LDS 14 reasons why you should follow the Mormon prophet (Mormon apologetics analyzed)

[dzheremi]

A former Mormon on YouTube, FlackerMan, takes on the claims made by the Mormon church concerning why you should follow the Mormon prophet.

There's some pretty interesting stuff in here. I'd like to get reactions from both Mormons and non-Mormons. I know that for myself, as a non-Mormon, there are many things that I would say in response to each of these points (some of which are brought up by the uploader in his commentary, e.g., on the benefit of having some kind of measuring stick to compare doctrinal revelation against), but it's probably better to hear from Mormons how/why these points are convincing and/or how they're meant to be taken within the church itself, as well as from non-Mormons how these points compare to the apologetics done by more traditional/mainstream churches.

So I hope everyone finds this video as informative as I did.

 

[SkyWriting]

A former Mormon on YouTube, FlackerMan, takes on the claims made by the Mormon church concerning why you should follow the Mormon prophet.

There's some pretty interesting stuff in here. I'd like to get reactions from both Mormons and non-Mormons. I know that for myself, as a non-Mormon, there are many things that I would say in response to each of these points (some of which are brought up by the uploader in his commentary, e.g., on the benefit of having some kind of measuring stick to compare doctrinal revelation against), but it's probably better to hear from Mormons how/why these points are convincing and/or how they're meant to be taken within the church itself, as well as from non-Mormons how these points compare to the apologetics done by more traditional/mainstream churches.

So I hope everyone finds this video as informative as I did.

All video can take a hike.

 

[Ironhold]

Mind bullet-stating the arguments? Bit busy right now.

 

[dzheremi]

Sure. I didn't know this at the time of posting the thread, but apparently the 14 reasons as given in the talk in the video are reproduced from an address given February 26, 1980 at BYU by President Ezra Taft Benson, and given in transcript form on the lds.org website, so here they are as they appear at that source:

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
3. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
10. Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
11. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
14. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

 

[ewq1938]

Those things are meaningless to non-Mormons.

 

[Winken]

Sure. I didn't know this at the time of posting the thread, but apparently the 14 reasons as given in the talk in the video are reproduced from an address given February 26, 1980 at BYU by President Ezra Taft Benson, and given in transcript form on the lds.org website, so here they are as they appear at that source:

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
3. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
10. Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
11. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
14. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

There are no prophets.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Sure. I didn't know this at the time of posting the thread, but apparently the 14 reasons as given in the talk in the video are reproduced from an address given February 26, 1980 at BYU by President Ezra Taft Benson, and given in transcript form on the lds.org website, so here they are as they appear at that source:

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
3. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
5. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
7. Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
10. Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
11. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
14. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Haven’t listened through the whole thing yet but found that what he has done is take a talk by Ezra Taft Benson given in 1980 and then repeated later by several others.

1, The prophet is the only man who speak for the Lord in everything
Benson quotes D&C 132 which is about the temple rites and covenants. He says there is only one man which wholes all the keys upon the earth at one time. There is a shared holding of these keys among the Twelve Apostles but non of them hold the keys alone as the prophet does.

The film is quoting Elder Duncan of the Seventy, Duncan goes on to say yes there are lots of self helps out there to read but;

“What has God taught us about marriage and the family through His prophets? What has He taught us about education and provident living through His prophets? What has He taught us about personal happiness and fulfillment through His prophets?”

Neither of them ever intended to say the Prophet is going to dictate to the world what it must do because God says so.

This is the closest the Church thus the Prophet has said in political matters today, it was after Trump put on his Travel ban

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of all of God's children across the earth, with special concern for those who are fleeing physical violence, war and religious persecution. The Church urges all people and governments to cooperate fully in seeking the best solutions to meet human needs and relieve suffering.”

What I’m trying to point out is how the maker of this film has taken things out of context!

2 The living prophet is more vital than the standard works/ scriptures
3 The living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

Well yeah, Noah told everyone to get on the boat while the people of Moses didn’t need to get on a boat but to follow their prophet out into the wilderness. It does not mean we don’t read and learn from the scriptures but when it comes to following the Lord’s directions the prophet he gave us in the here and now is very important.

