From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:44:08 GMT
Summary: Confirmation by HOLY GHOST REQUIRED in LDS Thought
Keywords: Mormon, Confirmation by Holy Ghost




                           MR ROSE'S ASSERTATIONS

In a series of exchanges, the LDS view has been expressed that Mormons do not
believe in prophet infalliblity and that they believe that each member of the
church must rely upon the Holy Ghost  in  order  to  know  whether  what  the
Prophet has said is the mind of the Lord. Mr Rose has attempted to argue that
Mormons have no right to question what a prophet or General  Authority,  that
once they say something, then that is the end of the question.

The reason for this line of argument is that Mr Rose wishes  to  construct  a
very liberal criteria of what is and what is not OFFICIAL Mormon Doctrine. If
Mormons believe that not everything that comes out of the mouth of a  Prophet
or  a  GA  represents  the  mind  and  will  of God, then a number of largely
speculative remarks made by past and present leaders of the Church cannot  be
presented as accurate LDS Doctrine.

Although LDS in the last month have demonstrated repeatedly why this  liberal
criteria  does  not  make sense (simply from a practical point of view - i.e.
that Anti-Mormons could not take this criteria and produce a fully consistent
set of LDS doctrines), Mr Rose has insisted on traveling down this road.

In Message: <e7lv023730Qj01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> which was posted on 7 Jan 93
21:22:16 GMT, Mr Anthony G. Rose typed in the following:

   If God has a living prophet on the earth, then he wouldn't have him saying
   false  things.   Therefore,  the  need  for extra "confirmation" is either
   unnecessary, or it gives the final word to  the  individual  and  not  the
   prophet.   This  position  is upported by Wilford Woodruff, Mormon Apostle
   and later Church President:

      "...it has ever been a key with me that  when  the  Prophet  who  leads
      presents  a doctrine or principle or says thus saith the Lord I make it
      a point to receive it even if it comes in contact with my tradition  or
      views  being  well  satisfied that the Lord would reveal the truth unto
      his Prophet whom whom he has called to lead the Church before he  would
      unto me, and the word of the Lord through the prophet is the End of the
      Law unto me." (The minutes of this session are  found  in  the  Wilford
      Woodruff Journal, under the date of January 27th, 1860)

   Speaking of the Prophet  of  the  Mormon  Church,  Brigham  Young,  Mormon
   Apostle Orson Hyde stated:

      "To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that  there  is  a
      presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine is
      to lay the axe at the root of the tree.  Will He suffer his  mouthpiece
      to go into error? NO."  ("Misc. Minutes" unpublished ms., Brigham Young
      Collection, Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, p.1)

   Mormon Apostle and later President John Taylor also admitted  this  to  be
   the case:

      "If that mouthpiece has not the power to dictate I would throw  all  of
      Mormonism away." (Ibid, pp.6-7)

   It is quite easy to see that there is  no  need  for  a  prophet  _and_  a
   confirmation.   One  or  the other.  If LDS church claims to have a living
   true prophet of God.  If this is itrue, then why is there a need to get  a
   confirmation  about  his  revelations?   Do  you doubt that he really is a
   prophet?  All I am saying is that the two cancel one another out.  That is
   if he is a true prophet.

                     PROBLEMS WITH MR ROSE'S QUOTATIONS

It  would  be  nice  to  see  the  context  of  Mr  Rose's  quotations,   the
circumstances  underwhich  they   were uttered  or  recorded.  Based  on  his
references, one would conclude that Mr  Rose  has  read  the  entire  set  of
Wilford  Woodruff Journals (a mighty feat if he really has done that) or that
somehow he somehow understands  exactly  what  the  "Misc.  Minutes"  in  the
Brigham Young Collection actually consists of.

The problem is that I am aware of the context of  Wilford  Woodruff's  remark
and  of  Orson  Hyde and John Taylor's remarks and I am also aware of exactly
what the "Misc. Minutes" entry actually is. The problem is that  if  Mr  Rose
actually  read  Woodruff's  Journal or the "Minutes" then he would have known
the context and would have equally known that  the  context  dealt  with  the
Orson Pratt - Brigham Young Controversy of 1860. Moreover, Mr Rose would have
known that the way the controversy was resolved was exactly opposite  to  the
position in which he thinks that Mormons believe.

While controversy centered on doctrinal differences Pratt  and  Young:  Pratt
believing  that one worshipped the attributes of God and Young believing that
one worshipped the Being of God, the argument went  much  deeper.  Pratt  had
previously  stated  that  the  argument was a bit absurd because one couldn't
really seperate attributes from the Being. There was an attempt to  reconcile
the two views into one, but Pratt wouldn't budge.

