Prophetic Opinion?
Posted by Wade on November 20th, 2005
Prophetic Opinion?In light of the Church’s current condition and the virtual absence of “Thus saith the Lord” statements, I think whatever comes from the mouth of a General Authority when acting in his official capacity (this does not include writing a book), should be, at least as a general rule, considered the will of the Lord. I think scripture backs up my position: DC 68:4 says “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”
So I now open the Blog up to the question of what I call “prophetic opinion”. In essence, my question is: is there such thing as a prophet speaking only his opinion when speaking in his official capacity - or is his “opinion” actually scripture? I’m not suggesting there is no such thing as prophetic opinion, (in fact the scripture actually may suggest it), I only wonder how one is to determine it for one’s self. Furthermore, if there is such a thing, is it good practice to question those “opinions” - or only the ones a person doesn’t fundamentally agree with because of personal bias?
read your post: researching….researching….researching….
Comment # 1 left by Ryan on November 21st, 2005
Well, I read through the Times & Seasons debate. Wade, you little brawler, it got pretty awkward there for awhile.
Here’s my take on the subject(Which is written for reposting on the Times and Seasons discussion):
Policy or doctrine? It doesn’t matter. I can’t think of an instance where my obedience to church “policy” would jeopardize my salvation. Take for example the perception “I’ve been faithfully paying tithing for most of my life, I’d like to see how some of that money is spent”. Why concern myself with how the church beauracracy decides to disburse the money I donated to the Lord? For all I should care, it goes into a paper shredder and the clippings are used to stuff mattresses for the MTC. Either way I’ve fulfilled my obligation to the Lord and have shown Him my willingness to sacrifice. In fact, as I consider this, it seems to me that the requirement that “my” tithing money be spent in a way that I see fit and/or judicious shows a lack of faith in the Lord’s ability to keep his church well-financed with or without me.
Let’s suppose I decide that it’s in my best interest to differentiate between policy and doctrine. Well… good luck to me if it turns out I was wrong and the “policy” I so flippantly disregarded because of it’s conflict with my terrestrial view of reality turned out to be some crucial point of doctrine. I say, just let it all go. Why? Because it’s dangerous territory to delude ourselves into thinking that Satan won’t make every effort to magnify whatever minutely bitter feeling comes about from a policy disagreement and leverage it into a good old-fashioned apostasy. Nothing like a chink in the armor to keep Satan interested eh?
Is the church practicing priestcraft? Who knows? I’m of the opinion that they aren’t but hey, if that is the case, let it be upon the heads of the leaders who chose to make it that way. Either way, I’m sticking with the higher commitment to avoid speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. I don’t remember yet covenanting (in a rather sacred and holy way) to audit church monetary practices to protect the Lord from embezzlement.
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on November 21st, 2005
“Wade, you little brawler, it got pretty awkward there for awhile.”
I agree, it got too “heated”, but I tend to disagree that any escalation in tone was sparked by my comments. What did I say that made Kerr and jimbob so upset? Besides the words I used in asking whether Kerr believed certain things, what did I say that was so offensive? Moreover, what is it about asking if a person believes in continuing revelation that is so offensive anyway? Really, can you imagine taking offense to that question if I asked you?
But anyway, your comment is stinkin’ hilarious. I like the MTC remark as well as the remark about auditing the Church! NICE!
To discuss further (since it appears at least you’re on the same page I am and no further discussion seems imminent), what do you think of the suggestion I initially posed? I simply suggested introspection about a person’s concern about the Church’s practice of paying GA’s and MP’s. More to the point, what do you make of the quick and somewhat derogatory remarks? I guess the Times and Seasons commentators don’t like a Gadfly hangin around?
Comment # 3 left by Wade on November 21st, 2005
For Further Discussion:
What of the question I posed which asked: “is his ‘opinion’ scripture”? For some reason it doesn’t bother me to think of a General Authority’s opinion as scripture. Is this a weakness of mine? Or maybe this pronouncement isn’t all true. I suppose it may be more of a challenge if a General Authority were to ask something of me I thought was frivolous.
But this is kind of my point. I don’t tend to think I’m more wise or smarter than any GA - their “opinions” seem to be spot on.
Comment # 4 left by Wade on November 21st, 2005
For some reason it doesn’t bother me to think of a General Authority’s opinion as scripture.
Well, despite my stance that whether or not it is scripture is irrelevant, I’ll take the bait and comment on this.
