Does God Speak Through Lds Prophets And Apostles?

[Eldwynn]

Often, in a wide range of subjects, the common apologetic response to an issue that an older prophet has said, is that the prophet is merely speaking as a Man, and it is not God speaking.

This has always been rather problematic. For example, Joseph F. Smith taught that Evolution was just flat out wrong, and weighed in heavily from the pulpit on the subject (even an official First Presidency statement was written).

This is often discounted as his personal opinion, and not commanded from God. However, I stumbled across something interesting today.

Dieter Uchtdorf gives this 'First Presidency Message' in relation to preparing for the next General Conference of the Church:

A fine member of the Church was talking with a neighbor who was not of our faith. When the topic of discussion turned to general conference, the neighbor asked, “You say you have prophets and apostles? And twice a year in a worldwide conference they reveal the word of God?”

“Absolutely,” the member replied with confidence.

The neighbor thought about that for a moment. He seemed genuinely interested and then asked, “What did they say in the last general conference?”

At this point the good member of the Church went from feeling excited about sharing the gospel to feeling embarrassed. Try as he might, he couldn’t think of the details of a single talk.

His friend found this troubling and said, “You mean to tell me that God speaks to man in our day and you can’t remember what He said?”

The brother felt humbled by this exchange. He vowed that he would do better to remember the words spoken by the Lord’s servants in general conference.

We all know how hard it is to remember every message of general conference, and I’m confident that we need not be embarrassed if we don’t remember everything. Nevertheless, there are messages in each general conference given as a gift and a blessing from heaven specifically for our personal life situations.

In preparation for general conference, let me suggest three basic concepts that may help us to better receive, remember, and apply the words spoken by the Lord’s servants.

It seems President Uchtdorf is specifically speaking AGAINST the common apologist argument. Is this problematic? How on earth do you know which teachings should be followed (as being from God) and which should be discounted (as merely personal opinion).

[elguanteloko]

I'll offer another problem:

Prayer won't work to answer which doctrines are of God and which ones are not, either. God's revelations to you as an individual (who is not a GA) can NOT confirm that the words of the prophets are correct since to do so would be to receive revelation that is for the whole Church which (if we believe you only receive revelation to those under your authority) is against the commonly stated 'rules'.

Edited September 17, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Palerider]

Often, in a wide range of subjects, the common apologetic response to an issue that an older prophet has said, is that the prophet is merely speaking as a Man, and it is not God speaking.

This has always been rather problematic. For example, Joseph F. Smith taught that Evolution was just flat out wrong, and weighed in heavily from the pulpit on the subject (even an official First Presidency statement was written).

This is often discounted as his personal opinion, and not commanded from God. However, I stumbled across something interesting today.

Dieter Uchtdorf gives this 'First Presidency Message' in relation to preparing for the next General Conference of the Church:

It seems President Uchtdorf is specifically speaking AGAINST the common apologist argument. Is this problematic? How on earth do you know which teachings should be followed (as being from God) and which should be discounted (as merely personal opinion).

The viability of past general authority statements as revelations from God depend on how well they correlate with the current positions held by the church...whatever that may be.........see? Easy......

[TAO]

You know by the spirit.

I remember President Monson's talks on gratitude and mairrage, and they effected me quite deeply.

Most definitely revelation.

Edited September 17, 2011 by TAO

[Eldwynn]

The viability of past general authority statements as revelations from God depend on how well they correlate with the current positions held by the church...whatever that may be.........see? Easy......

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

[elguanteloko]

(to follow up on my previous post, here is a better version of the argument)

P1. You can't receive revelation the content of which is binding upon the whole Church.

P2. Asking whether the truth value of a revelation given by the GAs (or any authority higher than you are, also) is "true" or "false" is to ask for information the result of which (that is, whether it is "true" or "false") will be binding upon the whole Church.

C: You can't receive revelation the content of which is whether a given revelation given by the GAs is "true" or "false".

[Eldwynn]

You know by the spirit.