The meeting, in which the members of the Quorum of the Twelve  discussed  the
problem  with  Pratt was recorded by Thomas Bullock and is part of the Office
Journal of Brigham Young (the Misc. Minutes refered to by Mr  Rose).  Pratt's
response was that before he could be reconciled with Brigham Young's point of
view, then he would have to  receive  a  personal  revelation.  NONE  of  the
members  of  the  Twelve disagreed with this view (which if Rose had actually
read the minutes, then he would have picked it up immediately), in  fact  the
members  of  the Twelve bent over backward to help Pratt achieve exactly this
type of confirmation. The members of the Twelve  met  the  next  day  in  the
Endowment  House  and  gathered  in  a prayer circle asking for help to guide
Orson Pratt. It was after this that Pratt changed his mind and was reconciled
with  Brigham  Young's  point of view. Brigham Young was pleased and wrote to
Pratt: "There is not a man's sermon that I like  to  read  [more],  when  you
understand  your  subject, but you are not perfect,  Neither am I." (cited in
_Dialogue_ 13(Summer 1980):33)

All of this, Pratt's conflict,  the  conditions  which  Pratt  set  down  for
reconcilation, and how that reconcilation was finally achieved could not have
been missed by anyone examining the original of these  minutes.  If  Mr  Rose
actually  read  them, then I fear that on top of an inaccurate representation
of these individuals' views, there is also Mr Rose's character  to  consider.
I  can, at best, only hope that Mr Rose's use of these citations was only out
of ignorance, not an attempt to purposely mislead.

So  that there  is no  mistake about  what Mormon  leaders  (GAs)  have  said
concerning this subject, I am  reproducing a limited number of statement made
by individuals  WHEN they were either MEMBERS of the First Presidency or WHEN
were President of the Church (not before!).

          GAs SPEAK ABOUT PROPHET INFALLIBLITY AND BLIND OBEDIENCE

Joseph Smith (President of the Church):

   No Power or influence can or ought to  be  maintained  by  virtue  of  the
   priesthood,  only  by  persuasion,  by  long-suffering,  by gentleness and
   meekness, and by love unfeigned. (D&C 121:41)

    ... Elder Brown ... one of the wiest old heads we have among us, has been
   called up before the High Council on account of the beast. The old man has
   preached concerning the beast which was full of eyes before and behind and
   for  this he was hauled up for trial. I never thought ti was right to call
   up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much  like
   methodism  and  not  like Latterday Saintism. Methodists have creeds which
   aman must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty  of
   believing  as i please, it fees so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove
   that a man is not a good man, because he  errs  in  doctrine.  (Conference
   report  by William Clayton, 8 Apr 1843.  And edited version is found in HC
   5:340)

    ... in relation to the power over the minds of mankind which  I  hold,  I
   would say it is in consequence of the power of truth in the doctrins which
   I have been an instrument in the hands of God of presenting  unto  them  &
   Not  because of any Compulsion on my part. I will ask if I ever got any of
   it unfair. If I have not reproved you in  the  gate,  I  ask  did  I  ever
   exercise  any  compulsion  over any man. did I not give him the liberty of
   disbelieving and doctrin I have preached  if  he  saw  fit  ..."  (Wilford
   Woodruff diary, 24 Mar 1844. An edited version appears in HC).

Brigham Young (President of the Church):

   Salvation is an individual operation ... those men, or  those  women,  who
   know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit
   than  to  be  entirely  led  by  another  person,  suspending  their   own
   understanding,  and  pinning their faith on another's sleve, will never be
   capable of entering into the celestial glory (JD 1:312)

   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  of  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  iwth a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the
   purposes of God in their slavation, and weaken that influence  they  could
   give  to  their leders 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 they leaders
   are walking in the path that the Lord dictates or not. This  has  been  my
   exhortation continually. (JD 9:149-150)

George Q. Cannon (Member of the First Presidency):

   the Lord has set him [the prophet] to guide and to  lead  the  people.  To
   lead the people blindly without knowing themselves whither they are going?
   No, certainly not. When the President of this Church give counsel,  it  is
   the  privilege  of  the  Latter-day  Saints to know for themselves, by the
   testimony of Jesus within them, that such counsel is right ... (JD 18:256)

Charles W. Penrose (Member of the First Presidency):

   We are accused of following our leaders in 'blind obedience.' There is  no
   such  thing in the Gospel. We have in our midst those who give us the word
   of the Lord in a church capacity ... but it is our privilege to have  this
   same  light  ... It is the privilege of every Saint to have this light for
   themselves ..." (JD 21:89-90)