No, I do not think that General Authority opinions are scripture mostly because I believe that they go about the business of running the church the same way the local Elders Quorum president goes about running his Priesthood quorum. I believe that the Lord raises up righteous men and women and then gives them little nudges here and there to keep the church generally on the right track. In a broad sense, I guess I might agree with you in that I believe it is the will of the Lord that men and women (all the way up to the GA level) use their best judgement in their stewardship. Whether their specific opinion is precisely how the Lord feels is probably unlikely. But I will have to do some research before I can back that up with anything official.
As for the Times and Seasons introspection challenge, I think they felt like it was a bit ad hominem - ish. Sort of like skipping all the claims to practiced priestcraft by claiming they just think that because they are wicked.
Comment # 5 left by Ryan on November 21st, 2005
As for the Times and Seasons introspection challenge, I think they felt like it was a bit ad hominem - ish.
I agree, but my question is why? Honestly, does suggesting introspection really infer a person is “wicked”?
Well, maybe it does and the reason they were so sharp in return is because the truth hurts? Personally, I think maybe I am “wicked” when it comes to certain things. I guess no one likes to be “called out” for their weaknesses. But I guess the next question is why not - especially when it’s not explicit? I can recall many instances in Church history where Brigham was literally verbally abused by Joseph (illegitimately by the way - just as a test), and Brigham just asked him what he wanted him (Brigham) to do. Also, I recal Brigham doing the same thing to John Taylor in the St. George Tabernacle and there is a divot in the pulpit to this day that was caused by Brigham repeatedly hitting his cane on it during the public rebuke. I think that stuff is great and I think we’ve become to coddlish of heresy and people’s “feelings”.
Other Topic:
I guess I might agree with you in that I believe it is the will of the Lord that men and women (all the way up to the GA level) use their best judgement in their stewardship.
This is a good expression of my thoughts! Yet, a close reading of DC 68:4 is interesting. It suggests that ANY priesthood holder speaks/does the mind/will of the Lord if he is fulfilling his duty by the Holy Ghost. I think the issue is whether the HG is influencing the GA - or the Elder’s quorum president for that matter.
Sorry I didn’t post something more substantive that we could quibble about longer - we seem to be on the same page.
Comment # 6 left by Wade on November 21st, 2005
Further Comment
I think the issue is whether the HG is influencing the GA - or the Elder’s quorum president for that matter. But should this be something members question?
Comment # 7 left by Wade on November 21st, 2005
I won’t touch the priestcraft debate, as to me that is too
subjective. But there is most definitely a difference between Church
“Policy” and “Doctrine”, the biggest difference being that the former
changes (a lot) and is flexible, while the latter does not
(clarifications may be made, but the core remains the same) and is rigid.
Missions play my favorite example as far as policies go. When my
and even told to sleep in the same bed as his
father went on his mission there was no such thing as a “white
handbook”. So what kind of rules did they follow? Basically common
sense rules. And the generation before him pretty much got dumped on
the shores of some deserted isle and told to preach in a language
they had never heard of. Preach what? The policy of what parts of
the Gospel to teach in what manner and order has certainly gone
through changes — in fact, this year — while the Gospel principles
themselves have remained the same (naturally); e.g. faith,
repentance, baptism, etc, etc. Also, my father was *required* to
wear a hat
companion! Anyone that has fulfilled a mission in the last 3 decades
knows darn well those policies have changed …
dramatically. Fornicating with your companion back in my dad’s time
was just as much against the Gospel as it is now, but that policy has
been added, and for good reason.
Another great example is the Church Handbook of Instructions
itself. When I was first called as a branch president (May 1998) I
had the “old” set of handbooks for several months before the current
(rumored soon to be “old”) handbooks were distributed. There were
changes — why else would they publish another set? There will be
more changes again when the next set comes out (as stake clerk I will
have access to them). This should not terribly concern anyone, as
when we go back a hundred years there was no such thing as an
official handbook to begin with!
The more interesting part about the handbook issue is what to do when
a GA offers direction that contradicts the handbook — I’m not
referring to major items, but rather the smaller, less significant
issues that vary by location. Was not the handbook inspired? But
here is one of the big items that illustrates policy versus
doctrine. If a bishop is taken in adultery and found guilty, he can
never again act as a bishop. Wait, what happened to that wonderful
doctrine called forgiveness? Of course, he can be fully forgiven,
but a policy has been instituted to make an attempt at preventing the
same shame upon the Church from happening again.
Policies are added, changed, and removed to meet the needs of the
current issues faced by the Church. Doctrines are *only* added when
presented to the body of the Church and accepted as binding.
