Prophet And Church Paradigms: Expectations And Anomaly

[canard78]

You're adding your own spin onto the talk.  Elder Benson said the prophet wouldn't lead us astray. He didn't add any caveats. In fact he added this story:

 

Elder McConkie gave a list of seven "deadly" heresies. Since at least two (and in my mind there is evidence for a couple of the others too) were taught by Brigham Young as a prophet, didn't Brigham lead people astray? If he didn't why are those heresies deadly?

 

For clarity, he's quoting Marion G. Romney's story. But given he quotes it, he clearly has the same point of view.

[WmLaw]

I have a little problem with the exclusivity required here.  Since blacks and the priesthood was raised lets talk civil rights.  I happen to believe that Martin Luther King spoke the words that the Lord wanted said to this country in the sixties.  This <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://bycommonconsent.com/?s=come+listen+to+a+prophet" href="http://bycommonconsent.com/?s=come+listen+to+a+prophet" s+voice"="">article sums my view on Rev King perfectly.  What were the brethren talking about during the civil rights movement? The author of the 14 fundamentals was writing pamphlets such as "Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception." Again "The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything," but in practice the Lord appears to use a variety of tools both inside and outside the church to speak for his purposes.

Nicely reasoned.

[WmLaw]

“First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

 

So, who else besides the prophet can speak for the lord in everything? Can you give examples?

“Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

 

What is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than the scriptures?

“Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

 

Again, what is the point of having a living prophet if what they say is not more pertinent than a dead one?

“Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Provide a single example of where a prophet has led us astray form the principles and ordinances of the gospel?

“Fifth: 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.

 

Since no prophet has ever had any particular earthly training how can you take issue with this?

“Sixth: The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.

“Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

“Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

“Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

“Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

“Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

“Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

“Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

“Fourteenth: [Follow] … the living prophet and the First Presidency … and be blessed; reject them and suffer.”

 

If I changed this to say 'follow the Book of Mormon and be blessed, reject them and suffer' what would you say? Or " follow the Savior and be blessed, reject him and suffer'.

 

If you do not have a testimony of the role of a living prophet, and accept him as Gods mouthpiece than you are not in a position to accept anything every written by any person who claims to be a prophet.

Since this has not been canonized, aren't they already disqualified as absolute truths?

[mercyngrace]

INTJ. I guess that why I think rules about white shirts, earrings, and facial hair are just superficial cr@p.

 

I'm all for flex days and casual work clothes.

 

Just sayin'.

[cinepro]

There is a difference between speaking for the lord on everything and being an authority on everything. The prophet is the ultimate authority and the only one authorized to represent the Lord in all respects. He represents the Lord on earth, not botany, psychology, pedagogy or any other human endeavor. 

Even if we assume that the ban was wrong, did it lead the church away from salvation? Did any prophet lead the church astray from the principles and ordinances of the gospel required for salvation? No. The point about expertise is that, if God wants the prophet to speak the prophet will speak. Although information precedes inspiration, inspiration trumps revelation.

There is a difference between following what you know of God and rejecting what God has given you. This is the point.

 

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that the Church's categorical ban on anyone of presumed African descent from going to the Temple didn't lead the Church astray from the ordinances of the gospel required for salvation?

[canard78]

One of the perks of my paradigm is a different approach to that thinking, seeing it not as offical (for what is official, see

http://en.fairmormon...g_has_been_done

), but as characteristic of a certain stage of thinking that some individuals adopt a a means of dealing with complexity. Certain personality types may be more vulnerable to its appeal at different times, but because it is more a developmental issue than a doctrinal one, the notion of stomping it out is a pipe dream. Many formal statements have failed to eliminate it in the past. But by having a different context for processing it when I encounter it, including a repetoire of Prophetic Declarations to the Contrary to balance their Appeals to Authority, and some basic patterns to consider, such as Myers-Briggs type descriptions and especially this from the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, I have a different context in which to process it. Perry was studying Harvard students transitioning from provincial high school environments to a Univeristy Environment (that is, Smart kids). The relevance to the chronic complaints of LDS shows that the complaints were not created by the LDS environment, but have more to do with human development.

 

------------------------------

 

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. 

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go. ... 

...

