In recent years, more and more Mormons have publicly voiced the opinion that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy. Elder Dallin H. Oaks jetted to Boise, Idaho to douse such allegations in a 15 June 2015 tri-stake fireside, where his argument consisted of a slightly more sophisticated version of, “I know you are but what am I?”
I leave the question of whether the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy to wiser heads than mine. The point of this paper, however, is to examine one area in which the LDS Church currently engages in a practice that the LDS Church in former days declared to be a hallmark of apostasy.
That area is the use of Church councils to establish doctrine.
The Great Apostasy
Growing up in the Church, it was common to hear lessons and talks on the Great Apostasy, by which was meant the falling away from the true religion Jesus established. The true church was always identified by prophets who received direct revelation from God. As the apostasy occurred, however, such revelation ceased.
When doctrinal decisions had to be made, church leaders gathered in ecumenical councils and deliberated on the issue. (Here the Council of Nicaea was usually brought up as an example.) This was a means of establishing doctrine completely foreign to God’s true Church, but councils were held precisely because there was no longer a prophet on earth who could receive revelation directly from God.
The introduction of such church councils was generally seen among Latter-day Saints as a sure sign of the Great Apostasy.
An example of this can be found in the December 1995 Ensign:
“All historical Christian churches agree that revelation for the direction of the church ceased with the last of the apostles,” one author has written. History shows, in fact, that after the first century, church leaders, in order to decide important issues, could not (and did not) appeal to heaven for authoritative direction because they did not possess the keys of the kingdom. There were still honorable people on the earth who received personal inspiration for their individual lives. But the church was run largely by men who gathered in councils and held debates, letting their decisions rest on the collected wisdom of mortal beings.
Twelve years after this Ensign article, however, the LDS Church announced a new procedure for establishing doctrine; a procedure eerily similar to the one criticized not only in the 1995 Ensign, but since the early days of the Restoration.
In short, the LDS Church announced that church doctrine is established in councils.
Back to the Future
Mormonism officially entered this brave, new world on 4 May 2007, with this announcement on the official LDS Church website.
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.
With this announcement, a new Church Council was created (or if not created, at least formally revealed). Not just the Council of the First Presidency. Not just the Council of the Twelve Apostles. But a new Council of both the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.
And the purpose of this new Church council is to “establish doctrine.”
Sort of like a latter-day Magisterium.
No longer are statements by Church leaders considered doctrine, even if that Church leader happens to have been the Prophet. A new method has been substituted in its place. Now doctrine is to be established not through revelation, but through a council that meets together and deliberates by weighing the scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice, or in other words, tradition.
Now, wait a second! Surely I am adding words to the Mormon Newsroom statement. That statement says nothing about the council deliberating about doctrine by weighing scriptures, teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. I must be adding those words to make the process sound more like the historical church councils identified by the LDS Church as a mile marker on Apostasy Avenue.
Well, truth be told, I am actually quoting Elder Christofferson from his April 2012 General Conference address:
The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice.
This statement deserves a little dissecting.
1. Why, one might ask, if the LDS Church is run by revelation received directly by a prophet of God, is there a need for a “combined council” to deliberate? And why are they weighing scriptures, teachings of other Church leaders, and past practice? Why are they not just asking God? But asking God doesn’t even make the list!
2. The token nod is of course given to the President of the Church receiving revelation. But this is only a theoretical possibility and not a practical reality in the LDS Church; nor has it been for almost a hundred years. Note that the example given is D&C 138, the vision of Joseph F. Smith of the redemption of the dead. This is the last section in the Doctrine and Covenants, and was received in 1918. Three more years will mark a century with no canonized scripture. A strange state of affairs in a church that claims continuing revelation through living prophets.
3. Elder Christofferson cites to Official Declaration 2 in an effort to find historical support for the new method of establishing doctrine by means of “the combined council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.” But OD2 does not support his argument. The Twelve had no part in any “deliberations.” Rather, after being approved by the counselors in the First Presidency, it “was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it.” No input or deliberations from the Twelve are mentioned.
Or has this process been going on longer than the public record suggests?
President Eyring Spills the Beans
President Eryring described a similar process of arriving at “revelation” through council debate in an unscripted comment he made during a press conference in October, 2007. (See comments beginning at 25:00 of the video and going to approximately 29:30.)
In relating his first experience attending a high-level church council with the First Presidency and apostles present, Henry B. Eyring tells of his initial expectation that all present would receive revelation and be on the same page regarding the issue under consideration. He was surprised to find that was not the case, but that those present held very different ideas and had no reluctance in voicing dissenting opinions. “Here are prophets of God and they are disagreeing!”
As the discussion “cycled around,” however, the leaders eventually began to line up in their opinions. This does not seem remarkable, given the strictly hierarchical nature of Church leadership where apostles enter and leave rooms in order of their seniority. Yet President Eyring considers this somewhat mundane process of achieving consensus a “miracle.”
In his off-the-cuff remarks, President Eyring pulls back the curtain and reveals the actual methods of arriving at decisions in top-level LDS Church councils. In so doing, he fundamentally shifts the definition of “revelation” within the Mormon paradigm. No longer is revelation direct communication from God to the prophet and president of the Church. Rather, revelation is arrived at through council consensus after debating different positions.
If President Eyring was shocked to find out how Church decisions are really made, perhaps we can be forgiven for feeling a similar surprise. And President Eyring dates this story back to the early 1970’s when Harold B. Lee was president.
In the immortal lyrics of Ace, How long has this been going on?
Creedal Mormonism?
Once the Church council has completed its deliberations, the agreed upon doctrine is then set forth in “official Church publications.” Although these publications amount to the same thing as creeds, the Church uses different words to describe them. Understandably so. “Creeds” have a somewhat disreputable pedigree in the LDS Church. Instead, words such as “official declarations and proclamations” are used.
This point is made in the 4 May 2007 Mormon Newsroom article referenced above.
This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.
An “official declaration” of doctrine resulting from church council deliberations is a creed. An “official proclamation” of doctrine resulting from church council deliberations is also a creed. The LDS Church has long been clear about this definition. And the LDS Church has long labeled such creeds as an emblem of apostate Christianity.
What are these “official declarations and proclamations”? Doubtless the 1995 The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and the 2000 declaration, The Living Christ.
Both of these documents are creedal statements of belief arrived at through the deliberations of all fifteen apostles in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
Significantly, they also bypass the need for being presented to the membership of the Church for a sustaining vote, as would be necessary if they were introduced as scripture binding upon Church members.
Instead, the Church has found a convenient way of establishing doctrine through declarations and pronouncements without the input or approval of the members.
The most recent example is a 29 June 2015 letter sent out to all congregations in the United States and Canada regarding the Church’s position on gay marriage. Though no mention of revelation appears in the letter, Mormons are assured of its doctrinal reliability by the fact it appears over the imprimatur of:
THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
A pattern appears to be developing.
But have no fear. The letter on gay-marriage is not just the consensus of personal opinions of council members. It cites to a solid doctrinal basis.
Unfortunately that doctrinal basis is The Family: A Proclamation to the World.
A proclamation issued by the very same council.
Something is starting to smell fishy here.
As well as look a little circular.
Creedal Christianity a Sign of Apostasy
It appears from the evidence that the publication of creeds decided upon by deliberations in LDS Church councils has taken the place of revelation, and that the sun has gone down over the prophets.
Bruce R. McConkie gave his view of such a situation on page 122 of Mormon Doctrine.
From the earliest era of apostate Christianity, the leaders of the then existing church—no longer finding revelation available and incapable of speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost so as to have the resultant record vouchsafed as authoritative scripture—sought other ways of settling religious and philosophical disputes and of establishing authoritative doctrine. By the 4th century formal documents called creeds had been formulated, adopted by councils, and the dogmas expressed in them imposed upon the church, insofar as the political power of the moment was able to enforce such an imposition.
The part about “political power” is especially pregnant given the possibility the Proclamation on the Family was issued for the pedestrian purpose of deploying priesthood power in the Hawaiian gay marriage lawsuit.
Conclusion
Is history repeating itself? Are the Church councils of Mainline Christianity once decried by the LDS Church as a trademark of apostasy now the accepted method of establishing doctrine in the LDS Church? Are the “official declarations and proclamations” that are now issued from the LDS Church councils merely a warmed-over version of the old creeds formerly inveighed against?
It is hard to forget that at the very inception of Mormonism, Jesus Christ told Joseph Smith that the creeds were an “abomination” in his sight, and the professors of those creeds were “all corrupt”–that they have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.
Harsh words, indeed.
But do those harsh words apply only to creeds of former times, or might they have application to creeds of our day, as well?
A friend of mine once presciently observed, “The only difference between the LDS Church and the Catholic Church is 2,000 years.”
As it turns out, the LDS Church may be ahead of the curve.
I recall President Packer in Conference, I believe, referred to the Family Proclamation as a “revelation,” based on its having been issued by the united 15 – Vox Apostoli, Vox Dei, after all – but that comment was redacted from the final published version of his talk.
And the latest Apostolic Encyclical has condemned Jesus as a sinner – because consumption of alcohol is apparently contrary to God’s law.
I thought Jesus’s having perfectly kept God’s law was rather theologically significant for some reason, but apparently when they say “nobody’s perfect,” they mean it.
Thanks for your comments, Log.
Thinking more about Elder Packer’s faux pas in calling the Proclamation “revelation,” and its subsequent redaction, a thought occurs to me.
It may be the redaction was required not so much because the LDS Church does not consider it to be “revelation,” but because they want to avoid having to submit it to the Church for a sustaining vote.
No matter what you call the Proclamation, the preeminence given to it throughout the LDS Church indicates it is considered “super-revelation.”
Replacing the word “revelation” with the word “guide” is a pretty epic demotion if you ask me. That’s hard to dance around. This is where the word “revelation” itself becomes nuanced. We could argue a difference between “official revelation,” the voice-from-heaven sort that becomes cannonized vs. personal revelation which we’re all entitled to, right? I mean after all, why don’t we all get the title “revelator.” But this is also what condemns the leaders. They are bestowed a special title that the rest of us aren’t, even though we’re supposed to receive revelation too. This implies that their revelation must be different in some way. And they seem to do their darndest to make us believe that.
For instance, in one of Packer’s last talks he cited a scripture, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him (D&C 76:22–23).,” and then said, “Their words are my words.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-witness?lang=eng
Huh? So is he saying he’s seen Christ? I know several members who think that’s what he said, and that he has seen Christ – with his physical eyes. I know some others that think otherwise. Clearly he wants to engage in a tightrope walk though. And Packer had a reputation for this. I personally saw him at a missionary conference where an Elder flat out asked him if he had seen Christ. He didn’t say yes, and also didn’t say no, instead he berated the Elder for asking an inappropriate question. Most of the missionaries took that to mean he has seen Christ.
Oaks played the same game recently in Boise talking about experiences just too sacred to share. Huh? That’s code for I want you think that I have, but don’t want to get busted for lying either. Vicious kind of statement you’d expect from a lawyer (no offense).
How is it inappropriate? This is in fact the whole problem. Members have this fanciful lord-of-the-rings-like notion that church leaders are literally being guided by Christ. Magic is happening behind closed doors. One on one personal meetings and such with Christ, angels, dead apostles, etc.
And the apostles play up this image. They are dishonest. Members trust and sustain the leaders because most of them believe that the leaders are being inspired, literally, and that this means they are having some kind of supernatural experience that is beyond that which they personally experience. The truth is that a meeting of the Q15 is probably very similar to a bishopric PEC or stake high council gathering. And if members realized that, I think it would create major problems for the high leadership.
Leaders need to be honest about their experiences. This is very important. It’s a matter of agency I would think. How can I or any other member make a pure choice without being given the naked facts? If we’re choosing to follow the leader and be a part of the church only because the leadership is misrepresenting themselves and their personal experiences, puffing them up, well, that means I didn’t actually make a truly informed choice. I was manipulated. Even if the church really is true beneath all this deception, call it showmanship, I still made a choice for the WRONG reasons.
After all, isn’t the point for us to become certain types of people? Heaven isn’t a destination but a state of being, etc. And if that’s the case, how can I become a godly person if leaders are trying to hold my hand all the time by feeding me BS because they think I’m too weak to handle the truth?
That’s why the Mormon church needs to abandon the word or wisdom. Eat a few mushrooms, pop a few tabs and smoke a bong…. They will all start seeing Jesus again.
There is speculation that the first vision was a result of mushrooms being ingested while out in the forest.
There is also speculation that two heavenly beings were actually seen . . .
;^)
Having been in the Church for 18 years and e communicated in 1999. Isaiah 66 cones to mind!
The Church is most definitely in Apostasy and will be so until D&C 85 is fulfilled.
Please watch my video and pass it on .
https://youtu.be/3VZf8U642dM
Jeremiah
Ah: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng&query=proclamation
Corbin, what are you eating for breakfast? God has been directing His affairs through councils since, well, before the foundations of this earth. There was, we are given to understand, a Council in Heaven. Why have one there, when God was fully present Himself? The Council of Nicea was illegitimate because God was not behind it; it did not have His sanctioning hand. The present-day councils of the Church are legitimate because they do have His sanctioning hand. That’s why the Priesthood was restored. Councils that operate without divine sanction are in a state of apostasy. Councils that operate with divine sanction are not in a state of apostasy. That’s the difference. This is why the Church is the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.”
A new procedure? Huh? It was “new” from the beginning: Per Orson Hyde – in 1844:
“There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us the plan. Says he, ‘When all the quorums are assembled and organized in order, let the revelation be presented to the quorums. If it pass[es] one let it go to another. And if it pass[es] that [one], to another, and so on until it has passed all the quorums. And if it pass[es] the whole without running against a snag, you may know it is of God. But if it runs against a snag then,’ says he, ‘it wants enquiring into: you must see to it.’ It is known to some who are present that there is a quorum organized where revelations can be tested. Brother Joseph said, ‘Let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested here’” (T&S, vol. 5, no. 17, 15 September 1844)
President Brigham Young stressed the same in 1861:
“In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants [107:27]. . . . Whenever you see these quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true” (JD, 9:91–92, President Brigham Young, 7 May 1861, Salt Lake City, Utah, Mill Creek Ward).
Your distinction between “creeds” and “official declarations and proclamations” doesn’t amount to much. The word “creed” does indeed carry historical baggage and a negative connotation, and so it isn’t used in LDS discourse. So what? The Restored Church rejects those prior creeds because they don’t come from God, not because they are “creeds”. Doesn’t God “declare” and “proclaim” things? Whatever you want to call them, the telling issue is whether they represent God’s mind and will.
Do the Proclamation to the World on the family, the declaration of the Living Christ, and the response to the recent SCOTUS decision have God’s backing? Yes or no? If you don’t think they do, that they are solely the product of uninspired, self-serving, rational deliberation and are, in fact, odious to God, then say so. I believe all three do represent what God wants said.
A final thought about the councils leading this Church: Prayer is involved in all of them. God’s will is sought; He has input. It’s His Church, after all.
Thanks for your comments, Tim.
The primary issue raised by my blog is why the LDS Church teaches that God reveals his will to the living prophet while simultaneously deciding doctrine by reaching unanimity through deliberation in a super council of 15.
Corbin, you didn’t respond to the substance of his criticism.
