Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"

[twopekinguys]

I have seen on this thread numerous times:

1. If the “Prophet” doesn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord”, then it isn’t considered a doctrinal statement.

Can someone point to scripture, one of the standard works, church handbook, or official church document that says this is the way things are decided?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I have seen on this thread numerous times:

1. If the “Prophet” doesn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord”, then it isn’t considered a doctrinal statement.

Can someone point to scripture, one of the standard works, church handbook, or official church document that says this is the way things are decided?

Awesome. Then most of the D&C is just as fictional as the B of M. Not many of the sections have “thus sayeth the Lord”.

I am so thankful to Diana for making that very clear.

 

[twopekinguys]

As I understand it, even with “Thus Saith the Lord”, it can’t be considered doctrinal unless all 3 in the first presidency agree.

Again, I am looking for something scriptural, church document, handbook, etc. that shows this is how things work.

 

[soren1]

I have seen on this thread numerous times:

1. If the “Prophet” doesn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord”, then it isn’t considered a doctrinal statement.

Can someone point to scripture, one of the standard works, church handbook, or official church document that says this is the way things are decided?

The “Thus saith the Lord” view is an example of what may be called the LDS minimalist position, which in it most extreme form, takes the form of sola scriptura. Some Mormons simply deny that they need to defend any LDS teaching that falls outside some narrowly defined standard for determining official doctrine. Such lines of argument have two weaknesses either of which is fatal. The first is the one you have already pointing out, that Mormon minimalism itself cannot be established from official sources; it has all the same problems as sola scriptura. Second, minimalist defenses against particular charges of false teaching depends on the assumption that only official doctrines provide a valid test for the teaching authority of the prophets. This assumption seems so self-evident to many Mormons that they do not even notice that it is an assumption. In order to expose and uproot it, a distinction must be made between two types of questions. These are:

1. Is doctrine X and official Mormon teaching?
2. Does doctrine X test the prophetic authority of the prophet who taught it?

Every version of Mormon minimalism that I have encountered depends on confusing these two questions, avoiding question #2 by reducing everything to question #1. Yet in most cases of controversial LDS teachings, the question that matters is #2, and the answer to that question does not always depend on the answer to #1. This is because the Bible provides legal guidelines for the testing of prophets that make no distinctions between a prophet’s official pronouncements and personal opinions. One plain example is Deut 13:1-3:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

This is a legal text, and it gives no wiggle room for personal opinions or speculation. The mere fact that LDS prophets have taught conflicting teachings about the identity of God brings this passage to bear on their authority; the distinction between official and unofficial teaching has no relevance to the application of this law.

 

[twopekinguys]

The “Thus saith the Lord” view is an example of what may be called the LDS minimalist position, which in it most extreme form, takes the form of sola scriptura. Some Mormons simply deny that they need to defend any LDS teaching that falls outside some narrowly defined standard for determining official doctrine. Such lines of argument have two weaknesses either of which is fatal. The first is the one you have already pointing out, that Mormon minimalism itself cannot be established from official sources; it has all the same problems as sola scriptura. Second, minimalist defenses against particular charges of false teaching depends on the assumption that only official doctrines provide a valid test for the teaching authority of the prophets. This assumption seems so self-evident to many Mormons that they do not even notice that it is an assumption. In order to expose and uproot it, a distinction must be made between two types of questions. These are:

1. Is doctrine X and official Mormon teaching?
2. Does doctrine X test the prophetic authority of the prophet who taught it?

Every version of Mormon minimalism that I have encountered depends on confusing these two questions, avoiding question #2 by reducing everything to question #1. Yet in most cases of controversial LDS teachings, the question that matters is #2, and the answer to that question does not always depend on the answer to #1. This is because the Bible provides legal guidelines for the testing of prophets that make no distinctions between a prophet’s official pronouncements and personal opinions. One plain example is Deut 13:1-3:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

This is a legal text, and it gives no wiggle room for personal opinions or speculation. The mere fact that LDS prophets have taught conflicting teachings about the identity of God brings this passage to bear on their authority; the distinction between official and unofficial teaching has no relevance to the application of this law.

I agree, but I am looking for something within their own writings, whether it be scripture, or some sort of official document that says that criteria of “Thus saith the Lord”, has to be met.

 

[twopekinguys]

What? No (name removed by moderator)ut from our LDS posters?

 

[SirThomasMore]

they can’t. They know they talked themselves into a corner and dug themselves a hole they can;t get out of.

When faced with Adam-God, Joseph’s Quakers on the Moon, Joseph’s end of world prediction, the vile, racist comments, etc etc, they stood fast that the comments were not from God and/or revelations because they were not accompanied with “thus Sayeth the Lord”. Then, much to their chagrin, they realize that most of the “revelations” in D&C were not accomanied with “thus sayeth the Lord”. Many of the :revelations they base their beliefs on were not accompanied by “thus sayeth the Lord”. So now they are in a quandry. Either the D&C is fiction, or all the really horrible stuff can also be considered to be from their god.

