NOM

I've been reading Joseph Fielding Smith's "Man.....His Origin and Destiny" in order to try and understand him, and because reading light material helps me go to sleep. One of his recurring (but subtly spoken) motifs is, "You should believe what i say/write, because L.D.S. people promise/covenant to believe apostles and prophets. Boyd K. Packer used to say stuff like this. Is this argument valid? If I go to a Gospel Doctrine class and it seems appropriate, I might ask the same question.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:29 am I've been reading Joseph Fielding Smith's "Man.....His Origin and Destiny" in order to try and understand him, and because reading light material helps me go to sleep. One of his recurring (but subtly spoken) motifs is, "You should believe what i say/write, because L.D.S. people promise/covenant to believe apostles and prophets. Boyd K. Packer used to say stuff like this. Is this argument valid? If I go to a Gospel Doctrine class and it seems appropriate, I might ask the same question.

Since it's a covenant, I'm going to come down on the side of yes. Just as a direct answer to your question.

However, think about this. This covenant should never have to take place. A person should earn and maintain their credibility. This covenant kind of absolves them of that responsibility and that, dear DB, is not a good indicator.

Finally, I don't remember covenanting to believe the prophet. Is that in the temple as part of obeying the Lord's servants? It's been awhile.

I don't recall making that covenant either, but I do remember that I covenanted with the Tooth Fairy that if I put a tooth under my pillow she would give me money. Am I obligated to still believe in that covenant? I also covenanted with Santa Clause. If I was a good boy he would bring me presents and candy. If I was bad he would bring me coal. For some reason that stopped when I grew up and left home. I have been mostly good and occasionally a little bad since then but I see no evidence that my covenant was valid. I'm not sure about this one, but I think I covenanted that if I believed in fairies Tinkerbell would really exist. Gang members covenant all the time to perform criminal acts. If they decide to leave the gang are they still bound by those covenants?

Joseph Fielding Smith had a loose grip on reality and thought way too highly of himself.

Just took a few minutes to review the temple ceremony and covenants. Nowhere does it specifically say that we covenant to obey or follow the apostles or prophet.

The implication in one area is that we obey the law of the Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures. But I don't recall any covenants there to follow the prophet. Only the statement that the Lord's word is established "whether by mine own voice or by my servants, it is the same." I suppose the oath could be implied.

But there is also a strong warning to beware of false prophets which should recieve heavy consideration.

Something else I noted (spoiler alert, there is a temple concept discussed here), is that in Adam's case at one point he asks the very important question, "How shall I know that you are true servants of God?"

What great luck that Adam had received the necessary sign and token already from the same people he is questioning, to determine their veracity as apostles....

How's that for circular reasoning!!!

Like others have mentioned: I don't remember making a covenant to "believe the prophet". I do remember one about "no evil speaking..." I wonder: is pointing out the dishonesty and cowardice of the church and the Q15 considered "evil speaking"?

If the prophet, or any of the Q15, or any of the leadership would like to sit down and enlighten me about any "believe the prophet" covenant, my door is open. So far, neither they, nor their billion-dollar real-estate corporation that they run has been able to live up to any of their promises/covenants that they've made to/with me. Sorry, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

Anyone trying to convince me that a covenant was made to believe everything the prophets say, to paraphrase Holland, must argue by crawling over or under or around that idea that church leaders speak as men or that a prophet is a prophet only when speaking as such. Once you introduce the idea that prophets don't only speak pure unadulterated truth all the time claiming there is a covenant to blindly believe them becomes problematic to put it mildly. Some members will try and sidestep the issue of blindly believing by claiming you need to confirm what they say is true by the spirit but a claim you are under covenant to believe the prophets is not the same as the claim you are under obligation to try the prophet's claims.*

*Of course, by try their claims a lot of members explain a process that is a flow chart that looks like:

Yes, I did make 5 distinct covenants during my first visit to the temple with my mission call. I took them seriously for a very long time. I still take the covenant of chastity quite seriously today.

I am bothered by how much of LDS culture is mandated by the third covenant which forbids "evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed" as well as a blanket condemnation of "every other unholy and impure practice". It is as broadly interpreted as the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Washington D.C. claims jurisdiction over anything that crosses state boundaries leading to a few surprises about what they want to regulate.

