Past statements, of past leaders.

[JB]

It seems to me that the "living prophet is more important than a dead prophet" thing makes great sense insofar as it concerns very context-specific statements, such as exhortations/commands to a certain group. If there were a prophet among us today, there is undoubtedly a certain extent to which his exhortations, warnings, blessings, etc., would have to take precedence over those of, say, Jeremiah - if only because Jeremiah's (might) concern us indirectly, whereas the modern-day prophet's would concern us directly.

But it seems to me also that there are certain categories of statements to which this cannot legitimately be applied. For example, an assortment of more metaphysical truth-claims. If a true prophet were to authoritatively declare, e.g., that God the Father has gods above him, then no later prophet can ever authoritatively declare the contrary. In such an area, a living prophet is not more important than a dead prophet; rather, those dead prophets may legitimately be a standard against which all purported living prophets are to be judged. The same would go, I think, for ethical statements that transcend the context of a particular period or a particular group. If a dead prophet urged, e.g., that monogamy was a universally binding model of marriage, then no prophet can ever license polygamy. (I'm not here attempting to make a statement, of course, as to whether any deceased prophet ever made such a claim; I'm merely giving an illustration.) Thus, in a certain capacity, dead prophets ought to properly take precedence over living prophets.


(Now, there's also the separate issue of whether we need living prophets. Provided that the writings of dead prophets include sufficient material from which we can derive direction for our Christian dealings in the contemporary world, then I see no reason why we should need a living prophet for that.)

[Deren]

What makes a statement of a past leader relevant to actual doctrines?

Because it is representative of the organization believes as true.

LDS critics often cite statements of past leaders that seem odd, or seem contradictory of present practices or beliefs. They justify this criticism practice by claiming that the statements of the past should always be consistent with the present, otherwise, there is deception and falsehood afoot.

So, if a Mormon leader stands up and states something "odd" or "contradictory" in the name of Mormonism, then everyone is just supposed to ignore him? If that's the case, then why did guys like you place him in leadership to begin with?

So, putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment, I was wondering what the LDS critics would say if we were to examine the past statements of leaders and influential people of the Reformation and afterward such as Martin Luther, or John Smyth, Jonathon Edwards, John Calvin, or C.S. Lewis?

You're committing the fallacy of equivocation, since none of those persons ever claimed to be God's mouthpiece.

What if one of these persons said or wrote something that is not denied by the Bible?

Then he would be speaking the truth.

How do you judge its truth?

By its external and internal consistency.

And is it indicative of Christian doctrines? Is it indicative of what Christian leaders "used" to teach?

Is what indicative of Christian doctrines or what Christian leaders "used" to teach?

Frankly, OC, you're doing your usual barking up the wrong tree. If you want to undermine your leadership by denying their credibility and authority, then that's your problem. It merely means you don't believe they have a leg to stand on, which I would agree with you. Conversely, if you think they're everything and a bag of chips, then don't be trying to undermine them, even when they say something stupid. Otherwise, you look stupid yourself by trying to convince us that they're one thing, when you don't actually believe it yourself.

[ServantBearkat]

OC doesn't it bother you that the very people that founded your church and claim to speak on God's behalf as prophets make such outlandish statements when "not speaking officially"? If these men know God so well shouldn't even their unofficially comments be pretty sound? If they can make such outlandish statements couldn't that possibly mean they never knew God or spoke on God's behalf?

I mean if the leaders/founders of my church said/started saying that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that Adam was Michael the Archangel and God I'd be looking for a new church because they wouldn't be teaching about the God from the Bible.

[jo7241974]

OC doesn't it bother you that the very people that founded your church and claim to speak on God's behalf as prophets make such outlandish statements when "not speaking officially"? If these men know God so well shouldn't even their unofficially comments be pretty sound? If they can make such outlandish statements couldn't that possibly mean they never knew God or spoke on God's behalf?

I mean if the leaders/founders of my church said/started saying that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that Adam was Michael the Archangel and God I'd be looking for a new church because they wouldn't be teaching about the God from the Bible.

However, the leaders of "your" church made heretics out of Christians already numbered among them as Christians by making the trinity theory the official concept to be tolerated. They then saw to it that the lives of those who instantly became heretics were ruined, and even evolving to their death by being burned at the stake. And as the church leaders gained power, they continued to add man's rules and doctrine which eventually would lead to the need for the Reformation causing unnumbered deaths on both sides (Christians killing Christians). So, obviously they WERE following the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles from the Bible.

I just wanted to make sure I have your bigotry and hypocrisy exposed. He who is without sin (whether real or imagined since only God knows for sure), cast the first stone.

God bless,

jo

[Sparko]

where did any of our church leaders claim to be a Prophet of God?

[OtherCheek]

OC doesn't it bother you that the very people that founded your church and claim to speak on God's behalf as prophets make such outlandish statements when "not speaking officially"? If these men know God so well shouldn't even their unofficially comments be pretty sound? If they can make such outlandish statements couldn't that possibly mean they never knew God or spoke on God's behalf?

If you would consider their statements within the context of the times in which they were spoken, I don't see the outlandishness you seem to see.

I think it is outlandish to view statements from another time and toward another audience from that time, in the context of the present time, and then hold yourself up as an objective person.

[OtherCheek]

Because it is representative of the organization believes as true.

Not necessarily. If we take the statements of Martin Luther, and analyze them in context of the 21st Century, would it be fair to say that his statements are representative of what the organization believes as true?

[jo7241974]

where did any of our church leaders claim to be a Prophet of God?

So, are you admitting that the leaders of your church are NOT guided and directed by God the way you have been claiming? I mean, how could the Holy Spirit tell the Catholic church one thing and Martin Luther another thing? Or perhaps, the adversary led them astray but that's okay because they weren't prophets to begin with? So, Christians killing Christians is somehow justified because they were going through some kind of growing pains or periods of adjustment? Maybe they weren't really acting like Christians when they did it? Yet somehow you feel justified in maintaining the same teachings that led to the fighting when others didn't agree with those teachings? Only today, instead of killing off anyone who doesn't agree with you, you merely damn them?

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing those instructions and examples being taught by Jesus or the Apostles in the Bible. In fact, Jesus didn't damn the Pharisees. He pointed to their ACTIONS for the source of His anger with them. He never sent His followers after them to ridicule them, or harm them in any way. So, where is the precedence for bigotry? That is one of the ACTIONS Jesus disapproved of. Bigotry is another way to bring discord into the church. That is something Jesus HATED! Where did Jesus even warn against or condemn a person for their beliefs? He never even condemned the pagans. His teachings always focused on our actions! He pointed out the actions He disliked, and He taught the actions He wanted from us.

It's time we all pray that the adversary release us from bigotry so that instead, we can rejoice. I don't see anyone rejoicing on this forum, except for the LDS.

He lives!!

God bless,

jo

[Geoffrey]

Does the LDS Church claim that their Presidents of the Church are sinless? No. The LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents are sinful.

Does the LDS Church claim that their Presidents of the Church are infallible? No. The LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents are fallible.

In short, the LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents can say and do sinful and/or mistaken things.

The only dogmatically binding authority in the LDS Church is the Standard Works, which consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These latter three sources total about 1,000 pages. Let's see how much each LDS President wrote of these 1,000 pages:

Joseph Smith: virtually all of it
Brigham Young: 3 pages
John Taylor: 2 pages
WIlford Woodruff: 3 pages
Lorenzo Snow: none at all
Joseph F. Smith: 5 pages
Heber J. Grant: none at all
George Albert Smith: none at all
David O. McKay: none at all
Joseph Fielding Smith: none at all
Harold B. Lee: none at all
Spencer W. Kimball: 2 pages
Ezra Taft Benson: none at all
Howard W. Hunter: none at all
Gordon B. Hinckly: none at all
Thomas S. Monson: none at all

As can be seen, the majority of LDS Presidents have left the LDS Church NO additional scripture. Therefore NONE of their words are binding on all the LDS faithful. I've noticed that Brigham Young is often quoted by LDS critics. ONLY the 3 pages he wrote of the Doctrine and Covenants are binding. Everything else he said can safely be regarded by the LDS faithful as misquoted, mis-attributed, mistaken, misunderstood, incomprehensible, or even sinful (or whatever). The only thing it can NOT be considered as is binding. An LDS is at perfect liberty to NEVER read a word of Brigham Young's outside of the 3 pages that he wrote of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The only thing that distinguishes an LDS President from anyone else is that the LDS President is the only man on earth who can add to the Standard Works. And we see how rarely that occurs, with only 15 pages out of 1,000 written by a President other than Joseph Smith.

It serves no purpose for a critic of the LDS Church to quote-mine from past LDS leaders, searching for statements that are frankly pretty silly. (At least as they stand outside of their original context. For all I know, these outrageous statements lose a lot of their outrage when considered in context.) It is also to no purpose to produce quotes from these sinful and fallible men to the effect that whatever they say is true. When a fallible man says, "What I say is correct", obvious he may be mistaken since he is fallible!

I counsel LDS critics to stick to criticizing the Standard Works. Any other target is dubious at best.

[wonbyone]

So, are you admitting that the leaders of your church are NOT guided and directed by God the way you have been claiming? I mean, how could the Holy Spirit tell the Catholic church one thing and Martin Luther another thing? Or perhaps, the adversary led them astray but that's okay because they weren't prophets to begin with? So, Christians killing Christians is somehow justified because they were going through some kind of growing pains or periods of adjustment? Maybe they weren't really acting like Christians when they did it? Yet somehow you feel justified in maintaining the same teachings that led to the fighting when others didn't agree with those teachings? Only today, instead of killing off anyone who doesn't agree with you, you merely damn them?

