How important are the prophets of the Lord?

[Sparko]

The LDS membership
Once a year, at General Conference of the Church, we are invited to manifest our support for our leaders by raising the right hand when asked. You can watch the first 100 seconds of this video if you want to see an example.



The current prophet. Sustain him AS prophet, seer, and revelator.

OK so, you all just vote to sustain the Prophet as leader, not the specific teachings of his?

Because the impression you had given me in earlier threads was that you vote to sustain specific revelations and teachings as doctrine, not just a general support for the person.

[OtherCheek]

OK, so ... have you not seen the "exact quotes" from your Mormon leaders that support exactly what I have said? OC even quoted the same sources.

Would it surprise you to find that your leaders HAVE said that you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without passing by Joseph Smith?

This teaching has not been mentioned since 1988 as you noted, and even that was a Priesthood manual quoting a remark made to Church members, who understand the context of our doctrines, teachings, and beliefs better than non-LDS do. And that quote in that Priesthood manual came from a source earlier than 1988. Most of us are not accustomed to paying so much time researching long past quotes. We have a lot in the present to focus on. Anyway, the teaching makes sense to me, when viewed from an LDS understanding--for which it was intended.

[OtherCheek]

OK so, you all just vote to sustain the Prophet as leader, not the specific teachings of his?

Because the impression you had given me in earlier threads was that you vote to sustain specific revelations and teachings as doctrine, not just a general support for the person.

We vote to sustain the prophet and general authorities once a year. If there are new revelations, or major declarations, or proclamations, we may be asked to sustain those items as well. But there is no hard fast rule for declarations and proclamations. If there is something that is to be canonized, we vote to sustain that decision to canonize it.

[OtherCheek]

Continuing on what OC said, to vote to sustain is a vote to accept someone who leadership has received a revelation after praying about it that that person should be called to the position.. Very, very rarely is the voting less than unanimous.

We also all, every one of us, hold a veto if there is cause for one. It's never happened at a meeting I was at, but I have talked to people who were at a meeting where someone voted not to sustain. What happens is that the person issuing the call and conducting the vote will meet with them privately and ask why. If it is some personal disagreement ('i.e. I don't like him because he was mean to me 15 years ago when we were in high school') then that will not be considered as cause and the person will be sustained. However, if it determined that the vote not to sustain was with cause (for example if the person voting 'no' was a police officer and knew that a man just called as bishop was engaged in shady dealings, or if a woman was a waitress and had recently served beer to a woman called as a Sunday school teacher) then that person will be called in and the calling may be rescinded and if necessary other disciplinary action taken.

I think it was Sonja Johnson and a group of femininists that were the last ones I remember who voted contrary. They made quite a scene as I recall. I should add that we vote to sustain in General Conf. once a year, and usually in Stake Conf. or Regional Conferences once a year as well.

[Cow Poke]

This teaching has not been mentioned since 1988 as you noted,

Actually, OC, let's be honeest.... you seemed to indicate that it wasn't taught by anybody other than Brigham Young. Then I produced MUCH more recent quotes, and you even produced some of the SAME quotes from the very same source where I got them. And I was noting 1988 as a much more recent than Brigham Young, and it is in material that, AFAICT, is still in use by your Church. So, let's be accurate on this, OK?

and even that was a Priesthood manual quoting a remark made to Church members, who understand the context of our doctrines, teachings, and beliefs better than non-LDS do. And that quote in that Priesthood manual came from a source earlier than 1988.

So, what is the expiration date of Mormon teachings?

Most of us are not accustomed to paying so much time researching long past quotes.

Google. It only takes milliseconds!

We have a lot in the present to focus on.

Well, yeah, this ever-changing landscape of Mormonism must be a lot to keep up with.

Anyway, the teaching makes sense to me, when viewed from an LDS understanding--for which it was intended.

Well, see, OC... if somebody is thinking about BECOMING a Mormon, is that how you would handle this? "You can't know what's IN the manual until you have voted FOR the manual". Isn't that how we got ObamaCare. (I should be careful with that --- I think RW* is a LIBERAL Mormon! )



*My apologies to you, RW, if I got my Mormons mixed up.

[OtherCheek]

Well, see, OC... if somebody is thinking about BECOMING a Mormon, is that how you would handle this? "You can't know what's IN the manual until you have voted FOR the manual". Isn't that how we got ObamaCare. (I should be careful with that --- I think RW* is a LIBERAL Mormon! )

That was confusing. Is that something like saying: "You will never believe in Christ until you stop making him your stumbling block."

I foresee no end to my learning in the LDS Faith. At least not in this life. So I'm not tightly acquainted with every quote or teaching that the brethren have taught in the past. But I appreciate you mentioning those. It made me think and gave some new insights that I'm glad to have.

Thanks.

[Cow Poke]

That was confusing. Is that something like saying: "You will never believe in Christ until you stop making him your stumbling block."

I foresee no end to my learning in the LDS Faith. At least not in this life. So I'm not tightly acquainted with every quote or teaching that the brethren have taught in the past. But I appreciate you mentioning those. It made me think and gave some new insights that I'm glad to have.

Thanks.

I was nice, and let you fix your quote before responding!

You CAN be amusing, OC.

Thanks.

[Cow Poke]

Oh... and HOW OLD do Mormon quotes have to be before they expire?

[roadwalker]

OK, so ... have you not seen the "exact quotes" from your Mormon leaders that support exactly what I have said? OC even quoted the same sources.

Would it surprise you to find that your leaders HAVE said that you can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without passing by Joseph Smith?


I'm asking because I don't want to waste your time or mine.

As I said, I've never seen that quote (I was baptized in 1985.) However, it is pretty plain what it takes to get to the Celestial Kingdom, which is to accept the fulness of the gospel, as I stated. That would include the Book of Mormon and other documents translated by Smith as well as latter day revelation. So more than anything, this may be semantics. Jesus is the one and only judge, but he would know whether someone had accepted the fulness or only a part of the gospel and place them according to, as it happens their own beliefs (though to be sure LDS can also go to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom if they accept the fulness of the gospel but then fail to be righteous.

[roadwalker]

I think it was Sonja Johnson and a group of femininists that were the last ones I remember who voted contrary. They made quite a scene as I recall. I should add that we vote to sustain in General Conf. once a year, and usually in Stake Conf. or Regional Conferences once a year as well.

I don't specifically remember that. As I said, I've spoken to a couple of people who were there when someone voted not to sustain people for a local office. They didn't know the details but apparently in the case of one of the people I talked to who had been in a meeting where a 'no' vote was cast, someone who did know better prevailed on the stake President to withdraw a calling for a member of a bishopric after voting 'no.' That individual later went to prison for some kind of check kiting or fraud scheme (as I said, the person who told me didn't know all the details and it was years ago that I had that conversation.) So apparently the person who voted 'no' knew that something was going on and the stake President listened to him or her privately.

[roadwalker]

Oh... and HOW OLD do Mormon quotes have to be before they expire?

Depends. Quotes are exactly what you just said. Quotes. That's like saying how long into the future can you quote Benjamin Franklin. You can quote him and you can quote past general authorities-- BUT unless they are themselves the prophet, anything they say is still their opinion (maybe enlightented opinion but still just opinion.)

Some years back there was a General Authority and member of the quorum of apostles named Bruce R. McConkie. A lot of members of the church still remember and revere him as very knowlegeable and enlightened (though he died about the time I joined the church.) He probably understood the subject as well as anyone who has not been called as a Prophet. Bruce R. McConkie wrote a book called, "Mormon Doctrine" which he made intentionally easy to read, alphabetizing it by topic and with copious cross references and documentation. But later he said that he regretted the title because people, when they had a question, would immediately run to get their copy of 'Mormon Doctrine,' and accept whatever he wrote as authoritative, and he himself said that was not true-- it was only "Mormon Doctrine as interpreted by Bruce R. McConkie," but it was still his opinion. Only a Prophet has the right to give a definitive statement about anything, and even then only if he is speaking AS the Prophet (i.e. not 'vote for the candidates endorsed by the John Birch Society' as President Benson might have said.)

