I think we’ve explored this topic as thoroughly as we should for the moment. I’m going to close it now, and get on to some more important temple subjects (after I finish this Rough Stone Rolling project!). I think my blog has wandered…

Thanks once again.

Very interesting post…and outcome. As long as you continue to defend the words of the prophets, as you are doing here, I will support your efforts. You’ve disturbed a hornet’s nest of pent-up emotions here and it’s never easy to deal with the blowback. But what “you” have said by quoting a prophet of the Lord is 100% correct and you shouldn’t be expected to apologize for that.

To anyone who believes otherwise, please re-read the words of Abinadi to King Noah and his “priests”. They wanted nothing but good news and soft words of praise and flattery from Abinadi because they had deluded themselves into thinking that their particular interpretation of the Law of Moses was more righteous than the orthodoxy of the time. Consequently, when they demanded to be told things like “how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that publish good tidings”, they were sorely disappointed.

Please note that I’m not implying that Bryce is Abinadi. I’m also not pretending to have all knowledge or to be perfect or any of that. I shouldn’t even have to state that because it’s something we all know based on our personal experiences with our own shortcomings.

I’m simply stating that, based on my reading of the comments excoriating Bryce for daring to open his mouth to his fellow members, to teach and exhort and share testimony of gospel teachings as we are all commanded to do one with another, he’s doing so by quoting a prophet of God. As others have stated earlier, President Lee’s talk is nearly identical (except for then vs. now definitions and vocabulary) to ones I keep hearing at every General Conference I’ve ever listened to up until April 2008. And, I expect that it will be so in the future.

The scriptures (the Iron Rod) and the Holy Ghost (represented by the Liahona) work in unison. They constantly remind us that if we can’t take the heat of the words of the prophets while in this life, which is a time to prepare to meet God, we will certainly not feel comfortable with that teaching when we are reminded of it after this mortal existence.

My apologies to all.

Bryce, I do appreciate your posts about the temple. Keep them coming.

I think that the claim that liberal Mormons are indistinguishable from NOMs is a ridiculous statement. So, yeah, I continue to think a post based on that premise is also ridiculous. Hugh W. Nibley is the archetypal liberal Mormon. He critized the church more than anybody, according to Elder Maxwell, he took liberties with the WoW by his own admission, and had unorthodox views on just about everything, in addition to being on the far left politically. I find it very amusing that Bryce holds Nibley up as the formemost Mormon apologist on one hand and then reads him right out of the church with this post.

The figures on excommunications come straight from Dallin H. Oaks.

Geoff, if somebody in a public forum said that conservative Mormons were no different from Fundamentalist Mormons, I certainly hope you would speak up. That is a stupid and unfounded claim to make, and it deserves to be put out of its misery. Whoever wanted to drag his blog through the mud (and, by extension, the good name of an apostle and the reputation of the church) by making it is certainly free to do so, but don’t you think he should expect some blowback?

If President Lee did not feel the need to change the policy, he would not have been willing to spend the amount of time on his knees that President Kimball did. I would agree with that assumption. If someone does not desire further light and knowledge on a subject then the Lord will not give it to them. Brother Nibley always stressed that aspect of the scriptures.

I agree that we can’t know why the Lord called President Lee home so quickly, but I suspect you hit it on the head: The Lord wanted President Kimball to be president. Why? David O. McKay’s biography gives some insight into President Lee’s feeling about the blacks and the priesthood issue. If we didn’t have President Kimball who spend hours and hours praying for and seeking revelation on this issue, the revelation may have not come when it did.

*awaits the tar and feathers*

I liked President Lee’s talk. I disagree that the “rod of iron” represents “the gospel,” however. A careful reading of the scriptures equates the “word of God” with revelation. President Lee was one of the prophets who taught us that the scriptures take precedence over any teachings by any man in the church of any calling whether high or low. Consider the following:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203)

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

"If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man's own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth." (Harold B. Lee, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

"The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine." (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

"One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence." (Bruce R McConkie, "Finding Answers to Gospel Questions," an open letter to all "honest truth seekers," dated 30 October 1980)

I don’t think it’s that big of a deal at all, but I do disagree with Pres. Lee (strictly speaking) on his definition of the iron rod being “the gospel.” I don’t think that really does much damage his talk, however.