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing those instructions and examples being taught by Jesus or the Apostles in the Bible. In fact, Jesus didn't damn the Pharisees. He pointed to their ACTIONS for the source of His anger with them. He never sent His followers after them to ridicule them, or harm them in any way. So, where is the precedence for bigotry? That is one of the ACTIONS Jesus disapproved of. Bigotry is another way to bring discord into the church. That is something Jesus HATED! Where did Jesus even warn against or condemn a person for their beliefs? He never even condemned the pagans. His teachings always focused on our actions! He pointed out the actions He disliked, and He taught the actions He wanted from us.

It's time we all pray that the adversary release us from bigotry so that instead, we can rejoice. I don't see anyone rejoicing on this forum, except for the LDS.

He lives!!

God bless,

jo

All of a sudden I"m thinking of all of the other lds groups!

[Sparko]

So, are you admitting that the leaders of your church are NOT guided and directed by God the way you have been claiming? I mean, how could the Holy Spirit tell the Catholic church one thing and Martin Luther another thing? Or perhaps, the adversary led them astray but that's okay because they weren't prophets to begin with? So, Christians killing Christians is somehow justified because they were going through some kind of growing pains or periods of adjustment? Maybe they weren't really acting like Christians when they did it? Yet somehow you feel justified in maintaining the same teachings that led to the fighting when others didn't agree with those teachings? Only today, instead of killing off anyone who doesn't agree with you, you merely damn them?

as I have been claiming? Where have I ever claimed that the Church is being led by Prophets? The last time we had anyone who spoke directly with God was the Apostles. Our church is led by the Holy Spirit, but not by verbal communication. That is why we have the bible. Our leaders are just fallible men. I have never claimed otherwise. Neither has any other Christian here.

Yet you church claims it's leaders are Prophets who communicate directly with God. They have no excuse for making errors in doctrine or teachings.

[OtherCheek]

Does the LDS Church claim that their Presidents of the Church are sinless? No. The LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents are sinful.

Does the LDS Church claim that their Presidents of the Church are infallible? No. The LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents are fallible.

In short, the LDS Church recognizes that their Presidents can say and do sinful and/or mistaken things.

The only dogmatically binding authority in the LDS Church is the Standard Works, which consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These latter three sources total about 1,000 pages. Let's see how much each LDS President wrote of these 1,000 pages:

Joseph Smith: virtually all of it
Brigham Young: 3 pages
John Taylor: 2 pages
WIlford Woodruff: 3 pages
Lorenzo Snow: none at all
Joseph F. Smith: 5 pages
Heber J. Grant: none at all
George Albert Smith: none at all
David O. McKay: none at all
Joseph Fielding Smith: none at all
Harold B. Lee: none at all
Spencer W. Kimball: 2 pages
Ezra Taft Benson: none at all
Howard W. Hunter: none at all
Gordon B. Hinckly: none at all
Thomas S. Monson: none at all

As can be seen, the majority of LDS Presidents have left the LDS Church NO additional scripture. Therefore NONE of their words are binding on all the LDS faithful. I've noticed that Brigham Young is often quoted by LDS critics. ONLY the 3 pages he wrote of the Doctrine and Covenants are binding. Everything else he said can safely be regarded by the LDS faithful as misquoted, mis-attributed, mistaken, misunderstood, incomprehensible, or even sinful (or whatever). The only thing it can NOT be considered as is binding. An LDS is at perfect liberty to NEVER read a word of Brigham Young's outside of the 3 pages that he wrote of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The only thing that distinguishes an LDS President from anyone else is that the LDS President is the only man on earth who can add to the Standard Works. And we see how rarely that occurs, with only 15 pages out of 1,000 written by a President other than Joseph Smith.

It serves no purpose for a critic of the LDS Church to quote-mine from past LDS leaders, searching for statements that are frankly pretty silly. (At least as they stand outside of their original context. For all I know, these outrageous statements lose a lot of their outrage when considered in context.) It is also to no purpose to produce quotes from these sinful and fallible men to the effect that whatever they say is true. When a fallible man says, "What I say is correct", obvious he may be mistaken since he is fallible!

I counsel LDS critics to stick to criticizing the Standard Works. Any other target is dubious at best.

Geo, I marvel at your capacity to think from other perspectives and to have an openness about you. Thanks. You are an example to all of us. Myself included.

[Cow Poke]

as I have been claiming? Where have I ever claimed that the Church is being led by Prophets?

I was wanting to answer this when I first saw it posted, but forced myself to wait.
Jo's propensity to alter one's statement is one of the tactics involved in her anti-Christianity agenda.

Lacking fact and truth, she has to do this "make stuff up" stuff.

[Cow Poke]

So, are you admitting that the leaders of your church are NOT guided and directed by God the way you have been claiming?

Absolutely preposterous and deceitful, Jo.
Just because somebody does not claim to be a Prophet does NOT mean they are not guided and directed by God.

Just in case you missed it with the triple negatives let me state it in the affirmative....

One can be guided and directed by God WITHOUT pretending to be a prophet.

[Bill the Cat]

C.S. Lewis was Christian, as were the others. Are their writings indicative of what Christians used to teach and believe?

Lewis also had some rather kooky ideas.