Scriptural evidence for "pre-mortal existence". Is there any?

[Telstar]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Maybe there is "stuff" in one's own life rather than have the perception that others are "living in sin" and have a "spiritual welfare" issue. My point is that Jesus wants to be the Good Shepherd of each person and help each person change through their own personal repentance. If a person is looking at other people's faults, then there is "clutter" in the channel of communication with God.

My example of someone "living in sin" was meant as Paul says about our admonishing one another, when we see them doing something wrong.

"[Romans 15:14] And I myself also, my brethren, am assured of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another."

It was not meant to be a reference to anyone in particular, but only to give an example of a situation that might make us want to pray for their conversion, and the salvation of their souls. Most people that I know, understand the phrase "living in sin" to be a reference to an unmarried couple that are living together. Their spiritual welfare should certainly be a concern that we should have, and should cause us to want to pray for them. Don't you agree?

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Maybe it would be a better idea to let God's timetable be His for others, so that the teaching to not judge others can be fully in place in one's own heart.

We're not "judging" anyone when we try to correct them, if they're doing something wrong. We are only judging their actions, whether they are right or wrong, and certainly not judging the person's soul. That's up to God.

When your child does something wrong, should you let them continue to do it, because you don't want to "judge" them? Or, do you correct them so they can learn to do the right thing, instead of doing something wrong? Are you judging them as a person, or just judging their actions? Do you love them any less when they do something wrong, and you find it necessary to correct them for their own good? Why would it be any different to try to correct someone else that you believe is following the wrong path? Or, to pray that God will send them His grace, and enlighten them to their mistakes? How is that wrong? It certainly doesn't interfere with their choice to accept or reject our advice, or God's offer of grace.

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Someone will no doubt accuse me of judging, but what I'm trying to express is that the teachings of Jesus were clear that He is the Intercessor, and the apostles upheld this teaching, that only He is the Intercessor for the souls of humankind and for their salvation.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying due to a difference in our definitions of certain terms, and beliefs. I totally disagree that Jesus is the only intercessor, as Paul plainly stated otherwise. We should all pray without ceasing for the salvation of souls, in order for them to be given the grace to believe, love, and follow Jesus.

[Colossians 1:9] "Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom, and spiritual understanding"

[Telstar]

Originally Posted by Jerusha

Thank you, Lori.

I was intending to respond to Parker's post about the Missouri incident, including a quote from D&C by Joseph Smith, but I decided it was probably better if I didn't get into it. But, the remarks that you quoted were made partly in response to his comments about it.

[Jerusha]

My issues are with the inter-generational resentments they hold from the Nauvoo era, but the bitterness is very consistent, something unusual in Mormonism. Consistency is unusual--bitterness is the usual song. I could even quote lyrics from some of their hymns.

[Telstar]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Telstar,

As far as the concept in your later post about "doing penance", I now see where this idea originated from, but it is contrary to what Paul taught in Hebrews 10:10-21, and in fact those verses show that Paul was teaching that any idea of the need for further sacrificial offerings for sin such as you have described, seem to have been an idea that had begun to be taught (probably by converted Pharisees) but that he pointedly refuted.

Are you saying that we shouldn't do penance for our sins? Do you really think it's unnecessary? I know for a fact that LDS fast, which is a form of penance. That's why Catholics fast for 40 days during Lent, to do penance and prepare themselves for Easter, in remembrance of Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days before His Passion.

In fact, a couple of years ago a bunch of online friends fasted for a particular family that was going through a rough time, and the one that came up with the idea to fast for them was LDS. She even PM'd me before she did it, to ask if I thought it would be acceptable for her to ask Christians and other people on the forum to join her in fasting for the family, who was also LDS. She was afraid some people might be offended because she and the target family were Mormon, or that they'd just think it was too weird for her to ask other people do it with her. Of course, I told her I thought it was a great idea. So, we all ended up fasting for a month, taking turns, and swapping days and times to fast. I think there were about 15-20 people that actually joined in to do it. It was a great experience for everyone that participated, as well as for that family, who also joined us in fasting.

[1voice]

[quote=ParkerD;9058177]1voice,

Latter-day Saints don't call it making "intercession",

... the word 'intercession' doesn't not have to be used. Performing an act or pleading a case on behalf of another, for their benefit, fits the definition of intercession.

It is an act of intercession when a person obeys Jesus' admonition to "pray for your enemies and those that despitefully use you". The obvious purpose is so that God will cause them to wake up to the truth so that their soul will be saved.

and it means that they acknowledge that the spirits of the dead are alive, but that baptism for them was just as important as it is for anyone living who is accountable through their own choices. Baptism shows that the person is "burying" their old self and giving themselves to the Good Shepherd so that He can lead them into a newness of life. They can have a newness of life in the spirit world just as much as anyone living can have this.

The Baptism is being done in order to facilitate spiritual advancement for someone who could not or would not do it themselves. (according to LDS belief).
And when a person performs a baptism, on behalf of another, for the purpose that you describe ... that fits the definition of intercession...

I can see how one could call it "interceding in their behalf", but it still acknowledges the centrality of the Savior's intercession and does not place the person being baptized or the person doing the baptizing (who is representing the Savior because it is using His priesthood) in some role of interceding toward God on their behalf, but instead says they now have just as much opportunity for an efficacious baptism as anyone living.

The term used for the Savior's intercession is a singular use that had to do with His being the Great High Priest who was able to make the Great and last sacrifice of Himself. This gives everyone personal, hope-filled, direct access to prepare to live in the presence of God through Him and Him alone as the Intercessor and personal Advocate.

I agree, Jesus did the heavy lifting / work of atonement all by himself. ... and now He, according to the Bible, sits at God's right hand and intercedes for us. His sacrifice, the purpose of his sacrifice, was to tear the veil that separated God and man... and keep it open (so that we can have permanent access to the throne of God the Father)... The veil in the Temple in Jerusalem actually tore from top to bottom the day that Jesus died... He did his job... So that he could restore our right and responsibility to go directly to God... "Our Father, who art in heaven" and "ask for anything in my (Jesus) name". Anything ... means ANYTHING... Including the salvation of loved ones as well as enemies. Christ's purpose was and is to develop kings and priests (sons of God) not in some future ... but here and now. with the same authority that Jesus possesses ...which is to "come boldly before the throne of grace" and "make our requests (for anything) known to God." because ..."The word (of faith that moves mountains) is nigh thee and in thy mouth" ... That is intercession.

[batman1973]

Originally Posted by Jerusha

My issues are with the inter-generational resentments they hold from the Nauvoo era, but the bitterness is very consistent, something unusual in Mormonism. Consistency is unusual--bitterness is the usual song. I could even quote lyrics from some of their hymns.

I can almost quote the "blessings" for the bread and water.

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by Telstar

My example of someone "living in sin" was meant as Paul says about our admonishing one another, when we see them doing something wrong.

"[Romans 15:14] And I myself also, my brethren, am assured of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another."

Telstar,

Not to start out with a negative comment, but it has been an interesting process for me to see the different translation and slight meaning changes such as in this verse. The word "admonish" (which is used in the KJV) could have been more closely translated from the Greek into the words "to appeal to the mind", which has a different meaning entirely, especially when the words "so that you are able" are rendered into what the Greek words more closely mean, "being able also":

Thus: "being able also to appeal to the mind" ties back to verse 13 and back to verses 2 and 5. So Paul encouraged them to abound in hope and to be full of goodness and be "like-minded" with each other, despite minor differences such as he noted as explained in Romans 14:1-5 and 14:10. There, he reminded "but why dost thou judge thy brother?"

I will add other comments as I get time, but this is a start. Peace and good day.