Today’s prophets has told us to get out of debt, save a year’s supply of food, get an education or training to help your family, stay away from pornography, marriage between a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage before God, etc etc.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency …

Benson quotes Joseph Smith ““Look to the Presidency and receive instruction,” as a church we understand that mortal men can go off the path but the Lord has set up a system by which we can trust the word of the Prophet, he has given the prophet two councilors and then the 12 Apostles to work in unison, where there is unison on a subject then we can trust the Lord is directing.
Anyway the film is very miss leading.

 

[Jane_Doe]

There's some pretty interesting stuff in here. I'd like to get reactions from both Mormons

<2 minutes in and it's already inaccurate.

it's probably better to hear from Mormons how/why these points are convincing and/or how they're meant to be taken within the church itself

It would be much more benifitiual to actually talk about the Benson original rather than the satire. Would you be interested in that?

 

[dzheremi]

Isn't that what I linked to in post #4, from the LDS website? Sure, let's talk about that. I only presented the video because that's where I found the 14 points. Again, at the time, I didn't know that it all came from Benson's earlier talk. (Though I don't think the video is meant to be satire; critique, sure, but he's trying to base his critique on what they're actually saying.)

Anyway, sure, let's talk about that. I'm much more interested to find out what Mormons think about the 14 points given and how/why they're supposed to be convincing than in what some guy on YouTube thinks about them. I only meant that to start the discussion on the 14 points.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Isn't that what I linked to in post #4, from the LDS website? Sure, let's talk about that. I only presented the video because that's where I found the 14 points. Again, at the time, I didn't know that it all came from Benson's earlier talk. (Though I don't think the video is meant to be satire; critique, sure, but he's trying to base his critique on what they're actually saying.)

Anything particular about it?

 

[dzheremi]

Anything particular about it?

Yes. For most of these, my question is basically the same: What does this actually mean? How do you understand it as a Mormon, and how am I supposed to take it as a non-Mormon? (~ How does it 'work' as a piece of Mormon apologia)

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

I found on Mormon News Room (an official LDS site, at least as far as I can see from its branding) an explanation of Mormon church leadership that flatly states that fifteen prophets lead the Mormon church. WWA's reply (#7) clarifies that there is a 'shared holding' of the keys by all, but only one man who holds all of them at one time (the president). I'm not really sure I understand what that means or how it is supposed to work. Can you clarify? The MNR link does a good of explaining the different levels as they relate to each other (e.g., the first presidency as it relates to the quorum of 12, or what have you), but I do not have a sense from it about what it actually means for one man to hold all the keys at once. For a sake of clarifying what a potential answer could look like, we can look at Roman Catholicism, where their leader is infallible :in matters of faith and morals", which is still fuzzy as heck (he's the leader of the largest single Christian church in the world; what else is he supposed to be dealing in if not matters of faith and morals?), but at least gives some idea of there being particular circumstances in which he may exercise his infallible judgment. Is there a similarly defined nature concerning the Mormon leadership whereby 'holding the keys' personally or collectively means that the holder/s can do XYZ?

1. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Since this is something that I am fairly sure is outside all forms of traditional Christianity (i.e., there isn't really even anything analogous to it, unlike the example of the Roman Catholic Pope above, who I provided because RCs say, just as Mormons say of their own leader/s, that he holds 'the keys', which has a particular meaning in their ecclesiology), it's a bit more difficult to grasp. How is a prophet more vital to you than the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? What does it mean to say that he is? Does that mean that his revelations or pronouncements or whatever are to be taken as direction over these other sources? Like is he the final interpreter of what they mean and how you are to apply them to your life, or...what?

1. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Again, what does this actually mean, in real/operational terms? Thomas Monson is more important to you than Joseph Smith? Or the prophets of the Bible? Why, and how does that affect your adherence to your faith? From an outsider's perspective (mine), it seems like it sets up the prophet as an absolute and unquestionable ruler who can essentially do and say whatever he wants. He is in essence, if not by declaration, infallible. And if he isn't (I'd like some more insight into that, if you can provide it), are there effective counterbalances or checks to prevent such a concentration of power in one man, or three men, or fifteen men? Or are such things not seen as needed because the following point is taken as a given?

1. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

See above. And also, if this is so then why are there different lines of succession from Joseph Smith? They can't all be leading the flock in the right direction if they don't recognize each other, right?

1. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

This one is really interesting to me. Having come to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I was used to Roman Catholics arguing amongst themselves about whether or not a given statement by a Roman Pope was to be considered 'infallible' or not, and the arguments over that usually revolved around whether or not he had said a particular phrase (I can't remember what exactly: "We solemnly declare and define" or some such), which was to the people who argued this way a kind of shorthand for "I am about to make an infallible declaration that you therefore have to agree with and follow in order to be Catholic." I thought it was very silly then, and of course I still think it is very silly now. No one has to play 'spot the infallibility clues' if nobody is infallible in the first place, so I no longer have to concern myself with this made-up problem (the Coptic Orthodox Pope, HH Pope Tawadros II, is most definitely the Pope, but we have never had the uniquely Roman doctrine of 'infallibility' as part of our ecclesiology). But it's still the first thing I thought of when I heard/read this: Well how do you know when you're being given scripture and when you aren't? Because, like the uploader, I have to wonder if it doesn't then set up a system in which everything essentially must be taken at that level of seriousness in order to be sure you're following the prophet as best as you can. But that also leads me to wonder why Benson would've put things that way if it weren't the common perception of at least someone in Mormonism that this particular phrase must be uttered in order to for something to be taken as scripture.

Can you please explain to me how this works? (Not the voting bit where you all raise your hands; I already know about that; I mean how it is that you know what you're supposed to take the prophet's statement as if he doesn't have to explicitly tell you that he means it to be taken this way or that way.)

1. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Are there no poor, unlearned people who have trouble with something the prophet says? This seems more like a smear than a point of apologetics or an ecclesiatical principle. In fact, several that follow seem that way. I know Benson has examples to back up what he means (I did read the transcript at LDS.org; I just want to get some current practicing Mormons' feedback on how they understand these points), but it's still a bit strange.

1. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Not to borrow too much from the uploader, but since I had the same question: how is this not basically just a threat? And, since I know that you will respond that this is not a threat, how is it supposed to be taken? Because it reads like a threat.

The ecclesiology of traditional Christian churches gives them room to make somewhat similar statements because they are meant to guard the chalice from those who would receive unworthily, for the sake of the faithful and the unfaithful alike (1 Corinthians 11:27-29), but Mormonism really isn't a communion, so the same context is not there. And from what you've told me, you guys allow anyone professing Christianity to participate in said communion, so it's a bit difficult to figure out how this is supposed to be taken. So you don't have to follow the Mormon prophet to participate in Mormon sacraments (only the closed temple rituals), but at the same time, if you don't follow them you will suffer. Huh?

Any help or clarification is much appreciated.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Yes. For most of these, my question is basically the same: What does this actually mean? How do you understand it as a Mormon, and how am I supposed to take it as a non-Mormon? (~ How does it 'work' as a piece of Mormon apologia)

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

I found on Mormon News Room (an official LDS site, at least as far as I can see from its branding) an explanation of Mormon church leadership that flatly states that fifteen prophets lead the Mormon church. WWA's reply (#7) clarifies that there is a 'shared holding' of the keys by all, but only one man who holds all of them at one time (the president). I'm not really sure I understand what that means or how it is supposed to work. Can you clarify? The MNR link does a good of explaining the different levels as they relate to each other (e.g., the first presidency as it relates to the quorum of 12, or what have you), but I do not have a sense from it about what it actually means for one man to hold all the keys at once. For a sake of clarifying what a potential answer could look like, we can look at Roman Catholicism, where their leader is infallible :in matters of faith and morals", which is still fuzzy as heck (he's the leader of the largest single Christian church in the world; what else is he supposed to be dealing in if not matters of faith and morals?), but at least gives some idea of there being particular circumstances in which he may exercise his infallible judgment. Is there a similarly defined nature concerning the Mormon leadership whereby 'holding the keys' personally or collectively means that the holder/s can do XYZ?

