From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:53:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <ecj=02mj2eja01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> 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.  
>>
>> 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).
> 
> I have understood this for some time now.  How does my statement show a
> lack of this understanding?  

Maybe the focus of my response was misdirected.  Let me try
again.

1. I do not view Bruce R. McConkie's call to be an apostle like
the coversion of Saul to Paul.

2. I am not acquainted with and Mormons that view Bruce
R.McConkie's call to be an aposlte like the conversion of Saul to
Paul.

3. One's collective statements made before one recieves a call to
be an apostle or prophet need not be 100% perfect or error free.

4. Aposltes and prophets are not infallible, even if they have
been called by God.

5. That a person has not corrected a work with known errors, does
not show intentional deception on the part of that person, when
the person has produced other works that correct the errors, and
when the works of other with equal authority adequatley correct
the errors and are equally or more accesible than the original
work with errors.

6. Just because a works contains errors, does not mean that the
entire work is without merit or usefulness.

7. Those that use the work ignorant of its errors should not be
judged to harshly for doing so, unless their ignorance is
chronically and willfully unremedied.

> Because I said I was going to send a letter to the first presidency?  

No, Tony.  I didn't address your intended letter until later on
in my post.

> I have done so in the past, successfully I might add.

Congratulations.  I sincerely hope that you will continue to have
success.

>>> 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, what's the need for a "living prophet"?

To guide us and make us aware of things we might not otherwise
have bothered to think about (like repenting of the sin of
pride).

To have someone that is authorized to exercise all of the keys of
the preisthood.

>>>> 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*.
> 
> God the big man?

Whatever.

<sigh>

>>> 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.
> 
> The only thing I have quoted from him is pages 576-577 and said that it
> supported what Joseph Smith said in "Teachings of the Prophet" on page
> 370.  You know, about having three Gods?  

Yes. I think Frank (or was it Willard) has more than adequately
explained this.

> Bruce's remarks support Joseph Smith's views and claims.  What
> other remarks has Bruce made that disproves that he believed and
> worshiped three Gods?

I don't know.  What does it matter?  I'm having a real hard time
trying to see the relevance of it.

>>> 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 have written to the presidency and have received a reply.  They do
> take it seriously.  In fact I also spoke with the authorities in Salt
> Lake when I has asked to leave Temple square for asking about the
> caucasian/mongolian delimna in the BoM.

[...]

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

(My curiousity is getting the better of me.)
 
> Send me you address and I will do so.  I will also send some
> letters I have already written and received replies from.

Great.  I'll do this.

>>>>> 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.
> 
> If you agree that it is probably correct, what are we arguing over?

I'm sorry, but to me, you have a way of making things sound as
though they are cut in stone, when they really aren't (IMHO).

I just wanted to be sure that (relatively) we understand each
other on what is set in concrete and what is not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu