Is it true that the words of your elected prophet are concidered of equal validity to the written word of God? If so, is it not true that teaching of prophets in the past often change?
2 Responses to “Is it true that the words of your elected prophet are concid…”
Pedro Silva
2008-05-11 05:38:42
The Mormon (LDS) Church is patterned on the earliest apostolic Christian church of the first century. That Church was led by a chief apostle, Peter, who Mormons see as fulfilling the role of a prophet (i.e. one who communicated with God and passed His divine council on to God's Church). Of course God's principles are eternal, but, in Peter's role as a prophet, he was able to learn God's will and act on it, applying eternal principles in ways that were relevant to his culture and society. It was not Peter's will or Peter's words that mattered, but rather God's will and God's words, received through Peter, that were important. Peter was not a perfect man, and as a mortal he made mistakes, but he nevertheless played a key role in revealing God's will to the earliest Christians. The words of God given to Peter were just as important as the words of God contained in Peter's scriptures, the Old Testament. In fact, God's words given through Peter and others later became the scriptures of the New Testament.
Acts 10 offers a perfect illustration of this revelatory process. In the earliest Christian Church, the good news was preached only to the Jews. God likely allowed this because He wanted the Church's base to grow strong before Christianity was taken to the whole world. When the time came for expansion, God revealed His will to the chief apostle Peter through a vision (Acts 10). Peter was not a perfect man. At first He didn't understand God's will (Acts 10:17), perhaps because he had long believed the gentiles were unclean. But ultimately, Peter saw the wisdom in God's commands, and transmitted God's will (not necessarily his own) to the members of the early Christian Church, allowing the gospel to be preached to the gentiles. Church "doctrine" was modified according to the changing needs of the earliest Christians, under the direction of direct revelation from God.
Mormons see their chief apostle-their prophet-in exactly the same way. The prophet is not infallible; he is not like the Pope in Catholicism or the Bible in fundamentalist Christianity. His words, while often wise, certainly reflect his humanity. We as Mormons are not so much interested in the prophet's words as we are interested in God's words as revealed through the prophet in his capacity as the chief apostle. Because of this modern revelation, God can actively participate in the progress of His Church. He can make curse corrections when we humans take His church in the wrong direction. He can implement and revoke commandments according to human circumstance, applying His eternal principles in varying ways as required for the progress of His Church. For some, this dynamacism seems to make for unstable theology, but from a Mormon perspective it provides theological vibrancy that is somewhat lacking in most other Christian denominations. The fact that the Mormon model more closely resembles the revelatory model of apostolic, 1st-century Christianity also lends credence to our approach.
That having been said, in practice creedal Christianity is just as theologically dynamic as restorationist (Mormon) Christianity, though, at least in the case of Protestant Christianity, the theological justification for that dynamacism seems lacking. Here are just a few of the significant theological changes that have occurred in Christian doctrine over the past 2,000 years:
The earliest Christians had no notion of the Nicean Trinity. Numerous creedal-Christian scholars have in recent years come to acknowledge this fact.
Jesuit scholar Edmund J. Fortman wrote: "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons."
The famous Harper's Bible Dictionary makes the same point: "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament."
The academian J. Fitzmyer explained it this way: "This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development."
Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that there is little evidence that the first Christians were Trinitarian: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century."
Later Christians have adopted the concept of Trinity almost universally and made it central to their doctrine.
Medieval Christianity was used to lend theological support to the physical punishment of "heretics" (the inquisition), the invasion of sovereign nations (the crusades), and as justification for the feudal system. Modern Christians are pretty much universally opposed to the once-popular theology used to justify these practices. In fact, the "liberation theology" so prevalent in some Christian groups is precisely opposed to these medieval Christian doctrines.
The Protestant reformation introduced tremendous doctrinal changes into Christianity, far too many to mention here.
Much of the earliest Protestant theology has likewise been abandoned by modern Protestant denominations. For example, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed polygamy was compatible with the scriptures and even secretly performed a polygamous marriage. Said he, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330.) Modern Protestants (and modern Mormons for that matter) universally reject the practice of polygamy.