I remember President Monson's talks on gratitude and mairrage, and they effected me quite deeply.

Most definitely revelation.

If a homosexual prayed and received a felling that God wanted him to marry a man and be happy, would you reject his answer?

[TAO]

If a homosexual prayed and received a felling that God wanted him to marry a man and be happy, would you reject his answer?

My friend, I cannot tell what he felt, so I can only go on what I felt. Likewise, he cannot feel what I have felt, so my answer would not be effective.

Nonetheless, I have been told it is not the way it is meant to be, which is a good enough answer for me. So yes, I would say it is wrong. But I am not sure he would listen for the same reason I would not listen to him; because we don't know each others' feelings.

That is why the spirit is the base of it all. From that, you build to the priesthood; to trusting the prophets and apostles. For that reason, you will be utterly responsible for your actions, which means you have to be careful. Mistakes can be deadly. Unfortunately, because we can't feel what others feel, we often trust our own feelings over what they say theirs are.

Edited September 17, 2011 by TAO

[Palerider]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

I apologize. I was actually being a little of both. I believe it is a truthful statement and yet it would not sit well with most TBM's

[Palerider]

If a homosexual prayed and received a felling that God wanted him to marry a man and be happy, would you reject his answer?

It seems counter-intuitive to what the Savior said in the scripture don't you think?

Mark 10: 6-9

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

⁷For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

⁸And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

⁹What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

I find no foundation anywhere in the scriptures where God has joined together two men (or two women for that matter).

Edited September 17, 2011 by Palerider

[Eldwynn]

It seems counter-intuitive to what the Savior said in the scripture don't you think?

Mark 10: 6-9

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his ^bwife;

9 What therefore God hath ^ajoined together, let not man put ^basunder.

I find no foundation anywhere in the scriptures where God has joined two men.

So what? I see nowhere in the scriptures were those with dark skin (despite them being the first humans on the planet) being treated as fully human, and yet, here we are.

Besides, that passage was a metaphor/ written by man.

[erichard]

...? How on earth do you know which teachings should be followed (as being from God) and which should be discounted (as merely personal opinion).

Generally, I do not listen to general conference. But from time to time I have looked up a certain talk and watched and listened to it online later. My impression is that the delivery and the quality (of every talk that I happened to watch) was very good.

But my conscious tells me that that is NOT the same thing as the influences of the Holy Ghost. It is the influence of education and hard work-- which are very important and valuable assets to a person, but are still not always the same thing.

From what I understand and have seen, General Conference talks are written and approved ahead of time. They are delivered with teleprompters. Possibly this scripture does not apply to General Conference:

"Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man." --D&C 84:85

My own experience is that the spirit and message with the scriptures is different than what I find in writings and teachings of people in the church-- even leaders.

People in the church are quick to defend the discourses and teachings of the brethren as guaranteed to be the way God sends us His messages. They are convinced they are defending the church and the gospel.

But what they are really doing, from my experience, is actually the "politics of men". The leaders (men in the flesh with blood in their veins-- the only type of men there are) are placed on a pedestal like an idol. They are above any legitimate controversy.

The problem I have with GAs being idols is that it clearly contradicts the scriptures.

If the right of legitimate dissent over leaders existed in the church, then one would not be required to consider everything taught in General Conference as being a message from God that cannot be questioned. A leader or member would only be a prophet when he actually prophecies and it comes to pass. Likewise for being Seers and Revelators.

Some members, of course, sense [link removed by mod] that the present church leaders are not really spiritually on the same level as Joseph and other early Mormon prophets.

I remain convinced that the Lord's church will not progress spiritually until it allows legitimate dissent over the leadership.

Richard

[TAO]

So what? I see nowhere in the scriptures were those with dark skin (despite them being the first humans on the planet) being treated as fully human, and yet, here we are.

Besides, that passage was a metaphor/ written by man.

Thus, why it is often wise to trust what the prophets and apostles are saying (both then and now)... because it clears up this issue.

