This book and some other things that I have been reading and pondering recently, have led to a subtle change in my understanding of "scripture." The first is the reinforced idea that we do not believe the scriptures are inerrant--there are errors in the scriptures (Moroni admits that there are errors in the Book of Mormon--Moro 8:12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greaterthings than these.) Because we believe this, we don't have as much difficulty with this book as those of other faiths do. This reminds me of something funny I read recently. It went something like, "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, and no Catholic believes it. The LDS Church teaches that the Prophet is fallible, and no Mormons believe it." Any way, back on topic...
But, with this recognition and belief, we also accept a somewhat precarious position (at least in others' eyes). If we don't maintain that scripture is inerrant, how do we know what is true and what is false? There are at least a couple answers to this question. The first one is that we follow the prophet--but, read my joke above. Of course, we believe that Joseph Smith taught that the prophet would never lead the church astray--but what if he was making a mistake when he said that? So, this line of response doesn't seem adequate to the challenge. The second answer we have is that we depend on the Spirit. This response seems precarious, too. How can you be sure that what you are experiencing is the what you think it is? The answer to this challenge and the question, is, "Yes, it is precarious." The truth is, we are fully responsible for our decisions. We can't blame anyone else. If a leader of the church teaches an unusual doctrine, each of us, individually, has to make the decision of whether or not to follow it. If we make the wrong choice, we cannot blame that individual for misguiding us (though, he will also have to pay for the sins he leads others to cause, as well). So, again, yes, it is a precarious position--particularly if we are not living in such a way that we should be to have the Spirit with us.
So, what does this mean for me? Well, first, I'm not bothered when we discover that things in the scriptures are wrong. But, I already said that. What's even more valuable for me today is that the scripture being produced in my dispensation (the words of modern day prophets) can have errors in it, too, and I don't need to stress about it. (see my joke above)
One more thought to add to this long post--I find as I continue to study that the apostles don't always use the scriptures in their correct context or as the passage was originally intended when first written. This bothered me a little bit until this subtle change in my understanding of scripture. If an apostle is producing scriptures as he speaks with the spirit, it doesn't matter what the original intent of the passage he's quoting was. It's a good thing, too. Otherwise, I'd have to be careful of everything Peter ever said (Acts 1: 16 -- David wasn't talking about Judas)
7 comments:
The problem with that logic that I see is that those already on a slippery slope of sorts would now have an easier way to justify picking and choosing what commandments to follow. I've always been a proponent of "get a testimony of the prophet first and once that's in place, just do what he says." The way suggested here says to ignore the calling, per se, and focus on what is said. Wouldn't that make it easier for people to think, when the request is difficult, "Well, that statement from the prophet doesn't apply to me"?
But...I did laugh at the joke you shared. That was funny. -Jess
I agree with Jess because I've heard many a woman say, "Well, the Prophet is out of touch. He doesn't really know what it's like out there." (Specifically regarding Pres. Benson's talk asking women to come back home.) There are many that would have difficulty distinguishing the difference between their hearts and minds - or the Spirit. I'm not sure I agree with the totality of your argument although it would definitely work with some people that have the gift of discernment. Maybe I am not fully understanding what you are saying.
I don't think either of you understand what he is saying. I've talked to him a lot about this and I know he will clarify later. Mike isn't at all saying that he is doubting the prophet or his calling. I've never heard him ever suggest the prophet is out of touch or saying something that is wrong. He will obviously need to clarify. I can't really speak for him entirely but I believe he is more suggesting that when you find inconsistencies it is easy to have your testimony shaken if you have the idea that the prophet is perfect or that those running the church are perfect. I also know that what he believes is that each one of us has a responsibility to ask the Lord if what the prophet says is true and if the scriptures are true. He's not saying you pick and choose. I think people get worried when someone suggests that perhaps their leaders are infallible because they have gone their entire lives believing without questioning. The Lord requires us to ask, ponder, question. He's not asking us to doubt. But Joseph Smith knew to ask the Lord because he read in the scriptures he ought to find out. We are told in Moroni to ask the Lord. I think we should do that in all things.
