They just don't make miracles like they used to

[Exiled]

59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He is saying this for our behalf; not because He needs it. His work and glory is to bring to pass the exaltation and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).
We cannot become the kind of beings we are supposed to be if we are not humble enough to give Him credit for all things and live His commandments. If we don't  we cannot obtain eternal life and we become lost. 
Kind of like a loving parent who wants his child to be the best he can be but the child is being disobedient and not recognizing the authority of the parent over him and not being willing to follow what he is taught or appreciate what he is given. 

 

Looking at religion as being man-made, obedience to God is really a proxy for obedience to religious leaders.  Hence, the need to give credit to God becomes a way to bolster religious authority in a society.  Always giving God credit or acknowledging his hand in all things becomes always giving religious authority unearned prominence.  Also, of course children need to obey parents if the parents are worthy of obedience.  However, I don't expect my child to always give me credit for whatever he does, if at all.  He needs to learn to leave the nest and progressively take responsibility for his actions and be confident in his successes as well.  (Maybe God is a helicopter parent of sorts, never fully wanting us to break away?  Although, I suspect it is the religious leaders.)  Anyway, I think if he always had to give me credit, he wouldn't fully become an adult.  I guess this is one of problems I have with religion - the stunted growth that results from relying on leaders in certain areas who supposedly speak to the invisible.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Looking at religion as being man-made, obedience to God is really a proxy for obedience to religious leaders.  Hence, the need to give credit to God becomes a way to bolster religious authority in a society.  Always giving God credit or acknowledging his hand in all things becomes always giving religious authority unearned prominence.  Also, of course children need to obey parents if the parents are worthy of obedience.  However, I don't expect my child to always give me credit for whatever he does, if at all.  He needs to learn to leave the nest and progressively take responsibility for his actions and be confident in his successes as well.  (Maybe God is a helicopter parent of sorts, never fully wanting us to break away?  Although, I suspect it is the religious leaders.)  Anyway, I think if he always had to give me credit, he wouldn't fully become an adult.  I guess this is one of problems I have with religion - the stunted growth that results from relying on leaders in certain areas who supposedly speak to the invisible.

Even though I have left the nest got married had kids and now grand kids I always continue to give credit to my parents who raised me right and I consider myself fully adult.
In the spiritual sense we are not finished being raised until we have died, been resurrected and have entered heaven. The main issue is a matter of humility.
The person who is faithful and humble is one who recognizes that God has given him everything. That kind of person is one who is worthy for exaltation in heaven. That's what religion is about.
Not sure how you can have any real meaningful conversation with most anyone on this board if you don't have a basic belief in God and who He is to us.  
Why are you came?  (Dr. Janosz Poha, Ghostbusters) 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng

Somebody mighta posted a link to that earlier ... but, great minds think alike!  

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Even though I have left the nest got married had kids and now grand kids I always continue to give credit to my parents who raised me right and I consider myself fully adult.
In the spiritual sense we are not finished being raised until we have died, been resurrected and have entered heaven. The main issue is a matter of humility.
The person who is faithful and humble is one who recognizes that God has given him everything. That kind of person is one who is worthy for exaltation in heaven. That's what religion is about.
Not sure how you can have any real meaningful conversation with most anyone on this board if you don't have a basic belief in God and who He is to us.  
Why are you came?  (Dr. Janosz Poha, Ghostbusters) 

Are you asking why I come here?  I told Robert Smith a while back that I might have a calling to oppose mormons, to keep them on their toes .....   In all seriousness, I still care for my "lost" brothers and sisters in mormonism, and want to save them, haha.  Ok, I am still interested in mormons and mormonism.  I have family that are still all in and so I need to keep up so I can properly respond to their outreach attempts. 

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

How does D&C 46 explain why people not using the LDS Priesthood are healed in the same manner and with the same reliability/frequency as those who do?

Did you read it? D&C 46:11 "...to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God." Verse 19-20 "And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed and to others it is given to have faith to heal." Don't need the priesthood.

Now I can't speak to particular claims. But certainly within Church history women often healed and used oil. That didn't change until in the period from around 1920-1940 when the brethren asked that people go to the Elders instead. That's policy and I think we should follow it. But there's nothing stopping non-Mormons from exercising spiritual gifts if they have them. The latter being the key of course.

[Marginal Gains]

17 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes, but it also requires the power through faith in Christ to be healed, which means that the person has so lived that he is entitled to have his sins remitted. Faith and priesthood authority combine to make it happen.
Of course the Elders don't give forgiveness; that comes from Christ. And there are of course other times a persons sins can be forgiven through repentance and or baptism for example. 

Are you saying that, although people can be faith healed without it, the added aspect of forgiveness can only come from Christ through the LDS Priesthood? So Catholics, for instance, aren’t forgiven by Christ when they go to confessional, even though Catholics think they are?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Did you read it? D&C 46:11 "...to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God." Verse 19-20 "And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed and to others it is given to have faith to heal." Don't need the priesthood.

Now I can't speak to particular claims. But certainly within Church history women often healed and used oil. That didn't change until in the period from around 1920-1940 when the brethren asked that people go to the Elders instead. That's policy and I think we should follow it. But there's nothing stopping non-Mormons from exercising spiritual gifts if they have them. The latter being the key of course.

Why don’t women in the Church have the ability to heal and use oil now?

If healings occur without the LDS Priesthood, what role does oil play in the process?

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Are you saying that, although people can be faith healed without it, the added aspect of forgiveness can only come from Christ through the LDS Priesthood? So Catholics, for instance, aren’t forgiven by Christ when they go to confessional, even though Catholics think they are?

Like I said forgiveness can come at other times as well. It doesn't require the priesthood but it does require true repentance, faith in God, and a change of heart to not want to commit the sin again.   This can happen to anyone regardless of their religion, but it is Christ who ultimately provides forgiveness.

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Miracles happen, yes, and sometimes the will of the Lord is expressed completely outside the bounds of the Christian faith, and sometimes outside the bounds of any faith whatsoever. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, as well.  But this doesn't mean that faith is unimportant, or invalid.  

As for myopia, I find that that it occurs everywhere, including in those of faith, and in those of little or no faith.  As Paul said, we see through a glass, darkly.  I would gently suggest that I do listen to and consider others, but perhaps you don't see me doing that.  

The greatest miracle of all has always been, and remains, the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

So it seems you agree with me, priesthood blessings may not bring any power to heal at all.  Great.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Did you read it? D&C 46:11 "...to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God." Verse 19-20 "And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed and to others it is given to have faith to heal." Don't need the priesthood.

Now I can't speak to particular claims. But certainly within Church history women often healed and used oil. That didn't change until in the period from around 1920-1940 when the brethren asked that people go to the Elders instead. That's policy and I think we should follow it. But there's nothing stopping non-Mormons from exercising spiritual gifts if they have them. The latter being the key of course.

I think that's been the whole point.  The priesthood is unnecessary to heal "Don't need the priesthood".  Some have been arguing against that for some reason.  Sadly for your point though, D&C 46 in context is assuming "every man" (leaving out women of course" is in reference to men who are part of the gospel. It doesn't include "non-believers" as they've been referred to here.  If it does, can you show that by the context of the phrases you quoted?  

Edited April 24, 2018 by stemelbow

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Are you saying that, although people can be faith healed without it, the added aspect of forgiveness can only come from Christ through the LDS Priesthood? So Catholics, for instance, aren’t forgiven by Christ when they go to confessional, even though Catholics think they are?

 

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

It doesn't require the priesthood...

Got it.

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Are you saying that, although people can be faith healed without it, the added aspect of forgiveness can only come from Christ through the LDS Priesthood? So Catholics, for instance, aren’t forgiven by Christ when they go to confessional, even though Catholics think they are?

 

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

It doesn't require the priesthood...

Got it.

Priesthood is not required to heal or obtain forgiveness of sins but if someone is healed through a priesthood blessing it is comforting to know that their sins have also been forgiven.

[Avatar4321]

23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Somebody mighta posted a link to that earlier ... but, great minds think alike!  

You know there is a second part to that quote that may be more appropriate for us 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's been the whole point.  The priesthood is unnecessary to heal "Don't need the priesthood".  Some have been arguing against that for some reason.  Sadly for your point though, D&C 46 in context is assuming "every man" (leaving out women of course" is in reference to men who are part of the gospel. It doesn't include "non-believers" as they've been referred to here.  If it does, can you show that by the context of the phrases you quoted?  

Depends upon how you interpret "every man" (which was in that era often seen as including women such as in "mankind.") To assume this is just referring to Mormons seems an uncommon interpretation. (Although I have encountered it a few times among Mormon writers) The reading that it's just to Mormons usually looks to verse 10 "I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your aminds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church." However it doesn't say they are only given to the Church. But certainly as needed spiritual gifts come in handy and often are tied to particular stewardships.

The traditional reading is the broader one though since there's a strong tradition that God works among all people and inspires them even if they don't have the fulness. Indeed there were Church pamphlets saying that many of events in the reformation as well as the founding of America were tied to spiritual gifts. If the founders and key figures of the reformation were inspired in what they did, then that's a spiritual gift. 

I've never seen a statement saying that only Mormons have spiritual gifts. Certainly there's a tradition that gifts were often rejected. That's not the same thing of course. The closest I could find was this talk by Elder Oaks where he says the spiritual gifts require first the gift of the Holy Ghost. However note that he says this after giving examples of people having gifts prior to their conversion. So his actual position is more complex than the language might appear. Also note that he gives examples of women in the Old Testament without the gift of the Holy Ghost exercising gifts. 

Edited April 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon how you interpret "every man" (which was in that era often seen as including women such as in "mankind.") To assume this is just referring to Mormons seems an uncommon interpretation. (Although I have encountered it a few times among Mormon writers) The reading that it's just to Mormons usually looks to verse 10 "I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your aminds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church." However it doesn't say they are only given to the Church. But certainly as needed spiritual gifts come in handy and often are tied to particular stewardships.

The traditional reading is the broader one though since there's a strong tradition that God works among all people and inspires them even if they don't have the fulness. Indeed there were Church pamphlets saying that many of events in the reformation as well as the founding of America were tied to spiritual gifts. If the founders and key figures of the reformation were inspired in what they did, then that's a spiritual gift. 

I've never seen a statement saying that only Mormons have spiritual gifts. Certainly there's a tradition that gifts were often rejected. That's not the same thing of course. The closest I could find was this talk by Elder Oaks where he says the spiritual gifts require first the gift of the Holy Ghost. However note that he says this after giving examples of people having gifts prior to their conversion. So his actual position is more complex than the language might appear. Also note that he gives examples of women in the Old Testament without the gift of the Holy Ghost exercising gifts. 

Hello my good man.  I'm hoping we can explore this a little more.  Here's how I read D&C 46:

It opens by exclaiming, "Hearken, O ye people of my church...".  So I'll just bring to our attention that little detail, which may or may not play into the rest of the section.

Quote

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

We are to focus, or always remember, the gifts "that are given unto the church".  By "church" I assume we are talking about the LDS Church at this point.  

Here we learn that gifts spoken of here "are given unto the church".

At this point we hear

Quote

"For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

Taken alone, I'd agree this passage is saying everyone, even those outside the Church.  But in context it is talking about gifts given unto the Church; thus, it seems to me, "every man" is not every single male figure (and if you prefer to read it as including every female, then great) but are specifying those gifts given unto the Church.  If we go on reading, we see detailed gifts given to the Church.  Now, I would say, sure, some of these are had by those outside the Church.  But it doesn't seem to be saying that all these are given to people outside the Church.  

Starting in verse 27 we read:

Quote

And unto the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.

This is a tough one.  it seems the bishop should be able to discern gifts given to individuals "lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God".  What are those not of God?  It seems this is suggesting that those not of God are those void of spiritual gifts.  How could that be if every man (including women as you read it) is given a gift?  

Quote

28 And it shall come to pass that he that asketh in Spirit shall receive in Spirit;

29 That unto some it may be given to have all those gifts, that there may be a head, in order that every member may be profited thereby.

30 He that asketh in the Spirit asketh according to the will of God; wherefore it is done even as he asketh.

31 And again, I say unto you, all things must be done in the name of Christ, whatsoever you do in the Spirit;

32 And ye must give thanks unto God in the Spirit for whatsoever blessing ye are blessed with.

33 And ye must practice virtue and holiness before me continually. Even so. Amen.

So it says a couple things here, implying something very strongly.  Gifts seem to be given for those who ask.  Gifts are retained by those who give thanks unto God in the Spirit.  Gift receivers must practice virtue and holiness before God continually.

I can grant that God could give gifts to others not of the Church, but I don't think this section is a good one demonstrating that.  This is surely focused on gifts given to the Church, gifts given for the Church, and even suggests those not of the Church are void of gifts.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Hello my good man.  I'm hoping we can explore this a little more.  Here's how I read D&C 46:

It opens by exclaiming, "Hearken, O ye people of my church...".  So I'll just bring to our attention that little detail, which may or may not play into the rest of the section.

We are to focus, or always remember, the gifts "that are given unto the church".  By "church" I assume we are talking about the LDS Church at this point.  

Here we learn that gifts spoken of here "are given unto the church".

At this point we hear

Taken alone, I'd agree this passage is saying everyone, even those outside the Church.  But in context it is talking about gifts given unto the Church; thus, it seems to me, "every man" is not every single male figure (and if you prefer to read it as including every female, then great) but are specifying those gifts given unto the Church.  If we go on reading, we see detailed gifts given to the Church.  Now, I would say, sure, some of these are had by those outside the Church.  But it doesn't seem to be saying that all these are given to people outside the Church.  

Starting in verse 27 we read:

This is a tough one.  it seems the bishop should be able to discern gifts given to individuals "lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God".  What are those not of God?  It seems this is suggesting that those not of God are those void of spiritual gifts.  How could that be if every man (including women as you read it) is given a gift?  

So it says a couple things here, implying something very strongly.  Gifts seem to be given for those who ask.  Gifts are retained by those who give thanks unto God in the Spirit.  Gift receivers must practice virtue and holiness before God continually.

I can grant that God could give gifts to others not of the Church, but I don't think this section is a good one demonstrating that.  This is surely focused on gifts given to the Church, gifts given for the Church, and even suggests those not of the Church are void of gifts.  

Great comments Stem.

It seems there is often a willingness to reduce the claimed specialness of the church when it is demonstrated that others outside the church also experience special gifts, and/or when members/leaders within the church, who are purported to have spiritual gifts, don't seem to really have them. This board has discussed a great deal the problem experienced when those who have been given the gift of discernment don't seem to utilize that gift, allowing egregious wrongs to occur or by calling those who wouldn't be considered worthy by traditional LDS standards. When we get a bad guy like Bishop and we ask why his ecclesiastical superiors didn't discern the wrongness, and in fact continue to give him positions of authority, it is often excused as humanness, or "not every leader has the gift of discernment". Or we get discussions about how others outside the church are healed at the same rates as those who receive priesthood blessings. Again, the church claims of specialness seem to be dumbed down with comments about how the church never claims to have a monopoly on spiritual gifts.

This is what I'm struggling with. The church and leaders make claims of specialness, including spiritual gifts and priesthood power. What do we do with those claims when they seem to be verifiably false? Do we pretend that the church never makes claims of specialness? If so, what's the point of being members of a church that isn't special or unique in the eyes of God? What's the point of acting like the church leaders have special gifts of discernment and power from God? If those things really aren't unique, special claims, then what's the point? I'm guessing I'll see answers about how the church is special, how it does have special gifts, how it does have unique power, while simultaneously acknowledging that we can't really expect anything from that specialness.

