From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:13:27 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <b8vv02MI2efK01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:

[...]

> Maybe, however he is the living prophet now, so his statements could
> not have been off by very much, otherwise he would never have made
> it to his current position.  Of course if you choose to view his
> being called into the office like the conversion of Saul to Paul
> I can see why you would draw your incorrect conclusion regarding the
> the prophet.  

I highly doubt that LDS General Authorities feel a need to
back-track and correct anything they may have ever said wrong
once they have been called to be a General Authority.

Your statement also shows a lack of understanding regarding how
the General Authorities function.

The members of the First Presidency, and Quorum of the Twelve are
all sustained as apostles, prophets, seers, and revelators.  That
means that there are 15 persons that are each called to be an
apostle, prophet, seer, and revelator.

But only one has the authority to exercise *all* of the rights,
powers, and privileges (or in Mormonese: keys) of these callings. 
That person is the President of the Church.  (He is called
"president" because he "presides" over the church.)  The right to
exercise *some* of these rights may be bestowed upon others, but
the President is the only one that can exercise all of them
(collectively).

> However, Ezra Taft Benson HAS ALWAYS been a Mormon
> so they are NOT comparable.

What is your point?  I have always been a Mormon.

Ezra Taft Benson has not always been the president of the LDS
Church.  Neither has he always been an apostle or General
Authority of the Church.

> Either you accept the guidence of your prophet, or you don't. 
> It appears to me that you only wish to "follow" the prophet when
> HE agrees with you. 

No, Tony, I temper the president's counsel with the scriptures and
most importantly, the Holy Spirit.

> If that is the case then maybe I'm speaking with the next
> prophet?

Anything is possible.  God works in a mysterious way...

>>> 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:
> 
> If it is a problem determining when the person is speaking as a prophet,
> then you have a much more serious problem.  How then are you going to
> know when he's speaking for God or of himself in telling you what is
> correct?  If you can't determine a difference then YOU can NEVER know
> for certain what he is saying is correct.  Of course, if you say YOU
> can tell a difference based upon ANY feeling YOU have, then the prophet
> becomes subjected to YOU, not God.  

Yes, as long as *I* am subjected to *God*.

> Why is it okay for you to quote Elder Bruce and when I do it he
> doesn't know what he's talking about?

Because you appear to quote only part of McConkie.  You seem to
selectively ignore statements from him that weaken or disprove
your claims.

You appear to be suffering from the same thing you claim Mormons
suffer from: "My mind is made up.  Don't confuse me with facts."

>>Message-ID: <1992Dec9.112353.3027@cbnews.cb.att.com>
>>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, Mormons do not believe 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.
> 
> I have an idea, I'll send a letter to the President and see what he has
> to say.  I think his response should be very interesting.

I doubt that they will take your letter seriously, but please do
try.  BTW, you mentioned a few months back that you were going to
do just this (and also write to *my* bishop and/or stake
president, if I remember correctly).  Have you already done this?
Or are you still waiting for something?

I'd be interested in a carbon copy of this letter you intend to
send (if you don't mind).

[...]

>>> 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.
> 
> I wasn't saying that it was scripture.  I was saying that most
> mormons consider it scripture and since the source is offical it
> is most probality correct.

I think a more accurate statement would be that most Mormons
consider it official and most probably correct.

>> 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?
>
> Not if he was wrong!!!

<sigh>

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