Okay, so forgive me for wanting to go overboard on the alliteration. I just miss Elder Maxwell. :)
It does seem sometimes like certain blog posts just tend to write themselves. But this isn't one of those posts, so read only at your own risk. Just wanting to add to the conversation, here's a very brief conglomeration of thoughts from this past weekends General Conference.
Two highlights:
Jeffrey R. Holland's talk was very touching, and one of my personal favorites. (Ditto that to Elder Juan Uceda's talk.)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf gives suburb talks, both in content and delivery--and to do it in a second language nonetheless! Here's one of my favorites.
Two low-lights:
*The repetition (twice) of the Fourteen Fundamentals talk. I've long had some misgivings about this speech and the way some things are interpreted (both by LDS and non-LDS). I'm not alone, of course, and even the prophet at the time (Spencer W. Kimball) had some misgivings about it--especially how it seemed to promote an almost unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. Despite the controversy it generated when it first appeared, it managed to slip into General Conference, now to be accepted uncritically by the masses since it came from the mouth of two witnesses--surely it's a sign from God! (Excuse the sarcasm.)
Parenthetical insertion: President Kimball’s reaction to Elder Benson’s 1980 BYU talk can be found in “Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball” by Edward L. Kimball (Deseret Book, 2005) pp. 160-161.)
*Boyd K. Packers talk concerned me on several levels. Thus, I also had some misgivings with some of his remarks. [**Relevant update: see "Departing the Text: Changes to Elder Packer’s Conference Talk"]
But all in all, speaking of the conference "collectively and not individually", I can say I was well pleased. Naturally, there was a lot of good stuff mixed throughout--too much to comment on in one short post. But of course one of the best parts about conference for me personally was spending more time together with my wife and kids (a rarity during the weekly block) and watching it comfortably from home.
Signing off with a favorite Brigham Young quote:
"You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind. . . . What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him.
"I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually"
-Young, Brigham. Journal of Discourses. 9:150-151
MHA Article Awards (Due February 1, 2025)
8 hours ago
Posts
14 comments:
And that quote you signed off with is the reason there is nothing wrong with the talk that Elder Benson gave or its regurgitation, twice. I mean, ultimatly we work out our own salvation, right? So, the church leaders -prophet to bishop- guard the way, thus, enabling access to the way, the truth, and the light to each and every soul who will earnestly seek, knock, enter in by the way, and carry on unto the perfect day.
I enjoy your blog and feel a gospel and Oregon kindred to you.
Thanks
I miss Elder Maxwell too.
I could have written your post verbatim, CC. Although the actual "14 fundamentals" don't bother me that much in theory, the way they are interpreted and applied by many members and leaders concerns me deeply.
I agree generally with the Church's published position on homosexuality and other apostles' comments about it. That is my focus right now.
Re: Fourteen Fundamentals. The talk's publication in June 1981 as a First Presidency Message (click here) makes President Kimball's earlier thoughts about Benson's talk superfluous. Spencer Kimball was Prophet. Benson was not even a member of the First Presidency. Under those conditions, it is inconceivable to me that Benson’s talk would have been published as a First Presidency Message over the objection of the Prophet.
IMHO, the most thought provoking address of the conference was given by Elder Dallin Oaks.
I believe it goes a long was towards answering many of the questions clean Cut has brought up about "following the prophets".
I'd be interested in knowing Clean Cuts thoughts on Elder Oaks' talk.
I meant to say: I believe it goes a long ways...
My thoughts on Elder Oaks' talk:
I liked that he addressed both the personal and priesthood "lines of communication" and counseled against extremes. I thought that was an interesting approach. But at the same time the topic raises more questions.
For one, I'm not sure that the proper balance between each of those lines of communication is always crystal clear.
One statement in particular causes me pause: "We should all remember the Lord's declaration in modern revelation that the voice of the Lord's servants is the voice of the Lord".
Interpreting D&C 1:38 is somewhat problematic when one considers that it was referring to specific leaders at that time, and not necessarily future servants yet unborn and uncalled. Even still, most members project that onto todays leaders. Assuming we can and should do this (admittedly, that's what is commonly done), there still remains a significant concern. No qualifications are given as to "when" those servants are speaking for the Lord.
It cannot possibly mean that everything they say is as though the Lord is saying it. That would be demonstrably false. So when? During General Conference? Only in official declarations? When His "servants" speak as one voice unitedly? Or only when they're moved upon by the Holy Ghost? (I suspect something closer to the latter--especially when the Holy Ghost confirms it to the recipient as well.)
Not even all the words of Joseph Smith were considered "the voice of the Lord"--only those revelations that were specifically canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants reached that status. Joseph himself said that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such". And heaven knows there's a big difference between the prophetic role of Joseph Smith and the role of prophets today.
So when is a prophet "acting as a prophet"? And would this be the same time as when we are to consider their voice as synonymous with the voice of the Lord?
Still many questions....
One more thing to consider, CC.
"the voice (singular) of my servants (plural)"
This implies, at the very least, that it is the unified voice of all the servants that constitutes the voice of God. Thus, for example, Elder Holland and Elder Packer can make somewhat contradictory statements about homosexuality without either of their individual voices having to be interpreted as "mine own voice". At this point, it is pretty clear, based on the actual wording of the verse in question, that gay marriage is contrary to the voice of the Lord - but it exactly where the line should be drawn between the Priesthood line of revelation and the personal line isn't as clear, imo. That's a good thing, since drawing a bright line and applying it universally really would constitute an erosion of personal growth and agency, as Elder Oaks himself cautioned against in his talk.
How comprehensive or universal does the united voice have to be if the actual words used are parsed strictly for what they actually say?
Thanks, Papa D. That's a good point.
In asking above when the voice of the Lord's servants should be considered as the voice of the Lord ("When His "servants" speak as one voice unitedly?"), I actually thought of an earlier post of yours where you look closely (as you pointed out now) at the text (singular "voice" along with plural "servants"). I think that's definitely worth considering in this conversation.
And I also agree, like Elder Oaks basically said, that we shouldn't expect (or perhaps even desire) to have everything spelled out for us.
Your thoughts on Elder Oaks talk brought up several questions that I think there are answers for.
First, you wrote: interpreting D&C 1:38 is somewhat problematic when one considers that it was referring to specific leaders at that time, and not necessarily future servants yet unborn and uncalled.
Unless the scriptures can be applied universally they become useless. If they can only be applied to the persons living at the time they were received there shelf life is very short. Principles of the gospel as taught in 1:38 can't have a shelf life or we might as well chuck them in the trash.
Second, you wrote: No qualifications are given as to "when" those servants are speaking for the Lord.
I think there are qualifications that can be applied that answer the question: when are the Lord's servant speaking for the Lord?
13 Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?
14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.
15 And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?
16 Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.
24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;
26 He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 50:13 - 26)
I believe these verses of scriptures answer the questions you have raised.
I HAVE to add another incredible conference highlight:
Elder Juan Uceda's Priesthood session talk was incredibly touching and personally impacting.
http://new.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2010/10?lang=eng&vid=623572447001&cid=5
Those kinds of moments make it all worth it.
Jared, that's actually the scripture I had in mind when I asked:
"Or only when they're moved upon by the Holy Ghost? (I suspect something closer to the latter--especially when the Holy Ghost confirms it to the recipient as well.)"
Your thoughts on Elder Oaks talk brought up several questions that I think there are answers for.
First, you wrote: interpreting D&C 1:38 is somewhat problematic when one considers that it was referring to specific leaders at that time, and not necessarily future servants yet unborn and uncalled.
Unless the scriptures can be applied universally they become useless. If they can only be applied to the persons living at the time they were received there shelf life is very short.
Principles of the gospel as taught in 1:38 can't have a shelf life or we might as well ignore all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).
Second, you wrote: No qualifications are given as to "when" those servants are speaking for the Lord.
I suggest there are qualifications that can be applied that answer the question: when are the Lord's servant speaking for the Lord? Consider this verse.
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 50:17-20)
I believe these verses of scriptures answer the question about qualifications.
His servants need to have the companionship of the Comforter when they speak in the name of the Lord (verse 17). When they do, both the receiver and hearer are edified (see D&C 50: 22, if the hearer also has the Spirit), just as you stated in your comment.
Third, you wrote: It cannot possibly mean that everything they say is as though the Lord is saying it. That would be demonstrably false.
I think you're right.
President Lee taught:
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator please note that one exception you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. We can know or have the assurance that they are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know. President Brigham Young said something to the effect that "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord. The Teachings of Harold B. Lee P. 541.
I'm persuaded we have all we need to become joint-heirs with Christ. Is it easy? Not by any means.
Joseph Smith taught:
"...the disappointment of hopes and expectations at the resurrection, would be indescribably dreadful."
Ehat & Cook, Words, 253
I am going to do everything I can to avoid that kind of outcome on the day of resurrection.
GREAT comments from Papa D and Jared.
My thoughts don't answer any questions, but I was just thinking about all the flak that Elder Packer is getting and how every single word these men say is held under a microscope and some people and press are just waiting to pounce on anything they can, whether in or out of context to show the church's "flaws". It's sad. I know we (as individuals) would be horrified if everything we said was dissected and critiqued. How sad we would look! We are all just human and should live our lives following the teachings of Christ as best we can and give people the benefit of the doubt. We waste so much time looking for what is wrong with people instead of just taking "the beam" out of our own eye. The general authorities are human too. Their hearts are in the right place and they do a pretty great job of doing their best. (I would hate to be in their position--talk about pressure!) There was only one perfect person.
Post a Comment