Can Thomas Monson Say Jesus Sinned And Still Be A True Prophet?

[orion88]

Aaron Shafovaloff has an interview with Steve - a Mormon Apologist - outside of Temple Square.

In this 11 minute video Aaron and Steve discuss the question of how far a Mormon prophet can

go and yet still be a true prophet.

It seems Steve has a different way of defining whether someone is committing an act of blasphemy.

If the person (even a Mormon prophet) makes a false statement in the guise of his opinion then it

would not be considered blasphemy. But if the prophet made it under the guise of an official

teaching, then that prophet would be committing blasphemy.

He then seems to backtrack when confronted with Brigham Young's teaching about Adam-God.

"This is getting closer to blasphemy ..." he mentions.

My question. Wouldn't it be blasphemy in both cases ... one a personal blasphemy committed by

the individual and the other as a blasphemy disseminated to the church?

The Mormon Church says in her literature, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man

who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not

in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place”

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199)." (Gospel Principles, 2009,

chapter 9, p.42).

My question. Would the Lord permit someone (like one of the 14 other apostles or the many

other priesthood holders speaking at local wards or General Conference) to lead an individual

or a group of people astray? Or is the teaching by Woodruff only applicable to the President?

Steve also has a new definition of what it means to lead one astray. If (as an example) you

were teaching 10 things and only one was wrong, that would not constitute leading someone

astray. To him, being led astray meant being misled on all 10 things and having the priesthood

removed - in effect, a total apostasy ... the church being destroyed ... which he said could

never happen again in his church.

My question. Aren't you leading someone astray when you teach something that is wrong and

it leads someone to believe in it and then follow a lifestyle correspondant to it?

I wish Steve would have elaborated on the Christian creeds that he believed were wrong but became

popular [8:20 minute mark] and whether they found their origin in the Bible or whether they were

just someone's opinion (i.e. not really blasphemy according to his earlier definition).

"It has to be official to be apostasy ... " [9:20 minute mark] ... ?? Aaron probes further on this point.

Steve is unsure how to answer.

Long time ago, Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at

the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the

principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all

the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through

the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in

this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond

the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348). This is the way our

Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a

certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the

Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings

of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46). - source: Gospel Principles, page 305 of

the 1997 edition.

This teaching has (seemingly) formed the entire basis of the doctrine of eternal progression.

Many people have followed this teaching of the prophet.

Hypothetically speaking ... if this teaching is wrong and Mormons worship a false god,

then wouldn't this be a prime example of blasphemy and leading people astray?

And could this be one of the reasons why this particular statement has been removed from

the current 2009 edition of Gospel Principles?

Thanks

Tony

[KevinG]

Don't confuse prophetic inerrancy (which we don't believe) with the Lord calling a Prophet who would lead the whole church astray or into apostacy.

One erronious statement does not a general apostacy make.

It looks like Aaron took that primary lesson on one tiny bit of poop making the whole cookie bad too literally.

As far as pushing the apologist by the name of Steve into a corner. Remember who got to choose the terms fo the debate and who got to edit the final video. I find this kind of ambush debate intellectually and morally lacking.

Edited November 6, 2011 by DaddyG

[diglot]

Don't confuse prophetic inerrancy (which we don't believe) with the Lord calling a Prophet who would lead the whole church astray or into apostacy.

One erronious statement does not a general apostacy make.

It looks like Aaron took that primary lesson on one tiny bit of poop making the whole cookie bad too literally.

As far as pushing the apologist by the name of Steve into a corner. Remember who got to choose the terms fo the debate and who got to edit the final video. I find this kind of ambush debate intellectually and morally lacking.

I don't think there was any editing of the final video. I just watched it and it was a single eleven minute conversation between the two, with no editing out of parts.

With that said, I think you are right that non-Mormon Christians confuse prophetic inerrancy with the Lord calling a prophet to lead the church.

[KevinG]

OK - in fairness I didn't bother watching the video. I retract my statement about editing. My thoughts on choosing the hypothetical conditions for the debate and ambushing some amateur apologist stands.