[soren1]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Soren1,
There ought to be no question to anyone who becomes familiar with Doctrine and Covenants 107:22-31 as to whether there is an importance for Latter-day Saints, of "the unanimous voice" of the quorums that include the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (verses 27 and 23), and that "unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings..." and "the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord."(verse 31)

ParkerD,

I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it, since I responded to this way back when. I neither was nor am disputing that D&C 107 teaches a doctrine of unanimous voice. I am disputing whether unanimous voice is presented in the text as a standard for defining LDS doctrine. In particular, I say that all of the relevant passages deal only with decisions about the governance in the church rather than judgments about doctrine.

There is an important distinction to be made between “judgment” and “decision.” The difference is between the perception of truth and choices regarding the best means to attain an end. The first is an act of the intellect; the second is an act of the will guided by intellect. This distinction is largely lost on modern Americans, but it was well understood prior to the twentieth century. If you read old American writers like Irving, Hawthorn, Melville, Twain, you will see they never confuse their meanings. No one ever says, “I decided the water was too cold to swim, and judged not to dive in.” They say, “I judged the water was too cold to swim, and decided not to dive.”

In modern times, the difference in meaning between these words is almost totally eroded, and there is quite a history as to why. It is mainly because of the influence of nihilist and existentialist philosophy. In classical terms, knowledge of the good was a matter of judgment. Value was known to have a certain objectivity, but Hume and Kant both denied that there is objective value, and concluded that goodness was defined subjectively. On that theory, if I state my judgment that “My daughter has value,” this is really a statement about myself rather than her: she has value because I value her. This subjectivization of judgment paved the way for Nietzsche, who went further to say that the will over and above the intellect was the source of human vitality. The goodness of a person’s desire was not measured by truth; rather desire had ultimately primacy, and the greatest experience in life was to bring truth into conformity with desire through power. By making the will the source of value, Nietzsche gave to decision a role that was previously reserved for judgment. Considerations of both fact and value became in his philosophy matters of decision, simply. As man-centered philosophies based on radical self-determination grew in the Western world, the distinction between judgment and decision fell into eclipse, and is now almost globally ignored. The words are used almost interchangeably as, for example, when Fox News says “We report; you decide,” when it ought to say “You judge.”

Why have I rehearsed this whole history? It is not to show that you, Fox News, or anybody else who confuses judgment with decision is a nihilist. The change in meaning is just a common cultural effect. But the fact that this cultural effect is the product of a significant shift in the Western worldview, away from Christianity in the direction of nihilism and hedonism, shows that I am not making a nitty distinction. Nietzsche was born in the same year Joseph Smith died, and before then, people know what the difference between judgment and decision was. It is, therefore, anachronistic to read the following passage as a text about judgment of truth:

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—A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men. (D&C 107 27-29)

Truth is not subject to decision. Rather, valid decisions presuppose some orientation to the truth, which is not determined by decision but by judgment. No one decides what God has revealed. We judge that he has revealed and then decide what we are going to do about it. When our decisions accord with good judgment, they bring the fruit of good works. Consequently, the teaching in this passage is about decisions to act based upon prior judgments of truth, which are presupposed in deliberation and decision and not determined by them. Hence, this is not a text about doctrine, though it presupposes it.

[soren1]

Section 107 is one of the important "priesthood government" sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, which those familiar with the operation of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would know beginning at as early as the age of twelve when they begin paying attention to the word "priesthood" and what it means to them personally for the young men. They are reminded about that section, and also sections 20 and 84, in priesthood classes. It would be a case where they would grow in awareness of their importance as they get older and study the gospel more in their personal life, and prepare to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood if they are a young man.

The concept of the united voice of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency and also of the Quorum of Seventy have been increasingly emphasized during my lifetime, and the basis of that increased emphasis has to do with the principle of "coming to the unity in the faith" (Ephesians 4:13), and the principle of learning to counsel together and take counsel including within marriages but also within ward councils and stake councils and the councils noted in Section 107.

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." (Proverbs 11:14)

The concept of "becoming one with God" points toward learning to counsel together and learn from each other in a council situation where there is give and take and the Spirit thrives through people listening to each other with their heart engaged and thus each one having the love of God and the love of neighbor fully invested in how they counsel together.

