CASteinman Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Perhaps you need to spend some more time researching these brethren and these topics. You don't seem to have more than a superficial knowledge of them.Absolutely. I was trying to figure out what to say to that and you said it for me.
sunstoned Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Perhaps you need to spend some more time researching these brethren and these topics. You don't seem to have more than a superficial knowledge of them.I know this was directed to reelmormon, but to me these are good examples of prophets being wrong. Any yes, I have studied each topic. This is only a sampling. There are many other examples that can be had. So what? The brethren are the first to claim that they are just men, and that they are fallible. What I find interesting is that many members, some on this board, seem to give lip service to the idea that our leaders are not infallible, but when presented with example of this, they bristle up and get all defensive.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I'm curious: has anyone ever substantiated that those individuals to whom President Kimball referred to did not, in fact, acquire lighter skin? No? Didn't think so. So what basis do you have for asserting he was wrong? 1
sunstoned Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I'm curious: has anyone ever substantiated that those individuals to whom President Kimball referred to did not, in fact, acquire lighter skin? No? Didn't think so. So what basis do you have for asserting he was wrong?What was I thinking. You are right. BYU should do a scientific study on changes in skin tones of Native Americans who join the LDS church. After all, he was a prophet speaking in General Conference, so could not of been wrong.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) What was I thinking. You are right. BYU should do a scientific study on changes in skin tones of Native Americans who join the LDS church. After all, he was a prophet speaking in General Conference, so could not of been wrong.Is that an admission that you don't, in fact, know what you're talking about - and that you have no evidentiary basis for asserting President Kimball was wrong? Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
Storm Rider Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 But if your inspiration of the Spirit contradicts the prophets inspiration of the Spirit, it is clearly understood that your inspiration is wrong, and you need to keep praying/studying until it matches that of the prophet.Doesn't that, in essence, make the prophet infallible? or am I missing something?That is not my understanding of guidance of the Holy Spirit and personal responsibility. When the Spirit speaks, listen and obey. When the prophet speaks, listen and pray. If I don't receive a confirmation of his action/proposal/statement, then I don't follow. During my mission an elder came to the mission office and due to family issues he felt he needed to return home. I had occaision to meet with him prior to the him meeting with the mission president. I felt a real calmness and peace that this elder was needed at time and it was appropriate. He spoke with the MP, but he said he felt that it was wrong for him to go home. He sent the elder back to his city and asked him to pray about it some more. A week passed, the elder returned with a renewed conviction that he was needed at home. After talking with the elder the MP then said he agreed and that he felt led to allow him to return. Unless the prophet is speaking personally to me; giving a direction, etc., then I will always follow the Spirit. However, if he speaks to me, I will follow and the error will be on his head.
sunstoned Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Is that an admission that you don't, in fact, know what you're talking about - and that you have no evidentiary basis for asserting President Kimball was wrong?You would rather hang on to a silly, dated, and what could be taken as a racist statement than to admit that a Prophet is fallible? Edited June 12, 2012 by sunstoned
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 You would rather hang on to a silly, dated, and what could be taken as a racist statement than to admit that a Prophet is fallible?I'll take that as a resounding "YES" in response to my question. Unless you care to produce your evidentiary basis that President Kimball was wrong. Consider this a formal CFR.
sunstoned Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I'll take that as a resounding "YES" in response to my question. Unless you care to produce your evidentiary basis that President Kimball was wrong. Consider this a formal CFR.You want a CFR on if Native Americans are turning white when they join the church? How old are you?
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) You want a CFR on if Native Americans are turning white when they join the church? How old are you?I want a CFR on the specific statement attributed to President Kimball in this post being factually false.Get to it. Libelling me doesn't count as a reference. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
mfbukowski Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 And FWIW, "Prophetic Fallibility" could appropriately be discussed in the context of this discussion question for the lesson:Sure if you really wanted to force it in there, there's always a way to make something as controversial as possible. Good job.
mfbukowski Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 This doesn't sound any different than what Catholics teach about the pope. Most popes never speak infallibly. Infallibility is a conditional charism. Of course Joseph Smith the Man is fallible. The more important question might not be about whether there are times when the prophets are fallible, but whether there is any time when they might be infallible. Could Joseph Smith the Prophet propose error?(I don't have any bone to pick either way. I am mainly using this to show that papal infallibility is very rare and perhaps more like your view than you might have realized.)3DOPActually it is very similar.
CASteinman Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I don't understand why anyone would say that the prophets are "infallible" when the word "perfect" is available and more easily understood.
