No Prophet Is Perfect

[Hammer]

This is a great question, Thinking. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time with people who have fallen away from the church after bumping into the follies of Joseph Smith the prophet, I think that if we could get some clarity on this we would go a long way in understanding each other.

I do not expect any man to be perfect. I do expect, however, to have a person with character credibility in order for me to establish trust in him. It's kind of like the boy who cries wolf. Or the reasoning behind why courts of law use character witnesses to help the jury understand what sort of person a defendant might be. We make judgments like this every day in determining who or what we believe. These judgments are critical and are the crux of the issue with me when it comes to the character of Joseph Smith. Or any other so-called prophet. Can we trust a person who has a proven track record of telling falsehoods? I'm not talking about little white lies. I'm talking about doozies.

With Joseph Smith, if one is truly trying to understand and learn about him in their own quest for a testimony...they are going to bump into several character issues that impede trust. And one polygamy deceit builds onto a Book of Abraham falsehood, which builds onto a peepstoning mess and after so many of these character issues one is hardpressed to believe anything authentic came from Joseph's mouth.

I wouldn't count anyone's testimony about JS over that of the Holy Ghost or Christ Himself. Men try too hard to put God and His prophets into their own level of behavior. Just doesn't work my friend.

[cjcampbell]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

How do you measure a 'level' of imperfection?

This seems to be the kind of question that the scribes and Pharisees and their lawyers were always asking Jesus, trying to trap him. I don't think God uses a rule book or a legal code. He does not have judges to correct Him or rule on HIs commandments. You cannot appeal what you think is a bad call on God's part. Life is not a game where you get to ask the referee to review the instant replay, or argue about some particular shading of the rules. Splitting hairs does not work with God. He knows what you think. He knows very heart of hearts. There is no hiding from God.

Personally, I think God decides whom He will choose. Who is willing to second-guess God? As for what level of imperfection He will accept, God has said that no unclean thing may enter His kingdom. I suspect He means it. So, if a prophet has some degree of imperfection, he will have to deal with that before he can enter God's kingdom. He will have to repent and accept the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don't see how that changes where anyone is a prophet or not.

At one time in Kirtland, Ohio, after the banks had failed all across the country, some members were going around claiming that Joseph Smith had lost his 'gift,' probably through transgression, and that he needed to be replaced as head of the Church. They wanted to elect a new president of the Church. Brigham Young addressed that issue quite succinctly: we do not elect prophets of God. God appoints them. And if God is unhappy with a prophet then He can remove that prophet at any time. But the Church cannot fire a prophet. The members cannot fire him. No body of men on earth has the right to remove a prophet from his position.

This is why the ministers of the churches of Joseph's day hated the idea of a restoration of the gospel in the first place. You cannot control a prophet. He is not subject to disciplinary councils. You cannot change his words through a vote. The very existence of a prophet challenges your authority. Those ministers were not stupid, nor are they stupid today. They have never wanted the people to know anything but what the ministers told them. This is why they suppressed the Bible for so long. This is why they burned people at the stake for even reading the Bible. This is why they killed William Tyndale. This is why they killed all the apostles, declared the heavens closed, and said that scripture was complete. But a prophet means that people have another source of information, a direct line to God, that is not controlled by the ministers and scholars and politicians. When there is a prophet, the people see the priests in the hidden rooms working the levers. All Christendom should have rejoiced when the gospel was restored. Now you know why they didn't. The ministers would have preferred something like the Spanish Inquisition, which would have increased their power over the minds of the people.

So your question is simply a restatement that those who have opposed God since the beginning of time have always asked: how do we discredit and destroy a prophet? Unfortunately for those who fight against God, you can't.

[Thinking]

So your question is simply a restatement that those who have opposed God since the beginning of time have always asked: how do we discredit and destroy a prophet? Unfortunately for those who fight against God, you can't.

Remember the two things which inspired me to ask the question.

1. No prophet is perfect.

2. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets.

