When a General Authority of the LDS Church is discovered
to have taught something that in retrospect turns out to be nonsense, one
possible apologetic tactic is to suggest that he was “speaking as a man” and
not as a prophet (apostle, etc.). In this post I suggest that this tactic ought
to be deeply unsatisfactory to the LDS faithful, in that the “speaking as a
man” defense means precisely the same thing as claiming the he was teaching
“the philosophies of men mingled with scripture,” which is, in Mormonism, a
central characteristic of apostate religions.
According to the canonized 1838 reconstruction of
Joseph Smith’s First Vision[i], the very reason that the
LDS Church even exists is that “all” other Churches are wrong, corrupt, and
according to the Lord Himself, are abominations in His sight (Joseph Smith
History 1:19).
As a sincere and dedicated believer of the LDS faith,
I regularly attended the Temple and participated in the Endowment ceremony. Out
of respect for family and friends who remain practicing members of the Church,
I’ll not disrespect the ceremony, nor reveal its details. However, it is not
telling tales out of school to say that there has been a series changes made to
the delivery of the ordinance over the years, or that prior to the many significant
revisions around 1990, the state of non-LDS Christianity was exemplified in the
portrayal of a Protestant clergyman, college educated for the ministry, and in
the employ of Lucifer. When asked about the religion that is taught by his
Protestant Minister, Lucifer answers that “We teach the philosophies of men,
mingled with scripture.”
In this brief encounter, we learn a number of
characteristics of these purportedly apostate religions: the ministers of them
are (i) educated specifically for the ministry, (ii) paid for their labors, and
(iii) profess the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. These three
characteristics are by no means an exhaustive description of the apostate state
of Christianity, but they are, according to the LDS Temple ceremony, characteristics
of apostate religion.
LDS General Authorities (GA’s) tend to be drawn from a
pool of lawyers and businessmen, not from those trained in divinity, theology,
ethics, philosophy, or counselling, so there is no fear of LDS GA’s being
accused of being trained for their ministries.
Since the leak of the fact the GA’s of the LDS Church
are paid[ii] (and relatively well) for
their services, it is clear that the Church shares at least one characteristic of
those religions that are abominations in the sight of the Lord.
But in this post I am more interested in positing an
equivalence between “speaking as a man” and the third above characteristic—“the
philosophies of men mingled with scripture.”
According to the current Gospel Principles manual[iii], “the inspired words of
our living prophets become scripture to us…; When the Lord’s servants speak or
write under the influence of the Holy Ghost,
their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4).”
So the words of the prophets are scripture. But why
are they scripture? Because, according to the Lord “whether by mine own voice or
by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38), and so we are to
accept the words of the prophets “as if from mine own mouth” (D&C 21:4).
This being the case, it is incumbent upon the believer
to identify who exactly we ought to follow as prophets who speak scripture.
As members of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living
prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord… We sustain the President of
the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who
receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors
in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as
prophets, seers, and revelators.[iv]
The President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today.
Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as
prophets, seers, and revelators.[v]
According to uncontested reports by attendees of a
2015 meeting with Apostle David A. Bednar, a Sister Missionary, apparently
unsatisfied with the Apostles answer to a question on women and the Priesthood,
asked “Are there any scriptures that talk about this subject?” To which Elder
Bednar retorted, “I am scripture.”[vi]
It is therefore clear that for the LDS faithful the
words of the top 15[vii]
GA’s—the President and his counsellors, and the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles—are scripture. But do these leaders also speak the philosophies of
men?
What are “the philosophies of men?” There is clearly not
any sort prohibition against philosophy in LDS tradition. Church owned schools
have departments of philosophy. LDS scriptures exhort us to “seek…out of the
best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study…(D&C 88:118), ”
and tell that God doesn’t want to command us in all things (D&C 58:26-29),
making it necessary to study things out in our own minds, and not to just ask
Him (D&C 9:7,8). What is it to “study
it out in your mind” if not philosophy? It ought to be quite odd for anybody
who believes in a God to be opposed to philosophy because, as Galileo so
eloquently put it: “I
do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended for us to forego their use.”
Quentin L.
Cook[viii]
suggests that those who adopt the philosophies of men into Christianity do so
out of embarrassment at the simplicity of the gospel, and they “refuse to
accept simple gospel truths for what they are. [S]ome people reject the gospel
of Jesus Christ because in their view it doesn’t have adequate intellectual
sophistication."”
Hartman Rector Jr[ix] uses the phrase
“philosophies of men” in the same breathe as “our own ideas or the mysteries of
the kingdom.”