In response to Mom and Jess and the picking and choosing, I think you are talking about people that are already on shaky ground. I think those people are not doing the things that will allow the spirit to testify to them. They are in some ways looking for an excuse to disbelieve.
I can say with certaintly that that is NOT Mike.
I think that Peter was correctly quoting David. David may have actually been referring to his own friends in his life, but wasn't he probably using that to foretell of Judas' betrayal of the Savior. Peter knew that and that's why he said what he did. Maybe you're referring to something other than what I caught... -Jen
One more thought...I don't think it even matters if David was speaking about Judas. Peter is saying that the Holy Ghost spoke of Judas, by the mouth of David. Maybe David wasn't aware he was foretelling of the Judas' betrayal, but Peter knew that was the intent of the Holy Ghost's inspiration in having David write what he did. -Jen
I appreciate everyone's comments. Let me reply to them.
Jess--I think we are mostly in agreement. I'm not advocating questioning everything the prophet says nor do I think someone who understands and (legitimately) holds my position would use it to avoid doing something that they should. On the contrary, I think someone who has the same view as I do would be very diligent in following what the prophet says because they would actively seek confirmation of the instruction/commandment/request. However, what I'm personally focused on deals more with statements of fact and less with questioning commandments/etc.
My questions for you are: what does it mean once the spirit has confirmed that the prophet is in fact the prophet? At that point does he become infallible in your mind? If not, then do you agree with my view that since he can make mistakes, we shouldn't be surprised if he does?
I do agree that the slippery slope of disbelief is a dangerous place to play. For me, the question becomes: which is more dangerous, (1) to falsely believe the prophet can make no mistake and then have your faith rocked when you find out about mistakes prophets have made/do make or (2) to understand that they can make mistakes and then have to carry the burden of determining if they are correct? I'm inclined to believe that the church expects the latter (2) from us, though sometimes I'm not sure.
Mom/Chris--Again, I don't think those women were truly holding the view I'm expressing. I'm confident that if they actually prayed about the prophets words, they would have had them confirmed. If they did in fact pray and felt like God was telling them that they should keep working, then they are responsible for their actions. I'm disinclined to think that people (especially members of the church) who are earnestly seeking God's will fail to have it manifest to them in something so basic as following a very clear commandment from the prophet.
Adrianne--Thanks for the support :). You are right on with the ideas of inconsistencies and responsibilities.
Jen--I totally agree with your second post and partly disagree with your first :). I don't think (though I could be wrong) that David had much of an idea that he was talking about the apostle that would betray the Lord. I don't have any problem with the Holy Ghost inspiring David to say those things and David thinking he was talking about something else when in fact he was prophesying. My point in bringing up that passage is that, without the Holy Ghost there confirming that Peter is speaking truth with regard to the need to fill the vacancy in the twelve, Peter is totally taking those passages (he's using 2 different verses and smashing them into one) out of their original context and applying them (seemingly) to something that they did not apply to in the first place. Which brings me again to my original thought:
I no longer feel the obligation to defend statements in the scriptures or from modern day leaders that are contradictory or simply wrong. If one of our current leaders uses a scripture out of context to teach truth, I'm okay with that. If Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Boyd K. Packer, or pick-your-favorite-leader said (or says) something that contradicts another leader or is just wrong, even if he felt it was inspired, I no longer feel a need to come up with some way to make it true or to harmonize it with what other leaders have said. I have finally convinced my heart what my head has always proclaimed that I believe--the scriptures are not inerrant and the leaders of the church are not infallible.
I just read this post - I'm a little slow these days - and loved it.
Dad and I have discussed this to a degree with regard to Evolution so it is a subject I have thought about quite a bit.
Everybody has made good comments and I agree with everything that has been said. There truly are a lot of people who are looking for a reason to say the church is not true. We all know some of them.
I am well aware of the fact that our leaders do not always speak to us in their capacity as leaders - just read through McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine." Some of the things he says are not in line with church doctrine. However, I have found that as long as I follow the prophet(s) (whenever they are speaking as my priesthood leader), no matter what position he espouses, I am always in the right in the eyes of the Lord.
Thanks for the post, Mike.
Post a Comment