Certainly Christ's warning gives us license to "check out" a man who claims to be a prophet. I have to wonder about the apologist who criticizes anybody for following Christ's advice to beware.

[Bach]

How do you measure a 'level' of imperfection?

This seems to be the kind of question that the scribes and Pharisees and their lawyers were always asking Jesus, trying to trap him. I don't think God uses a rule book or a legal code. He does not have judges to correct Him or rule on HIs commandments. You cannot appeal what you think is a bad call on God's part. Life is not a game where you get to ask the referee to review the instant replay, or argue about some particular shading of the rules. Splitting hairs does not work with God. He knows what you think. He knows very heart of hearts. There is no hiding from God.

Personally, I think God decides whom He will choose. Who is willing to second-guess God? As for what level of imperfection He will accept, God has said that no unclean thing may enter His kingdom. I suspect He means it. So, if a prophet has some degree of imperfection, he will have to deal with that before he can enter God's kingdom. He will have to repent and accept the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don't see how that changes where anyone is a prophet or not.

At one time in Kirtland, Ohio, after the banks had failed all across the country, some members were going around claiming that Joseph Smith had lost his 'gift,' probably through transgression, and that he needed to be replaced as head of the Church. They wanted to elect a new president of the Church. Brigham Young addressed that issue quite succinctly: we do not elect prophets of God. God appoints them. And if God is unhappy with a prophet then He can remove that prophet at any time. But the Church cannot fire a prophet. The members cannot fire him. No body of men on earth has the right to remove a prophet from his position.

This is why the ministers of the churches of Joseph's day hated the idea of a restoration of the gospel in the first place. You cannot control a prophet. He is not subject to disciplinary councils. You cannot change his words through a vote. The very existence of a prophet challenges your authority. Those ministers were not stupid, nor are they stupid today. They have never wanted the people to know anything but what the ministers told them. This is why they suppressed the Bible for so long. This is why they burned people at the stake for even reading the Bible. This is why they killed William Tyndale. This is why they killed all the apostles, declared the heavens closed, and said that scripture was complete. But a prophet means that people have another source of information, a direct line to God, that is not controlled by the ministers and scholars and politicians. When there is a prophet, the people see the priests in the hidden rooms working the levers. All Christendom should have rejoiced when the gospel was restored. Now you know why they didn't. The ministers would have preferred something like the Spanish Inquisition, which would have increased their power over the minds of the people.

So your question is simply a restatement that those who have opposed God since the beginning of time have always asked: how do we discredit and destroy a prophet? Unfortunately for those who fight against God, you can't.

CFR

[cjcampbell]

CFR

Would you like to narrow that down some, or are you claiming that I am plagiarizing?

[cjcampbell]

Remember the two things which inspired me to ask the question.

1. No prophet is perfect.

2. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets.

Certainly Christ's warning gives us license to "check out" a man who claims to be a prophet. I have to wonder about the apologist who criticizes anybody for following Christ's advice to beware.

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. That does not mean we check out the prophet's behavior. It means that we verify the teachings of the prophets with God.

[karl61]

So because the whole church was not practicing plural marriage, it was OK for JS and others to do it in secret?

Here's one, but it's my favorite. There are more, but I don't wnat to take up too much space.

October 1, 1842 (Vol. III No. 23)

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.

S. Bennett, N. K. Whitney,

George Miller, Albert Pettey,

Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,

Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,

Wilson Law, E. Robinson,

W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson.

We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised [practiced] in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.

Emma Smith, President,

Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor,

Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor,

Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,

Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,

Lois Cutler, Sarah Higbee,

Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff

Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,

Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,

Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks,

Polly Z. Johnson, Angeline Robinson,

Abigail Works.

According to the preface of the 1835 D&C, these "leading items of religion" were prepared by, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and F.G. Williams. At the end of the book there is the account of the 1835 D&C being unanimously accepted as scripture at a special general assembly.

