Questioning the prophet

[hordak]

This is a spin off from the thread about mentally handicap people. The question was asked why they are that way and a quote , given at general conference by Prophet Harold B Lee was given explaining that they were less valiant in the pre existence and many people have come to the conclusion that he is wrong. Many explained about how their brother,sister,uncle aunt kid etc had this issue and they new it couldn't be right. How is this any different then someone with a gay relative saying that President Monson is wrong about homosexuality?

I'm just trying to understand how a member can disregard the words from a Prophet of God on one subject (especially something as unknown as pre existence) while taking everything else at general conference as doctrine?

Where do we draw the line?

Did a later Prophet tell us that Harold B Lee was wrong or is it our own human bias (having a dog in the fight so to speak) causing us to second guess what he said?

And if we can do it on one issue. What will keep us from doing it on another?

Edited November 28, 2008 by hordak

[Hemidakota]

Sorry but how many of those individuals prayed and received an answer for themselves? If they did, they would see what President Lee stated and know he is right on his viewpoint. However, it is not to be contended with those who now seeked the truth in mortality, no matter the culture, skin pigmentation, country of origin, and what life dealt them. Everyone has the opportunity to seek out the truth if that is the core desire and the Holy Ghost will strive to lead them to the source. Truth is truth and cannot be denied. In this case, this happens to be one of them. I know, a few here would love to throw stones but go for it. :)

Again, I would not be contending this post unless I had the same understanding from a higher source. Though, I will add, only one of ten will make it to the celestial glory. :) That is never talked about.

[Palerider]

Sorry but how many of those individuals prayed and received an answer for themselves? If they did, they would see what President Lee stated and know he is right on his viewpoint. However, it is not to be contended with those who now seeked the truth in mortality, no matter the culture, skin pigmentation, country of origin, and what life dealt them. Everyone has the opportunity to seek out the truth if that is the core desire and the Holy Ghost will strive to lead them to the source. Truth is truth and cannot be denied. In this case, this happens to be one of them. I know, a few here would love to throw stones but go for it. :)

Again, I would not be contending this post unless I had the same understanding from a higher source. Though, I will add, only one of ten will make it to the celestial glory. :) That is never talked about.

Ditto to that....

[NeuroTypical]

I'm just trying to understand how a member can disregard the words from a Prophet of God on one subject (especially something as unknown as pre existence) while taking everything else at general conference as doctrine?

Not everything said at General Conference is doctrine.

Nor is everything said scripture.

Nor is everything said automatically inspired.

[annewandering]

President Harold B. Lee in a European area conference:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.1

these are his own words on the subject. if he said this then i would have to assume he meant it exactly this way.

[annewandering]

i am going to follow the statement by pres. harold b. lee with a few observations.

five general authorities just off the top of my head were handicapped at one point. boyd. k packer, pres. hunter, and pres. kimball. not to meantion david o.mackay and pres. benson.

Elder Packer was stricken with polio, Pres. Hunter was in a wheelchair for much of his presidency, Pres. Kimball has his larynx removed and Pres. Benson was completely incapacited for around 6 years of his time as prophet.

Were these men not valiant in the preexistance?

In the last general conference one of the general autjhorities, and i don'tremember which at the moment, gave a very spiritually uplifting talk and included some comments on his mentally challenged daughter. would you say that this lovely child was not valiant? i did not have the impression her dad did.

what i am inclined to think is that harold b. lee was giving his opinion. was he even prophet then?

in fact he may well have had a good point in that perhaps some of the less valiant spirits were born into situations less pleasant for this life time. that does not mean all or even most people who have disabilites of one sort or other are less valiant. one does not lead to the other.

a thing i would be more concerned about is that we have been told that we will never be given more than we can handle. i would be wondering if those born into the gospel, given everything to them on a silver platter, as it were, might be more likely to be the less valiant spirits in heaven. after all God wouldnt give them anything that they couldnt deal with, would he?

lets look to our own hearts and spirituality before condemning those, that love their handicapped family members, to being apostates to the gospel because they can not believe that these loved ones are less valiant.

[MormonMama]

I am reminded of John 9: 1-3

1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[Traveler]

As I read this thread I am convinced that few have come to understand covenants and how covenants impact not only this life but the next as I have come to understand. One possible way to understand the difference between those souls in spirit paradise and spirit prison is the realization that those in spirit prison are handicapped. But we must not think that all souls that wait upon their covenants in the spirit world before they can “advance” towards exaltation were less righteous during their mortal probation than those that leave mortality with their covenantal ordinances completed.

For some reason there is a great propensity of pride among humans that want to grade themselves and others usually in a manner in which they have benefit in themself. The greatest objection I have to the doctrine of being saved is that those that think themselves saved usually do so with the notion that they are “better” or more valiant or more deserving than those that have not been saved.

There are two things that I believe are very important to understanding one’s individual salvation and the salvation of one’s neighbor.

First: That G-d has the power and ability to save every human soul. This is regardless or any sin or misdeed in life or anything that has taken place before one is borne.

