Jump to content

How Do You Obey A Fallible Prophet With "Exactness"?


Recommended Posts

A recent Gospel Doctrine lesson focused on the principle of obeying the Prophet with "exactness":

“They Did Obey … Every Word of Command with Exactness", Lesson 32, Gospel Doctrine

How did the young Ammonites respond to the commands they received? (See Alma 57:21. Write on the chalkboard Follow the prophet “with exactness.”) Why is it important to be exactly obedient to the teachings of the Lord’s prophet? (See the quotation on the next page.) What are some specific things we must do today to follow the prophet “with exactness”?

This principle seems to conflict with the core tenets of apologetics, namely the ideas that we have a fallible Prophet who at times makes mistakes, and who may express his personal opinion over the pulpit. It also seems to conflict with the idea that we can seek spiritual confirmation of the Prophet's counsel, and if it is not confirmed by the spirit, we don't need to follow it.

I've long held that while these ideas may be a part of the apologetic mindset (out of necessity), the idea that the members of the Church may discover that the living Prophet might be wrong about something isn't supported by actual Church teachings. And this lesson is a clear example of that.

We aren't taught to follow the Prophet with wisdom and spiritual discretion, we are taught to follow with "exactness".

Link to comment
the ideas that we have a fallible Prophet who at times makes mistakes, and who may express his personal opinion over the pulpit. It also seems to conflict with the idea that we can seek spiritual confirmation of the Prophet's counsel, and if it is not confirmed by the spirit, we don't need to follow it.

This is the principle I have to live by. For me Having developed my testimony past stage 3 on most issues, I can no longer see things black and white. If the church ever told me to ignore the spirit and follow the Prophet blindly, I could no longer participate.

Part of the problem is very innocent. You likely have stage 3 believers writing the manuals and lessons for stage 3 members.

James Fowler's stages of faith are very real

here is a short description on how it applies to LDS.

http://www.digis.net...s/sof_inst.html

If you read up on Fowler you would find majority of individuals in any facet of religion or life for that matter arrive and stay at stage 3. That means most curriculum writes and LDS members are at this stage and so the teachings will generally be at this level as well.

For the record of those who are frustrated by me... I am definitely weaving between stage 4 & 5 depending on which issue and stage 4 is a very difficult stage in terms of emotion and willingness to adapt. So if I frustrate you it is James Fowler's fault.

Edited by DBMormon
Link to comment

This is the principle I have to live by. For me Having developed my testimony past stage 3 on most issues, I can no longer see things black and white. If the church ever told me to ignore the spirit and follow the Prophet blindly, I could no longer participate.

Part of the problem is very innocent. You likely have stage 3 believers writing the manuals and lessons for stage 3 members.

James Fowler's stages of faith are very real

here is a short description on how it applies to LDS.

http://www.digis.net...s/sof_inst.html

If you read up on Fowler you would find majority of individuals in any facet of religion or life for that matter arrive and stay at stage 3. That means most curriculum writes and LDS members are at this stage and so the teachings will generally be at this level as well.

For the record of those who are frustrated by me... I am definitely weaving between stage 4 & 5 depending on which issue and stage 4 is a very difficult stage in terms of emotion and willingness to adapt. So if I frustrate you it is James Fowler's fault.

Oh I get it. We should follow James Fowler with exactness as written by Jeff Thompson in Oct of 1999 - who's email at the bottom of his article is jeffret@bigfoot.com. Bigfoot? LOL!

Link to comment

When we talk about fallible, we are saying that they do their best to express the will of god but may express their opinion on matters that might be incorrect. I cannot think of any examples of a prophet giving instructions that would lead me away from salvation - I can find examples of where they misspoke on peripheral concepts such as explaining why a doctrine is so, or using supportive examples that are perhaps flawed but I can find no examples of actual instructions that are wrong. You would have to provide an example of instructions that has been given to our current generation that is wrong which might justify a reservation to obey.