I maybe wrong but I think JS was married to Eliza R. Snow when that was written. I need to check it when I get from school but the book "MORMON ENIGMA: EMMA HALE SMITH is a must read for people interested in the polygamy issue. Most of the time polygamy was an issue that tore Emma apart, caused her to argue in public with JS, and some reports of getting violent. Some of the treatment the wives of JS received from Emma was really sad.

[Bach]

Would you like to narrow that down some, or are you claiming that I am plagiarizing?

Your entire post is a melange of unsupported assertions about "God", and appears to assume that one exists, when that very claim is contested on this board.

[Thinking]

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. That does not mean we check out the prophet's behavior. It means that we verify the teachings of the prophets with God.

In my OP I said "Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does." I believe that we need to look at both teachings and behavior, and I'm not talking about one-time things like"throwing a stick against a rock." I'm talking about "habits."

For example, what if it was discovered that President Hinckley drinks coffee every day. Would you still sustain him as prophet?

[Pahoran]

Your entire post is a melange of unsupported assertions about "God", and appears to assume that one exists, when that very claim is contested on this board.

Since the question of the existence of God is logically prior to any useful discussion about what constitutes a true prophet (or revealed doctrine, or just about any of the Church's truth claims) your observation is a clear red herring. To demand that we establish the existence of God before we go anywhere else is utterly unreasonable and would, if taken seriously, bring all discussion here to a grinding halt.

Which is, I suppose, what you might want to do if you have nothing to actually contribute.

I can see why you might want to trot it out, though. If we let you get away with it, it would be the ultimate atheist fallback, a triumphant "neener neener" that would never fail.

Unfortunately for you, by asking what "level of imperfection" is acceptable for a true prophet, the OP has implicitly accepted the possibility of true prophets--and therefore the existence of God--for the purposes of this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bach]

So, you don't see anything circular in the arguments that prophets are supported by scriptures, which are in turn supported by prophets, who are in turn supported by scriptures, which...?

Turtles all the way down, indeed.

[Zakuska]

But which came frist? The Prophets or the Scriptures?

So there is an end... and the circle is broken...

[LifeOnaPlate]

So, you don't see anything circular in the arguments that prophets are supported by scriptures, which are in turn supported by prophets, who are in turn supported by scriptures, which...?

Turtles all the way down, indeed.

I don't reason that way. There are elements of truth in your statement, but observe what fun we can have when we want to twist things to our liking:

So, you don't see anything circular in the arguments that scientists are supported by text books, which are in turn supported by scientists, who are in turn supported by text books, which...?

Wheeee!

[Bach]

I'm not speaking temporally, Zakuska. I'm speaking in terms of what is valid evidence for the other.

[Zakuska]

Well lets see... the scripture say so and so said this and this came to pass. So thus so and so was a prophet.

It can go in two directions.

A prophet says this is going to happen and it does well...

[Dale]

Legally Eliza R. Snow had invalidated any claim to being a plural wife of Joseph Smith. Because she had signed contradictory statements she had committed perjury. When Judge John F. Phillip's found out about the Relief Society statement he was forced to stae under his opinion of U.S. law Eliza R. Snow wasn't a wife. He thought maybe Joseph Smith could have been a libertine, but that he wasn't legally guilty of polygamy.

[Pahoran]

Legally Eliza R. Snow had invalidated any claim to being a plural wife of Joseph Smith. Because she had signed contradictory statements she had committed perjury. When Judge John F. Phillip's found out about the Relief Society statement he was forced to stae under his opinion of U.S. law Eliza R. Snow wasn't a wife. He thought maybe Joseph Smith could have been a libertine, but that he wasn't legally guilty of polygamy.

Dale,

you Reorgs have to let go of your obsession with earthly courts and legalities; an obsession that seems to go all the way back to your founding prophet, JSIII. But if you are going to hold on to that obsession, you at least need to get it right. Whether Eliza R. Snow committed perjury or not is an entirely distinct question from whether she was Joseph's plural wife. Perjury may be a bad thing, but it does not operate to annull a marriage.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cjcampbell]

So, you don't see anything circular in the arguments that prophets are supported by scriptures, which are in turn supported by prophets, who are in turn supported by scriptures, which...?