[which I'll leave to the link on my profile, till a person gets to Position 6]

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

[ and several more transitions leading to Stage 9]

 

------------------------------

Official statements won't be truly "heard" by those who don't yet have a higher understanding of human authorities because that understanding is contingent on developing that understanding of human authorities. The transition cannot be forced by statements from authorities. As the FAIR link shows, such statements have been made by the highest LDS authorities on several occasions. One might think that those who most depend on authority figures for guidance would have noticed, but the issue is not the thoughts expressed, but the thinking about authority that filters perception and guides thinking at those positions. The best we can do is nurture those in transition, and the best way to nurture individuals through transitions is to understand the individual types and developmental positions for what they are.

And that is why I love Brigham Young on "knowing people as they are, and not as you are."

When I get some time over the holiday weekend, I'm going to start another thread on Biblical examples of those who hold prophets to a higher standard.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

For the sake of those joining the conversation on page 6, this is well worth repeating.

 

BTW Kevin, did you ever do that thread on Biblical examples?

 

Thanks

[canard78]

There is a difference between speaking for the lord on everything and being an authority on everything. The prophet is the ultimate authority and the only one authorized to represent the Lord in all respects. He represents the Lord on earth, not botany, psychology, pedagogy or any other human endeavor. 

Even if we assume that the ban was wrong, did it lead the church away from salvation? Did any prophet lead the church astray from the principles and ordinances of the gospel required for salvation? No. The point about expertise is that, if God wants the prophet to speak the prophet will speak. Although information precedes inspiration, inspiration trumps revelation.

There is a difference between following what you know of God and rejecting what God has given you. This is the point.

 

I don't quite follow you. Does the prophet speak for the Lord on everything or is he an authority on everything? Or both? You're making a distinction, but I don't know why.

 

Are you saying he doesn't have a right to speak on botany, psychology etc? How about physiology? Or ethnicity? Or sexuality?

 

If we assume the ban was wrong then we at least recognise that the prophet can call it wrong. Which is why they so frequently urge us to take our own responsibility and not simply depend on their word for a mandated behaviour. 

 

You say "Although information precedes inspiration, inspiration trumps revelation." I think (??) you mean that personal inspiration trumps prophetic revalation? Have I read you right? So if I get personal inspiration that contradicts a prophet's revelation (and therefore reject his revelation) will I still suffer? I'd say not, but a fundamentals follower would disagree. Is a follower of the fundamentals a Fundamentalist?

[Kevin Christensen]

For the sake of those joining the conversation on page 6, this is well worth repeating.

 

BTW Kevin, did you ever do that thread on Biblical examples?

 

Thanks

I did not get around to the thread on Biblical examples, though anyone who is curious should be able to discern the gist by looking at my FAIR Wiki discussion here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Rejecting_true_prophets

I've been busy on a review of Deconstructing Mormonism, which has turned into a double review because reading Riskas has reminded me of just how good a book Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms, is. I'm 26 pages in, and expect it to come in at around 40.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

Bumping this thread for Freedom's attention having mentioned it in a separate thread (here).

 

As I said at the top of page 2, I do not consider all of the 14 fundamentals to all be required belief for Mormons nor a test of faith and I consider some of them to be unhelpful for me. I recognise that the paradigm expressed by President Benson (in a BYU speech) and later repeated twice in General Conference in 2010 is helpful for some people. I recognise some people want absolutes. Following a prophet, in a 14 fundamentals style, is certainly an 'absolute' approach to life.

 

I respect and embrace the teachings of prophets. Just not in a 14 fundamentals style. There are many tools in the box of mormonism and I select the ones most useful and productive to me. They aren't mine, Freedom, but I respect your right to use them if you find them useful.

Following the prophet absolutely for me, is actually circular reasoning.

 

Before one CAN follow the prophet in the first place one must gain a testimony that he IS a prophet.

 

To me, the absolute admonition should be to follow the Holy Ghost- because that is the only way one will know who is or who is not a prophet anyway.

 

Pretty simple stuff, I would think.  And prophets have been known to be wrong.

[mfbukowski]

So, who else besides the prophet can speak for the lord in everything? Can you give examples?

Of course.

 

The Holy Ghost.

 

 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may ^aknow the ^btruth of all things.

 

Edited September 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And does it appear that the Holy Ghost tells different people different things?

 

Yes.

 

Horrors!  Ambiguity!  You mean we actually have to THINK for ourselves?   AUGH!  Not that!

