Question for LDS

[jane_doe]

Im am neither judging your faith nor do you need to justify your beliefs.

Im just pointing out the honest and object reality that your beliefs are not in line with LDS leadership over the years.

The various teaching of various leaders, and by leaders I mean those that are sustained by the LDS faithful as “prophets, seers and revelators” every year in General conference, and I believe in stake and ward conferences as well, are plainly there for all to read. Those teachings are very clear.

Some of the beliefs that you have posted are not in line with their teachings.

That is just a factual reality. Not a judgement.

There is a First Presidency Message from August 1979 by N. Eldon Tanner (counselor in the 1st Presidency) entited, “The Debate is over” and it starts off with the quote, “When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over”

Tanner is one of those who was sustained by the LDS faithful as a prophet seer and revelatory, and the Ensign is the official publication

The LDS faith is much larger than the tiny box you try to put it in.

 

[jane_doe]

Has the Mormon church ever spoken definitively on the matter like they have with polygamy or a black priesthood?

Can you think of strong theological reasons to be against a physical conception?

Question #1: no, mute on the subject.

Question #2: depends on what you mean by “physical”. For example, if you mean “physically sexual”, then yes.

 

[Marie5890]

The LDS faith is much larger than the tiny box you try to put it in.

Then it has changed from when I was LDS.
We took Pres. Tanner’s edict of “We the Prophet speaks, the debate is over”.

That was very much part of the LDS way of thinking and following the GA’s when I was LDS back in the 80’s and 90’s. (Im in my 50’s)

As myself and others have stated, that has changed a great deal when entering the 21st century.

It’s my understanding that Pres. Hinckley did a great deal to mainstream the LDS faith when he became the President/prophet. I was leaving the LDS church around the time he became the president. I’m not nearly as knowledgable from that time forward.

But I definitely know what is was like in the 80’s and early 90’s. I lived it. I breathed it. Living in Provo, we had access to the GA’s every month at BYU for firesides and devotional etc.

I even had associations with men who would become general authorities (one is now a member of the Q12)

So no, I am not putting in into a little box. Not by a long shot. Im speaking of personal experience living in the heart of Mormondom. I know what they were teaching, I know what was taught. I spent hours in the HBLee Library doing research. I took all the religioun courses that are (or at least were) required of BYU students in order to graduate etc etc etc

I speaking factually of what was. And from the posts you have contributed, they are (or at least would have been back than) unorthodox and not in keeping in line with what was being taught.

Those are just the fact of the time.
I don’t know how old you are, so it could be you are part of a younger generation that has been brought up with teachings that are different from my generation.

Again, it is said by Mormons that the there was a great apostasy from around the time when the Apostles died off etc.

The same is true within Mormonism itself. As the various leaders die off over the years, going back to the time of Smith et al., an apostasy has and is taking place.

Mormons now claim that the teachings of the former leaders were personal opinions and their speculations. And the claim the same of the ancient early Christians after the death of the Apostles. That teachings changed.

Mormon teachings HAVE changed over the years. It really has. No way of getting around that reality.

 

[iepuras]

It was taught in the 1980’s.

You are right about the current LDS church being in a state of apostasy as they have completely distanced themselves from the teachings of their prophets.

It was taught to me in early morning seminary classes in the 90’s. When I was taught this, I felt nauseous.

 

[Horton]

Question #1: no, mute on the subject.

Question #2: depends on what you mean by “physical”. For example, if you mean “physically sexual”, then yes.

See post #6. The LDS church was not mute on the subject as late as 1994 when Benson made his statement on this topic.

 

[NeuroTypical]

We’re Mormons - we don’t do Ex Cathedra or Papal Infallibility. I totally get that Catholics get to make good critical hay over this issue. But we don’t pay it much attention.

As far as LDS church leader’s statements on such matters, consider these:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.
Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.

• Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” - Brigham Young

Not very Catholic, I get it. Can you imagine Pope Francis saying something like this? But again, we’re LDS.

 

[Horton]

We’re Mormons - we don’t do Ex Cathedra or Papal Infallibility. I totally get that Catholics get to make good critical hay over this issue. But we don’t pay it much attention.

As far as LDS church leader’s statements on such matters, consider these:

Not very Catholic, I get it. Can you imagine Pope Francis saying something like this? But again, we’re LDS.

So you are saying the doctrine of LDS changes with each new leader? That each leader of the LDS can propose doctrine, call it a revelation, and it then becomes a new teaching of the LDS? So if a leaders words can not be trusted then why such a leadership structure at the top?

 

[zaffiroborant]

So you are saying the doctrine of LDS changes with each new leader? That each leader of the LDS can propose doctrine, call it a revelation, and it then becomes a new teaching of the LDS? So if a leaders words can not be trusted then why such a leadership structure at the top?

I read it as more of a situation where each individual decides whether or not a leader’s words align with previous revelation, though it’s unclear who determines previous revelations since I guess this rule would have applied to any previous revelation. I just don’t see why a prophet is necessary if ultimately each individual LDS member decides what is true, sounds very well protestant approach.

 

[Marie5890]

I read it as more of a situation where each individual decides whether or not a leader’s words align with previous revelation, though it’s unclear who determines previous revelations since I guess this rule would have applied to any previous revelation. I just don’t see why a prophet is necessary if ultimately each individual LDS member decides what is true, sounds very well protestant approach.

Mmmm, I would say it’s more that the present day leader’s words supersede any of his predecessor’s

For an example, the LDS faithful will pay more attention to what Monson, the present day president of the LDS church, than what Smith or Young, or any of the dead president have said.

When he is gone, and I think Nelson is next to in line, whatever Nelson says will have greater importance than what Monson says now.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Mmmm, I would say it’s more that the present day leader’s words supersede any of his predecessor’s

For an example, the LDS faithful will pay more attention to what Monson, the present day president of the LDS church, than what Smith or Young, or any of the dead president have said.

When he is gone, and I think Nelson is next to in line, whatever Nelson says will have greater importance than what Monson says now.

No matter how it’s read I just can’t see it as anything other than being “tossed to and fro, and carried about”. But instead of being tossed to and fro, from one church to another, you are tossed and carried about in your own church, always unsure footing on shifting ground.

 

[Horton]

Mmmm, I would say it’s more that the present day leader’s words supersede any of his predecessor’s

For an example, the LDS faithful will pay more attention to what Monson, the present day president of the LDS church, than what Smith or Young, or any of the dead president have said.

When he is gone, and I think Nelson is next to in line, whatever Nelson says will have greater importance than what Monson says now.

Then how are the LDS ever to know what is truth? If truth changes from leader to leader it’s no wonder there is so much confusion about what is teaching in the LDS.

One of the things I love most about Catholicism is the fact it’s truth is absolute and not relative. There is zero confusion regarding who is God, what is salvation, what is right & wrong.

 

[Marie5890]

**Then how are the LDS ever to know what is truth? If truth changes from leader to leader it’s no wonder there is so much confusion about what is teaching in the LDS. **

One of the things I love most about Catholicism is the fact it’s truth is absolute and not relative. There is zero confusion regarding who is God, what is salvation, what is right & wrong.

That is how the LDS faithful approached it when I was LDS. It’s because of the doctrine they have of believing in living prophets. “Follow the Prophet. He will never lead you astray” sorta of mantra

It’s why things can and have changed so dramatically in since Smith.

Im not sure if there is any sense of absolute truth in it’s belief system in light of the above

 

[Marie5890]

No matter how it’s read I just can’t see it as anything other than being “tossed to and fro, and carried about”. But instead of being tossed to and fro, from one church to another, you are tossed and carried about in your own church, always unsure footing on shifting ground.

Fair observation, in my view.

 

[NeuroTypical]

So you are saying the doctrine of LDS changes with each new leader? That each leader of the LDS can propose doctrine, call it a revelation, and it then becomes a new teaching of the LDS?

