Can We Minimize Prophets?

[Mystery Meat]

It seems that as some acknowledge that prophets make mistakes, they seem to also conclude that prophets aren't as important as they once thought, even if they decide to stay in the Church. But under LDS theology, can we be so dismissive of the Prophets? Don't they play an essential role in the Latter-day Church, mistakes and all? Or are they just well intentioned men who we can ignore or quietly disregard when we disagree with them? If so then what is their role? It seems to me that the new trend among some members of the Church, perhaps especially those who have come out of a faith crisis is to diminish their role. Can we do that and still be...Latter-day Saints? I have my own answers for me but I am curious to see how everyone else feels.

 

Thoughts?

[JLHPROF]

Oh, this is so my pet peeve.  While I fully acknowledge that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such, and that revelation is continuing, I really hate the dismissive attitude many people have towards former prophets.  Brigham Young in particular is a popular whipping boy - but if he really was the prophet of the Lord and his mouthpiece in his day shouldn't we be less dismissive of his teachings.

I mean, just try and tell someone that the Journal of Discourses is church doctrine and watch the excuses appear.

 

Now it seems like Joseph is next up for being downplayed, and if ever there was a prophet who shouldn't have their teachings downplayed...welll, you know.

[Mystery Meat]

Oh, this is so my pet peeve.  While I fully acknowledge that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such, and that revelation is continuing, I really hate the dismissive attitude many people have towards former prophets.  

 

Once you are dismissive of former Prophets, it is that much easier to be dismissive of current ones. And to a point I understand the dilemma. If they make mistakes, how can we trust that what they are saying is right? People say take it to the Lord for confirmation, but what happens when two people get two different answers (or rather think they do)?  

[Palerider]

Someone can only be truly "minimized" when they have been over-inflated to begin with. There's an over abundance of whitewashed aggrandizement that takes place with LDS leadership; to the point of being spiritually unhealthy.

 

I don't think that honest "mistakes" minimize a man. They only make him human.

 

For example:

 

That's the way I view the criticisms of the U.S. Founding Fathers. They did the best they could under the circumstances in which they found themselves. And, they made mistakes. Still, I revere their accomplishments and feel they are deserving of the gratitude of a thankful nation.

 

However the nature (and number) of the "errors" made by supposedly latter day prophets, aren't of the type that manifest their humanity, rather they make one question their integrity or the veracity of their claimed callings.

 

That's why people have faith crisis. Not because they have been shown to be human.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Palerider

[mormonnewb]

I think a little "minimizing" might be healthy because we seem to rely on our prophets for guidance on just about EVERYTHING -- what movies we should watch, how many earrings is too many in each ear, what activities are acceptable on the Sabbath, etc.  Perhaps, our prophets wouldn't make so many "mistakes" if they weren't forced to provide guidance on every decision we'll ever make.

 

In fact, I can practically hear Pres. Uchtdorf screaming at every General Conference, "Stop it!  Stop thinking of us as perfect and exalted beings!  Stop trying to make every Mormon conform to one standard!"  Ironically, it seems that this message is the only one we feel free to ignore from a prophet.

[Palerider]

I think a little "minimizing" might be healthy because we seem to rely on our prophets for guidance on just about EVERYTHING -- what movies we should watch, how many earrings is too many in each ear, what activities are acceptable on the Sabbath, etc.  Perhaps, our prophets wouldn't make so many "mistakes" if they weren't forced to provide guidance on every decision we'll ever make.

 

In fact, I can practically hear Pres. Uchtdorf screaming at every General Conference, "Stop it!  Stop thinking of us as perfect and exalted beings!  Stop trying to make every Mormon conform to one standard!"  Ironically, it seems that this message is the only one we feel free to ignore from a prophet.

 

There is a difference between being united and of one mind as Paul says and being UNIFORM as some promote.   I've seen the latter masquerading as the former, too much in the church. 

 

 

Parable of the Vain Shepherd

 

A certain Nobleman went to a far country to receive a kingdom unto himself. While going he set shepherds over his flock saying, “Feed my sheep as I have shown thee and when I return I shall reward thee accordingly, for my grace is sufficient for them and thee.”

But one who would be shepherd tarried and saith unto himself, “I will be better than my Master and I will bring the sheep to perfection and the glory shall be mine when my Master returneth.” And thus he fed the sheep that which was not necessary and mingled tares in the sheeps feed and thought to bring them to perfection. And he did mingle His Master’s law with that of the Masons and the fables of the mystics and did pattern it after Moses’ law and with this he did feed the sheep.

 

And the vain shepherd waited to see the fruits of his labor, and said unto himself, “I will measure the perfection of the lambs and their righteousness.” And the shepherd examined the sheep with many questions such as, “Art thou honest in all thy dealings with thy fellow sheep?”   But the sheep began to speak to the shepherd as though he were the Nobleman and they asked regarding the way to perfection. “Should we drink Coke or Pepsi?” “What is a full and perfect tithe?” “How shall we keep the Sabbath perfectly?” and many other questions did they ask the shepherd.

 

And the vain shepherd was angry and said, “Who hast made thee thus?” “Why must I command thee in all things?” And the sheep were confused, but the vain shepherd blamed the sheep for their errors and lack of wisdom and perfection and said unto the sheep, “Thou hast not worked, thou hast not followed, thou must try harder.” “Thou must give thy wool and even thy fleece if it is required of thee.” But the sheep were confused and sorrowful at heart.

And when the shepherd saw that the sheep were sorrowful and confused, he saith unto them, “Thou must be joyful and not sorry, for this is not perfection.”  And the sheep smiled continually, but they began to be leanfleshed and to be an hungered.

