Is it a sin to go against the cousel of the Prophet?

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm pretty sure it's not against Church teaching - rather, prophets have counseled against it.

Meanwhile, could someone who has ice cream in the freezer eat some for me?  I have nothing dessert-like anywhere in the house, but would really like some dessert, so I need someone to be my proxy...

I don’t have ice cream but my wife made a layered pudding dessert so I’ll eat an extra serving for you. 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t have ice cream but my wife made a layered pudding dessert so I’ll eat an extra serving for you. 

Thank you!

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I think the biggest problem you are running into is comparing the words of the dead prophets to the words of the living prophets.

And even beyond that, you are taking apocryphal sources (non-Church owner sources like BYU, Deseret Book and Book Craft)

A standard I live by is that if I can’t find it on LDS.org then I don’t accept it as doctrine.

In my view if you can’t find it in the four standard works of scripture it isn’t doctrine or at least commandments must be found in the scriptures or added to the scriptures in order to be binding upon the church but I may be wrong. 

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

A better arguement is why does the temple cafeteria offer it

Do they? I’ve never paid attention. 

[Fether]

52 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 Perhaps I should read more and post less.

Wise words we can all learn from 👍

[Fether]

26 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Do they? I’ve never paid attention. 

Yep!

[Fether]

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

In my view if you can’t find it in the four standard works of scripture it isn’t doctrine or at least commandments must be found in the scriptures or added to the scriptures in order to be binding upon the church but I may be wrong. 

This is a common view, but isn’t supported by current church general authorities.

He Prophets today have the same authority as the Prophets of old. Also, to have the view you have would to make us no different than any other church that believes all the God has said has been said already and we need no more revelation.

[BJ64]

49 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Who cares if it is a sin?  We are to follow the Prophet, correct?

I have a follow-up question:  Why do the bulk of your posts have to do with topics that suggest doing anything but striving to follow the Prophet and Church leaders?

Correct, we are to follow the prophet.  

I never drink caffeinated soft drinks. However is drinking caffeine sinful behavior since several prophets have counseled against it?

I’m not suggesting that anyone not follow the prophet which is why in this example I’m suggesting that drinking caffeinated soft drinks is a sin because it is failure to follow the teachings of several prophets. Most recently President Hinckley. 

[Fether]

@BJ64

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

This is a very profound talk about the authority of the Prophets. Even explains why the Prophets today have preference over the standard works.

This is the stance of the church. To disagree would be to separate yourself from the church.

[BJ64]

44 minutes ago, zil said:

Thank you!

You’ll have to work off the extra calories for me though. 

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

This is a common view, but isn’t supported by current church general authorities.

He Prophets today have the same authority as the Prophets of old. Also, to have the view you have would to make us no different than any other church that believes all the God has said has been said already and we need no more revelation.

No, because new revelations can always be added to the Doctrine and Covenants as was done with sections 137 & 138 and official declarations 1 & 2. 

[Fether]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Correct, we are to follow the prophet.  

I never drink caffeinated soft drinks. However is drinking caffeine sinful behavior since several prophets have counseled against it?

I’m not suggesting that anyone not follow the prophet which is why in this example I’m suggesting that drinking caffeinated soft drinks is a sin because it is failure to follow the teachings of several prophets. Most recently President Hinckley. 

Here are some other quotes that may help.

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

- Bruce R McConkie

“

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.    You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."

- Joseph Fielding Smith

“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.”

- Harold B Lee

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

No, because new revelations can always be added to the Doctrine and Covenants as was done with sections 137 & 138 and official declarations 1 & 2. 

Just read the talk I linked. A prophet does not need to say “this sayeth the lord” to speak on behalf of God. It also does not need to be added to the “standard works

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

@BJ64

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

This is a very profound talk about the authority of the Prophets. Even explains why the Prophets today have preference over the standard works.

This is the stance of the church. To disagree would be to separate yourself from the church.

3 Nephi 11 describes the doctrine of Christ, and 12:1 then brings that message home with, "Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you." The rest of His visit is about the application of that simple doctrine, and further instructs and authorizes the twelve, in Chapter 27, "I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do..."

[BJ64]

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

@BJ64

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

This is a very profound talk about the authority of the Prophets. Even explains why the Prophets today have preference over the standard works.

This is the stance of the church. To disagree would be to separate yourself from the church.

Thank you. That’s a very good article. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Romans 14 is apropos in a Word of Wisdom context particularly.  Paul’s basic point has to do with whether it’s OK to eat meat that was slaughtered through pagan sacrificial rituals.  Paul basically says (IIRC) that he personally doesn’t see anything wrong with it, but that there are other church members who deem it sinful; and for them to act in violation of their principles would be a bona fide sin for them and we are at best walking uncharitably if we make a big deal of flaunting our nonconformance to that same standard. 

[BJ64]

46 minutes ago, Fether said:

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.”