Bruce R. McConkie speaks of philosophies that “are not
in harmony with the mind and will and purpose of the Lord[,]”[x] and “out of harmony with
the Standard Works…” even though they appear to be “seemingly rational and
logical explanations.”[xi] In his influential
“Mormon Doctrine,” Elder McConkie (quite incorrectly) suggests that “philosophy
is in effect a religion, ruling out revelation, attempts to decide eternal
realities by reason alone.”[xii] (bad grammar in the
original).
The wisdom of the world
results from the uninspired reflections, research, and discoveries of men. It
is composed of partial and fragmentary truths mixed with error. Theorizing and
hypothecating commonly accompany it. This type of wisdom includes the
philosophies and learning of men which are destructive of faith. [xiii]
Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be any authoritative
source that actually spells out what is meant by the phrase “the philosophies
of men.” The above insights from Cook, Rector, and McConkie are suggestive, but
do not offer any kind of definition. The lack of authoritative definition seems
to indicate that a definition is not necessary, per se, that either the meaning
of the phrase is somehow self-evident, or at least accessible to common sense.
It seems to me that when we hear “the philosophies of
men” we are to interpret it as something along the lines of the apparently rational and logical views
and opinions individuals, derived from reflections, research, and discoveries
rather than revelation and the standard works, focused not on the simple gospel
message, but on the mysteries of the kingdom, adding in unnecessary
intellectual sophistication.
Or in sum, the “philosophies of men” are, as Elder
Rector puts it “teaching our own ideas.”
However, when I hear Temple Lucifer state that the
religion he and his ministers teach is “the philosophies of men mingled with
scripture,” what jumps out to me as the poisonous component is not “the
philosophies of men.” No, the insidious part of that description for me is
“mingled.” When the minister fails to distinguish personal views from
scripture, the listener will accept the personal philosophies of the speaker on
the same authority as the scripture.
Speculating, theorizing, or opining cannot in and of
themselves be problematic because, as per D&C 9, we are to study things out
in our own minds. The problem arises when the listener is unable to disentangle
the personal views of the minister from the scripture.
With all of the above in mind, when we consider that
Joseph Smith clarified that "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is]
acting as such”[xiv]
it leaves room for the defender of the faith to respond to repudiated teachings
of previous GA’s by asserting that there are times when the Prophet is not
speaking as a Prophet, but is speaking as a man.
But what could speaking as a man actually mean? If the
implication is that the speaker is making errors and not revealing the mind and
will of the Lord, then speaking as a man can only mean “teaching your own
ideas.” Such ideas might seem sophisticated, rational and logical, might even address
the mysteries of the kingdom, but are derived from reflections, research, and
discoveries, rather than revelation. The ideas put forth while “speaking as a
man” are nothing less than “the philosophies of men.”
I would suggest
that speculating, theorizing, and opining are not problematic in and of
themselves. However, there is, in LDS scriptures, a specific prohibition
against it: “And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not
teach.” (D&C 42:14.
Italics added).
When prophets and apostles speak under the influence
of the Holy Ghost, they speak scripture, but there are also times that they are
speaking “as a man”/“philosophies of men.” The more significant issue arises
when these modes of discourse are “mingled.” If the listener is unable or
unwilling, or is instructed by Church leaders, to not disentangle these modes
of discourse, then the prophets and apostles are teaching “the philosophies of
men mingled with scripture.”
To be fair, there have been a few occasions where members
have been encouraged to figure out for themselves whether a GA is speaking
scripture or philosophies of men.
Brigham Young, for example, said: “Let every man and
woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their
leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my
exhortation continually.”[xv]And “I do not wish any
Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I
do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes
them satisfied.”[xvi]
And President J. Rueben Clark[xvii]
said:
How shall we know
when the things they have spoken were said as they were ‘moved upon by the Holy
Ghost?
I have given some
thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is:
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 us to determine when they so speak. (italics added).
However, there is a much more dominant theme that
emerges from Church leadership.
Ezra Taft Benson: “We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will
of the Lord…; Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the
Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the
Church.”[xviii] (italics added).
“[T]he greatest single lesson we can learn in
mortality is that when God speaks and His children obey, they will always be
right.”[xix]
Brigham Young said: "I have never yet preached
a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call
Scripture.[xx]
"[I]f the President makes a statement it is
not our prerogative to dispute it.”[xxi]
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been
done. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they
give direction, it should mark the end of controversy"[xxii]
Russell M. Nelson[xxiii] quotes Gordon B.
Hinckley as saying “It is important … that there be no doubts or concerns about the governance of the Church and the
exercise of the prophetic gifts…;” then assures us that “[c]ounterbalances and
safeguards abound so that no one can ever
lead the Church astray.” (italics added).