That is why revelation for the church is needed. Personal Revelation provide personal motivation. But church revelation provides church organization. Both are pretty important, imo, in the church I see as Christ's upon the Earth. Without one, or the other... things would fail... they'd be different. It's a balancing act =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

erichard, GAs don't go precisely by the words they thought of earlier. Otherwise there wouldn't have been news coverage over what President Packer said a few General Conference's ago concerning inclinations being overcomable.

In any case, although there is those verses, I am not truly that worried, as I think they are doing what the Lord would like them to do at the moment.

Edited September 17, 2011 by TAO

[Storm Rider]

I'll offer another problem:

Prayer won't work to answer which doctrines are of God and which ones are not, either. God's revelations to you as an individual (who is not a GA) can NOT confirm that the words of the prophets are correct since to do so would be to receive revelation that is for the whole Church which (if we believe you only receive revelation to those under your authority) is against the commonly stated 'rules'.

Unfortuantely, that is just flat out wrong. Revelation is personal in nature and any individual disciple of Christ can learn the truth of all things. You are missing the distinction: a member may not receive revelation and then declare it so for the Church as a whole. The prophet leads; not the individual. Regardless, an individual can know the truth of things through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It would be best to understand "the rules" or the correct teachings of the Church before making these type of silly declarations. Bluntly, it confuses others and makes you look less bright than you are.

[elguanteloko]

Unfortuantely, that is just flat out wrong. Revelation is personal in nature and any individual disciple of Christ can learn the truth of all things. You are missing the distinction: a member may not receive revelation and then declare it so for the Church as a whole. The prophet leads; not the individual. Regardless, an individual can know the truth of things through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It would be best to understand "the rules" or the correct teachings of the Church before making these type of silly declarations. Bluntly, it confuses others and makes you look less bright than you are.

Here's the problem, SR. Can you receive every revelation the Prophet can receive?

If you do, then specific revelations he can receive which would be called "for the Church" can be received by you, too. Therefore, either you can receive revelation that is called "for the Church" (making the claim that you can't null) or you are not able to know whether what the prophet and the GAs say was revelation was revelation after all (from God).

(BTW, I asked you a question back at the "Dallin Oak'S Remarks" thread. I don't know if you saw it)

Edited September 17, 2011 by elguanteloko

[The Nehor]

Here's the problem, SR. Can you receive every revelation the Prophet can receive?

Yes. Only if God wants to share of course and he might.

If you do, then specific revelations he can receive which would be called "for the Church" can be received by you, too.

Yes.

Therefore, either you can receive revelation that is called "for the Church" (making the claim that you can't null) or you are not able to know whether what the prophet and the GAs say was revelation was revelation after all (from God).

No, the restriction is in declaring revelation to the Church. God can tell me he's going to give women the Priesthood in 15 years, that the Millenium will start in 2038, and that next year we are switching to a new prophet manual and give me a name if He wants. I am just supposed to keep it private and use it only for my own preparation (aka my stewardship).

This is taught in the Book of Alma in a general way and Brigham Young taught it specifically in this way. He stated you might get a revelation about what the Church would do in the future but it's not your job to declare it.

Lorenzo Snow had this happen when he learned about the acquisition of godhood in the eternities years before Joseph taught it publicly. When he asked Joseph about it he was told it was true but not to be shared yet.

[The Nehor]

If a homosexual prayed and received a felling that God wanted him to marry a man and be happy, would you reject his answer?

I would but that shouldn't be relevant. Of course if it was just a feeling and not a spiritual confirmation he should doubt it too.

If it was a revelation and they know it then they should follow it and not care what I think.

[Cobalt-70]

I'll offer another problem:

Prayer won't work to answer which doctrines are of God and which ones are not, either. God's revelations to you as an individual (who is not a GA) can NOT confirm that the words of the prophets are correct since to do so would be to receive revelation that is for the whole Church which (if we believe you only receive revelation to those under your authority) is against the commonly stated 'rules'.

