"Personal Speculation" by LDS Prophets

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chris-WA

Guest
As I read thread after thread in the LDS subforum, I am struck by how often LDS apologists claim that their early prophets were only speculating when they taught what are now considered controversial doctrines. Some LDS posters have quoted other LDS prophets to define the difference between what is speculation and what is revealed truth, but it really doesn’t solve the problem because how do you know when a prophet is acting as such and not as a mere man? It seems to be that this line is so blurry that even most LDS cannot tell the difference. So, is playing the “personal speculation card” a legitimate defense for rejecting controversial teaching or is it nonsense?
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
As I read thread after thread in the LDS subforum, I am struck by how often LDS apologists claim that their early prophets were only speculating when they taught what are now considered controversial doctrines. Some LDS posters have quoted other LDS prophets to define the difference between what is speculation and what is revealed truth, but it really doesn’t solve the problem because how do you know when a prophet is acting as such and not as a mere man? It seems to be that this line is so blurry that even most LDS cannot tell the difference. So, is playing the “personal speculation card” a legitimate defense for rejecting controversial teaching or is it nonsense?
Click to expand...
why are you worried about what our prophets say maybe you should study what your popes have said. we can tell the diffrence can you.
 
paul barlow:
why are you worried about what our prophets say maybe you should study what your popes have said. we can tell the diffrence can you.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this the exact type of response us non-LDS got “in trouble” about from the Mod on the thread you started. And I’ll use a similar response to the one you gave us - We’re not talking about Popes and the Catholic Church. We’re talking about your church and how one knows the difference between when a prophet is speaking about binding doctrine or when he is speculating. Stick to the topic.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
Isn’t this the exact type of response us non-LDS got “in trouble” about from the Mod on the thread you started. And I’ll use a similar response to the one you gave us - We’re not talking about Popes and the Catholic Church. We’re talking about your church and how one knows the difference between when a prophet is speaking about binding doctrine or when he is speculating. Stick to the topic.
Click to expand...
no answer the question you know from when you were a member that just because the prophet said something it does not mean it is modern scripture. the prophet guides us but one of the most recent scriptural address is the proclamation on the family. are we to except every word that the prophet says the sale of say cabbage could drop if he said to the late sister hinckley he did not like it. he can suggest that we do something like reading the book of mormon by the end of the year and there will be blessings from doing it. but this is not scripture.
 
Let’s take a look at what LDS leaders say:

Elder Robert Oaks, “Believe All Things,” Ensign, July 2005, page 30

*“Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of obedience.”
Apostle M. Russell Ballard, “His Word Ye Shall Receive,” Ensign, May 2001, p.65
*
“I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.””

“Wearing two pair of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.”*

Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25.

*“It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.”

" As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, ‘when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ … The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord’s anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."*

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68

“A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not”

Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.’ (DC 21:6)”
 
This spells it out pretty clearly:

Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980

*In conclusion, let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” for our salvation hangs on them.
Code: 
        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.

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

        Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

        Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials 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.

        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 be involved in civic matters.

        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.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. if we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord’s anointed–the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?

May God bless us all to look to the prophet and the presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead, is my prayer. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. *
 
There is well established history of this:

“God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.363).

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.95).

“the prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it [the Adam-God doctrine], and that is the word of the Lord” (Millenial Star, August 26, 1854, vol.16, p.534).

“if the President makes a statement it is not our prerogative to dispute it” (Minutes of the School of Prophets, Provo, UT, 1868-1871, p.38-39).

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy” (Ward teachers message, June 1945).

“The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts [in the Bible], but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations [through them]”. (Church News, June 20, 1992, page 3, letter from the forst presidency dated May 22, 1992).

“the Living Prophet…is more vital to us than the Standard Works [Bible, Book of Mormon, etc.]…The living Prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet [an Old Testament Prophet]”…“Keep your eye on the President of the Church. If he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets, BYU Devotional, Feb 26, 1980, p.3,6).

Don’t be deceived by what the LDS missionaries tell you.
 
A little more detail just to clarify:

Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980

*In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet–the President–and says: “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom his power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” Then in section 21, verses 4-6, the Lord states:
Code: 
        Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

        For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

        For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
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.” *
 
So LDS teach that you must always obey the prophet in all things (even if it’s wrong), never criticize them (even if it’s true) and whatever they say is to be considered the same as if God said it.
 
paul barlow:
no answer the question you know from when you were a member that just because the prophet said something it does not mean it is modern scripture. the prophet guides us but one of the most recent scriptural address is the proclamation on the family. are we to except every word that the prophet says the sale of say cabbage could drop if he said to the late sister hinckley he did not like it. he can suggest that we do something like reading the book of mormon by the end of the year and there will be blessings from doing it. but this is not scripture.
Click to expand...
Paul,
I think you have me confused with someone else. I was never LDS. Been Catholic my whole life. I never assumed that EVERYTHING the prophet said should be taken as scripture, but I was always under the impression that what the prophet says from the pulpit (not sure if that’s the right term) was to be considered true and from God, and thus, in a sense, scripture.
 