I agree with Sam. Corbin hasn’t yet responded to Tim’s points.
But I have now.
At length and in depth.
Just keep reading.
Tim Bone, I think councils were used in Heaven/Pre-Existence because that was the order or things in that realm. In this probation, our doctrine should come directly from God to His prophet, who then dictates it to the members. Why is a council needed when God supposedly has His mouthpiece on Earth? If we were “true and living”, there would need be no council because it against His order here. Why would men need to convene any council? The only reason would be to discuss our doctrine and make a decision. They all have very differing opinions, which should not matter because it is Christ’s Church. He should be the only One dictating His doctrine and making decisions. If these men are just doing their best and not receiving their marching order directly from the Master Himself, then it is truly the blind leading the blind. About the church being “true and living”‘ 13 months later it was “under condemnation” and whether or not it became “cut off” entirely from The Lord is an argument for another day. Our praise, loyalty and thanks to Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, who condescended all things and suffered all. He is the only One worth following. God bless us all. So Tim Bone, what have you been eating your whole life?
And as long as we are citing Brigham Young, we may as well add this to the mix:
“Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations–that Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God… ” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.264)
The ellipses used in this quote from Brigham Young are of interest. There is one sentence omitted. It is this:
“The Seventies may decide upon the same principle.”
It appears that what Brigham Young was actually saying was that the First Presidency could establish doctrine by a unanimous voice. Separate and apart from the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve could do the same. And separate and apart from the Quorum of the Twelve, the Seventies could do the same.
This is different from the newly “combined council” of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
The quote you cite from Brigham Young appears to have been intentionally edited in such a way as to give the incorrect impression that Brigham Young was supporting the current method of establishing doctrine in the LDS Church.
I am left to wonder whether you got that quote from a correlated Church manual.
Here is the quote in it’s original version:
“In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice—the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.”
Here is the cite for the entire address:
http://journalofdiscourses.com/9/17
It appears from the context that, when Brigham Young refers to “the Elders” getting together and agreeing upon any one point to establish its truth, he is not referring to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, or even to the Seventies. Rather, he is extending his line of reasoning to include the Elders who do not hold such high office.
As he states earlier in the sermon, “Suppose the Enemy had power to destroy all but one of the High Priests from the face of the earth, what would that one possess in the power of his Priesthood? He would have power and authority to go and preach, baptize, confirm, ordain, and set in order the kingdom of God in all its perfection on the earth. Could he do this without revelation? No. Could the Seventies? No. Could the Twelve? No. And we ask, Could Joseph Smith or the First Presidency do this without revelation? No; not one of them could do such a work without revelation direct from God. I can go still further. Whoever is ordained to the office of an Elder to a certain degree possesses the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood; and suppose only one Elder should be left on the earth, could he go and set in order the kingdom of God? Yes, by revelation.”
Sam,
Nobody is required to answer anyone’s baiting questions.
Corbin, I appreciate your articles. They give me things to think about. Whether I agree you or not, I always have a deeper insight into the issue.
Thanks, UtahHiker!
I often find that questions such as those raised by Tim are helpful in that they cause me to do more research and look down avenues I might have otherwise missed.
For example, his quote from Brigham Young is beginning to turn up some interesting surprises.
This quote from Brigham Young is getting more interesting.
The Church Manual cites the same quote with the same omission of any mention of the Seventy in order to give it the current correlated spin.
But the manual doesn’t even include the ellipses to show that sentence was removed from the original quote.
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-20?lang=eng
Strangely, the very same lesson leads off with this seemingly contradictory expression from Brigham Young:
“In the setting forth of items of doctrine which pertain to the progress and further building up of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, and the revealing of his mind and will, he has but one mouth through which to make known his will to his people. When the Lord wishes to give a revelation to his people, when he wishes to reveal new items of doctrine to them, or administer chastisement, he will do it through the man whom he has appointed to that office and calling.”
“It’s virtuous when we do it, but vice when they do it, because we have the keys, that’s why” is not a substantial criticism. It is a naked appeal to a pernicious double standard.
To those who can appreciate patterns, I commend Nibley’s The World and the Prophets, as well as Mormonism and Early Christianity.
I particularly wish to direct attention towards “The Way of the Church.”
Remember – the problem the Catholics were solving was how to establish their claims to power and authority on historical grounds, as well as mask the loss of the gifts of the Spirit, including prophecy. If we are engaged in the same behaviors, it doesn’t seem much of a stretch to imagine it’s because we’re solving the same problems.
Thanks for the links, Log!
I will see your Hugh Nibley and raise you a William James!
“A genuine first-hand religious experience . . . is bound to be a heterodoxy to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely madman. If his doctrine prove contagious enough to spread to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and when a religion has become an orthodoxy, its day of inwardness (i.e., inward spiritual experience) is over; the spring is dry; the faithful live at second hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their turn. The new church, in spite of whatever human goodness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the fountain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration.” –William James, “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” p. 295
Excellent post and perspective. Well done.
Thank you so much for your kind words!
I always love your thought provoking articles, thanks again for another one. My study of church history has led me to believe that practically none of our modern revelations are received as isolated epiphanies directly from the mind of God. Even Joseph’s earliest experimentations with the divine during the BoM translation, show his perspective of needing to studying things out in his mind first. He felt very comfortable editing and even changing doctrines wholesale from their original meaning. 1835 D&C was put together by a committee. Multiple revelations were received in group settings, not individually. This idea that revelation comes as something entirely external and from the mind of God, is a fallacy that has been perpetuated through traditions and misunderstanding of the actual processes.
God always has to work with the mind and culture of the humans he/she works with. You can never separate the two. Just look at the 1978 priesthood and temple ban revelation. That took years to gain consensus with the counsels. But this isn’t entirely separate from early church history. I’m sure there were some who though Joseph was clearly connected to the will of God, but many of his closest associates didn’t explain the revelatory process this way. Any many of them disagreed and contested Joesph’s doctrines.
One quote a friend of mine showed me recently that I like from Joseph Smith in 1843 is this. “If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
I believe that truth will ultimately cut its own way, it may take decades or centuries to do this, but it will eventually. Revelation folk lore in the church is unfortunate and I think its more a reflection of the a stage 3, black and white thinking mentality than anything else.
Thanks for that wonderful comment, Hope for Things.
I think you make a number of important points!
Corbin Volluz,
I do thank you for pointing out the ellipses in the Brigham Young quote. I am sensitive to them and try to avoid them. Actually, I got this quote from a 2009 FAIR Conference address by a Mathew B. Brown on Brigham Young’s Teaching on Adam, at fn. 87. At least he inserted ellipses, and I would have included all the material if I had thought to research it out more thoroughly. You’re certainly correct in doing so.
In this case, I don’t think the full citation makes that much of a difference when it comes to councils. So, if the First Presidency, or the Twelve, or the Seventies reach consensus on their own, that’s OK, but if the First Presidency and the Twelve get together we should throw our hands up in the air? This combination somehow derails God’s plans for the Church, does it? I don’t see it. I’m not sure the distinction would matter much to critics of the Church, either, who would likely find suspect anything that any combination of Mormon leaders might say or agree upon.
Nor do I find the Prophet being the Lord’s mouthpiece and the unanimity of councils to be mutually exclusive. I answer your post’s question in the negative, that is, the LDS Church is not in apostasy.
I do agree that there is no end to fruitful and intriguing quotes from Brigham Young. They do pile up.
Cobin can correct if I’m wrong, but I don’t think his complaint is with the fact that councils are used, but with the fact that we talk up completely nonexistent revelation. The issue here is one of honesty. The leaders aren’t honest about what’s going on.
Listen to conference, it’s a never-ending brown-nose fest where every speaker is basking in our awesomeness, the awesomeness of “modern revelation.” And then you hear all the leaders referring to each other as prophets, note that not a single one of them ever refers to themselves as a prophet. Leaders put on a show that seems designed to mask their experiences, as leaders, and make it appear like something other than what it really is.
They talk down councils, while engaging in nothing but councils. They talk endlessly about modern revelation while revealing nothing. They talk endlessly about prophets, while prophesying nothing. Since Joseph Smith, really, we’ve had only two “revelations.”
One was OD1, getting rid of polygamy which was forced by the government. And then the leaders didn’t even obey it themselves for another 15+ years, so that tells you how real of a revelation they themselves regarded it to be. And then there was OD2, which had its own controversies as well… it’s pretty dubious to even consider these two things to be legitimate revelations. Nonetheless, even if one does, that’s it?
Since the 1800s that’s all we’ve gotten? Several world wars, other wars, economic depressions, all sorts of social and moral issues, new scientific discoveries, a seemingly endless list of historical/doctrinal/scriptural questions that keeps getting longer, etc., etc., etc., and there hasn’t been a single modern revelation since 1978? And the only one before that was 1890?
Seriously?
And then we’re not even really sure what constitutes a revelation… like the Proclamation, I mean, is that a revelation? Correlation committe doesn’t seem to think so, yet members frame the darn thing like its holy writ and hang it on the wall. Sister Okazaki didn’t seem terribly impressed with it.
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf
And yet, we hear about this modern revelation ALL THE TIME. We hear that word “prophet” all the time. What prophet? What revelation? President Monson has not once, not a single time said, “I’m a prophet” or “Thus sayeth the Lord,” or “The Lord spoke with me, this is what he wants me to tell you” or even something like, “I have prayed long and hard to get an answer to such and such question. I know this is an important question. Lord didn’t talk with me face to face, but I felt an impression that I believe to be an answer at this time, and this is what it is…”
THERE IS NOTHING!
Just feel-good pep talks, chastisement, calls to obedience, and frankly boring ones at that. Tedious and sleep educing torture. You’ll get a heck of a lot more out of listening to TED talks or Joel Osteen! They should declare one session (just one out of the 5 or 6) of conference cancelled. Instead of listening to these talks, for 2 hours everybody church-wide is going outside and doing crossfit. How much better of an impact would that have on the well being of the members? You could even have a little spiritual message. “This is what the word of wisdom is really about. Become master over your domain.” Nothing even remotely original, much less genuinely unique and appearing inspirational, is coming from our leaders. Some of their best material got lifted from CS Lewis or some other late Christian thinker!!! I am starved for spiritual fruit, and I’ve found it by stepping away from the church and discovering this whole world of knowledge!
Dear Andrew,
You give passionate expression to the feelings of a growing number of Mormons.
When I read your words, I feel like I am viewing my own Id.
By which I mean my Freudian “Id.”
Reading that response was a lot like looking into a mirror of my own thoughts, feelings, and frustrations with the current church situation as well.
Funny enough that Joel Osteen was mentioned too. While I don’t particularly agree with his “creeds” he definitely speaks with passion, and at the very least comes across as though he cares rather than the monotone, distant/untouchable/beyond our reach and spiritual comprehension, and despondence we seem to get from our leaders at conference.
Joseph was an enigma and a product of his culture. He had the hubris to speak and write words in the first person as if God were dictating these words through Joseph himself. We have to critically analyze the history to recognize that Joseph also was very willing to change his theology and edit his revelations in some cases making material alterations.
So what does this tell us about what a prophet really is? Are there human oracles that God places on earth that have some otherworldly power to connect to the divine? Or is this perhaps a combination of creativity, charisma, culture, and divine inspiration. I’ve had to readjust my definition of a prophet and my expectations. We have a lot of folk lore about what a prophet is like that our correlated history has perpetuated. It just doesn’t square with reality.
I am able to maintain my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
But like you, I am not able to maintain my testimony of what constitutes a prophet.
You missed one.
D&C 136 through Brigham Young.
Very important, especially the last two verses in which the Lord tells us there will be no more revelation for a time, and ends with an emphatic “Amen and amen”!
Also missed one from John Taylor and Two from Wilford Woodruff. The two from W.W. are extremely revealing and would be embarrassing for the church if they were to ever include them in our canonized scripture… which is why they haven’t.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issues, Tim.
My blog post was already getting overly long, so this next part ended up on the cutting room floor.
It seems that we can trace a pretty clear cut time-line in the manner in which the LDS Church promulgated official doctrine.
From Joseph Smith to Joseph F. Smith, the typical manner was that the prophet and president of the Church was the mouthpiece of the Lord and what he said went.
During Joseph F. Smith’s administration, the method changed to the issuance of First Presidency Statements. As I am sure you know, a couple of very important First Presidency Statements were issued during Joseph F. Smith’s administration–one dealing with the subject of organic evolution, which I think was called “The Origin of Man.”
Another dealt with how it is that Jesus can be called in scripture both the Father as well as the Son. (This ended up being an LDS replay of the issues considered in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, if memory serves, but of course the conclusions reached were substantially different.)
For the bulk of the 20th century, First Presidency Statements were considered to be THE authoritative manner of promulgating authoritative and binding doctrine.
It is against this background that I find the new permutation of a “super-council” consisting of both the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve to be of significance.
The question for me is WHY has the Church gone through this evolutionary process?
The LDS Church has long claimed the early Christian Church defaulted to this manner of deciding doctrine because of a lack of revelation from God.
I think it is understandable why one might think the LDS Church has lapsed into the same pattern for similar reasons.
One of my comments is stuck in moderation limbo.
Took care of that for you!
Corbin Volluz,
The articles of incorporation the of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specify that property can be altered without consent of the members.
“Such real and personal property may be situated, either within the State of Utah, or elsewhere, and this corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property.”
Being as the long established pattern of published doctrines fall under Intellectual Reserve Inc as intellectual property, common consent has been superseded.
That is an interesting point, Dean.
It does look like the LDS Church is beginning to treat the “intellectual property” of the “proclamation and declarations” in a manner similar to real and personal property.
Hi,
Thank you for your article… I have to comment this article, based on my own experiences in leadership councils in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Firstly, the quote by D. Todd Christofferson i april 2012 conference was accurate of course, but left short… D. Todd Christoffersons talk continues in the same section were you quoted him:
“But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.”
Dear readers, please read D. Todd Christoffersons talk fully to comprehend the LDS church view point on the subject:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng
Personal experiences in leadership councils have given me knowledge how these kind of decisions are made. There has to be reasoning behind any important question. …”that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts” (Moroni 10:3, Book of Mormon) The principle is to ponder, think, (personally) discuss, give opinions, look from every point of view (in councils), and finally, pray to God and seek revelation from God “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God” (Moroni 10:4, Book of Mormon).
Creeds or not? Everyone has to receive a personal witness of God about the divinity of the doctrine that is taught by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. That is the only way to really discerne the truth from lie. I personally know that the First Presidency and the the Counsil of Twelve Apostles make decisions according to the will of God and through revelation, even though discussion are held about the subjects on doctrine in the process of receiving revelation.
Best regards,
Kaj Pärkkä -Finland
Thank you so much for your comments, Kaj.
You are right that Elder Christofferson anticipated the obvious objection to his description of defining councils by unanimous agreement: “The objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God.”
But one is left to wonder how it is he would tell the difference. Granted the objective is revelation from God, why go about it through a process of deliberation in a council that seeks unanimity before declaring it as such?
You don’t happen to know Hans Mattsson, by the way, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Mattsson
Really? While on my mission in 1987 rumors were rabid on him the church was going to go back to eighteen month missions.
Then in the next General Priest session of general conference President Hinckley acknowledge that the rumors had gotten back to him. He flatly stated that they weren’t not going back to eighteen month missions because THEY TRIED IT and IT DID NOT WORK.
So this verifies that they instill programs and processes that are not the WILL of an ALL KNOWING BEING who knows the beginning TO THE END.
Since this involved the literal salvation of thousands of future converts you can rest assure this also went before the quorum of the twelve for their consent and approval.
If it was the WILL of Heavenly Father then the length of the missions should never have been changed and should have remained at eighteen months in the first place.
You see they do tinker and make decisions on their own. Now because of this unfortunate circumstance we all have to wonder when is it Will of the Father or just the ideas of men?
Hate to burst your bubble.
This is an incredibly good comment, Andrew.
I know when I joined the Church at the age of 18, my LDS friend told me that when the prophet dies, the other apostles gather to pray about who the next prophet should be . . .
. . . and they all choose the same person.
I think Mormons are hungry for magic and/or revelation in their church.
Which is understandable. I mean, they are spoon-fed stories about Joseph Smith and the First Vision and all the revelations that flowed from him like the waters of the Mississippi.
And then they are told that the modern LDS Church is just the same as way back when.
There is obviously a huge disconnect, but the members want the modern church to be as “true” as the one Joseph Smith founded.
And so they make up stories to justify their wishful thinking.
If that were all, it wouldn’t be so bad.
But I agree with you that the church leaders play on these desires to foist false notions upon the members of the sacredness of their experiences and the mightiness of their revelations.
All of which are too sacred to speak about publicly, of course.
But then, they once again depart from the pattern set by Joseph Smith, who didn’t seem to flinch from telling about his own sacred experiences.
I don’t know.
Maybe the modern apostles’ experiences are more sacred than having the Father and the Son appear to them.
There are 3 levels of communication from God. Visions are a celestial form. revelations are aTerrestrial form and inspiration is the lowest telestial form. most of us living in a fallen telestial state recieve guidance by inspiation. Each level can be thought as three levels of power on a micro scope used for descerning increased clarity of a given object when the level of power is increased. Visions are necessary to eliminate misccalculated obseervations made at lower power levels that would not reveal the entire nature and scope of Gods will. Vision is necessary to establishing Gods main goal. Lesser levels of communication give us the lattitude of using our free agency to interpret gods vision in order to develope a mind set that mirrors that of God. Vision is a fixed standard of God by which we may measure and develope Gods wisdom and knowledge through human trial and error. Without vision and a SURE knowledge of God given to His prophet then we have no chance collectively accomplishing Gods goal which extends beyond individual salvation. He has a cllective desire toward All of His Children. THE PROPHETS OF TODAY ARE NO PROPHETS WITHOUT A VISION THAT ILLUMINATES OUR UNDERZTANDING BEYOND OUR LIMITED HUMAN POTENTIAL FOR INSPIRATION AT Gods lowest level of communication on a telestial level. We are being led by men and not by God on collective level.
If Jesus established the church upon the earth, and if the Apostles and new Prophet Peter began to share the word, how did it go into apostasy?
We are told that the Prophet cannot lead us astray – so how did Peter or any Prophet there after lead the church astray?
Well, you might argue that the Romans killed them, but wouldn’t God simply replace them, i mean, he seems ok with visions of Paul etc?
We also note that right now, two of the Q12 are dead, Packer and Perry. Neither have been replaced. So how many of the 12 do you need alive before a new replacement can be called?
If the church leaders after christ were inspired in councils how could the church fall into apostasy?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the church must be led by direct revelation from God (and not by the lesser claim of inspiration as the two are most certainly not the same thing) and then say it is ok for it to be led by councils.
Either the Q15 are getting direct revelation – audible voices from God, the appearance of Angels, or God himself, or they are claiming the lesser inspiration, a feeling, or worse still it is a council meeting where ideas are pitched and debated and men vote.
Mormonism was once touted to be the solution. The church that did not rely on claims to the mysteries of God, a church that had genuine Prophets and Apostles, a church producing modern revelations from Jesus himself speaking in the first person, with them documented in his voice. That was 200 years ago. Since then everything has been a council meeting – unless it was a reaction to a court case. No book of Joseph Translation, No missing parts of the BOM translated, no further scriptures from other tribes found and translated. Infant, structurally, Mormonism and Catholicism are pretty much the same, just councils of men with their own uniforms meting out decisions to members.
Good points, Darren!
I imagine every prior dispensation must have believed the leaders would never lead them astray.
In fact, such a belief is probably one of the key components of apostasy.
I learned a lot from reading True Believer by Eric Hoffer. He was characterizing Nazism and Communism but many of his insights apply to religion as well.
That was superb Anthony, thanks.
Great post Corbin, thanks!
I think evidence for a “new permutation of a ‘super-council’ consisting of both the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve” is found in this bold statement from Elder Ballard: “Recently, I spoke at the new mission presidents’ seminar and counseled these leaders: ‘Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church. … We will not and … cannot lead [you] astray. And as you teach your missionaries to focus their eyes on us, teach them to never follow those who think they know more about how to administer the affairs of the Church than … Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ do’ through the priesthood leaders who have the keys to preside. ‘I have discovered in my ministry that those who have become lost [and] confused are typically those who have most often … forgotten that when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time.’” [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/stay-in-the-boat-and-hold-on?lang=eng]
Not only does he reference a “super” quorum of 15, but he makes a substantial modification to Wilford Woodruff’s 1890 statement that “[t]he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” [Wilford Woodruff, sixty-first Semiannual General Conference, 6 October 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah; reported in Deseret Evening News, 11 October 1890, p. 2 (an accompanying quote to Official Declaration 1).]
This is a very good catch, David.
Here is another quote from Elder Ballard in the same talk.
“Others may focus on the questions and doubts they experience. Of course, having questions and experiencing doubts are not incongruent with dedicated discipleship. Recently, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated: ‘We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/stay-in-the-boat-and-hold-on?lang=eng&query=
Elder Ballard also appears to make reference to this super-council as the top council in the Church in a 2010 General Conference Talk (the language is a little unclear, though):
“From the council of the First Presidency to the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council; to the seven presidents of the Seventy, which is a council; to the Seventy who work in their various Area Presidencies, which are in a council; into the stake, where there’s a council; to the ward, to the quorum, to the home—the council system works.
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2010/11/panel-discussion?lang=eng&query=
And, in a possible usage of this super-council from 1989, we have Elder Packer speaking of the council that approved the changes to the Book of Mormon in the 1981 edition.
“There were many such changes. None altered the doctrine. Each change, however small in detail, was carefully and prayerfully considered and approved by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting in the temple.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/10/revelation-in-a-changing-world?lang=eng&query=
If you are like me, I would have seen this as a reference to two separate bodies: (1) The Council of the First Presidency; and, (2) the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
It seems that at some point, however, the meaning may have been subtly shifted to describing only one council, “The-Council-of-the-First-Presidency-and-the-Quorum-of-the-Twelve-Apostles.”
Or it may have been what Elder Packer intended all along.
Great, thought provoking article again Corbin! I think the point you’re getting at is essentially, where did the revelation go? Where are the, Thus saith the Lord declarations? As you said, a question many mormons are asking themselves.
What I’m looking for is a forward looking (dare I say progressive?) revelation of something that we as a church are in front of, instead of continually behind. The pattern is retrenchment in the old ways (likely outcome of any consensus) for a period of time, endure external scorn and ridicule, create internal conflict and hostility, and finally, capitulate to the world’s way at a later date because it turns out it was the better way, or sometime just the inevitable way. Why do genuine prophets, seers and revelators continually miss it? This pattern would suggest the current system is not working very well.
Good comments, Shadrak.
It is disheartening to have a church led by a living prophet that is never ahead of any issue, but always playing catch-up.
Joseph Smith may have been ahead of the race issue in his day by not only baptizing persons of color, but also ordaining black men.
That fell by the wayside after Brigham Young took over the reins, of course.
It sometimes reminds me of the line from the musical, 1776:
John Adams: “You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you’ll still remain afloat!”
Corbin Volluz,
Well, then, gee, no need for this little thread, then!
What a great article (as usual). Nicely done. I just wanted to pay you a well-deserved compliment. Thought provoking as always.
Thanks, John!
I guess I’m the postess with the mostest!
(Funny the auto-correct wants to make that “moistest.”)
Thanks Corbin!
Just a tip for further discussion, and I only bring it up because I was blessed with a personal reminder in my inbox 2 hours ago.
Opinion polls!!! I just happened to write up a few thoughts. http://www.amajorshift.com/2015/07/what-do-you-think-jesus.html We mustn’t forget the opinion polls, which influence the data which is brought to said councils. 🙂
Do you think the Holy Ghost led me to a skype group where someone else posted your blog link on this SAME day as I got my 6th invite to participate in an opinion poll? God works in mysterious ways. That’s pretty awesome timing. And I even mentioned the Wizard of Oz…
I do believe that God works in mysterious ways.
On the other hand, the world is full of coincidence.
Some coincidences are more enlightening than others, though.
;^)
Corbin Volluz,
Thank you for this. I’m new to these blogs and trying to find my way through issues that have surfaced the last few years. Appreciate the information.
Glad to be of service, KC.
You are engaged in a great exploration.
As long as you let truth be your guiding star, you will come out all right.
Though there is no guarantee where the path will take you.
“The trail is the thing, not the end of the trail. Travel too fast,and you miss all you are traveling for.”
― Louis L’Amour
Whiskey,
Not forest… Saved grove. It’s a in the wording.
“Saved grove”?
The elephant in the room is the true priesthood and unbroken line from Jesus Christ to Peter, James and John done unto the modern apostles. Not to mention the gift of the Holy Ghost given unto each member after baptism. To council and seek the spirit of the Holy Ghost is revelation to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts that feel and minds that think. The whole being of the soul coupled with the true priesthood and the Holy Ghost is light years beyond those greedy political councils of men who form doctrines for gain. Your bias is strong and your reasoning weak for those who have a true witness of Christ and his restored gospel. Good try to discourage those of weak minds and weak faith.
I suppose not everyone is susceptible to my Luciferian wiles.
But seriously, Charlie, do you have a good explanation as to why the method of establishing doctrine in the LDS Church has changed so dramatically in recent years?
I mean, one that avoids my weak reasoning, and all?
As the Holy Spirit moves on them, they vote unanimously. They all have right to revelation on how the church should be organized, and should thus get the same revelation if it's truly from God.
This articles doesn't tell the whole story, but the parts that is enough to "prove" the authors agenda, telling parts of the truth, but not all of it.
Why don't you tell them how all of the first presidency and the 12 are ordained to be prophets, seers and revelators? Or tell them the other "council of men" didn't claim to receive revelation, but the FP and the 12 does?
You as the author should give the full picture, or risk your credibility.
1. This reminds me of a story I was told shortly after joining the LDS Church. I was told by my friend, a life-long member, that when the president passes away, the remaining apostles all pray about who should be the next president. And guess what? They all get the same answer! (Of course, the truth is somewhat less miraculous.)
2. You are correct that the First Presidency and the 12 ordain each other to be “prophets, seers and revelators.” There used to be another “prophet, seer and revelator” in the Church. That was the Church Patriarch.
Unfortunately, that “prophet, seer and revelator” was done away with by the other “prophets, seers and revelators.” And without a vote of the membership.
Doesn’t seem fair, does it?
I feel you, Andrew. A lot of the stuff we keep passing from one generation to another stopped making sense once I had my son and I was deciding what I was going to teach him.
I didn’t look at who wrote this until I had read the entire text. After reading I thought, “WOW, this is well thought out and actually has a few items that I have been thinking also.” Then I saw who the author was Corbin and I was not surprised. Thanks for sharing this. Some very interesting thoughts.
You are so welcome! And thanks for the kind words!
From one Happy Hubby to another.
;^)
A provocative post, Corbin. I posted similar observations on the emergence of the new entity “The Council of the First Presidency and the Twelves Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” in a T&S post yesterday. I also noted that the Statement (a separate document from the Letter and from the attached Q&A format background materials) was almost identical in form to the Proclamation on the Family. The Statement is, in a sense, a proclamation without the title.
Thanks for the link, Dave!
The points you make are interesting. I agree that the new statement is meant to be officially binding on the Church as it appears over the imprimatur of the council of the 15.
Interesting that the statement has no title, though.
A proclamation by any other name would be as official, maybe.
And I appreciate your distinguishing it from the letter itself, which was signed by the members of the First Presidency.
Corbin, since you joined the LDS Church at the same time it changed its policy on priesthood and are also an attorney, I'd like to send you my play called "The Defense of Cain", which was completed on 8 June 1978, the very morning of Church's announcement. That is, if you are interested.
That sounds wonderful, Eugene!
Yes, I would be very interested.
Thanks for asking!
Charlie Luerssen, the Catholic church also claims a direct, unbroken line from Jesus Christ to Peter, and so on. Also, the Holy Ghost is not "given" to members at baptism. Newly baptized people are confirmed members of the church and are given the admonishment to "receive the Holy Ghost" it (listen to the wording in confirmation blessing), which is something that we must seek for on our own to obtain and receive. The Holy Ghost comes to each of us individually as we are prepared to receive it. It is not given. Those are two different things altogether. As far as revelation, we can all receive it for ourselves, whether members of the church or not. The question of revelation for the entire church, presented by the writer is interesting.
I like your thoughts, J. Paul Wright.
The issue of revelation is a good one.
We are taught that our leaders direct the Church through revelation.
We are also taught that every member has the ability to receive personal revelation . . .
. . . so long as that personal revelations confirms that what Church leaders are saying is correct.
If personal revelation says any different, it isn’t really revelation.
;^)
It seems to me more and more the guidence and revelation don’t come from the Presidency of the LDS church but “The Newsroom”. The Newsroom has become the new AI version of what we once called “The Prophet”.
As well as a wonderful example of plausible deniability.
I also want to add to this discussion Ezra Taft Benson’s (in)famous talk on “The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.”
This was given in 1980.
In it, Elder Benson makes no mention whatsoever of including the Quorum of the Twelve (of which he was president) in any doctrinal deliberations.
Instead, he mentions following the prophet, whom he defines as the President of the Church.
Toward the end of his fundamentals, however, he broadens that to include the First Presidency.
I believe this is because, as I mentioned above, First Presidency Statements were considered the sine qua non of official doctrinal pronouncements for almost all of the 20th century.
I think this talk is key in giving us a good line in the sand for the creation of this new super-council.
I suggest it must have been after 1980 or it is likely Elder Benson would have mentioned it in his talk.
The statement you quoted about establishing doctrine was referring to the Correlation Committee, which is the embodiment of the leadership's definitions of doctrine and how they are communicated. In a very real sense, it doesn't matter if the Big 15 agree on something; if it doesn't pass the Correlation Committee's review, it doesn't happen. The press statement makes it sound as if the leaders are in the process of establishing doctrine. They are not. They established Correlation guidelines years ago, and those guidelines are what define doctrine.
This may sound odd, but the way to determine whether something is doctrine is to look at the copyright. If a document or film or whatever has the Intellectual Reserve, Inc., copyright, it means it has been through the Correlation Committee and approved as being "consistent" with doctrine (note the use of the word "consistent" in the press release, as well).
In short, it's clear to me that we're well past the 12 making bureaucratic decisions about doctrines, let alone receiving revelations. They've handed off the doctrine to a professional bureaucracy, with predictable results, in my view.