It can, yes. I totally get your Catholic response. The heavens are closed - no new revelation - the Pope guards the closed canon, his job to clarify and attest to what’s already there. Right?

Well, Mormons figure the heavens are not closed, there is new revelation. Prophets. Like OT prophets.

So if a leaders words can not be trusted then why such a leadership structure at the top?

So, Old testament = no Christ on earth = prophets.
New Testament = Christ on earth = no need for prophets.
Present day = no Christ on earth = prophets.

I mean, I get it - Catholics don’t hear this stuff and think to themselves “oh! I’m totally persuaded! Sign me up!” It’s not persuasive by itself. Hence the LDS/BoM claim “Go ask God if it’s right or not and then do what He says”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It can, yes. I totally get your Catholic response. The heavens are closed - no new revelation - the Pope guards the closed canon, his job to clarify and attest to what’s already there. Right?

No.

Well, Mormons figure the heavens are not closed, there is new revelation. Prophets. Like OT prophets.

So, Old testament = no Christ on earth = prophets.
New Testament = Christ on earth = no need for prophets.
Present day = no Christ on earth = prophets.

I mean, I get it - Catholics don’t hear this stuff and think to themselves “oh! I’m totally persuaded! Sign me up!” It’s not persuasive by itself. Hence the LDS/BoM claim “Go ask God if it’s right or not and then do what He says”.

No you don’t get it.

 

[Horton]

It can, yes. I totally get your Catholic response. The heavens are closed - no new revelation - the Pope guards the closed canon, his job to clarify and attest to what’s already there. Right?

Well, Mormons figure the heavens are not closed, there is new revelation. Prophets. Like OT prophets.

So, Old testament = no Christ on earth = prophets.
New Testament = Christ on earth = no need for prophets.
Present day = no Christ on earth = prophets.

I mean, I get it - Catholics don’t hear this stuff and think to themselves “oh! I’m totally persuaded! Sign me up!” It’s not persuasive by itself. Hence the LDS/BoM claim “Go ask God if it’s right or not and then do what He says”.

So what if God tells you it’s not right? He certainly “told” me Catholicism is right which then means Mormonism is wrong as they can’t both be right.

As far as new revelation, the NT is very clear there would be no new revelation and no need for prophets.

 

[StGeorgesSquire]

As far as new revelation, the NT is very clear there would be no new revelation and no need for prophets.

But with scholars like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. they are interpreting what is already there in OT and NT, correct? (It’s been a terribly long time since I’ve read through my Catholicism notes.)

So if the Prophets of the LDS are not scholars, what purpose do they hold within the Mormon community? How are they chosen or rather how do they gain God’s revelations?

 

[jane_doe]

But with scholars like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. they are interpreting what is already there in OT and NT, correct? (It’s been a terribly long time since I’ve read through my Catholicism notes.)

So if the Prophets of the LDS are not scholars, what purpose do they hold within the Mormon community? How are they chosen or rather how do they gain God’s revelations?

Prophets and apostles are qualified by being chosen by God, not by scholarship. Thier purpose is to guide God’s church via revelation. Revelation is typically gained through asking of the Lord in prayer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Prophets and apostles are qualified by being chosen by God, not by scholarship. Thier purpose is to guide God’s church via revelation. Revelation is typically gained through asking of the Lord in prayer.

Are there are any Mormons in leadership who were not in positions of leadership in their careers?

 

[Horton]

But with scholars like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. they are interpreting what is already there in OT and NT, correct? (It’s been a terribly long time since I’ve read through my Catholicism notes.)

So if the Prophets of the LDS are not scholars, what purpose do they hold within the Mormon community? How are they chosen or rather how do they gain God’s revelations?

Yes, they were interpreting what was already there. They, early Church scholars, did not have revelations to add to the deposit of faith, only the bible, earlier writings, and oral Tradition.

I don’t know how LDS leaders are chosen. How would those men choosing the leader know the guy could have revelations? If all LDS can have revelations for leadership, can have revelations that change LDS doctrine, then who’s to say the guy chosen as president has the valid revelations?