The most important thing(s)?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

"Correct hierarchy of truth" means following the proper prophetic succession.

Interesting, somewhat analogous to the Roman Catholic notion of Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Succession it sounds. Never heard that particular phrase, which is why I asked.

But it seems Maxel meant something altogether different by those words. And if he coined the phrase, then I suppose it's up to him to define it any way he pleases. (Although I think your attempt at a definition made more sense in light of the original context.)

I would question his idea that truths can be stack-ranked or made hierarchical. Jesus is the Truth, the full revelation of God. But after that, it seems like it might turn into an exercise of which truth was truthier (or truthiest). A good topic for another thread, no doubt.


Thanks rameumptom,

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Maxel,
I do actually believe in modern prophecy and modern day prophets. I have a prophetic word spoken to me nearly 20 years ago, which I hold dearly and count as a specific word of God to me.
I do realised that LDS do not take every utterance by a prophet as words from the Lord, you do have a vetting process through which it has to pass before being accepted by the church. A prophet cannot just be having a bad hair day, make an on off the cuff remark and change peoples actions or beliefs.
However the impression I had from the posters in this thread was that a prophetic word absolves them of moral responsibility before God. That even if they had a testimony or conviction that a prophecy wasn’t from God, God expects them to follow the prophet’s words against their own witness and God will absolve them of any wrong if they do.
Prophets do make mistakes (Num 20:7-12) and I’m sure Moses would have thanked the courageous man if he had stepped up and said, "God told you to speak, don’t use your staff." I’m not LDS but I have the distinct impression from other threads that the LDS church today follows closer to the opinions of Orson Pratt then Brigham Young on some particular issues. And to be a little "Burkean", surely you owe a true prophet of God loyalty and respect but not your conscience on an issue. I’m sure I’ve read about several LDS apostle when confronted with polygamy struggled before God about it. They didn’t seem to just say the prophet has spoken, off I go and obey the prophet without gaining a personal testimony that it was true.

[rameumptom]

Erik,

Revelations can be racked and stacked. The Church's official newsroom provided an official policy on what doctrine is, versus teachings.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...ormon-doctrine

Among the things it states are:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

The doctrine that Jesus is the Christ is much more important than the Word of Wisdom. And some teachings of earlier Church leaders have been superseded/trumped by modern revelation (polygamy, priesthood ban, Adam-God theory, etc).

[rameumptom]

Erik,

Revelations can be racked and stacked. The Church's official newsroom provided an official policy on what doctrine is, versus teachings.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...ormon-doctrine

Among the things it states are:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

The doctrine that Jesus is the Christ is much more important than the Word of Wisdom. And some teachings of earlier Church leaders have been superseded/trumped by modern revelation (polygamy, priesthood ban, Adam-God theory, etc).

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Maxel,

However the impression I had from the posters in this thread was that a prophetic word absolves them of moral responsibility before God. That even if they had a testimony or conviction that a prophecy wasn’t from God, God expects them to follow the prophet’s words against their own witness and God will absolve them of any wrong if they do.

While some members do as you suggest, the Lord's prophets have continually told us to gain our own testimonies of what they teach, through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

There are teachings (not core doctrine) in the Church, or statements of previous and current leaders, which I do not have a testimony of. Why? Because the Spirit has so far led me in a different direction on some things.

When I joined at 16 years of age in 1975 (yes, I turn 50 in September), GA writings had me convinced that Christ's atonement was basically a free resurrection, and we had to earn everything else. Don't believe it? Read Miracle of Forgiveness or Mormon Doctrine.

Since then, I've read the Book of Mormon over 75 times, and the other scriptures very frequently. I am now convinced that in the pre-1980s Church, they were having a knee-jerk reaction towards the way grace was being taught in other churches, and over-emphasized works, to the point of almost pushing grace away.

There seemed to be more focus on the Restoration through Joseph Smith than on Jesus Christ and his atonement.

Since then, we've seen the Church change its direction back to the center of the discussion, where it should be. The Church's Logo was changed, to emphasize Jesus as the center of the Church. The Book of Mormon's title was expanded to "The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

Grace and faith were taught again. Works are now explained as a needed extension of faith, so that we Become as Christ is through obedience. Where the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms were viewed as "Hell-Lite", we now see them as described in the scriptures: as levels of true heaven.

So, we don't need to believe all that the prophets teach us. We need to gain our own testimonies of the core doctrines, and then seek out other truths to enhance those core teachings. But we must keep an open mind to the fact that what we know now (outside of core doctrines) can change. And will change. That's why we have continuing revelation. And it develops over time for us, just as it did for Joseph Smith. For Joseph Smith, the concept of salvation changed over time, as he first learned of the 3 degrees of glory (1832), of the Spirit World where his brother Alvin was saved without yet being baptized (Jan 1836), and then the saving works in the temple being revealed later (1840).

If it was so for Joseph, why should it be different for us?

Study, seek, learn, ponder, and enjoy the ride.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

But it seems Maxel meant something altogether different by those words. And if he coined the phrase, then I suppose it's up to him to define it any way he pleases. (Although I think your attempt at a definition made more sense in light of the original context.)

