Jump to content

When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?


David Hume

Recommended Posts

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

Link to comment

...

What standard

...

It is permissible to contradict a prophet when he tells you it is permissible.

Of course --

UD

Link to comment

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another.

Call For References. Please demonstrate where and how this is at all likely.

We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible.
Which laws of God, specifically?
So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal?
Ask the folks pounding on the wet side of the ark as the waters rose.
Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations?
Call For References. Please demonstrate any scriptural evidence that God has ever sanctioned same-sex marriages. We have Biblical examples of interracial marriages.
At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why?
Hmmm.....could it be that Young WAS wrong (on that particular issue) and Monson is not?
What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

If he is factually incorrect, it's permissible to contradict him.

If the Prophet stands alone against the Scriptures, his Counselors, the Quorum of the Twelve, and against the Holy Spirit, then it's permissible to contradict him.

It is almost never permissible, however, to grandstand against him and use that standard to self-aggrandize or to attack the Church or its people.

Link to comment

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible...

Adventists deal with a similar issue with a premise they refer to as "present truth".

Which basically means that as truth progresses, we don't have to naysay what was said before as much as be grateful for what our generation has...fully believing that future generations may have more...just as previous generations (theoretically) had less.

I believe it's a sensible approach for any people who believe God uses prophets (fallible spokespeople...flawed prisms for his light) to convey/reflect his will.

I think that framework, the idea of truth progressing, is a helpful reminder for people to prayerfully study things out for themselves.

What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

The general cultural rule in LDS thought is that one doesn't openly naysay a church leader...even if one might silently disagree with something they said. Even when one knows full well that a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such. The issue is discerning which is which...and not getting one's neighbors' knickers in a knot over a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what some leader supposedly meant. It's kind of an informal corollary to MYOB, along the lines of MYOS (Mind Your Own Stewardship). That may be overgeneralized...but might still be of some help.)

Link to comment

...

I think that framework, the idea of truth progressing, is a helpful reminder

...

Imagining myself back in 1834, on the Zion's Camp march to the Missouri River,

I'm fairly certain that I would have disobeyed orders from the prophet to

open fire upon any approaching armed Gentiles.

Probably though, I would not have said: "Look here -- this whole thing is a

wild goose chase. Half of our soldiers just died of cholera and The Lord is

just going to tell us to turn back to Ohio, sooner or later..."

Had I been there -- and had I said such -- I wonder what would have happened

to me? Maybe I would have just caught the cholera and been lost to history.

UD

Link to comment

Imagining myself back in 1834, on the Zion's Camp march to the Missouri River

OK. Imagining it.

I'm fairly certain that I would have disobeyed orders...

Uh, can't imagine it anymore. Mebbe faulty concentration skills on my part.

Or maybe it's because I'm beginning to suspect that...

...you would likely have never marched that far west in the first place.

(I don't mean that as condemnation. I simply mean that there's a disconnect between where you're saying you marched to - and how you're saying you feel about being there...as if that wouldn't likely have already occurred to you 10 miles earlier, and 10 miles before that...and so on.)

Probably though, I would not have said: "Look here -- this whole thing is a

wild goose chase. Half of our soldiers just died of cholera and The Lord is

just going to tell us to turn back to Ohio, sooner or later..."

I agree. If you had such a perspective, there's little likelihood you would have trudged all the way to Missouri.

Had I been there...

Can't imagine it any more.

Link to comment

Imagining myself back in 1834, on the Zion's Camp march to the Missouri River,

I'm fairly certain that I would have disobeyed orders from the prophet to

open fire upon any approaching armed Gentiles.

Probably though, I would not have said: "Look here -- this whole thing is a

wild goose chase. Half of our soldiers just died of cholera and The Lord is

just going to tell us to turn back to Ohio, sooner or later..."

Had I been there -- and had I said such -- I wonder what would have happened

to me? Maybe I would have just caught the cholera and been lost to history.

UD

Or maybe you would have trusted him and endured it, had the trial of your faith, been taught by a prophet, and then been called to the Twelve. Maybe then Elder Dale would have endured more trials, gone to England, and eventually led thousands of outcasts across plains and mountains. Maybe, a century and a half later, there would be some ex-RLDS historian studying your life, cynically thinking of how different he would have been had he been in your place.

I think you would have been a great 19th century Mormon.

Oh, what might have been...

Link to comment

...

I think you would have been a great 19th century Mormon.

...

Dunno about that.

My Mormon ancestor was one of those who survived the cholera --

his wife and daughter were washer-women for the soldiers. They

disobeyed the Prophet and did not return with the others to

Ohio in 1834. They stayed at Liberty for a time and then moved

over to Far West in support of David Whitmer's First Presidency

in "Zion." When Smith and Rigdon came in and kicked out Whitmer,

they moved up to Diamon -- and finally became Danites under

the rule of Lyman Wight there.

Sounds like they obeyed some priesthood orders and disobeyed

others. Time came to exit to Illinois, they obeyed Brigham

and remained at Far West until the last stragglers headed off

to the Mississippi -- then formed an armed rear guard.

Makes me blush -- that obeying Brigham part.

UD

Link to comment

Probably though, I would not have said: "Look here -- this whole thing is a

wild goose chase. Half of our soldiers just died of cholera and The Lord is

just going to tell us to turn back to Ohio, sooner or later..."

It all reminds me of when Gideon was preparing to attack the Midianites, and had 22,000 men for the task. God said to Gideon that that was too many, and he should let everyone who was afraid go home. This left 10,000, which God also said was too many, and had Gideon release them all except for the ones who drank the water by bringing it to their lips and lapping it like a dog. Now he only had 300.