An excellent observation, John!
I think you puncture the corporate veil with these insights.
There is indeed a “shadow government” behind the scenes of doctrinal pronouncements in the LDS Church. And that “shadow government” is the Church Correlation Committee.
Although this sounds wonderfully conspiratorial, it is actually a rather mundane and pedestrian fact, and its rise to power has been documented elsewhere.
President McKay was concerned about Harold B. Lee’s plans for expansion of the originally modest goals of the Correlation Committee, thinking it could turn into the LDS version of the Catholic Magisterium.
In other words, the issue for President McKay was the creation of a committee above the official leaders of the Church in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
If in nothing else, President McKay’s concerns were prophetic.
For instance, the example has already been given of President Packer mentioning in General Conference that the Proclamation on the Family was “scripture.”
The word “scripture” was deleted in the published version of the talk and the word “guide” was substituted in its place.
Which raises the interesting question–“Who has the authority to change the words of the President of the Quorum of the Twelve?”
Tim Bone,
Tim,
Where do you get the idea that God has worked in councils?
Do you have a scripture that describes these councils?
The problem isn’t with the councils but with the narrative you and I were taught (and continues to be taught) regarding apostasy.
I see a slow change in how “The Great Apostasy” is being taught with Wilcox’s and Young’s book playing a big role in this change
http://www.amazon.com/Standing-Apart-Historical-Consciousness-Apostasy/dp/0199348146/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1436974431&sr=8-8&keywords=apostasy+mormon&pebp=1436974440691&perid=15SXRX6FS36DXFBPW2GS
Of course the problem with changing the narrative of the Great Apostasy is that we then have to ask ourselves, “Why then is a Restoration needed?” We will then have to readjust our understanding of Restoration. I think Dr. Phillip Barlow is doing a great job of redefining those boarders. Here’s an email exchange between the two of us regarding the Restoration:
http://rationalfaiths.com/e-mail-dr-phillip-barlow/
And to toot my own horn, this is how I taught the idea of Apostasy and Restoration. I was trying to push the conversation as much as I could:
http://rationalfaiths.com/teaching-the-apostasy-and-restoration-to-14-5-year-old-a-lesson-in-keeping-it-simple-stupid/
Thanks for that contribution to the discussion, Mike.
I think Phil Barlow is a smart cookie and I appreciate his viewpoints.
I think what he suggests is a good start to rewriting the concept of the apostasy which we have long been taught.
The problem is, the LDS Church being what the LDS Church is, it is a difficult thing to wipe the blackboard clean of all the authoritative statements previously made regarding the apostasy.
Which is in no small part what gets the LDS Church into this fix.
Among others . . .
Frederick,
How about this: “According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.” (D&C 121.32)
The index to the LDS sciptures gives over a dozen citations for “council”.
(I would have shortened this citation by using ellipses half-way through, but their use has already been commented on elsewhere in this post. As a matter of fact, the full sentence begins at verse 30, so technically I should have placed ellipses before “According.” Oh well.)
When we talk about the plan of salvation being set forth in the Grand Council in Heaven, we are frequently corrected if we think it was Jesus’s plan, and reminded that it was the Father’s plan.
I see no indication that God called for council deliberations on the issue.
What we do see is somebody who did have a different idea.
And he and his followers were gently escorted from the meeting.
I wonder, were he and his followers invited to attend a “court of love”?
If not, God seems to have violated an important protocol.
I find the argument that the First Presidency and the Twelve, the especial witnesses of the Lord’s name, are spiritually AWOL and in some sort of alliance not approved by heaven to be unconvincing. That the unity of both quorums is producing something other than what the Lord wants is nonsense.
But for those members, former and current, who hold that the Church leadership is at best in spiritual doldrums or at worst is already in, or approaching, a state of apostasy, what is to be done about it? There is no sign that First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are going to change. Now what?
If you are conceding the point, Tim, I will address your question.
Otherwise it seems moot.
Thinking about this article, and the discussion from it, I keep coming back to what are we as members supposed to do if it is in a state of apostasy? Or what can we do?
It seems everything we have heard from conference talks (such as the 14 fundamentals one mentioned) that the general membership have no power or authority. We are simply to follow and obey, and any idea, thought, or even criticism (even if true, nonetheless) against leadership is wrong, and we are to continue seeking revelation till we are exactly in line with what they are telling us. There just seems to be a huge power gap between leadership and general membership that leaves us powerless if we are in a state of apostasy, and no instruction on what to do in case of. Especially since it seems more and more like leadership doesn’t need to seek anything from general membership to make new doctrine, or proclamations (as pointed out from responses to the article.) Leadership is not held responsible for anything, yet we are held to the responsibility to support them no matter what, and no matter how wrong they could be in their councils.
That is because leadership represents God and we do not.
“Remember which way you face.”
Just sayin’…
Represents God, or has come to be seen as the same thing as God?
I just really wonder what can be done in the event that the church is in a state of apostasy. I am aware we have reference in the D&C on what we can do to replace the president of the church, but if they are an entire unanimously voting council/committee now, it seems a lot more difficult for that process to take place.
Has come to be seen as, natch. ;^)
I think things will continue to remain as they are so long as the Latter-day Saints feel it their bounded duty to sustain whoever is put in front of them for a sustaining vote in General Conference.
The requirement that a person sustain the General Authorities as a requirement for a temple recommend is a nice touch toward ensuring the stability of the authoritarian regime, though.
I think I can summarize a lot of the arguments so far as follows:
APOSTASY–When your church decides doctrine by council deliberations.
CONTINUING REVELATION–When my church decides doctrine by council deliberations.
What do you think?
Pretty accurate.
Corbin,
Great job on this one. I am no longer LDS, but still have about half of my family who is. This article really takes me back to my mission days. I would work so hard to bring an investigator or two to conference, hoping that they would be wowed by the General Authorities. Unfortunately every conference contained talk after talk of nothing but common sense (or worse, something that has been said much better by someone else who wasn’t even a member).
For being a church led by revelation, we really seemed to only stick to the extremely “safe” stuff (love, empathy, being a good husband/wife). The church now goes through painstaking lengths to avoid going on record for just about everything. Reading through all of the comments, I cant help but think that most people are half way to the real truth; if there really is a God, would he use either of these flawed methods to share information that is so important to our lives?
It seems that most people now discount Brigham Young, and many of the things he called prophecy, which seems to suggest that it is ok to distrust the voice of the lord (which by the way, cant lead the church astray). While on the other hand, this super council (which by the way, feels eerily similar to meetings I have to attend almost daily on the direction of our company) seems to be just a place to debate direction, and avoid saying anything that could embarrass the church. Looks to me like they have learned their lesson of the danger of prophets actually….prophesying.
I guess I just see such a human “trial and error” factor in all of this, something that I would think an all knowing God could have created a better system for.
What would that system be? Well, if God can talk to Joseph, why couldn’t he talk to all of us directly. If we were all being told the same thing, with such a powerful witness, there would only even be one church and one way, and we would all be a part of it.
I asked God for that before I left the church. Being a father that loves my children and couldn’t stand to see something bad (like not being with them forever)happen to them. I think I would have taken the time to make it clear what my rules were, and exactly how to follow them. My kids are worth that to me, makes me wonder our worth to him.
Good points, Garrett!
Instead of hearing our prophets actually prophesy, it seems what I usually hear in General Conference is them telling us they are not prophesying.
In other words, they do not exercise their prophetic mantle, but instead occasionally caution members to not think they are speaking authoritatively.
I don’t have any of these quotes ready to hand.
Does anybody else know what I’m talking about?
One example would be President Hinckley announcing at October 2001 General Conference that the U.S. had started bombing Iraq.
President Hinckley made a point of saying he didn’t know what the future holds or where this would lead.
My jaw dropped when he said that.
I mean, I thought that’s what prophets are for.
Michael Barker,
You taught all this in 1/2 hour lesson? Holy Cow. You’re a fast talker… that was lots of ground to cover with 14-15 year olds.
Corbin Volluz,
Corbin I appreciate the article and all the dialogue that followed. Very insightful. A few weeks ago I stumbled on this link that someone had posted. It blew me away. I’ve read a lot of church history, and BY has always baffled me. But this made me so sad. It was like reading the playbook of the KKK. This to me made the whole topic of prophetic leadership and “not leading the church astray” so much hyperbole. http://www.connellodonovan.com/black_white_marriage.html How astray it went for so long. Not only on this, but I also believe Joseph himself went “astray” on the indulgence in polygamy. Talk about philosophy of men mingled with scripture. Such a demeaning practice to women, which the church has yet to really deny because it remains in Sect. 132 and defended as a historic practice, even as Jacob 2 so decries it in the very book Joseph “translated.” Again, thanks for the discussion.
Thanks for the link, Brent.
That is a long article. It may take me some time to get around to being able to read it.
But you are right about the hyperbole involved in the teaching that the prophet will never lead the Church astray.
My understanding is it was first enunciated by President Woodruff in an attempt to quell the growing revolt among the Mormons to his announcement of the Manifesto in 1890.
Since then, it has gained a life of its own.
Never let an emergency go to waste, I guess . . .
Corbin Volluz,
Let’s try this:
APOSTASY–When your church decides doctrine by council deliberations that have neither the authority from above nor the revelation from above to proclaim God’s will for His Church.
CONTINUING REVELATION–When my church decides doctrine by council deliberations that have both the authority from above and revelation from above to proclaim God’s will for His Church.
Dear Tim,
I think you may be unwittingly engaging in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
“NO TRUE SCOTSMAN is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).
Here is a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I began seeing some of these problems in the LDS Church and lack of Revelation greatly concerned me. I remember when I was probably around 10 and I first heard about OD2 and after that point every General Conference I watched in hopes that a new revelation world come forth out they would be translating new scripture. 20 years later and it still hasn’t happened.
I recently began attending the Community of Christ (RLDS) and I have discovered that have added 50+ revelations to their version of the D&C since the death of Joseph Smith Jr., and their most recent revelation had been received within the last 5 years. It is presented and then accepted by the voice of common consent. This was one of the things I was seeking so much in the LDS Church and I have found it in the Community of Christ.
I think the Community of Christ-Covenant may be more committed to the practice of continuing revelation than the LDS Church.
It does get a little disappointing looking forward to General Conference in expectation of hearing from a prophet, seer or revelator.
After a while, one realizes it is like waiting for Santa Claus to come down the chimney Christmas Eve.
The LDS are so starved for revelation, they are willing to grasp at anything new.
For instance, how many Mormons thought it was revelation that women should wear no more than one pair of earrings?
Or that the missionary age was lowered?
God holds our hand to get over the big bumps, but ultimately, he wants us to learn how yo do it ourselves
And the LDS Church keeps telling us to sit down, shut up, and do as we are told.
The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous.13 Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/sustaining-the-prophets?lang=eng
I think that’s a nice theory, Lemuel.
But really, if you are the junior apostle and you find you are out of sync with the senior apostles, what will your church training teach you to do?
This is why I am not so impressed with the practice described by President Eyring of apostles expressing different opinions until the discussion “cycles around” and then everybody starts lining up.
I have little doubt that these 15 men “are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done.”
I just think they may have mistaken the Lord’s will for unanimity.
Sort of like the church councils of early Christianity . . .
I’m not an intellectual like the rest of you folks so I’m a little nervous to post but here I go. Did you all see this in the Deseret News today? This is a clip of the 12’s responsibilities. “In addition to their primary responsibility to be special witnesses of the name of Christ throughout the world, the apostles have heavy administrative responsibilities as they oversee the orderly progress and development of the global Church.” Did you catch the “name of Christ”? I’m new to this stuff but I thought they were to be ‘special witnesses of Christ’. That they were to do all they could to see and testify of Christ. Now they only admit to being witnesses to his name? Is that because they’ve not seen Christ? I would guess so. I’ve read on other blogs some nonsense about not sharing their experiences with Christ and “casting pearls before swine” from Elder Oaks, I believe. They and us are supposed to share the knowledge of our Savior to all. Such a shame because I fully believe that Christ would come to them if they were doing his will and not ruling by consensus, etc. Peace out!
Michael Barker,
Thanks for all three links. I think this approach is very fruitful and leads to expanded understanding. I don’t think it is a disjunction from what has been taught, but a better correlation of all the factors involved. For me, an added witness to and appreciation for the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith.
I think the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith functioned in a very different way from the mantle of Thomas Monson.
Joseph Smith didn’t need the agreement of his two counsellors and the Quorum of the Twelve in order to announce church doctrine with no vote from the members.
Tim Bone,
So…. Can you say you have any idea from this scripture what that council looked like, how it was constructed and how it functioned?
How presumptuous to assume that the way the LDS church functions is at all in any way representative of what happens in heaven.
The dozen or so citations you reference have NOTHING to do with anything that takes place in heaven. The only other reference to a council of Gods is in Abraham 4:26. And quite frankly, I’m certain that no one in the LDS church has any idea what it looked like when e Gods took counsel among themselves.
You see, there has been absolutely NO revelation saying what these things looked like.
The fact is, the LDS church has no revelation. Councils are not a substitute for revelation or scripture.
If I’m wrong, please show me. Point to a revelation received by any modern leader of the church describing what a council of the Gods looks like. Then and only then can you say that the LDS church functions in a way that has divine origins.
You bring up good points, Frederick.
Where, indeed, is the revelation appointing this super-council as the final arbiter of Church doctrine?
Where is the revelation that omits the element of a vote of the members?
And if we take Elder Christofferson’s comments at face value, his statement that doctrine is decided by the combined council of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is rendered null by his own definition, as he is just one apostle announcing it.
This is nothing more than speculation. You claim these men have a priesthood and you claim the other groups do not, but none of this is based on factual evidence, it is based on an intangible claim made in equal measure by a host of competing and mutually exclusive groups, all made with the same degree of conviction and sincerity.
By contrast, those who are scrutinising the LDS claims are able to produce actual evidence to comprehensively disprove some of the claims and other evidences that show LDS claims to be highly improbable and implausable.
For example, the BOA Facsimiles have been examined, they appear in LDS Scriptures, and the findings are conclusive; the translations given by Joseph Smith are utterly wrong. Further, those Facsimile are not even from the right time period but 1500 years after Abraham. Then there are the statements made by Smith on the record to members in published letters and church newspapers (and in a D&C Section that has since been removed) that the Church was strictly one man and one woman and that Smith was absolutely NOT practicing plural marriage. We have these statements covering a ten year period during which he'd married 33 women. So Joseph was publicly lying to the members.
If he is willing to lie on one issue, then why not on others?
You are right that the competing claims to priesthood authority are a thorny issue for the LDS Church.
This is no doubt why so many Mormons “remembered” Brigham Young’s face transfiguring to Joseph Smith’s, and even speaking with Joseph’s voice.
Though no contemporary accounts mention this, and only those written long afterward.
One such account, I believe, was written by a fellow who was not even present!
Such stories typically arise to buttress disputable claims.
Corbin Volluz,
Hi,
Thank you for commenting…
You have a very good insight to our religion regarding this decision making in councils. How come you are so familiar with our faith? (I am new to the site)
I do know the story of Hans Mattsson. Actually I know his son very well. I know of his daughter also who is very active in the church.
To your question about the decision making and revelation seeking:
To an outsider of the LDS church the explanations and facts you are presenting seem convincing about the fact that its hard to tell if the “revelation from God” -part really comes to practice in the decision making. It is again the personal witness from God to us individuals to receive the confirmation of the divinity of the First Presidency and the Twelve apostles. We must seek personal revelation to know if the decisions and doctrine is true that they are teaching. You are right, just by observing you can not tell the difference. We must seek revelation on this personally, just like in many matters. We encourage everyone to study, ponder and pray about the truthfulness of all things we teach.
Just like Elder Christofferson is teaching, we do believe that the revelation part is the most important part of decision making. We must receive revelation from God about important questions and decisions that regards the church. Let me elaborate on your question about the necessity of the process itself.
God’s intention for us on earth is to grow and develop so we can be “ready to meet him”, also “to bring to pass eternal life of men” (Alma 34:32 Book of Mormon, Moses 1:39 Pearl of Great Price). God works so that we can gain needed experiences, knowledge and wisdom to be ready to meet him and so we can receive eternal life.
Jareds brother had a problem whereto God answered him with a question: “What will ye that I should do…?” (Ether 2:23, Book of Mormon). God asked Jareds brother to ask specifically what he wanted God to do. Jareds brother needed to ponder, think, come with a suggestions himself first, and that is what he did, and only after that did God reveal his power to Jareds brother. (Ether 2,3,5)
The same is with councils of the church. Councils often need to decide on problems, changes, local circumstances and other. Just like moroni teaches we need to “ponder it in our hearts” and in councils discuss and share opinions and points of view (Christofferson) and then seek revelation from God “Ask, and it shall be given you…” (Matt 7:7).
My personal experience of working in councils have been exactly understanding these principles. Even though we as a council have sometimes had differing opinions when discussing a matter, when the time comes to really seek revelation from God the answer is crystal clear. This is how I have come to believe that councils work in the church. And the power comes from councils also of the principle we learn in bible “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt 18:20).
I know the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles in their council get revelation from God regarding the doctrine and other decisions of the whole Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Best regards,
Kaj Pärkkä
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response, Kaj.
I mean that.
But if somebody else says they “know the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles in their council do NOT get revelation from God,” where are we then?
Or even that one particular doctrine from them is not revelation?
Aren’t we kind of at an impasse?
I mean, is there some way we can say that one person’s revelation trumps another?
Or does this lead us back the well-worn trail up to the Church leaders where we conclude that it is only the revelation that agrees with them that counts?
I just spoke to the Holy Ghost and he tells me that he's never spoken to you. He says you're just claiming it. That it is your wishful thinking and devotion, but that he's never actually spoken out loud to you.
I don't mean any offence by this, but do you see how easy it is to make a claim to access to the HG. It is done by so many movement from Evangelist Christians, to Warren Jeffs group, to a version of Islam.
What helps us to really know what is true, no matter how sincere or well intentioned the claim? If we argue that people like Evangelist christians really feel the HG is telling them their way is true, or Warren Jeff's followers are really feeling promptings telling them he is a prophet what does this mean? Are they less sincere than you?
If they are capable of being deceived by such thoughts are you not?
So in the end we must step outside of these claims, to test them, and to test the issues at hand. This is easily done. We can find a list of claims by Smith that were false. From the Kirkland Safety Society and the fact that he fled the state to avoid conviction (ask yourself, if the president of the Bank of America lost all of the money on bad loans and was running the bank having been denied a licence, if he then skipped town would we want him brought to justice?). The BOA Facsimiles, the lies about plural marriage and D&C 101, there is a very long list of real issues.
And the three men I admire most;
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost;
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.
Are you saying that revelation and inspiration are the same thing? They're not. If i see God, and he speaks with me, that is a revelation. If i feel like i ought to do something, that is a prompting or a claim to inspiration.
Prophets prophecie, seers see and translate, revelatory reveal. Members live by inspiration not prophets.
If the church is being run by promptings then it is not being run by revelation.
Further, if it could be run by promptings then there was no reason for an apostasy and restoration, God could simply inspire anyone of the surviving church leaders after christ and call others as he wished.
This whole thing is a house of cards all of which are simply claims.
Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?
A: [Gordon B. Hinckley] Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah’s experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that’s the way it works.”
– Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997, by Don Lattin
Do you have any external evidence to support this claim? It just seems everyone is a preacher, each with their own version of scripture.
“That is the beauty of it.”
^ ^
– –
?
___
I’m not sure it is clear, so I will point out that the symbols I used above (under the quote) are supposed to represent a smug-looking devil.
See the horns?
Good thing we have you then Darren to keep doctrine and interpretation strait.
If not straight.
;^)
One of the earliest references clearly to this a one body instead of a Council of 3 and separate Quorom of 12 is in the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles
In the Conference Report cited however, he refers to the Church President and the First Presidency separately:
https://www.lds.org/new-era/1972/07/conference-report?lang=eng
I think those are valuable contributions to the quest to find out where this all started, JPV.
Good call that the 1992 Encyclopedia article edits the 1972 JFS quote to make it sound more like what we have today.
This suggests that the super-council may have been in vogue in 1992, but even then they were seeking for ways to try to make it seem older than it really was by referring back to 1972.
Sort of like Elder Christofferson did by referring back to the 1978 OD2 in his 2012 talk. (See blog post above.)
It says something when those discussing the super-council seem to feel compelled to distort the historical record in order to make it look older than it is.
Corbin Volluz,
Especially if you, the junior apostle, know you aren’t receiving revelation but you believe the 14 others around the table are receiving revelation. And what if all 15 aren’t hearing anything from God, but each assumes the other 14 are? Could be a recipe for extreme groupthink. The kind that leads to spending billions of dollars on malls.
Of course, another possibility is that all 15 are in on the joke–that maybe they do have a connection to God, and He has told them to run the church in such a way that some will see the need to seek God on their own.
Your first suggestion may help explain why it is that 14 of the 15 apostles seem to have no problem calling President Monson a prophet of God–something President Monson never claims for himself.
Another powerful tool here is that the unanimous factor can be applied retroactively and you can "disavow" anything a prophet has said that is a unilateral statement like was done with Brigham Young and racism.
Thank you for your comment, Brent.
It jogged my memory a bit as to something I meant to say earlier, but forgot.
I have already roughly traced the development of official doctrinal pronouncements going from the process of (1) Statements made by the prophet and president of the LDS Church (which seems to have gone from Joseph Smith to Joseph F. Smith); (2) First Presidency Statements (which seems to have gone from Joseph F. Smith through most of the rest of the 20th century); and now, (3) Statements by both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
What I didn’t do was propose a reason that might help explain this development.
I suggest that one of the main reasons First Presidency Statements became the method of announcing official doctrine was to supersede statements made by prophets and presidents speaking on their own authority.
For example, Brigham Young speaking as prophet and president of the Church said a number of things concerning the Adam-God Doctrine that a later church wanted to distance itself from.
Hence, First Presidency Statements were used as the method of establishing official doctrine, which had the effect of discounting statements made by Brigham Young alone–even though he was the prophet of the Church.
More recently, “proclamations and declarations” by the super-council of 15 have taken over from First Presidency Statements.
Can it be the reason is similar? That there are statements made by the First Presidency that need to be discounted?
There may be. I can think of at least two: (1) The 1949 First Presidency Statement officially announcing it is “doctrine” that black men could not hold the priesthood because of their premortal misbehavior; and, (2) The 1969 First Presidency Statement reaffirming the same doctrine.
Creating a new council of 15 under whose auspices official doctrines are given, supersedes and discounts all prior statements made only by the First Presidency, including the 1949 and 1969 statements.
As I say, this is only a theory. But it does seem to account for many of the facts and fits relatively well into the timeline of things.
Corbin Volluz,
Hi,
Thank you for commenting.
Well, to your questions. All have the freedom to believe and can believe how one likes and I really do respect your opinions, thoughts and how you believe. I believe, though, that there is one God and one truth, so either I am wrong or right. In all other cases as well, either the First Presidency is right or wrong. Either they do get revelation or they don’t.
There is always a possibility that when some one claims to “know” or “to have received revelation” that the revelation they have receives have not been from God. I do not want to argue about this matter by saying that i know these things. This is just the witness I have received. In other words, I can be totally wrong, OR, I am right. This discussion with you makes me again want to strengthen my testimony of the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And I would like you to do the same, for example through thoughtful and prayerful study of the Book of Mormon and follow Moronis exhortation and I will do the same.
Best regards,
Kaj Pärkkä
Dear Kaj,
You are obviously a very nice person, and I appreciate your posts.
I do wish to ask you a question, though, if I may, regarding your statement, “In all other cases as well, either the First Presidency is right or wrong. Either they do get revelation or they don’t.”
In 1949, the First Presidency issued an official statement that black men could not hold the priesthood, and that this was a “commandment” from God and “doctrine.”
Here is the first sentence from that statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements
The first sentence is demonstrably in error. This attitude was NOT as it “has always stood.” Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. This is now recognized by the LDS Church both in its recent essay as well as in the new heading to OD2.
Was the First Presidency right about this in 1949, or where they wrong?
Second, the First Presidency states that it is a “commandment” from God that establishes this practice as the “doctrine” of the Church.
Do you believe the First Presidency was “right” or “wrong” about that?
It seems clear to me that the First Presidency was wrong about what it said in this 1949 Statement.
Because I am convinced this is the case, I have had to revise the way I approach their teachings. I am no longer able to believe something just because leaders of the LDS Church say so, regardless of how many agree, whether it be 3 or 15.
Why? Because I know Church leaders have gotten at least some things wrong in the past.
Horribly wrong.
And I believe history may well be repeating itself with the Proclamation on the Family.
What are your thoughts?
Another great post! I am thoroughly enjoying all of your thoughts and friendly banter. You write everything that’s been swirling in my mind for years that I can’t, for the life of me, express or reconcile. Thank you!
Thank you so very much for the kind words, Anne!
I think there are many Mormons having the same experience as you.
Years of swirling ideas and questions, but precious little reconciliation.
For me, the ability to live with ambiguity came only through decades of struggling to reconcile seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence.
It has been a precious gift in my life.
Corbin
Have you ever participated in a ward council or other church council setting? I ask, because the way you discuss councils makes it seem to me like you haven’t. Revelation is enhanced through the council setting, but ultimately every decision is made by the presiding authority of that council (bishope etc). On my mission, I powerfully saw many examples of how inspired councils work. For instance, my mission president described the process of revelation that came when he and his assistants would together prayerfully consider where each missionary should go. Likewise, as a district or zone leader, I experienced profound revelation regarding the direction of the cities where I served, which was enhanced through discussion with other members of the zone or district. From those experiences, I have a strong testimony of the revelatory power that is occurring in the church today and in councils at every level.
As has been said, the difference between historic councils and the councils that occur today is that those today are seeking not the learning or wisdom of man, but the voice of God through revelation.
I’d also note, that much of what we have in regards to prophetic or apostolic writing in the new testament are homilies or sermons providing divine counsel or instruction regarding conduct. Much of Paul’s advice could make up general conference sermons today. There is little of the fantastic revelation that some commentors expect. That simply isn’t the role of an apostle or a prophet most of the time.
And yet, it seems to have been the role of Joseph Smith pretty much 24/7.
“It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind.”
–Joseph Smith, Jr.
Corbin, you could see the fact that the church claims revelation through council deliberations that seem to resemble more and more some of the early church councils rather than through the dramatic, charismatic experiences that characterized the early career of Joseph Smith as evidence that the LDS church falling into apostasy.
Or, you could distinguish the church’s council deliberations from the early church councils by saying that “they counseled by vote, not by revelation,” or “they didn’t have the priesthood,” etc.
Or, you could see this as the beginning of, and the opportunity for a positive move to reevaluate the Great Apostasy narrative we have inherited, which was itself largely based on outdated anti-catholic polemic histories written by the very protestant “sectarian ministers” that Joseph Smith and his early contemporaries so roundly criticized as worse than the catholic tree from whence they sprang.
I lean more toward the third. I don’t think we understand the apostasy very well. If we accept the restoration, I think we can say pretty confidently that there was a need for a restoration of priesthood authority, but I’m less convinced of many of the other claims that we have made about the great apostasy–less convinced that they are true, but more importantly, less convinced that they are necessary. And I think attempts to pinpoint the date of the apostasy, or to tie it to specific historical events like the council of Nicea, are pure speculation and usually ill-advised.
I agree with everything you have to say, JKC!
One of the problems with the way LDS have traditionally viewed the Great Apostasy is that it has a nasty habit of sneaking up from behind and delivering a swift kick.
For example, it used to be common to hear that the priesthood was lost through the unrighteousness of subsequent church leaders. (Here a litany of wicked popes from the Middle Ages was usually brought up.)
But more recently, I have heard LDS Church leaders address the question of whether a baptism is valid even if the priesthood holder who performs it is not worthy.
The answer give is an unqualified yes. The unworthiness of the priesthood holder performing the baptism has no effect on the validity of the ordinance.
The same situation would apply in cases of priesthood ordination. A priesthood ordination is valid regardless of whether the priesthood holder performing the ordination is worthy.
This, of course, raise a sticky question.
How can we say the early Christian church lost its priesthood authority through unrighteousness while maintaining that the unworthiness of an LDS priesthood holder does not affect the validity of the ordinance he performs?
Thorny issues such as this, I think, have contributed to a recent though slow redefinition of the Great Apostasy in the LDS Church.
Corbin Volluz,
“How can we say the early Christian church lost its priesthood authority through unrighteousness while maintaining that the unworthiness of an LDS priesthood holder does not affect the validity of the ordinance he performs?”
Yes, it’s a tricky needle to thread, if you accept the premise that the great apostasy constituted a loss of authority through personal unrighteousness. One possible answer lies in a distinction between personal unrighteousness and institutional unrighteousness, per section 1, verse 30, for example.
Another possible solution is to question the premise that it is a loss of priesthood authority through personal unrighteousness that made the restoration necessary. Of course, once to get rid of that premise, what do you replace it with? For me, personally, I think it is possible to accept the restoration’s claim that restoration was necessary, while reserving judgment on why, when, and how the priesthood authority was lost to begin with. Especially given that almost all our conjecture about the specifics of the loss of priesthood authority basically just piggy-backed on the anti-catholic writings of protestant historians, and does not claim to be revealed truth.
There is so much that is virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy in the history of the early church, and in the history of the church throughout the middle ages. There is much that is horrifying as well, but we ought to seek after the good, and not let our inherited narrative blind us to that.
Now, I should say, I’m am pretty critical of the great apostasy narrative (at least in it’s specific details that are not backed up by revelation; I confess without reservation the belief that there was a falling away and that the restoration was necessary). But I don’t want to sound like I take a dim view of B.H. Roberts, who first assembled that narrative, or James Talmage, who further advanced it. Roberts and Talmage were doing their best with what they had available to them. They were not professional historians, and even if they were, they would not necessarily have done much better. But they did not claim to be speaking by revelation, and as further light and knowledge has come to light about history and about the bias of the histories that Talmage and Roberts relied on, we ought to be seeking to reevaluate our understanding of the apostasy, to “turn our hearts to our fathers”–fathers in the sense of those who forged what became Christianity over the centuries that followed Jesus. As Mormons, we believe that they got some things wrong, and that God had to restore some things that were lost along the way, but they got so much right. And we should honor their work and their sacrifices, and not lose sight of that.
I’ve said this before, but personally, I think the persecution of heretics in the late middle ages, which used the creeds as a weapon against the unorthodox to deprive them of life, liberty, and property, goes a lot further to explain Jesus’ statement to Joseph Smith that their creeds were an abomination that do the early church councils that created those creeds in the first place. But of course, that version would not sit well with the Protestant historians who crafted the history that the great apostasy narrative was based on, since the Protestants, once they had escaped persecution, went as far and even further than the Catholics did in persecuting those that they saw as heretics, so instead, we got a version that focuses on the excesses of the popes, and the implication that such personal unrighteousness must be the touchstone of loss of priesthood.
I don’t mean to be controversial, but many of these comments are purely speculative claims. For example:
How did this work with the Salamander Letter? What ‘revelation’ did Oaks receive when he penned his famous piece explaining how the Salamander Letter was all good and nothing to see here?
This is a very relevant question as that letter and the other finds made by Hoffman would have been a certain reason for the Q15 to convene and discuss in detail how to respond. They would absolutely have needed clarity owing to the impact of that letter.
Another example, how about the Race and Priesthood issue? Today we have six Prophets on record in official statements from the church declaring the Race and Priesthood issue doctrine and not policy, from God by ‘Revelation’. Then recently we get the church essay where it claims it never ever was doctrine, but was only ever a policy, and they now fully disavow all claims relating to any relationship between race and transgression – which causes some genuine problems for the BOM which constantly points to a relationship between the skin of the Lamanites and their choices.
Finally, can we be careful with the use of terms. For example, ‘Revelation’ and ‘Inspiration’ are not the same thing. If an Angel appears to you in the flesh, then that is a revelation. If you feel prompted to do something that is not a revelation but inspiration.
The bottom line is, when one looks at church history, we find a mass of contradictions. The very idea that the church could today disavow something said officially as doctrinal by a past prophet leads to real issues:
1. He claimed it was doctrine but it never was – which means either this ‘revelation’ thing isn’t all its cracked up to be and is confusing and unreliable, or he made it up based on his own views. Either way it was official instruction and therefore led the church astray – it certainly drastically affected the opportunities for black members of the church for generations.
2. It is official doctrine still and the modern Q15 are simply wrong, and they are now leading the church astray, giving out statements not given by revelation.
If a prophet can give revelation and doctrine that is wrong, how do members really know which is which? Do you really have the choice to decide for yourself when constantly counselled to obey regardless?
In the light of the fact that the church has only around 5 million members (one only need look at most wards active members vs those on the ward list to confirm that), and yet we live in a world with 7 billion people this itself presents problems of reason for LDS claims. In 200 years the church has a smaller active membership than the Jehovahs witnesses that started later, it also has a smaller following than the singer Taylor Swift has on Twitter – how is that for inspired leadership? It does present a real logical challenge – church is true but no one is interested and the claims fall over under scrutiny when compared to the CES Letter, Evolution etc.
How on earth is it supposed to grow? Or is this plan so ineffective most of Gods children simply won’t make it?
A detailed and thoughtful analysis, Darren.
And I confess I am finding it difficult to dispute anything you say in it.
Honestly the argument made in this article is kind of a stretch. So people can't recieve revelation and then meet together to discuss it? So you think revelation is always a straightforward face to face with God process, and couldn't possibly be more complicated than that sometimes? I'm just sayin.
But people are not receiving revelation and meeting together to discuss it.
According to President Eyring and Elder Christofferson, they are meeting together to deliberate different points of view and then concluding that any consensus achieved in the council is itself revelation.
I think that’s a pretty big difference.
I am pleased to announce that The Millennial Star website has posted a critique of my article. It can be found here:
http://www.millennialstar.org/the-council-system-in-the-church/
It includes the following paragraph:
“The essential difference between the Council of Niceae (for example) and the Council of the Twelve is almost entirely slighted in the article — it’s not that one is a council and the other is not, it’s that one has priesthood authority, and seeks and receives revelation through the guidance of the Spirit, and the other is based in philosophical argumentation. That’s the difference. Does the author of this post expect that a true apostolic Church will not be led by a council of Twelve Apostles, but by one man acting alone?”
The denigration of “philosophical argumentation” is an interesting argument from a poster labeled as “ldsphilospher.”
But really, at bottom, this argument consists of little more than “my council is better than your council.”
And the idea of the Church being led “by one man acting alone” seems to have been de rigueur in the days of Joseph Smith.
Doctrine and Covenants 28:2–“But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.”
Just some thoughts.
And welcome to the discussion, Millennial Star!
“I think I can summarize a lot of the arguments so far as follows:
APOSTASY–When your church decides doctrine by council deliberations.
CONTINUING REVELATION–When my church decides doctrine by council deliberations.”
Seems to be just this in essence. Or the “No True Scotsman” fallacy mentioned earlier where it’s basically “Well, they didn’t really have the authority. We have the really real for real authority.”
The Millenial Star blog concludes as follows:
“Anyways, I’m saddened to see a clearly intelligent researcher throw away his loyalty to the Church based on such shoddy research. I hope none of our readers are fooled by his arguments. I could respond to each of his other arguments, but I have dissertation work to get back to.”
Darn those dissertations.
I just finished reading the article. It does a really good job misrepresenting yours right off the bat, and trying to discredit you, and your intellect rather than actually address the ideas you presented.
It makes a token effort to refute your research, but then doesn’t cite his own research just assuming his is of the greater, more informed idea.
There was one interesting comment bringing up the idea that councils started at the time of Peter, but the rest seemed to be patting themselves on the back for noticing you as just a wolf in sheeps clothing looking for any excuse to fall away from the church. Which does bring me to something that has been bothering me because I have been seeing so much of it lately. It’s the whole true believer using varying levels of “It is either this, or it’s not. You either believe this or you do not. You have gained a testimony of this, or you have not.” thing. The creation of there being absolutely only two options in pretty much everything they want to hammer home. Where did this come from?
To answer your question, it has been around for a long time.
Joseph Smith said he didn’t blame anybody for not believing him–if he hadn’t experienced it, he wouldn’t believe it himself.
Some time after Joseph’s death, I’ll wager, and likely out of deference to his memory, it became increasingly common for church leaders to say that either Joseph was a prophet or he was a fraud. And since he wasn’t a fraud, he was obviously a prophet.
Either what he said was true or it wasn’t.
This then became transposed into either the church is true or it isn’t.
Which then arrived at either the church leaders pronounce correct doctrine or they don’t.
(At least, this is my speculation as to the process.)
The Church has only itself to blame for the problems this has created, and for the many members who have left because of this black and white; either/or dichotomy of the Church’s own making.
Mormons hear from their Church leaders that the Church is either all true or not true at all. There is no middle ground. It is all or nothing.
So what is a Mormon to conclude when he or she finds the Church is not all perfect?
Well, according to the Church’s own teachings, the Church must be all wrong.
And what does such a Mormon do next?
Well, who would want to stay in a church that is all wrong?
I think the Church would benefit from nuancing this position.
Yes, Elder Oaks emphasized in his “Boise Rescue” that the apostles are witnesses only of the “name” of Jesus Christ and not of the person of Jesus Christ.
Elder Oaks continued that the apostles don’t necessarily have to see Jesus in order to witness of his “name.”
While strongly intimating that they HAVE all seen Jesus.
It is an interesting balancing act we have seen before from Elder Packer.
May I say I am disappointed that nobody has yet brought up the single most important observation in the blog?
That being the uncanny resemblance between President Henry B. Eyring and Richard Deacon on the Dick Van Dyke Show.
KJC,
Corbin Volluz,
I suggest you consult DC 27.12 and 107.23.
I would suggest that the name of Jesus Christ is holy, as is Jesus Christ, and that trying to find fault with anyone by making the distinction you are making is petty. I’m rarely offended by the back-and-forth on this website, but I must say this instance is coming close.
But I am not the one making the distinction between the apostles being a special witness of Jesus Christ versus being a special witness of the “name” of Jesus Christ.
That distinction goes to Elder Oaks.
I suggest you address your concerns to him.
Another point from the 2007 Church Newsroom Press Release deserves attention. I quoted it above and will reproduce it here:
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.”
So a single statement made by a former prophet (*cough* Brigham Young *cough*) may just be an opinion.
Fair enough, and no doubt true.
The problem comes with the door this opens.
For if a single statement from a prior Church leader may just be an opinion, does it become less of an opinion if the Church leader says it twice?
In other words, does an opinion become doctrine depending on the number of times it is stated?
This problem occurs not just with the number of times an opinion is repeated, but also with the number of people who hold the same opinion.
For example, if one Church leader’s statement may just be an opinion, what happens if a second Church leader happens to agree with that opinion?
Does the fact two Church leaders hold the same opinion make it any less an opinion?
You can see it is a short trip to the candy shop until we arrive at 15 Church leaders.
If 15 Church leaders hold the same opinion, does it make it any less an opinion?
Is this how opinions become doctrine? Based not on the substance or truth of the idea, but based on the number of times it is stated, or the number of leaders who believe it?
This seems a perilous road to go down.
It could lead to official pronouncements by the Council of 15, all holding the same opinion that God is against gay marriage.
But now that mutually held opinion is alchemically transformed into official Church doctrine.
See how it works?
Corbin Volluz,
Hi,
Thank you for your kind words.
I start to understand where you are coming from with this article and what you feel about the LDS leadership.
To your question I have to say that I am not that familiar on this subject on the proclamation on priesthood for black men. I would have to study it out more fully to make a strong opinion about it and how it reflects on the decision making and receiving revelation of the First Presidency and The Twelve Apostles today. For example to the Proclamation to the family. If you have some more links to church material on the subject I would love to study them out.
I really understand your point and feel your concern. I believe that it is always okey to ask for honest questions (also about these things we are discussing here) from our local leaders who should support us in finding the truth. But I also know that there have been several local leaders who have not shown respect to these kind of questions, which is not right in my opinion. And any question can be the important one personally to anyone, and when these questions are faced with disrespect, this is wrong.
I feel very sorry for all of you who have not had the opportunity to discuss these concerns with anyone in your local communities or your local leaders and that you have not found understanding and support to really solve these concerns.
I also feel that if we question the decisions the First Presidency and the Twelve apostles make, we have right to question them. I think we should not blindly follow LDS leaders, we should seek revelation ourselves. Here I mean honest, open, humble studying and praying.
I just read an article about this blind obedience from the teachings of prophets: Kimball. Very good.
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-13?lang=eng
Have a nice day.
Kaj
You’re okay in my book, Kaj.
Thanks for all your contributions to the comments!
It is because not all leaders welcome these kinds of questions that blogs like this exist.
Welcome aboard!
Anne,
I feel for you if really have been confused for a long time and you did not have anyone to talk to… (If thats the case). There should always be someone we can discuss and express our feelings to about questions we have in the church. The bishop should lastly be that person we can talk to.
Kaj
I expect you are a good person to ask questions, Kaj.
Typically what happens is that instead of actually discussing the questions themselves, bishops tend to see the questioner as lacking in faith.
The bishop then sometimes makes assignments to correct the situation.
A person I know going through this process was told by his stake president to restrict his reading to General Conference talks and the Book of Mormon.
80% General Conference talks.
20% Book of Mormon.
Nothing else.
This type of counsel is usually not very helpful.
What does 'ordain' do for a man? If you were ordained even by 14M people. Will that force God to talk to you? If being ordained/sustained by other mortals were the sure path to being the mouthpiece of God… I think you get the point. There is no logical reason to speak of ordination when the only true criteria for being a prophet is when God gives you a message to deliver. (See HC Vol 2 ~pg 195 for Oliver Cowdery's take on what it takes to be an apostle) Now here is the kicker… Claiming revelation is very convenient, but speaking for God is not. In the scriptures when a prophet spoke for God he was sure to note that what he was saying was from the mouth of God. If God gave you a message to deliver would you stand on the pulpit and say "I (note personal pronoun) tell you that if you won't repent, I will destroy you." Or would you say as all prophets in scripture have "God has given me a message to deliver that you must repent or be destroyed." None of the men who sit on that council have said such a thing. Even recently Elder Oaks said the apostles are witness of the name of Christ in the talk he gave in Boise, but that even speaks of apostasy (See: D&C 112:26) they witness of His name but do they know Him? Do they profess to know Him? Elder Scott said he knows God lives but when asked candidly if he has seen God, he won't answer. Once again look at Oliver Cowdery's charge to the apostles. They are not truly apostles until they have seen Him and can testify that He is. And they are supposed to tell the whole world. Which is contrary to what Elder Oaks said in Boise. Though the world be full of swine the apostles are to bear witness of the divinity of Christ, being personal witnesses thereof. Oh wait, never mind according to Elder Benson's 14 fundamentals of following the prophet #3 We can throw everything that Joseph, Oliver, and all those other dead prophets (the ones who actually saw God) said out the window. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet don't go astray…
Corbin,
That was an enlightening observation concerning the increasing numeric requirements for imbuing statements with divine infallibility in the Church. It seems that, like the One Ring of Power, our claims to speak for God and act on his behalf in sealing people up unto eternal life or eternal damnation seem to be changing size. Maybe it’s trying to slip off our finger and return to the true Lord of the Rings.
Remember Isildur.
I would hazard to guess increasing the numeric requirements to enfold the Seventies or the presidency thereof would not make a qualitative difference, seeing as how always agreeing with one’s superiors is how one advances in any hierarchy.
I appreciate your comments, George!
I think your point that simply being ordained to the office of apostle, and the fact that D&C has apostles termed “prophets, seers and revelators,” doesn’t necessarily make somebody a prophet, a seer or a revelator.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
Corbin,
You don’t need me to say this, but your article was well reasoned. I don’t necessarily agree with every line of conclusion, but what the millennial star does is misrepresent, over simplify, engage in minor Ad Hom, and patronise.
Pretty shoddy on the whole. I agree with Dusty when he stated:
“APOSTASY–When your church decides doctrine by council deliberations.
CONTINUING REVELATION–When my church decides doctrine by council deliberations.”
The closing para of the Star states: “Anyways, I’m saddened to see a clearly intelligent researcher throw away his loyalty to the Church based on such shoddy research. I hope none of our readers are fooled by his arguments. I could respond to each of his other arguments, but I have dissertation work to get back to.”
Again, pretty poor. It is so easy to make claims and to talk down, it is much harder to refute. There is no way the author of the millennial star could refute the real issues with Mormonism today. I openly challenge the author to address these issues:
1. BOA Facsimilies – they’re not translations. They’re not from the time of Abraham. Other than retreat to the recent apologetic invention of ‘Automatic writing’ and sound like Mary Baker Eddy – what have you got?
2. Joseph Smith lied about the existence of plural marriage for over ten years. He did this in direct contradiction of the commandment ‘thou shalt not bear false witness’. Smith lied to the members, he lied in print. How can we trust a prophet that lies to the members? What does this do for his credibility when he is a proven liar?
