In The Lds Church, Are New Revelations From The Prophet Allowed To Contradict The Standard Works Of The Church?

[carpeomnius]

This question was inspired by the following quote from another Latter-day Saint, "...say (which will never happen I hope) the president of the church says we are no longer going to read the book of mormon and every scripture is being done away with. We would still follow his councel because all in all he guides the affairs of the church through revelation and gives us the commandments which gods wants us to follow most currently." (sic)

I just want to know how you feel about this. There are a number of pronouncements by past church leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and Bruce R. McConkie that say, in so many words, that new revelation must not contradict that which has been revealed in the Standard Works of the Church (i.e. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price). I know that we can pray and receive personal revelation to know if a new revelation is true, but can we not also look and see if it contradicts something in the Standard Works to know that it is false? Do not get me wrong. I do not know of any pronouncement of new revelation from our Church leaders that does not fully square with the standard works. I'm just curious to know how you feel about this.

quotes

“The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111.)

“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 teachings 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. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of 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.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4)

"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, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it." (Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.)

[NeuroTypical]

“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 teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4)

I'm with President Joseph Fielding Smith.

That said, I think there's a great danger in misinterpreting what the scriptures tell us. So if a time comes where we receive clarifying revelation, we would erroneously think of it as contradicting scripture. When in reality, the revelation is just contradicting our erroneous interpretation.

A clear example of this is the scriptural foundation of trinitarian belief. When God and Jesus, two distinct and seperate beings, came and stood next to each other, many trinitarians just refuse to allow room for that possibility. They'll elevate the scriptures that support the notion of the trinity to great hights, but they'll ignore, gloss over, or twist a non-common sense meaning out of the scriptures that support the notion of 3 seperate beings.

LM

[Drimcynn]

I know that we can pray and receive personal revelation to know if a new revelation is true, but can we not also look and see if it contradicts something in the Standard Works to know that it is false?

I guess I've never worried about the Prophets contradicting the scriptures. I believe the scriptures are the word of god and I believe the the aposteles and first presidency are prophet, seers and revelators. Meaning giving us modern revelation.

With that said, I don't believe they will ever contradict but would they ever really need too? IN my opinion know. The scriptures are the foudation for us in learning the gospel but it doesn't tell us how we assist members in getting welfare or education or what the dress standards are for youth activities. KNow what I mean. Yes it gives us the basic principles but we have to have proper direction on certain topics. Rarely if at all do you see in General conference, do you hear the Leaders of the church giving a mystery of the gospel or some deep doctrine point none of us are aware of. Why? Because they want to teach us how to put our lifs in accord so that we might recieve some of that ourselves through prayer and study but that helps grow our testimony. See my point? I don't think really go hand in hand at times.

The only 2 times I would have ever seen modern revelation that might change the scriptures and even that is questionable is the 2 official declarations in the doctrine & covenants but that just shows we have a living god. If we didn't expect more scripture and revelation than everything would have stopped with Adam, Enoch or Moses I guess and they would have told it all to us.

Personal revelation is a really neat blessing. I guess I don't expect heavenly father to give me revelation that contradicts the scriptures but I am sure presonal revelation could contradict perspectives?

anyways you asked for thoughts there you go.

[DrewM]

This question was inspired by the following quote from another Latter-day Saint, "...say (which will never happen I hope) the president of the church says we are no longer going to read the book of mormon and every scripture is being done away with. We would still follow his councel because all in all he guides the affairs of the church through revelation and gives us the commandments which gods wants us to follow most currently." (sic)

I just want to know how you feel about this. There are a number of pronouncements by past church leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and Bruce R. McConkie that say, in so many words, that new revelation must not contradict that which has been revealed in the Standard Works of the Church (i.e. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price). I know that we can pray and receive personal revelation to know if a new revelation is true, but can we not also look and see if it contradicts something in the Standard Works to know that it is false? Do not get me wrong. I do not know of any pronouncement of new revelation from our Church leaders that does not fully square with the standard works. I'm just curious to know how you feel about this.

quotes

“The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111.)

“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 teachings 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. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of 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.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4)

"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, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it." (Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.)

I do not believe that modern revelation can contradict ancient revelation, at least in areas of eternal doctrines. Policies change (blacks and the priesthood), practices change (Word of Wisdom), but eternal principles and doctrines (the nature of God, what one must do to be saved, etc) never change.

I do not agree with the opening statement you quoted from some other LDS.

[tubaloth]

the president of the church says we are no longer going to read the book of mormon and every scripture is being done away with. We would still follow his councel because all in all he guides the affairs of the church through revelation and gives us the commandments which gods wants us to follow most currently."

I disagree with this, and agree with your other quotes. I think this LDS member might be taking some things a little out of context.

Pres. Benson taught

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

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’ ” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.) Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

This is more talking about putting things in proper perspective. Meaning we need to have BOTH the scriptures (past revelations) and current prophets. The idea that one well not be needed any more isn’t correct! The point of having the Scriptures is to guide us towards truth. The truth there contain won’t change so much that we don’t need them anymore. Unless the destination has changed so much???

[Deborah]

That said, I think there's a great danger in misinterpreting what the scriptures tell us. So if a time comes where we receive clarifying revelation, we would erroneously think of it as contradicting scripture. When in reality, the revelation is just contradicting our erroneous interpretation.

A very good point. Also if we are looking at scriptures written anciently we need to realize that times change and the Lord recognizes the changes that need to be made in how things are done. Doctrine doesn't change but the way we apply it in our lives will vary with the society and the time and I think this is very much an indication of how cognizant the Lord is of our lives and struggles and what we as a people need to best live the gospel.

[LatterDaySaint]

Could it happen? Yes, I think almost anything could. Would it happen? I doubt it.

Have past revelations been superseded before? Yes. There are plenty examples of this in the scriptures (think fulfillment of the Law of Moses).

An article called Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet may be of interest. I must say that I sincerely believe Tenant #4 - "The prophet will never lead the church astray." That being said though, personal revelation is the key. Personal confirmation by the Spirit can help each one of us know for ourselves that what the current Prophet is saying is indeed true.

Just my 2-cents,

LatterDaySaint

[Teancum18]

I guess I've never worried about the Prophets contradicting the scriptures. I believe the scriptures are the word of god and I believe the the aposteles and first presidency are prophet, seers and revelators. Meaning giving us modern revelation.

With that said, I don't believe they will ever contradict but would they ever really need too? IN my opinion know. The scriptures are the foudation for us in learning the gospel but it doesn't tell us how we assist members in getting welfare or education or what the dress standards are for youth activities. KNow what I mean. Yes it gives us the basic principles but we have to have proper direction on certain topics. Rarely if at all do you see in General conference, do you hear the Leaders of the church giving a mystery of the gospel or some deep doctrine point none of us are aware of. Why? Because they want to teach us how to put our lifs in accord so that we might recieve some of that ourselves through prayer and study but that helps grow our testimony. See my point? I don't think really go hand in hand at times.

The only 2 times I would have ever seen modern revelation that might change the scriptures and even that is questionable is the 2 official declarations in the doctrine & covenants but that just shows we have a living god. If we didn't expect more scripture and revelation than everything would have stopped with Adam, Enoch or Moses I guess and they would have told it all to us.

Personal revelation is a really neat blessing. I guess I don't expect heavenly father to give me revelation that contradicts the scriptures but I am sure presonal revelation could contradict perspectives?

anyways you asked for thoughts there you go.

Reader be forewarned, I have not read this entire blog, so forgive if I repeat anything already said. I promise you have nothing to be worried about. The Prophet would never say anything contrary to the scriptures. It just wouldn't happen. Statements like that have been said to illustrate extreme examples. I wish they wouldn't do that. However, I know for sure that it would never happen. The best example I can give you is of Nephi after his family left Jerusalem. How many times were they told to go back? Why didn't Heavenly Father just tell them to do everything in one trip? It doesn't matter, Nephi knew in his heart that it was the right thing to do. So if it ever did happen, you would know by the Spirit that it was right... or at least be entitled to find out for yourself, just as Nephi did.

