Religious vs cultural Mormonism

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

Not sure what you are trying to prove with the above. 

Who says I'm trying to prove anything. I'm just sharing some quotes that I believe are applicable to the conversation being had -- specifically as to whether being prophet at the time or just a lowly apostle really has anything to do with anything. Omega and you keep saying that, "He wasn't the prophet at the time". I believe my point is simply, "So what?"

16 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

I think you are saying the church is run by committee.  

No. Clearly what is being said by the quotes (I am not saying it. That's why I'm using quotes.) is that the church is run by THE LORD, but that the 1st presidency and the 12 counsel together to find unanimity by seeking the will of the Lord and that is the way the church is directed.

Sure...sometimes an apostle here or there will say things that aren't recognized by the whole. The principles in the 14 points speech are universally taught and accepted by the brethren.

18 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

the Prophet is the only person who is authorized to posses and exercise all priesthood keys.

Which has nothing to do with the apostles having a role -- a very great one -- in directing the church and receiving revelation, alongside the prophet -- for the church. The prophet is the final authority, yes. But the idea that the apostles, therefore, may be disregarded, as seems to be the argument being made, doesn't fly.

19 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

There have been no fundamental doctrinal changes or scriptural changes for a very long time.

But there have been, most certainly, clarification of how we are to understand and follow the scriptures given all the time.

20 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

The most recent change with the organization of the Elders Quorum is an inspired policy change, and a good example of inspired policy vs. doctrine/scripture. 

A very useful-less point.

46 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

The 14 points speech is interesting.  it has been used in/referenced heavily in general conference several times. 

Yep. We would be wise to note that and what it means.

47 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

First, as Omega pointed out, he wasn't the prophet at the time. 

I'll re-iterate: So what?

47 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

 Second, the speech was given at BYU to a select audience, and probably not given with the contextual understanding that it would be disseminated as "doctrine" for the rest of the church. 

Then why is it referenced in General Conference heavily?

48 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

Third, have you read the 14 points??????

Yes.

48 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

 wow!!!

Wow indeed. When an apostle gives such clear guidance for our benefit and safety...wow!

49 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

Point 5: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act in any matter at any time.  

If we do in fact believe the 14 points to be correct, then there are fundamental problems with accepting conference talks as scripture, and we might even have fundamental problems with our current cannon of scripture as we currently know it.  We can all agree that there are/were many revelations that were left out of Doctrine and Covenants correct?  Why was that?

Huh?

[Vort]

54 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

Third, have you read the 14 points??????   wow!!!

Point 5: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act in any matter at any time. 

You singled out this comment. What do you think of it? Do you disagree? For example, do you think that a prophet of God who does not hold a PhD in Feminist Studies can still talk profitably about a woman's role in God's kingdom and in society?

[Crypto]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I find this rather entertaining. @omegaseamaster75 is pretending to be orthodox and establish that the prophet alone receives revelation to guide the entire Church -- yet is doing so in order to undermine prophetic teachings of apostles, a decidedly non-orthodox position.

The Church when examined is generally not based on pure orthodoxy, but is more about correct behavior. This should not be understood in the extremes where there is no orthodoxy, it is just that there is a wide degree of flexibility. Think baptismal interview questions / temple recommend interview questions. Or Articles of Faith (remembering that there is this something about dogmatic creeds being an abomination)

Even within the above stated standards there is a difference, room for people and where they are at in life’s journey. Baptismal interviews require that people are willing. Then as people approach the temple it becomes more of a “are you doing” (or not doing in reference to certain sins). Different standards growth oriented.

[Crypto]

If I was to ask for a set of scriptures, I would be welcomed with:

 

• The Old Testament
• The New Testament
• Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Book of Mormon)
• Pearl of Great Price
• Doctrine and Covenants

 

These by a strict canonical definition constitute the scripture of the Church. Otherwise we would be getting into a discussion about the various things said by Apostles that are frankly wrong, such as Paul (referring to D&C 74:5 )

That being said conference and similar documents, statements, and talks are of great value and contain much doctrine and the saints would be mightily blessed to follow its counsel. Like the Lectures on Faith (which I absolutely adore and have been greatly enriched by [btw no longer in the D&C])

 

It may be “As good as scripture”, but that doesn’t mean it is strictly scripture.