Thank you for some rational observations and questions.

I’ll start with the first one;

I’ve been think about the first one all day.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
The film tried to make it sound like a prophet should express the Lord’s will for everything going on in the world. I was trying to think of a Bible Prophet that did that and there just isn’t one. A prophet’s calling is to call the world to repentance and to testify of Christ, that is what he would tell all men to do. If they did, then all war would cease.

You asked; WWA's reply (#7) clarifies that there is a 'shared holding' of the keys by all, but only one man who holds all of them at one time (the president). I'm not really sure I understand what that means or how it is supposed to work.

I think I’m going to give you more than you asked for;
‘Keys’ is another word for priesthood authority. My Bishop holds the keys of authority for our ward. A Stake President holds the keys for the whole stake. My Bishop cannot tell another Bishop how to run his ward nor can the Stake president come in and boss a Bishop around. Each man holds the keys for his own stewardship. My husband holds the keys of authority for our home and a Bishop cannot come in and tell him how to run it.

Peter was given the Keys of Heaven and with that the power to bind on earth he appeared to Joseph Smith and passed on those keys. He also has he keys of the gathering of Israel, given to him by Moses and the key to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers given by Elijah. And also, “Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham” meaning the authority to preach the Gospel to all men on earth. Joseph was then told,

“Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.” (see D&C 110)

When Joseph was murdered Brigham Young was miles away when he heard the news and he sat there wondering what would happen next who should lead the Church? Many different voice began to raise up saying follow me but the Spirit brought to Young’s mind what Joseph had taught them.

D&C 107
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world…..
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

When the prophet dies his presidency quorum is disbanded and the Twelve then have authority or the keys over the Church. Between them they choose the next prophet, it has always been the President of the Quorum however it does not have to be. They then ordain the prophet and he calls his two counselors forming a new Quorum of the First Presidency. A new Apostles is then called generally from the Quorum of the Seventy.

I’m kind of thinking Benson’s thoughts were sort of directed at the Pope and others who hold themselves up to be spokesmen for God. I mean he was speaking to a group of students and he was saying there are a lot of people saying lo here and lo there but don’t be mistaken, the Prophet is who speaks for the Lord in everything. However that does not mean good men can't receive inspiration and give wise council. The Lord hears all prayers given with sincere hearts.

Right now on face book I’ve been reading through a paper written by a man who claimed to have a dream and he is giving the Church his dream, it’s really crazy and goes on and on. The man who sent it to me is very serious about it. I just want to slap him upside the head and tell him this dreamer is not the Lord’s spokesmen so as a member of the Church why are you taking this whole thing so seriously???

Dreams and revelation can be given to anyone but only within his own stewardship. A father or mother can receive revelation for their family. A bishop for his ward but only the prophet can for the church as a whole.

*You asked; we can look at Roman Catholicism, where their leader is infallible :in matters of faith and morals", ….. Is there a similarly defined nature concerning the Mormon leadership whereby 'holding the keys' personally or collectively means that the holder/s can do XYZ?


Infallible
WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.


Simply good council; President Hinckley,
"Now comes the craze of tattooing one’s body. I cannot understand why any young man—or young woman, for that matter—would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin …. Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body.

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. …The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.”

No one is putting their salvation in danger because they choose to put a tattoo on their back or pierce their ear more than once however it can be a sign of rebellion in kids. Many people join the church who already have tattoos and they are welcomed in with open arms. We have many islander people who wear the tattoos of their family and tribes, it’s perfectly acceptable within their culture.

But to go out and marry someone of the same sex is breaking the commandments of God and puts one in opposition to God.