Turtles all the way down, indeed.

I see. Well, that would be a subject for another thread. Feel free to start one.

[John D the First]

This is a good question. I think we could never do a valid comparision between LDS prophets and Biblical prophets because we have much less info on the latter. I might ask you the same question, however. According to tradition Solomon was a major author of Proverbs, David wrote a large portion of the Psalms. Would you be willing to drop those books of the Old Testament because of their mistakes: murder, adultery, idolatry? If not, then that would seem to say there can be no end to a Prophets imperfections!

I accept Joseph because of what he produced. I believe in his successors because of what they produce, and because of what all of them produced, produces in me. They are essentially existential reasons. Nhm, and the like also helps.

People object, that this is the same method employed by every religious person. I would reply that I cannot peer into the subjectivity of another, I can only depend on my own. All will be judged on the desires of their hearts, if they respond spiritually to the best within them, no matter what the external cultural manifestations are, it will work well for them in the resurrection.

Best,

Jd1

[Obiwan]

In many of the threads on the board a critic will write something like, "Joseph Smith can't be a prophet because he did X!" An apologist then responds with something like, "No prophet is perfect. After all he is just a man."

Yet Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. Certainly He is encouraging us to pay attention to what a professed prophet says and does. In light of Christ's warnings and the fact that no prophet is perfect, I ask the following question: What level of "not perfect" should be expected of a prophet?

1. Please tell us exactly what issues LDS even say "he was just a man" on?

Said "dang" once?

Did stick wrestling?

As a kid looked for treasure as any other?

Did he say there were Quakers on the moon? Can't remember?

Anyway.... Tell us.

Polygamy? Never practiced it as far as we know, "Plural Celestial Marriage" yes, but not Polygamy.

What else?

2. Personally I would say more than a few Popes would qualify. Yes, not specifically claimed to be "Prophets", but pretty much the same.

3. How "perfect" do you expect Biblical Prophets and leaders? There are some doozy's in there, if applied equally according to the anti-mormon attack standard against LDS. Yet, God seems to have tolerated it.

4. The Prophet is NOT THE CHURCH. He has a calling, as any has a calling, minor imperfections and moments and all. Of course, LDS one's aren't even close to the imperfections of Evangelical/Protestant/Catholic leaders (for the most part) comparatively speaking, which is part of why I'm not in those religions, so, I'll take the LDS standard any day.

[Thinking]

There is a difference between a one-time mistake and what is routine.

For example, what if it was discovered that President Hinckley drank one cup of coffee four years ago? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

What if it was discovered that President Hinckley drinks coffee every day for no other reason than he likes it? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is a difference between a one-time mistake and what is routine.

For example, what if it was discovered that President Hinckley drank one cup of coffee four years ago? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

What if it was discovered that President Hinckley drinks coffee every day for no other reason than he likes it? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

What if? what if!!!

[Zakuska]

President Monson drinks Coke. Do I sustain him as a Prophet seer and Revelator... sure do.

What if it was discovered that President Hinckley drinks coffee every day for no other reason than he likes it? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

Sure would sustain him. I would probably also add him to my list of Hypocrites.

[karl61]

There is a difference between a one-time mistake and what is routine.

For example, what if it was discovered that President Hinckley drank one cup of coffee four years ago? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

What if it was discovered that President Hinckley drinks coffee every day for no other reason than he likes it? Would you still sustain him as prophet?

if you drink it everyday you are taking a hit. if I saw GBH drink coffee it would be no different than if I saw him smoking joint.

[Thinking]

What if? what if!!!

Yes, what if. No accusations.

All I'm trying to do is establish different levels of "not perfect." And since this thread is about prophets, I used GBH as an example.

You have to admit that LDS believe in different levels of not perfect. The three degrees of glory are a "perfect" example.