canard78 Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Perhaps you can share your feelings of why dead prophets are more important than living ones (number 3)Or you can share your feelings of why it is important that the prophet get credentials before giving revelation (number 5)When has the church been led astray by a living prophet? (number 4)Which other person speaks for the lord in everything (number 1)Can you see why modern revelation can be more important than past revelation? (number 2)At least, in my personal experience, I have been blessed when I have followed the prophet (number 14)I can understand why someone who doesn't believe in the church, revelation, priesthood, etc, would have a problem with the talk, I just don't see the talk conflicting my understanding of the church.(When I say follow the prophet, I mean when he is acting as one, which, to me seems pretty obvious)I'll happily discuss the issues with the attitudes represented in the 14 Fundamentals but I think it merits another tread. Would you like to start one? If not I can. My point is that rhetoric like this gives the impression 'the prophet is always right.'And yet there are times when he's not. Fallibility guarantees that.
KevinG Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Rhetoric like the parting of the red sea just give people the impression that if you have enough faith you can walk on water. 1
omni Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 To my knowledge nobody brought anybody to Christ by teaching history.You better tell the brethren that, because we sure love to teach about our history.
Ahab Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I learned about THE TRUTH for the first time about 10 years ago. An apologist once criticized me for not knowing about it earlier than that because it was not hidden. While it’s true that the information regarding THE TRUTH is not locked away, neither is it left out in the open. It can be found if you know where to look. However, having never even heard about THE TRUTH, why would I even look for it?This thread is not about THE TRUTH, but about what constitutes hidden history. A better question might be, “Are there different levels of hidden history?” The apologist might say, “Here’s the information. It’s not, nor was it ever hidden.” A critic might say, “I was never taught this. Therefore, it was hidden from me.”The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?Hidden history, regarding true history that is, is THE TRUTH of what actually happened in the past that someone in particular doesn't know anything about, and it's as elusive to some as THE TRUTH about anything else, even when some people are ever searching for THE TRUTH and yet are not able to find it. Nothing is hidden to God, though, and with God we can know THE TRUTH of all things even if some other people don't want us to find out about it.
omni Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 This is true and this is why churches don't spend their sunday's teaching it or even discussing it. However, we do have a problem. Many members of the lds church wish to see perfection in their history and the first sign of imperfection can give such members a tumbling experience. I think that this comes from hearing so many wonder things said about church leaders in church magazines and lessons. For example, the manuals dealing with church presidents. Or the perceptions that church sources give.However, the D&C does not give a wonderful perception of Joseph Smith as a perfect human being.I agree Why me, but if we want things to change then it all starts from the top. We are taught the "14 fundamentals of the prophet", one of the most popular primary songs we sing is "Follow the Prophet", in fact I can't recall ever hearing in church where a modern prophet was wrong.I have a good friend who is the most devout member I know, he literally bares his testimony on his voicemail message. In one of his 5 or 6 daily FB postings about the church he stated that "when a prophet speaks it is the same as if the Lord is speaking". In my experience (outside of internet forums), the more TBM a person is, the more they think like this. Sure they don't believe a prophet is "perfect", but when speaking about issues concerning the church they are more or less perceived to be.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 His 1980 talk repeated twice in 2010 general conference:https://www.lds.org/...ophets?lang=engandhttps://www.lds.org/...rvival?lang=engI struggle particularly with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14I think that this type of "follow the prophet, don't go astray" rhetoric sets the church up for a fall. We all agree that they are not infallible. We all agree that there are lots of examples of prophets "speaking as a man." The problem for a lot of membership not engaged in this apologetic conversation is that they are not given that impression. So when they realise that a prophet actually will sometimes lead them astray (being imperfect he sometimes has to by nature of imperfection) it's a bit of a shock, given what they've been taught since the day they could sing and march in a circle round the nursery room singing "follow the prophet, don't go astray" or hear conference talks and Ensign articles that say the prophet will "never lead the church astray." He has, he does, he will becaues he is fallible. Why do we therefore teach that he won't?I don't have a problem with any but number 5. That being said I seriously doubt that "14 Fundamental Principles of Mormonism " will make it into our Scriptures any time soon.
Danzo Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I'll happily discuss the issues with the attitudes represented in the 14 Fundamentals but I think it merits another tread. Would you like to start one? If not I can.My point is that rhetoric like this gives the impression 'the prophet is always right.'And yet there are times when he's not. Fallibility guarantees that.A thread like this might be useful, If you could start one. I am not very good at this form yet.A think the point of the talk (if you think about it) is that the prophets are, indeed fallible, hence the need to follow the current one, and not the dead ones.I am sure you would agree that following the dead ones, while ignoring the current ones is a recipe for disaster. The prophet alive during the BRM discourse was not the same as the one now, and is not the same as the one he grew up with. He was aware that the prophet would change and give different instructions, which is why he gave his counsel.Was his talk put in the best words?probably not?,was it an expression of church doctrine?Not reallyWas it good counsel? I have personally profited by it. I don't think I have been lead astray by following the current prophet.I don't see where anyone else was lead astray by following the current prophet either. Perhaps the understanding of past prophets has been corrected by the current ones, but I haven't heard of any being lead astray. 1
Danzo Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I don't have a problem with any but number 5. That being said I seriously doubt that "14 Fundamental Principles of Mormonism " will make it into our Scriptures any time soon.What is your problem with number 5?