[Maureen]

...A clear example of this is the scriptural foundation of trinitarian belief. When God and Jesus, two distinct and seperate beings, came and stood next to each other, many trinitarians just refuse to allow room for that possibility. They'll elevate the scriptures that support the notion of the trinity to great hights, but they'll ignore, gloss over, or twist a non-common sense meaning out of the scriptures that support the notion of 3 seperate beings.

I have a feeling you don't really understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity says that the three persons of the Godhead are distinct from each other, they cannot be confounded. The one thing a trinitarian would disagree with would be that God the Father is corporeal.

M.

[CrimsonKairos]

The standard works are the standard against which we measure every man's doctrine.

But a prophet's role is far greater than simply teaching doctrine. A prophet receives revelations and visions about how to live the doctrines, how to overcome our challenges, etc...

The issue with all worthy males receiving the priesthood in 1978, and polygamy being abandoned as a practice in 1890 were not matters of doctrine changing. The prophets were not saying, "Polygamy is no longer a celestial principle." They said, "We will not be practicing this particular principle right now."

That is a change in policy, not doctrine. When it comes to doctrines, i.e. gospel truths such as Jesus being our Savior etc., if a prophet teaches anything contrary to the standard works' doctrine, we are not bound to believe that prophet's teaching.

Let's differentiate also between a prophet speaking as a prophet and a prophet speaking as a man. In the former case, God's authority endorses and underscores the prophet's words. In the latter case, the man is simply expressing his opinions and personal views which may or may not be accurate.

In publications like the Ensign and even in General Conference addresses, prophets and apostles often share their opinions and interpretations of scripture. Not every word spoken by a prophet everywhere is scripture or God's word or the mind of God. Only when a prophet in effect says, "Thus saith the Lord," are they explicitly exercising their prophetic mantle.

[Dale]

I have a statement of Orson Hyde where Joseph Smith taught the revelation's of the prophet should be tested. That the new revelation should undergo discussion in the leading quorums of the church before going to the people. And if in discussion the document ran against a snag it warranted looking into. He knew some revelations were of God, others of men and other's of the Devil. He knew that even a prophet might be wrong into thinking a false revelation was of God.

Brigham Young is felt to have left some speculative idea's in his sermon's. But his idea atleast the one's that are most controversial never have been affirmed as official LDS doctrine. He said regarding Adam God that he couldn't get the Latter-day Saints to accept it. So even if he tried to get the whole church to accept a speculation he tried and failed.

[Iggy]

Could it happen? Yes, I think almost anything could. Would it happen? I doubt it.

Have past revelations been superseded before? Yes. There are plenty examples of this in the scriptures (think fulfillment of the Law of Moses).

An article called Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet may be of interest. I must say that I sincerely believe Tenant #4 - "The prophet will never lead the church astray." That being said though, personal revelation is the key. Personal confirmation by the Spirit can help each one of us know for ourselves that what the current Prophet is saying is indeed true.

Just my 2-cents,

LatterDaySaint

Thank you so much LatterDaySaint for that link - it is EXACTLY what I have been looking for! Thank You Thank You Thank You:bouncingclap:

[sjdean]

I know that we can pray and receive personal revelation to know if a new revelation is true

Now this is where it gets messy for a potential newcomer who reads more than he should.

The prophet will never lead the church astray. Therefore the prophet is always correct by definition and therefore believed to be correct by all (even if it is a big sham) because it's a fundamental thing to trust in the prophet.

If you pray and get the "wrong" answer, then there's something wrong with your faith and not the prophet who is infallible.

And no, the prophet will never lead the church astray, but he might bend the truth and not be specific enough in some things if it is of benefit to the church.

Head spinning.

[CrimsonKairos]

Saying "The prophet will never lead the Church astray" needs clarification.

The prophet will never lead the Church away from salvation.

What that means is that prophets will never teach doctrines or enable policies that--if accepted--will cause Church members to forfeit salvation.

