Are Prophets' And Apostles' Words Seen To Be "scripture


jimradictis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Earlier today, I was trying to explain to someone that the Journal of Discourses is not part of our scriptures when another person stated that it is. They said that as long as a prophet says "In the name of Jesus Christ" at the end it is scripture. I find this hard to believe, but am unsure. This person (mr penguin) was spewing Anti Mormon propaganda over the board for a few hours so I doubt it, but what do you think.

Here is a link to the question that was asked.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...Dr0VG.VIUhf1zF6

Be careful, some of the questions and answers posed to LDS are downright rude and manipulative on this site.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True Jason. I love the words of prophets and apostles today. "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" does not mean every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of apostles and prophets is scripture.

To each of us it is to determine if it be "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost".

Ben Raines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Catholicism the Pope's words are simply his instruction unless he declares them ex cathedra. Then, they become infallible. So, what of the church's prophets? I have read some posts here that declare with confidence that caffeine is prohibited, based upon what the President said in an interview with a secular TV interviewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lds.org says:

Scriptures

When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words "shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4). The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

How do Latter-day Saints define the idea of "scripture"?

The corpus of Latter-day Saint scripture is substantially larger than the traditional Protestant or Catholic canon. It includes the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, which are collectively referred to as the "standard works." Although "scripture" usually denotes written documents, in LDS sources it is also defined as "whatsoever [God's representatives] shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" (D&C 68:2–4), which implies an acceptance of modern-day prophetic revelation as scripture. Latter-day Saints acknowledge that although the messages of scripture are divine in origin, those who receive, write, or translate the words are human. This clarifies why a Latter-day Saint tenet states that the Bible is accepted as the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly" (Articles of Faith 8), or why official clarifications and translations are occasionally made to the standard works. Latter-day Saints bind themselves by covenant to obey scripture, but they are also assured that important records will yet come to light. Importantly, Latter-day Saints understand that scriptures are a result of divine revelation to prophets and that individuals must study the scriptures and seek personal revelation in order to understand their immediate meaning and relevance.

abstracted from "Scripture: Scriptures," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1277–80.

You can find this if you go to A-Z Index, scroll down to Scriptures, about.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do follow the living prophet, we are taught that we must in order to be spiritually safe and enlightened. Journal of Discourses are neither canonized nor are they living prophets anymore. Just 'saying' something, and giving ideas, even inspired ideas, is not the same thing as presenting doctrine or issuing commands. Some things have to come forth line upon line and precept upon precept. I take my General Conference Ensign and I do my best to live by it for the next six months, until the next conference (Ensign). It's scripture for six months, although of course they speak of many immutable doctrines as well. By the way, caffeine is not prohibited. Coffee and tea are, it's not quite the same thing. We aren't told why coffee and tea are prohibited, in God's mind it may have zero to do with the caffeine. And word of wisdom obedience is something that does not arise so much from past pronouncements as it does the continued and present confirmation of the current prophet that such a requirement (refraining from coffee, tea, alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs and the misuse of legal drugs) is prerequisite to entry into the temple and many other church participation. If it were revealed to the current prophet to drop the commandment, he would have no necessity of minding the previous precedent.

Why does this anti mormon dude insist on saying J of D is our scripture when we would NEVER do so? Ha ha. Most lds have never even heard of J of D, much less read it. One reason, in only my opinion, and I haven't read J of D through, that it is not scripture is that it is not crucial to salvation, at least not more than what is available in the Standard Works, and it is for some extracurricular learning, but does not necessarily carry beliefs that a worldwide membership of church is required to hold in order to experience salvation and atonement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious and haven't seen the answer in the little mormon literature that I've read. If a mormon openly disagrees with something a living prophet says is true (including but not limited to statements regarding the nature and actions of god) what are the consequences to that mormon? Also, if a living prophet makes such doctrinal statements, how much weight do they hold?

Another question in regard to (I think) the last post is, how are the extra-biblical revelations necessary for salvation?

Skeptictank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do follow the living prophet, we are taught that we must in order to be spiritually safe and enlightened. Journal of Discourses are neither canonized nor are they living prophets anymore. Just 'saying' something, and giving ideas, even inspired ideas, is not the same thing as presenting doctrine or issuing commands. Some things have to come forth line upon line and precept upon precept. I take my General Conference Ensign and I do my best to live by it for the next six months, until the next conference (Ensign). It's scripture for six months, although of course they speak of many immutable doctrines as well. By the way, caffeine is not prohibited. Coffee and tea are, it's not quite the same thing. We aren't told why coffee and tea are prohibited, in God's mind it may have zero to do with the caffeine. And word of wisdom obedience is something that does not arise so much from past pronouncements as it does the continued and present confirmation of the current prophet that such a requirement (refraining from coffee, tea, alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs and the misuse of legal drugs) is prerequisite to entry into the temple and many other church participation. If it were revealed to the current prophet to drop the commandment, he would have no necessity of minding the previous precedent.

