On the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine

This will be the final instalment dealing with Desmond Ferguson’s “handout” he gave to an Anglican friend of mine—I think it is rather obvious that he has proven himself to be clueless and deceptive about the LDS Church and his knowledge thereof (for more examples, click here). On page 1 of the handout, he wrote the following:

[The LDS] church [sic] also believes in a living prophet whose teachings would be superior to the Book of Mormon, for the church [sic] teaches there are ongoing revelations through the living prophet.

For someone who has purported to have studied “Mormonism” since the 1950s, this is an incredibly facile and superficial analysis of Latter-day Saint beliefs and the formulation of doctrine. Firstly, the Church believes that not only is the president of the Church a prophet but so are his counsellors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

What distinguishes Joseph Smith and his successors is not the spirit of prophecy, or being a Prophet, but the apostleship. Wilford Woodruff explained that "anybody is a prophet who has a testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle." (Journal of Discourses [hereafter "JOD"] 13:165).

Brigham Young explained the differences between the titles "prophet," "apostle," and "president." In a conference address delivered April 6, 1853, he said:

Perhaps it may make some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question. Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of the Church. Suffice to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church, as long as he lived; the people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing the President of the Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity, but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice. (JOD 1:113)

To Brigham Young, being a prophet was secondary to being an apostle and having keys from God. He explained the difference in these words:

Many persons think if they see a Prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any Priesthood on them at all . . . To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of future events; but an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has the keys of the Holy Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his dead, and by this he is authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well; if not, the sin be upon their own heads. (JOD 13:144).

As to the formation of LDS doctrine, Ferguson gives the impression (and this is the view he presents to others when he discusses the Church) is that LDS believe that when a leader speaks, that is the end of discussion, a view condemned as heretical by George Albert Smith himself when acting as president of the Church(!)

In reality, for something to be considered an official, authoritative teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it must be ratified by the First President and the Quorum of the Twelve, and accepted by the common consent of the Church.

Consider the following from Brigham Henry Roberts:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. (B. H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News, 23 July 1921, sec. 4, p. 7)

Brigham Young explicated this principle in the following quotation that is often ignored by critics of the Church as it does not fit their straw-man caricature of the formation of LDS theology:

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three first presidents must be one in their voice--the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true. (JOD 9:91-92 | September 22, 1878)

Recently, on an online discussion, LDS philosopher, Blake Ostler, defined LDS doctrine rather accurately when he wrote:

Doctrine is: (1) a teaching that has been taught consistently by the Church; (2) is contained in scripture that is based on revelation as opposed to scriptural texts that are merely policy statements (e.g., D&C 135 or the Proclamation on the Family); and (3) has been accepted by common consent. There is always the caveat that a revelation accepted by the Church leaders and common consent of the Saints (and nothing less) can change a prior doctrine or doctrinal practice.

In May 2007, the Church itself released a document entitled, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" that discussed the nature and limits of LDS doctrine and its formulation:

·       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.

Many more examples from LDS sources could be offered, but it should be clear that if one compares official Latter-day Saint teaching with Ferguson’s utterly facile treatment thereof, one will see a world of difference.

Indeed, that Ferguson is wrong in stating that Latter-day Saints believe " in a living prophet whose teachings would be superior to the Book of Mormon" is deceptive; it is when all the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve speak on an issue of theology unanimously that it is en par with inscripturated revelation (not just the Book of Mormon). This is explicated in D&C 107:27:

And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other.

As Gordon B. Hinckley, while acting as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, noted:

“The president, after all, is just one of the fifteen prophets, seers, and revelators, so when the president is not functioning, we simply carry on with the remaining apostles.” As he said, “there is abundant ‘backup’,” and when the Saints sing “We thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet,” they are expressing their joy in being led by not just one man but by a council of fifteen. (Gordon B. Hinckley to Seminary and institute teachers, Aug. 22, 1986 from the diary of that date in Leonard J. Arrington Collection, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Library, Logan, as cited in Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian [Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998], 144)

It is true that we believe that our leaders can receive revelation today on issues that our Scriptures may only touch upon implicity or not at all (e.g., transgenderism; surrogate motherhood; etc). However, that is a plus to the LDS position. We have an active authority that can, when necessary, make an authoritative decision based on God-given authority. Ferguson and other critics lack such a source.

Furthermore, one has to understand that much of Ferguson’s complaint about extra-biblical revelation is due to his accepting the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura. To see a careful exegesis of one of his favourite “proof-texts” (Matt 4:1-11), see here. The man’s comments about the LDS Church is as bogus as his exegetical and scholarly skills which is why he refuses to interact with, and debate informed Latter-day Saints--he knows he could not survive such a discussion/debate.