Perhaps, had you been one of the 300 (and not even a Spartan!), you would have said, "Whoa! The outcome was going to be doubtful with only 10,000, and now we're 300?! Oops, sorry, now looks like you only got 299. I'm outta here!"

As far as Zion's camp is considered, the Lord was winnowing out of those from whom He considered the leaders, and I am sure you recall that the first quorum of the 12 were all men who had been in Zion's camp.

Isaiah 55:8,9.

Link to comment

I am accountable to follow the prophet, and it is up to God to handle if he is wrong. Personally I disagree with the ban on the priesthood, but I would follow it fully and leave the judging to God. To me, this is what sustaining is all about - I will support you while still recognizing you are not God, just his human spokesperson.

Link to comment

...

the first quorum of the 12

....

And William McClellin was in charge of the cannon, I take it?

Ever read Marvin S. Hill's "Cultural Crisis in the Mormon Kingdom:

a Reconsideration of the Causes of Kirtland Dissent" ??? This noted

historian traces the disobedience and dissent of apostles like

Luke and Lyman Johnson back to the failures of Zion's Camp. So,

if that illegal armed paramilitary expedition across state lines

weeded out the "bad ones," in The Twelve, the Johnson boys must

have been very poor apostolic material to begin with, eh?

UD

.

Link to comment

It all reminds me of when Gideon was preparing to attack the Midianites, and had 22,000 men for the task. God said to Gideon that that was too many, and he should let everyone who was afraid go home. This left 10,000, which God also said was too many, and had Gideon release them all except for the ones who drank the water by bringing it to their lips and lapping it like a dog. Now he only had 300.

Perhaps, had you been one of the 300 (and not even a Spartan!), you would have said, "Whoa! The outcome was going to be doubtful with only 10,000, and now we're 300?! Oops, sorry, now looks like you only got 299. I'm outta here!"

If anyone claiming to be a prophet asks me to partake in the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children that's when I ask to stop the bus and get let off.

Link to comment

If anyone claiming to be a prophet asks me to partake in the slaughter of innocent men,

women, and children that's when I ask to stop the bus and get let off.

I wonder, when the Israelite army committed genocide upon

those poor Midianites (in Numbers) whether Stargazer's mentioned

faithful of the Lord massacred Moses' Midianite wife and kids as well?

UD

.

Link to comment

If anyone claiming to be a prophet asks me to partake in the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children that's when I ask to stop the bus and get let off.

I would too however no modern day Prophet has asked that. Old testament yes, but not modern.

Link to comment

I would too however no modern day Prophet has asked that. Old testament yes, but not modern.

Ervil LeBaron ???

Jeffrey Don Lundgren ???

William H. Dame ???

Nah -- Elder Dame never claimed to be a prophet.

UD

Link to comment

Ervil LeBaron ???

Jeffrey Don Lundgren ???

William H. Dame ???

Nah -- Elder Dame never claimed to be a prophet.

UD

None are prophets.

Narrator,

They just asked us to fight again the rights of womens (ERA) , blacks (priesthood), and homosexuals (Prop :P.

Well your changing it now arnt you? Moving the goal post as some would say. Fight against "rights" I disagree.
Less blood, but just as cruel.
Really? You equate a difference of opinion on prop 8 as just as cruel to murdering of innocents?
Link to comment

None are prophets.

...

You miss my point.

My point was that there are documented instances in which

self-proclaimed latter day saints have committed murders,

in following leaders they believed to be prophets.

I think that the same could be said for at least some of

the Mountain Meadows massacrers -- that they believed they

were carrying out the will of the Prophet in Salt Lake City.

The point is, that we already know there are men who will

do whatever they are told to do, fully believing that they

are doing so as God's Saints in these latter days.

UD

Link to comment

You miss my point.

My point was that there are documented instances in which

self-proclaimed latter day saints have committed murders,

in following leaders they believed to be prophets.

I think that the same could be said for at least some of

the Mountain Meadows massacrers -- that they believed they

were carrying out the will of the Prophet in Salt Lake City.

The point is, that we already know there are men who will

do whatever they are told to do, fully believing that they

are doing so as God's Saints in these latter days.

UD

I could have missed your point, I do often. I wanted to point out a difference between "self-proclaimed latter day saints" and killing innocents ordered by a modern Prophet of God. Other than that I agree.

Anijen

Link to comment

...Other than that

...

Love your avatar pic.

When I was at the Temple of Inscriptions in Palenque I

bought a terra cotta replica of the head -- but the version

in your pic is much more artistic.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

I guess depends on your "moral flexibility" but as a very general rule I would say that we should be VERY suspicious and careful when any Christian (LDS and non-LDS) tries to apply their doctrines to politics, science, economics, and philosophy (ethics, specifically).... (that is, on everything but themselves) That they have the authority from God does not make them experts in any of these issues.

btw, someone in this thread asked for something specific in which a Prophet has been wrong and I think I can provide one example that is, I hope, uncontroversial: Joseph Smith was clearly wrong when he said we believed in being subject to kings.

Link to comment

Love your avatar pic.

When I was at the Temple of Inscriptions in Palenque I

bought a terra cotta replica of the head -- but the version

in your pic is much more artistic.

Uncle Dale

Thanks about three years ago I ventured into Book of Mormon geography and have been addicted to all things Mayan ever since. I study almost daily on it from one source or another. I like my old avatar of Mr.Incredible typing with one finger (like I do) but came on here one day and it was removed (I want it back but cant find it).

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...