 

(I look forward to additional scripture, and even a few very well know proclamations being incorporated into the standard works. I accept these as scripture but well knowing they aren’t part of the human compiled “scriptures” [Which compiled records probably doesn’t matter terribly much to G-d other than connivence )

Edited April 17, 2018 by Crypto
mis-spelling

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I have read that, a talk given by Ezra Taft Benson WHEN HE WAS NOt THE PROPHET, and NOT DURING GENERAL CONFERENCE. We can discuss the problems with that talk if you want.

Even if we put aside that entire talk as un-usable...do you really believe that the prophet has to literally say "THUS SAITH THE LORD" for something spoken by a prophet to be considered worthy of being scripture? If that's the case then what about all the scriptures that don't use the phrase "THUS SAITH THE LORD"?

Ezra Taft Benson also taught:

We are admonished to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118). Surely these books must include the scriptures. Alongside them must be the words of the Presidents of the Church. The Lord said of the President of the Church, “His word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth” (D&C 21:5). These books make up what has been referred to as “the Lord’s library”—namely the standard works and the various volumes that contain the words of the different Presidents of the Church. Of the latter volumes, that which would be of greatest importance to you would be the words of the current President of the Church, for his words are directed to our day and our needs. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.137-138)

But, regardless, The question isn't whether "that talk" counts or not. The question is whether something must be "ratified" to be considered "scripture". I'm not sure the answer is really that important.

Related to the OP, however, and my specific comment that seems to have started this all ("So teachings and counsel from our living prophets and apostles are cultural?" to which @Fether replied "The words of the prophets are scripture", because @JohnsonJones had said things that aren't scripture are cultural,) I just don't see how when we act in accordance with the directions given to us by our leaders it can be considered "cultural". That seems like it's stretching things. From the broadest understanding of culture, it is. But so is our following the gospel at all. We, as a culture, believe in and follow the gospel.

It doesn't matter if it's doctrine, policy, scripture, guidance, opinion, what-have-you. We follow the counsel of our leaders. Declaring that "cultural" by way of "separate from the gospel" seems like nothing more than a way to disparage the idea that we should follow the counsel of our leaders. (Note: I do not mean to imply that @JohnsonJones was necessarily trying to say that specifically (he can clarify)...just used his post as a bouncing off point for the idea.)

There's this great trend going on right now to disparage LDS culture as problematic and separate it from the gospel. I call nonsense on that entire philosophy. It's based on a bunch of nonsense logic, nonsense complaints, and nonsense bitterness. The biggest problem (nonsense) is the constant implication that "the gospel" somehow causes cultural problems, rather than the plain truth that people cause cultural problems, the world over. The next problem is the idea that efforts to obey stem from "culture"? In order to justify feeling guilty for NOT doing something one must first justify that is isn't something they SHOULD be doing. Most examples I see attempting to show this point are either fringe things that don't have anything to do with the overall culture or they are things we actually should be doing.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

You singled out this comment. What do you think of it? Do you disagree? For example, do you think that a prophet of God who does not hold a PhD in Feminist Studies can still talk profitably about a woman's role in God's kingdom and in society?

One can easily look to a myriad of examples to support the truth of point 5. The Word of Wisdom, as one example. Joseph had no Ph.D. in health studies.

I'm honestly not sure what @omegaseamaster75 and @mdfxdb are trying to get at with their points. Disregard our living prophets and apostles because their teachings aren't officially canonized? Then what do we even need them for?

They admit/say that the Lord leads the church. If the Lord leads the church and inspires the prophet's words then point 5 is obvious. The Lord knows everything. The prophets speak for the Lord, they "can" speak on any subject under inspiration and give more wisdom than the most educated person who ever lived in that subject. And may I add, for their sakes...DUH.

Edited April 17, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There's this great trend going on right now to disparage LDS culture as problematic and separate it from the gospel.

In @Sunday21‘a defense, the experience she had was not right. I wouldn’t call it culture, but rather the wrong doing of a single person. As I mentioned before, people everywhere have undesirable attributes that make them a pain to deal. It’s more human nature than church culture.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Fether said:

In @Sunday21‘a defense, the experience she had was not right. I wouldn’t call it culture, but rather the wrong doing of a single person. As I mentioned before, people everywhere have undesirable attributes that make them a pain to deal. It’s more human nature than church culture.

If it really happened that way.

[Crypto]

Faith, Hope, and Charity. But the Greatest of these is Charity.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Crypto said:

Faith, Hope, and Charity. But the Greatest of these is Charity.

Huh?

I mean...yeah. But...how are you applying this idea to the thread/discussion?

Edited April 17, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[mirkwood]

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

[Crypto]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Huh?