Similarly, "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" will make you subject to leadership roulette. A frequent claim by LDS defenders is that the LDS church will not try to regulate what you believe. But once you enter the realm of advocacy or agitation then disagreeing with LDS leaders is a problem. They will certainly take offense if you lampoon LDS leaders. Advocacy and agitation are largely the paths that led John Dehlin and Kate Kelley to excommunication. In essence, if you keep your mouth shut then you can keep your temple recommend. Has anyone had any specific recommendations or restrictions told to them by their local leaders?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:29 amOne of his recurring (but subtly spoken) motifs is, "You should believe what i say/write, because L.D.S. people promise/covenant to believe apostles and prophets. Boyd K. Packer used to say stuff like this. Is this argument valid?

I'll have to join the others in saying that I never, in my life, covenanted to do what some man told me to do, no matter what his title.

I suppose those who think or teach this take "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" and twist it to mean "obey the 15 men at the top - oh, and your local leaders, too." Oathlike fealty, to quote (sort of quote?) an apostle.

But, looked at dispassionately, every man and woman who has gone through initiatory in the temple is the Lord's anointed. If not, then only those actually anointed by the hand of the Lord, himself, are the Lord's anointed.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:46 amHas anyone had any specific recommendations or restrictions told to them by their local leaders?

I haven't, but a group of us were meeting once a week as friends. We called it family home evening. The bishop got wind of it and told the host family (the father) to stop having the meetings.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:46 am
I am bothered by how much of LDS culture is mandated by the third covenant which forbids "evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed".....

And yet, is it "evil" to speak truth to power?

To take this statement seriously one would have to be saying things that are untrue, malicious, filled with avarice and intent to do harm unjustly.
But according to Oaks any comment that isn't made in praise of leadership is evil even if it's true. That's excellent work if you can get it, as they say.

No....the scripture that applies here is one about "teachers having itching ears."
Meaning they love to have their ears massaged or comforted with praise and attention and glory. They love to be told how wonderful they are. It's an ego inflating glory trip.

Accidental double post.

Deacon curious choice for light reading. I still have the copy I bought when in high school and which I had JFS autograph when he came to our stake.That was 56 years ago. Seems like yesterday - not! The bulk of the Book is clearly erroneous. We do not and never have made such a covenant. Well I haven't and most have not . Interestingly JFS himself taught against any such misapprehension. He said that much of what we hear in church is simply the philosophies of men and it was up to us to determine if what we heard was true. We were given the HG and the scriptures for this task. More specifically he said the reason they are called the Standard Works is because they are the standard against which men's Teachings should be measured. He further said if he or anyone else taught something contrary to that standard we were " duty bound to reject it". Likewise S Dilwirth Young the Pres of the 70s use to say " follow the spirit. If it leads to conflict with church policies follow the spirit". Likewise JR Clark was fond of saying "the truth will not be harmed by investigation,if it isn't the truth it should be harmed" . The idea we have covenanted to follow our leaders wherever they led is nothing less than a pernicious satanic doctrine. Look at Joseph's comments on Ezekiel 14 when talking to the RS in Navuoo . He said the saints minds were "darkened" because they were relying too much on the prophet. This is yet another false philosophy of men idea that has crept into the church .No wonder Mormon saw ,in Mormon 8 ., that the gentiles would corrupt the holy church of God. Good luck on the reading.

This goes hand in hand with the thread on Loyalty and trusting in the "servants" of God. In the LDS living magazine this week they quote Henry B. Eyring saying that we should trust in God and His servants. First they start out with the trust in God aspect and then they later add the hook, "and his servants". The issue of whether or not unquestioning loyalty is a good thing or the possibility that a "servant" might not be a true "servant" is avoided except for the caveat that this is all dependent upon one's testimony of Joseph Smith and the first vision.

I decided to read the entire talk (given in 2010 conference) and was surprised to find this little gem:

"I saw in that moment that he was one of the honest in heart placed by God in power among His children. We are a tiny minority among the citizens of that great city and nation. The mayor knew little of our doctrine and few of our people. Yet God had sent him the message that Latter-day Saints, under covenant to trust God and His authorized servants, would become a light to his people."

Apparently the brethren are under a different conclusion about what we covenanted to do in the temple.