[Freedom]

Amos 3:7. The lord God will do NOTHING...

Unless you can find a scripture that says the Lord God will take some actions without the involvement of his prophets there is no doctrinal foundation to dispute this verse.

 

Martin Luther may have been inspired, but it was the Prophet of God that spoke Gods will on the matter. The leaders of the church thought long and hard on this matter and made it a prolonged matter of prayer. When Gods will was made manifest, the practiced was changed. We can assume that the exclusion of African Americans was an error but there is no evidence of this. If we do assume it was an error, we should also assume that Jesus's exclusion of non-jews was also an error. All we know is that there was an exclusion, as there has been in the past. I made an error in a comment earlier, what I meant to say was - information precedes inspiration but inspiration trumps information. This is what makes a  prophet the authority. They seek out the information and then receive the appropriate inspiration to declare the will of God. No prophet at any time had any special training or expertise. They are prophets, they rely on revelation.

Although the Holy Ghost can speak for God, no one but the prophet will receive inspiration from the holy ghost on any given subject. Individuals can only receive inspiration that pertains to them or their stewardship. The purpose of the church, and of prophets by that same token, is to lead us to salvation. This is the only path from which a prophet can lead us astray. Someone would have to provide evidence that this has ever occurred in this dispensation. It has not. No teaching of the prophets has lead us to fall away from the gospel. A prophet will receive revelation pertaining to botany if it pertains to our salvation.

 

We do not require our prophets to be experts in psychology before they are entitled to receive revelation pertaining to mental health issues. We do not require our prophets to be experts in engineering to receive revelation pertaining to the construction of temples.

[mfbukowski]

I did not get around to the thread on Biblical examples, though anyone who is curious should be able to discern the gist by looking at my FAIR Wiki discussion here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Rejecting_true_prophets

I've been busy on a review of Deconstructing Mormonism, which has turned into a double review because reading Riskas has reminded me of just how good a book Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms, is. I'm 26 pages in, and expect it to come in at around 40.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Very cool- can't wait to see that.

 

I have not yet read the book because I can't stomach the idea of laying out a few hundred bucks to read it, but it is clear to me that you are the one to write that deconstruction of Deconstruction.

 

Just from what I have seen on the boards though, Riskas seems to have no understanding of Polanyi, Kuhn, and Barbour.

[rockpond]

Amos 3:7. The lord God will do NOTHING...

Unless you can find a scripture that says the Lord God will take some actions without the involvement of his prophets there is no doctrinal foundation to dispute this verse.

 

Martin Luther may have been inspired, but it was the Prophet of God that spoke Gods will on the matter. The leaders of the church thought long and hard on this matter and made it a prolonged matter of prayer. When Gods will was made manifest, the practiced was changed. We can assume that the exclusion of African Americans was an error but there is no evidence of this. If we do assume it was an error, we should also assume that Jesus's exclusion of non-jews was also an error. All we know is that there was an exclusion, as there has been in the past. I made an error in a comment earlier, what I meant to say was - information precedes inspiration but inspiration trumps information. This is what makes a  prophet the authority. They seek out the information and then receive the appropriate inspiration to declare the will of God. No prophet at any time had any special training or expertise. They are prophets, they rely on revelation.

Although the Holy Ghost can speak for God, no one but the prophet will receive inspiration from the holy ghost on any given subject. Individuals can only receive inspiration that pertains to them or their stewardship. The purpose of the church, and of prophets by that same token, is to lead us to salvation. This is the only path from which a prophet can lead us astray. Someone would have to provide evidence that this has ever occurred in this dispensation. It has not. No teaching of the prophets has lead us to fall away from the gospel. A prophet will receive revelation pertaining to botany if it pertains to our salvation.

 

We do not require our prophets to be experts in psychology before they are entitled to receive revelation pertaining to mental health issues. We do not require our prophets to be experts in engineering to receive revelation pertaining to the construction of temples.

 

The church obviously didn't take any action with respect to allowing black members into temple and priesthood without the prophet being involved.  But, MLK definitely spoke the truth of equality first.  A truth that the church needed to follow.

[Kevin Christensen]

Very cool- can't wait to see that.

 

I have not yet read the book because I can't stomach the idea of laying out a few hundred bucks to read it, but it is clear to me that you are the one to write that deconstruction of Deconstruction.

