When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[elguanteloko]

? Take offense if you feel a need to do so, but...no offense was expressed, let alone intended. How else would you suggest I attempt to distill a belief (fx. the idea of being subject to secular gov't) without demonstrating an example of its opposite? (Or like the word "Ni!", was it the word "government" that offended you?)

I did not get offended at all, really (as indicated by the "LOL" at the beginning).

That is the precise article I was alluding to. To resolve the supposed disconnect, if you generate a functional simplification of what that article is saying, you might see how I arrived at my conclusion. Try it and you just might like it. (

.)

well... I tried it but I did not get to that conclusion. can you help me out in understanding how you got there?

19th-century ones? Really? If you feel the explanation for such an assertion is sufficiently germane to your point or to the OP, I'd like to hear it.

the very nature of such institutions is religious. becoming king by birth is not something they figured out from Genetics.

[Brenda]

Really? That's what Brigham Young thought? Did he actually say that?

I don't know what he was thinking any more than you do, and my guess is as good as yours. Just looking at it logically and giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[Thinking]

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.

This makes no sense to me.

If a prophet is wrong about something related to the gospel, and you know it's wrong, why would the Lord expect you to follow the prophet anyway?

If your bishop was wrong about something would you follow him anyway?

At what level do you get to decide? Apostle? Seventy? Stake President?

[Calm]

Christ's use of violence isn't really very violent. Overturning tables? Shooing people away? Not so violent.

13

[Thorkyll]

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?

It's ALWAYS okay to contradict or disobey a prophet.

"Prophet just means intellectual. They were people giving geopolitical analysis, moral lessons, that sort of thing. We call them intellectuals today. There were the people we honor as prophets, there were the people we condemn as false prophets. But if you look at the biblical record, at the time, it was the other way around. The flatterers of the Court of King Ahab were the ones who were honored. The ones we call prophets were driven into the desert and imprisoned." ~ Noam Chomsky

[hordak]

Here's another good reference on how the Church wants us to think about the Prophet and his words:

The Prophets speak to the church for that particular time (as i'm sure will be/ has been pointed out in reference to some of Brigham Young's more "colorful" quotes)

If this is the case since i'm not BYU class of 1980, nor was i a member in 1981 when this was taught, nor is it still 1981, wouldn't i be as obligated to believe this teaching/ council in the same way i would be obligated to follow/believe Brigham Youngs past quotes?

I.E. If BYs teachings on interracial marriage were for that time and not applicable today can't Ezra Taft Bensons 14 fundaments talk have been for that time,the BYU class and members (to whom it was given) and no longer applicable?

Interesting enough the talk cites BY in the JoD as support to the idea

The prophet does not have to say

[semlogo]

Tone it down or you're out of the thread.

Skylla

Sorry, I tend to over-use hyperbole to demonstrate my points.

[semlogo]

I always thought using a whip on someone was rather violent myself.

It doesn't say he actually hit anyone.

[bizabra]

Who knows? What we do know is that God has in fact commanded some people to kill some other people before.

BIZ: We don't KNOW this to be a fact. SOME people BELIEVE it, but that doesn't make it TRUE.

If "god" told me to kill someone, I would immediately think I was going crazy and seek medical intervention.

[Anijen]

It doesn't say he actually hit anyone.

Christ having made the whip leaves the implication that he used it. Although it doesn't say he hit anyone with it, it doesn't say he didn't hit either.

My son went to the park where the basketball hoop was, he took his basketball and he was dressed for playing, am I to assume he went there and didn't play?

[semlogo]

Christ having made the whip leaves the implication that he used it. Although it doesn't say he hit anyone with it, it doesn't say he didn't hit either.

My son went to the park where the basketball hoop was, he took his basketball and he was dressed for playing, am I to assume he went there and didn't play?

No, it doesn't at all. That's like saying that the fact that a cop went to work with his gun is proof that he shot someone. Why would he take the gun, after all, if not to shoot someone?

[semlogo]

BIZ: We don't KNOW this to be a fact. SOME people BELIEVE it, but that doesn't make it TRUE.

If "god" told me to kill someone, I would immediately think I was going crazy and seek medical intervention.

[Jason]

I have nothing more to say without beginning to repeating myself.

It is perfectly possible for God to command you to kill someone. He has done so in the past.

Placing restrictions on what you will or won't do for God is generally a bad idea.

We can be confident that God will never ask us to do something immoral. We cannot, however, perfectly judge what is and is not immoral. When we see an authentic commandment from God that appears immoral, it is because we do not have God's perspective and ability to judge. In such cases we are justified in following God's commandment.

The real trick, of course, may be in determining whether a commandment is authentic, but I accept that God has in fact given authentic commands to kill in the past, along with other commandments that may at first appear to be immoral (such as marrying more than one wife)..

[elguanteloko]

We can be confident that God will never ask us to do something immoral. We cannot, however, perfectly judge what is and is not immoral. When we see an authentic commandment from God that appears immoral, it is because we do not have God's perspective and ability to judge. In such cases we are justified in following God's commandment.

The real trick, of course, may be in determining whether a commandment is authentic, but I accept that God has in fact given authentic commands to kill in the past, along with other commandments that may at first appear to be immoral (such as marrying more than one wife)..

God has commanded in the past the killing of small children. If you see that as immoral but God does not, how can you say that to do it would be good? if God's morality is so vastly different from ours, how can we call Him moral at all?

[elguanteloko]

"Prophet just means intellectual. They were people giving geopolitical analysis, moral lessons, that sort of thing. We call them intellectuals today. There were the people we honor as prophets, there were the people we condemn as false prophets. But if you look at the biblical record, at the time, it was the other way around. The flatterers of the Court of King Ahab were the ones who were honored. The ones we call prophets were driven into the desert and imprisoned." ~ Noam Chomsky

Oh my!

[thesometimesaint]

We all have our limits as to what we think God will command us to do. I've taken up the sword against my fellow man. I'm not too sure I could do it again unless under extreme conditions. Moreover if I start hearing voices in my head telling me to kill. I know of some powerful drugs that will eliminate those voices.

[Jason]

God has commanded in the past the killing of small children. If you see that as immoral but God does not, how can you say that to do it would be good? if God's morality is so vastly different from ours, how can we call Him moral at all?

There is no real difference in God's morality and ours. Good is good and evil is evil. The difference between us and God lies in God's greater ability to discern the full consequences of actions.

Killing a small child who is a part of a culture that will never allow the child the agency to choose good may in fact be moral. However, only God has the ability to determine with 100% accuracy whether the culture is that corrupt and whether the child really will have no option but to sin. Therefore only God could tell us if it is moral. If we go trying to make our own determinations of who we can safely kill we are likely to get in trouble very quickly.

[elguanteloko]

There is no real difference in God's morality and ours. Good is good and evil is evil. The difference between us and God lies in God's greater ability to discern the full consequences of actions.

if this is the case then you can't know if God is good at all simply because you will never know His reasons. He can command mass genocide and, since you know not His reasons, you will always justify those crimes by saying "well, He knows better than I do so we should obey."

Killing a small child who is a part of a culture that will never allow the child the agency to choose good may in fact be moral.

because the best and only solution for a child in a repressive society is to kill him, obviously...

However, only God has the ability to determine with 100% accuracy whether the culture is that corrupt and whether the child really will have no option but to sin.

Since God's reasons are so impenetrable then they become irrelevant to what you will do.

Therefore only God could tell us if it is moral. If we go trying to make our own determinations of who we can safely kill we are likely to get in trouble very quickly.

God does not give you your morals just as God does not tell you what to make legal or illegal. That you think God is good without knowing His reasons says that you have a sense of morality independent of God.

[Jason]

if this is the case then you can't know if God is good at all simply because you will never know His reasons. He can command mass genocide and, since you know not His reasons, you will always justify those crimes by saying "well, He knows better than I do so we should obey."

That's why it's called faith - a certain amount of trust is involved, as is the case in any parent-child relationship. When we have grown to a stature similar to our parent we may view many things very differently than we do now.

because the best and only solution for a child in a repressive society is to kill him, obviously...

In some circumstances it may well be the best possible solution, yes. In fact I would argue that in situations where God has commanded such an act that it was the best possible solution.

Since God's reasons are so impenetrable then they become irrelevant to what you will do.

What is relevent is that God does have reasons, and knowing and trusting God we can know that they are good ones, even if we don't understand them today.

God does not give you your morals just as God does not tell you what to make legal or illegal. That you think God is good without knowing His reasons says that you have a sense of morality independent of God.

I have often argued that good would be good and evil evil irrespective of whether God existed or not.

I have never, in fact, claimed that God created or establishes morality in any way.

What I do argue is that God has a greater ability to discern what is moral than we do, and we can therefore trust His greater wisdom.

[Thorkyll]

Oh my!

Love your avatar of prophet Noam. I'm hoping they add a few of his books to the Bible canon.

[elguanteloko]

That's why it's called faith - a certain amount of trust is involved, as is the case in any parent-child relationship. When we have grown to a stature similar to our parent we may view many things very differently than we do now.