I have to disagree with you there. There's no prohibition on anybody receiving knowledge that might be applicable to the whole church. The difference is that only the official statements of the First Presidency (revelatory or not) are binding on the whole church. Your position in the church has no bearing on what kind of revelation you can receive--it only has bearing on whether or not you can legitimately impose that revelation (or at least your hopefully inspired or enlightened opinion) on others.

[Storm Rider]

Here's the problem, SR. Can you receive every revelation the Prophet can receive?

If you do, then specific revelations he can receive which would be called "for the Church" can be received by you, too. Therefore, either you can receive revelation that is called "for the Church" (making the claim that you can't null) or you are not able to know whether what the prophet and the GAs say was revelation was revelation after all (from God).

(BTW, I asked you a question back at the "Dallin Oak'S Remarks" thread. I don't know if you saw it)

Maybe it would be helpful to be specific. Frankly, I don't think a prophet can receive any knowledge that would not be open to the any other individual. If I receive it, it is a revelation of truth; if the prophet receives it, it may become a revelation for the entire Church.

I think many people knew the policy of the Church regarding priesthood ordination was incorrect. Many of the apostles felt it was prior to 1978. One of my favorite leaders, H. B. Brown, knew it was. However, the Church had to wait until the prophet and each apostle felt the same way before the policy was changed.

Why does it take some people so long to hear the truth? I assume it is a matter of priorities for them. These men carry the weight of the world on their shoulders and just as we seldom can hear the voice of the Lord regarding all things, so it is with them. Unless the Lord chooses to knock down the door we all can be pretty deaf to the still, small voice.

[Storm Rider]

Revelation is the perfect witness of the Spirit to all truth. I envisage it as an intense beam of light that has depth and breadth. We may touch the outside of the light and we can plunge our hand firmly into the light. In doing so, we learn eternal truths and learn of the mysterious of God.

To be Exalted is to live totally within the light, be able to do so by the perfection offered us through Christ. In this life we are not often able to plunge deeply into the light, but rather we barely touch the surface of the light and at moments we may dip deeper, but only for moments at a time. Knowledge pours in at those moments and can easily overwhelm.

What I know for certain is that nothing is withheld from us except that which we cannot bear at present. Being a prophet or an apostle is to wear a mantle; these are callings to preside over the Church. They do not signify they have become the revealers of all truth to the Church by any stretch of the imagination.

[Glenn101]

Here's the problem, SR. Can you receive every revelation the Prophet can receive?

I do not think that any one individual can receive any revelation that the current prophet and president of the church can. That would place the church in much the same position as the mainstream Christian religions who proclaim that God works through all believers directly now, rather than prophets.

All I can do when a prophet reveals a new policy, etc. which he proclaims to be from God is to receive a personal confirmation that it is indeed from God. That confirmation is binding upon me only, because it is personal. I have no authority to receive revelation for the church nor to take my personal revelations and insist that they are binding upon the church.

That is where your logic fails. Only the prophet and president of the church has the authority to receive revelation and declare it binding upon the church. Even if I received a similar revelation, I could not assert it as binding on the church because I lack the keys and authority to do so.

Glenn

[Senator]

It seems President Uchtdorf is specifically speaking AGAINST the common apologist argument. Is this problematic? How on earth do you know which teachings should be followed (as being from God) and which should be discounted (as merely personal opinion).

Ignore the apologists!

Seriously, if you perceive a contradiction between what apostles and prophets say, and what apologists say; ignore the apologists. I think any General authority would agree with that statement. It is applicable to member and non-member alike.

[mnn727]

From the Churches website:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  

[Palerider]

So what? I see nowhere in the scriptures were those with dark skin (despite them being the first humans on the planet) being treated as fully human, and yet, here we are.

Besides, that passage was a metaphor/ written by man.

Sorry, that passage was not metaphorical and if you consider the Savior's words to be written by man, why are you even bothering with the words of LDS general authorities?