Link to comment

A recent Gospel Doctrine lesson focused on the principle of obeying the Prophet with "exactness":

“They Did Obey … Every Word of Command with Exactness", Lesson 32, Gospel Doctrine

This principle seems to conflict with the core tenets of apologetics, namely the ideas that we have a fallible Prophet who at times makes mistakes, and who may express his personal opinion over the pulpit. It also seems to conflict with the idea that we can seek spiritual confirmation of the Prophet's counsel, and if it is not confirmed by the spirit, we don't need to follow it.

I've long held that while these ideas may be a part of the apologetic mindset (out of necessity), the idea that the members of the Church may discover that the living Prophet might be wrong about something isn't supported by actual Church teachings. And this lesson is a clear example of that.

We aren't taught to follow the Prophet with wisdom and spiritual discretion, we are taught to follow with "exactness".

This is what happens when we try to hammer in a scriptural teaching to our situation today, whilst ignoring the actual historical context of the scripture.

Link to comment

Oh I get it. We should follow James Fowler with exactness as written by Jeff Thompson in Oct of 1999 - who's email at the bottom of his article is jeffret@bigfoot.com. Bigfoot? LOL!

If you would like Fowler more directly then here...

http://faculty.plts....html/fowler.htm

http://en.wikipedia....ith_development

http://www.exploring...lersStages.html

http://www.ascqld.or...mvGg=&tabid=202

Not sure what seemed funny too you?

Edited by DBMormon
Link to comment

This is what happens when we try to hammer in a scriptural teaching to our situation today, whilst ignoring the actual historical context of the scripture.

Cinepro didn't, the manual did... right?

Link to comment

This is what happens when we try to hammer in a scriptural teaching to our situation today, whilst ignoring the actual historical context of the scripture.

Your fallacy of presentism, I presume? Yes, the historical context of the scripture was about an army of young men following with exactness a Nephite Prophet-Military Leader.

But this has nothing to do with our situation today. Nah. No army of the priesthood in the Latter-Days. We certainly can't apply that lesson in the Book of Mormon to our day.

The Book of Mormon was written for another people. Or for you, when you decide on obeying your Commanding Officer, as long as he's a prophet of God.

Yes, fallible prophets exist today, because of ignoring historical context of the scriptures. sheesh!

Link to comment

http://www.exploring...lersStages.html After reading this, I'd say I'm at stage 5, barely.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

Oh, the funny part was you believe the teachings of the prophets are fallible, then you quote some nobody to prove your point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DB, when a little devil perches himself on your shoulder and asks, "Jesus I know, Thomas Monson I know, but who's James Fowler?" or substitute some other worldly teacher's name for Fowler, what are you going to do? Stand or flee?

I'm just saying.

Link to comment

Oh, the funny part was you believe the teachings of the prophets are fallible, then you quote some nobody to prove your point. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DB, when a little devil perches himself on your shoulder and asks, "Jesus I know, Thomas Monson I know, but who's James Fowler?" or substitute some other worldly teacher's name for Fowler, what are you going to do? Stand or flee?

I'm just saying.

Yes I believe Prophets are falliable.... do you believe they are infalliable?

Also because someone is not a prophet we must not take their work seriously? Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, ect...

Fowler's theory on stages of faith is pretty well established. Not sure what your argument is with my stance unless you believe prophets are infalliable???? so do you.

By the way.... You may want to read stage three again .... does it sound familiar?

Link to comment

Oh I get it. We should follow James Fowler with exactness as written by Jeff Thompson in Oct of 1999 - who's email at the bottom of his article is jeffret@bigfoot.com. Bigfoot? LOL!

Oh, cool! A classic example of the old Appeal to Ridicule! Thanks! I had been looking for a good instance to refer to. You've made my day!

As it turns out, a person's email address is hardly a credible argument for or against a person's position on an issue. For that matter, a person's address isn't either. Say, for example, you received mail from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. Would you consider that so impressive on its face that you would believe whatever you found inside the envelope? I hope not, yet that's what you just did in ridiculing Jeff Thompson's email address.

A pathetic attempt at reasoning. Sorry to be so blunt.

What does ANACO stand for, anyway? I sure it must be something very profound. Either that, or you're from Venezuela.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment

Yes I believe Prophets are falliable.... do you believe they are infalliable?

Also because someone is not a prophet we must not take their work seriously? Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, ect...

Fowler's theory on stages of faith is pretty well established. Not sure what your argument is with my stance unless you believe prophets are infalliable???? so do you.

By the way.... You may want to read stage three again .... does it sound familiar?

Thanks for posting that thing about stages of faith! It explains a lot, actually. I don't know what stage I'm in. Maybe 3.5

Link to comment

A recent Gospel Doctrine lesson focused on the principle of obeying the Prophet with "exactness":

“They Did Obey … Every Word of Command with Exactness", Lesson 32, Gospel Doctrine

This principle seems to conflict with the core tenets of apologetics, namely the ideas that we have a fallible Prophet who at times makes mistakes, and who may express his personal opinion over the pulpit. It also seems to conflict with the idea that we can seek spiritual confirmation of the Prophet's counsel, and if it is not confirmed by the spirit, we don't need to follow it.

I've long held that while these ideas may be a part of the apologetic mindset (out of necessity), the idea that the members of the Church may discover that the living Prophet might be wrong about something isn't supported by actual Church teachings. And this lesson is a clear example of that.

We aren't taught to follow the Prophet with wisdom and spiritual discretion, we are taught to follow with "exactness".

Following the Prophet with exactness is not equivalent to following him with blindness.

Link to comment

A recent Gospel Doctrine lesson focused on the principle of obeying the Prophet with "exactness":

“They Did Obey … Every Word of Command with Exactness", Lesson 32, Gospel Doctrine

This principle seems to conflict with the core tenets of apologetics, namely the ideas that we have a fallible Prophet who at times makes mistakes, and who may express his personal opinion over the pulpit. It also seems to conflict with the idea that we can seek spiritual confirmation of the Prophet's counsel, and if it is not confirmed by the spirit, we don't need to follow it.

I've long held that while these ideas may be a part of the apologetic mindset (out of necessity), the idea that the members of the Church may discover that the living Prophet might be wrong about something isn't supported by actual Church teachings. And this lesson is a clear example of that.

We aren't taught to follow the Prophet with wisdom and spiritual discretion, we are taught to follow with "exactness".

In a military situation that makes perfect sense. Why the manual writer felt the need to expand on it in that way I don't know. One more reason I don't use the manual much when I teach. They're pretty bad.

Link to comment

The spiritual confirmation that is the duty of church members to seek and obtain, then leads to the protection of the exactness. It is only after one gets that spiritual confirmation that church members are to do what the prophets have asked. (And members aren't supposed to take their own sweet time seeking it either.)

Link to comment

This is the principle I have to live by. For me Having developed my testimony past stage 3 on most issues, I can no longer see things black and white. If the church ever told me to ignore the spirit and follow the Prophet blindly, I could no longer participate.

Part of the problem is very innocent. You likely have stage 3 believers writing the manuals and lessons for stage 3 members.

James Fowler's stages of faith are very real

here is a short description on how it applies to LDS.

http://www.digis.net...s/sof_inst.html

If you read up on Fowler you would find majority of individuals in any facet of religion or life for that matter arrive and stay at stage 3. That means most curriculum writes and LDS members are at this stage and so the teachings will generally be at this level as well.

For the record of those who are frustrated by me... I am definitely weaving between stage 4 & 5 depending on which issue and stage 4 is a very difficult stage in terms of emotion and willingness to adapt. So if I frustrate you it is James Fowler's fault.

Oh yeah? Well I am at stage 15!

Seriously- I see these stages as an opportunity to see oneself as more "mature" or whatever term you want to apply.

Clearly the higher the number the better you are and besides only smart people will even find these stages to begin with- or at least those are the tacit assumptions here I think. Maybe it is a way to put others down.

But I suppose I have elitist tendencies anyway so that is why I am aware of what fosters them. So because I guess I figured this out, I am clearly better than anyone else on this thread.

Do I put in a smiley or not?

Nah.

Link to comment

How do you obey a fallible prophet with exactness?

Prayerfully.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...