Can you blame them for not responding? They are busy researching FARMS, etc, looking for good apologetics to come back with. When they find some, they will respond. The excuses and tap dancing will not be pretty, and it will likely be humorous, but it will eventually be here

 

[twopekinguys]

they can’t. They know they talked themselves into a corner and dug themselves a hole they can;t get out of.

When faced with Adam-God, Joseph’s Quakers on the Moon, Joseph’s end of world prediction, the vile, racist comments, etc etc, they stood fast that the comments were not from God and/or revelations because they were not accompanied with “thus Sayeth the Lord”. Then, much to their chagrin, they realize that most of the “revelations” in D&C were not accomanied with “thus sayeth the Lord”. Many of the :revelations they base their beliefs on were not accompanied by “thus sayeth the Lord”. So now they are in a quandry. Either the D&C is fiction, or all the really horrible stuff can also be considered to be from their god.

Can you blame them for not responding? They are busy researching FARMS, etc, looking for good apologetics to come back with. When they find some, they will respond. The excuses and tap dancing will not be pretty, and it will likely be humorous, but it will eventually be here

I have to agree. Then there is also the part about it having to be taken to the others in the first presidency for approval. I want to see where that is written down to.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have seen on this thread numerous times:

1. If the “Prophet” doesn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord”, then it isn’t considered a doctrinal statement.

Can someone point to scripture, one of the standard works, church handbook, or official church document that says this is the way things are decided?

twopekinguys,

I tried to get an answer to this question, on the Thread LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6313911#post6313911

No response from Dianaiad or any other LDS forum members.

All my comments are in Blue.

Originally Posted by dianaiad

. . . . .As it happens, the FACT is, that none of them saw the transcripts of their speeches before they were published, and Brigham Young SPECIFICALLY stated that in order for something he said to become scripture, he had to a: have a chance to go over and correct the speech,

How much time did Brigham Young need to go over his speeches?

On April 9, 1852, BY declared that Adam is God (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1.)

On June 8, 1873, BY made the same declaration to the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City (The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)

Was 21 years long enough to go over what was published?

In 1870, Brigham Young declared his sermons to be as good as Scripture.

Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

Originally Posted by dianaiad

and that he had to declare that what he said WAS scripture. Since it was BY and JS who were so very careful about the process for canonizing scripture, I think that it is safe to say that the Journal of Discourses is not that. They are valuable, but they are NOT binding upon the church. They give us wonderful insight into the thoughts of our leaders,

Brigham Young’s exact quote:

**Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy.

The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire**

Originally Posted by dianaiad

but since those same leaders were so very careful about separating that which is a “Thus Saith the Lord” scripture binding upon us and that which is their own opinion, I think it would be…reasonable at least…for you to accept that we know what we are talking about in this matter.

**Ironically, Brigham Young’s statement regarding “Thus Saith the Lord,” and “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve,” came from the Journal of Discourses.

Remember, you stated, “The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons.” Does that mean the “Thus Saith the Lord” rule is not binding? Why do you accept some of Brigham Young’s statements in the JD, and dismiss others?**

Originally Posted by dianaiad

. . . . .The point is, none of the speakers were able to check those speeches for accuracy before they were printed, MOST of them were simply speeches to congregations, and NONE of them were meant to be proclamations from on high. Canonized scripture was/is handled in a very different manner.

The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons. What importance YOU might want to give them is your problem, but in terms of what OUR beliefs are, the only opinion of the JD that counts is…ours.

Originally Posted by dianaiad

What astounds me is the irony in this really odd idea that anti’s have, that what THEY claim we believe must trump what WE say we believe, and that we must operate under their rules. Wierd.

This has nothing to do with “trumping what you say you believe.” Quoting LDS Prophets and Apostles, from Mormon sources, does not make anyone an “anti.”

According to the LDS Church, all Christianity outside Mormonism is an “abomination,” and part of a “Great Apostasy.” I think the least you can do is answer questions about the writings of LDS leaders.

Anna

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,

I tried to get an answer to this question, on the Thread LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6313911#post6313911

No response from Dianaiad or any other LDS forum members.

All my comments are in Blue.

Anna

Thanks for the valiant effort. Of course, I love how anyone who questions is an “anti”.

I don’t know why it is so hard for any of our lds posters to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Where does it say that something has to be prefaced with “Thus saith the Lord.”?

I guess it is one of those questions we will never find an answer to. Like “Where do all those missing socks go to in the laundry?”

 

[twopekinguys]

OK, I’m starting to get disheartened now.

I even went online to mormon.org to try and get the answer from an online missionary, and even then they couldn’t answer.

I think they even gave me the “bums rush”, even though they were polite about it.

I printed/scanned the brief conversation. I hope you can all read it.

NO, my name is not Milton…I just don’t want them tracking me down…lol

The link they provided sent me to D & C 68 1-3. I don’t think it really answered the question.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks for the valiant effort. Of course, I love how anyone who questions is an “anti”.

