LDS The Infallibility of the Prophets

[Leaf473]

Yes, it happens, people also disobey the commandments. People also disobeyed Moses. People should obey God's prophets. We should also honor our parents:

(New Testament | Matthew 19:19)

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

If, during the temple recommend interview, a person says that they are actively, knowingly, and willfully disobeying some of the words of the LDS president, can that person be said to be sustaining that president, according to LDS teaching?

 

[Leaf473]

No.

Well, I think it's going to be kind of hard to have a discussion about the truths of the Bible if we don't know whether or not the translation we are working from is correct, wouldn't you agree?

For example, I've been asking you about linen and wool. But suppose the original said don't wear clothes designed for idol worship.
That would lead to a very different practice, wouldn't it!

 

[dzheremi]

If, during the temple recommend interview, a person says that they are actively, knowingly, and willfully disobeying some of the words of the LDS president, can that person be said to be sustaining that president, according to LDS teaching?

I thought LDS "sustaining" was when they raise their hands in favor of the presidency of their leader(s), as described here and here?

 

[Leaf473]

I thought LDS "sustaining" was when they raise their hands in favor of the presidency of their leader(s), as described here and here?

Well, that sounds right, from an LDS perspective. From the first link you posted

'Next they consented to accept Joseph Smith and the other elders of the Church as their “spiritual teachers.” '
Raising Our Hands to Sustain Is Also a Promise to “Do Our Part” - Church News and Events

Agreeing that someone is your spiritual teacher sounds to me like you are saying that you will not knowingly and willfully disobey them.

In the second link, it sounds like sustaining means agreeing with the local leader that he has picked the right person.

So it looks to me like sustaining someone as a prophet of God would be the practical equivalent of agreeing that you would not knowingly disregard what they say.
But maybe an experienced LDS will come along and give us more information.

 

[dzheremi]

Sure. I'm just saying that when you look it up, it seems to refer to the literal act of raising your hand to 'sustain' the leader, not necessarily what follows that (though that could be what the worthiness interview question is asking; like you, I'd wait for a Mormon to clarify).

 

[He is the way]

Is that the position of the LDS church as well?

I don't know.

 

[He is the way]

If, during the temple recommend interview, a person says that they are actively, knowingly, and willfully disobeying some of the words of the LDS president, can that person be said to be sustaining that president, according to LDS teaching?

It is not necessary to be perfect to enter the temple, otherwise no one would be going there. That is not to say that we should be willfully sinning and still feel worthy to go to the temple. If there was a time when the prophet taught that which differed from the commandments of LOVE, taught by Jesus Christ, God would replace him:

PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

[He is the way]

Well, I think it's going to be kind of hard to have a discussion about the truths of the Bible if we don't know whether or not the translation we are working from is correct, wouldn't you agree?

For example, I've been asking you about linen and wool. But suppose the original said don't wear clothes designed for idol worship.
That would lead to a very different practice, wouldn't it!

Jesus can say the same thing in different ways. It does not have to be said exactly the same way to mean the same thing.

 

[Leaf473]

I don't know.

Is there a way we can find out?

 

[Leaf473]

It is not necessary to be perfect to enter the temple, otherwise no one would be going there. That is not to say that we should be willfully sinning and still feel worthy to go to the temple.

Right, I wasn't asking about being perfect, but about actively, knowingly, and willfully disobeying the words of the LDS president.

So, sounds like in practice that LDS people do in fact pledge unwavering allegiance to the LDS president.

Of course, I assume that in the mind of an LDS person, when the president speaks in his official capacity, the communication is guaranteed to come from God. Then the allegiance to that president is identical to allegiance to God.

But the communication is coming through a human, operating in an earthly organization.

If there was a time when the prophet taught that which differed from the commandments of LOVE, taught by Jesus Christ, God would replace him:

PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Very interesting, thank you for the information!

Did this guarantee apply to Peter the apostle as well, or is it something just in modern times?