Declaring they ‘discourage’ is not the same as 'proclaiming’ a truth.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes. For most of these, my question is basically the same: What does this actually mean? How do you understand it as a Mormon, and how am I supposed to take it as a non-Mormon? (~ How does it 'work' as a piece of Mormon apologia)

Clarification on what this address is: it is NOT a piece of apologia. An apologia piece 1) be addressed primarily to an audience not of that faith, 2) explain the basics of theological positions, and 3) defend those positions. This talk is none of those things. Rather, it is a talk given by an LDS leader, to an expressly LDS audience, at an LDS university. It assumes a the receiver has a good understanding of the LDS faith, and hence does not cover the basics of these positions. It does not defend against other positions. As with all individual talks, it is not doctrine itself, though it may teach doctrine.

1. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

I found on Mormon News Room (an official LDS site, at least as far as I can see from its branding) an explanation of Mormon church leadership that flatly states that fifteen prophets lead the Mormon church. WWA's reply (#7) clarifies that there is a 'shared holding' of the keys by all, but only one man who holds all of them at one time (the president). I'm not really sure I understand what that means or how it is supposed to work. Can you clarify? The MNR link does a good of explaining the different levels as they relate to each other (e.g., the first presidency as it relates to the quorum of 12, or what have you), but I do not have a sense from it about what it actually means for one man to hold all the keys at once.

I would like to compliment you on the diligent and thoughtful work you put into this question.

*The* Prophet is the leader of Christ's church here on the Earth (obviously this is under Christ as His servant). He is assisted by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and his two counselors in the First Presidency. Doing the math: 12 Apostles + 1 Prophet + 2 counselors = 15 leaders. These other leaders are prophets but not *the* Prophet of the Church. All 15 leaders hold the priesthood authority to head the Church, but only *the* Prophet is active in that role. The rest assist him. In the event of his passing, a Christ calls a new Prophet from those men.

For a sake of clarifying what a potential answer could look like, we can look at Roman Catholicism, where their leader is infallible :in matters of faith and morals", which is still fuzzy as heck (he's the leader of the largest single Christian church in the world; what else is he supposed to be dealing in if not matters of faith and morals?), but at least gives some idea of there being particular circumstances in which he may exercise his infallible judgment. Is there a similarly defined nature concerning the Mormon leadership whereby 'holding the keys' personally or collectively means that the holder/s can do XYZ?

The RCC system is VERY different than the LDS system. I could compare and contrast them if you'd like, but fear it will more confuse you than help.

(I have to go now, will write more later).

 

[withwonderingawe]

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works & The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

You asked; How is a prophet more vital to you than the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? What does it mean to say that he is? Does that mean that his revelations or pronouncements or whatever are to be taken as direction over these other sources? Like is he the final interpreter of what they mean and how you are to apply them to your life, or...what?

If a prophet stood up one day and declared you no longer have to be baptized I would reject him for falling off the path because the scriptures says “ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” Matt 28

But another example is
Matt 6
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Joseph Smith wrote;
67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

He didn’t change the scripture but added more depth to it.

It was vital for the people in Noah’s day to listen to him as it was for Moses’ people to listen to him. They both taught the people to love God and obey him, neither taught a different message but had information for their time.

I don’t think Joseph Smith addressed tattoos or even worried about gay marriage but he did address the coming Civil War.

A Prophet will enlarge upon the knowledge give before but not contradict. Also the prophet will address the problems of his day and help the people find their way through.

But we always have to know they are human and they are sinners too, we don't expect perfection. They don't know everything.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m kind of thinking Benson’s thoughts were sort of directed at the Pope and others who hold themselves up to be spokesmen for God.

Hmm. That's interesting. What gives you that idea? Actually, more importantly, how would you characterize the role played by the Mormon prophet in terms of its differences with that of the Roman Pope in RCism? I can't help but notice that the quote you placed under the classification of 'infallibility' (as an example of it being exercised by the Mormon leadership) contains very similar wording to what I've found Roman Catholics claiming is evidence of the 'infallibility' of their own leader's statements (i.e., that they are meant to be received by Catholics as infallible statements), which is pretty interesting. I would think that if it's wrong for the Roman Pope to be considered infallible, Mormonism would not want to resemble it in its own mode of doing things. (Though I recognize that this is a very surface-level similarity.)