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 I'm curious: has anyone ever substantiated that those individuals to whom President Kimball referred to did not, in fact, acquire lighter skin? No? Didn't think so. So what basis do you have for asserting he was wrong?This is comedy but it's also embarrassing. "White and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon was changed to "pure and delightsome". The idea that laminates change and become white comes from a mistake in the printing of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately the mistake created an embarrassing Mormon cultural idea about changing skin color. Nobody teaches this anymore. It was a mistake.http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22white%22_changed_to_%22pure%22
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Unless the prophet is speaking personally to me; giving a direction, etc., then I will always follow the Spirit. However, if he speaks to me, I will follow and the error will be on his head.I'm not sure what people mean when they say it's on his head. I'm afraid you will still suffer the consequences of error. 1
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 This is comedy but it's also embarrassing. "White and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon was changed to "pure and delightsome". The idea that laminates change and become white comes from a mistake in the printing of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately the mistake created an embarrassing Mormon cultural idea about changing skin color. Nobody teaches this anymore. It was a mistake.http://en.fairmormon...anged_to_"pure"That does not address my post. Do you understand the question I asked? Would you like me to simplify it for you?
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 That does not address my post. Do you understand the question I asked? Would you like me to simplify it for you?How are you not embarrassed?
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) How are you not embarrassed?Because I don't care about your opinion of me. What I do care about is you actually responding appropriately to my post, instead of simply libelling President Kimball or myself. So, either put up, or shut up. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Because I don't care about your opinion of me. What I do care about is you actually responding appropriately to my post, instead of simply libelling President Kimball or myself. So, either put up, or shut up.There is nothing slanderous in pointing out mistakes. We all make them. The authoritarian structure of the church has a lot of great qualities but it also makes it very difficult to back away from mistakes let alone admit them. Mistakes are made nevertheless and the church body has to deal with them in their own way. I think your method is quite embarrassing.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) There is nothing slanderous in pointing out mistakes. Prove he made one. Do you understand the question I asked? Would you like me to simplify it for you? If English is not your first language, we have plenty of returned missionaries who might assist you in translating it into your native tongue.I think your method is quite embarrassing.Asking someone who asserts something to substantiate their claim by producing their evidentiary basis is embarrassing to you? I can only imagine you are embarrassed by it because you have no evidentiary basis to produce.If you have no such basis, you are engaged in mere libel.Put up, or shut up. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 Prove he made one. Do you understand the question I asked? Would you like me to simplify it for you? If English is not your first language, we have plenty of returned missionaries who might assist you in translating it into your native tongue.Asking someone who asserts something to substantiate their claim by producing their evidentiary basis is embarrassing to you? I can only imagine you are embarrassed by it because you have no evidentiary basis to produce.If you have no such basis, you are engaged in mere libel.Put up, or shut up.Engaging in ad hominem insults is also embarrassing and causes you to completely loose any sense of intelligent credibility. You are what you accuse me to be.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Engaging in ad hominem insults is also embarrassing and causes you to completely loose [sic] any sense of intelligent credibility. You are what you accuse me to be.What I accuse you of being is someone who is avoiding the very specific request for evidence which disproves President Kimball's specific statement referred to here.Noting that you are libelling me and President Kimball instead of answering the call for references is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, even if you find it insulting that I am pointing out your complete and utter lack of substance regarding President Kimball's statement.Put up, or shut up. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 What I accuse you of being is someone who is avoiding the very specific request for evidence which disproves President Kimball's specific statement referred to here.Noting that you are libelling me and President Kimball instead of answering the call for references is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, even if you find it insulting that I am pointing out your complete and utter lack of substance regarding President Kimball's statement.Put up, or shut up.The church does not teach that skin color changes after accepting the gospel. This is not doctrine. This is an extraordinary assertion that virtually nobody believes, in or out of the church. The burden of proof is on you. You and Kimball are the ones with the extraordinary claim that nobody believes (this is why it's embarrassing, get it?). You must prove that laminates turn white after baptism. Put up or shut up.
Log Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) .The church does not teach that skin color changes after accepting the gospel. This is not doctrine. This is an extraordinary assertion that virtually nobody believes, in or out of the church. The burden of proof is on you. You and Kimball are the ones with the extraordinary claim that nobody believes (this is why it's embarrassing, get it?). You must prove that laminates turn white after baptism. Put up or shut up.This has nothing to do with my post. Deflection into irrelevancies is not an appropriate response, which leads me to question whether you understand the question that's been asked.Do you understand the question I asked? Do you understand President Kimball's aforementioned statement?Would you like me to get someone to translate it into your native tongue? I can try to use Google Translate, but I haven't had such good results.If you do understand it, then I take your lack of responsiveness as an implicit admission you have got no evidentiary grounds to substantiate your position that President Kimball "made a mistake," and are, instead, engaged in mere libel.Put up, or shut up. Edited June 12, 2012 by Log
zelder Posted June 12, 2012 Posted June 12, 2012 .This has nothing to do with my post. Deflection into irrelevancies is not an appropriate response, which leads me to question whether you understand the question that's been asked.Do you understand the question I asked? Do you understand President Kimball's aforementioned statment?Would you like me to get someone to translate it into your native tongue? I can try to use Google Translate, but I haven't had such good results.You fail! Prove that skin color changes to white after baptism! I WANT THE PROOF!!!
Recommended Posts