Edited April 25, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Marginal Gains]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When we get a bad guy like Bishop and we ask why his ecclesiastical superiors didn't discern the wrongness, and in fact continue to give him positions of authority, it is often excused as humanness, or "not every leader has the gift of discernment".

I think there’s a very senior Church leader, yet to be named, who interviewed Bishops victim during her mission but after the alleged abuse, who also failed to act. 

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think there’s a very senior Church leader, yet to be named, who interviewed Bishops victim during her mission but after the alleged abuse, who also failed to act. 

Are you referring to what just came out regarding information that been previously redacted (in the police report)?  I just read about that this morning.

It seems she names Thomas S. Monson as the leader who she met with before going back out on her mission.  This would have been after the alleged sexual assault in the MTC.  But, do we know if she told him about the assault by Bishop?

(Maybe this should be discussed on a separate thread rather than to go off topic here.  I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has more input on this new information.)

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you referring to what just came out regarding information that been previously redacted (in the police report)?  I just read about that this morning.

It seems she names Thomas S. Monson as the leader who she met with before going back out on her mission.  This would have been after the alleged sexual assault in the MTC.  But, do we know if she told him about the assault by Bishop?

(Maybe this should be discussed on a separate thread rather than to go off topic here.  I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has more input on this new information.)

Ugh. I hadn't seen that. Would he have been in the First Presidency at the time? I forget the dates but IIRC the abuse was around 1983 and Monson was called to the 1st Presidency in 1985ish. I don't know if it makes a significant difference if he was in the 1st Pres or simply a member of the Q12 but in my mind it makes at least a small difference. I'm reminded of Pres Hinckley's role, as a member of the 1st Pres. with the whole Hoffman affair. It seems that even the leading prophets, seers and revelators have a pretty fallible gift of discernment and priesthood power.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ugh. I hadn't seen that. Would he have been in the First Presidency at the time? I forget the dates but IIRC the abuse was around 1983 and Monson was called to the 1st Presidency in 1985ish. I don't know if it makes a significant difference if he was in the 1st Pres or simply a member of the Q12 but in my mind it makes at least a small difference. I'm reminded of Pres Hinckley's role, as a member of the 1st Pres. with the whole Hoffman affair. It seems that even the leading prophets, seers and revelators have a pretty fallible gift of discernment and priesthood power.

If I'm understanding correctly, it was after she'd already served part of her mission (in Washington D.C.).  She had a mental breakdown, had come home for awhile (I don't know for how long), and then met with Monson prior to going back out on her mission (to Wisconsin).  I don't know if there's been a date for her meeting with him given.

Here's the portion of her statement that was previously redacted and not released:

Quote

"I had to meet with Elder Thomas S. Monson before I could be released back into the mission field."

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If I'm understanding correctly, it was after she'd already served part of her mission (in Washington D.C.).  She had a mental breakdown, had come home for awhile (I don't know for how long), and then met with Monson prior to going back out on her mission (to Wisconsin).  I don't know if there's been a date for her meeting with him given.

Here's the portion of her statement that was previously redacted and not released:

 

I saw this from radio free Mormon.  I’m hoping to see his source.  It’d be sad if she told monson of the rape, but I think it unlikely she did since she did not previously suggest she told him at the time she went home from her mission.  The scariest part of the alleged info uncovered from the police report is that the police are trying to cover up some vital info.  Why they redacted that info is going to be the bulk of the issue now.  On Mormondiscussions dot com (as opposed to dot org) Consiglieri offers good suggestions of why the coverup.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I saw this from radio free Mormon.  I’m hoping to see his source.  It’d be sad if she told monson of the rape, but I think it unlikely she did since she did not previously suggest she told him at the time she went home from her mission.  The scariest part of the alleged info uncovered from the police report is that the police are trying to cover up some vital info.  Why they redacted that info is going to be the bulk of the issue now.  On Mormondiscussions dot com (as opposed to dot org) Consiglieri offers good suggestions of why the coverup.  

Ok, thanks for the additional information.  (I just saw it being discussed over on the New Order Mormon forum this morning.)

If her mental breakdown was caused (in part) because of the sexual assault in the MTC, it seems strange to me that this wouldn't have been a part of her healing process (she saw mental health counselor after she came home) and a part of any interview regarding her being able to go back out and finish her mission.  But, she may have not mentioned it to Monson at all, of course.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I can grant that God could give gifts to others not of the Church, but I don't think this section is a good one demonstrating that.  This is surely focused on gifts given to the Church, gifts given for the Church, and even suggests those not of the Church are void of gifts.  

It's definitely speaking to the church, but I'm not sure I find your argument convincing. If it said, "every man in the Church..." I'd agree with you. But I don't think it makes sense to limit "every man" to "every man in the Church" without good reason. If it intended that then that's an odd way to put it (IMO).

But it's somewhat beside the point since you seem to admit later that it's Church doctrine that non-Mormons can have spiritual gifts. In which case I'll not debate the exegesis of 46 (and I'll fully admit yours is a valid reading) since the whole issue was whether Mormons think non-Mormons can have gifts. 

 

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church and leaders make claims of specialness, including spiritual gifts and priesthood power. What do we do with those claims when they seem to be verifiably false? Do we pretend that the church never makes claims of specialness?

I think we have to distinguish between the Church in aggregate and with respect to every particular. Put an other way, you are saying that if the Church is special those gifts are had by all and are always attended to. But of course that makes little sense if there is free will. The gifts tend to not function if you are not exercising faith and are not in tune with the spirit. So if leaders have free will, then they are able to not always be full of faith or in tune with the spirit. I'm sure if you talked to anyone in a leadership position they'd admit mistakes and not always listening to the spirit. At least every leader I've talked with has said that. The few minor leadership positions I held were certainly like that. The spirit isn't going to supersede the person.

Put an other way, I think you're trying to make "special" something it's not.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we have to distinguish between the Church in aggregate and with respect to every particular. Put an other way, you are saying that if the Church is special those gifts are had by all and are always attended to. But of course that makes little sense if there is free will. The gifts tend to not function if you are not exercising faith and are not in tune with the spirit. So if leaders have free will, then they are able to not always be full of faith or in tune with the spirit. I'm sure if you talked to anyone in a leadership position they'd admit mistakes and not always listening to the spirit. At least every leader I've talked with has said that. The few minor leadership positions I held were certainly like that. The spirit isn't going to supersede the person.

Put an other way, I think you're trying to make "special" something it's not.

You would have a point if the church taught and members believed that God is simply granting unto them the same spiritual gifts and power that all others, outside of the church, also have access to. If it's a gift or power accessible to all, inside or out of the church, and it can't really be counted on to overcome the weaknesses of the people, then how special is it? Not very.

Again, if the church makes such a big deal about having prophets and apostles, yet the spirit isn't going to supersede the person, then what is the value? If someone like Monson can't discern someone like Bishop is bad news, or Hinckley can't discern Hoffman's fraud, then are they really much of a protection. I'm not expecting perfection, but surely we should be able to count on God's prophets to be in tune enough with the spirit and have enough faith to have access to the spiritual gifts promised in scripture. Otherwise they are just good men doing the best they can, but nothing really special.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If it's a gift or power accessible to all, inside or out of the church, and it can't really be counted on to overcome the weaknesses of the people, then how special is it? Not very.

Umm, isn't the idea it's accessible to all pretty core Christian doctrine? Certainly the gift of the Holy Ghost as a permanent accompanment is more significant. But the idea God answers prayers and inspires people who bother to listen is foundational. How on earth would anyone be baptized without that?

Tying that to the specialness of the Church seems incorrect. What makes the Church special are the authorized ordinances. 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, if the church makes such a big deal about having prophets and apostles, yet the spirit isn't going to supersede the person, then what is the value? 

So nothing matters unless we can get rid of free will? You really believe that?