Religious vs cultural Mormonism

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

An apostle is not authorized to speak in behalf of the Church?

This is a tricky thing to state...You DO know about that thing I think you backed up about the fourteen fundamentals of following the prophet by Ezra Taft Benson...right?

Quote

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

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

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

So, this is questionable.  Yes, to enact policy normally it requires a unanimous vote by the First presidency and the Twelve.  However, there is ONLY ONE MAN who can speak for the Lord in everything, and that is the prophet (as per the article). 

Your statement read Literally could be a trick question.

ONLY the Prophet I think has the keys to speak for the LORD.  There are many who could speak on behalf of the church, including a PR spokesman, thus the trick of words.  I'm thinking it was meant otherwise though.

An Apostle can ONLY speak for the Lord as in receiving revelation to the church when given the authorization to do so by the Prophet.  They can also receive revelation affirming revelations that the Prophet has received.  However, it is ONLY THROUGH the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Lord leads his church and who receives revelation for the church as a whole.  This is why having a LIVING prophet is so important.

We saw this in action during the last conference.  The Prophet would bring something up in regards to the new policies.  He then would step down and let one of the apostles elaborate upon it.  In this way, an Apostle was speaking for the Lord to the whole church, but it was the Prophet that had received the revelation and revealed it to the church initially.  The apostle was acting under the direction and authorization of the Prophet.

The Reason it goes this way is because this is what the Lord states in his scriptures (Amost 3:7 for example) and only ONE man is held as the Prophet at the church at any given time.  The others are ordained as such, but only ONE holds the keys to be exercised as such at any given moment.  This is because the church is a "House of Order" and thus all things have an order to them with it.  It is why, though a Priest may have the entirety of the Aaronic Priesthood, it is the Bishop that is the head of the Aaronic Priesthood.  It is why, though a High Priest may have been a former Bishop and held the keys, it is the CURRENT Bishop that can receive revelation for the ward and leads the ward. 

If an apostle says one thing, and the Prophet says another...follow the Prophet. 

[JohnsonJones]

Yes, lots of posts from me in a row as I catch up on the thread.

I think the idea of Prophets and Apostles saying things as cultural vs. doctrinal is actually OFF the topic of what was actually being stated.

In general though...

1. Most of what is said by Prophets and Apostles in the official capacity today is doctrine.  It is restating the doctrine over again so there is no need to create it as a standard work.

2.  They are not stuck on ONLY stating doctrine.  They are free to expound and state their opinions or form counsel based upon revelation and the Lord's will in regards to OUR culture.

3.  Sometimes what they state is to COUNTER popular Cultural items that we do today in order to try to draw us closer to the Lord.

4.  At times, this counsel is actually FAR more pertinent and important to our lives than what we may find in the core doctrines (aka..the Standard Works).

5. There statements do NOT compose Mormon Culture.  This is why, at times #4 is necessary.  In fact, this element is a VERY SMALL part of Mormon culture, like a speck of sand in an hourglass.  Mormon Culture is FAR larger than that and mistaking their counsel as what encompasses Mormon Culture is a mistake.  As #4 points out, sometimes it is given to directly counter Mormon Culture, and varous other cultures around the world.

The rest applies to Mormon culture.

6.  Mormon Culture is NOT doctrine.  There are many cultural artifacts we suffer or experience that are NOT doctrine (and in regards to counsel and advice given by General authorities, normally it is NOT part of that counsel or advice and in many instances goes directly AGAINST that counsel or advices).

7. Mormon culture are habits, traditions, and nuances that we, as Mormons, have introduced into the church.  This is normally from the general LDS membership rather than anything that comes from Leadership or scriptures.

8. Sometimes it is a continuation of OLD counsel after NEW counsel has been given. 

9.  We need to differentiate between culture and doctrine.  This is normally absolutely obvious to those new to the church at times, while to those who were born and raised in it, or have been in the church for a long time, it can be hard to differentiate this (for example, the culture that the young men play basketball before and after Young men's meetings during the week is obvious that this is more a cultural thing than a doctrinal thing, but for some of the young men...they might not realize that at times...I know a Stake President who actually almost made it mandatory, ironically, for a while...he was a big basketball fan if you could not tell).

10.  At times those who do not follow the Culture are seen in the wrong light by Cultural Mormons, when in truth they may be adhering closer to the teachings of our Modern Prophets as well as the doctrine of the church than those of us who are Cultural Mormons. 

Hopefully that helps encapsulate my thoughts for those who didn't want to read my overly lengthy responses prior to this and gives it in bullet point statements instead.

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe that separating "culture" from "the gospel" has about as much value as separating "doctrine" from "policy" or separating "counsel" from "commandment". That is to say: none. Intellectually I agree there are differences. I do not believe there is any value to differentiating between the these things beyond common sense.

No one believes basketball is doctrine. Not even the Stake President who may or may not have had good reasons for almost making it mandatory believed it was "doctrine" to do so --- not unless he was a total moron.

[Traveler]

13 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.

 

In my entire life – I think I have been asked by an officer of the law maybe on 4 occasions to see my driver’s license.   I keep my license and temple recommend in the same wallet pocket – I could understand how in the moment I may offer the wrong item.

BTW – I do not know why but it seems impossible to get a speeding ticket on my bicycle.  I did get one once – but I lost it (it was paid).  I have thought it would be cool to have a speeding ticket framed in my office beside some other cycling awards.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

52 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

In my entire life – I think I have been asked by an officer of the law maybe on 4 occasions to see my driver’s license.   I keep my license and temple recommend in the same wallet pocket – I could understand how in the moment I may offer the wrong item.

BTW – I do not know why but it seems impossible to get a speeding ticket on my bicycle.  I did get one once – but I lost it (it was paid).  I have thought it would be cool to have a speeding ticket framed in my office beside some other cycling awards.

 

The Traveler

Cyclists.  Ugh

[omegaseamaster75]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Here:

Elder Benson, speaking in his capacity as an apostle, gave sage advice. You are seeking to discount it.

 

I'm not discounting his advice I am saying it's not doctrine

18 hours ago, Vort said:

You are incorrect. You are playing with words to try to do a "gotcha". That the President of the Church is the person who uniquely holds the active keys of revelation for the Church as a whole is beyond dispute. it is through the prophet, and him alone, that the Church will receive revelation that modifies the doctrine of the Church, such as President Kimball's 1978 revelation.

Not trying to play gotcha you made a statement that was and is wrong, and you just doubled down on being wrong. Well played.

23 hours ago, Vort said:

Of course an apostle can receive revelation for the Church. Do you claim he cannot?

 

[omegaseamaster75]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe that separating "culture" from "the gospel" has about as much value as separating "doctrine" from "policy" or separating "counsel" from "commandment". That is to say: none. Intellectually I agree there are differences. I do not believe there is any value to differentiating between the these things beyond common sense.

Sadly you do because you end up getting this stuff

The words of the prophets are scripture.

 

 

[mirkwood]

Caffeine is a great example of cultural Mormonism.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Caffeine is a great example of cultural Mormonism.

To this day I have not met a single Mormon that believes they should not drink caffeine beyond the reason of “its bad for you”.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

To this day I have not met a single Mormon that believes they should not drink caffeine beyond the reason of “its bad for you”.

I have known young children and perhaps the occasional teen to say something like, "The Church says that we shouldn't drink Pepsi." But I don't believe I have ever known an adult Latter-day Saint who doesn't realize that drinking caffeinated soda pop is not prohibited behavior. [And Vort wins the Triple-Negative Award of the Day!]

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

8 minutes ago, Fether said:

To this day I have not met a single Mormon that believes they should not drink caffeine beyond the reason of “its bad for you”.

I have known young children and perhaps the occasional teen to say something like, "The Church says that we shouldn't drink Pepsi." But I don't believe I have ever known an adult Latter-day Saint who doesn't realize that drinking caffeinated soda pop is not prohibited behavior. [And Vort wins the Triple-Negative Award of the Day!]

You two clearly need to learn how to be more positive.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Sadly you do because you end up getting this stuff

 

 

Believing our prophet's words should be taken as scripture is "sad", huh?

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, zil said:

You two clearly need to learn how to be more positive.

 

Are you positive about this?

 

The Traveler

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Believing our prophet's words should be taken as scripture is "sad", huh?

You're making it something that it is not.  Out leaders give us wise council, inspired council revelatory council, but they are not always speaking for the Lord.  While what they say make be doctrinal, scriptural and good sound advice it does not make it scripture. 

What makes you think that it is? Do you honestly think that when the prophet speaks that it is as if God is speaking to you? If you do you don't really understand how revelation works.

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Believing our prophet's words should be taken as scripture is "sad", huh?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted

Yeah I got that. Familiar.

Why is it "sad" to equate the prophet's words with scripture?

2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You're making it something that it is not.  Out leaders give us wise council, inspired council revelatory council, but they are not always speaking for the Lord.  While what they say make be doctrinal, scriptural and good sound advice it does not make it scripture. 

And why is that "sad"?

2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

What makes you think that it is? Do you honestly think that when the prophet speaks that it is as if God is speaking to you? If you do you don't really understand how revelation works.

I'm just asking why you think such a thing would be "sad".

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, Fether said:

To this day I have not met a single Mormon that believes they should not drink caffeine beyond the reason of “its bad for you”.

Meet me.

Decades ago it was counseled that caffeine was against the word of wisdom in spirit, if not literally spelled out or legally binding in that fashion and so technically are not part of the word of Wisdom.  AS such it has not been included in the prohibitions of the Word of Wisdom officially, but over the years some have indicated that they personally would avoid such drinks.

The Most famous quote that both sides of the caffeine equation use is probably from Spencer W. Kimball.

Quote

I never drink any of the cola drinks and my personal hope would be that no one would. However, they are not included in the Word of Wisdom in its technical application. I quote from a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, 'But the spirit of the Word of Wisdom would be violated by the drinking or eating of anything that contained a habit-forming drug.' With reference to the cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken any attitude on this at but I personally do not put them in the class as with the tea and coffee because the Lord specifically mentioned them [the hot drinks].^[

 

[omegaseamaster75]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah I got that. Familiar.

Why is it "sad" to equate the prophet's words with scripture?

And why is that "sad"?

I'm just asking why you think such a thing would be "sad".

Because they are not always right.

[Anddenex]

Then you have this verse of scripture that puts some statements here in a pickle:

Quote

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost 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.

So, yes, if a prophet is speaking in is position and his words are influenced by the Holy Ghost it is scripture, which is the "mind," "will," "word," and "voice" of the Lord. Then you have this doctrine:

Quote

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

I guess we can say, no wonder why Laman and Lemuel never listened to Nephi and Lehi. None of what they said was "scripture" -- they were probably arguing all day -- "Show me where what you said is in scripture!"

The concept of "canon" I would think is new to our generation, a list of given books that we call "doctrinal." Nothing in the Book of Mormon lends to an organized book of scripture where people would accept or reject what was doctrinal. The Book of Mormon itself comes from a collection of writings from prophets that Mormon sought to give the best parts. This is good for our day though, but I can't find any reference before our day where we have a collection of Books we call cannon, while ignoring other Books that are given by the Spirit, which scripture has specified to be scripture.

Often, in our day though, we tend to hear this as a battering ram against prophets. It isn't "canon" and their own will, until one day it becomes "canon" and I hope the leather sole tastes better this time around. Much like the Proclamation of the Family. There are people/members who specify it is wrong -- it isn't canon. So they disregard aspects that they disagree with.