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 Perhaps you can share your feelings of why dead prophets are more important than living ones (number 3)Or you can share your feelings of why it is important that the prophet get credentials before giving revelation (number 5)When has the church been led astray by a living prophet? (number 4)Which other person speaks for the lord in everything (number 1)Can you see why modern revelation can be more important than past revelation? (number 2)At least, in my personal experience, I have been blessed when I have followed the prophet (number 14)I can understand why someone who doesn't believe in the church, revelation, priesthood, etc, would have a problem with the talk, I just don't see the talk conflicting my understanding of the church.(When I say follow the prophet, I mean when he is acting as one, which, to me seems pretty obvious)Number 5 is problematic. Otherwise men live on the sun and moon. As much as I admired and respected Gordan B. Hinckley as a Prophet of God if he were to have picked up a scalpel and wanted to operate on me. I'd run..
Danzo Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Number 5 is problematic. Otherwise men live on the sun and moon. As much as I admired and respected Gordan B. Hinckley as a Prophet of God if he were to have picked up a scalpel and wanted to operate on me. I'd run..I don't really have a problem with the prophet being wrong on speculative doctrine, or having wrong opinions, That is the whole point of ETB insistence on following the living prophet as opposed to the dead ones.Following the prophet (In my opinion) is about following his counsel i.e. doing something, rather than believing everything he says. Whether there are men on the moon or not does not affect anything that I do. It doesn't affect the principles of salvation. However, when the prophet tells me not to drink wine, I do not care whether he has a medical degree or not, I do not even disbelieve that wine may have some medical benefits. I will try to follow his counsel regardless. I believe I have been blessed. Edited June 26, 2013 by Danzo 2
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I don't really have a problem with the prophet being wrong on speculative doctrine, or having wrong opinions, That is the whole point of BRM insistence on following the living prophet as opposed to the dead ones.Following the prophet (In my opinion) is about following his counsel i.e. doing something, rather than believing everything he says. Whether there are men on the moon or not does not affect anything that I do. It doesn't affect the principles of salvation. However, when the prophet tells me not to drink wine, I do not care whether he has a medical degree or not, I do not even disbelieve that wine may have some medical benefits. I will try to follow his counsel regardless. I believe I have been blessed.As I said I don't have a problem with any but number 5. That isn't what BRM's #5 claims. "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time". Of course he doesn't give up his freedom of speech just because he's a Prophet, but when/if he uses that position to give credence to his own ideas/actions. He is just as subject to error as anyone else. Number 5 also does violence to our rule of Common Consent. IE; We have no doctrine as to why we are presently not to drink wine. Only that God through his Prophet has said so, and we have agreed.
Danzo Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 As I said I don't have a problem with any but number 5. That isn't what BRM's #5 claims. "The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time". Of course he doesn't give up his freedom of speech just because he's a Prophet, but when/if he uses that position to give credence to his own ideas/actions. He is just as subject to error as anyone else. Number 5 also does violence to our rule of Common Consent. IE; We have no doctrine as to why we are presently not to drink wine. Only that God through his Prophet has said so, and we have agreed.And we follow him even though he has no earthly credentials as to why he would know better than another.Although, I agree that it could have been worded better by BRM, the principle behind his statement is still valid. (he doesn't say they will be infallible when they speak on any subject)We confess our sins to our bishops, and get counsel from them, even though they may not have any counseling credentials.We accept callings even though we know that it isn't because our training and credentials that we are called (at least not for me)
Nevo Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 That is the whole point of BRM insistence on following the living prophet as opposed to the dead ones.That isn't what BRM's #5 claims.Although, I agree that it could have been worded better by BRM, the principle behind his statement is still valid.FYI, the talk was by ETB not BRM.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 And we follow him even though he has no earthly credentials as to why he would know better than another.Although, I agree that it could have been worded better by BRM, the principle behind his statement is still valid. (he doesn't say they will be infallible when they speak on any subject)We confess our sins to our bishops, and get counsel from them, even though they may not have any counseling credentials.We accept callings even though we know that it isn't because our training and credentials that we are called (at least not for me)I think that some one being a Prophet would give them at least some expertise to speak on what God wants. I'm not too sure it gives him authority to act in areas outside his expertise.I don't expect infallibility from anyone other than God. By the same token I didn't surrender my brain at the Church doors. IE; If someone other than a legally recognized surgeon wanted to operate on me. I'd run no matter how loudly they screamed they were a prophet of God. Also if someone has to appeal to their religion to separate me from my money. I'll run not walk to the nearest exit.I've held many and varied positions/callings in the Church. Though never one very high up. I've been honored and humbled by the faith that God, and members of the Church have put in me. But it is a good thing that God has never called me to be the surgeon for the Church.My formal training was a psychiatric social worker. So I do have the educational qualifications for being a Bishop or one of his counselors. I have served as a counselor in a Bishopric. But have never particularly wanted the job, and have never sought them.
thesometimesaint Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) FYI, the talk was by ETB not BRM.OK. My mistake. I knew it was ETB. But fumble fingers strike again. Edited June 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint
canard78 Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 A thread like this might be useful, If you could start one. I am not very good at this form yet.A think the point of the talk (if you think about it) is that the prophets are, indeed fallible, hence the need to follow the current one, and not the dead ones.I am sure you would agree that following the dead ones, while ignoring the current ones is a recipe for disaster. The prophet alive during the BRM discourse was not the same as the one now, and is not the same as the one he grew up with. He was aware that the prophet would change and give different instructions, which is why he gave his counsel.Was his talk put in the best words?probably not?,was it an expression of church doctrine?Not reallyWas it good counsel? I have personally profited by it. I don't think I have been lead astray by following the current prophet.I don't see where anyone else was lead astray by following the current prophet either. Perhaps the understanding of past prophets has been corrected by the current ones, but I haven't heard of any being lead astray.Actually, Kevin has just started one with a much more rounded discussion of prophets. I raise the 14 fundamentals on there (2nd page).
Calm Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 In my experience (outside of internet forums), the more TBM a person is, the more they think like this. Define "TBM" as you are using it here (in my definition of TBM which means to me someone committed to living the gospel as illustrated by various things but mostly by their willingness to serve others, I do not find any such correlation).
omni Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 Define "TBM" as you are using it here (in my definition of TBM which means to me someone committed to living the gospel as illustrated by various things but mostly by their willingness to serve others, I do not find any such correlation).I define "TBM" as a "true believing Mormon" or "true blue Mormon". Someone who is devout, has a strong testimony, committed to living the gospel, attends church regularly, etc. I realize many TBMs here take a more nuanced approach to belief, but in my experience with TBMs in my ward, family, and friends, they generally take a very literalistic or black and white approach towards the church.
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-june-2013/2013-06-12-two-witnesses-three-days-and-the-aftermath-of-the-martyrdom-eng.pdfWhile waiting in a doctors office, I read the June 2013 Ensign. Something caught my eye in the article "Two Witnesses, Three Days and the Aftermath of the Martyrdom" . I saw a pistol on Joseph Smith while he was in the jail. But the article didn't mention him shooting anyone with it or that he even had it. Interesting that they are being more open to this fact, just not in the writing of it in this particular article. Check it out!
ERayR Posted June 26, 2013 Posted June 26, 2013 http://media.ldscdn....rtyrdom-eng.pdfWhile waiting in a doctors office, I read the June 2013 Ensign. Something caught my eye in the article "Two Witnesses, Three Days and the Aftermath of the Martyrdom" . I saw a pistol on Joseph Smith while he was in the jail. But the article didn't mention him shooting anyone with it or that he even had it. Interesting that they are being more open to this fact, just not in the writing of it in this particular article. Check it out!From the earliest accounts I can remember the account always mentioned the pistol. My reaction, even as a youngster, was how did somebody in jail get a pistol.
Wiki Wonka Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 From the earliest accounts I can remember the account always mentioned the pistol. My reaction, even as a youngster, was how did somebody in jail get a pistol.On my mission in the early 80's, we had a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It talked about how Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol in to Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. We showed that filmstrip to investigators all the time. I've tried to locate an old copy, but haven't been able to so far. I wish I hadn't left my copy in South America.WW 1
Danzo Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 On my mission in the early 80's, we had a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It talked about how Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol in to Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. We showed that filmstrip to investigators all the time. I've tried to locate an old copy, but haven't been able to so far. I wish I hadn't left my copy in South America.WWEvery detailed account I've read, about the martyrdom has mentioned the pistol. The summary ones don't, but by definition, summary accounts don't mention a lot of things.People who only read summaries shouldn't be surprised to find out that there are details. 1
ERayR Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 On my mission in the early 80's, we had a filmstrip called "The Martyrdom." It talked about how Cyrus Wheelock smuggled a pistol in to Carthage Jail and gave it to Joseph. We showed that filmstrip to investigators all the time. I've tried to locate an old copy, but haven't been able to so far. I wish I hadn't left my copy in South America.WWI learned about it in the 50's or early 60's in Primary or Sunday School.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 Every detailed account I've read, about the martyrdom has mentioned the pistol. The summary ones don't, but by definition, summary accounts don't mention a lot of things.People who only read summaries shouldn't be surprised to find out that there are details.Gosh you really mean there is more to the story than just a summary? What do you know!!!
Recommended Posts