3. Kirkland Safety Society – Smith is on record prophesying that the bank he had no licence to operate would grow to consume other banks. It didn’t, within two weeks it was broke. This creates a number of sizeable issues. First, smith was wrong with his prophecy. Second, Smiths assurances to members were worthless and they all lost their savings. Third, Smith had no licence and operated illegally (so much for law of the land). Forth, he skipped town to avoid prosecution – if the CEO of a bank in the US operated illegally without a licence and lost all the investors money, Americans would rightly demand he is arrested and sent to jail. Yet members seem to overlook this illegal operation by Smith and wave it past as if there was no issue.
4. Noah – the story is fiction, yet is is taken literally in mormonism. The size of the ark is provided in the OT, yet there are more than 8 million documented species of animals and insects on this planet. It is simply impossible to fit a tenth of that number into a boat much smaller than the titanic. Yet Mormonism insists it was a global flood as we’re taught that the earth was baptised – this cannot mean anything less than total immersion since the church is averse to sprinkling counting as baptism. There is no way a global flood wiped out most life on earth just 4,500 years ago, and yet we have polar bears in the poles and Kangaroos in Australia.
It is facts like these that show that Corbins questioning is reasonable, it is right to question everything. Yet the author of the millennial star talks down and argues the research is shoddy (rolls eyes).
To quote Korihor – ye cannot know that which ye cannot see.
Assuming you’re not God, you’re taking positions on these topics based on your having accepted others’ claims, not because you have firsthand experience to be able to testify things are one way or another.
And, assuming you’re not God, you cannot know that your claims are true.
And since everyone picks and chooses whom to believe, and on what grounds, if you’re happy with those whom you have given your belief and allegiance to, well, be happy, bro.
As for me, I will continue to believe Joseph.
I don’t know, Log.
I read Darren’s comment as based on facts, not whether he believes what somebody else says.
I expect Darren would be happy to change his views if presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
But maybe I should let Darren speak for himself.
Corbin,
I believe that the world has probably got a real past that precedes my earliest waking memory – but, if if it does, I don’t know that past. Everything that I believe that I have not directly experienced, I accept on reports from others I have chosen to trust on some basis.
Is anyone different? Does anyone know that which they have not experienced firsthand? Or is not our perception of reality simply a patchwork of accepted claims and firsthand experience?
Oh, goody.
A board war.
“I do so relish these times of peril.”
Thanks for the back-up, Darren!
Hi Log,
The evidence is out there to view. I’ve read Joseph Smiths denials about plural marriage in his own writings published by the church. I’ve also read the recent church essay on Plural Marriage in Nauvoo where they admit he knew about it as early as 1831. Here are a couple of things smith said to show you these are not remotely vague claims:
May 1844 – “I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are – whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” – (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)
An 1838 letter written by Joseph which stated:
“We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God.” – History of the Church Vol 3, p 230
And finally, the article in the church newspaper Times and Seasons:
“TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1844.
NOTICE.
“As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.
“This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.
“JOSEPH SMITH,
“HYRUM SMITH,
“Presidents of said Church.” – (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 423)
As you can see, these are referenced so you can check them yourself.
With regard to the BOA Facsimiles, even the church now admits they are not correct translations and the church has now commenced a new line of apologetics. So the story is, they are absolutely translations made by Smith, right up until the point that all genuine Egyptologists (LDS and not) agree that they’re not translations and a new apologetic is required. There is no debate on this, read the LDS essay.
With regard to the Kirkland Safety Society, you can read Joseph Statement on it, and his attempt to get around the Banking Licence issue.
Corbin very correctly notes that if it were not for the evidence to the contrary, i’d be an active member. I loved being LDS, i totally believed, i admire Smith, and wanted the church to be true, but what is the point if the principles we adhere to and aspire to – those of honesty and integrity are directly contradicted and discard by the history of the church.
Corbin,
You see? He’s not different.
Darren,
On what evidentiary grounds do you assert Joseph was polygamous – meaning married to and sexually active with women other than Emma? Or do you accept this claim on the word of others?
And I am gratified to see you acknowledge your dependence upon Egyptologists. You have simply decided to trust someone other than Joseph on some basis or other.
So it goes with anything you don’t have firsthand experience with. You simply chose whom to believe. All of these so-called “facts” are, in reality, value propositions, the truth of which you don’t actually know.
Corbin, as a lawyer, you should already be aware that the acceptance of facts is, at its core, the acceptance of a value proposition – in other words, a matter of persuasion.
Log, it appears you’re trying to apply some form of cartesian doubt, but not applying that to Mormonism. The scientific method exists to help us determine what is true within the tangible world we experience.
Whilst i’m open to all forms of philosophical arguments about the reality of our experience in this world, such arguments throw open an infinite number of possibilities. However, if we remain within the frame of reference of this tangible world, the world Mormonism claims to represent then all of its claims are subject to the measures that exist within this tangible world.
Darren,
You say: “However, if we remain within the frame of reference of this tangible world, the world Mormonism claims to represent then all of its claims are subject to the measures that exist within this tangible world.”
You cannot know that which you have not experienced. You may choose philosophical presuppositions – axioms, if you will, which are merely assumptions – and a logical apparatus as you wish to conduct your investigations – but in the end, your conclusions are only as sound as those philosophical assumptions. So your appeals to metrics become hollow to those who do not share your assumptions – even if they may seem quite convincing – ironclad, even – to those who do share your prejudices.
And when you call your conclusions “knowledge,” strictly speaking, you lie.
Hi Log,
the church asserts Joseph was polygamous and in polyandrous relationships. There is no debate between me and the LDS church on this, both parties are in agreement. With regard to the sexual nature of the relationship, this does not have to be directly proven but can be derived from the claims and testimonies of witnesses.
Oliver Cowdrey wrote to his brother Warren to explain Joseph’s relationship with the 16 year old Fanny Alger. JS Jnr 111 also investigated this matter and concluded likewise. Brigham Young engaged in both polygamy and polyandry and had children with both types of wives – which establishes president that the relationships were sexual (at least if you want any claim to prophetic continuity through Young).
I visited the British Museum and spoke with the Egyptologists there and actually looked first hand at Hypocephali. I saw the lion couch scenes, and i wrote to linguist Lyle Campbell (worlds leading specialist on American Indian languages). I’ve read papers by Coe, Ritner, and the church essays.
As much as one reasonably can i’ve reviewed multiple sources of evidence and they converge with conclusions. By contrast what actual evidence do you have that Joseph Smith is a prophet?
You have no tangible proof, no expert testimony, but you do face disproof that can be evaluated by the scientific method.
The onus is on you as the claimant to prove the claim, not on me to refute it. All claims are false unless supported with sufficient evidence to prove them true.
So i have first hand experience with the BOA Facsimiles. I have first hand experience with temples in the Yucatan. I’ve been in the Smith house and seen how high the ceilings are. I’ve noted the sizes of the rooms. I’ve read Smiths own accounts denying plural marriage, and then read D&C 132 confirming it is real.
You can’t try to throw everything into doubt and still claim your version is ‘true’, truth is measureable. It must be supported by evidence (the more the better) and must not face disproof.
Darren,
You simply confirm what I said: everything you do not know by firsthand experience, you have accepted on the testimony of someone else you trust – and that trust was given on some basis or another. That was a choice on your part.
You misunderstand me to be trying to disprove your position – I have no such need. I’m simply pointing out your position is not based on knowledge, but trust in others’ reports. And if your position is merely a value proposition, well, so also is the proposition that Noah’s flood was literal and global.
We each choose whom to believe and on what basis. Your chosen narrative is not an exception to this. You believe far more than you know, and your choices of belief, and whom to trust, are not value-neutral.
Darren Harrop We just bail em out if they are big enough 🙂
Joseph was a horrible business man, Moses was a murderer, Nephi was a murderer (by our laws), Jonah was cowardly, The prophet in 1 Kings 13 lied and got another prophet killed by a lion… Prophets are not infalliable. But that doesn't mean God can't speak through them.
Of course you can claim inspiration/revelation and if you are carismatic enough you might even get a following. Or if the organization has been around long enough you get a following for the same reason that everyone said the emperor was wearing clothes. No one wants to look dumb or evil speak of the ruling authority.
As far as your question about how can we know what is true is a deep one. One that can not be answered by anyone on this blog. The best that can be done is give advice on how we have found truth personally and hope that maybe some might work for you.
For me I remember the first time a prayer was answered for me. I remember vividly how I felt at the moment. I use that personal witness of truth, the feeling of knowledge, the feeling of being guided to a real world solution because of the knowledge that was given. That little piece of light I gained as a child was the grain of truth that has helped me see other truths for me in my life. I hope you have had some similar experience that you have used to find truth too.
log,
Hi Log,
I fully understand your point but you’re making an epistemological argument on cartesian lines which is valid against your claims too.
How do you know any of your experiences ever actually happened and aren’t simply implanted memories?
There are so many versions on this line of reasoning but no me hands to test them at all.
What we do have is what appears to be tangible and what appears to be a shared frame of reference between most if us and mormonism. We can choose to debate on those truth grounds ease they’re held in common.
If you wish to debate epistemology then I suggest your argument is wasted here. Without a common frame work no agreement on any subject can ever be reached.
Here’s a couple for you, Darren.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/05/scientistry-is-not-scientody.html
http://www.unz.com/freed/can-scientists-think/
You see, unlike you, I’m not advancing any claims, and I don’t share your assumptions.
Corbin, the comment above is in moderation.
Also, for those who are interested, I recommend a book by Phillip E. Johnson – “Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education.”
The issues are almost always purely philosophical – but packaged as “facts.”
More on “witnesses of the Name of Christ” here:
https://daymonsmith.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/witnesses-of-the-name-or-the-being/
Thanks for the link, Lemuel.
You aren’t, by chance, the same “Lemuel” that posted this at The Millenial Star yesterday, are you?
_________________________
lemuel on July 16, 2015 at 10:37 am said:
“I could respond to each of his other arguments, but I have dissertation work to get back to.”
It’s too bad you don’t have time, ldsphilosopher. You could potentially save many souls from apostasy if you had more time.
____________________________
I laughed out loud when I read that!
I just wanted to point out that Darren is a big enough guy to post a countervailing opinion (one of the one) over on The Millennial Star post.
Thanks, Darren! I really appreciate it!
I quote a portion below:
_______________________________________
Smith claimed revelation after revelation. The first vision is the first lesson missionaries teach. For some odd reason it is perfectly okay to discuss the first vision, to discuss Paul on the road to damascus, to discuss an Angel appearing to Laman and Lemuel, but not remotely ok for a living member of the Q15 to admit directly that they have actually seen God or Christ or an Angel in the flesh?
Instead we hear this obfuscation, this intentionally vague statement designed to deceive about ‘how some things are too sacred to discuss’???? So we can discuss the atonement but we can’t discuss whether someone has genuinely be called as an apostle? The one thing these men are supposed to do, bear a witness of the actual living nature of Jesus Christ as a testimony founded on the experience of actually seeing the living Christ, but no, they now use some further obscuration about ‘Witnesses to the name of christ’ – what does that even mean?
These are reasonable questions, and in reading the comments made by Corbin, I too felt they were reasonable questions. If it is not alright to question, if it is not alright to discuss this openly and share or engage in meaningful exchanges that robustly and conclusively resolve confusions then what really is the point of the church? To not tell the story in a factual way that stands up to scrutiny? To not declare a witness that meets biblical criteria, to not be consistent in historical statements?
I’m actually surprised his comment made it past moderation. I tried to respond (mostly asking why the author claimed you had “shoddy” research, but then provided no citations to back up his own claims, and didn’t really address any of the points you made because he was too busy.) and my comment was left in moderation for quite awhile, but ultimately not allowed and deleted. Seems to be more of a defending the faith kind of blog, rather than one that truly invites discussion.
Thanks for the attempt, Dusty!
I know what you mean about The Millennial Star.
It does seem to be somewhat of an echo chamber.
The earliest reference I can find for the term Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is in 1944:
“Dear Brethren,
As you are aware the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve approved, by a formal action, the setting up of a committee on Publication as proposed by the First Presidency”
{Messages of the First Presidency, Volume 6}
The concept shows up in references as early as 1865. I’m not sure this is a new super council
Good job on finding this reference, Andrew!
I think that, even during this time period (of the first 4/5’s of the 20th century) when formal doctrine was being set forth by the First Presidency Statements, there were times when the Quorum of the Twelve also played a part.
Here, it looks like the First Presidency proposed the creation of a church committee on publication, and the Quorum of the Twelve approved it.
And again, it is difficult for me to tell at this distance whether this is a report of two bodies (the Council of the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), or whether it is supposed to report one body (i.e., the COUNCIL of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).
Are you able to find any place where the two bodies acted in concert in pronouncing doctrine? As opposed to the somewhat pedestrian creation of a church committee?
And perhaps more importantly, are you able to find any instance where the Quorum of the Twelve is reported as deliberating with the First Presidency in the actual creation of doctrine?
Thanks for all your great research!
On Keepapitchinin this morning there is a post that seems to reference this council back to 1913.
http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2015/07/21/charles-roseberry-rogers-and-the-tennis-players-of-milwaukee/
“The subject is of such importance that I decided to submit it to the council of the First Presidency and Twelve. We all feel that it would be wrong to give the sanction of the Church to tennis games or other sports as Sabbath indulgences. The possibility of offending some of our young people in the Branch to which you refer, as elsewhere, by rigid enforcement of rules for Sabbath observance, and particularly where the environment and the prevailing habits of the people generally are conducive to Sunday recreation and sports, is fully recognized. Great care, patience, and wisdom, such as the spirit of your calling will afford, are necessary in your dealing with this particular case. We feel that the advisable course for you to pursue is to make it very plain that the Church cannot sanction games and pleasure seeking pursuits on Sunday; but to refrain from rigidly enforced discipline unless individual members became recalcitrant to counsel and kind admonition. Every effort should be made to avoid an open issue in the case whereby either conference authorities or the young people would prevail or be defeated.”
This is an interesting and serendipitous find, John. Thank you for sharing it!
It gets difficult trying to parse out the words. Is reference being made to a preexisting “council” that consists of all three members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve?
Or is it simply saying that it was referred to both the council of the First Presidency and also the (Quorum of the) Twelve?
It is a strange thing because as recently as March of 2007 (right before the new press release went up on the Church website), By Common Consent published a Book Review of a new collection of First Presidency Statements which begins with the appropriate comment:
“In the game of Doctrinal Poker, First Presidency messages are aces.”
http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/27/review-statements-of-the-lds-first-presidency/
First Presidency Statements were the modus operandi of establishing doctrine from the administration of Joseph F. Smith through 2007 (or perhaps 1995), but seemingly no earlier than 1980.
(See above where I reference Ezra Taft Benson’s 14-Fundamentals talk in this regard.)
The first “First Presidency Message” of which I am aware came out in 1909 under the title, “The Origin of Man.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
This predates the article you reference by 4-years.
If the reference you bring up is referring to one council and not two, which I cannot tell for sure from the context, it appears to be an anomaly in the development of First Presidency Statements to establish doctrine.
And I should also mention it appears this was less a doctrinal pronouncement than a policy decision.
Again my thanks for drawing this to my attention!
Note this is the earliest reference I found during a 2 minute search. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen references dated to the time of Joseph F. Smith but don’t have time to find them right now. And documents published by the Church are full of references to this body. It’s been a pretty standard designation for decades.