IMHO, D&C 68:4 does not support your conclusion, Wade. You rule out
books written by GAs; tied with that scripture, does that mean they
were *not* acting under the influence of the Spirit while writing the
book, which makes the book *not* the will of the Lord? As opposed to
them standing in your presence at the pulpit saying the exact same
thing? The book issue is a little to the side of the main point,
however, which I will illustrate.
A month ago one of the Seventy visited our stake conference. In the
stake presidency training he offered instructions that weren’t
exactly in line with what the prior visiting member of the Seventy
offered. The issue in question had not changed one iota since the
prior visitor. What conclusion can we reach from that? Was only one
of them acting under the guidance of the Spirit? They cannot both be
right. Which should we accept as the will of the Lord? So how do we
discern when they *really* are speaking the will of the Lord and not
just offering their opinion?
I think the shaky ground you refer to, Wade, is caused more often by
to
people taking what was said by this or that GA and transforming it
into official doctrine in their life. That said, I definitely do not
entirely disagree with you. I believe General Conference is the
designated method for the Brethren to disseminate the will of the
Lord. However, a close examination of the talks reveal that 98% (or
more) of the time they are simply reminding us of the doctrines
already accepted as binding upon us. Can you point out a “newly
revealed” doctrine from GC in the last 10 years? (If you can’t
that’s OK, because we all need to be reminded often as to what we’re
supposed to be doing.) The only one I can point to (even further
back than that) is the blacks and the Priesthood. And, as is the
proper method, it was presented to the Church to be accepted or
rejected as binding doctrine. This is a comforting doctrine
me, knowing that the things which *really* matter and affect my
salvation are given in such a manner, and not left up to me to decide
at each GC to figure out which parts of the presentation must be
accepted as doctrine.
In conclusion, I’m on your side, Wade
I just think careful
examination is required before taking things GAs say as doctrine and
the will of the Lord versus their opinion.
Comment # 8 left by Alan on November 22nd, 2005
Alan said: “Policies are added, changed, and removed to meet the needs of the current issues faced by the Church.”
This is true, but does this mean the policies are not the will of the Lord and merely opinion? I’m not sure you’re saying they aren’t, but I actually think they are the will of the Lord. I also think God does things according to the conditions of men (i.e. the Church) and their ability to live/accept his ways. For instance, your example of the GA visiting your stake and “changing” the prior policy established by the previous visiting GA. My point and question is: just because the “policies” fundamentally differ, does that mean the latest policy is not the will of the Lord and the prior one was not (or vice versa)? I don’t see why there has to be a disconnect as you suggested by saying: “They cannot both be right.” In other words, I believe the Lord’s will may have changed according to the condition of the members of your stake (whether they weren’t implementing the policy correctly or needed a different approach etc.).
Furthermore, you make a very good point about my “book” comment. It seems silly to not accept a book written by say, President Faust as the will of the Lord but at the same time accept his teachings from the pulpit as the will of the Lord when they are synonymous. But there is a fundamental flaw in this reasoning because it implies that just because a GA “can” include the will of the Lord in a book as easily as from the pulpit doesn’t mean he is necessarily acting under his official calling when writing the book and thereby come under the provisions of DC 64:4.
Lastly
“I just think careful examination is required before taking things GAs say as doctrine and the will of the Lord versus their opinion.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement, but I question the practice of questioning what a GA says if his statements were made while under his oath as a General Authority. As an example, I don’t think your stake should question the difference between the policies because the difference in policy does not necessarily imply that one or both are not the will of the Lord. The will of the Lord “changes” according to the condition of his people.
Comment # 9 left by Wade on November 22nd, 2005
So if I am correct that should close the conversation with the following concept agreed upon:
1. Church Doctrine remain unchanged
2. Church Policy chnages with the needs of the church according to the opinions of those running the church
3. Either way we are responsible to cheerfully follow both church doctrine and policy as it comes from the Lord’s anointed and let the Lord make changes where he sees fit.
Is this a fair characterization of everybody’s opinion?
Comment # 10 left by Ryan on November 23rd, 2005
Oh yeah, don’t forget
4. Ryan was in such a hurry to post that he was too stupid to go back and correct all his typos and proofread for grammar violations.
Comment # 11 left by The idiot on November 23rd, 2005
Ryan:
I think your synopsis sums up my understanding pretty well. I just used the blog as a forum to vent my frustration over what I think is an unfortunate trend among so-called gospel “intellectuals”.
Comment # 12 left by Wade on November 23rd, 2005