While people may argue about whether Brigham Young taught that Adam was Heavenly Father, everyone agrees that Pres. Young never taught: "Unless you pray to Adam, you cannot be saved."

So the standard to use when deciding if a prophet is a false prophet in the LDS Church is not: "Has everything they've ever said been 100% accurate?"

The standard is: "Has anything a prophet teaches in their role as a prophet been a false requirement for salvation? Would following anything they reveal as a commandment from the Lord, lead me away from salvation?"

That is what is meant by, "The prophet will never lead the Church astray."

It doesn't mean that prophets can only have correct personal opinions or interpretations of scripture; it doesn't mean that prophets must be able to be mindreaders and omniscient; etc.

I allow prophets and apostles the same privilege I enjoy, to wit, the ability to form and share personal opinions even though they may not be 100% accurate. Not every word a prophet speaks is spoken in his role as a prophet. Hence the Spirit is our ally in understanding and confirming the teachings of the men God has put here to lead us back to Him.

[NeuroTypical]

An article called Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet may be of interest.

I think I see what President Benson was trying to get at with these 14 points, but I must say I don't like the presentation very much. Too easily taken out of context and used to support notions that we LDS all march in unthinking lockstep to the beat of whatever whim comes from the prophet, or that we buy whatever newspeak contradicts last year's newspeak.

Of course his talk does none of these things, but unfortunately, a quote out of context here, a little stretch there, and it becomes what it isn't.

I much prefer quotes like these:

-------------------

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150

-----

Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and "under this head are [we] made free." (Mosiah 5: 8 )

Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.

Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66

-----

Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil

Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

-----

It is a mistaken idea, prevalent in the world, that the perpetuity of this work depends upon the authorities keeping the masses of the people in ignorance. The truth is the direct reverse, else why have we all these auxiliary organizations and quorums of priesthood in the church, for the education of the rising generation. Their being established in the faith depends upon their knowledge of the Gospel. Our greatest fear concerning our children in Zion is the possibility of their growing up in ignorance of the everlasting Gospel...As a matter of intelligent obedience--not blind obedience--we should observe to keep the word of wisdom. For the same reason we should observe to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the name of our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and intelligently yield obedience to every requirement that is made at our hands

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17

LM

[cowgirlupgrl]

The only 2 times I would have ever seen modern revelation that might change the scriptures and even that is questionable is the 2 official declarations in the doctrine & covenants but that just shows we have a living god.

My stake president explained this to me this way so the official declarations don't even contradict revelation.

"Doctrine never changes, only the way we practice it. Take polygamy for example. The doctrine is there plain as day for all to see, and is to be a 'new and everlasting covenant'. How then do we explain a revelation that makes this no longer everlasting? Like this. We believe in the eternal nature of marriage, so if your wife were to die you are still married for eternity. However, after she dies, you may take another wife and be sealed to her also. Are you not then married to two women? Is that not the essence of the doctrine? We have not ceased to practice this doctrine, we simply practice it differently because more current revelation has updated us on how to do it."

Perhaps, in my opinion, the original doctrine of polygamy was put into effect with the early saints so that we would become aquainted with the practice. Had they not been introduced to it, could we now acccept the fact that we are still married after our spouse dies and are allowed to take another? It is also possible that God revealed the doctrine of polygamy but did not finish telling us how back then because the saints were not ready to hear that part, they were barely able to accept what they did recieve.

Therefore, even this revelation does not contradict any revelation given before this. Nor does it contradict the standard works. It simply clarifies it.

[Dale]

I am community of Christ/RLDS which does not accept D.& C. 132 as scripture. We felt it contradicted the scripture's.

The Anti-Restoration writing's i read sometime's as a witnessing ploy hit the reader with lists of reputed contradictions within the standard work's. Or they will try and show a modern LDS, or Community of Christ prophet contradicting the scripture's in what they say. I generally have found though i am not an expert that i can find many personal solution's to so-called contradictions that satisfy me.

I see room for seeing a prophet have major or minor view's that disagree with the scripture's. Prophet's are human. They can misunderstand what is in the scripture's are saying like anyone else. So i have found if i find something in an official statement, or publication that i think wrong i don't see that as sufficient reason for rejecting a prophet.