Learning to counsel together without any contention is absolutely an essential quality of following Biblical patterns of this principle.

So, there you now have "more".

More, yes, but more of the same. You are talking about government and counsel. Those things are matters of decision, because that are about determining right action in light of good judgment, not about acquiring the original judgment. These are fresh examples of the same conceptual error that causes you to misread D&C 107.

Anyone certainly can do that, but as far as anyone saying they are presenting accurate Latter-day Saint doctrine as far as "what is taught" then unless they follow the standard for what is doctrine, they aren't unless they have the united voice principle fully understood and follow it in how they present or describe "LDS teachings".

That is why, when I talk about disputed LDS teachings, I never put it that way. I distinguish after all between what is taught and what is believed. If you went through every post I have ever put up on this forum or at MADB and did a word search for the phrase “Mormons believe” you will probably not find it once, or if you do, it will be in an innocuous, noncontroversial context. Rather, if I am talking about something controversial, you will always find me saying, “Mormon General Authorities have taught as a doctrine that…” or “Every General Authority who has commented on X has said…” or “Prophet X said God had revealed to him that…”. I stick to objective facts like that because what Mormons currently believe or what the church “teaches” in the sense of actively promulgating it now may not necessarily reflect the teaching I am discussing. That way, I don’t impute to you beliefs and teachings that you might not share. Instead, in the event that you don’t, I at least make clear what it is that you don’t believe and teach: the authoritative words and often revelatory claims of your own highest authorities.

Originally Posted by ParkerD

Continuation to Soren1:

Here is a well-written article about "Zelph":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelph

Since the Book of Mormon speaks of many migrations by members of the house of Israel to the islands of the sea, and the lands of the Americas are presented in the Book of Mormon as "islands of the sea" from the perspective of Nephi, Lehi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni, then among those many migrations the idea of there being a descendant among the house of Israel named "Zelph" who was a warrior leader is not implausible to me at all, particularly in light of the teachings of Isaiah, whom I consider a singularly important prophet who spoke of the atonement of Jesus Christ in rich splendor and also spoke of the scattering and gathering of Israel and of the last days (the end times before and during the Millennium).

I am familiar with this type of answer and might argue against it depending on what theory of BOM geography you hold, but that would take us off topic. I am making a different point, which you have missed. My point was not to promote any particular position about Zelph, but merely to give an example of a prophetic claim, often discussed in controversial literature, that we can all agree is far, far outside the Standard Works, but which it is nevertheless unreasonable for a Mormon to disbelieve. I mentioned Joseph Fielding Smith agreed with me on this. Of course, I don’t know if he was aware that the Zelph account in the History of the Church was not written by Smith, but in any case, the event is well-attested historically even if Smith’s own words are lost. If we want to know if Smith was a prophet, then the Zelph story is the kind of evidence than can in principle be brought to bear on the question, independent of any “unanimous voice” about its veracity. The fact that you have attempted to give an account of it reinforces my point. Why hasten to defend the Zelph story unless you realize you need to, even though it is not close to being official doctrine by your own definition?

[NOTE: When I say it is unreasonable for a Mormon to disbelieve the Zelph story, I do not exclude critical evaluations of the different testimonies. I just mean that the undisputed points of the story clearly have to be true.]

[soren1]

The Civil War prophecy was known to exist by many members after it was given in December 1832. I would say that the decision to place Section 87 into the Doctrine and Covenants was made with cognizance that it includes prophecies pertinent to the entire period leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, so although I personally disagree as to your second sentence, the importance of that Section has to do with present events on the earth and still-future events.

If they said the text originated when it was published or when it was placed into the Standard Works, then yes it would be a misrepresentation since it originated in December 1832.

My second sentence is not controversial: “That is part of the LDS canon, but was not entered into D&C until the Civil War itself broke out.” That is an historical fact, of no great significance in itself, except that it creates a question about the prophesy's doctrinal status in the interim. I am not making any weird claims about when the prophecy originated. I am asking only about when it became doctrinal.