In regards to counsel to only read Conference talks (80%) and the Book of Mormon (20%)I’d have to get a confirmation from the Holy Ghost, that that is how to find my answers, before confining myself to such advice. After all, it is the Book of Mormon that teaches that one can know all things through the Holy Ghost (Moroni 10:4-5 generally, and 2 Nephi 28:31 in regard to specific advice from a leader).
My understanding is that the young man to whom this admonishment was given responded that it was not of God and he therefore declined to follow it . . .
I'm always amazed by the amount of time that people who have left the church spend dribbling and critizing ridiculous ideas and insignificant debate. Find a different hobby. Go back to church because you will find what you have been searching for there.
Thank you for your comments, Sue.
Could you perhaps be a little more specific?
What ideas in my blog are “ridiculous”?
What debate has it caused that is “insignificant”?
I know you can come up with some examples if you put your mind to it.
Just one?
Would an example of this be the priesthood ban? Did the Holy Ghost inspire those words?
I am guessing you are being facetious with this comment, James.
But of course the Holy Ghost never inspired the words of the priesthood ban.
Not only is it completely antithetical to everything God represents, one might think the Holy Ghost would have been mindful enough to let Joseph Smith in on the ban before he started ordaining black men.
I'd like you to post a link. Sounds like an interesting play.
If you read Hebrews, you will see that the Priesthood of the New Covenant belongs to Christ and Christ alone. You will see this, or you will have to reject the Epistle to the Hebrews as false doctrine. Possibly the entire New Testament. Your choice.
I am not sure your interpretation is controlling, but Hebrews has long been considered of dubious authorship which is why it appears last in the list of Pauline epistles, in spite of its length.
It is also worth noting that several early lists of books considered canonical do not include Hebrews.
There is NO other church amongst all, and new churches evolving today that has a Living Prophet, 12 Living Apostles with the Restored Priesthood from Peter, James, and John from the hands of Jesus Christ that exist today…!!!! Look around and see what name of churches appears…. none have the name Jesus Christ at all…. in these Last Days as prophicied long ago, and that it was spoken of the Savior what his Church shall be named. Plain and Simple, yet men and women of the world take it upon themselves to go and make up their own church, dedicated to God, yet the Money that pours in pays them, supports their big homes, cars, fashion apparel, glitz, glamour, Starbucks, alcohol, for popularity, gain, power unto themselves, to do as they choose to .
You’ve never heard of the Church of Christ?
Or maybe you weren’t aware that the LDS Church was called The Church of the Latter-day Saints from 1835-38?
That is the name that appears on the Kirtland Temple, if memory serves.
No name of Christ there.
Well that was a lot of Time I regretfully gave up in order to get to the end of this chain of delusion and criticalness – your article mr. Vollus and the mostly make yourself feel good comments afterwards…
Now that you’ve mostly patted your intellectual selfs on the backs I challenge you to build something better. Perhaps considering putting your energies into building vs tearing down ?
I don’t expect you to take this request well so perhaps good bye is best for me now. Good luck or better – good blessings to you and a clearer vision of things as they really are. Until that day…
Condescend much?
“Well that was a lot of Time I regretfully gave up in order to get to the end of this chain of delusion”
If you want to see delusion, then i suggest you look at the Book Of Abraham, and then compare that the what actual Egyptologists have to say about the facsimiles vs Josephs Translations. You’ll quickly realise that delusion is believing in the face of complete disproof.
“I challenge you to build something better.”
As compared to what? A church that taught that people had dark skins because they sinned? A movement lead by a man who bedded a 14 year old girl? A church that abandons doctrines like building the temple in Jackson County and gathering their as Zion? Or becoming Gods and getting your own worlds? Or maybe Adam God, since that was doctrine for about 20 years under Brigham Young? Or maybe the essential nature of Polygamy, which without it man could not become like God, which if you do it now you get exed?
It looks like Julie Rowe is doing a pretty good job of leading the church in the absence of any prophetic remarks in the last 160 years from the 15 apostles (not 12).
“good blessings to you and a clearer vision of things as they really are”
If you really want a clearer vision then actually learn the real history of the church instead of the misrepresentation that exists as a result of the correlation committee and the hiding of past doctrines and practices.
Or read the CES Letter, and reflect on all of the things the church has never told you.
As a genuine believer, RM, married in the Temple, totally committed member who read church history and then left because of integrity, i do ask you to look at the reality yourself, you’re paying money into a fraud. You’re wasting time cleaning the chapel when you could be with your family or reading and learning, or out actually debating and sharing ideas to improve society – perhaps as a teacher or working in a homeless shelter.
Best wishes.
THIS!!!
Good comments about councils to establish doctrine. But I think it really goes much deeper than what you’ve said here. Someone picked up on it earlier When Packer chided that Elder for asking a so-called inappropriate question. The very definition of an Apostle is one who is a witness to the resurrection of Christ. That means seeing Him. If an apostle has not seen Christ then he is not an apostle. This is made clear in the New Testiment. It is clear that the early apostles at the foundation of the Church did see Christ because they testified of him. It is clear to me now that the apostles have not seen him. Hence they aren’t apostles.
I think it’s very clear that there has been no revelation in this Church since the very last revelation given to Brigham Young before we came to the valley. The reason to me is clear “Apostasy”. The Church in it’s very early days engaged in seeking mammon and not building up the kingdom of God. The most recent example of this of course is the using of the Lord’s money for building a mall costing by some estimates from 1 to 3 billion dollars of the Lord’s money. That is what I mean by seeking mammon and is apostasy.
What other elements show the modern apostasy? Well, the acceptance of abortion is one. You can have an abortion in this Church for rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. Oh – that is – as long as you ask the Church for permission or forgiveness. This is murder and against the commandments of God. Again – Apostasy.
How about the acceptance of homosexuality. I think it’s clear now that the Church accepts this. I have not seen this practice condemned since the days of Kimball.
Proliferation of images of Christ. Anybody ever ask themselves why a tornado hit the Christus in August 1999? Over the past 50 years since this Idol make it’s display in 1965 there has been an explosion of images across the Church. Anybody ever try to reconcile this with the 2nd commandment where we are told we can’t have any images of diety? Deut 4:10-20 makes clear what images we can’t have.
There are other examples of course. The list is quite long. In the Last Days there has been an apostasy.
Anybody want to defend abortion, homosexuals, Idols etc?
Keep up the good work, Ira
First off I’d like to ask, what is the purpose of your criticism. Is it just to criticize? Is it to show that you know more or are better off than the men and the church you are criticizing? Is it to try and persuade those who are doubting or unsure or weak to come your way, to join another church, to follow ‘your’ doctrine? Are you gaining brownie points for your wisdom, or bragging rights for winning your debate or giving solid foundation for your thesis? Is your intention to lift people up? Are you trying to inspire, move men upwards to higher and holier things?
If your purpose and resolve is solely to curse and condemn, pull down, question validity and authority, help people that are on the road to being deceived, get off that road…if it is any of these things then tell me one thing: What are you offering in exchange for your ‘all seeing eye’ and your superior knowledge? Are you offering something better, more inspired? Or are you just trying to disrupt and confuse? Offer me something better and that will at least give you a semblance of credibility. There is or has been only one perfect thing who has ever been on this earth, and we know who He is. All other things are imperfect, have flaws, are lacking. Some are trying to improve, some are pretty much stagnant, some are going downhill or getting worse. Being on an upward, positive, inspiring road is certainly better than driving on a road with potholes, cracks, dead ends, missing pavement etc. I’m sure we can all find something to complain about. We all have things we don’t agree with or things we thing could be done better.
I have my doubts about some things. But until I see an organization or person or people who can offer me something better and more hopeful than what I have already I’m content to ‘stick with the old ship.’ The promises and possibilities and rewards that are offered to those who are faithful, believing, obedient, prayerful, charitable are overwhelming. I mean do any of you have the most minute idea of or can you fathom the meaning of what it means to become a god? To have all the capabilities that our Father has? To create your own worlds and populate them? To create spirit children. Then (if you believe in what Brigham says) to come down to the earth or earths you have created and begin populating your worlds with mortals? If Abraham’s seed were to be as numerous as the granules of sand on the seashore, does that give you any idea of the nunber of descendants the Father has? And each world that he has created adds to that number. And all that is available to us.
Don’t worry about the things you are complaining about. Worry about yourselves and about what will bring you those opportunities and that joy. And then work toward that. Our world now has 7.2 billion people. How many billions have lived before and how many will live after? How many worlds has our God created? So how many billions even trillions (more?) have, are and will be created and all are His children? And if we are to be like him then how many progeny will we have? Those are the promises given us by the prophet. And I believe all who are here criticizing, theorizing and suggesting, believe in Joseph. If not you must be in the wrong place. But if you believe in the Prophet, those are all things he revealed that are promised to us. Just worry about YOUR faith, YOUR obedience, YOUR charity, YOUR future and leave others to themselves. You will find that you are and will be so busy working out your own salvation that you won’t have time to criticize, propose, or correct.
Does that little bit of advice go both ways?
Just wondering.
Corbin Volluz,
Comment
I’m coming late to the board, but just found it. Corbin, great article and quite thought-provoking. I too share many of these same concerns. Wanted to add Elder Nelson’s recent comment to the mix.
“The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!” (Sustaining the Prophets, Oct 2014).
So in other words, the unanimity of 15 men with varied backgrounds is enough to constitute revelation. Good to know. Suppose this argument should then hold true for our PTO group, or to a politician whose staff all agree on an issue.
For fun, you could reword his quote to say, “The calling of [me and 14 other] men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for [you] as members of the Church. Why? Because [our] decisions must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon [us] men to bring about unanimity? We have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! [We] men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!”
You have done a very commendable job cutting through the Mormon doublespeak. However, you forgot to mention the latest addition to the LDS canon, that being the Church Handbook of Instructions 1, the sealed book that has been elevated to scripture status. President Russell Nelson has come out now, proclaiming the November 2015 policy on gay marriages and denial of ordinances to their children as revelation from on high.
You have done a very commendable job cutting through the Mormon doublespeak. However, you forgot to mention the latest addition to the LDS canon, that being the Church Handbook of Instructions 1, the sealed book that has been elevated to scripture status. President Russell Nelson has come out now, proclaiming the November 2015 policy on gay marriages and denial of ordinances to their children as revelation from on high.
Looks like I’m quite late to this debate. The question is a good one though. Even though there won’t be anybody reading my comments since this one is long dead nevertheless I think I’ll still make a comment. The question is does the Church receive revelation through it’s apostles and prophets. The answer is obviously no. There has been no revelation in this Church since the time of Joseph Smith. He was a prophet the others were not called by God. How does God call a prophet? He begins speaking to him. He has not done that to any of these guys and so as you’ve pointed out they’ve concocted ways around the lack of revelation.
So what then are the pillars if you will of the apostasy of the Church in the last days. There are many but I’ll list a few. A biggie is the phony revelation to Kimball allowing the Blacks into the priesthood. This is clearly forbidden in the Pearl of Great Price. The true facts are that Jimmy Carter forced Kimball to do it and threaten him with the power of the Federal Government if he did not. He caved and that was the end of the priesthood.
Another one – all the ordinances of the temple have been changed except for baptism (Apostasy!). The breaking of the 2nd commandment thou shall not make graven images (the Christus). No common consent in this Church. You cannot vote against these phony prophets and apostles. Gifts of the Spirit are gone. Abortion and homosexuality are accepted in the Church – Oh with some qualifications of course. You can have an abortion if you ask us first otherwise we’ll ex you. Homos are okay if you tell me you don’t practice and aren’t married. Even Christopherson said it wasn’t a sin to be a homo. Paul said it was but not in this apostate Church. There are others but that ought to wet someone whistle. Tell me where I’m wrong. I’m inactive now because I see the apostasy and if you can’t see you are very blind. Oh one more for fun – you cannot serve God and Mammon the scriptures say. When Monson stole 3 billion dollars from the saints building the City Creek Mall he cut the ribbon and said – Let’s Shop! Man – what a profit (oh I mean prophet). Rocky
I’m late to this discussion, but it is quite interesting. There are other Blogs that are discussing the same thing. I read one comment that inspiration and revelation are different things. That is absolutely correct. Revelation is special privilege given to a prophet to speak directly with Christ. Given that this is the case. There has been NO revelation in this Church since the last revelation given to Brigham Young just before we entered the valley.
There are several scriptures that over the past 20 years or so have come to light or I should say interpreted correctly that prophecy that the restoration was completed by Joseph Smith and revelation was cut off to the Church when we entered the valley. D&C 101:43-64 the parable of the Nobleman says that the leaders such as Brigham Young failed to build the Tower. The Tower is a metaphor for revelation. A prophet goes into the tower to see far into the future. Something a regular member cannot do. According to this parable revelation was cut off to the Church because as it says they gave their money to the exchangers meaning – they became business men and worldly.
Hosea chapters 2 and 3 are about us and particularly Hosea 3:4 says that we would be without revelation. Isaiah 29:10 says the same thing.
So the bottom line is we are lead by worldly men who are not inspired nor do the receive revelation.
What then are the pillars of the Great Apostasy of the last days. I’ll just list a few so that you can think about them and discuss if you want to.
1. Acceptance of abortion and homosexuality in the Church
2. No revelation
3. No common consent. You cannot vote against anything/person in this Church.
4. Changed temple ordinances. All accept baptism have been changed.
5. Giving Blacks the priesthood contrary to what true revelation in the Pearl of Great Price says. There was no revelation given to Kimball about this and Eldred G. Smith was even kicked out of his position because he opposed it.
6. No Gifts of the spirit. No healing anymore. None of the gifts are present in the Church
7. Idolatry. Images of Christ are forbidden by the 2nd commandment. The Christus is an Idol.
There are many others but that should suffice. So the question is – Is the LDS Church in Apostasy. Yes – Absolutely.
Rocky
How would you feel if you wasted a large portion of your life abiding by a set of rules and doctrine that you once belived and then found to be false. Or worse yet, if you were forced to follow someone else's set of rules and doctrine that was false because of how deeply it was engrained in the society. (Have you ever tried to buy alcohol in Saudia Arabia?) The reason why people are very passionate about sharing their critcisms of religion is because they are significantly affected by religion. Do you know of anyone who has been rejected by their families because they are less than faithful of some religion or another?
I have seen many people get upset when their religion is critized, and the common counter-attack statement is that the criticiser's objective is just to win an arguement or to prove some sort of intellectual superiority with no real purpose. Before drawing this conclusion, you should consider religion's impact on a society's public policies, culture, and how religion shapes the definition of socially acceptable behavior. Nothing is too sacred to be above criticism. If a doctrine or teaching is really true, then it should be able to withstand any arguement that is presented to it. If you defer to strong emotion when someone presents criticism with your version truth, then you may want to reasses your process on how to arrived to your conclusion on truth.
Regarding councils being a sign of apostasy; this view is problematic.
It is clear from the Book of Acts that the apostles met in council to establish policy, as demonstrated by the controversy regarding Gentile converts.
Thus saith the Lord, the whole world is in apostasy to me, this includes every church for none are worthy of my name and I the Lord God have hidden myself from them. Behold the gospel is a way of life not of this world or it society and no righteous man conforms to unrighteousness to avoid persecutions. Therefore Ye shall know them by their fruits for he Who loves this world is deceived by this world, for behold this world is a kingdom of adversary.