I mean...yeah. But...how are you applying this idea to the thread/discussion?

I'm not applying to anything in particular, it does seem relevant in the aggregate of life!

 

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

Has anyone ever tried handing you an eagle scout card, or other like things other than a TR? 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

Haha.

Did the do it...like it was accidental?

"Here's my license officer...oh...whoops...that's my temple recommend..."

[mirkwood]

22 minutes ago, Crypto said:

I'm not applying to anything in particular, it does seem relevant in the aggregate of life!

 

Has anyone ever tried handing you an eagle scout card, or other like things other than a TR? 

I had a lawyer hand me his BAR card.

Edited April 17, 2018 by mirkwood

[mirkwood]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha.

Did the do it...like it was accidental?

"Here's my license officer...oh...whoops...that's my temple recommend..."

Nope, always on purpose.

[Guest MormonGator]

33 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

Wow. That would really irritate me as well. 

[Sunday21]

59 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

Utah!

[Sunday21]

34 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I had a lawyer hand me his BAR card.

Like that would help!

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Utah!

Probably Idaho too.  Maybe in Mesa Az too.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Like that would help!

Oh that was a fun traffic stop.  I asked for a driver license.  He handed me his BAR card.  I asked what that was, he said it was his BAR card, I said I asked for your drivers license.  He said he thought I needed to see it and I said nope.   A short time later he was mad about the ticket, told me I would see him in court because, "I'm a lawyer with a BAR card."  I replied, "I'm a police officer with a ticket book.  See you in court."  We didn't cross paths again.

Edited April 17, 2018 by mirkwood

[seashmore]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Yes I've been handed a Temple Recommend on a traffic stop and other calls.  Other then being highly irritating it had no influence on my actions.  This has happened several times over the years, but is not a common occurrence.

You're a better person than I in that regard.  I would automatically write that ticket just to humble the driver.

On 4/15/2018 at 6:43 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

"All of us should accept the callings we are given and serve in all diligence." Dallin H. Oaks

" I often hear about members who refuse Church callings or accept callings and fail to fulfill their responsibilities. Some are not committed and faithful. It has always been so. But this is not without consequence." Dallin H. Oaks

On that note...I once refused a calling, and I did it so fast it made not just my head spin, but the counselor who was calling me had his head spinning, too.  In all honesty, he was extending me two callings and I had accepted the first.  He extended the second, which was to be our ward's Gingerbread Specialist.  (There's a huge Gingerbread Festival at both the Winter Quarters Trail Center in Omaha and the Kanesville Tabernacle in Council Bluffs, IA that's worth visiting the Midwest in December.)  I said, "No," before he had had time to take a breath after asking.  The good brother's eyes went wide, and I immediately tried amending my decision by saying I would if they couldn't find anyone else to do it.  He shook his head and said it was ok; they would find someone.  I was being extended callings because I was moving back into the ward to help my sister overcome alcoholism and reactivate, so there would be some additional stress on the homefront.  I don't recall anyone in the bishopric knowing the extent of my sister's struggles when I said I was moving back, which might explain why they came up with my name.  Anyway, they did end up calling someone else and I made sure to support and sustain that person in ways I had never supported a Gingerbread Specialist before (or since).  A couple of years later, that person was still sharing lessons they learned from that calling, and I knew I had made the right decision. 

As far as fulfilling responsibilities in our callings......I'm a "Young Single Adult Adviser" even though the Church guidelines says at 32, I'm no longer considered a "Young Adult" for activity purposes.  I've mentioned it to two branch presidents since approaching my 31st birthday.  It's like being a Laurel class president at 19.  Just don't make no sense.  But I'm the youngest active single adult in the branch, so.....

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I had a lawyer hand me his BAR card.

That was ONE TIME, Mirkwood, and you promised not to tell!

[NightSG]

6 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. 

"It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators."  

Guess you might want to call up to Salt Lake and have them smack Eyring around, make him get on your agenda.  Along with everyone else who's delivered a substantially similar line since at least 1971 that I could find in the time it took to warm up my donut.  Now I've got tastier things to do.

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So teachings and counsel from our living prophets and apostles are cultural?

Sorry, the thread has moved on, and haven't gotten past page 2 but things move fast sometimes when I'm doing work and such and can't get the time to go on the forums some days.

However, to answer your question...some are...some aren't.

The teachings of the Prophets and apostles that are doctrine are found in the Scriptures. Thus yes, the teachings and counsel from our living prophets and apostles that IS doctrine is found in the scriptures and apply to all ages and places.  That which is not, is normally just that, the teachings and counsel of our General Authorities.

Normally the teachings and counsel of our living prophets are simply reiterating what is already doctrine.  They do NOT go off into new tangents or new ground.  In these instances, there is NO NEED to establish new doctrine.  It is repeating doctrine that we need to focus on or hear about.  In this light, it is doctrine, but as the doctrine has already been set, it is merely a repeat of what has already been stated.

In many instances they set POLICY in regards to the church, policies which we see can change (for example, the recent changes on who could do baptisms for the dead in the temple, what quorums are composed of within a stake in regards to High Priests and Elders, etc.) which is by revelation, but is NOT actually doctrine.

Many of the teachings that ARE doctrine are NOT done publically as they are found in our temples.  For items that ARE publically available, if it is to be doctrine it is done in the correct manner.  Sometimes this is done in the same manner as a Solemn Assembly where first it is accepted by the First Presidency and then the Twelve Apostles.  Any doctrine must be accepted by all of these unanimously. 

Secondly comes approval by other quorums and then the membership of the church.  Several revelations have been accepted as doctrine.

Other than that, there may be revelations but they are not necessarily doctrine.  Most of the time when we are given counsel it is GOOD counsel at the time over already established doctrine.  When it is NOT given by the Prophet and presented as an actual artifact to become doctrine, then it is not actually doctrine.  (and new doctrine in our day and age is RARE).  Normally it is simply good counsel.  Normally this counsel is upon already established doctrine and an exhortion for us to follow the doctrine.

In instances where it deviates from doctrine, unless a prophet states it is the Lord speaking and it is accepted by the entirety of the church...it is not considered doctrine.

There is a CULTURAL phenomenon which WOULD be with us Cultural Mormons where we think anything they say is doctrine, or at least for the next 6 months.  However, this philosophy is actually not correct.  It is COUNSEL...not doctrine.  Counsel can be gained by revelation and can also be given as such.

Why is this important?

If one reads the journal of discourses, you can find interesting subjects and interesting items.  If one reads what various prophets have stated, not as opinion, but as fact, it gets even more interesting.  We find that men live on the moon.  We find that Adam is the only Heavenly being we have to do with.  We find that if you participate in interacial marriage you are doomed and can only be saved by having your blood spilled (aka...you must die and have that death by spilling of blood).  We find many things today that the LDS church disavows or does not deem as doctrine. 

Does this mean that doctrine changes?  Afterall, many of these thing WERE said at General Conference and over the pulpit.  It has been said you SHOULD NOT WATCH R-RATED MOVIES and that WE SHOULD NOT DRINK CAFFEINE.  Is this church doctrine today?  (Now, as a cultural Mormon I would actually say...yes, it is, but we, as a church are not strong enough to live it...but it is NOT held up as doctrine in the church officially...hence...why it makes me a cultural Mormon).

Doctrine does not change.  Policies, advice, counsel can all change, but the Doctrine of the Lord is unchanging. 

This is actually a blessing.  We can rely that what the Lord said today is the same for tomorrow and yesterday.  However, it also means that many things that were correct counsel for yesteryear but is NOT correct counsel for our day, is changed.

Many anti-Mormons try to hammer in on artifacts of counsel that were stated early in the church in an attempt to show that the LDS church has changed it's doctrine.  It is because they also follow the cultural Mormon idea that anything stated by a Prophet or by a Prophet over the pulpit is doctrine.  If it were, then they would be absolutely correct and many of their false ideologies would be correct in the assumption towards Mormon doctrine.

Luckily for us, it is not so.  Thus, their attempts to "prove" that the gospel as taught by the LDS church has changed are futile, because it is the SAME gospel and the same Lord yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  Prophets and apostles can be free to give counsel and advice for our day, even via revelation, and have no fear that a wrong word or wrong action will destroy the doctrine of the church.  Normally when they give talks and counsel, it is their opinions on different aspects on the gospel itself.  As Special Witnesses of the Lord they have special dispensation to direct us and the church and are guided by the Spirit and the Lord in their counsel.  However, if they do speak errantly by mistake or the weaknesses of men, because it is their opinion, it has no effect on the actual doctrine.  Such mistakes can later be changed, revoked, or enlightened in the face of a better understanding or revelation and other counsel given.

In many of the instances above where some would say the doctrine of the church has changed, they are wrong because of these policies in the church.  It is why some of the items I mentioned above, when queried about it, we can say it was given as the opinion of that prophet or apostle at that time, but as it was only an opinion, the church is under not requirement to follow it today.

It may be that there has been doctrine given that is NOT in the scriptures, but it is not something that is adhered to in the church (and as a cultural Mormon I believe this as other Cultural Mormons may) AS doctrine. 

Hopefully that explains my take on the differences between doctrine which is unchanging, and policies and counsel which can change (and do change) depending on the needs and requirements of the membership and the people of the world.

Edited April 17, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Related to the OP, however, and my specific comment that seems to have started this all ("So teachings and counsel from our living prophets and apostles are cultural?" to which @Fether replied "The words of the prophets are scripture", because @JohnsonJones had said things that aren't scripture are cultural,) I just don't see how when we act in accordance with the directions given to us by our leaders it can be considered "cultural". That seems like it's stretching things. From the broadest understanding of culture, it is. But so is our following the gospel at all. We, as a culture, believe in and follow the gospel.

 

I think there is a misunderstanding between doctrine and culture.

Yes, the policies and counsel given by prophets today, if not doctrine, ARE cultural.  They are spoken directly in relation to OUR culture and OUR attitudes today.  These can change, and when they do, this counsel and the policies given can change...just like our cultural attitudes change.

Just because Counsel is NOT doctrine does NOT mean it should not be adhered to.  The same applies to policy.  In fact, in some instances, if you do NOT adhere to church policy you will be excommunicated. 

Discounting the importance of Counsel and Policy because one wants to prove that it is all doctrine seems to be a misunderstanding of the importance of Counsel and Policies in our day.

Now, IN MY OPINION, MOST of what the Prophets and apostles state over the podium in our day is actually doctrine, but as it is simply regurgitated doctrine (as in, this doctrine has already been stated in the scriptures, sometimes multiple times) there is no need to write it again and again and again.  However, there are also moments where they express their opinions and thoughts related to the doctrine rather than doctrine itself.  At times it can be hard to know what exactly IS opinion and what is doctrine at these instances and times.  Sometimes, upon reflection it is shown by revelation that needs clear up inconsistencies and inaccuracies that arise from these opinions being given what was actually an opinion vs. the doctrine that they were stating.

The idea that EVERYTHING said over the podium is doctrine is actually FALSE doctrine, but it IS a Cultural Mormon item where we take it as such.  If a Prophet had to worry that anything he ever stated since becoming a prophet would be doctrine, I think we'd have a LOT less said in counsel, advice, and discussion from our current prophets and apostles.  Because they KNOW that they are not strictly held to this idea, they are free to express their thoughts and opinions while receiving inspiration from the Lord in their talks advising us on the gospel and the world today.

Because this is counsel given directly to us for our day and time, the most recent copy of General Conference can be seen as a sort of temporary scripture, but not held on the same degree as the core scriptures of the LDS church (the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&D, PoGP).  The advice changes from time to time, and we see that as we get a new set of counsel from the Next General Conference.  It does not invalidate the former General Conference, but the most current copy of General conference holds precedence over all the other prior General Conferences.  Thus it can change as we, as a culture and society change. 

This counsel is EXTREMELY important, and in some instances, pertains FAR more directly to our lives than doctrine at times.  If there was a catastrophe in our area, having that 72 hour kit could be the difference between life and death.  That counsel would probably pertain far more importantly and significantly on whether we survived than the doctrine of how to ordain a deacon.  We cannot discount the General Authorities Counsel as it IS cultural because it pertains DIRECTLY to our day and time, where as doctrine is more universal in it's application. 

However, Culture covers FAR more than just what the Counsel given is.  Counsel is important in directing us how to act within our current Culture, but the entirety of Culture itself is bounds and eons beyond simply the counsel of Prophets and Apostles  At times this counsel is given to COUNTER our current culture and to try to change it.  The question is whether we are listening to the prophets and apostles well enough to MAKE those changes, or whether we are obstinate enough to try to keep our culture as it is and ignore them.

So, not everything a Prophet or apostle states is doctrine, and at times they express opinion.  That does NOT mean that we discount what they say, and in fact, because their statements may actually be MORE relevant to this time and place (rather than the past or the future) we should listen and adhere more closely to what they say in most instances...In MY OPINION.

 

PS: Just as a thought, as pertaining to the third paragraph above this one where I state...Counsel is EXREMELY Important and in some instances pertains FAR more directly in our lives than doctrine (standard works) at times...I found this by Ezra Taft Benson actually very pertinent.

Quote

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by JohnsonJones