Where Todd Wood and Jettboy can have it Out

For fear of a looming thread-jack starting here, I opened this thread.

Todd wants to rehash the whole “What is Mormon theology, and who has the authority to define it” debate:

I thought Yahweh was the lesser god for many LDS.

Who is the proper authority that I can talk to for clearing up my confusion, YD? A Prophet? Any Apostle?

And if the NRSV is authoritative, why doesn’t the modern First Presidency correct this in the KJV?

He later remarks:

[W]hen you live in the Corridor, the proper human authority in speaking for God is a chief emphasis. Have you ever had LDS elders knock on your door and ask you in the conversation, “What is the basis for your authority?” Talk about standard routine, come over to S.E. Idaho for a spell.

Can I not basically chalk up this whole detailed post by TYD to LDS speculation and nothing more? I wonder how many Ammonites I could find tomorrow who would agree with me.

We are talking about more than a mere “whine”, this is a big wall of LDS culturalreality, friend.

And don’t you ever find First Presidency platitudes to be stale. We believe the Bible as far as it has been translated correctly – pious words, no action. How many years has it been?

YD is asking serious questions in the title of this post. It’s about God Almighty. So why can’t LDS Prophets and Apostles answer the questions clearly? The Church boast is in them.

To which Jettboy responds:

Although Todd has a slight point, it isn’t one based on Mormon doctrine, but Mormon culture. The answer to his question about clearing things up is actually very easy. You ask G-d since Mormons believe in personal revelation as much as priesthood authority. It also assumes Mormonism has inflexible doctrines typical of orthodox creedal Christianity. His questions also hold to primitive (yes, I said it that way) ideas about scripture that again is not based on Mormon doctrine, but culture that has been borrowed from creedal Protestantism.

To clear it up as much as possible for those listening to Todd, and not Todd himself who seems to not care:

Mormon belief in prophetic authority is not based on what they teach (although they have the authority to make and clear up doctrinal statements), but on their right of governance. Not anyone can do just anything within the LDS Church, as they must be called and ordained for such actions or positions.

Theology is always in flux in Mormonism at the individual and sometimes institutional level, and that drives creedal Christians crazy. As long as teachings don’t go outside the boundaries of a few sometimes indefinite main beliefs, teachings and doctrine is debatable.

The KJV has been used by the LDS Church because it is a foundational document that ties all scripture together in the English language. However, even in General Conference where prophets and apostles pontificate, other Biblical translations have been used on occasional for authoritative quotes. Pointed out above, the KJV is an English translation and is not used for other language additions, and of course cannot be. My guess is that NO Christian church uses ONLY the KJV when preaching to those of other languages.

Hope that helps, although Todd is probably the only one that will read this who needs this information. I really wish the general Mormon membership would drop the theory that the KJV represents an inerrancy translation of the Bible. I believe it does represent the best translation with the most literary aesthetics available. However, taken too far, learning and doctrinal understanding becomes hindered.

For those interested, I’ve previously posted some thoughts on related issues here and here. I’m more than happy to reengage the ideas in those posts. I suppose past debates about this in the Bloggernacle would also be helpful here, please link to the most useful.