 

Just from what I have seen on the boards though, Riskas seems to have no understanding of Polanyi, Kuhn, and Barbour.

It will take the time it takes. For "Paradigms Crossed" I had the luxury of being between jobs for a few months, and spent 12-14 hours a day. For Riskas, I'm having to fit it in when I'm quite busy with work, church, and home life. A few more weeks at current rates, and then running it through the Interpreter processes.

For Riskas, deconstruction has everything to do with an uncritical adoption of Positivism, and nothing to do with Derrida. The results of adopting positivism are quite predictable. Nibley spells it out in "Paths that Stray: Some Notes on the Sophic and Mantic" and Riskas falls in line. I'm bringing that in, and some Goff, and lots of Barbour because his work slices nicely through the network of assumptions that Riskas doesn't seem to think he has made. I even have a little Derrida style deconstruction, by pointing out the reliance on metaphor, and how the metaphors Riskas employs anchor his logic. Riskas claims that believers are trapped in a box for which the instructions on how to get out are on the outside, and challenges believers to submit to an "outside test for faith." But how well has he described the insider test? Is his outsider test, off-the-rack positivism, valid? What happens if we submit his outsider test to a test out side of that? (Barbour, in this case). I've even got some Perry Scheme. He's obviously functioning at Position 2. I don't know why Kerry is so impressed. It's a tedious read, whereas Barbour shines.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 11, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[cinepro]

And does it appear that the Holy Ghost tells different people different things?

 

Yes.

 

Horrors!  Ambiguity!  You mean we actually have to THINK for ourselves?   AUGH!  Not that!

 

That's a nice thought, but it isn't an LDS one. 

 

Unless you can find even a single reference anywhere in a Church publication acknowledging that the Holy Ghost can tell different people different (i.e. contradictory) things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That's a nice thought, but it isn't an LDS one. 

 

Unless you can find even a single reference anywhere in a Church publication acknowledging that the Holy Ghost can tell different people different (i.e. contradictory) things.

This certainly is not one (from Elder Oaks):

 

Similarly, we cannot communicate reliably through the direct, personal line if we are disobedient to or out of harmony with the priesthood line.The Lord has declared that “the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness” (D&C 121:36).Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

Edited September 11, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rockpond]

Here is a recent one:

 

Where is that quote from?

 

Never mind... found it:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

Edited September 11, 2013 by rockpond

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Where is that quote from?

October 2010 General Conference. Dallin H Oaks: Two Lines of Communication:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/two-lines-of-communication?lang=eng

[pogi]

Following the prophet absolutely for me, is actually circular reasoning.

 

Before one CAN follow the prophet in the first place one must gain a testimony that he IS a prophet.

 

To me, the absolute admonition should be to follow the Holy Ghost- because that is the only way one will know who is or who is not a prophet anyway.

 

Pretty simple stuff, I would think.  And prophets have been known to be wrong.

 

It is true that prophets have been known to be wrong, but it is equally true that the Holy Ghost has been known to be imitated leading to deception and misguidance.

 

We cannot try the word (as in Alma 32) without having the word in the first place, which comes through the prophets.  This means that we do not necessarily need a testimony of the prophets before we can "try" their words.

 

I think our best protection from deception and misguidance comes from the talk linked above:

 

"We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life."

[omni]

 

We do not require our prophets to be experts in psychology before they are entitled to receive revelation pertaining to mental health issues. We do not require our prophets to be experts in engineering to receive revelation pertaining to the construction of temples.

 

 

But we probably should require them to become experts in engineering and astrobiology before making statements like this:

 

 

 

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." 

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." 

 

-Joseph Fielding Smith

 

 

 

Or this by Brigham Young:

 

 

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fathers. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized".

 

 

 

Or this reportedly taught by Joseph Smith:

 

The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. 

 

 

 

Interesting side note, when looking up the Joseph Fielding Smith quote it brought me to an LDS message board with a poll asking if JFS was correct.  47% of those voting agreed with him.     

[mfbukowski]

It will take the time it takes. For "Paradigms Crossed" I had the luxury of being between jobs for a few months, and spent 12-14 hours a day. For Riskas, I'm having to fit it in when I'm quite busy with work, church, and home life. A few more weeks at current rates, and then running it through the Interpreter processes.