Why does this anti mormon dude insist on saying J of D is our scripture when we would NEVER do so? Ha ha. Most lds have never even heard of J of D, much less read it. One reason, in only my opinion, and I haven't read J of D through, that it is not scripture is that it is not crucial to salvation, at least not more than what is available in the Standard Works, and it is for some extracurricular learning, but does not necessarily carry beliefs that a worldwide membership of church is required to hold in order to experience salvation and atonement.

There are also alot of people that belive we pray and worship Joseph Smith, when i went on a church history tour we went to the RLDS(re-orginized latter day saints) or as they call themselves now commutnity of christ, the man that gave us our tour tried to explain the diffences between our religons, and he brought up worship of JS. I agree with you the J of D isnt widely known and its not recognized as scripture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I have read a lot of J of D and I love it! It's awesome! You have to understand context. Take any of the quotes put forth by the 'anti-mormons' and go and read it in context yourself and in almost every cotton-picking instance you will see that their assertion is only good out of context.

Some of the quotes they take are full of [...]s and begin and end in the middle of sentence or thought. None are ever accompanied with valueable commentary. The claims laid in connection with such are often outrageous.

If you listen to them it would seem that the religion of the pioneers was totally different from ours today, but go and read it all for yourself and you will see it was exactly the same.

As for this instance, Elder Grant's talk has suddenly lost some words, and the poster didn't even use any [...] nor did he give any specific reference. It was from a talk in the Tabernacle Aug. 7, 1853 J of D 1:341 (SEE IT FOR YOURSELF HERE).

His talk was on 'Uniformity'. It is a briliant tracing of man's history through the scriptures and throughout time displaying a lack of 'uniformity'. It demonstrates that since the fall, all the world both man and nature has been out of 'uniformity'.

Throughout his talk he demonstrated various raging opinions of men and how they never agreed. It was in this context that upon arriving upon the 1st century after the Apostles that he mentioned one Celsus a "heathen philosopher" who he demonstrates as one speaking against Christ and the Apostles asserting that one of the reasons for their persecution among the Jews was because they were polygamous. (Google Celsus and you will see that Elder Grant was correct).

He further demonstrates the lack of 'uniformity' by calling to our attention that "His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety."

Elder Grant's statement concerning 'the persecution of Jesus and His followers' as mentioned by the 'anti-mormon' poster was conveniently void of the portion that said: "according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age." Indeed Elder Grant didn't claim that Jesus and the Apostles were polygamous in this case, but mentioned only that Celsus, the 'anti' had made such a claim in an effort to explain their persecution. This simply illustrates the many layers of the lack of 'uniformity' with a striking fimiliarity to the LDS listener in the Tabernacle at that time.

Although I won't deny that LDS have speculated concerning Jesus' marital status, this precise citing from Elder Grant is nothing more than 'anti-mormon' cut-and-paste which does more cutting than pasting as usual.

As you can see, the amount of time and effort necessary to obtain and read Elder Grant's talk and then post a reply such as this one is somewhat burdensome and the 'anti-mormon' is counting on it. He is hoping we will never figure out where that quote came from nor that he edited it to suit his purpose.

More than that, our 'anti-mormon' is hoping we will automatically doubt Elder Grant, and wonder if a talk from one of the LORD's anointed from the pulpit of the Tabernacle is true. He hopes to see debates about whether or not Elder Grant was inspired. "Did he say 'in the name of the LORD'?" "Was it in a conference?" "Was this speculation?" This is doubt, the doubt our 'anti-mormon' is looking for.

Our 'anti-mormon' is hoping to see us cast these sermons out of our history assuming Grant and many others had mistakenly spoken. He is hoping we will wonder where revelation ends and speculation begins. He wants us to see each other have no answers and seem stumped.

But it is only he and they that think like him that will remain in darkness. The righteous will go on to perfection while he trifles with everything. And in this very act of deceit he confirms the validity of Elder Grant's saying that "the devil exerted his power in ancient days to destroy the work of God, so he will in the latter days."

God Bless

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"infallibility" is a Catholic belief. Even then they only believe the pope to be in an infallible state at specific times. As far as I can tell they are the only one who believe in infallibility. Not even the Anglicans or Episcopals believe in it.

Hope that was of some help to you.

-LT04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for taking your time in replying to my question. Just as a-train had described, the quote from Elder Grant's talk was missing a few sentences. It seems as though this poster had modified it in some way that supported his views. I later replied that Elder Grant was not stating that Jesus had multiple wives, it was Celsus which had stated the such. Thank you for the information and the link a-train.

the_jason, and Maureen, I would also like to thank you. I am still learning a lot and your reference to Doctrine and Covenants 68 was valuable, also was the explanation of “How do Latter-day Saints define the idea of scripture”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share