This has been my understanding of how now revelation works. Only twice in my life has this process of the body of the church accepting revelation occurred. 

[Fether]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

This has been my understanding of how now revelation works. Only twice in my life has this process of the body of the church accepting revelation occurred. 

All the other changes and contradictions like caffeine, oral sex, birth control, etc were not doctrines, but applications of doctrines. Perhaps statements on these in the past were motivated by extreme events going on (ie sexual revolution)

[BJ64]

49 minutes ago, Fether said:

Just read the talk I linked. A prophet does not need to say “this sayeth the lord” to speak on behalf of God. It also does not need to be added to the “standard works

Read your own quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. They are the things I have read before as a standard for new revelation. 

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

If it was truly against church teaching, why does BYU offer it in the cafeteria?

Sometime BYU is not the best example of gospel principles - when I was attending BYU there were students employed to work early Sunday morning to lock all the vending machines on campus to prevent someone from breaking the Sabbath and shopping vending machines on Sunday.  Then late Sunday night another crew was hired  to unlock the vending machines so they could be used for the rest of the week.  When this practice was challenged in the local student newspaper (the Universe) there was enough backlash that the practice was ended and a few students lost their jobs - proving that there is good and bad with everything it would seem.

As a landlord for BYU students in Provo - I am quite aware that the BYU student housing commission has nothing to do at all with the principles of the gospel and is not any part of "The True Church".

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

I generally just figure that I know better than some silver-haired old codger with no clue about the world anyway.  So, I just do what I see fit to do.  Forget what they have to say.  I have the scriptures and prayer.  What do I need to listen to them for?

[Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I generally just figure that I know better than some silver-haired old codger with no clue about the world anyway.  So, I just do what I see fit to do.  Forget what they have to say.  I have the scriptures and prayer.  What do I need to listen to them for?

I believe this to be exactly what the majority thought about Noah.  😨

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Sometime BYU is not the best example of gospel principles - when I was attending BYU there were students employed to work early Sunday morning to lock all the vending machines on campus to prevent someone from breaking the Sabbath and shopping vending machines on Sunday.  Then late Sunday night another crew was hired  to unlock the vending machines so they could be used for the rest of the week.  When this practice was challenged in the local student newspaper (the Universe) there was enough backlash that the practice was ended and a few students lost their jobs - proving that there is good and bad with everything it would seem.

As a landlord for BYU students in Provo - I am quite aware that the BYU student housing commission has nothing to do at all with the principles of the gospel and is not any part of "The True Church".

 

The Traveler

If Pepsi was indeed objectively sinful I'm positive that BYU wouldn't sell it, but I see your point my friend. 

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe this to be exactly what the majority thought about Noah.  😨

 

The Traveler

Which is why they convinced dinosaurs to kill him...

 

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Is it a sin to go against the counsel of the prophet even if that which he counsels against is not a commandment?

For example caffeinated soft drinks are not against the word of wisdom  but several prophets have counseled against their use.

Therefore are you sinning by drinking caffeinated soft drinks even if they aren’t against the word of wisdom since you are disobeying the prophet’s counsel?

The problem with these types of questions (although I think this a good question) is that it may create an either/or mentality. I assume this question's catalyst is the recent post by the Church regarding medical marijuana (I could be wrong though).

If a prophet is speaking as a prophet, then yes, we have sinned because we have chosen to disregard the counsel by the Lord's chosen servant. The Book of Mormon provides an excellent example of prophet vs. father also with Laman and Lehi. Lehi explains to Nephi that his command is not from him, but is from the Lord, and this was something Laman did not understand. If the counsel we are receiving is counsel from the prophet acting in his stewardship (watchman on the tower), then the real question we should ask ourselves, "Is it sin to disregard counsel from the Lord; although it is not a commandment"?

If the prophet is counseling from one man to another, or one human to another, and is providing his thoughts and opinions on a subject matter, then no we are not in sin when disregarding counsel.

Now, there may be times when disregarding counsel from the Lord (through his servant the prophet) may not be sin; however, we will then face the natural consequence of disobeying the counsel received.

We could ask ourselves, is a 16 year in sin if they choose not to double date? This is great counsel, and I would answer -- probably not; although, if they begin dating one-on-one earlier on they now have a higher probability of breaking the law of chastity then 16 year olds who choose to follow this counsel.

What do we learn from scripture? The wise build themselves upon the rock of the Redeemer. If the Redeemer is counseling us through his prophet, and we have testimony (spiritual witness) of this truth, then we are building ourselves even more upon the rock of the Redeemer as we head the counsel provided; otherwise in some cases (not like dating sixteen year olds) we will suffer the consequence of disobedience to important counsel.

If the question catalyst is the marijuana bill, then indeed we may be in sin by rejecting such counsel, and if we do, then rightfully so we will reap the consequences (like all other generations before us) for choosing such.