Declaring they ‘discourage’ is not the same as 'proclaiming’ a truth.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[withwonderingawe]

1. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

You asked; See above. And also, if this is so then why are there different lines of succession from Joseph Smith? They can't all be leading the flock in the right direction if they don't recognize each other, right?



When Joseph died, there were several different men who tried to grab the authority of the church, Sidney Rigdon was one of them. He declared himself caretaker. There were others who left even before Joseph died and set up their own churches. From time to time there are those who have a ‘I want to be prophet’ syndrome and lead off a few this way and that.


But if we look at what was revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants then we know how the Lord wanted his Church to operate. Which is the way I described earlier. When it comes to doctrine the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve will always agree in one or they will not present anything new to the body of the Church, in this way we are protected from being led astray.


*You asked; This one is really interesting to me. Having come to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I was used to Roman Catholics arguing amongst themselves about whether or not a given statement by a Roman Pope was to be considered 'infallible' or not,

My mom’s very best friend is Roman Catholic and she is struggling with this new Pope, he’s way to liberal for her.


*Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.



Paul wrote

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.


As I read that it is not a thus saith the Lord, it is Paul pouring out his heart yet I still recognize it as scripture. I asked my husband how he knows when the prophet has spoken scripture or the word of the Lord and he said because the Holy Spirit testifies of the truthfulness of his words. I can’t think of a better answer than that.

 

[dzheremi]

Clarification on what this address is: it is NOT a piece of apologia.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. I understand what you mean about the audience, but there is also the fact that in the context in which it was presented in the later video included, it was apparently expanded to include 'the whole world' ("the prophet receives God's word for the church, and the world", I believe they put it), so it is reasonable to assume it was at least meant to address the wider world. And even more basically, another definition of apologia is a defense of one's belief or conduct, which Benson's talk most certainly is. Note that he does not just give the 14 points as a list with no comment, as I did after finding it on LDS.org, but rather defends each point by explanation as to why it is so.

I would like to compliment you on the diligent and thoughtful work you put into this question.

Thank you.

*The* Prophet is the leader of Christ's church here on the Earth (obviously this is under Christ as His servant). He is assisted by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and his two counselors in the First Presidency. Doing the math: 12 Apostles + 1 Prophet + 2 counselors = 15 leaders. These other leaders are prophets but not *the* Prophet of the Church. All 15 leaders hold the priesthood authority to head the Church, but only *the* Prophet is active in that role.

What do you mean by saying that only the prophet is 'active' in that role? What are the others doing with their priestly authority (as WWA says the keys are a shorthand for) if only the prophet actively uses it? What is the purpose of others having this authority if is not exercised?

The RCC system is VERY different than the LDS system. I could compare and contrast them if you'd like, but fear it will more confuse you than help.

Oh, I know. I was Roman Catholic for years, so I do have some experience with their system. The point in bringing it up was to show an example where a church likewise invests a lot of power in one man and the people around him (the Roman Curia), but it is to a definite end, wherein they can say "the Pope infallibly delcares XYZ" (NB: they may not be able to show to anyone's satisfaction when or how this has actually been exercised, but at least that's defined as part of the deal that comes with being the Roman Pope). That's what I didn't get from the MNR link. "They guide the church" is a very vague answer to give when explaining the different leadership levels, and particularly what separates the higher levels from each other.

For instance, I can say about my own Church that the Coptic Orthodox Pope is the most senior bishop in the Church, and by virtue of his role in that capacity, he chairs the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church (which, unlike in the case of his Roman counterpart, may forcibly censure or even depose him, if it is deemed by the gathered bishops to be necessary), he has the authority to consecrate bishops, reorganize/establish dioceses, etc. These are very concrete aspects of his role that differentiate him from people at other leadership positions within the Church.