I would be curious how Adam handled this argument, "Dad your words aren't in 'scripture'. Sorry, your're wrong." I wonder how Enoch handled this argument, which brings us back to the sentiment, "Be careful not to call good evil and evil good," which brings everything back to us. Becareful not to call something of the spirit not of the spirit, or to say something is from the spirit and it is not from the spirit.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Anddenex

[omegaseamaster75]

So when is the Prophet speaking as the prophet? 

I would argue that general conference is one of those times. You have made the argument that his words are scripture, but we don't memorialize their words in our cannon. 

Why not? 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by omegaseamaster75

[Anddenex]

37 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So when is the Prophet speaking as the prophet? 

I would argue that general conference is one of those times. You have made the argument that his words are scripture, but we don't memorialize their words in our cannon. 

Why not?

Let's review the argument I proposed so hopefully we do not have any misunderstandings. I provided the following conditions that have been given by "canon" scripture, "When a prophet is speaking as a prophet and is influenced by the Spirit his words are scripture." From this we have the following conditions:

1) Prophet

2) Prophet is speaking as a Prophet

3) When a prophet is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost we are informed these are the Lord's words by two witnesses of "canon" scripture.

Now let's address your "Why not"? Here are some obvious reasons as to why every word of the prophets are not "memorialized" (caveat: canonized). When a prophet is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost and is speaking as a prophet it should be memorialized upon the tablets of our hearts.

1) We memorialize prophetic words through the tablets of our own hearts, or as doctrine specifies, "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."

2) We are not to be compelled in "all" things. The moment something is canonized it now has a more compelling force behind it. We are to act according to the spirit within us, which should be listening to the same spirit (the Holy Ghost) the prophets are speaking by, and not to be compelled in "all" things.

3) When a prophet is not speaking as a prophet, he has his own opinion, which should be distinguished cautiously, careful, and with wisdom. Above all with a love of God the Father and his Son in our hearts. This is obvious why these would not be memorialized as "canon." Even the opinions of prophets have become scripture later, "Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ^aascension into heaven."

4) Moses 6: 60 - we shouldn't have to be compelled by prophets to become like God. We should be doing this ourselves. As we do so more "canon" will be received. If we can't accept prophetic words by "Its not canon" when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost we are giving evidence to God that we are not ready for new doctrine. If we are not ready, there is no point in providing new "canon" that will compel the saints to action who are not yet ready to receive it. Individually we can receive more of God's light. Collectively, the Lord moves differently.

5) Not everything said is "new" information from the prophets, it is guidance upon what has already been received or for clarification (i.e. Family Proclamation -- and man was that good timing according to our generation). Doctrine which is clarified doesn't need to be memorialized as you have stated. It is clarifying what is already in scripture. It is written, sent as a proclamation.

6) If we think the prophet is only speaking as a prophet in "General Conference" we are missing the mark.

I could probably provide more reasons with more thought, but this suffices.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Because they are not always right.

That doesn't explain why it's "sad". Why is it "sad"?

[Lee]

On 16/04/2018 at 4:39 AM, askandanswer said:

Is cultural Mormonism the same or different as Utah Mormonism? I occasionally hear references to Utah Mormonism as if it's something different from regular Mormonism, and now a new term is being thrown into the mix.

I have lived in Utah my entire life minus when I was away at college and I have never heard the term Utah Mormonism. What is it?

[askandanswer]

Well part of it seems to be the view that the way the church and communities operate in Utah is the way they should operate in all parts of the world.

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, Lee said:

I have lived in Utah my entire life minus when I was away at college and I have never heard the term Utah Mormonism. What is it?

If you are a Mormon outside of Utah, you'll often hear the term "Utah Mormonism" used both as a pejorative and a positive. Most active Utah Mormons I've encountered have a good sense of humor about it, actually, often making jokes about it themselves.