Last week during Pres Oaks’ talk in General Conference he invented a new category of commandments that has never been heard of before. It is called “temporary commandments”.
In his own words:
The Lord’s commandments are of two types: permanent, like the doctrine of Christ, and temporary. Temporary commandments are those necessary for the needs of the Lord’s Church or the faithful in temporary circumstances, but to be set aside when the need has passed. An example of temporary commandments are the Lord’s directions to the early leadership of the Church to move the Saints from New York to Ohio, to Missouri, and to Illinois and finally to lead the pioneer exodus to the Intermountain West. Though only temporary, when still in force these commandments were given to be obeyed.
Some permanent commandments have taken considerable time to be generally observed. For example, President Lorenzo Snow’s famous sermon on the law of tithing emphasized a commandment given earlier but not yet generally observed by Church members. It needed reemphasis in the circumstances then faced by the Church and its members. Recent examples of reemphases have also been needed because of current circumstances faced by Latter-day Saints or the Church. These include the proclamation on the family, issued by President Gordon B. Hinckley a generation ago, and President Russell M. Nelson’s recent call for the Church to be known by its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Dallin Oaks: Oct 24 General Conference, Sat Morning.
There is a lot to unpack here.
First he calls some commandments temporary. This would imply that they have an expiration date, at which point that are no longer commandments. The example he gives is the commandment that the Saints move from time to time. Once they move it is no longer a commandment. Makes sense.
Next he give examples of permanent commandments. The first one he brings up is tithing, although he hedges some and says the emphasis will change from time to time. This was probably a bad choice for the first permanent commandment. Joseph F Smith said it was it was going to be temporary.
Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life. It does not make any difference, though, so far as that is concerned, whether I live or not. That is the true policy, the true purpose of the Lord in the management of the affairs of His Church.
(Emphasis added)
Joseph F. Smith 1907 Conference address
Then he talked about other examples of commandments that have needed reemphasis. He talks about the proclamation of the family, which he is inferring is a commandment, and needs reemphasis. Not using the word Mormon is now a commandment, and Pres Nelson was just re-emphasizing it when he laid down the law.
Lots of questions here. How do we know something is temporary? Only when it is rescinded, or minimized? So Pres Benson’s commandment for mothers to stay home was only temporary, because we don’t teach it anymore. When was the exact date it was not a commandment anymore? We do have a date for the exclusion of Blacks from the priesthood and temple, 1978.
What’s next, temporary temple announcements? (Shanghai temple is not on the list anymore, it was just temporary!)
Elder Perry in 2013 Conference said commands cannot change
The world changes constantly and dramatically, but God, His commandments, and promised blessings do not change. They are immutable and unchanging.
L. Tom Perry 2013 Conference address
What do you think is the reason Pres Oaks did this? Do you think there is a big change coming, and something that was once thought of as a permanent commandment is about to be temporary? Garments? Word of Wisdom?
Or did Oaks come up with this to give the Q15 an easy out if they make a mistake? Like the POX in 2015. Just a temporary commandment. In 40 years from now when same sex weddings are accepted by the church, it was just a temporary commandment.
Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
According to the Book of Mormon, polygamy appears to be a temporary commandment:
Jacob 2
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Perhaps we will see Section 132 deleted from the Doctrine and Covenants.
Maybe this new approach is an attempt to clean up Elder Bednar’s messy and unworkable distinction between doctrine and policy — something is doctrine, and is taught and enforced as doctrine and seen as unchangeable, until someday when it is changed and becomes changeable policy, and oh by the way, it was always mere policy and never was a doctrine in the first place.
Regarding permanent and temporary, who can tell the difference? President Benson’s commandment for women to stay at home is an example. Many of the women who now occupy the top positions in the three women’s general presidencies, along with some wives of the apostles, apparently understood that President Benson’s commandment didn’t apply to them even at the time he spoke, because they did not obey it even while other women did, or tried to. Now, they are elevated to wondrous heights in our church society, while the women who obeyed are financially poorer and left behind in ward callings.
i appreciate President Oaks’ attempt to explain, but I think this distinction is going to be messy. We now have a new category for disputations among latter-day saints, whether a particular commandment is permanent or temporary. I wish I understood why he made the distinction, but I don’t yet understand
First there is the doctrine versus policy distinction (a fairly hazy one), now temporary and permanent commandments (likewise largely undefined). But these rather arbitrary distinctions are useful to leadership when they have to recalibrate LDS thinking and practice. To them, it’s not different than when a restaurant changes its menu, adding some new dishes and removing a few others. It’s what people who run an organization feel entitled to do, sometimes compelled to do.
