DiscussMormonism.com

Prime Directive

I have discovered the Prime Directive of Mormonism!
It is the Principle of Principles of the Gospel of the Church.

“The Church is True.”

That’s it. When you come right down to it, for a true blue, dyed in the wool Mormon that’s ALL that matters!!! The Prime Directive is unqualified, unchanging, and eternal. This First Truth exists independently of, and is unaffected by, any and all other truth.

All other principles bow to that Directive. All other principles are conditional, changeable, temporary, even the points in each and every of the Articles of Faith. Everything else can change and does change. I offer five examples from the official Mormon creed.


5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Apparently, the laying on of hands was not necessary. If there are records of Brigham Young being ordained prophet, I stand corrected. I just haven’t been able to find them myself yet. The laying on of hands may or may not be necessary today. I have never seen the Quorum of Apostles ordain a Prophet.

Also, now there are two added requirements, apparently. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles gets to vote on who the Prophet should be, and the members of the Church have to ‘sustain’ him. This was not always the case. The majority of the Apostles did not vote to make Brigham Young President of the Church; I do not know if they ever voted to make him a Prophet. They may have voted to “sustain” him as a prophet, but that is not the same as making and ordaining him one.

I do not know the procedure in the event that the members refuse to sustain the Head of the Church. Historical precedent has me believe that if one with proper authority (such as Sidney Rigdon) offers to lead the Church, it is possible at times for one with another authority (such as Brigham Young), if he is as clever with his words as Mark Antony was with his, can take over. Formerly this was abetted by the confusing relationships between the First Presidency, the Standing High Council, the Traveling High Council, the First Quorum of Seventies, the Patriarch, the First Bishopric. Fortunately, over the years, this revealed perfect and eternal relationship has been simplified by the First Presidency so that the First Presidency is no longer the first among equals, but the first and foremost. The new, less perfect and less eternal relationship among these councils seems to be functioning more smoothly than those Christ presumably instituted at the beginning.

The ordinances have changed, most dramatically those associated with Temple work. Nor do we allow foot-washings.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, viz., apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc. Except some offices were removed and others added. The office of Church Patriarch was both added, and then later removed. The office of pastor apparently did not exist when the church was first established. The office existed only for a time in England, as the head of paired districts. It doesn’t exist now. There were never evangelists in the modern Church. Seventies were added; they weren’t in “Christ’s church”. Twos were ignored; the same justification exists for their existence as for the Seventies. There are no Disciples although Jesus had many. There are no Sheep, though Jesus often admonished the Apostles to take are of them. There are no Shepherds. There are no overseers/presbyters. There is no rabbi, and no rabboni. There are Stake Presidents and Regional Representatives and Assistants to the Apostles. Evidence of the existence of Judases is uncertain. Evidence of Thomases is rife. It doesn’t matter, though, because the Church is true. None of this affects the truthfulness of the Church.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, but have altered that to mean only when the person with the gift of tongues has learned the language through careful study or growing up bilingually. Of prophecy, but only from the head of the Church, except for “personal revelation” such as where you should live, what job you should take, what school you should send your children to, or what you should have for dinner. Of revelation, but better not try that or you’ll get in deep trouble! That’s out. Of visions, which in the era of the drug culture is understandable. However, spiritual visions are private and personal. Publicizing them or attempting to convince others that they are doctrinally significant is apostate behavior. You will be warned and then possibly kicked out of the church. Of healing, which has been changed today to refer only to trained medical professionals. If you actually tried to heal someone as Christ and the apostles did, you would be reprimanded. Healing has been changed to mean pouring olive oil on someone’s head and saying two – not one, not three, but just two – prayers. Of interpretation, but now you have to study for it and be paid to do it, otherwise it’s just a hobby.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The parts that are incorrect change from time to time, so that what is rejected in one instance may be used as a proof-text in another instance. It doesn’t help to go to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, because that’s not translated correctly either. Apparently the only reliable translation is Reformed Egyptian. Any mistakes in that are the errors of men, so it cannot be criticized “even if it is wrong”.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this [the American] continent . . . . This used to mean it was okay for Mormons from around the world to gather to American Zion. In fact, it was a commandment. Until it was decided to stop that movement. No revelation is available. Revelation is not necessary, for the Church is true, it makes no mistakes.

When speaking of the Church deciding, doing, and making no mistakes, of course an organization has no will or volition beyond the people in it. What is meant, is the set of men comparable to a CEO and Board of Directors in a corporaton.

It is futile to argue about any doctrine, principle or ordinance of the Gospel as a necessary feature of Mormonism. No doctrine is necessary for the Church to be true. No doctrine proven false will make the Church not true, because the truth of the Church does not depend on its doctrines or practices, on its principles or ordinances, on its gospel or its organization. The validity of the Church rests on one and only one single, irrefutable principle:

“The Church is True.”

“The Church is True.”

Must it be anything else, in the minds of 'believers' to be effective in LDS, and Member, purposes? Quackery? ("Imitation flowers," from a distance :-) Roger

Well, I agree.

The church is true and nothing else matters.

Upon hearing this I have asked what it actually means...

Seems doctrine does not have to be true; revelations do not have to be accurate, scriptures do not have to be true, prophets (speaking as a prophet), can be right or wrong, the "priesthood" doesn't seem to be much of anything, temple ordinances change,... so while "the church is true", what in the world does this mean these days?

:-)

~dancer~

Truth Dancer wrote:so while "the church is true", what in the world does this mean these days?

Good question!

I think the phrase "I know the Church is true." is a misnomer.

The phrase, "Christ's gospel principles are true," is a more accurate statement, or should be.

If you live your life following Christ's principles, and recognize much of the Church's protocol for the B.S. that it is, life is a whole lot simpler.

;)

"The Church is True" means one cannot place his faith in the scriptures, articles of faith, standard works, Sacrament meeting, baptism, endowments and sealing in the temple, or his personal relationship with Deity.

"The Church is True" means that when the church officials, those specifically designated the Lord's Anointed (where the heck in Ephesians can I find that!?), speak, that is what is true. That is what is conditionally true.

Absolute truth is the Church itself.

The medium of truth, that which conveys absolute truth to the believers via conditional truths, are the Lord's Anointed.

True principles, records, ordinances, teachings, rites, beliefs, and practices are those temporary and conditional ideas and behaviors that stem from the expressions offered by the media of truth, the Lord's Anointed.



It is important to recognize that the Lord's Anointed are not truth. They are merely the medium. Which is one reason why there are different conditional truths and why truth for the laity is in effect only temporarily. One medium sends one truth (Celestial marriage [plural wives] is a requirement for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, Brigham Young version) and another medium sends a contrary truth (Celestial marriage means marriage to just one wife, today's version).


P.S.: The correct term for plural wives is wiveses.

Valorius wrote:"The Church is True"

The Church, by definition, cannot be True. The Church is an earthly institution, and is subject to the imperfections of the humans that inhabit and populate it. Humans are, by definition, imperfect. Therefore, any institution made up of humans is perforce: imperfect. Thus cannot be True.

FYI BY was ordained by the laying on of hands as Church president by the Q of 12. As an apostle he was already considered a prophet, seer and revelator. There was much debate as to whether there should be a first presidency reorgnanized and some of the twelve opposed it. But the majority supported it and all eventually came around to it.

truth dancer wrote:

"The church is true and nothing else matters"

Upon hearing this I have asked what it actually means...

~dancer~

The problem is better understood by recognizing that some people even have difficulty with the definition of the word is.

From my perspective, if I were someone that was familiar with it's history and testified that I knew the church was true, I would be stating that I was successful in wacking a square peg in a round hole and calling it a perfect fit.

Now it is possible to walk out on a cloudless day at noon, look up and say the sun is not shining and be innocent of deception - for the only reason that your definition of the bright yellow ball is different than everyone elses.

But once a standard is agreed upon, any further argument has little meaning - because there is the sun. Right there. Shining really bright. Projecting it's light save beneath places that cast a shadow. And even there it can be perceived.

So this begs the question, would it be possible to agree on a clear and concise definition of the word "TRUE"?

Or would that destroy someones craft?

Perhaps it would be best to take each word and clearly agree on a definition of each: "is", "the", "church" and "true" - but not necessarily in that order.

Valorius wrote:If there are records of Brigham Young being ordained prophet, I stand corrected. I just haven’t been able to find them myself yet. The laying on of hands may or may not be necessary today. I have never seen the Quorum of Apostles ordain a Prophet.

Also, now there are two added requirements, apparently. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles gets to vote on who the Prophet should be, and the members of the Church have to ‘sustain’ him. This was not always the case. The majority of the Apostles did not vote to make Brigham Young President of the Church; I do not know if they ever voted to make him a Prophet. They may have voted to “sustain” him as a prophet, but that is not the same as making and ordaining him one.

Jason Bourne wrote:FYI BY was ordained by the laying on of hands as Church president by the Q of 12. As an apostle he was already considered a prophet, seer and revelator. There was much debate as to whether there should be a first presidency reorgnanized and some of the twelve opposed it. But the majority supported it and all eventually came around to it.

I'm sorry. I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Are you saying that prophets are not ordained?, or that an apostle, being already a prophet, is not "re-ordained" to the office of prophet when he is ordained to his new office of President? So that each succeeding President of the Church is ordained to the office of President? Not "set apart" to that office? In that case, by the way, the office of President is higher than the office of Prophet. "First apostles, then prophets" has become "First presidents, then prophets, then apostles," or perhaps, "First Presidents, then prophet-apostles."

By saying he was "considered" a prophet, seer and revelator, do you mean he had been so ordained, or that when ordained an apostle, a person automtically becomes prophet, seer, and revelator even if words to that end are not spoken?

I must now confess an ignorance on my part that I would like to correct. Were the first 12 apostles in this dispensation ordained as "prophets" when they were ordained as "apostles," and if so, where can I find that information?

There was little debate about Brigham Young. If you have records to the contrary, please cite or quote them. Lyman Wight wasn't there, a couple of others weren't there. Where? I think it was Winter Quarters; at present I don't have my papers about that. There was not a sufficient number to form a quorum. The "majority" was not a majority of the Twelve, but only a majority of the apostles who were present; which was contrary to church law. They needed a legal majority, not just a majority of those present. To take a hypothetical example, I do not believe 3 to 7 apostles can come together in the absence of the others, and vote to ordain a new prophet, even if the vote were "unanimous"; they would first have to get all 12 together.

If you are saying that there was sufficient for a legal quorum of the Quorum, and that a majority voted for Brigham Young, would you kindly list the names of the Apostles living at the time of that vote, and indicate how each voted? Was a majority (of the Quorum) at that time considered SEVEN members, or some other number?

I'm sorry. I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Are you saying that prophets are not ordained?, or that an apostle, being already a prophet, is not "re-ordained" to the office of prophet when he is ordained to his new office of President? So that each succeeding President of the Church is ordained to the office of President? Not "set apart" to that office? In that case, by the way, the office of President is higher than the office of Prophet. "First apostles, then prophets" has become "First presidents, then prophets, then apostles," or perhaps, "First Presidents, then prophet-apostles."

Apsotles are ordained and are sustained as Prophets, Seers and revelators. I do not know the exact words used.

By saying he was "considered" a prophet, seer and revelator, do you mean he had been so ordained, or that when ordained an apostle, a person automtically becomes prophet, seer, and revelator even if words to that end are not spoken?

See above.

I must now confess an ignorance on my part that I would like to correct. Were the first 12 apostles in this dispensation ordained as "prophets" when they were ordained as "apostles," and if so, where can I find that information?

They were ordained as apsotles and later sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. I think this idea came later then 1835 so when they were ordained they would not have been ordained as such.

There was little debate about Brigham Young. If you have records to the contrary, please cite or quote them. Lyman Wight wasn't there, a couple of others weren't there. Where? I think it was Winter Quarters; at present I don't have my papers about that. There was not a sufficient number to form a quorum. The "majority" was not a majority of the Twelve, but only a majority of the apostles who were present; which was contrary to church law. They needed a legal majority, not just a majority of those present. To take a hypothetical example, I do not believe 3 to 7 apostles can come together in the absence of the others, and vote to ordain a new prophet, even if the vote were "unanimous"; they would first have to get all 12 together.

If you are saying that there was sufficient for a legal quorum of the Quorum, and that a majority voted for Brigham Young, would you kindly list the names of the Apostles living at the time of that vote, and indicate how each voted? Was a majority (of the Quorum) at that time considered SEVEN members, or some other number?

My memory is a bit sketchy on all the details. I recommend Quiins first volume on the Mormon Heirarchy if you are interested in the details.