I don’t know why it is so hard for any of our lds posters to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Where does it say that something has to be prefaced with “Thus saith the Lord.”?

I guess it is one of those questions we will never find an answer to. Like “Where do all those missing socks go to in the laundry?”

Didn’t Jerry Seinfeld do a bit about laundry day being the only exciting day in the life of clothes; and how the dryer door swings open, and the sock is waiting up against the side wall planning an escape?

Anna

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thanks for the valiant effort. Of course, I love how anyone who questions is an “anti”.

I don’t know why it is so hard for any of our lds posters to provide a simple answer to a simple question. Where does it say that something has to be prefaced with “Thus saith the Lord.”?

I guess it is one of those questions we will never find an answer to. Like “Where do all those missing socks go to in the laundry?”

Two, I can’t help you with the “thus saith the Lord” question, but I have an answer on the socks.

They turn into hangers. If you’ll notice, socks always go missing, but there are always hangers around. That’s what happens to the socks.

 

[twopekinguys]

Two, I can’t help you with the “thus saith the Lord” question, but I have an answer on the socks.

They turn into hangers. If you’ll notice, socks always go missing, but there are always hangers around. That’s what happens to the socks.

Are you saying they’ve been exalted?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Are you saying they’ve been exalted?

Depends on the socks,
and the hangers

 

[Anna_Scott]

Didn’t Jerry Seinfeld do a bit about laundry day being the only exciting day in the life of clothes; and how the dryer door swings open, and the sock is waiting up against the side wall planning an escape?

Anna

Two, I can’t help you with the “thus saith the Lord” question, but I have an answer on the socks.

They turn into hangers. If you’ll notice, socks always go missing, but there are always hangers around. That’s what happens to the socks.

Are you saying they’ve been exalted?

twopekinguys,

I am truly laughing out loud. I mean no disrespect to our Mormon friends. But, in the absence of LDS responses to this new thread, you did manage to bring the subject of socks back to a Mormon topic. I don’t think I will ever forget your “exalted socks.”

Anna

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,

I am truly laughing out loud. I mean no disrespect to our Mormon friends. But, in the absence of LDS responses to this new thread, you did manage to bring the subject of socks back to a Mormon topic. I don’t think I will ever forget your “exalted socks.”

Anna

I have a fortune cookie that I received many many moons ago, that I still carry with me to this day, and I think it is appropriate here.

“A man who can laugh at himself, will never run out of reasons to laugh.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

Are you saying they’ve been exalted?

I have a fortune cookie that I received many many moons ago, that I still carry with me to this day, and I think it is appropriate here.

“A man who can laugh at himself, will never run out of reasons to laugh.”

I’d say that’s about right.

Anna

 

[soren1]

OK, I’m starting to get disheartened now.

I even went online to mormon.org to try and get the answer from an online missionary, and even then they couldn’t answer.

I think they even gave me the “bums rush”, even though they were polite about it.

I printed/scanned the brief conversation. I hope you can all read it.

NO, my name is not Milton…I just don’t want them tracking me down…lol

The link they provided sent me to D & C 68 1-3. I don’t think it really answered the question.

Way to be nice to the missionaries! For all my wroth upon Mormonism, I think it is important to be considerate to the missionaries and not go smashing them with a bunch of arguments. You did the right thing by keeping your questions modest and not giving them a hard time. But for reasons of transparency, it might have been better to let them know you were using a pseudonym. Just my two cents.

I think one reason Mormons might not be responding to this thread is because “Thus saith the Lord” is not a proposition that many of them want to defend anyway. Perhaps broadening the question, as to you with the missionaries is a better … How do you substantiate any theory of what is official doctrine within LDS teaching? Some of them might have answers for that.

One more little point: I’m not sure its a good idea to ask about the authority of the JoD *per se, *because not every sermon in the Journal could easily be construed as of equally authority. For instance, many of the Discourses are General Conference addresses, and you could refer to their authority on that basis, but others are more diverse: for instance, one of the discourses is a defense at a murder trial! A bit of background study is helpful to sort it out. Even though inclusion in the Journal does not make something official teaching, many of the discourses can be substantiated as official teaching on other grounds. (Few Mormons know, for instance, that Brigham Young’s first sermon on Adam-God was at General Conference, the first conference ever held in Salt Lake City, in fact.)

 

[soren1]

Oops, I could kick myself. I’ve known the answer to this question all along, but it slipped my mind. I should have mentioned this off the bat. One well-attested standard for determining what is inspired for Mormonism is the confirmation of “two or three witnesses.” In a First Presidency message two years ago called Safety in Council, Elder Henry Eyring advised followers to heed inspired counsel and gave some guidelines for discerning when something is inspired. Among his words are:

*The Apostle Paul wrote, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time. *

I don’t present this as the last word in LDS doctrine of course, but it is a principle that has been historically invoked by many LDS leaders, and therefore has the virtue, rare in LDS authority theories, of living up to its own standard.