Here’s the other side of the coin: Members do this too. There are “commandments and counsel that apply to me” and “commandments and counsel that are aimed at other people, not me.” Seeing the leadership play fast and loose with doctrine and commandments only encourages the membership to play the same game.
Before categorizing something into types you should define your terms. Is announcing a temple a commandment, how is the Family Proclimation a commandment? Were the saints commanded to leave Navuoo, I always thought it was out of neccessity. That is why these catagories become messy, everbody has a different idea of what a commandment is and how it applies to them.
For the underlying foundation of Oaks’ declaration to even work, then whatever a Prophet speaks is a commandment. Otherwise, how did the non-use of the name “Mormon” become a commandment? Family Proclamation, same thing. “Think Celestial” must therefore be a commandment, even though we don’t exactly know what it means. Now we are back to a huge list of commandments. Since we can’t even remember how many things all the prophets have told us to do, how will we ever know whether we’re worthy? Or whether the person next to me is worthy? Oh my.
I think I remember the Savior address that same conundrum way back when by saying: Love God, Love Each Other. Those are His two commandments. All others take a back seat. I think He’s still waiting for us to get those right. He’s likely disappointed that we’re even spending breath discussing things of no import to Him. Just my opinion.
Instant oatmeal or whirled peas? Oh I can’t decide.
The whole business looks pretty ramshackle. Smith’s 57 Varieties of theology.
History repeats itself. The early Christian church leaders and the subsequent leadership heirs went down this same path of redefining terms and ideologies from what Christ originally taught. In my youth we called this “The Apostasy”, not the ongoing restoration. If the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ are supposed to be simple and easy to understand, why does the Q15 keep complicating terms and teachings?
Most/All religions undergo this process. I think this is to keep their power and relevancy in the religious community. This leads to more scripture and philosophies of men with commentaries on commentaries. This eventually causes splinter groups or different branches within the organization. The Q15 is accelerating this and should not be surprised that more ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal groups will continue to emerge out of the LDS church.
A Bishop and Stake Presidents leadership is temporary (except for the ladder climbing/nepotism to the next decision-maker role). The Q15 positions should also be temporary, not permanent! If God was really leading the church through revelation, good men/women could be in the decision-making positions and implement God’s will. However, instead of fisherman, mechanics, teachers, psychologists, the Q15 is full of attorneys, businessmen, and lackluster ex-educators.
I agree with Cam until we figure out and learn to Love God, and each other (Not replacing God with the LDS church institution), the Q15 are rambling on like the ecumenical councils of old.
Covenants are a lot like commandments. So are there temporary covenants and permanent covenants? Since the Church allows divorce (no one gets exed for a divorce) and processes cancellations of sealings as well, even the “eternal marriage” covenants is temporary.
From a member’s point of view, every covenant is temporary in the sense that if you lose faith and confidence in the Church, it’s leadership, and it’s historical claims (aka “losing your testimony”) then those covenants you made at various times no longer have any force or even relevance.
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So there you have two commandments that are permanent. Literally all the rest are temporary.
A conversation I had with someone before conference went like this, “I don’t think that not drinking wine is an eternal commandment. Jesus drank wine. Joseph Smith drank wine after the word of wisdom was given. I don’t think it’s something that will keep you out of heaven.”
Then President Oaks talked about temporary commandments. In my mind I thought, “Are you sure you want to say that?” Because to me it becomes clear pretty quickly that there are many things which are not eternal commandments that are “church rules”.
In my opinion, eternal commandments have an affect on a person’s soul and will affect them in the next life. “Church rules” are really just there to help the organization. If I’m concerned about my soul, but I’m not necessarily concerned about the organization, then I feel no obligation to follow church rules.
And thinking about temporary commandments has just put me on a slippery slope to apostasy. Sorry to tell you this President Oaks, but I think the teaching of temporary commandments is going to have some rather large unintended consequences.
Pres. Oaks’ example of a permanent commandment is the name of the church and not using Mormon. Wow! Remember when Elder Nelson spoke about the name of the church many years ago, and in the next conference Pres. Hinkley said no, and then followed the Meet the Mormons PR campaign and other uses of the word Mormon. Then Hinckley and Monson die, and all of a sudden using the word Mormon gives a victory to Satan. So if using Mormon was a violatuon of a permanent commandment, then Nelson and Oaks must have viewed the Hinckley and Monson presidencies as periods of apostasy, at least on some issues, where clearly and patently false doctrines were being taught by the presidents of the church. I am not prepared to believe that Hinckley and Monson were teaching contrary to God’s permanent commandment. In fact, I would disagree with such an assertion. Isn’t it better to teach that using only the full name of the church is a new, temporary commandment? Or maybe permanent from now forwards, but not before 2020?