In pointing out that the prophecy has to do with future events, I think you are implying that in the interim time there couldn’t be a real argument against it, since no critic could reason from his own knowledge of the future. But that misses the point again. Could it in principle have been included in discussion of the truth or falsity of Mormonism? Let’s say somebody made an argument against it, any argument, in fact a bad argument. Pretend it is 1856. You are a pioneer in Utah and a very sentimental atheist comes up to you with a copy and says, “I don’t think it is just for God to send famine and plague on this great nation.” How do you answer? Do you say, “Well that isn’t really doctrine anyway – no unanimous voice for that one!” or do you defend God’s justice and point out that his “chastening hand” is one that corrects as well as reproves evildoers, and contempt for God’s judgment the attitude only of those who refuse to acknowledge the gravity of sin? On your account of LDS doctrine, the first answer would be the appropriate one, but isn’t it obvious that an answer like the second is the only right way to go? Is it not clear that maintaining the credibility of the text despite its lack of formal inclusion in the Standard Works is the only legitimate way to defend it? The mere fact that it comes from a prophet and claims to be revealed requires you to believe it or else reject the prophet.

[minder bender]

[quote=1voice;9059603]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

1voice,



It is an act of intercession when a person obeys Jesus' admonition to "pray for your enemies and those that despitefully use you". The obvious purpose is so that God will cause them to wake up to the truth so that their soul will be saved.






I agree, Jesus did the heavy lifting / work of atonement all by himself. ... and now He, according to the Bible, sits at God's right hand and intercedes for us. His sacrifice, the purpose of his sacrifice, was to tear the veil that separated God and man... and keep it open (so that we can have permanent access to the throne of God the Father)... The veil in the Temple in Jerusalem actually tore from top to bottom the day that Jesus died... He did his job... So that he could restore our right and responsibility to go directly to God... "Our Father, who art in heaven" and "ask for anything in my (Jesus) name". Anything ... means ANYTHING... Including the salvation of loved ones as well as enemies. Christ's purpose was and is to develop kings and priests (sons of God) not in some future ... but here and now. with the same authority that Jesus possesses ...which is to "come boldly before the throne of grace" and "make our requests (for anything) known to God." because ..."The word (of faith that moves mountains) is nigh thee and in thy mouth" ... That is intercession.

I agree with all of the above ......though I don't necessarily see:- " The obvious purpose is so that God will cause them to wake up to the truth so that their soul will be saved." is the true interpretation of that statement.
I think that in praying for the other you are in fact praying for yourself.

I was given a example once by a priest who said if you accuse your brother or see fault of a brother and point your finger (so to speak) at a brother for ANY reason in accusation, that one finger is pointing to your brother but three are pointing BACK to yourself. So, we must be careful and mindful were we find fault (see those 'living in sin') because the very action of seeing fault means it is firstly in yourself.(mostly hidden).....and THAT is why your can actually see it in another. In interceeding for your brother, you are praying for yourself. That is why Jesus was so adamant that you love God first and your neighbour as yourself.

[RebeccaJ]

Originally Posted by soren1

ParkerD,

I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it.

ParkerD seems to be a different person.

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by soren1

ParkerD,

I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it, since I responded to this way back when. I neither was nor am disputing that D&C 107 teaches a doctrine of unanimous voice. I am disputing whether unanimous voice is presented in the text as a standard for defining LDS doctrine. In particular, I say that all of the relevant passages deal only with decisions about the governance in the church rather than judgments about doctrine.

Jul 5, '10, 8:47 am
ParkerD
Regular Member

Join Date: March 17, 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,600
Religion: LDS Church
Re: Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"
Quote:
Originally Posted by soren1
The text from D&C that you use to support "united counsel" has very little to do with this topic, and you must provide warrant for at least two crucial premises if you are going to make a case from it. The two main presuppositions you need to justify are as follows:

1. The decision-making of the quorums embraces the truth-contents of revealed doctrine. It is quite obvious that the text is referring to matters of counsel, which Mormons typically, and rightly, distinguish from doctrine. This is most evident in the text from the use of the word "decision." A decision is a deliberative judgment regarding how to attain a certain end. In short, it is a determination of counsel. For instance, one decides where the best place to build a Temple is. One does not, however, "decide" whether God has commanded that Temples should be built! That is a matter of discernment, which is a different type of judgment. Because of the heavy influence of voluntarist philosophy on modern American society, especially in the last century, the proper meaning of “decision” is lost to the understanding of many people, as in Fox News's misuse of the word in its phrase "We report, you decide." Yet in 1835, which is what matters for us here, the precise meaning of “decide” had not become obscure, and can be found in its correct usage throughout the literature of the period. Jefferson, for example, is very consistent in the way he uses it. One can claim to "decide" which of God's revealed doctrines to proclaim at a given time, but not which doctrines are true.

2. The united counsel doctrine is comprehensive of all authoritative decisions. The text only says that non-unanimous decisions have less validity and bring fewer blessing than unanimous ones. This says nothing about such decisions being necessary for all authority as such. For instance, if a Catholic says, "The pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra," it would be silly to conclude from this that only ex cathedra statements are binding upon Catholics, to the exclusion of other sources like ecumenical counsels. It is a limitation on the pope's authority, not a limitation to the pope's authority. Likewise, the preference in D&C 107 for united counsel defines when quorums are speaking with maximal authority, not when prophets are doing so. It is one thing to say that “every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same” and another to say that “every decision made must be by unanimous voice of the quorums.” The former does not entail the latter.


...

Soren1,

I remembered that I had brought it up before, but no I didn't remember with whom and no I didn't remember the rationale you used to put forward your point of view about D & C 107 to refute the points that I made at that time in July 2010 about "united counsel". Above and here below are parts of that conversation, which I am posting here to show that I have looked this up and can follow what you were referring to, so that I have both of your replies in mind as I consider your point of view and clarify mine.

Soren1,
Anyone who has done as much research as you seem to have done about the LDS church, surely will have come across the situation of the change that occurred in June 1978 with respect to all worthy men being enabled to hold the priesthood (for which I shouted "hooray"), and will have come across the very principle of united counsel as being a very important part of the timing of that change. Until the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency were united about that change, it was not considered "ready" to be brought forward to the members of the LDS church, whether considered years earlier by those same quorums. So this is an established principle, and it is very familiar to the Twelve Apostles and is repeatedly and openly discussed by them in various settings which I have seen, read, and otherwise been party to. I assure you I have experience that backs up that principle of united counsel and consent, and it is very much practiced by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Was it practiced well by BY in his day? I would say it appears not. Is that a "mistake"? I would say it appears so. But that was then, and this is now, and I am very comfortable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of my day and time are practicing the principle and that is for the benefit and blessing of all the members of the LDS church. But it may be of no consequence to you.

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by soren1

ParkerD,

There is an important distinction to be made between “judgment” and “decision.” The difference is between the perception of truth and choices regarding the best means to attain an end. The first is an act of the intellect; the second is an act of the will guided by intellect. This distinction is largely lost on modern Americans, but it was well understood prior to the twentieth century. If you read old American writers like Irving, Hawthorn, Melville, Twain, you will see they never confuse their meanings. No one ever says, “I decided the water was too cold to swim, and judged not to dive in.” They say, “I judged the water was too cold to swim, and decided not to dive.”

