson did a fine job - he told the members to follow their leader no matter what, even if it means going against sacred scripture. And he told everyone that is what JS and BY demanded.
Very insightful.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, not the same position.

There is a wide variety of opinion on some topics in Catholicism, but doctrines cannot be altered, removed or added to. We believe that Jesus taught everything that we need, which has been handed on by the Apostles and their successors.

If/when a pope, or any bishop, priest or deacon, teach outside of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Body of the Church (all the baptized, clergy and laity) know it. There is within Catholicism the teaching and understanding of sensus fidei. I don’t know of a parallel to this teaching Mormonism. (Everything in Mormonism is top down. This is not so in Catholicism.)

An explanation of sensus fidei from the Catechism:

The supernatural sense of faith
91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
93 “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”

 

[ParkerD]

…

Benson did a fine job - he told the members to follow their leader no matter what, even if it means going against sacred scripture…

Lax16,

You misunderstood President Benson’s comment. It didn’t say “going against sacred scripture.” It didn’t imply that, at all.

It meant there will be times when there are present-day concerns and topics that may not lend themselves to having a scripture give the precise answer of what to do given the present-day concern. That doesn’t mean what will be taught will “go against sacred scripture”. It means there are situations that require listening ears for the present-day problems in the world.

The pope addresses present-day problems in the world, also. It is not such a very different scenario as you make it out to be.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

You misunderstood President Benson’s comment. It didn’t say “going against sacred scripture.” It didn’t imply that, at all.

It meant there will be times when there are present-day concerns and topics that may not lend themselves to having a scripture give the precise answer of what to do given the present-day concern. That doesn’t mean what will be taught will “go against sacred scripture”. It means there are situations that require listening ears for the present-day problems in the world.

The pope addresses present-day problems in the world, also. It is not such a very different scenario as you make it out to be.

No, I didn’t misunderstand. You are trying to sugarcoat what was said.
Compared to JS, sacred scripture did not match up - according to BY.
His revelations were not consistent with sacred scripture and he was being called out on it.
Why read more into what was said - follow the prophet even though he contradicts sacred scripture. It was said then and again in 1980.

“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. 18–1

 

[dogknox]

As a Mormon, I believed those points Stavros has made, and polygamy was taught and practiced as the highest form of marriage, which was restored by God with the LDS church. However, god relented and allowed this most sacred and exalting form of marriage to be abandonned** when Utah was being denied entry into the USA.** What rubbish, if god had restored this neither hell nor high water would have persuaded him to ditch it, it was purely politicaL. furthermore, exaltation to godhood depended upon it. By the way, if the Temples are part of god’s restoration why don’t you sacrifice as you have resurrected the Levitical priesthood which is defunct since Christ, and its main function was to sacrifice to God. As saint Paul pointed out, we are no longer under the law but have freedom in Christ our ONLY priest after the order of Melchisadec, the Levitical priesthood no longer being necessary due to Christ’s atoning sacrifice

**I add… **
Funny how God gave his revelation the day before the LDS was to be denied “Tax Free status” for not allowing Negros into rolls of authority!