The LDS leadership pretty much keep's to popular LDS doctrine. I do not see it likely that an LDS prophet would give a revelation that contradicted the standard works. Any revelation that contained a major contradiction to the standard works would be stopped in the leading quorum's of the LDS Church. Unless the LDS leadership felt it true it would not go to the LDS people.

[JonboySquarepants]

sjdean says...

"And no, the prophet will never lead the church astray, but he might bend the truth and not be specific enough in some things if it is of benefit to the church." (01-17-2008, 11:48 PM)

really? are you saying it's ok for the prophet to lie?

i guess that could explain the time Pres. Hinckley was being interviewed by time magazine and when asked if the church believes if God was once a man, he said he wasn't sure. or when J. Smith said he only had one wife when he really had more than one. is it stuff like that that you mean?

[NateHowe]

Scriptures are words of prophets, and words of modern prophets are modern scripture. We are constantly gaining new light and knowledge from God, so some things President Hinckley now knows were unknown or irrelevant to the world of Brigham Young or the world of Moses. Thus, the words of modern prophets provide a clear view of the scriptures, and in rare instances when the wording of the scriptures seems contradictory to the teachings of living prophets, it is our duty to pray and receive our own witness from God as to which course we should take.

Christ, the greatest among the prophets and the Savior of the World, contradicted many of the teachings of the Old Testament. He had greater light and knowledge than was previously taught to the Children of Israel. However, as with modern prophets, the spirit and intent of his teachings never contradicted the core beliefs inherent in the ancient scriptures.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I have a feeling you don't really understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity says that the three persons of the Godhead are distinct from each other, they cannot be confounded. The one thing a trinitarian would disagree with would be that God the Father is corporeal.

M.

I know this isn't the subject matter of the thread but I found it very odd that you should say this. The main objection I have been given from Christians who believe in the Trinity is that our doctrine of seperate individual beings is wrong. They specifically argue that God is 'three in one and one in three' and not seperate personages. Even when I have directed them to verses of scripture which show Jesus praying to his father or talking about the Holy Ghost they still tell me I am wrong to believe that they are seperate beings.

[sjdean]

sjdean says...

"And no, the prophet will never lead the church astray, but he might bend the truth and not be specific enough in some things if it is of benefit to the church." (01-17-2008, 11:48 PM)

really? are you saying it's ok for the prophet to lie?

I don't know. Please remember Im not LDS. Im just saying for someone who is rather keen on joining the church, when we start to see "revisions" to the Word of Wisdom, or even apparent revisions and strict contradiction in apparent fact between creationism (ie such a such was created on the fourth day, or fifth day etc), then it seems a bit confusing - if the church will never lead the church astray.

But then we hear that actually, that isn't what was meant, what was meant is that they will never lead them away from salvation.

I read what LoudMouth_Mormon writes, and the quotation of Brigham Young and am inspired by such simplicity, simple language and it cuts through any argument. Surely the words of God should be taken at face value, and we shouldn't be trying to interpret them. That's why to me, things like the Word of Wisdom is quite beautiful, because it show what to and what not to do in clear language.

In contrast to Brigham Youngs quotations though, it appears many Mormons don't like questionning the prophet and prefer to follow in blind faith because the prophet is always correct and to question the prophet shows a lack of faith.

Even though I see people here saying sure, why not question the prophet and inquire of the Lord. Brigham Young seemingly saw nothing wrong with it. It's the way you'll beat corruption. But then if you do question, and follow your own interpretation through your own revelation, you'll be excommuniated.

Then I find more issues with the Word of Wisdom. It was never a commandment prior to 1859, before Brigham Young I understand said it should be so, despite the wording being very clear that it is not a commandment.

Was Joseph Smith leading his church astray by not making it a commandment, allowing "mild drinks" and cold tea and coffee?

Was Joseph Smiths Word of Wisdom flawed from the outside?

Or is the current version a weakened contemporary version?

