From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:09:26 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <b2YW02L42epu01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>>> So, if according to the "Prophet" of the church, "how well we
>>> stand with the Lord can be told to us by asking ourselves how
>>> close we are to the words of the Prophets", we should look at the
>>> words of the Prophet concerning Bruce R. McConkie.  Right?

>> I would say "words of the prophet" leaves much room for
>> interpretation. If the prophet says "pass the bread, please" that
>> is hardly a prophetic utterance.  Your interpretation of it is
>> absurd and I could never accept it.
 
> What do you mean by 'my interpretation'?  Your prophet said:
> 
>      "The Prophet is th only man who speaks for the Lord in
>       everything".
> 
>      "The living prophet is more important than the standard
>       works".
> 
>      "The prophet does not have to say "thus saith the Lord" to
>       give us scripture".
> 
>      "The Prophet and the presidency- the living prophet and
>       the First Presidency - follw them and be blessed, reject
>       them and suffer."
> 
>                          Ezra Taft Benson
>                          14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
>                          Pages 1-16
>                          Feb. 26, 1980
> 
>              (Taken from the official "PRESS COPY" version released
>               by the LDS church).

And, Tony, *Elder* Ezra Taft Benson was called in to the office of
*President* Spencer W. Kimball about some of these statments he
made.

> Also during this speach, your prophet said the following just
> before quoting D&C 21:4
>
>      "Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might
>       say the Prophet gave us counsel but that we are not
>       obligated to follow unless he says it is a commandment.
>       But the Lord says of the Prophet, "Thou shalt give heed
>       unto ALL HIS WORDS AND COMMANDMENTS which he shall give
>       unto you."  D&C 21:4
> 
> 
> I don't think this is 'my interpretation'.  

When you fail to temper it with other statements from the LDS
canon (like D&C 50:19-23; 68:4), it most certainly is.

Isn't that called proof-texting?  Whatever it is, it sure makes
your arguments look rather one-sided, incomplete, and not well
researched.

> I know you don't like it, but your prophet said it.  Interprete
> it for yourself and take it up with him.

The problem, Tony, is determining when the person is speaking as
a prophet and when he is not.  How can one know the difference? 
By getting a confirming witness from the Holy Spirit.  Also Bruce
R. McConckie's quote is relevant here:


From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)

[...]
> Right On. First thing that McConkie would say is:
>
>   It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has
>   said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has
>   revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any
>   other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square
>   with the revelations, we need not accept them. (McConkie, "Are
>   The General Authorities Human?, 1966, p. 4).

Tony, Mormon's do not belive their leaders are infallible. You
seem to think they are, or that they should be.  Sorry, but you
seem to be ramming your opinions down our throats.

[Tony offering a quote]
>>>     "Often when a doctrinal question came before the First
>>>      Presidency and the Twelve, Elder McConkie was asked to
>>>      quote the scripture or to comment on the matter.  He
>>>      could quote scripture verbatim and at great length.  He
>>>      provided the entire Church with an example of gospel
>>>      scholarship.  He could teach the gospel with ease because
>>>      he first understood the gospel."
>>>

[Gordon responding]
>> What was this, a blurb for the dust jacket of BRM's book?
 
> Well, you cut off the reference, but it came from the Ensign,
> June 1985, page 16 (I believe, that is from memory).  But I know
> it was from the Ensign, in the First Presidecy Section, by the
> Prophet, in which most Mormons I know refer to as Scripture.

Tony, not everything published in the Ensign is considered
Scripture.  In fact I'd dare say that only the General Conference
editions (May and November) would be considered that.  In
addition, even those editions are not considered canon, but more
as a study guide until the next (conference) edition comes out.

Again, I think that this quote only shows that McConkie was well
versed in the scriptures.  I've even heard rumors that at one
time he had the LDS canon committed to memory.  Wouldn't you want
to consult with or consider the opinions of someone like that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc