Poll for Mormons/LDS: Are the official on-the-record words of prophets scripture?

Question

In the most respectful of ways for those who are of other (or no) faith(s), this is for LDS people.

Our gospel doctrine manual states that the words of the prophets and apostles, when speaking in a talk, are considered scripture, that the angels in heaven record them in books, and that we will be judged out of those books. I'm just curious to see what other LDS people think to see if maybe someone has insight that I haven't considered.

So my question is:

How should we interpret this?

A: Everything the Prophet/Apostles say is scripture

B: General Conference talks are scripture, but not other talks

C: Only talks that are published by the Church in official publications are scripture

D: Prophets and Apostles have their right to their own opinions, but will let us know when they are speaking doctrine by doing so "In the name of the Lord"

E: The Standard Works are the only scripture, period. The Gospel Doctrine manual isn't scripture anyway, so it could be wrong.


Please explain :)

Answer 1

I have multiple answers, according to the words of the prophets and apostles ("modern scripture")

A (Brigham Young, Spencer W Kimball, Wilford Woodruff & Joseph Smith said so)

B (Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff & Joseph F Smith said so)

C (Gordon B Hinckley said so)

D (Joseph Smith said so)

E (Bruce R McConkie said so, after getting blazed by other GAs for his book Mormon Doctrine)

There you go!

Answer 2

I believe that the conference talks are considered modern scripture.

While the Prophet and the apostles are men of God, they are also men. For example, J. Golden Kimball was well know in his day to be a "colorful" speaker that used sware words.

When they started to have conference on the radio the Church leaders were concerned so they wrote out a script for him. After reading what he was suppose to say, Kimball blurted out some thing like, "Hell Heber, I can't say these damn things."

Bottom line, is the Church leader talking for God or is he stating an opinion as a man? I don't think that J. Golden was swearing for God. He swore because that's the person (man) he was. It didn't diminish him as a servant to God.

Answer 3

If it lines up with what is in the Standard works, then it should be considered at least as good as scripture. That would include at least most of what they put in the Ensign. Once in a while, something slips past that might not be considered scripture, but we have to just weed that stuff out.

edit: Oh, and peepers, Brigham Young did not say EVERYTHING he said, he said, give him the chance to read and correct what was written that he said, and then it was AS GOOD AS scripture.

edit two: when the phrase "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over" was never supposed to see the light of day. It was first printed in 1945 in, I think, the Improvement Era and when people complained, the church came out and said that this should never have been printed, but slipped past them. That's rare, that they say something like that about something printed.

Answer 4

I feel only talks that are published by the Church in official publications are scripture. We must always ahear to the teaching of the Prophet because Heavily Father speaks through him an will not let him lead us astray. I know this because I was a council of the relief society but smoked, no one in the church knew this but i was release from my calling because i was not keeping the word of wisdom. However we can always go the Our Father in Heaven an ask for ourselves and receive an answer for our self. Take no mans word for your salvation

Answer 5

The standard works are canon, ie they are alway regarded as scripture. The published General Conference talks are treated as scripture for our time. That is they are given to help us in our day, and may be less relevent to people 100 years from now. For example, they could discuss social conditions that change in a generation like women in the workplace. The comments may still be valuable, but our leaders may give a timely guide. I heard President Hinkley comment that the Church did not plan to expand its role in higher education. Two years later Ricks became BYU Idaho. So if want he said in Conference held the same purpose as a revelation in D&C, we could never make needed changes.

Answer 6

I say C - Only talks that are published by the Church in official publications are scripture. But with an astericks.

I come to this answer based on what Elder Ballard said when he visited our Stake a few years ago. It was the Saturday night adult session of Stake Conference. After he was introduced, and seeing all of us whipping out our note pads to take notes, he explained that while he was honored that we thought enough about what he planned to say to take notes on it, he would prefer us not to. He went on to say that while he understands that at General Conference people take notes, he'd just soon that they didn't then either. He said his reasons are several. First, people think they hear a particular phrase, or comment and write it down, but the speaker really didn't say those words, or more often than not, the speaker's intent was expressed accurately by the Holy Spirit, even though the words may have been inaccurate. He said that a lot of times people will say something like Elder Ballard, you said this at Stake Conference 5 years ago, but what you said at General Conference just last month refutes what you previously said. He said that while the person may have taken copious notes and believe that they are accurate as to what he said, he doesn't know for sure because most often he may jot down a couple of ideas or points he wants to cover, but not exact wording - unless he's writing a talk for General Conference. So he doesn't remember if he really said that or not. Perhaps he did, perhaps the note taker paraphrased that point, or any other of a million things could have made it seemed like he said something when he didn't.
He also said that he especially, but all of the other General Authorities are human. And as such make mistakes in sentence structure, or vocabulary, etc that can not be reflected on or taken back when spoken, but that can be when written. He said that for this reason the General Authorities General Conference talks can be considered scripture and the word of God, because the talks are written, and prayed over and contemplated weeks and months in advance. The final copies of all of the General Conference talks must be handed in several weeks prior to General Conference so that the translators and teleprompt operators can have the time they need to enter them into the teleprompter and translate them for all of those around the world who do not speak English. So those speaking have plenty of time to polish their talks and make sure that what they are saying is accurate and what the Lord wants them to say, whereas, talks given in Stake Conferences, or in other meetings where they are asked to speak are usually more along the lines of an impromptu speach where they are led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand what they will say. It's those impromptu moments that he said tends to get him in trouble, because what the Lord wants him to say may not always be what comes out of his mouth, but thanks to the Spirit, the meaning comes through to the audience. But if left to the actual words spoken, the intent is sometimes lost.

(here's my astericks explaination)
For this reason, I myself, consider the Conference editions of the Ensign scripture, as well as the First Presidency article in each edition of the Ensign. Anything more than that, even if by a General Authority is just a talk. For me it is weighted more if it's from say a General Authority or past President of the church, than it is if it's from my Stake Presidency, Bishop, or Ward Member, but it's not scripture unless it makes it into the Ensign as a First Presidency Message, or a General Conference talk.

Answer 7

If it were me, I would add the following:
As a child of God you have the right to pray about any and all counsel or advice or ideas that are given to you in whatever form and get your own confirmation of those ideas. In general, stick to the Standard Works and anything published in the Ensign in the form of General Conference talks. There are also many good books full of useful insights. I am a big fan of Cleon Skousen, Hugh Nibley, and Neal A. Maxwell, for example and have only begun to scratch the surface of what they wrote in a lifetime.

Answer 8

While Brigham Young is on record as stating that anything he stated was as good as scripture (a sentiment echoed by many prophets and apostles ever since), the Journal of Discourses was never intended to be an organ of doctrine, but simply recordings of inspired talks and sermons. The 'recordings' are not word-for-word playbacks, and the 'recorders' may not have gotten every word correct. Nonetheless, the Journals are 'approved' works, but not accorded canonical status.

The controversy is the concept is the 'Prophet will never lead you astray' (Brigham Young), and even if he asks something unlawful, you'll be 'blessed' for it (Marion Romney, Boyd Packer). This is similar to the idea of god making a rock so big he cannot lift it, since the likelihood of either is nil. The declaration is clear though: Follow the Prophet - period.

However, is more than one pierced earring essential to one's salvation? Is what goes on in your bedroom of any concern or consequence to the Brethren? I hope not. Was the Elder Tanner correct when he said, When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over". Where is the line drawn? When can a mormon speak freely regarding doctrine?

This is probably why many lds come to Yahoo looking for answers to questions they can't ask at church. When they shoot the messengers who deliver the 'wrong' answer, it becomes obvious this is a tactic learned in church.

This is a good question, and appears to be no correct or 'official' answer. As far as I'm concerned, the Journal of Discourses aren't particularly well serving to the church, but offers great ammunition when the verbal attacks originate from the members.

Answer 9

The standard works are scripture. I believe that is not open for debate. But beyond that, well,.....I think we are better off leaving it open-ended. General Conference is, if there is indeed more scripture than just the Standard Works, scripture. But I cannot accept that every GA talk around is scripture. Brigham Young said some wild things over the pulpit.

Answer 10

Isn't it telling that the Mormons who responded don't fully trust their prophet to say the truth and to always say what lines up with scripture. If leaders of our church make statements against scripture- and continue to believe those errors after being corrected- they are removed from leadership for heresy. Too bad Mormons don't have any procedure in place that allows them to do so as well.