“According to the world’s standards, following the
prophet may be unpopular, politically incorrect, or socially unacceptable. But
following the prophet is always
right.”—Carol F. McConkie. (italics added).[xxiv]
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any
other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not
in the program. It is not in the mind of God.”—Wilford Woodruff [xxv]
Marion G. Romney[xxvi] reports that President
Heber J. Grant echoed President Woodruff’s sentiment:
I remember years ago when
I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the
meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and
said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if
he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will
bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need
to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’
President N. Eldon Tanner[xxvii] warns members
specifically not try to decide which prophetic counsel to keep, and which to
dismiss:
The Prophet spoke out
clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …
A man said to me after
that, “You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the
Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think
isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.” He
said, “Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and
what the Lord doesn’t want.”
I thought how true, and
how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the
commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into
our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led
astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the
Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as
to those we should and should not keep.
Ezra Taft Benson[xxviii] informs us that the
words of the living prophets take precedence over the words of past prophets.
Perhaps more surprisingly, President Benson asserts that the words of the
living prophets even take precedence over the scriptures, then refers to Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young to support his claim:
Brother Joseph turned to
Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium
and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word
of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it
down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the
written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the
world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living
oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of
God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy
Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles
than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was
through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you
the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report,
October 1897, pp. 18–19.)
I hope that the reader is recognizing a pattern start
to emerge from the above sentiments. There is a longstanding tradition in the
Church that we are to accept everything said by the living prophets, (even if
it’s wrong).
Revealingly, President Benson explicitly states that
the prophets are under no obligation to indicate when they are speaking scripture
and when they are speaking the philosophies of men:
Sixth: The prophet
does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those
who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we
are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord
says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments
which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.) (italics in the
original).
President Benson is clarifying that the prophet will
offer no indication as to whether he is speaking as the Lord’s mouthpiece, or
of his own accord, essentially conceding that the listener is to expect the
prophets to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture.
There are even warnings against failure to follow the
Prophet. D&C 1:14 warns that “Those who will not give heed to the words of
prophets shall be cut off [,]” and President Harold B. Lee[xxix] offers the following
cautionary tale:
The story is told in the
early days of the Church—particularly, I think, at Kirtland, Ohio—where some of
the leading brethren in the presiding councils of the Church met secretly and
tried to scheme as to how they could get rid of the Prophet Joseph’s
leadership. They made the mistake of inviting Brigham Young to one of these
secret meetings. He rebuked them, after he had heard the purpose of their
meeting. This is part of what he said: “You cannot destroy the appointment of a
prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of
God, and sink yourselves to hell.”
Considering this well established tradition of not
questioning what the prophets have to say, I think that it is fair to say that
there is clear guidance from LDS Church leaders to not follow the counsel (of
Presidents Young and Clark) to distinguish between discourse inspired by the
Holy Ghost, and times that the prophet is speaking as a man. This being the
case, if we are instructed to not differentiate between the two, then the prophets and
apostles are guilty of mingling the
philosophies of men with scripture.
So, apologist brethren, if in your defense of the
faith you are required to defend a prophet or apostle for teaching something
that has since been repudiated, please do not succumb to the temptation of asserting
that they were speaking as a man. To do so is to accuse them of teaching “the
philosophies of men mingled with scripture,” the very form of religion that
Satan inspired his apostate ministers to preach.
[i] Joseph Smith-History
(in The Pearl of Great Price), Chapter 1. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.25
[vii] Historically,
there were 16 “prophets, seers, and revelators” in the Church, as the Presiding
Patriarch was sustained as such until 1979, when Eldred G. Smith was “honorably
relieved” of duties. Official Church magazine, The Liahona (May 2013) referred
to Elder Smith as “the last person to hold the position,” and an official
Church News article (https://www.lds.org/church/news/president-monson-honors-final-church-patriarch-at-funeral?lang=eng)
described him as the “final patriarch to the Church…” indicating that the
office had been quietly dissolved, apparently contrary to the Law of Common
Consent (D&C 26)
[xii] Mormon Doctrine,
p. 781. https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/6b/1958-Mormon_Doctrine-Bruce_R_McConkie.pdf
[xiii] Doctrines of
Salvation, vol. 1, p. 320.
[xiv] Joseph Smith, History of the Church,
5:265. https://byustudies.byu.edu/history-of-the-church
[xv] Journal of
Discourses 9:150.
[xvi] Journal of
Discourses 3:45.
[xvii] Clark, J. R. When
Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of
Scripture? [address delivered to seminary and institute of religion personnel,
7 July 1954], p. 7.)
[xx] Journal of
Discourses, vol. 13, p.95.
[xxi] Minutes of the
School of Prophets, Provo, UT, 1868-1871, p.38-39
[xxii] Ward teachers
message, June 1945.
[xxv] The Discourses
of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.
[xxvi] Conference
Report, October 1960, p. 78.
[xxvii] Conference REport,
October 1966, p. 98.
[xxix] Conference Report,
April 1963, p. 81.
No comments:
Post a Comment