I find this distinction between temporary and permanent concerning when you consider the biggest change that has occurred, which was when priesthood and temple blessings were extended to black people. If you put this in the framework of temporary and permanent, you are blaming God for withholding temple blessings from black people. This is an insulting and hurtful point of view to black people.
Even the Gospel Topics Essays are careful not to define Brigham Young’s decision to stop giving priesthood blessings to black people as being revelation. He never claimed it was revelation. There are public records of Brigham’s statements at that time which are blatantly racist. For instance he said if a black and white person were to marry both they and their children should have their throat slit. He also said he would rather give the priesthood to an ass than to a black man. He worked to make Utah a slave state, if only for the first generation. Joseph Smith had been giving the priesthood to blacks all along, so this wasn’t about revelation.
Many white people wish to obscure this issue in order to keep the idea that our prophets are infallible, or at least mostly perfect and to call Brigham racist is insulting to many whites. It reduces Brigham’s prestige and honor in our current society. His name on our flagship university with it’s renowned athletics as seen before the world is part of the concern about public relations.
However to tell black people that God withheld blessings from them because of their race is deeply hurtful to them as well (and racist and incorrect). I am concerned that making the distinction between temporary and permanent will give many whites in the church a framework to continue their racist view of this issue.
i don’t see much difference between the doctrine/policy distinction and the permanent/temporary demarcation. In both cases ideas are emphasized and diminished at the whim of the current leaders.
It’s not like this distinction is new, unless y’all have been avoiding pork and wearing mixed fabrics all these years. We’ve always had commandments that we understood no longer applied, even if there isn’t an official declaration about it.
Many years ago Dallin Oaks made this statement about the temple/priesthood ban: “I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.”
To the Q15, this ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. They have chosen to describe every act from church leadership as a commandment but then when things inevitably change this provides them a way to keep that framework intact. Without temporary commandments they’d be forced to admit that some of the things they say aren’t commandments.
If the proclamation on the family is newly emphasized permanent commandment, precisely and exactly is commandment? How many commandments are in there? We have not elevated it to scripture, and we shouldn’t because it was the work of committees and lawyers, not prophets receiving and recording the word of the Lord. Rather than multiply commandments like rabbits, or like the Pharisees of old did (which practice Jesus condemned, and mentioned above), make it makes sense to focus on loving God and loving one’s fellowmen. I am not a lawyer, but I don’t want to preach laws here and commandments there, multiplying opportunities for people to see themselves as failures and rejects. Instead, I would preach faith in Him who came to save, not to condemn, and that His grace is sufficient for those who believe. Faith, not obedience, is number one.
This is what happens when you feel your grip on the membership start to slip. These youngins just won’t stop drinking coffee and praying to heavenly mother! They won’t keep their fetching garments on!
So now, to reify their authority, they’re doing away with these silly distinctions between commandments, policy, standards, suggestions, speaking as a man etc. Now everything they say is a commandment of God. And if they need to walk it back for any reason, then it was a temporary commandment. Easy. Problem solved.
To all of you wondering how to tell which commandments are permanent and which are temporary, I’ll bet you a shiny nickel that Oaks will soon clarify over the pulpit that you should treat all counsel from your leaders as permanent commandments until they tell you otherwise.
The other thought that I had, (and I hope it doesn’t go in this direction), is that prophets could institute arbitrary temporary commandments for the church in order for church members to receive “extra blessings”. If any of you watched “Keep sweet, pray, and obey”, you’ll remember Warren Jeffs getting revelations like “No more wearing red”. No more wearing red isn’t an eternal law, it’s more of a temporary commandment. I hope that future leaders don’t implement arbitrary rules like not wearing red and call them temporary commandments, but President Oaks certainly opened the door for that to happen.
What aporetic1 said in their first comment.
As for large unintended consequences, I’m getting my corn popped and ready. 🙂
This is also known as the Doctrine of Abrogation, practiced also in islam during Muhammad’s lifetime. Muhammad said so much that kept contradicting what he had said previously, and he was just one guy! Now we have a never-ending stream of “prophets, seers, and revelators” that keep contradicting themselves and overruling each other. Essentially, when a new “truth” is proclaimed, it automatically negates anything ever said before then that contradicts it. It’s “make it up as we go” in real time! “Just dump whatever I (or anyone else) said yesterday, and just listen to the words that are coming out of my mouth right now!”
It’s the most convenient way to keep power and control over your true followers, since they can never question you or your motives. It’s just blind obedience.
This reminds me of the Law of Moses confusion in NT Christianity. I tried to explain this concept years ago to my seminary students by charting three columns: one column of Truths (God created our bodies, for instance, and cares how we take care of them), one of Doctrine (concerning that truth in the Law of Moses: kosher food; latter day: WofW), and one of Policy (no mixing milk/meat; no caffeinated sodas etc). The idea being to understand that truth is eternal, but is interpreted differently in changing times. I’m not sure that Oaks has worked that all so clearly in this talk for us to see… I might explore that concept as Truth (God cares about marriage and families), Doctrine (God has marriage laws for each era) and Policy (current: FP. past: polygamy etc).
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Permanent Commandment) unless He’s not (Temporary Commandment).
Seems like a fairly logical flaw unless you believe by any means necessary.
Permanent Commandments are more universal. Temporary Commandments are used to control and are more cult-like.
Permanent Commandments are timeless and obvious. Temporary Commandments require authority or a cult of personality to enforce. They are also used to beat about the head offenders. There’s always a Temporary Commandment available to use this way.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with Oaks’ reasoning, before even getting to temporary or permanent, is the meaning of “commandment.” The word implies that it’s from God, the ultimate lawgiver. But of course, anything from God has to come from someone who claims to speak for God, i.e., the prophet, including his predecessors, successors, and fellow Q12 members – thus all the confusion. History shows us from the beginning of recorded scripture until the present, and probably in any religious tradition, that humans speaking for God can get it spectacularly wrong. So for me personally, I just can’t accept – and really really dislike – their calling church rules and policies, or their own personal opinions and dictates, commandments from God. It sounds so cultish in this day and age to accept a church leader’s counsel and direction as “God’s commandments” to his followers.
Why does our church have to be so hierarchical and Old Testament-like? Haven’t we grown past that stage yet? We’re not ignorant, superstitious rubes who need an authoritarian leader to tell us what’s right and wrong, thus stunting our ability to make hard moral decisions and develop our own sense of moral reasoning. But that’s what our church leaders continue to foster with this kind of talk.
I could be wrong, and probably am, but I have a suspicion that Oaks would deny that he was saying that the Proclamation and the Mormon ban were commandments. I think he was deftly trying to insert those two things into his talk in the “re-emphasis” section because, well, he felt like talking about them and RHIP. It’s a fancy pirouette. But extremely gas-lighty and annoying.
So now we got permanent commandments vs temporary commandments, doctrines vs policies, and speaking as a man vs speaking as a prophet. Just another day with the clear and simple truths of God’s restored church.
Bryce Cook: “Why does our church have to be so hierarchical and Old Testament-like? Haven’t we grown past that stage yet? We’re not ignorant, superstitious rubes who need an authoritarian leader to tell us what’s right and wrong, thus stunting our ability to make hard moral decisions and develop our own sense of moral reasoning. But that’s what our church leaders continue to foster with this kind of talk.”
This! Exactly this. Christ came and replaced the Law of Moses, and here we are with the church dictating the same OT type laws. One ear piercing! Certain underwear! Selective caffeine restrictions! etc. etc. All ‘commandments’.
Yes, we are stunted and treated like children. I’m on the page of loving God and loving others being the only commandments needed. All of these other “permanent/ temporary commandments” are man-made, kind of like an employee handbook for a billion dollar corporation, which is what the church has evolved in to. It’s become a stumbling block in trying to develop a direct relationship with Christ. It’s just sad, and a personal loss for me.
We’re not ignorant, superstitious rubes who need an authoritarian leader to tell us what’s right and wrong
Consider the rest of Oaks’ talk in which he implores us to be civil without actually telling us who to vote for. Then consider that the majority of American members are nevertheless going to vote for the candidate who has taken incivility to new depths. Then reconsider the above statement.
Tithing is in fact a termporary commandment. Its the lower law. The law of consecretion in the higher law.
Its almost like they are running out of things to say, so they start making shit up.
Oaks started something and gave an inadequate explanation of what he was saying. If this is about control it is bound to get out of control. Just wait and watch!