   At the head of this Church stands a man who is a Prophet  ...  we  respect
   and  venerate  him;  but  we  do  not  believe  that his personal views or
   utterances are revelation from God; and when 'Thus saith the  Lord'  comes
   from  him, the Saints investigate it; they do not shut their eyes and take
   it down like a pill. When he brings forth light they want to comprehend it
   ... The Latter-day Saints are not blindly led by leaders ... but every man
   can receive the divine testimony in his own heart  ...  (_Millenial  Star_
   (21 Mar 1892) 54:191)

Joseph F. Smith (President of the Church):

   I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the  members  of  the
   Mormon  Church are among the freest and most independent people of all the
   Christian denominations. They are not all united on every principle. Every
   man  is  entitled  to  his  own  opinion  and  his  own  views and his own
   conceptions of right and wrong os lond as they do  not  come  in  conflict
   with  the  standard principles of the church. If a man assumes to deny God
   and to become an infidel we withdraw fellowship from. If men steal or  lie
   or  bear  false  witness  against  their neighbors or violate the cardinal
   principles of the Gospel, we withdraw our fellowship. The church withdraws
   its  fellowship of that man and he ceases to be amember of the church. But
   so long as a man for a woman is honest and virtuous and  believes  in  God
   and  has a little faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and
   aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the  church,  though
   he may not believe all that is revealed." (_Reed Smoot Hearsings_ 1:97-98)

John A. Widstoe (Member of the First Presidency):

   Obedience or conformity must be intelligent. The meaning of the practrices
   of  the  Church  must  be explained to very member, so that the reason for
   obedience will be clearly understood.  Blind  obedience  is  repugnant  to
   Latter-day Saints; but, necessarily, there may be times when those of less
   experience rest their judgment temporarily upon the advice of men of wider
   knowldege  and  longer  experiences  ... Such obedience soon blossoms into
   full understanding ...  (SLC: Dept. Of Education of the  Church  of  Jesus
   Christ of L.D.S., 1939, p. 217).

George Albert Smith, while President of the Church, was asked by a  concerned
non-LDS   minister  (Dr.  R.J.  Cope)  about  an  editorial  comment  in  the
_Improvement Era_ in June 1945 which stated that "When our leaders speak, the
thinking has been done."

   I am please to inform you that the passage quoted  DOES  NOT  EXPRESS  the
   true  position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are
   not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal  of
   the  Church,  which  is  that  EVERY  INDIVIDUAL MUST OBTAIN FOR HIMSELF A
   TESTIMONY OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL." (Emphasis in original -  Letter  to
   Dr. R.J. Cope, 7 Dec 1945, cited in _Dialogue_ 19:36-37).

J. Reuben Clark (Member of the First Presidency):

   Only when [the Brethren] do so speak, as so  'moved  upon'  [by  the  Holy
   Ghost]  is  what  they say Scripture ... We can tell when the speakers are
   'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon  by
   the  Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from
   them to use to determine when they so speak. (_LDS Church  News_  31  July
   1954,   "When   Are  Church  Leaders'  Words  Entitled  to  the  Claim  of
   Scripture?", p. 9.).

J. Reuben Clark's remarks here and the entire talk, which  very  specifically
addresses  the entire issue, has been reproduced so many times and in so many
places, ie. LDS Institute of Religion Manuals, Compendiums of LDS  GA  Talks,
cited  in  many  other  GA  talks  on  the same subject, that it has become a
classic among LDS. That Mr Rose seems entirely ignorant of these  remarks  is
rather stunning for someone who claims to be an expert on Mormonism.

Mind you, I have produced only that statements of Presidents of the Church or
members  of the First Presidency WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENTS and WHEN THEY WERE
IN THE FIRST PRESIDENCY not before. If you want to press the matter,  then  I
can  also  produce  even more statments of members of the First Presidency on
this matter, such as Hugh B. Brown, Harold B. Lee, and Thomas Monson.

If I wanted to press the matter even more then I could present statements  of
Joseph  Fielding Smith, Jr; Harold B. Lee; and Exra Taft Benson which support
the above points of view, but were made BEFORE they were  Presidents  of  the
Church.

If I wanted to press the matter even further, I could produce  the  statments
of  many  members  of  the  quorum  of the twelve (past and present) who also
support the above position: that members of the church must rely on the  Holy
Ghost  and not blindly follow the prophet. In short, Mr Rose's position: "the
need  for  extra  "confirmation"  is   unnecessary"   in   LDS   thought   is
utterly unsupportable.
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc