gopher

I warned you it was a bad analogy.

I agree with all you've posted. I don't think we have to defend everything prophets have done in the past. But I don't see much value in the debate of fallible vs infallible when talking about prophets since we don't have all the info we need to make that judgment. Why did Nephi have to kill Laban? I can think of better ways to accomplish the same purpose of getting the plates. So I can disagree, but recognize that more information may make it clear why it was done that way. I recognize it's a tough task that God has given us to follow His prophets. I'm not confident enough in my own wisdom and knowledge of God and His purposes to believe I know better than what He has directed His prophets to say and do. But at least we are only responsible for following the living prophet so if President Oaks says we don't have to practice polygamy, we don't have to practice polygamy even though earlier members did.

Dude, you weren't supposed to respond with a serious comment. Where is the Nehor from 10 years ago?

Sure, that's great. There are still lots of great reasons to stay even if you don't trust and believe in modern day prophets. In my opinion, it would be much more meaningful and enjoyable having that belief and trust though. For a bad analogy, it would be like the difference of having a spouse that you trust will always be faithful versus having a spouse that you feel may stray at any moment. Sorry, I'm not clever enough to come up with anything better.

Those are all valid points even though I don't see everything the same way. It's never been easy for some to accept that a man is a prophet of God. But we also have to acknowledge that many have and continue to do so. Maybe we can learn from them. I'm not sure what more the church can do to help people resolve doubts, questions, and concerns. It wouldn't be true to claim they have done nothing. But there are many examples in church history as well as today of people who were able to figure it out. It seems more difficult for those who see no need for a prophet or believe they have a moral compass that is more in line with the will and purposes of God. From my observations, the only way those things can be resolved is through the Holy Ghost. I think those who never receive any divine direction in spite of all their efforts and desires have a legit case to bring up at the judgment seat. I don't know why it seems easier for many to believe and trust and maintain loyalty and obedience to prophets than others. That's why I think it's interesting to come here and hear the experiences of others. What more do you think the church could do to help those struggling with these issues? Could it do more harm than good if the church published all the ways they were certain prophets were wrong?

Maybe we are related! It took me a few tries since the first attempt returned a gopher without clothes and I didn't want to violate any board rules.

You inspired me to post my Christmas photo

63% of the country supports human sacrifice of children so maybe that it isn't a good example. ha ha, just trolling.

No problem, I didn't take it that way. Bluebell mentioned that people leave the church over issues like polygamy. The priesthood ban can also be included on that list. I'm just curious if it's possible to maintain belief and trust in prophets if we think they are wrong about issues we feel strongly about. There seems to be a lot to lose and very little to gain by adopting such a position.

Oh my

I think if you get revelation from the Spirit that polygamy was wrong, then go with that. We can't claim that promptings from the Spirit are only true when they align with what church leaders say. I think we should let promptings from the Spirit influence us much more than speculation or persuasion from others, especially from those who aren't authorized to declare Christ's doctrines. But we also can't dismiss the accounts of those who actually practiced polygamy and who claimed to have received answers from the Spirit that polygamy wasn't wrong.

I'm not dismissing the accounts and records from that time period. If I believed the restored church was lead by men who were permitted to act in ways against the will of God, I would agree that the priesthood ban was completely unjustified, uninspired, and done against the will of God. But a study of scripture has taught me that God would not allow prophets from the 1850's until 1978 to disobey His will. I believe if God didn't see purpose in the priesthood ban, He wouldn't have allowed it to continue. I realize Utah is landlocked so sending a big fish to swallow disobedient prophets isn't an option, but I believe God would have found another way to convince them to obey Him instead of allowing them to continue promoting a false practice. I understand that isn't a popular opinion with critics and some apologist/church scholars, but I don't think any believer should feel ashamed to trust in the prophets that God has called in these latter days. My personal belief is that when it comes to speculating about the motives and intents of prophets, I would rather speculate on the side that they following the will of God, even if I don't understand or agree with what they do. It doesn't mean ignoring the record or pretending contradictions don't exist, but it does mean not going down the road which leads to doubt and disbelief.

I agree. Even prophets don't claim to be infallible so it's our fault if we give that impression. The scriptures don't support the notion that prophets are infallible. If President Oaks were to announce he made a mistake cancelling the Saturday evening session of conference, I would accept it and move on. But if he doesn't, I'm not comfortable claiming he is in error based on my own speculation or by being persuaded by someone else. The scriptures and church history are full of examples of people who thought the prophet at the time was wrong. It doesn't seem to end well for them spiritually and in many cases they are able to pull others away with them. I don't doubt God allows even prophets to stumble at times. My point is that unless they admit to being wrong or in error, I believe we lack the information and understanding to be able to make that judgement. As a practical matter, it's far better to trust a prophet of God than trust others who haven't been called and set apart to reveal the will of God. I realize it's a difficult task, but it's one that God has always expected of his believers. The damage done by those who publicly speak out against prophets claiming they are wrong or in error has been far more damaging to our community. In my opinion.

I will be very interested in hearing BY's explanation for some of his past controversial comments. Could it be possible he didn't understand the reasons for the ban? It wouldn't be the first time prophets were given commandments from God without an explanation. But from the CFM lesson from last week: "We don’t know why priesthood ordination and temple ordinances were not available to Church members of African descent for a time." When we finally do get the official explanation for the ban (during the millenium, perhaps?), do you believe it's impossible for an explanation that doesn't accuse the prophets of being in error? Or acting against the will of God? Since we don't have the explanation, we are free to draw our own conclusions. My belief is that the ban was in place until white people inside and outside the church stopped being racist enough for blacks to be able to fully participate without persecution. I'm not sure it's spiritually healthy to accuse prophets of being wrong or in error, especially when we don't have all the information. There are plenty of people out there stirring up anger and doubts about prophets of God. I don't want to be part of that. But it's still an interesting topic to discuss.

Is this a trick question or am I not aware of an official revelation released by the church instituting the Priesthood Ban Do you believe the Official Declaration 2 was revelation? I do. But it's easy to accept since since I completely agree with with it. But we are also asked to accept revelations that we may not agree with and may not understand. The sacrifices required to be a believing member are real.

Thanks, I am definitely NOT dismissing the concerns people have about polygamy. I agree that it was an enormous sacrifice to many. I think it's important to continue to talk about it with the realization that we may not fully understand it in this life. Do you think believing members have a responsibility to defend polygamy? Do you see any danger in believing members (I have to distinguish between non-believing members) who publicly claim that polygamy never came from God? I'm just not sure that is helpful to someone struggling to understand polygamy yet believes and trusts in ancient and modern day prophets to reveal the will of God. A recent convert brought her nonmember husband to church a few weeks ago. He's been very critical of the church in the past, but has started to mellow. And of course, the one week he stays for Sunday School is the week we discussed polygamy. But his only comment after class was, "Well, they did it in the Old Testament". It made me wonder if attitudes outside the church have softened over the years.

I haven't conceded that even one prophet is wrong. Who gets to decide if they are wrong? Do we even have enough information to decide? Was God wrong to choose Adam and Eve to put in the garden instead of a couple that would keep his commandments? Was Jesus wrong to choose Judas as an apostle? I realize it's offensive to many critics, but trusting God's prophets has always been a requirement of believers.

Maybe it's only possible to only get a testimony of the divinity of polygamy by actually practicing it. Until then, I'll just trust the testimonies of those early righteous saints who faithfully live it.

It's understandable that some may not like the idea of polygamy, especially in the ways it has been implemented, but it's a big leap to declare it wasn't allowed, encouraged and even commanded at times by God. I love animals and shudder at the thought of animal sacrifice, but it's clear that it was commanded by God to be done by those in the scriptures. I have no desire to practice polygamy, but I can't dismiss it as man-made when multiple prophets have taught or practiced it. A stronger case could be made if only a single prophet had taught it, like the Adam-God theory from BY or multiple ear piercings by President Hinckley. I'm just a bit wary of members who confidently declare polygamy isn't from God. I've noticed some of the same people have no problem confidently declaring that some day prophets will teach SSM is the will of God even though it's never been allowed, encouraged or commanded by God ever. If you take religion out of it, it seems there are many in our society today that have no problems with polyamorous relationships. If the church reinstated polygamy today, it probably wouldn't cause the stir that it did in the 1800s. But I think it's disrespectful to the early saints who believed it was the will of God and did their best to live it to dismiss it today as being made up by man. That doesn't mean we can't criticize those who practiced polygamy who were abusive, selfish, unkind, etc. Just my opinion.

It wasn't very funny or clever, but hardly something to get upset about. I hope members don't become offended every time someone makes a joke about the church. It's become so performative in society that it's difficult to determine if someone truly is offended anymore. My guess is most people were more hurt by him criticizing the BYU football team than his weak joke about about the golden plates. It would be nice if members would defend the church as much as they defend BYU football. And BYU was only ranked 2 spots ahead of Texas Tech before the game so it wasn't really a big upset, even though BYU played horribly. I think even serious fans realized that being ranked 6th or 7th was unrealistically high for BYU who haven't played well in all their games despite their record.

I'm really looking forward to the day when we have a less overachieving First Presidency. It's really difficult for parents to encourage their kids by telling them that "someday you'll grow up to be the prophet" if the kids first have to become a brilliant heart surgeon, college president, a member of a state supreme court, or earn a PhD from Harvard.

I apologize for teasing you. I'm just bitter since I quit my job, sold my house and car, and donated all the money to the animal shelter... and then the rapture didn't happen. Time to start over, again.

Ok, then. This is the last time I'll ever believe Emily. She just sounded so confident in her post talking about President Nelson.

He would be a false prophet if he revealed the day or hour. But what if he knows the week, month, or year? That would be pretty cool if he let us know. It would give me plenty of time to repent, starting with deleting all my sarcastic and rude posts here.

Politicians are supposed to say stupid stuff. Mace has been receiving death threats from transgender activists so she's not happy with them right now. But I'm not sure the right is in the mood to be lectured by a left wing advocacy group. Just a few days ago there was more proof that stupidity is bipartisan when a school board member said about Kirk, “Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when we used to be okay with shooting Nazis.” She is out of job now. Who is going to take the lead in restoring decency to our society?