[Cow Poke]

As I said, I've never seen that quote (I was baptized in 1985.) However, it is pretty plain what it takes to get to the Celestial Kingdom, which is to accept the fulness of the gospel, as I stated. That would include the Book of Mormon and other documents translated by Smith as well as latter day revelation. So more than anything, this may be semantics. Jesus is the one and only judge, but he would know whether someone had accepted the fulness or only a part of the gospel and place them according to, as it happens their own beliefs (though to be sure LDS can also go to the telestial or terrestrial kingdom if they accept the fulness of the gospel but then fail to be righteous.

By the way, RW, I'm also a cranky old codger, so if I ever seem curt to you, just chalk it up to one cranky old codger to another, OK?

Here are some of the quotes that trouble Christians (outside of Mormondom ) (I've bolded some)

"NO SALVATION WITHOUT ACCEPTING JOSEPH SMITH. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again." -Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

George Q. Cannon
"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by Joseph Smith; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him." -1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142, Apostle George Q. Cannon

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

Now, this one is pretty harsh - bolding mine...

Brigham Young
"I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312

Now, I understood THIS WEEK for the first time that the "Celestial Kingdom", to Mormons, is not "Heaven", but that "third Heaven" (or whatever you call it). I think OC has tried to tell me this before, but it never clicked. I think part of that is because, in Pilgrim's Progress, Heaven is referred to at "the Celestial City", so I didn't see this as especially "Mormon" terminology. (I'll have to check dates to see if Smith could have gotten this terminology from John Bunyan )

But SOME of those references keep me out of HEAVEN (the Kingdom of God) if I don't accept Smith, and he doesn't allow me to pass. That's just wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Depends. Quotes are exactly what you just said. Quotes. That's like saying how long into the future can you quote Benjamin Franklin.

Well, except for the tiny difference that Franklin, AFAIK, never claimed to be a prophet of God.

You can quote him and you can quote past general authorities-- BUT unless they are themselves the prophet, anything they say is still their opinion (maybe enlightented opinion but still just opinion.)

Well, I get that, but it seems awfully easy to "dis" something that previous generations believed was TRUE because THEY believed their prophet was speaking in his official capacity as a prophet.

Some years back there was a General Authority and member of the quorum of apostles named Bruce R. McConkie. A lot of members of the church still remember and revere him as very knowlegeable and enlightened (though he died about the time I joined the church.) He probably understood the subject as well as anyone who has not been called as a Prophet. Bruce R. McConkie wrote a book called, "Mormon Doctrine" which he made intentionally easy to read, alphabetizing it by topic and with copious cross references and documentation. But later he said that he regretted the title because people, when they had a question, would immediately run to get their copy of 'Mormon Doctrine,' and accept whatever he wrote as authoritative, and he himself said that was not true-- it was only "Mormon Doctrine as interpreted by Bruce R. McConkie," but it was still his opinion. Only a Prophet has the right to give a definitive statement about anything, and even then only if he is speaking AS the Prophet (i.e. not 'vote for the candidates endorsed by the John Birch Society' as President Benson might have said.)

I get all that.

[roadwalker]

Well, it is true that Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith were prophets (though Cannon and Hyde were not so what they write is their opinion only.)

As I said I have not seen those particular quotes, and that is not what we teach today but it could very well be in effect a matter of semantics. As I wrote, the fulness of the gospel is to accept the Book of Mormon which if you accept it then by definition Joseph Smith would have to be a prophet since he translated it.

Supposing you are a faithful member of another church but refuse to accept the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith, etc.) Then you cannot have an increase and therefore according to LDS doctrine you could not be in the celestial kingdom. But then why would you be upset at being denied entry into something you don't believe exists anyway? The classic view of Heaven is reflected in the two lower kingdoms, not the Celestial. Of course 'hell' is Outer Darkness but that's another discussion entirely.

[OtherCheek]

Now, I understood THIS WEEK for the first time that the "Celestial Kingdom", to Mormons, is not "Heaven", but that "third Heaven" (or whatever you call it).

Exaltation is what we call it.