That's the kind of thing I was hoping to find out about the Mormon prophet. Answers about 'receiving God's word' or 'guiding the church' are not very helpful in the abstract. That's why all of my questions can essentially be summed up as "okay, but what does this mean?"

 

[Jane_Doe]

I'm not so sure that this is the case. I understand what you mean about the audience, but there is also the fact that in the context in which it was presented in the later video included, it was apparently expanded to include 'the whole world' ("the prophet receives God's word for the church, and the world", I believe they put it), so it is reasonable to assume it was at least meant to address the wider world. And even more basically, another definition of apologia is a defense of one's belief or conduct, which Benson's talk most certainly is. Note that he does not just give the 14 points as a list with no comment, as I did after finding it on LDS.org, but rather defends each point by explanation as to why it is so.

The LDS Church believes we are Christ's servants: we are all to serve Him to all. All things are done with that commission in mind, such as the abundant kindness and Christ-like love done every minute (hopefully so). There is nothing particularly special in regards to this moment (giving this talk) for Benson in that regard. Still, this particular address was spoken to an audience who is familiar with basic LDS beliefs, and does not explain the basics for that reason.

A platform where talks are given more to the audience of the whole world (including the Church) is our twice annual international General Conference. These talks also carry much more authority theologically speaking than a BYU address. They are broadcasted free through the world in 90+ languages in about every format possible (print, audio, at the church, online, YouTube, tv, radio, etc). Here's two links talking about General Conference:
Mormons Gather Twice a Year for General Conference
General Conference (LDS Church) - Wikipedia

What do you mean by saying that only the prophet is 'active' in that role?

Only the Prophet is the current mortal head of the Church, under Christ's direction. The other support him in his task.

What are the others doing with their priestly authority (as WWA says the keys are a shorthand for) if only the prophet actively uses it? What is the purpose of others having this authority if is not exercised?

Supporting the Prophet.

An aside: WWA and I are explaining the same things to you. We're just using different angles of approach to do so; WWA more LDS terms only standpoint, me speaking more in your/general words.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Comparing the RCC Pope and that system, versus the LDS--
(Note: I am not RCC and apologize if I misunderstand anything here. If any RCC folks want to further my understanding of your church, I welcome that knowledge)

Overarching similarities: Both the Catholic Pope and LDS Prophet are seen as the mortal head of Christ's Church on this Earth by their different groups. Both are viewed as being able to clarify Christ's doctrine and issue infallible statements from the Lord. (Note: "infallible" is not a word LDS typically use in LDS circles, WWA was borrowing the Catholic term to relate a similar idea). They are tasked with guiding the Church and everyone else in the world (individuals whom are hoped to listen to Christ's mouthpiece, heed those words, and join His Church).

Differences in infallibility: LDS acknowledge the Prophet as a man, and quite capable of sinning. He is only infallible when speaking in the office of Prophet. It is pretty similar to the Catholic concept of ex cathedra. LDS do not use a concept of "infallible in faith and morals" like Catholics, and I admittedly feel like I don't know enough of that Catholic concept to adequately compare the ideas.

Prophet vs Chair of Saint Peter: LDS view the modern day prophet as another prophet, same as Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul, etc. He receives revelation from the Lord, is lead by Him, and can receive God's words to be added to scripture. He is Peter's successor, but also Moses'. I have never have heard the Catholic Pope compared to Moses (my lack of knowledge). Catholics also declare that there is no "public revelation" anymore, which has a very specific definition. LDS openly embrace continuing revelation.

Differences in succession method: the succession methods are very different. I'm assuming you're familiar with the RCC system. Here is an explanation of the LDS system: Succession in the Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Differences in centralization (this is more general than prophet/pope): the LDS Church is *much* more centralized and internationally consistent than the RCC (my word choice is suboptimal here). Things which enforce this centralization and consistency include: as twice annual international conferences, twice annual regional conferences, standardized lesson manuals throughout the church, geographical delimitation of congregations, more deferral, etc.