Up until well into the 20th century, some Protestant denominations also held to theology that condoned slavery and/or the oppression of blacks. In fact, the Southern Baptist denomination came into existence because of the slavery issue; it broke off from other American Baptist denominations because it felt slavery was theologically justified. Modern Protestants nearly universally reject the racist doctrines of their ancestors.
One need only look to the many varied doctrines of the thousands of Christian denominations today to recognize that many theological changes have been introduced into Christianity. If no changes had been introduced, there would be no differences between the many modern denominations.
Many of the doctrinal changes in creedal Christianity have been changes for the better. We should celebrate those changes rather than condemn them. The same is true of restorationalist (Mormon) Christianity. The theological dynamacism of Mormonism, however, stands on firmer ground that that of creedal Christianity, because theological change-theological improvement-is actually part of our theology.
Anonymous
2008-05-12 01:37:07
I'll let the dictated words our lord Jesus to our first later-day prophet answer your question. The preface to D&C 1 reads as follows:
"(Doctrine and covenants Section 1: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the prophet, during a special conference of elders of the church, held at Hiram, Ohio, November 1, 1831. HC 1: 221224. Many revelations had been received from the Lord prior to this time, and the compilation of these for publication in book form was one of the principal subjects passed upon at the conference. This section constitutes the Lord's preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments given in this dispensation.
34 and again, verily I say unto you, o inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
35 for I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.
36 and also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon idumea, or the world.
37 search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.
38 what I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
39 for behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen." (bold added)
So as to the first half of your question yes we beleive that the things that are pondered, prayed, fasted over, written and spoken by our called of God, then generaly elected, leaders are as if the mesage came from God himself. True that persons called and sustained in this church are still mortal and prone to mistakes but we know God is even over that. Wilford Woodruff, 4th president of the chruch stated in the menefesto dealing with the ending of polygamy in the church stated "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (SixtyFirst Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
As to the second half of your question God doesn't change, but men, policy, and laws of a nations do. And for that matter God allows his people to adapt to laws and policies of nations as they are changed, but never in a way that alters the core of his doctrine and never to change commandments that were before this earth was created. God is an unchangable being the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet in the days of Moses, or Abraham the people of the earth were different so God did his pleasure to fulfill his purposes. Moses 1:39
"For behold, this is my work and my gloryto bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
As it is today God has his commandments set, his laws, and it is up to man to use their agancy to come into line with God, never the other way around. D&c 130:20-21: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. "
Acts 10 offers a perfect illustration of this revelatory process. In the earliest Christian Church, the good news was preached only to the Jews. God likely allowed this because He wanted the Church's base to grow strong before Christianity was taken to the whole world. When the time came for expansion, God revealed His will to the chief apostle Peter through a vision (Acts 10). Peter was not a perfect man. At first He didn't understand God's will (Acts 10:17), perhaps because he had long believed the gentiles were unclean. But ultimately, Peter saw the wisdom in God's commands, and transmitted God's will (not necessarily his own) to the members of the early Christian Church, allowing the gospel to be preached to the gentiles. Church "doctrine" was modified according to the changing needs of the earliest Christians, under the direction of direct revelation from God.
Mormons see their chief apostle-their prophet-in exactly the same way. The prophet is not infallible; he is not like the Pope in Catholicism or the Bible in fundamentalist Christianity. His words, while often wise, certainly reflect his humanity. We as Mormons are not so much interested in the prophet's words as we are interested in God's words as revealed through the prophet in his capacity as the chief apostle. Because of this modern revelation, God can actively participate in the progress of His Church. He can make curse corrections when we humans take His church in the wrong direction. He can implement and revoke commandments according to human circumstance, applying His eternal principles in varying ways as required for the progress of His Church. For some, this dynamacism seems to make for unstable theology, but from a Mormon perspective it provides theological vibrancy that is somewhat lacking in most other Christian denominations. The fact that the Mormon model more closely resembles the revelatory model of apostolic, 1st-century Christianity also lends credence to our approach.