For Riskas, deconstruction has everything to do with an uncritical adoption of Positivism, and nothing to do with Derrida. The results of adopting positivism are quite predictable. Nibley spells it out in "Paths that Stray: Some Notes on the Sophic and Mantic" and Riskas falls in line. I'm bringing that in, and some Goff, and lots of Barbour because his work slices nicely through the network of assumptions that Riskas doesn't seem to think he has made. I even have a little Derrida style deconstruction, by pointing out the reliance on metaphor, and how the metaphors Riskas employs anchor his logic. Riskas claims that believers are trapped in a box for which the instructions on how to get out are on the outside, and challenges believers to submit to an "outside test for faith." But how well has he described the insider test? Is his outsider test, off-the-rack positivism, valid? What happens if we submit his outsider test to a test out side of that? (Barbour, in this case). I've even got some Perry Scheme. He's obviously functioning at Position 2. I don't know why Kerry is so impressed. It's a tedious read, whereas Barbour shines.

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Yes, I understand the Derrida point.

 

There was another book called "Fear of Knowledge" by Boghossian which was coming from much the same direction and which finally Boghossian admitted was deficient for the same reasons.  He simply did not fully understand the constructivist position.

 

A review of that book can be found here: http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/2/278.deterding

 

Usually the site requires a simple registration and is free, but I was having trouble accessing that file just a few minutes ago, but I have the full article in a pdf which I can email to you if you think it will be useful.

 

I think I put up something about that on my blogsite also- I will check that and get it on there if it is not there already.

 

The basic problem is that positivisim simply is an inadequate theory of justification to counter the pragmatic/constructivist argument.  The positivist says something like "relativism cannot absolutely be true" and the relativist replies "I know- nothing can- that's the whole point- it's relative."

 

The positivist cannot show the fallacy of the position because of his own Perry stage. and because his own assumptions about the proof are precisely  what is being challenged in the first place.

 

Regarding Kerry, I am saddened to think you are right, but the truth of what you say is obvious unfortunately.  He needs to read more positions which challenge his, I think. 

[mfbukowski]

That's a nice thought, but it isn't an LDS one. 

 

Unless you can find even a single reference anywhere in a Church publication acknowledging that the Holy Ghost can tell different people different (i.e. contradictory) things.

Well I am not quite sure what you mean by "an LDS thought" since it is certainly widely held.  God teaches us and guides us as our understanding increases line upon line, precept upon precept, which inevitably means that he must teach some people one way and others another way.

 

That seems pretty basic and pretty "LDS" to me.

 

And there are many statements to the effect that the church is not the repository of all truth, and clearly even the idea of an open canon itself suggests that doctrine changes.

 

In fact that is one reason I am LDS- because doctrine and its interpretation can change according to the times.

 

The other thing is that perhaps you did not understand what I said.  Words are important to me and I usually say EXACTLY what I mean.

 

In fact, if you actually read what I said you will see that your post in fact proves my position correct.

 

What I said was:

And does it appear that the Holy Ghost tells different people different things?

 

Yes.

 

Horrors!  Ambiguity!  You mean we actually have to THINK for ourselves?   AUGH!  Not that!

Surely you know the difference between statements "APPEARING" to be saying one thing while saying another and "CONTRADICTING" another statement, isn't it?

 

And surely you understand how different people need to be taught in different ways, don't you?

 

It's that old ambiguity catching up again.

[mfbukowski]

"We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance to achieve the growth that is the purpose of mortal life."

Of course that is true, but we have an epistemological problem here- the question is how do YOU KNOW that THAT statement IS true?

 

The only possible answer is "by the spirit".

 

Actually I suppose that is not true.  You could say "Because Dallin H. Oaks said so" But I am certain that Elder Oaks himself would find that quite alarming.

[Freedom]

But we probably should require them to become experts in engineering and astrobiology before making statements like this:

 

 

 

 

Or this by Brigham Young:

 

 

 

 

Or this reportedly taught by Joseph Smith:

 

 

 

Interesting side note, when looking up the Joseph Fielding Smith quote it brought me to an LDS message board with a poll asking if JFS was correct.  47% of those voting agreed with him.     

Of course, none of these quotes have anything to do with the topic of the current discussion.