[CV75]

Aaron Shafovaloff has an interview

I agree that a President of the Church leading the saints astray would entail using his office to countermand the Lord, such as would have been the case had President Woodruff not led the charge for ending the practice of plural marriage. The Lord watches out for His people individually and collectively. He has provided due process for the removal of a leader or anyone else in the event He determines they might be operating to the detriment of the saints.

[CV75]

Hypothetically speaking ... if this teaching is wrong and Mormons worship a false god, then wouldn't this be a prime example of blasphemy and leading people astray?

And could this be one of the reasons why this particular statement has been removed from

the current 2009 edition of Gospel Principles?

In the same vein, any false teaching will be corrected and the perpetrator dealt with according to the severity of the crime.

Whether Joseph Smith committed blasphemy and led the people astray is not relevant to my possession of the covenants and the Gift of the Holy Ghost the Lord restored through him.

I think the Church would answer the question of why something gets removed from the latest editions of its publications.

[TAO]

Orion88, my answer to you would be that there is no clear answers on what is blasphemy and what is not. That is up to the Lord to decide and him only =P.

Edited November 7, 2011 by TAO

[LeSellers]

Can Thomas Monson Say Jesus Sinned And Still Be A True Prophet?

This is a nonsensical hypothetical question.

Neither President Monson, nor any of the other Presidents of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints would even contemplate framing such a statement.

Lehi

[rpn]

So where did Thomas Monson say that Jesus Christ, as we know Him and of Him biblically, scripturally, in relation to our earthlife, is a sinner?

[ldsfaqs]

It seems Steve has a different way of defining whether someone is committing an act of blasphemy.

If the person (even a Mormon prophet) makes a false statement in the guise of his opinion then it

would not be considered blasphemy. But if the prophet made it under the guise of an official

teaching, then that prophet would be committing blasphemy.

Actually, the context of his statement was what would make a false prophet compared to a true prophet.

His point was that having a false or so-called "blasphemous" opinion does not make a false prophet.

He then seems to backtrack when confronted with Brigham Young's teaching about Adam-God.

"This is getting closer to blasphemy ..." he mentions.

Adam/God is STILL taught in the temple, so I really wish anti-mormons would get off it already.

There was a "related" idea that was briefly taught in the St. George Temple, but it was quickly removed.

My question. Wouldn't it be blasphemy in both cases ... one a personal blasphemy committed by

the individual and the other as a blasphemy disseminated to the church?

Mormons don't even use the term "blasphemy", that's an Evangelical Aaron boogyman.

Sure, blasphemy is blasphemy, but the context of the discussion is can Prophets error and still be prophets.

The answer is, absolutely, it's all through the Bible, and it's an LDS belief.

The Mormon Church says in her literature, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man

who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not

in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place”

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff [2004], 199)." (Gospel Principles, 2009,

chapter 9, p.42).

My question. Would the Lord permit someone (like one of the 14 other apostles or the many

other priesthood holders speaking at local wards or General Conference) to lead an individual

or a group of people astray? Or is the teaching by Woodruff only applicable to the President?

The thing you're not understanding is that the Church has a system in place, that if a prophet crosses a line, in which he is leading the Church astray, then he will be removed. We and other Church authority's will remove him.

Steve also has a new definition of what it means to lead one astray. If (as an example) you

were teaching 10 things and only one was wrong, that would not constitute leading someone

astray. To him, being led astray meant being misled on all 10 things and having the priesthood

removed - in effect, a total apostasy ... the church being destroyed ... which he said could

never happen again in his church.

Let me give you an example..... There became come "common" ideas in the Church related to the Priesthood ban. Many of these ideas were false. Was some led astray, sure, but ultimately the Church was not lead astray, those ideas were destroyed by the truth because most didn't actually believe them, and ultimately revelation changed things.

My question. Aren't you leading someone astray when you teach something that is wrong and

it leads someone to believe in it and then follow a lifestyle correspondant to it?

Someone is not "the Church". The Church itself will never be led astray, because of it's checks and balances. Whatever false idea might enter the Church it will ultimately be removed.

I wish Steve would have elaborated on the Christian creeds that he believed were wrong but became

popular [8:20 minute mark] and whether they found their origin in the Bible or whether they were

just someone's opinion (i.e. not really blasphemy according to his earlier definition).