That having been said, in practice creedal Christianity is just as theologically dynamic as restorationist (Mormon) Christianity, though, at least in the case of Protestant Christianity, the theological justification for that dynamacism seems lacking. Here are just a few of the significant theological changes that have occurred in Christian doctrine over the past 2,000 years:
- The earliest Christians had no notion of the Nicean Trinity. Numerous creedal-Christian scholars have in recent years come to acknowledge this fact.
- Medieval Christianity was used to lend theological support to the physical punishment of "heretics" (the inquisition), the invasion of sovereign nations (the crusades), and as justification for the feudal system. Modern Christians are pretty much universally opposed to the once-popular theology used to justify these practices. In fact, the "liberation theology" so prevalent in some Christian groups is precisely opposed to these medieval Christian doctrines.
- The Protestant reformation introduced tremendous doctrinal changes into Christianity, far too many to mention here.
- Much of the earliest Protestant theology has likewise been abandoned by modern Protestant denominations. For example, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, believed polygamy was compatible with the scriptures and even secretly performed a polygamous marriage. Said he, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330.) Modern Protestants (and modern Mormons for that matter) universally reject the practice of polygamy.
- Up until well into the 20th century, some Protestant denominations also held to theology that condoned slavery and/or the oppression of blacks. In fact, the Southern Baptist denomination came into existence because of the slavery issue; it broke off from other American Baptist denominations because it felt slavery was theologically justified. Modern Protestants nearly universally reject the racist doctrines of their ancestors.
One need only look to the many varied doctrines of the thousands of Christian denominations today to recognize that many theological changes have been introduced into Christianity. If no changes had been introduced, there would be no differences between the many modern denominations.- Jesuit scholar Edmund J. Fortman wrote: "There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons
The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons."
- The famous Harper's Bible Dictionary makes the same point: "The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament."
- The academian J. Fitzmyer explained it this way: "This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the OT a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development."
- Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that there is little evidence that the first Christians were Trinitarian: "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century."
Later Christians have adopted the concept of Trinity almost universally and made it central to their doctrine.Many of the doctrinal changes in creedal Christianity have been changes for the better. We should celebrate those changes rather than condemn them. The same is true of restorationalist (Mormon) Christianity. The theological dynamacism of Mormonism, however, stands on firmer ground that that of creedal Christianity, because theological change-theological improvement-is actually part of our theology.
"(Doctrine and covenants Section 1: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the prophet, during a special conference of elders of the church, held at Hiram, Ohio, November 1, 1831. HC 1: 221224. Many revelations had been received from the Lord prior to this time, and the compilation of these for publication in book form was one of the principal subjects passed upon at the conference. This section constitutes the Lord's preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments given in this dispensation.
34 and again, verily I say unto you, o inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
35 for I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.
36 and also the Lord shall have power over his saints, and shall reign in their midst, and shall come down in judgment upon idumea, or the world.
37 search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.
38 what I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
39 for behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen." (bold added)
So as to the first half of your question yes we beleive that the things that are pondered, prayed, fasted over, written and spoken by our called of God, then generaly elected, leaders are as if the mesage came from God himself. True that persons called and sustained in this church are still mortal and prone to mistakes but we know God is even over that. Wilford Woodruff, 4th president of the chruch stated in the menefesto dealing with the ending of polygamy in the church stated "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (SixtyFirst Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
As to the second half of your question God doesn't change, but men, policy, and laws of a nations do. And for that matter God allows his people to adapt to laws and policies of nations as they are changed, but never in a way that alters the core of his doctrine and never to change commandments that were before this earth was created. God is an unchangable being the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet in the days of Moses, or Abraham the people of the earth were different so God did his pleasure to fulfill his purposes. Moses 1:39
"For behold, this is my work and my gloryto bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
As it is today God has his commandments set, his laws, and it is up to man to use their agancy to come into line with God, never the other way around. D&c 130:20-21: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. "
I hope that answered your question.