“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” — D&C 1:38
The above verse is generally pulled out as supporting evidence of the idea that we need to follow everything leadership says, because whether by the Lord’s voice or theirs, God views it as equal. That is not the part I want to address. Rock Waterman does a great job of addressing that portion of this verse HERE.
What I want to focus on is the first part, in that the Lord declares that He does not excuse Himself in anything He says. What does that mean?
When a person excuses themselves for something they have spoken, they are acknowledging that what they spoke is not now correct—if it ever was—and should be disregarded. The excused statement should be considered null and void as of the time that the speaker excuses themselves.
But apparently the Lord says He doesn’t do this with His words. The heavens and earth will pass away, but not His words. They remain in full effect, unexcused.
So what words of His do we have, which we are to recognize have not been nullified? Which words of His do we have which are not to be disregarded, set at naught, or considered no longer relevant? The answer of course, is scripture.
“And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.” — D&C 68:4-5
The Lord has His words to us recorded as scripture, and those words are not going to be excused by Him. He’s not going to say “you know, I actually think I want to recant Alma chapter 32, so if you guys can just get rid of that and write something else, that would be great.” This is why we are able to use the scriptures as a standard by which to measure all purported, subsequent revelations, and to always inform our understanding and conduct. Those words are eternal, to be respected at al times. Joseph Smith made many remarks to this effect.
“How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? …by his contradicting a former revelation.” — TPJS, pp. 214-215.
“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” — DHC 4:461
“And again, the process of laboring with members: We are to deal with them precisely as the Scriptures direct.” — Order for Instruction in the Church (Kirtland, April 13, 1833)
The scriptures themselves also tell us how important they are, to be honored and upheld, with no word of their being superseded by anyone.
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” — Matthew 22:29
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” — John 10:35
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” — 2 Timothy 3:16
“Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” — Alma 13:20
“Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.” — D&C 20:80
We think we’re totally okay with accepting this idea, but things get uncomfortable the moment a person starts noting precise instances wherein Joseph’s successors have altered teachings, procedures and ordinances from what is laid out in scripture. Are you aware of these things in the scriptures?:
- Priests are to only administer sacrament in the absence of elders (D&C 20:46-51).
- The LDS Church is numbered with the Gentiles, not the house of Israel (BoM title page; D&C 109:60).
- This body of Gentiles will actually reject the fullness of the gospel and lose it (3 Nephi 16:10)
- A prophet can definitely lead you astray (1 Kings 13:11-26, including JST footnotes)
There are dozens more examples, if not hundreds. Yet so few can bear the idea that if a new revelation contradicts an established former one, the source of the new revelation ain’t exactly trustworthy. Mentioning these contradictions is the best trigger for getting someone to whip out and abuse D&C 1:38, and rail on about the changes being evidence of "continuing revelation."
The problem is that this necessarily assumes that the living leaders qualify as “His servants,” and that those who wrote the scriptures do not. For if they were both truly considered legitimate servants, we would actually have to battle with the paradox of a God who does not excuse Himself doing precisely that, making the God of Truth a liar.
TEACHINGS WITH EXPIRATION DATES
Now, there have been times when the Lord has given a commandment that was intended only to be temporary. It was not to be understood as an eternal principle. The Law of Moses, for example. The Law of Moses was always understood to have an expiration date (2 Nephi 25:30; Matthew 5:17-18). When it finally ended, that was also declared (3 Nephi 9:17; Galatians 3:23-25). Never at any time has it been understood to be an eternal principle. This meant that when differing requirements and permissions came into play with its end, there was no need for concern about conflict between the two (which isn't to say that people weren't troubled, just that it was unnecessary).
However, if God doesn’t declare the temporary nature of a thing He gives us, do we really have the right to assume that it is properly discarded simply because some head honcho says so? Especially with no explanation of how the abandoned teaching or commandment was a law that was fulfilled and thereby done away with? Or without a declared revelation from God explaining the ending or alteration of the teaching? We should be careful about discarding truths or commandments that the Lord still considers valid and binding, regardless of what men might tell us.
PRIMACY OF JOSEPH SMITH IN OUR DISPENSATION
When looking at scripture and what gets abused or neglected, we must look at what has happened with Joseph Smith. Not only was Joseph a prophet, he was the head of a dispensation, and personally responsible for a large helping of our scripture, through translation and revelation. Yet we have adopted a rather cavalier attitude about setting aside what he gave us anytime some successor teaches or requires something which contradicts what we have through Joseph.
Think about that. What dispensation in history has seen its subsequent prophets and leaders supersede their dispensation head? Was Moses’ Law overthrown by any of the prophets within his dispensation? Were Christ’s words overthrown by His apostles once He left? Adam? Enoch? Any of them? Did any dispensation heads have “living prophets” come afterward and oust them and their communications from God by virtue of mere breath? This affliction appears to be unique to Joseph Smith.
But Joseph specifically warned against people taking the gospel teachings in any direction other than what he laid out for their understanding.
”…if any man preach any other gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed…" (Historical Record 7:548)
So according to Joseph, if an individual contradicts what he taught and gave us in scripture, regardless of their status in an organization, that person will be cursed. We can therefore disregard their contradictory comments, lest we also become cursed. We even have quotes from subsequent leadership to that effect.
“And if [a leader] says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them ‘standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.” — Harold B. Lee
On the other hand, we have our current teachings which are easily summarized within The 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet address, delivered by Ezra Benson, who would later become President of the Church. That talk contains this gem:
“Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”
That, my friends, is bullshit. Utter, damnable, devilish bullshit. “Precedence” assumes outright that there will be conflicts, and grants whichever guy happens to be alive de facto correctness over those who are dead. This allows church leaders to claim carte blanche Divine approval because they are the “living” prophets, and this talk has been enshrined as justification on LDS.org and in general conference addresses. But here’s the biggest flaw in that logic:
If the prophets’ words are all supposed to be coming from God, He’s been alive the whole damn time. Whoopsies.
His life spans from before the prophets graced the earth, and continues after their bodies return to the dust. His words are not invalidated by death, because He lives. And He claims the words of scripture as His own. At best, this means the “living prophets” can deliver words equal to those found in scripture, but they simply cannot supersede them; for their author is still alive, and the living God supersedes the living prophets.
I have a hard time understanding why these matters are so offensive to so much of the leadership and membership of the church. Why is so scary and difficult to hold up a teaching in the scriptures on one hand, and a conflicting teaching of a leader on the other, looking squarely at both of them, and make an informed decision as to which should be discarded? Why is the very act of holding both of them up for examination now being considered “apostasy” and grounds for excommunication? Aren’t we all supposed to be trying to humble ourselves and help teach one another and follow God above all else? Or are we supposed to be shutting up, getting in line and obeying whatever the highest ranked arm of the flesh has to say?
We can accept the scriptures and use them as a standard against which to measure the new words we hear from men, as Joseph Smith recommends. Or we can measure the scriptures against the words of the “living prophets” and discard the scriptures when there is conflict, as Ezra Benson recommended. We cannot practice both, they are mutually exclusive. Which will you choose?