40.png
majick275:
Ezra Taft Benson
February 26, 1980

In conclusion, let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” for our salvation hangs on them.

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.

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

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials 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.

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 be involved in civic matters.

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.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. if we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord’s anointed–the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?

*May God bless us all to look to the prophet and the presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead, is my prayer. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. *
Click to expand...
Whoa! That’s quite an eye-opener compared to what has been discussed around here lately.
 
40.png
majick275:
So LDS teach that you must always obey the prophet in all things (even if it’s wrong), never criticize them (even if it’s true) and whatever they say is to be considered the same as if God said it.
Click to expand...
Rather, it would seem fair to say that an LDS member is obligd to conform to the the teachings of the living prophet on matters of doctrine and morals (even if it is wrong).

From what I’ve read from our LDS posters, I don’t think its fair to say that LDS members would be obligated - upon pain of excommunication or censure or whatever it’s called in LDS - to “shop only at Walmart” if that’s what the First Presidency ordered, although I daresay most practicing LDS would start shopping at Target the next day. (No disrespect intended.) Rather, I think the binding nature of the Prophet’s statements are limited to matters of doctrine and morality and the rest is not binding, but merely persuasive - and heavily so.

It’s interesting how the Prophet and First Presidency are not bound by the proclamations of prior leaders, however. That makes for some rather free movement in doctrine - One week the LDS church can be pro-life, while the next week a new Prophet can lean to the left and suddenly LDS members support individual “choice.” That seems disconcerting to me.
 
Too bad he wasn’t prophet yet when he said it. Of course, even if he was, by those standards a successor could say that he was wrong, or that he was right when he said it but not anymore, or… :confused:

Edit: I refer to the “fourteen” quote from Benson.
 
40.png
majick275:
So LDS teach that you must always obey the prophet in all things (even if it’s wrong), never criticize them (even if it’s true) and whatever they say is to be considered the same as if God said it.
Click to expand...
i see you have been planning this one.
do you recogize the diffrence between a personal statement and a statement on church doctrine.
we recogize that the prophet is human. he will tell you that him self he can and does make mistakes. he is not infallable only one has ever been.
when the prophet teaches about christ and christs church we would be stupid to ignore it. because then he is speaking as gods representive.
as you know we work on common consent we surstane the leaders of our church. if one of the leaders were doing things against the teachings of the church they would be stopped.

look at the moral code. we follow the prophets council to avoid porn. its not in scripture but it is sound because it will damage the family. now if the prophet said avoid cabbage because he did not like it you would see that he is expressing a personal view. unless of course the use of CABBAGE bacomes banned in an up to date word of wisdom.

we follow the council to avoid adictive drugs because its clear that it is harmful.

we follow the prophets council but we should never do it blindly. we have our agency to follow or not.
and of course we have the option of prayer to inquire of the lord about what has been taught.
now does your church teach blind obediance. Are you allowed to sustane or not the leaders of your church.
suppose a priest or bishop had done some serious crime would you be allowed to challenge them.
 
Robert in SD:
Rather, it would seem fair to say that an LDS member is obligd to conform to the the teachings of the living prophet on matters of doctrine and morals (even if it is wrong).

From what I’ve read from our LDS posters, I don’t think its fair to say that LDS members would be obligated - upon pain of excommunication or censure or whatever it’s called in LDS - to “shop only at Walmart” if that’s what the First Presidency ordered, although I daresay most practicing LDS would start shopping at Target the next day. (No disrespect intended.) Rather, I think the binding nature of the Prophet’s statements are limited to matters of doctrine and morality and the rest is not binding, but merely persuasive - and heavily so.

It’s interesting how the Prophet and First Presidency are not bound by the proclamations of prior leaders, however. That makes for some rather free movement in doctrine - One week the LDS church can be pro-life, while the next week a new Prophet can lean to the left and suddenly LDS members support individual “choice.” That seems disconcerting to me.
Click to expand...
i am a bit puzzled about your pro life pro choice statement. when have the prophets changed there view on this subject.
you seem to be somewhat confussed on what our church teaches about abortion.
there are extremly limited instances were the church member could have an abortion and not be excommunicated. even then the person is told to pray and get council about it. and guess what if they trurly pray they will be informed to keep the child.
my wife is a student nurses and faces this year being sent into a womens ward that deals with abortions. She can by law opt not to take part in an abortion. But our church teaches further we can not actively help support or incorrage a person to have an abortion. so after three years of training my wife will leave nursing instead of breaking this instruction. so please don’t say we change our views on this subject we do not.
 