Second: That every soul that desires salvation in their heart will be saved by the “grace” of G-d. Some think that being saved means that we go to heaven. I think that is in error or bad judgment and gross simplification. I believe what it means that anyone that wants to be like G-d will be trained, tutored, educated, helped, coached, guided, blessed, transformed, reborn and whatever else is necessary by G-d’s power and wisdom to “change” that individual by covenant from a human to a divine, holy, sanctified, glorified, divine saint that is so much in harmony and “one” with the Almighty G-d that they and their will is in every way indistinguishable from that of the almighty himself.

I have only found this doctrine taught without limitation as a preeminent doctrine among the LDS – It is why I am a Christian as taught and prepared by LDC covenants.

The Traveler

[Carolear]

I am sure I read it SOMEWHERE...that the ones who are mentally ill were VALIANT in the fight against satan. So when they came to earth in physical bodies satan would not have so much power and influence over them.

I also believe that we chose our own crosses to bear in this lifetime.

I'm not good at finding quotes..perhaps someone can help me out here?

Hugs

Carole who suffers from depression.

[Moksha]

I'm just trying to understand how a member can disregard the words from a Prophet of God on one subject (especially something as unknown as pre existence) while taking everything else at general conference as doctrine?

At the MAD discussion board, they like to draw a distinct division between what a prophet says as a prophet and what he says as a man. They have pointed out that most utterances are made as a man, because they are not continuously receiving prophecy 24-7. That makes sense, especially when you consider all the statements that have been made over the years. Some make you bow your heads in agreement, some make you roll your eyes and some make you grimace.

Want proof? Consider that statement on the mentally challenged or else those embarrassing statements made over the years on racial matters, that was finally clarified and set to rest by President Hinckley.

My own opinion is that we should follow their lead, but never put them on pedestals or make them objects of worship. Brigham Young even said something about taking everything said with a grain of salt.

[Elgama]

this was from a conference speech made by President Monson as I think he was second counsellor in the first presidency in 1991

There are those situations where children come to mortality with a physical or mental handicap. Try as we will, it is not possible to know why or how such events occur. I salute those parents who without complaint take such a child into their arms and into their lives and provide that added measure of sacrifice and love to one of Heavenly Father’s children.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Precious Children—A Gift from God

And from Boyd K Packer in the conference 6 months earlier

No Room for Guilt

I must first, and with emphasis, clarify this point: It is natural for parents with handicapped children to ask themselves, “What did we do wrong?” The idea that all suffering is somehow the direct result of sin has been taught since ancient times. It is false doctrine. That notion was even accepted by some of the early disciples until the Lord corrected them.

“As Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

“Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” (John 9:1–3.)

There is little room for feelings of guilt in connection with handicaps. Some handicaps may result from carelessness or abuse, and some through addiction of parents. But most of them do not. Afflictions come to the innocent.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Moving of the Water

As far as I am aware neither man has changed their views one is now our current prophet and the other President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

So for me and my house President Monson comes first -

Also from my own point of view - its your valiance in mortality that counts now any valiance you showed in the prexistence is wasted, if you are not valiant now.

Also if you are close to someone you will have heard their baby blessings and patriachal blessings, my daughter probably has a form of autism and epilepsy, and I know that her baby blessing states she was incredibly valiant, I also know that Heavenly Father has a soft spot for our Ellie she gets the yes answer to prayers like noone else I know she has never ever been caught outside in a rainstorm it can be pouring down when I go to pick her up from school, we pick her up it stops then starts again when we get home etc

-Charley

Edited November 29, 2008 by Elgama

[WANDERER]

Perhaps it is not a question of valiance in the pre-existence...but what your next progression will be.

Judgement seems to be pretty much yes or no in my understanding of doctrine

yes you are valiant you get a body...no you don't

yes you you go to celestial heaven...no you do not.

What happens when you get to each of these existences is perhaps more about the nature of these existences than merit in that each existence has spiritual restrictions inherrent....perhaps.

Edited November 30, 2008 by WANDERER

[Guest Alana]

Sorry but how many of those individuals prayed and received an answer for themselves? If they did, they would see what President Lee stated and know he is right on his viewpoint. However, it is not to be contended with those who now seeked the truth in mortality, no matter the culture, skin pigmentation, country of origin, and what life dealt them. Everyone has the opportunity to seek out the truth if that is the core desire and the Holy Ghost will strive to lead them to the source. Truth is truth and cannot be denied. In this case, this happens to be one of them. I know, a few here would love to throw stones but go for it. :)

Again, I would not be contending this post unless I had the same understanding from a higher source. Though, I will add, only one of ten will make it to the celestial glory. :) That is never talked about.

Where is the quote about one in ten? I've never heard it.

[hordak]

I understand that the Prophet can speak as a man. However i was taught General conference is doctrine(This is the popular opinion at MAD as well) This is why we are supposed to avoid R rated movies, why men don't wear piercings, why I have never met a Bishop who allows Sacrament to be blessed or passed by someone who's not in proper attire and why you can't get a temple recommend if you view pornography.Most if not all believe these things to be doctrine and they came from conference talks.

I suppose everything that comes from conference might not be doctrine but it seems like a bad place to speculate.If General conference is a place for opinions and doctrine how do you know the difference?