I presume the argument will be that God will change his mind from time to time and we have to follow his will as he instructs his prophets.

There's nothing wrong with that. But surely tea and coffee has always been tea and coffee? So why not say tea and coffee? Why not say alcohol instead of strong drink? Was abstinence from tea and coffee not a requirement for salvation prior to 1859? Did God get it wrong? Did Joseph Smith? Did Brigham Young? Or did God just change his mind in what is required for salvation?

It frustrates me greatly to hear how we shouldn't question the prophet, because it shows a lack of faith, because quite obviously, the prophet is always correct.

But it is good to question the prophet through God, as long as we all achieve the same answer as taught by the Mormon church. If we receive a different answer, then it's not that the prophet is untrue, it's because we are being deceieved.

It just says that the prophet is infallible, no matter how wrong he may be.

i guess that could explain the time Pres. Hinckley was being interviewed by time magazine and when asked if the church believes if God was once a man, he said he wasn't sure. or when J. Smith said he only had one wife when he really had more than one. is it stuff like that that you mean?

Yup. That troubles me as well.

As well as this site. Im not going to post any content from it, but as someone who has been wondering about joining the church, it's a very concerning read for me.

My Thoughts Exactly: Don’t question the Church, ever!!!

I'd quite like to know how true it is.

Cya

Simon

[Elgama]

we all have our own agency and the Gift of the Holy Ghost - although tbh a revelation contradicting or what I see as contradicting the Standard Works wouldn't concern me - we don't understand God 100% so what we do know can be a little contraditory.

_Charley

[cloud9]

My stake president explained this to me this way so the official declarations don't even contradict revelation.

"Doctrine never changes, only the way we practice it. Take polygamy for example. The doctrine is there plain as day for all to see, and is to be a 'new and everlasting covenant'. How then do we explain a revelation that makes this no longer everlasting? Like this. We believe in the eternal nature of marriage, so if your wife were to die you are still married for eternity. However, after she dies, you may take another wife and be sealed to her also. Are you not then married to two women? Is that not the essence of the doctrine? We have not ceased to practice this doctrine, we simply practice it differently because more current revelation has updated us on how to do it."

Perhaps, in my opinion, the original doctrine of polygamy was put into effect with the early saints so that we would become aquainted with the practice. Had they not been introduced to it, could we now acccept the fact that we are still married after our spouse dies and are allowed to take another? It is also possible that God revealed the doctrine of polygamy but did not finish telling us how back then because the saints were not ready to hear that part, they were barely able to accept what they did recieve.

Therefore, even this revelation does not contradict any revelation given before this. Nor does it contradict the standard works. It simply clarifies it.

President Hinckley says that "I think it is not doctrinal" HUH?????? So I guess if he thinks it isnt, then it isnt...right?

[HiJolly]

President Hinckley says that "I think it is not doctrinal" HUH?????? So I guess if he thinks it isnt, then it isnt...right?

Two things:

First: Pres. Hinckley said in General Conference that we should not think a 20-second sound byte in the media is a doctrinal exposition (paraphrasing). I agree. Since, then the Church has come out with a very nice statement as to what Mormon doctrine really is: LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Second: Polygamy, polyandry, etc. is not a current doctrinal practice in the Church. So I think as far as Pres. Hinckley went, he is correct. I do believe the basic concept is still doctrinal in theory, since it is allowed in temple sealing ceremonies, where one or more parties have passed on. But not practically speaking.

HiJolly

[AnthonyB]

I know this isn't the subject matter of the thread but I found it very odd that you should say this. The main objection I have been given from Christians who believe in the Trinity is that our doctrine of seperate individual beings is wrong. They specifically argue that God is 'three in one and one in three' and not seperate personages. Even when I have directed them to verses of scripture which show Jesus praying to his father or talking about the Holy Ghost they still tell me I am wrong to believe that they are seperate beings.

Willow,

Distinct persons, one being. A multipersonal being. The persons can communicate, love and even being in different spatial locations. (and even though I don't believe God the Father has a literal body, the doctrine of the trinity does not (IMHO) rule out it as a possibilty.