I didn't coin the phrase- I took it from Neil A. Maxwell. He explains it better than I can here:

"So far as is known, the question Pilate put to Jesus, apparently without expecting the Savior to answer--'What is truth?'--has been answered only once: the Lord later said, '...truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.' Truth is a knowledge of reality of 'things.' Some realities are transitory and inconsequential; some realities maintain themselves everlastingly, or longitudinally, over vast spans of time. In the hierarchy of truth, therefore, some truths describe those realities which persist from age to age--which are more significant than fleeting facts. A knowledge of such central realities as the existence of God and his presiding and purposeful role in the universe, the great rescue mission of his Son Jesus Christ, and of man's co-eternality with our Heavenly Father is sovereign sense! Other gradations of truth reflect knowledge of those things which are often important, but passing and proximate." — Neal A. Maxwell, "The Smallest Part", p.4 - p.5

[Moksha]

So it was not defined as an organization but rather as a concept as to the priority or rank of truths. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Maxel

I didn't coin the phrase- I took it from Neil A. Maxwell. He explains it better than I can here:

Hey Maxel—

Appreciate the clarification. I was unacquainted with the expression “correct hierarchy of truth” and thought perhaps you were its originator (though I was nowise sure of it). That long out-of-print book must have made quite an impression on you in your youth! But before you continue endorsing it, you might take a closer look at what the late Neil A. Maxwell was actually saying: “‘What is truth?’—has been answered only once…”

This isn’t right. The reader of John’s Gospel knows the answer in advance of Pilate’s asking the question (18:38). Not just answered—answered definitively. The answer is Jesus (14:6). He is the Truth, the full revelation of God. Yet Pilate, with the Truth directly before him, can’t see (as his question makes plain). But John’s reader isn’t surprised, because all this too has been explained in advance—

6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me… I shall lose none of all that he has given me

8:43-44 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil...

10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep

12:40 He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them

As a side note— Nietzsche, in his book, The Antichrist, claimed Pilate’s question was the high-point (and the undoing) of the whole New Testament. He too imagined it had gone unanswered, a hole left waiting to be filled. I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, but it’s certainly a powerful illustration of how someone can read God’s Word and see nothing at all. (“Godless”—if you’re reading this and contemplating a trip to the bookstore, you’ll want to get H.L. Mencken’s translation to maximize the Nietzsche experience, at least in English. My only ask is that afterwards you open up a thread and give us a report.)
;0)

Back to the thread—AnthonyB makes an interesting observation in his reply to you (post 22), his “impression.” Do you think his observation is accurate?

--Erik

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

That long out-of-print book must have made quite an impression on you in your youth!

Actually, I first encountered the phrase about a year ago in Maxwell's book "Not My Will, but Thine" (which seems to be very much still in print). He uses it throughout his writings- a more accurate description of what he means by it is the following (found at the same site further down the page; I missed it the first time around):

There is a hierarchy of truth atop which are the great ordering realities: the reality of Deity, the reality of immortality, and the reality of an eternal ecology that rests upon God's commandments. When Jesus of Nazareth spoke of how the truth can make us free, He was not speaking of those facts contained in today's principles of accounting class or of data concerning crop yields, but of these great emancipating truths, which are everlasting and not ephemeral. — Neal A. Maxwell, "We Will Prove Them Herewith", p.86

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

But before you continue endorsing it, you might take a closer look at what the late Neil A. Maxwell was actually saying: “‘What is truth?’—has been answered only once…”

This isn’t right.

I don't want to argue with you about this- I will, however, make one note. I wish I knew the surrounding text- it might provide some clues as to what exactly Maxwell is talking about- but it seems that he is talking about the kind of truth that one understands, not the kind of truth that makes itself manifest (i.e. Christ). There is a difference between knowing the truth and seeing a manifestation thereof. I may be totally wrong, but that's what my thoughts on the subject are.

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

Back to the thread—AnthonyB makes an interesting observation in his reply to you (post 22), his “impression.” Do you think his observation is accurate?

No; I'll respond to his post directly.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

However the impression I had from the posters in this thread was that a prophetic word absolves them of moral responsibility before God. That even if they had a testimony or conviction that a prophecy wasn’t from God, God expects them to follow the prophet’s words against their own witness and God will absolve them of any wrong if they do.

I know some members believe that. I view the prophets as guides appointed by God- the path that they lead us down is the path we need to walk. We can't walk with our eyes closed- we need to constantly be in communication with our Heavenly Father and seek to understand the nature of the path we are taking for ourselves- but we still need to walk the path. The groundwork for the process is gaining a testimony that the prophets of the Lord are indeed inspired and, therefore, one ought to follow their advice. After that, the individual's responsibility is to study the scriptures, stay close to the Lord, and study the words of the modern-day prophets to partake of the warnings and wisdom they give us.

The tricky part is when one feels the prophets ask us to do something that we are morally opposed to. I admit I've never had to deal with that- any advice I feel is too hard to follow or 'wrong' I take to the Lord in prayer. So far, keeping an open mind and seeking wisdom about the matter has always cleared the matter and showed me where I was in the wrong.

Ultimately, it's a matter of faith- one needs to understand the proper role that prophets play and not fight against them in word or deed. Even if the prophet is wrong, he is still appointed by the Lord to oversee His Church on this earth- fighting against the prophet after gaining a testimony of his prophetic calling is paramount to fighting against the Lord. Ultimately, if we are morally opposed to a prophet's teachings we need to go to the Lord and seek for wisdom while still living the commandments- eventually, the problem is reconciled.