What Are Reasonable Expectations Of Church Leaders?
#1
Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:49 AM
When is it reasonable for me to expect them to be invariably correct?
Is it reasonable to expect me to discern that a comment made in general conference by an apostle is incorrect and does not apply? How can I tell if I am off base in my personal revelation?
#2
Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:44 AM
If a statement is added to the Standard Works of the Church then I then am able to recognize it as a truth that I should abide.
For me, apostles are prophets are first are foremost men. They each have been called of God to serve in various capacities; they serve willingly and they try to serve in the best way they are capable. However, as men they will fall short of the mark, will err, and will fail. These failures should not be a reflection of their calling or the mantle they wear, but it should reflect that they are just men and exhibit the frailties of all mankind.
Anyone that knows the scriptures must acknowledge that all the men that God has called to serve have been frail and weak. The leaders of the Latter-day Church are no weaker than the leaders of Christ's ancient Church. The leaders of Christ's ancient Church were no weaker than the prophets called in ancient Israel. When we take leadership in context of the examples that have been set for us from the dawn of time, it is readily apparent that men are always imperfect and yet God takes their weaknesses and from these instruments his Will is accomplished. That is the truly amazing thing about God; he is willing to work with each of us, to love us, to use us, and never rejects the willing heart that seeks to serve.
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
#3
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:54 AM
Goodbye! Remember, no "what if" threads allowed today!
#4
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:23 AM
http://en.fairmormon...eeing_the_truth
FWIW
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
#5
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:38 AM
bu11fr0g, on 30 April 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:
Quote
Quote
Quote
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
#6
Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:36 AM
The exception would be for things presented to the entire Church as doctrine. Such becomes binding upon us as those who have entered into the covenant.
#7
Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:18 PM
bu11fr0g, on 30 April 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:
When is it reasonable for me to expect them to be invariably correct?
Is it reasonable to expect me to discern that a comment made in general conference by an apostle is incorrect and does not apply? How can I tell if I am off base in my personal revelation?
Develop your relationship to the point that you yourself can and do receive personal revelation on things pertinent to you. Then ask and wait for the answers.
#8
Posted 30 April 2012 - 09:27 PM
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
#9
Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:29 PM
Edited by Messenger, 03 May 2012 - 07:31 PM.
Goodbye! Remember, no "what if" threads allowed today!
#10
Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:07 PM
Storm Rider, on 30 April 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:
past Apostle of said church was clearly false and needed to be treated as a heretical teaching?
Thanks,
Jim
#11
Posted 04 May 2012 - 04:14 PM
theplains, on 03 May 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:
Have you ever known any Apostle in the history of the Mormon Church to state that something taught by a present or
past Apostle of said church was clearly false and needed to be treated as a heretical teaching?
Thanks,
Jim
"A fool with a tool is still a fool" - Unknown
http://mormonthoughandopinion.blogspot.com/
#12
Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:02 AM
blood Atonement
Blacks as fence-sitters
Catholic church as Church of the devil
Oath of revenge against US
#13
Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:48 AM
bu11fr0g, on 05 May 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:
blood Atonement
Blacks as fence-sitters
Catholic church as Church of the devil
Oath of revenge against US
Yup, that is the list that I would write. "Theplains" does this work for you?
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
#14
Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:39 AM
#15
Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:44 AM
mercyngrace, on 30 April 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:
When you are edified (D&C 50).
This means that when a prophet says only one pair of earrings is appropriate, and some women are edified and others aren't, then the words of the prophets are only subjectively true.
H.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes. --Sir Isaac Newton
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity --Father William of Ockham
#16
Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:13 AM
Monster, on 06 May 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:
It's fine if you reject this latter claim, but recognize that you are judging them only partly by what they claim and partly by your own conception of what it means to be a prophet.
#17
Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:21 AM
Monster, on 06 May 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:
And what do you based your conclusion for infallibility on?
#18
Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:22 AM
LDSToronto, on 06 May 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:
This means that when a prophet says only one pair of earrings is appropriate, and some women are edified and others aren't, then the words of the prophets are only subjectively true.
H.
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#19
Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:24 AM
LDSToronto, on 06 May 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:
Yes, in that you may determine, by the Spirit, that such advice was given according to their own preferences and did necessarily come from God.
No, in that if I believe that the prophet has been authorized by God to guide the church and set policy for it, then I should recognize that God will support those policies and that guidance, even if it was not initiated by Him.
LDS have been given no promise that their leaders will be factually accurate in all their statements. They have been assured that they will be blessed for following their leaders' counsel.
#20
Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:26 AM
bu11fr0g, on 30 April 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:
When is it reasonable for me to expect them to be invariably correct?
Is it reasonable to expect me to discern that a comment made in general conference by an apostle is incorrect and does not apply? How can I tell if I am off base in my personal revelation?
No harm done. But where they right? I still don't know.
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