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus can say the same thing in different ways. It does not have to be said exactly the same way to mean the same thing.

That's true that a person can say the same thing in different ways.

If we are going to say that obtaining eternal life depends on keeping all of the commandments, and that this idea comes from Jesus saying that the entire law hangs on the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22, then I think it would be helpful to know for sure that's what Jesus said.

If it's just the translation that's a problem, can we look at the original language?
Matthew 22:40 Interlinear: on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'

 

[He is the way]

Is there a way we can find out?

You can do a search.

 

[He is the way]

Right, I wasn't asking about being perfect, but about actively, knowingly, and willfully disobeying the words of the LDS president.

So, sounds like in practice that LDS people do in fact pledge unwavering allegiance to the LDS president.

Of course, I assume that in the mind of an LDS person, when the president speaks in his official capacity, the communication is guaranteed to come from God. Then the allegiance to that president is identical to allegiance to God.

But the communication is coming through a human, operating in an earthly organization.


Very interesting, thank you for the information!

Did this guarantee apply to Peter the apostle as well, or is it something just in modern times?

Do you believe that first and second Peter are at odds with God?

 

[He is the way]

That's true that a person can say the same thing in different ways.

If we are going to say that obtaining eternal life depends on keeping all of the commandments, and that this idea comes from Jesus saying that the entire law hangs on the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22, then I think it would be helpful to know for sure that's what Jesus said.

If it's just the translation that's a problem, can we look at the original language?
Matthew 22:40 Interlinear: on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'

I did not say there was a translation problem or any problem for that matter. Jesus and His apostles do not say things the same way all of the time. Consider these two verses:

(New Testament | Galatians 5:13 - 17)

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.


(New Testament | James 2:5 - 10)

5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Both verses are about loving one's neighbor, yet they are different and neither are wrong.

 

[Leaf473]

You can do a search.

Sounds great! What do I search?

 

[Leaf473]

Do you believe that first and second Peter are at odds with God?

No, I think the books we call first and second Peter are in line with God's ideas.

 

[Leaf473]

I did not say there was a translation problem or any problem for that matter. Jesus and His apostles do not say things the same way all of the time. Consider these two verses:

(New Testament | Galatians 5:13 - 17)

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.


(New Testament | James 2:5 - 10)

5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Both verses are about loving one's neighbor, yet they are different and neither are wrong.

I agree that neither of the passages you quoted are wrong.

My impression based on things you wrote earlier was that if Joseph didn't correct something in his translation, then it was unknown whether that part of the KJV had been correctly translated or not.

The issue then becomes that if eternal life depends on trying to keep all of the commandments, how can one know what those commandments are if there is no reliable translation of most Bible passages?

 

[He is the way]

Sounds great! What do I search?

Do a search to find out if wearing linen and wool are against LDS church standards.

 

[He is the way]

I agree that neither of the passages you quoted are wrong.

My impression based on things you wrote earlier was that if Joseph didn't correct something in his translation, then it was unknown whether that part of the KJV had been correctly translated or not.

The issue then becomes that if eternal life depends on trying to keep all of the commandments, how can one know what those commandments are if there is no reliable translation of most Bible passages?

Most of the Bible is correct. Jesus Christ made it clear that those who keep these two commandments will have life eternal:

(New Testament | Luke 10:25 - 28)

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible makes NO correction to these verses so they must be correct. We also have this from Jesus Christ:

(New Testament | Matthew 19:16 - 24)

16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, 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.

And this:

(New Testament | Mark 10:17 - 22)

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Although the wording is different in each of these verses we can understand the meaning of Jesus' teachings.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Most of the Bible is correct. Jesus Christ made it clear that those who keep these two commandments will have life eternal:

Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible makes NO correction to these verses so they must be correct.

Was Smith's "translation" complete? How do you know he translated everything that was wrong? What if there were more than just those 2 commandments to be saved?