In Christianity we believe that Christ is the fulfillment of prophecy. (Very Biblical) Why would we need prophets after Christ? His Word to US? He fulfilled all things by His death and Resurrection. We have his Church to guide us, The Holy Spirit, the love between the Father and Son alive in us. We are the Church, the body of Christ. He does not come to us through prophecy by modern day prophets. He comes to us in the living Gospel, in us, around us, through the Eucharist, through His Church. The Old has made way for the New. I do not need a prophet to tell me what I should or should not be doing, or what is to come. I have Christ in me that takes care of those things. His Church is very strong in these things. Christ speaks to each of us through daily Scripture. What else needs to be said, that has not already been said? We read scripture than we reflect on His words to us. Nothing added and nothing taken away.

God Bless
 
Hebrews 1:1-2:
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Click to expand...
I think this explains it very nicely. Now that Jesus has come, there is no more need for a prophet. Although, in every century of the Catholic Church, there have been those who were given the gift of prophecy. Note that never in the bible is a prophet designated as the head of the Church. The LDS should note that the New Testament speaks of women prophets. No LDS would conjecture that these women held the priesthood or presided over the Church.
 
paul barlow:
i see you have been planning this one.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just thought the truth needed to be told.
paul barlow:
do you recogize the diffrence between a personal statement and a statement on church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I posted those. LDS leaders in the past have made it clear that they were NOT speculating or opining on these “controversial subjects” but were in fact procaliming doctrine.
paul barlow:
we recogize that the prophet is human. he will tell you that him self he can and does make mistakes. he is not infallable only one has ever been.
when the prophet teaches about christ and christs church we would be stupid to ignore it. because then he is speaking as gods representive.
Click to expand...
Let’s be very clear in our definitions. The LDS prophet is not restricted just to “matters of faith and morals”. The D&C makes it clear and subsequent prophets have emphasized that when the prophet speaks the members are treat it as if his words came directly fro the mouth of God.
paul barlow:
as you know we work on common consent we surstane the leaders of our church. if one of the leaders were doing things against the teachings of the church they would be stopped.
Click to expand...
Please show me one instance in the BoM where a prophet required “common consent”. In practice whoever doesn’t consent is an apostate. Just look what happened to those who protested JS polygamy which was at that time in direct violation of the “standard works”.
paul barlow:
look at the moral code. we follow the prophets council to avoid porn. its not in scripture but it is sound because it will damage the family. now if the prophet said avoid cabbage because he did not like it you would see that he is expressing a personal view. unless of course the use of CABBAGE bacomes banned in an up to date word of wisdom.
Click to expand...
If you read the JoD you will find BY doing such things. He was constantly proclaiming ot them what the Lord wanted them to eat, drink, etc. As far as moral codes go JS didn’t let that stop him. He just received a “revelation” (that wasn’t published until years after his death) that said not only was it okay but if his wife didn’t accept it she would be destroyed.
paul barlow:
we follow the council to avoid adictive drugs because its clear that it is harmful.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you that one.
paul barlow:
we follow the prophets council but we should never do it blindly. we have our agency to follow or not.
and of course we have the option of prayer to inquire of the lord about what has been taught.
now does your church teach blind obediance. Are you allowed to sustane or not the leaders of your church.
suppose a priest or bishop had done some serious crime would you be allowed to challenge them.
Click to expand...
Well your past prophets have said just that. Obey, don’t question. Please show me where Jesus asked for a sustaining vote on the apostles. I can challenge any priest or bishop at any time if the circumstances warrant it.
 
40.png
majick275:
Let’s take a look at what LDS leaders say:

Elder Robert Oaks, “Believe All Things,” Ensign, July 2005, page 30

“Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction—whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets—to be worthy of obedience.” …
Click to expand...
If I had lived in the days of Brigham Young, I would have probably been able to detect that his Adam-God theory was a mistake; but if he had told me to go and fight in the Crimean War, with the possibility that I might loose my life, I would have obeyed him, because I knew that he was a true prophet of God.

amgid
 
paul barlow:
i am a bit puzzled about your pro life pro choice statement. when have the prophets changed there view on this subject.
you seem to be somewhat confussed on what our church teaches about abortion.
there are extremly limited instances were the church member could have an abortion and not be excommunicated. even then the person is told to pray and get council about it. and guess what if they trurly pray they will be informed to keep the child.
my wife is a student nurses and faces this year being sent into a womens ward that deals with abortions. She can by law opt not to take part in an abortion. But our church teaches further we can not actively help support or incorrage a person to have an abortion. so after three years of training my wife will leave nursing instead of breaking this instruction. so please don’t say we change our views on this subject we do not.
Click to expand...
Umm. It was a hypothetical. :confused: My point was - if the current Prophet’s statements on doctrine override past Prophets’ statements, then theoretically the LDS church could have an entirely different position on abortion (or any other moral or doctrinal issue) with the election of each new Prophet.

Sorry if I confused you. I was just making a point.

BTW - the LDS church’s position on abortion is a “right to choose” position, whether you want to admit it or not. It does not condemn abortion, but only recognizes the seriousness of the decision to end a life and then leaves the decision to the individual member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top