Elder Oaks gave a talk about Sacrament and said our dress is important.That white shirts should be worn for passing it. If this offends me or i don't agree can i assume he was speaking as a man.

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Note: I'm not trying to belittle handicap people in any way shape or form. I'm just trying to understand how and why people disregard the words of the prophet (especially from general conference) and if this applies to all things people don't agree with or only applies the non PC statements?

[WANDERER]

Certainly adversity in this life could never be a clear-cut case of less valiance in the pre-existence...Jesus's suffering for example and the apostles...and Joseph Smith.

I also think more valiance is required in order to live with the challenges of a handicap or disability or adversity...not less. It doesn't look like an easy option to me.

And then again ...less valiant compared to... what reference...?

Perhaps it can be seen in the light of less valiant than Moses or Enoch or the city of Zion and

the evidence of a good majority being less valiant.

[hordak]

I also think more valiance is required in order to live with the challenges of a handicap or disability or adversity...not less. It doesn't look like an easy option to me.

I would disagree. If we are judged according to our knowledge someone born mentally handicap or in a non christian/ non lds family or country would be accountable for less.

[Hemidakota]

i am going to follow the statement by pres. harold b. lee with a few observations.

five general authorities just off the top of my head were handicapped at one point. boyd. k packer, pres. hunter, and pres. kimball. not to meantion david o.mackay and pres. benson.

Elder Packer was stricken with polio, Pres. Hunter was in a wheelchair for much of his presidency, Pres. Kimball has his larynx removed and Pres. Benson was completely incapacited for around 6 years of his time as prophet.

Were these men not valiant in the preexistance?

In the last general conference one of the general autjhorities, and i don'tremember which at the moment, gave a very spiritually uplifting talk and included some comments on his mentally challenged daughter. would you say that this lovely child was not valiant? i did not have the impression her dad did.

what i am inclined to think is that harold b. lee was giving his opinion. was he even prophet then?

in fact he may well have had a good point in that perhaps some of the less valiant spirits were born into situations less pleasant for this life time. that does not mean all or even most people who have disabilites of one sort or other are less valiant. one does not lead to the other.

a thing i would be more concerned about is that we have been told that we will never be given more than we can handle. i would be wondering if those born into the gospel, given everything to them on a silver platter, as it were, might be more likely to be the less valiant spirits in heaven. after all God wouldnt give them anything that they couldnt deal with, would he?

lets look to our own hearts and spirituality before condemning those, that love their handicapped family members, to being apostates to the gospel because they can not believe that these loved ones are less valiant.

Reminder here, they were called to come forth to occupy that postion.

Even some us would have love to come forth during the Millennium, knowing sin is a ephemeral moment. Yet., ther rewards and expriences are greater now than would it be with them.

[Hemidakota]

Where is the quote about one in ten? I've never heard it.

You won't find it.

[BenRaines]

Chose ye this day whom ye shall serve, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

Ben Raines

[Hemidakota]

"Either we served GOD or perish." [this is our family motto].

[annewandering]

of course we chose the Lord. and the Lord Himself said that blindness is not the fault of any one but the works of God be made manifest in him. . do we assume that it is ONLY blindess he meant or did he mean any adversity that rains down up on us?

some people who are blonde are dyed blondes. therefore all blondes are dyed blondes. some blue eyed men are psychopathic killers. all blue eyed men are psychopathic killers. the logic is the same. some handicapped people are unvaliant in the preexistance. all handicapped people were unvaliant. does this follow?

did President Lee say all were unvalient? and was he president when he said anything at all?

as far as it being in general conference hmm. does that mean what ever the Primary President says is now gospel doctrine or is it only future Prophets?

Edited December 1, 2008 by annewandering

[Hemidakota]

It goes back in seeking your answer via the Holy Ghost through prayer.

[annewandering]

It goes back in seeking your answer via the Holy Ghost through prayer.

absolutely.

[john doe]

I am of the opinion that usually things spoken in General Conference are are more for proclaiming policy and magnifying certain aspects of current doctrine that we need to focus on, not proclaiming new doctrine. The exception would be if something were brought before the Church and voted on by the body of the Church as being binding on the Church and added to the scriptures.

[hordak]

I am of the opinion that usually things spoken in General Conference are are more for proclaiming policy and magnifying certain aspects of current doctrine that we need to focus on, not proclaiming new doctrine. The exception would be if something were brought before the Church and voted on by the body of the Church as being binding on the Church and added to the scriptures.

This is the only thing i could find on offical Doctrine.

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church. 3

When Wilford Woodruff, as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was submitted to the Sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on 6 October 1890, which by unanimous vote accepted it "as authoritative and binding." It was that vote which made the document official (it is now printed as Official Declaration- 1 in the Doctrine and Covenants). Similarly, when President Spencer W. Kimball declared in 1978, by revelation from the Lord, that the priesthood was henceforward to be given to all worthy male members, this pronouncement became Official Declaration--2 by the sustaining vote of a general conference on 30 September 1978.

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. 4

B. H. Roberts, General Authority

So apparently nothing is doctrine till voted on.