From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:04:00 GMT
Summary: Exactly what was Brigham Young's view of scripture?

In article <1992Dec16.000221.14664@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

>My argument was that Bringham Young was a prophet ansd president
>which gives him the big three titles. Yet nothing he wrote was ever
>considered scripture, yuet he himself thought much of his words
>were scripture:-) Some prophet. The net lds downplay most of his
>bizarre statements hiding behind the noninfallible veil. Some prophets.

It has been my experience that most anti-Mormons would prefer a extremely
liberal criteria for determining what is and is not official Mormon doctrine.
Generally that criteria would state that any precept taught by an LDS General
Authority that is published and not censored by the LDS Church is Mormon
Doctrine.  For example, anti-Mormons assert that Brigham Young repeatedly
made statements to the effect that everything that he said could be
considered scripture. For example:

   I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men,
   that they may not call Scripture. (JD 13:95)

   I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime,
   perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything
   of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations - that
   Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world
   they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and
   approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this bible, and
   if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind
   of God ...  (JD 13:264)

Since Brigham Young called every sermon that he delivered, corrected, and
permitted to be published scripture, then anti-Mormons conclude that such
sermons should be considered official doctrine of the LDS Church.

An objective look at Brigham Young's writings and actions will demonstrate
that he did not claim for himself or for things that he taught the sense of
inerrancy that the anti-Mormons attribute to him.

Brigham Young's view of what constituted scripture seems to be quite
different from the anti-Mormons who quote him. When Brigham Young called his
sermons scripture, he was NOT claiming that they were the inerrant word of
God. Neither did Brigham Young define scripture as being word for word, the
word of God.  To the broad assertion that every word within the covers of the
Bible was the inerrant word of God, Brigham Young once stated:

   I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good
   men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of
   bad angels and the words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the
   ass when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the
   Bible are just what they are. (JD 13:235)

In addition, Brigham Young explicitly stated, on a number of occasions, that
he was quite capable of making doctrinal errors even in public:

   ... it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is
   superior to them but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up
   from speaking false principles I have know many times I have preached rong
   but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to take it from the minds of
   the people and I believe he always did drop the vail over it let your
   faith be for that man but do not oppose and get up a division between them
   ... (Uncorrected minutes by Thomas Bullock, May 8, 1854, "Historical
   Documents of the Church," Cited in "Mormon Miscellaneous Note Cards,"
   Number 187)

In conclusion, Brigham Young did not claimed for himself or his views the
sense of inerrancy that the anti-Mormons wish to attribute to him. Neither
did Brigham Young believe that all his published sermons were pronouncements
of official church doctrine. Therefore, based simply on Brigham Young's point
of view, the extremely liberal criteria suggested by the anti-Mormon position
fails.

There is yet another reason why the anti-Mormon criteria makes very little
sense.  Mormon General Authorities have disagreed publically about many
different things. For example, if the anti-Mormon criteria is followed then
Mormons, such as myself would have to ask, "What exactly is the Church's
stand on evolution?"  Joseph Fielding Smith, Boyd K. Packer, and many other
G.A.'s have expressed their opposition to evolution. Other equally
influential General Authorities, such as James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe,
and B.H. Roberts, have expressed support for evolutionary concepts.

Such disagreements are not restricted to evolution. On many other topics,
there have been an entire spectrium of responses offered  by various Church
Leaders. Such disagreements have been manifest over such areas as Eternal
Progression, what is very specifically meant by the term "saved," what
happens to the Sons of Perdition, Adam, the Sinful Nature of Man, etc. Even
over whom the term "Jehovah" applied.  Since there are disagreements over
most of these topics, simply using published statements of General Authorities
is NOT an intelligent way of determining offical church doctrine.

If an anti-Mormon tries to wiggle out of this problem by saying, "Well,
that's your problem." My response is quite simple. It is not OUR problem
because we do not accept YOUR criteria for determining what is offical church
doctrine.  Besides, as most Mormons would say, these differences are not
crucial for obtaining salvation. Like Joseph Smith once said, (my paraphase)
"We aren't damned for believing too much, we are damned for unbelief."
-- 

              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