Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Tacit Notions/Expectations of Prophetic Infallibility: A Key Ingredient in Faith Crises?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You might want to cease the binary thinking.

That is precisely what I've been thinking about folks apparently harbor tacit notions of infallibility in the leaders of the Church.

Funny how we each think the other is prone to binary thinking.  Ah, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Funny how we each think the other is prone to binary thinking.  Ah, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm.  Aren't we all?  Yes or No.  True or False.  Right or wrong.

Is there supposedly some better option?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Criticizing an idea or teaching is not criticizing the person. 

I quite agree.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Disagreeing with Nelson that it's God's will to not use the nickname Mormon is not criticizing Nelson at all.  

That's a bit more of a judgment call.

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I notice I disagree with you a lot, but I've never seen such as criticizing you.  I simply disagree.  

Sounds good.  I'm glad we can generally be civil with each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

From what I can tell, most LDS simply use the yardstick they are given by the Church itself.

For example, let's take President Benson's talk about prophets (14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet).  Say what you will about the date and location of this talk, but it was more recently reiterated in a talk in General Conference, which is the doctrinal equivalent or "reading it into the canon", so it is a valid metric to discuss as applied to official Church teachings.
 

So with everything that has been discussed in this thread regarding "infallibility", "reliability", and the "fragility" of member expectations regarding the Prophets and teachings of Church leaders in general, let's see what was taught:

 

Hmmm...so the Prophet's words won't be limited to just doctrinal matters, and even when he talks about other stuff, we should still hold him to the standard of being a "Prophet."

Hmmm...so even if other people set up all sorts of qualifications and hoops to classify stuff the Prophet says as not qualifying as being "Prophetic" (and therefore if it's mistaken or wrong it shouldn't count as a strike against whether or not he's a "Prophet"), that's not necessarily the case.  The Prophet can speak as a Prophet about anything, and he won't necessarily say he's speaking as a Prophet but he is.

"Reject and suffer."

Yes, please tell me what the Church teaches us about fallible and unreliable leaders and how we can consider them to be mistaken about stuff and it won't be a big deal.

Thank you.  This is what I was trying to communicate in my dialogue with @Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hmm.  Aren't we all?  Yes or No.  True or False.  Right or wrong.

Is there supposedly some better option?

In assessing the human experience?  Certainly.

Is a man "good" or "evil?"  Or is he usually some combination of the two?

If a man "honest" or "dishonest?"  Or is there usually some generalized tendency toward one or the other other?  On a spectrum?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Hmmm...so the Prophet's words won't be limited to just doctrinal matters, and even when he talks about other stuff, we should still hold him to the standard of being a "Prophet."

That's not what I get from that statement though.  All I get from it is that prophets can be given revelation on any subject.

Quote

Hmmm...so even if other people set up all sorts of qualifications and hoops to classify stuff the Prophet says as not qualifying as being "Prophetic" (and therefore if it's mistaken or wrong it shouldn't count as a strike against whether or not he's a "Prophet"), that's not necessarily the case.  The Prophet can speak as a Prophet about anything, and he won't necessarily say he's speaking as a Prophet but he is.

This one doesn't seem problematic either.  Saying that scripture doesn't always start with "thus saith the Lord" isn't really an argument for infallibility.

Quote

"Reject and suffer."

Yes, please tell me what the Church teaches us about fallible and unreliable leaders and how we can consider them to be mistaken about stuff and it won't be a big deal.

I don't think Benson was saying anything about fallibility or infallibility here.   I think his statement is mirroring the teaching of D&C 1 and other scriptures on prophets, where Christ basically says "prophets are going to make mistakes--and when they do I'll handle it--but I expect you to follow them anyway and if you don't, you'll forfeit blessings that otherwise would have been your's."   

I can see how some members might read 'infallibility into Benson's words (because members read all sorts of stuff into things that isn't actually there) but I don't think you can really argue that Benson was teaching that prophets are perfect.  He was teaching that we should follow prophets to be blessed.  He says nothing on fallibility.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

That's a bit more of a judgment call.

 

Why?  I had you agreeing.  But on this there's some question?  Curious why you think so.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is precisely what I've been thinking about folks apparently harbor tacit notions of infallibility in the leaders of the Church.

Funny how we each think the other is prone to binary thinking.  Ah, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I added to that post.  You might wish to go back and read it if you really want more of my thoughts on the matter.  If you don't, I understand.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why might he want to do that?

Why?  If he is really seeking to understand my position (as he indicated) than I was letting him know what he'd need to do.

I added to my post to clarify that comment if you wish to go back and read it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you.  This is what I was trying to communicate in my dialogue with @Ahab

It would help you to distinguish between cinepro's addition to scripture (the words of the prophet) and what the prophet actually said and meant when he said what he said.

God can and has and will continue to reveal his mind and will on any issue God wants to address through the man who speaks as His prophet, when he does, and God won't require that man to have a college degree before doing so.

Seems easy enough for me to understand but somehow some people just do not understand what I do.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In assessing the human experience?  Certainly.

Is a man "good" or "evil?"  Or is he usually some combination of the two?

If a man "honest" or "dishonest?"  Or is there usually some generalized tendency toward one or the other other?  On a spectrum?

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

The issue was binary thinking, which someone suggested you might want to stop, and I think it would help all of us to sort our thoughts into one of the two binary options even if a thought is partially right and partially wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It would help you to distinguish between cinepro's addition to scripture (the words of the prophet) and what the prophet actually said and meant when he said what he said.

God can and has and will continue to reveal his mind and will on any issue God wants to address through the man who speaks as His prophet, when he does, and God won't require that man to have a college degree before doing so.

Seems easy enough for me to understand but somehow some people just do not understand what I do.

You highlighted one of the Fourteen Fundamentals in your post here.  And, yeah, I agree that God doesn’t require the prophet to have an advanced degree before revealing things to him.  

Many of the other Fourteen Fundamentals counter statements that are being made on this thread.  That seemed to be @cinepro‘s point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Many of the other Fourteen Fundamentals counter statements that are being made on this thread.  That seemed to be @cinepro‘s point. 

Yes many people make statements that counter statements from our Church leaders, which is why it's good to learn directly from God to find out what God really thinks.

As I do that I can see who agrees with God and who really doesn't, and prophets of God always do.  Always.  It's like it's built into the definition of what a prophet of God really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:
Quote
Quote

Disagreeing with Nelson that it's God's will to not use the nickname Mormon is not criticizing Nelson at all.  

That's a bit more of a judgment call.

Why?  I had you agreeing.  But on this there's some question?  Curious why you think so.  

There can be differences of opinion or taste as to all sorts of things.  And in those differences there really isn't a "right" opinion and a "wrong" opinion.

This does not hold for all things.  By way of example, the people marching around and screaming about how Donald Trump is "Not My President!" are up in the night.  Yes, he is your president.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.  Strong opinions and high emotions cannot alter fact, and the fact is that Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

Another example: If my employer sets a policy of no Facebook on work computers, is that a difference of "opinion?"  Pretty much.  Is that difference within the realm of reasonableness?  Certainly.  Am I at liberty to publicly reject it and use Facebook on work computers?  No.  I am the employee, and the employer gets to call the shots.  It would be unreasonable for me to defy a reasonable instruction from my employer and expect to keep th relationship in a good, healthy space.

Another example: Jack has a legal dispute with his neighbor, Jill.  Jack sues Jill.  The parties exchange information and evidence, and then each files a "motion for summary judgment."  The judge renders judgment in favor of Jill.  Is Jack at liberty to say "the judge got it wrong?"  I suppose.  But does that mean anything?  Not really.  The judge, you see, is the arbiter of the dispute.  It is the judge's call, and not Jack's opinion, that carries the day.

So, to your point: "Disagreeing with Nelson that it's God's will to not use the nickname Mormon is not criticizing Nelson at all."

Is this an issue of fact, or of opinion?  Well, from a religious perspective, it's more a matter of "fact."  Pres. Nelson didn't present the "course correction" as his personal preference.  He said "I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

And this: 

Quote

Others wondered why, with all that’s going on in the world, it was necessary to emphasize something so “inconsequential.” And some said it couldn’t be done, so why even try? Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not:

  • It is not a name change.
  • It is not rebranding.
  • It is not cosmetic.
  • It is not a whim.
  • And it is not inconsequential.

Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Here Pres. Nelson is quoting D&C 115:4.

So we have the presiding high priest, apparently functioning in that capacity, invoking what has been "impressed upon {his} mind," and quoting canonized scripture.

So Pres. Nelson is declaring X, and doing so in a big way.  It's not a whim.  it's not cosmetic.  It's not inconsequential.  It's based on explicit instruction in canonized scripture.

So if John Q. Churchmember (who is under covenant) comes along as says "Meh, it's not God's will to use the formal name of the Church," then others are in something of a conundrum.  Pres. Nelson has declared X, and John Q has declared Not X.  Not X is innately adverse to X.  It's not just a difference of opinion, I think.  It's a matter of which is right: Pres. Nelson or John Q.  X or Not X.  Both can't be right about this.

As I have made covenants in the Church, I submit to the jurisdiction of the leaders of the Church.  That is a necessary component of sustaining them, of discipleship, of pursuing a "unity of the faith" per Ephesians 4, and so on.  The Lord's house is one of order.  Someone has to be in charge.  And although we each have huge amounts of agency, I think we also need to acknowledge the (righteously exercised) authority of the Presiding High Priest.  He has jurisdiction on this matter.  It is his call, and not John Q's opinion, that carries the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There can be differences of opinion or taste as to all sorts of things.  And in those differences there really isn't a "right" opinion and a "wrong" opinion.

This does not hold for all things.  By way of example, the people marching around and screaming about how Donald Trump is "Not My President!" are up in the night.  Yes, he is your president.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.  Strong opinions and high emotions cannot alter fact, and the fact is that Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

Another example: If my employer sets a policy of no Facebook on work computers, is that a difference of "opinion?"  Pretty much.  Is that difference within the realm of reasonableness?  Certainly.  Am I at liberty to publicly reject it and use Facebook on work computers?  No.  I am the employee, and the employer gets to call the shots.  It would be unreasonable for me to defy a reasonable instruction from my employer and expect to keep th relationship in a good, healthy space.

Another example: Jack has a legal dispute with his neighbor, Jill.  Jack sues Jill.  The parties exchange information and evidence, and then each files a "motion for summary judgment."  The judge renders judgment in favor of Jill.  Is Jack at liberty to say "the judge got it wrong?"  I suppose.  But does that mean anything?  Not really.  The judge, you see, is the arbiter of the dispute.  It is the judge's call, and not Jack's opinion, that carries the day.

So, to your point: "Disagreeing with Nelson that it's God's will to not use the nickname Mormon is not criticizing Nelson at all."

Is this an issue of fact, or of opinion?  Well, from a religious perspective, it's more a matter of "fact."  Pres. Nelson didn't present the "course correction" as his personal preference.  He said "I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

And this: 

Here Pres. Nelson is quoting D&C 115:4.

So we have the presiding high priest, apparently functioning in that capacity, invoking what has been "impressed upon {his} mind," and quoting canonized scripture.

So Pres. Nelson is declaring X, and doing so in a big way.  It's not a whim.  it's not cosmetic.  It's not inconsequential.  It's based on explicit instruction in canonized scripture.

So if John Q. Churchmember (who is under covenant) comes along as says "Meh, it's not God's will to use the formal name of the Church," then others are in something of a conundrum.  Pres. Nelson has declared X, and John Q has declared Not X.  Not X is innately adverse to X.  It's not just a difference of opinion, I think.  It's a matter of which is right: Pres. Nelson or John Q.  X or Not X.  Both can't be right about this.

That's all it is is a difference of opinion.  Are you saying if someone, not pres Nelson or any of the leaders, say they speak for God, and you disagree then it's not really your opinion vs his/her opinion?  "well, he claimed to speak for God so I have no way to disagree with that.  I just ahve to accept he did speak for God and I must just agree because well, he says he speaks for God."  I really don't think you see it that way, so I must ask...why is it not a difference of opinion?  If someone does not think it's God's will and Nelson thinks it is?  All I see in this are two opinions and difference.  

Quote

As I have made covenants in the Church, I submit to the jurisdiction of the leaders of the Church.  That is a necessary component of sustaining them, of discipleship, of pursuing a "unity of the faith" per Ephesians 4, and so on.  The Lord's house is one of order.  Someone has to be in charge.  And although we each have huge amounts of agency, I think we also need to acknowledge the (righteously exercised) authority of the Presiding High Priest.  He has jurisdiction on this matter.  It is the his call, and not John Q's opinion, that carries the day.

So John Q's Not X is, I think, adverse to Pres. Nelson's X.  For John Q to be right, Pres. Nelson must be wrong.  But Pres. Nelson is the Presiding High Priest.  He's the judge.  On the point in controversy, it is Pres. Nelson, not John Q, who makes the call.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow.  what an explanation.  unfortunately, I admit, trying to read between the lines, seeing as you didn't answer the question, I don't see anything that really makes much sense in relation to the question at hand.  Are you suggesting that a member who disagrees with a leader's teaching is criticizing that leaders if he/she says "I disagree"?  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes many people make statements that counter statements from our Church leaders, which is why it's good to learn directly from God to find out what God really thinks.

As I do that I can see who agrees with God and who really doesn't, and prophets of God always do.  Always.  It's like it's built into the definition of what a prophet of God really is.

So since a prophet of God taught the Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, you would say that God agrees with it?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That's all it is is a difference of opinion. 

Well, not really.  Donald Trump being the President of the United States is not subject to a "difference of opinion."  His status as president is a fact.

In a contest of opinions between an employer and an employee regarding use of Facebook on company computers, the employer wins.  It's the employer's opinion that matters.

The same goes in a legal dispute.  The judge is the arbiter of the dispute.  Jack can carp all the day long, but the judge's decision is the one that matters.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying if someone, not pres Nelson or any of the leaders, say they speak for God, and you disagree then it's not really your opinion vs his/her opinion? 

No.  I am speaking about Pres. Nelson and members of the Church, not anyone else.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I really don't think you see it that way,

I have not been dissembling.  I really do see things in the way I have described.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

so I must ask...why is it not a difference of opinion? 

I explained my position.  At some length.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If someone does not think it's God's will and Nelson thinks it is?  All I see in this are two opinions and difference.  

That's what Jack would say.  But Jack subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court.  The court, not Jack, is the arbiter of the dispute.  It is the court's determination, not Jack's opinion, that carries the day.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Wow.  what an explanation. 

I think you are critiquing your (mis)characterization of my explanation, rather than the explanation itself.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Unfortunately, I admit, trying to read between the lines, seeing as you didn't answer the question,

I addressed it as best as I could.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see anything that really makes much sense in relation to the question at hand. 

I invite you to give the matter further consideration.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Are you suggesting that a member who disagrees with a leader's teaching is criticizing that leaders if he/she says "I disagree"?  

In the end, you are probably correct.  "Disagreement," on its own, ≠ "Criticism."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's all it is is a difference of opinion.  Are you saying if someone, not pres Nelson or any of the leaders, say they speak for God, and you disagree then it's not really your opinion vs his/her opinion?  "well, he claimed to speak for God so I have no way to disagree with that.  I just ahve to accept he did speak for God and I must just agree because well, he says he speaks for God."  I really don't think you see it that way, so I must ask...why is it not a difference of opinion?  If someone does not think it's God's will and Nelson thinks it is?  All I see in this are two opinions and difference.  

I think smac is going to respond from some other angle than the one I have in mind now and I'd just like to chime in to share something that you might want to consider.

When someone says something it isn't "just" their opinion on that issue, although it can rightly be called their opinion.  Even a judge's decision when giving a verdict is called an opinion but that judge's decision is not "just" or "only" their opinion.  It is more profound than just that.

In the whole scheme of things something is either right or it is wrong.  Sometimes there are multiple choices that are right or wrong but each thing considered separately is either right or it is wrong.

So in consideration of that idea, and getting back to the issue at hand here, the question now is:  Is President Nelson right in saying he is conveying the will of God on this issue, or is he wrong about that?

If you say you have no way to disagree with what President Nelson said on this issue, and President Nelson has said that he believes God influenced and inspired his decision on this issue, are you admitting that you could be wrong about President Nelson's decision?

It is either God's will or it isn't, regardless of what your or my opinion might be.  God's will doesn't depend on us to agree with him.  It is simply a matter for us to find out about if we want to know what God's will really is on this issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

In the end, you are probably correct.  "Disagreement," on its own, ≠ "Criticism."

Thanks,

-Smac

Fewf!  I thought I was going crazy there for a bit.  I admit, I can't make heads or tails of your explanation (I honestly can't see any relevance with the Trump example or the employer example at all), but if you agree with this, then I'm feeling satisfied.  So a member can disagree with Nelson about whether Nelson is giving the will of God on any particular subject and that member is not criticizing Nelson, per se?  Great so, what has Pres Nelson said, as it pertains to his claims in speaking for God, that you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can think of a number of examples, but I won't list them publicly.

 

If we aren't willing to say "I believe President Nelson is a Prophet of God, but he's wrong about x, y and z", then there's the answer to your question about why people get unrealistic expectations about Church leaders and their fallibility and reliability.

I'll ask another question.  Suppose President Nelson stood up in Conference in October and said "As you know, the Church is lead by a Prophet who receives revelation.  This means everything I do or say should be considered as coming from God and infallible."

What would change?  Would they need to go and change anything on the Church website?  Would members need to change anything about what they do or say?

In other words, what's the difference between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today (where we say we believe in fallible leadership but are afraid to actually say how they're fallible) and a theoretical The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in another universe that absolutely believes the leaders are infallible?  How would the members and leaders behave differently?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf!  I thought I was going crazy there for a bit.  I admit, I can't make heads or tails of your explanation (I honestly can't see any relevance with the Trump example or the employer example at all), but if you agree with this, then I'm feeling satisfied.  So a member can disagree with Nelson about whether Nelson is giving the will of God on any particular subject and that member is not criticizing Nelson, per se? 

Yes.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Great so, what has Pres Nelson said, as it pertains to his claims in speaking for God, that you disagree with?

Nothing that I can think of and/or care to publicly disclose.

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So since a prophet of God taught the Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, you would say that God agrees with it?

I'd like to break down your question a bit to help you understand what I think you are asking me to answer.

First, and I think this should be obvious to anyone who knows what the word "prophet" means, yes, by definition, God agrees with what God says through his prophets, otherwise that man who is claiming to speak for God really isn't speaking as a prophet of God.

Second, yes, since that man who gave that discourse about those Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet was speaking as a prophet of God when he gave that discourse, then yes, I would say God agrees with what he said through his prophet.

Third, well there is no third as I see it now, and I probably could have combined the First and Second points into more of a single point response if I had given it a little more thought before I answered.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If we aren't willing to say "I believe President Nelson is a Prophet of God, but he's wrong about x, y and z", then there's the answer to your question about why people get unrealistic expectations about Church leaders and their fallibility and reliability.

I'll ask another question.  Suppose President Nelson stood up in Conference in October and said "As you know, the Church is lead by a Prophet who receives revelation.  This means everything I do or say should be considered as coming from God and infallible."

What would change?  Would they need to go and change anything on the Church website?  Would members need to change anything about what they do or say?

In other words, what's the difference between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today (where we say we believe in fallible leadership but are afraid to actually say how they're fallible) and a theoretical The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in another universe that absolutely believes the leaders are infallible?  How would the members and leaders behave differently?

This is, for me, a big problem with modern Mormonism:  As you correctly describe, we (speaking generally of church members) have a theoretical belief that the prophet is fallible.  But, in practice we treat the current prophet as infallible.

The idea that the prophet can err in teachings, doctrine, policy is acknowledged.  Past prophets' fallibility is also fair game.  But to suggest that the current prophet could be wrong about a teaching or policy regarding same gender marriage can get your temple recommend taken away (yes, I've witnessed it happen).

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Nothing that I can think of and/or care to publicly disclose.

-Smac

Then as Cinepro just said, "then there's the answer to your question about why people get unrealistic expectations about Church leaders and their fallibility and reliability."
Over the years I've seen most members hold the position that the leaders words were largely infallible.  I'd imagine that they hold that view largely because there is little room to discuss the possibility of leaders being wrong.  If ever someone would suggest as much there was often great outcry over such a notion--how dare they presume to know more than the leaders about anything...was often the attitude.  Indeed, that seems to have come up in this very thread.  It even seems to have come out in your own replies to me-

Quote

 

-So if John Q. Churchmember (who is under covenant) comes along as says "Meh, it's not God's will to use the formal name of the Church," then others are in something of a conundrum.  Pres. Nelson has declared X, and John Q has declared Not X.  Not X is innately adverse to X.  It's not just a difference of opinion, I think.  It's a matter of which is right: Pres. Nelson or John Q.  X or Not X.  Both can't be right about this.  

As I have made covenants in the Church, I submit to the jurisdiction of the leaders of the Church.  That is a necessary component of sustaining them, of discipleship, of pursuing a "unity of the faith" per Ephesians 4, and so on.  The Lord's house is one of order.  Someone has to be in charge.  And although we each have huge amounts of agency, I think we also need to acknowledge the (righteously exercised) authority of the Presiding High Priest.  He has jurisdiction on this matter.  It is the his call, and not John Q's opinion, that carries the day.

 

The problem is it really is only a matter of opinion of whether Nelson ever really got revelation.  Maybe nelson confused it with other thoughts of inspiration.  Maybe he misunderstood.  Maybe it was the devil trying to trick him. maybe he simply doesn't know.  A member has all sorts of possible explanations of why he/she disagrees.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Second, yes, since that man who gave that discourse about those Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet was speaking as a prophet of God when he gave that discourse, then yes, I would say God agrees with what he said through his prophet.

Fundamental #14:  The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Then I agree with you there if you agree that all of us should learn to know more about the power of God and the influences of the Holy Spirit than to think we should be led entirely by another person while suspending our own understanding and pinning our faith upon another mortal man’s sleeve.

These statements from you seem contradictory to me.

Am I to avoid being led entirely by another person.  Or am I to be led by living prophet and first presidency with the warning that if I reject them I will suffer?

If the answer is that I am supposed to seek confirmation from the Spirit regarding each teaching and that I am free to reject those which the Spirit does not confirm, than I agree.  But that isn't the impression that the Fourteen Fundamentals gives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...