I would personally say that there are instructions which are time and circumstance based. Like a driver following instructions from a GPS device in the middle of a busy city with construction detours and freeway entrances, etc…. One minute the instructions may be “turn left.” but then the driver is unable to take the turn, so the instructions are to “turn right.” Driving (and life) can be complicated and can necessitate changes in instructions. But the overall mission (to find the freeway and get out of town) may not change.
Iron rod Mormons have a hard time with this. When I was a youth there was a swimsuit rule: No two-piece swimsuits for the ladies. The mission was modesty. But then designers made one-piecers which were inherently inappropriate and two-piecers which were much more user-friendly, comfortable and modest (tankinis). The instructions got more complicated. Then my wife (YW’s President) decided it is far easier and more empowering to teach the mission and let the girls and their mothers decide. There were no problems. None.
The problem is that the mission has frequently gone uninterpreted or unstated with a variety of issues. If the Word of Wisdom is really about health, then it makes sense to allow individuals to thoughtfully decide what is best. And the hardliners would focus on total meat consumption and distilled spirits. But caffeine would be a non-issue, unless you are like me and have found that caffeine triggers your migraines. I think garments and many of the other issues mentioned above should be handled in the same way.
All rigid rules do is turn us all into judgmental and self-righteous jerks. So I think that teaching the mission or purpose of the commandment (providing context to the issue) empowers people. And I think that is how God really operates.
As for temporary temple announcements, according to a release in a local Union County, New Jersey newspaper, a spokesperson for the city of Summit where the church has announced the construction of a new temple, “after consulting with the construction office, we are not aware of any plans for this project at this time.”
It’s just embarrassing. Shanghai might be a little understandable, since it’s, well, China. But New Jersey? No excuses there.
Honestly, I think Dallin was speaking as a man. His good pal D Todd gave a very squishy talk on doctrine in April 2012. Here’s a relevant quote that frequently gets cited in discussions about doctrine and policy.
At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.
Until others leaders embrace this most recent line of thinking on commandments, Dallin shared a well-considered opinion, not doctrine.
Rodger Anderson, I think you are right. Oaks did a little pivot in the middle of this thought on commandments and the “reemphasis” train of thought, then threw the Proclamation and the Mormon name thing in there for good measure, knowing that some would think they were commandments since that is what he was talking about. If you parse the words, Oaks can claim he never said they were commandments.
Yesterday I had to listen to a real Restoration sermon. The speaker was a fill-in. It was literally all over the place. A series of pithy statements spoken with enthusiasm, but leading to no conclusions. It was like Bluto’s “Who’s With Me?” speech in Animal House. It was awful but it kept me awake.
That’s where Mormonism started with Smith and Rigdon. Fire-breathing, prophesying, tongues speaking revivalism. It didn’t last long. An Old Testament/Masonic order was imposed. The revivalist anarchy was erased and a structure was created to control a growing movement. The term prophet was retained but it lost its anarchic Restorationist meaning.
If you want useful instructions on how to live as a Christian today read Romans 12, or the Sermon on the Mount, or in shortest form The Lord’s Prayer: feed us, forgive us, lead us. Going to a temple is effectively rendering unto Caesar -respecting your EARTHLY authorities. Thankfully not mine, but I’ve shared what I had to put up with yesterday.
It’s a way to jettison the historical past. Racism? Temporary. Polyandry? Temporary. Danites? Temporary. Slitting one’s throat? Temporary? What we said last year? Temporary. Temple rituals? Temporary? You get the picture.
Creating a category of temporary commandments should be considered to be logically consistent with the statements made about living prophets/apostles trumping anything said by those who have died. With that perspective, everything is fungible. Anything and everything can change at any time and it fits into this construct.
If it were anyone but Oaks, I would think that this could be setting the stage for significant changes in the near-ish future (e.g. Word of Wisdom adjustments for tea). But because this is Oaks, it seems more like setting the stage for the canonization of the Proclamation on the Family and superseding other problematic doctrines/policies/ideas from the past.
But as others have noted, we have a number of temporary policies in place right now–tithing is a perfect example, as is the BYU Honor Code…which Oaks himself declared to be a temporary expedient based on the socio-cultural mores of the late 1960s and early 1970s (he is, after all, the one who codified the Honor Code as BYU president, not Wilkinson)–that will probably not be going away any time soon. What did Milton Friedman say? There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Looks like that can be applied to certain elements of the Church as well.
The Proclamation the Family isn’t a commandment in that it was written to the “world,” and that it doesn’t actually command anyone to do anything specific. It’s a description of family traits that the church recognizes.
Honestly, I agree with Lily that this is evidence of shark-jumping. I think Oaks at one time might have possessed a legal mind that was sharp, but I think it’s been quite a while since that was the case. He’s legalistic without actually making a lick of sense.
The saints are to “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.” It doesn’t matter if the Lord commands us to be baptized or to build a boat–we should be willing to obey both commands with equal zeal even though the former has been in force since the days of Adam and the latter is a one-time project. And so perhaps the real point that President Oaks is trying to make is that we should be careful not to fall into a pattern of dismissing immediate counsel because it lacks eternal provenance.
Jack, if something said at general conference or at a stake confererence, doesn’t the speaker owe his listeners the dignity tp say that this is advice or opinion, and not necessarily the word and will of the Lord? Yes, we should follow our prophets when they speak in the name of the Lord, and the scriptures tell us that when this happens both the speaker and the listeners will be moved upon by the Holy Ghost. When Paul taught the Jews at Berea, the Jews went home after the preaching and compared what Paul said against the standard works as they had them, and Luke commended this practice. Did Joseph Smith say at some point that he only spoke as a prophet when he spoke as a prophet? We should not be tossed to and fro on every supposed doctrine. When the speaker speaks words from eternal provenance, I think that this should be made clear. Didn’t Joseph F Smith tell women not to wear makeup? Or people to play cards? Let’s not discuss what leaders said about the origin and destiny of Black people. Didn’t Kimball and Benson both plainly tell women to stay home? We were told to have 2 years supply, then 1, and now provident living. Eldwr Holland taught in general conference that not every address is for every member, meaning that we, individually, need to figure whether what we hear is counsel or commandment. As cited above, Elders Christofferson, and before him Elder Anderson taught the same thing: believe what all are saying in unison, not what one or two say individually, even if at general conference. Your counsel not to dismiss counsel too quickly is very wise, but I think that conference giv3 us more well intentioned counsel than either commandments or the word and will of the Lord. Can a member have these thoughts and be faithful? If no, then we are squarely in infallability, which we supposedly reject but in reality we embrace.
Georgis,
I agree pretty-much with what you say above. Certainly all latter-day saints have the right and the means to determine for themselves whether or not the counsel they receive is the will of the Lord for them personally.
Yes–and I reiterate–we should be willing to give the Lord’s anointed the benefit of the doubt–especially when the apostles speak as one on a given doctrine or issue. And so, when they declare that every young man–who is able–should serve a mission–we should take that counsel very seriously even though it is more of a policy than a fixed doctrine. It is the word of the Lord to his people today–irrespective of how missionary work was undertaken in the past.
It is legitimate for the elderly and those in authority to offer advice to others. This is what happens at General Conference. Good men and women offer advice to try their be helpful to others.
.
This is good.
.
How much general conference content is good advice, and how much is commandment channeled directly from the mouth of God? I think what we hear is almost exclusively the former (good advice from good men and women trying to be helpful), while others may think it is almost exclusively the latter (the express and revealed word and will of the Lord).
.
I am a good Latter-day Saint (at least, I think of myself as such), and I believe I have a duty to sustain other Latter-day Saints in their callings. I believe the church is of, by, and for church members, hopefully with some inspiration from time to time from the Holy Ghost. I do not believe that God himself directs every decision and dictates every sermon from church leaders. I say this in a sustaining way.
“It is legitimate for the elderly and those in authority to offer advice to others. This is what happens at General Conference. Good men and women offer advice to try their be helpful to others. This is good.” – ji
When this process works, it works well. I don’t think that this process works nearly as well as we thought it did in the past (victors get to write history from their perspective after all), and I think it is becoming less effective over time as it competes with more specific voices and relies on being a hierarchal structure.
I have concerns when we authorize old men to talk about topics that are outside of their expertise – including talking over women about women’s concerns, and being the ultimate authority on a variety of moral, cultural, and philosophical issues. Women have concerns with a distinct perspective – some of which are about how others are treated, abuse, trauma, being “equal” in terms of authority, decision-making, and respect (a functional reality not the lip service version that is our tradition), on the rites and rituals used to celebrate God and connect us to the afterlife.
“Temporary Commandments”??? Why, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such blathering idiocy…..
Recent examples of reemphases have also been needed because of current circumstances faced by Latter-day Saints or the Church. These include the proclamation on the family, issued by President Gordon B. Hinckley a generation ago,
What exactly does this mean?
Is he suggesting that the Church supporting SSM and completely rejecting the clear words of the Family Proclamation are a ‘re-emphasis’, because that’s the only thing about the Family Proclamation I can see the Church as done over recent years…