"It has to be official to be apostasy ... " [9:20 minute mark] ... ?? Aaron probes further on this point.

Steve is unsure how to answer.

Long time ago, Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at

the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the

principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all

the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through

the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in

this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond

the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348). This is the way our

Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a

certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the

Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings

of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46). - source: Gospel Principles, page 305 of

the 1997 edition.

This teaching has (seemingly) formed the entire basis of the doctrine of eternal progression.

Many people have followed this teaching of the prophet.

Nope.... That teaching exists no matter if Joseph ever taught the KFD.

Further, there's no evidence the teaching is actually false, because it's entirely based on what Christ himself said in the Bible, of him not doing anything he hadn't seen the Father do.

In other words, this teaching can be true without it being official doctrine.

Lot's of things are true that aren't doctrine of the Church.

Hypothetically speaking ... if this teaching is wrong and Mormons worship a false god,

then wouldn't this be a prime example of blasphemy and leading people astray?

First, how does this idea translate into mormons worshiping a false God?

That particular idea or not doesn't change who God IS, that is someone made up of spirit and matter.

Second, as I said above, the teaching is likely true, just not official doctrine. Thus, anyone teaching it, isn't really leading anyone astray, unless they say it's doctrine such as BCspace does.

And could this be one of the reasons why this particular statement has been removed from

the current 2009 edition of Gospel Principles?

Thanks

Tony

The likely reason the statement was removed is because it's not actually doctrine of the Church. It's simply a common believed idea within the Church. There however is no direct scripture nor revelation on it, thus the Church as each year goes by try's to make clear what it's actual doctrines are, compared to every belief and idea. The Church has learned from the past to not promote every idea if it's not doctrine. Gives lot's of fodder for anti-mormons.

[ERayR]

IMNSHO Wiford Wodruff's statement is in regard to the whole church. Individual people can lead other individual people astray. Each person has the right and OBLIGATION to seek and receive personal revelation as to what information they incorporate into their own lives. Even if it sounds really, really good each can and should seek their own confirmation. It is all part of the LDS experience. We are not bound by creeds and each of us is left to go beyond the basics and approach the throne of God individually.

Edited November 7, 2011 by ERayR

[3DOP]

Steve (The Rommelator) from the video explains that the President of the Church could say that Jesus was a sinner, and it would be wrong, but if he made a disclaimer that this was not binding on the Church, it would not be blasphemous.

I thought that it would be blasphemous for anyone to show public disrespect by word or deed to God. I would ask, are those who would curse God and religion not blasphemers simply because they aren't teaching in an official capacity?

[BCSpace]

Aaron Shafovaloff has an interview with Steve - a Mormon Apologist - outside of Temple Square.

In this 11 minute video Aaron and Steve discuss the question of how far a Mormon prophet can

go and yet still be a true prophet.

The answer to the question is technically he can go as far as he wants. That is because nothing he says is doctrine or considered to be from the Lord (as far as the whole Church is concerned) unless what he says is officially published by the Church. When he is officially published, it means all 15 prophets and apostles are in agreement.

And that is why it will be very difficult if not impossible for any prophet to lead the Church astray.

D&C 107, which gives equal auhority to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, means that while the Church is still guided by prophetic revelation, any one man is not going to have the burden that Moses did and be saved from the same errors of say, Balaam.

From the link in my siggy on doctrine:

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.

Edited November 7, 2011 by BCSpace

[Rivers]

If President Monson said that Jesus was once a sinner, that would certainly be blasphemy in my opinion. Even if it was his own opinion.

I think that once you start messing around with doctrines concerning the core gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the atonement, faith, repentance, etc., it is apostasy and blasphemy. Joseph Smith taught that the everything except for the teachings concerning the atonement are only appendages.

The interviewer was trying to compare the Adam-God theory with a hypothetical teaching that Jesus was once a sinner. IMO, Christ being a sinner compromises the entire atonement. You still have the atonement intact with the Adam-God theory.

[Arkholt]

Could the prophet contradict the entirety of revealed doctrine and still be a true prophet? No, I don't think so.