Finally, in spite of some who think Latter-day Saints believe our leaders can "pull a rabbit out of the hat" and create a new doctrine out of the blue, such has been refuted by LDS leaders.

The following comes from Bruce R. McConkie (1915-1985), at the time, an apostle of the Church and member of the Quorum of the Twelve, refuting this naïve view, as well as admitting his own imperfections in living up to the Gospel:

 

We do not create the doctrines of the gospel. People who ask questions about the gospel, a good portion of the time, are looking for an answer that sustains a view they have expressed. They want to justify a conclusion that they have reached instead of looking for the ultimate truth in the field. Once again, it does not make one snap of the fingers difference to me what the doctrines of the Church are. I cannot create a doctrine. I cannot originate a concept of eternal truth. The only thing I ought to be concerned with is learning what the Lord thinks about a doctrine. If I ask a question of someone to learn something, I ought not to be seeking for a confirmation of a view that I have expressed. I ought to be seeking knowledge and wisdom. It should not make any difference to me whether the doctrine is on the right hand or on the left. My sole interest and my sole concern would be to find out what the Lord thinks on the subject . . . I repeat: I have no power to create a doctrine. I have no power to manufacture a theory or a philosophy or choose a way in which we must go or a thing we must believe to gain eternal life in our Father’s kingdom. I am an agent, a servant, a representative, an ambassador, if you will. I have been called of God to preach what? To preach His gospel, not mine. It doesn’t matter what I think. The only commission I have is to proclaim His word. And if I proclaim His word by the power of the Spirit, then everyone involved is bound. People are bound to accept it, or if they reject it, it is at their peril . . . I do not always measure up to that by any means. (Bruce R. McConkie, “The Foolishness of Teaching,” in Scott C. Esplin and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., The Voice of My Servants: Apostolic Messages on Teaching, Learning, and Scripture [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010], 83, 88, emphasis in bold added)

 

In his article in the March 2020 Ensign, “The Lord Leads His Church through Prophets and Apostles,” Dallin Oaks discussed the issue of the scope and formation of Latter-day Saint doctrine, emphasising the united voice of both the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve:

Prophets and Apostles Act Through Councils

The Lord leads His Church through prophets (plural) and apostles (plural), as they act through councils. There are many illustrations of this.

The Lord calls one prophet to initiate a new dispensation. Then, when that new restoration grows and matures, doctrines and policies for the group are revealed and taught through an organization led by apostles and prophets. Thus, as the restored Church grew and matured in this final dispensation, the Lord revealed that its most important business and most difficult cases should be decided by a council of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:78-79). Otherwise, they would not be “entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently” (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:29).

All of this shows the Lord’s direction that His Church must be governed by councils of apostles and prophets. This protects and promotes the unity that is essential in the Lord’s Church.

“The Lord in the beginning of this work revealed that there should be three high priests to preside over the High Priesthood of his Church and over the whole Church,” President Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) taught in the general conference where he was sustained as President of the Church (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 223). He affirmed the importance of three high priests in the presidency by declaring “that it is wrong for one man to exercise all the authority and power of presidency in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 176-77). He added, “The Lord never did intend that one man should have all power, and for that reason he has placed in his Church, presidents, apostles, high priests, seventies, [etc]” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 177).

The reference to the plural, prophets and apostles, is also prominent in this familiar teaching by Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-1972): “There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor all the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth council to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside,” Ensign, July 1972, 88).

To become the official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ, the individual teachings of apostles and even prophets need to be affirmed through the process of approval by other apostles and prophets. This is illustrated in the Bible in the approving action of the Apostles when Peter reported his revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles (see Acts 11:1, 18). Similarly, when the dispute over the need for circumcision was brought to the Apostles, Peter reminded them of the significance of the revelation he had received, and the council then approved and settled the dispute with a conforming epistle to the Church (see Acts 15).

Similarly, in the restored Church, doctrine is not canonized until the body of the Church has received it by the law of common consent (see Doctrine and Covenants 26:2; 28:13). That principle was revealed in 1830 and has been applied since that time (see Doctrine and Covenants, introduction to section 138; explanations to Official Declaration 2; and Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple [1980], 202).This practice, which had not been followed by churches existing during the period we call the Apostasy, protects gospel truths from being altered or influenced by private ideas or individual opinions. (Dallin H. Oaks, “The Lord Leads His Church through Prophets and Apostles,” Ensign, March 2020, pp. 16-17; emphasis in bold added).