For instance, I can say about my own Church that the Coptic Orthodox Pope is the most senior bishop in the Church, and by virtue of his role in that capacity, he chairs the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church (which, unlike in the case of his Roman counterpart, may forcibly censure or even depose him, if it is deemed by the gathered bishops to be necessary), he has the authority to consecrate bishops, reorganize/establish dioceses, etc. These are very concrete aspects of his role that differentiate him from people at other leadership positions within the Church.

That's the kind of thing I was hoping to find out about the Mormon prophet. Answers about 'receiving God's word' or 'guiding the church' are not very helpful in the abstract. That's why all of my questions can essentially be summed up as "okay, but what does this mean?"

This is a really big topic in and of itself. I'm not sure how in depth you want me to go into here, so I'll provide some basic info first (Prophets) and can go more in depth if you wish.

 

[Jane_Doe]

1. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Again, what does this actually mean, in real/operational terms?

The key words here are "to us". It is most important that Moses' people listen to Moses, Isaiah's to Isaiah's, Peter to Peter's. They all teach the same principles (eternal truths are of course eternal), but today's prophet is provided specifically to guide us today.

From an outsider's perspective (mine), it seems like it sets up the prophet as an absolute and unquestionable ruler who can essentially do and say whatever he wants. He is in essence, if not by declaration, infallible. And if he isn't (I'd like some more insight into that, if you can provide it), are there effective counterbalances or checks to prevent such a concentration of power in one man, or three men, or fifteen men? Or are such things not seen as needed because the following point is taken as a given?

The power is in God's hands. Prophets are His servants. They are not infallible nor are the cowboys to go and do whatever they want. God guides- it is His power.

This one is really interesting to me. Having come to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, I was used to Roman Catholics arguing amongst themselves about whether or not a given statement by a Roman Pope was to be considered 'infallible' or not, and the arguments over that usually revolved around whether or not he had said a particular phrase (I can't remember what exactly: "We solemnly declare and define" or some such), which was to the people who argued this way a kind of shorthand for "I am about to make an infallible declaration that you therefore have to agree with and follow in order to be Catholic." I thought it was very silly then, and of course I still think it is very silly now. No one has to play 'spot the infallibility clues' if nobody is infallible in the first place, so I no longer have to concern myself with this made-up problem (the Coptic Orthodox Pope, HH Pope Tawadros II, is most definitely the Pope, but we have never had the uniquely Roman doctrine of 'infallibility' as part of our ecclesiology).

The LDS system is much simpler: rather than have men argue amongst themselves with their limited sinful vision, go ask God. Let Him speak.

Well how do you know when you're being given scripture and when you aren't?

Scripture is obviously marked by canonization.

Can you please explain to me how this works? (Not the voting bit where you all raise your hands; I already know about that; I mean how it is that you know what you're supposed to take the prophet's statement as if he doesn't have to explicitly tell you that he means it to be taken this way or that way.)

When determining if something is True (whether it be scripture or not), the answer is to go ask God and listen. God's not dead nor mute: go ask Him and listen to Him speak.

1. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Are there no poor, unlearned people who have trouble with something the prophet says?

Of course there are. No one is denying that. Rather this is pointing to how riches can be a stumbling block: "Matt 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Likewise learning can be a stumbling block because when people think they are learned the are tempted to think they are wise. Obviously there are still learned and rich followers of Christ, it's just that those a frequent stumbling blocks.

1. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Not to borrow too much from the uploader, but since I had the same question: how is this not basically just a threat?

And, since I know that you will respond that this is not a threat, how is it supposed to be taken? Because it reads like a threat.

Follow Christ's words and be blessed, or reject them and suffer the consequences.
Follow St Peter's words and be blessed, or reject them and suffer the consequences.
Follow Paul's words and be blessed, or reject them and suffer the consequences.
Do any of those sound like threats? They are not, simply statements of fact. Following Christ's words (sent directly and via His servants) brings joy and/or blessings. Turning away from them brings misery.