In modern times, the difference in meaning between these words is almost totally eroded, and there is quite a history as to why. It is mainly because of the influence of nihilist and existentialist philosophy. In classical terms, knowledge of the good was a matter of judgment. Value was known to have a certain objectivity, but Hume and Kant both denied that there is objective value, and concluded that goodness was defined subjectively. On that theory, if I state my judgment that “My daughter has value,” this is really a statement about myself rather than her: she has value because I value her. This subjectivization of judgment paved the way for Nietzsche, who went further to say that the will over and above the intellect was the source of human vitality. The goodness of a person’s desire was not measured by truth; rather desire had ultimately primacy, and the greatest experience in life was to bring truth into conformity with desire through power. By making the will the source of value, Nietzsche gave to decision a role that was previously reserved for judgment. Considerations of both fact and value became in his philosophy matters of decision, simply. As man-centered philosophies based on radical self-determination grew in the Western world, the distinction between judgment and decision fell into eclipse, and is now almost globally ignored. The words are used almost interchangeably as, for example, when Fox News says “We report; you decide,” when it ought to say “You judge.”

... Nietzsche was born in the same year Joseph Smith died, and before then, people know what the difference between judgment and decision was. It is, therefore, anachronistic to read the following passage as a text about judgment of truth:

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—A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men. (D&C 107 27-29)

Truth is not subject to decision. Rather, valid decisions presuppose some orientation to the truth, which is not determined by decision but by judgment. No one decides what God has revealed. We judge that he has revealed and then decide what we are going to do about it. When our decisions accord with good judgment, they bring the fruit of good works. Consequently, the teaching in this passage is about decisions to act based upon prior judgments of truth, which are presupposed in deliberation and decision and not determined by them. Hence, this is not a text about doctrine, though it presupposes it.

Soren1,

I disagree with your view of the intent of the meaning of the word "decision" in D&C 107:27-29. One needs to first add verses 30 and 31 to the context of the passage. Verse 30 talks about characteristics of the decision and the decision-making, and verse 31 says "Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord." So the words "the knowledge of the Lord" tie back to the word "decisions" and that means regardless of what someone else might think the use of a word "decision" meant in 1835, it meant in this revelation decisions leading to being "fruitful in the knowledge of the Lord", which may not mean "doctrine" or "doctrinal truth" or "doctrinal validity" to you but it does to me.

One of the functions of the Apostles in the original church was that the Apostles counseled together, sometimes openly and sometimes with discord that was noted, such as the situation that Paul wrote about to the Galatians (see Galatians 2:11, 12). This shows an example of how counsel improved the way Gentile converts were treated in the original church, but also shows an example that the acknowledged leader (Peter) was the one who needed the advice and counsel of one (Paul) who had particular expertise from personal experience and from his study of the whole message of Isaiah and others about the gathering of the Gentiles.


An example of how "doctrine" became "voted upon" and accepted as "doctrinal scripture" is the case of the voting that was done concerning the "Book of Commandments" in 1831, and specifically the objection of William E McLellin and how his objection was handled. (See D&C 67 and its introductory heading). William E McLellin was given the opportunity to see if he could come up with better language to convey the revealed truths, and he tried but was unsuccessful. This is an example of how a counsel situation was handled and how the "united consent" principle was treated as important regarding the acceptance by the quorums of the church and the members of doctrinal scripture--that there was a vote, and it was treated as an important, even vital thing to be done.

[ParkerD]

Soren1,

I think from what I've observed, Latter-day Saints view the way God grants truths (of which He obviously knows all truth and is its Author) to humankind in a pattern that is viewed differently than by Catholics. We Latter-day Saints believe there are truths "yet to be revealed", which should come as no surprise to most who have studied Latter-day Saint teachings, Article of Faith 9, or the Book of Mormon. This process is often presented as a situation that will be based on the faith and readiness of the people (which may include members or also be a larger group than just members).

My point is that because this expectation is prominent in how we view the unfolding of history, particularly as the world moves toward the Millennium, then the concept of the "united voice" of the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles, and the preparation the members at large have through their own spiritual growth and having studied the gospel and lived by its teachings, I think is viewed as being increasingly important.

God will be ready when it is the right time and when "we" are ready, for "many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God" and for such scriptures as those which will give an account of some of the other scattered tribes of the house of Israel. So the view that there will be things still to be learned that will be truths from God given to people on this earth is a basic part of our looking forward to the future, whether fifty years from now or whatever timetable it may be.