"a certain amount" is kind of vague. for me, killing children because God told me to goes way out of my idea of "a certain amount"" of trust. It also goes way out of my idea of a "parent-child" relationship. It does not matter how much I love my dad and how much I trust in him. If he tells me to kill someone because he thinks it is good but I don't see reasons for it I would NEVER do it.

In some circumstances it may well be the best possible solution, yes. In fact I would argue that in situations where God has commanded such an act that it was the best possible solution.

give me your best reasons... you are bearing a HEAVY burden of proof right now.

What is relevent is that God does have reasons, and knowing and trusting God we can know that they are good ones, even if we don't understand them today.

if you act based on something that you neither understand nor know and harm others, I would say that someone who does NOT go with the ideas of God is not doing something bad. if someone tells you to do something bad that will harm others and you don't know why, you will NEVER be morally wrong in choosing to not follow such orders.

I have often argued that good would be good and evil evil irrespective of whether God existed or not.

I have never, in fact, claimed that God created or establishes morality in any way.

you said: "only God could tell us if it is moral" and then you say He does not establishes morality in any way?

What I do argue is that God has a greater ability to discern what is moral than we do, and we can therefore trust His greater wisdom.

but you don't know this because you never know His reasons. thus, you can never evaluate if what He tells you is moral or not; you determine that for yourself.

[elguanteloko]

Love your avatar of prophet Noam. I'm hoping they add a few of his books to the Bible canon.

lol! I bet it would be quite an experience to quote from Hegemony or Survival at Church.

[semlogo]

I have nothing more to say without beginning to repeating myself.

It is perfectly possible for God to command you to kill someone. He has done so in the past.

Placing restrictions on what you will or won't do for God is generally a bad idea.

We can be confident that God will never ask us to do something immoral. We cannot, however, perfectly judge what is and is not immoral. When we see an authentic commandment from God that appears immoral, it is because we do not have God's perspective and ability to judge. In such cases we are justified in following God's commandment.

The real trick, of course, may be in determining whether a commandment is authentic, but I accept that God has in fact given authentic commands to kill in the past, along with other commandments that may at first appear to be immoral (such as marrying more than one wife)..

Question: could a command to slaughter some babies be moral under any circumstances?

I don't mean to be sensationalist here, but it seems like you're saying God is allowed to do anything because He is God. I always understood that God can't just do anything - if God did wickedness He'd cease to be God.

[semlogo]

God has commanded in the past the killing of small children. If you see that as immoral but God does not, how can you say that to do it would be good? if God's morality is so vastly different from ours, how can we call Him moral at all?

It does indeed say that in the OT. I don't believe that God ever commanded that, however, for the reasons you state.

[Jason]

"a certain amount" is kind of vague. for me,

I have to be somewhat vague, because God requires different things of different people, and so the amount of trust required also becomes vague.

...killing children because God told me to goes way out of my idea of "a certain amount"" of trust. It also goes way out of my idea of a "parent-child" relationship. It does not matter how much I love my dad and how much I trust in him. If he tells me to kill someone because he thinks it is good but I don't see reasons for it I would NEVER do it.

Well I guess I trust my dad more than you trust yours then.

My trust in God is even greater.

give me your best reasons... you are bearing a HEAVY burden of proof right now.

I already did - if the child is a part of a society that will force it down a path of sin, debauchery, and misery for itself and everyone it encounters, with no chance to ever chose something better then it may in fact be better for the child to die while still innocent.

But again - I would only trust God to say when this is actually the case. My own judgement and that of those around me is not up to this task.

if you act based on something that you neither understand nor know and harm others, I would say that someone who does NOT go with the ideas of God is not doing something bad. if someone tells you to do something bad that will harm others and you don't know why, you will NEVER be morally wrong in choosing to not follow such orders.

Again, it's a matter of trust. If you don't trust God to never lead you astray then your viewpoint makes some sense.

If what God asked is indeed good then you will possibly be doing evil by not carrying it out.

If in fact God is trying your faith (as with Abraham) you will fail the trial, and miss out on the blessings you would have otherwise had. This is perhaps not an evil result, but it's not a good one either.

you said: "only God could tell us if it is moral" and then you say He does not establishes morality in any way?

Yes. I beleive if you think it through you will see that I am being consistent.

The things God asks us to do are not good simply because God asked them of us (God does not make what was previously not good into good), but the things God asks us to do are good regardless of whether we can see the good in them, because God knows better than we what is good and what isn't and will only ask us to do things that are ultimately good.

but you don't know this because you never know His reasons. thus, you can never evaluate if what He tells you is moral or not; you determine that for yourself.

I may not know or understand His reasons now - during mortality. I didn't say anything about never knowing His reasons. Everyone eventually will know that God's judgements are just.

Yet again, it's an issue of trust (and faith). Do you trust God or don't you?