Does Adam-God count? No. I think it was just generally misunderstood by the membership of the Church, and I personally think that Brigham Young didn't entirely understand it, which was why it was dropped.

[Pahoran]

Aaron Shovelitoff is an IRL troll whom nobody takes seriously.

And when the only way he can come up with an argument against the Church of Jesus Christ is to invent ridiculous what-if hypotheticals, it is apparent that he has no argument at all.

Orion, if you ever want to have any credibility at all around here, you had best stop relying upon discredited anti-Mormon polemicists. In fact, you might want to stop dropping these stale anti-Mormon talking points as though they actually mean something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

Aaron Shafovaloff . . .

That was as far as I could go. No need to waste my time.

If you want to have a serious discussion you could at least start with something or someone credible.

[ldsfaqs]

What's further funny is that the Scriptures actually do indicate that Christ WAS a "sinner"..... He was mortal, made mistakes, had to grow grace to grace, etc. Of course, LDS call it transgression, not that he actually was a sinner. But Aarons definition is he would be a sinner, because they don't believe in transgression, they consider all acts of wrong a sin, transgression, no age of accountability, etc. or not.

Edited November 7, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Cobalt-70]

The interviewer was trying to compare the Adam-God theory with a hypothetical teaching that Jesus was once a sinner. IMO, Christ being a sinner compromises the entire atonement. You still have the atonement intact with the Adam-God theory.

I disagree. The atonement theory would survive, within the context of Mormonism, if Jesus were a sinner like the rest of us. It would not work within traditional Christianity (because Jesus and the Father are co-substantial), but Mormonism has traditionally contained the idea that a person can suffer for their own sins and thereby become spotless (which is where the blood atonement doctrine came from, among others). Consistent with Mormon theology, therefore, Jesus could have suffered for his own sins, while also suffering for the sins of all others.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-60:

Incorrect. No one can forgive themselves for their own sin.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Aaron Shovelitoff is an IRL troll whom nobody takes seriously.

And when the only way he can come up with an argument against the Church of Jesus Christ is to invent ridiculous what-if hypotheticals, it is apparent that he has no argument at all.

Orion, if you ever want to have any credibility at all around here, you had best stop relying upon discredited anti-Mormon polemicists. In fact, you might want to stop dropping these stale anti-Mormon talking points as though they actually mean something.

Regards,

Pahoran

I was about to say something similar. I am not interested in lame "gotcha" hypotheticals. If Aaron has something of substance to say I will be happy to talk to him or view is videos. As such, experience has taught me he rarely has anything of substance to say.

I echo Pahoran's statement. Tony, if you wish to have an ounce credibility I would not take anything Aaron says as reliable.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Vance]

Speaking of Aaron, does anyone have the link to the video of him frothing at the mouth?

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-60:

Incorrect. No one can forgive themselves for their own sin.

It is not that they "forgive themselves"--it is that they pay for their own sins. This idea was inherent in the blood atonement doctrine. It is also inherent in the doctrine that those who have their "calling and election made sure" must pay for their own blasphemies by being "destroyed in the flesh."

[KevinG]

What's further funny is that the Scriptures actually do indicate that Christ WAS a "sinner"..... He was mortal, made mistakes, had to grow grace to grace, etc. Of course, LDS call it transgression, not that he actually was a sinner. But Aarons definition is he would be a sinner, because they don't believe in transgression, they consider all acts of wrong a sin, transgression, no age of accountability, etc. or not.

I make a distinction between sin and error. I'm sure some time during Jesus mortal life, as the son of a carpenter, he split a tongue groove or hit his hand with a hammer. I'm also equally sure he didn't cheat his customers.

[Rivers]

I disagree. The atonement theory would survive, within the context of Mormonism, if Jesus were a sinner like the rest of us. It would not work within traditional Christianity (because Jesus and the Father are co-substantial), but Mormonism has traditionally contained the idea that a person can suffer for their own sins and thereby become spotless (which is where the blood atonement doctrine came from, among others). Consistent with Mormon theology, therefore, Jesus could have suffered for his own sins, while also suffering for the sins of all others.

Interesting thought but if we can all atone for our own sins, there would be no need for a savior in the the first place.