 

When the Nobleman returned and seeth his sheep he calleth for the vain shepherd and saith unto him, “What is this that thou hast done with my sheep?” And the shepherd, seeing that he could not hide that the sheep were leanfleshed, in his fear and shame could give no answer. Then in His mercy the Nobleman saith unto the vain shepherd, Thou shouldst have trusted in my grace, for it alone is sufficient to perfect the faithful who abide in me and do my works. Thou mayest no more pretend to be shepherd but shall take thy place with the sheep and I will feed them and thee and they shall enter into my kingdom before thee.“   

[Storm Rider]

I think a little "minimizing" might be healthy because we seem to rely on our prophets for guidance on just about EVERYTHING -- what movies we should watch, how many earrings is too many in each ear, what activities are acceptable on the Sabbath, etc.  Perhaps, our prophets wouldn't make so many "mistakes" if they weren't forced to provide guidance on every decision we'll ever make.

 

In fact, I can practically hear Pres. Uchtdorf screaming at every General Conference, "Stop it!  Stop thinking of us as perfect and exalted beings!  Stop trying to make every Mormon conform to one standard!"  Ironically, it seems that this message is the only one we feel free to ignore from a prophet.

 

 

I agree with you, but when prophets address these areas they put the membership in a position of needing to follow. Are they speaking as prophets when they ask that a woman only wear a single ear ring in each ear? How about what clothes to wear? If they speak we listen.

 

This liberty of speaking their mind results in a host of policies where, in my no so humble opinion, is folly.  Speak of righteousness; speak of correct principles; on all else clarify that it is only opinion, otherwise, for God's sake, keep you bloody mouth shut.  

 

We find ourselves in the position today of being confused about defining when a prophet speaks as a prophet and when isn't he. When is a policy God-given and when is it not? Frankly, I have a degree of righteous anger at the Brethren. We sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators every general conference. When was the last time they functioned as prophets, or as seers, or as revelators? 

 

We have not had a seer function as such since the time of Joseph.  Further, we have had very rare additions to the D&C since Joseph's time. However, we have had a host of policies created and not a single policy has been clarified to be directed by God. The priesthood policy was declared "doctrine" in 1949. However, prior to that time it simply was. 

 

If the Brethren are "minimized" it is because they have done it to themselves and they need to work themselves out of it. They need to be much more careful about talking and creating policy. There is no need to create confusion in the minds of the saints. We teach revelation, but they have ignored that teaching and instituted their own desires and thoughts. 

 

As far as the membership goes; we must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth regardless from whence it comes. If I cannot gain a testimony of what the Brethren speak, then it means I don't have a testimony of what they say. I will not say it is false, but I will not say it is true either. It is true that I have become more circumspect when listening to General Authorities.  I would much rather enjoy the days when I thought prophets and apostles talked directly to God and were guided in all they said by him. I pray those days return. 

[Tacenda]

There is a difference between being unitedt and of one mind as Paul says and being UNIFORM as some promote. I've seen the latter masquerading as the former, too much in the church.

Parable of the Vain Shepherd

A certain Nobleman went to a far country to receive a kingdom unto himself. While going he set shepherds over his flock saying, “Feed my sheep as I have shown thee and when I return I shall reward thee accordingly, for my grace is sufficient for them and thee.”

But one who would be shepherd tarried and saith unto himself, “I will be better than my Master and I will bring the sheep to perfection and the glory shall be mine when my Master returneth.” And thus he fed the sheep that which was not necessary and mingled tares in the sheeps feed and thought to bring them to perfection. And he did mingle His Master’s law with that of the Masons and the fables of the mystics and did pattern it after Moses’ law and with this he did feed the sheep.

And the vain shepherd waited to see the fruits of his labor, and said unto himself, “I will measure the perfection of the lambs and their righteousness.” And the shepherd examined the sheep with many questions such as, “Art thou honest in all thy dealings with thy fellow sheep?” But the sheep began to speak to the shepherd as though he were the Nobleman and they asked regarding the way to perfection. “Should we drink Coke or Pepsi?” “What is a full and perfect tithe?” “How shall we keep the Sabbath perfectly?” and many other questions did they ask the shepherd.

And the vain shepherd was angry and said, “Who hast made thee thus?” “Why must I command thee in all things?” And the sheep were confused, but the vain shepherd blamed the sheep for their errors and lack of wisdom and perfection and said unto the sheep, “Thou hast not worked, thou hast not followed, thou must try harder.” “Thou must give thy wool and even thy fleece if it is required of thee.” But the sheep were confused and sorrowful at heart.

And when the shepherd saw that the sheep were sorrowful and confused, he saith unto them, “Thou must be joyful and not sorry, for this is not perfection.” And the sheep smiled continually, but they began to be leanfleshed and to be an hungered.

When the Nobleman returned and seeth his sheep he calleth for the vain shepherd and saith unto him, “What is this that thou hast done with my sheep?” And the shepherd, seeing that he could not hide that the sheep were leanfleshed, in his fear and shame could give no answer. Then in His mercy the Nobleman saith unto the vain shepherd, Thou shouldst have trusted in my grace, for it alone is sufficient to perfect the faithful who abide in me and do my works. Thou mayest no more pretend to be shepherd but shall take thy place with the sheep and I will feed them and thee and they shall enter into my kingdom before thee.“

This is exactly what the EV's are talking about! When written as a parable like this it's plain to see. Thank you for this.

[thesometimesaint]

The truly amazing thing is that with all of our faults and flaws God talks to us anyway. Having said that God doesn't make sock puppets or sheeple but we're sure good at it.

[JLHPROF]

We have not had a seer function as such since the time of Joseph.  Further, we have had very rare additions to the D&C since Joseph's time. However, we have had a host of policies created and not a single policy has been clarified to be directed by God.

 

 

And that really should worry members a bit (but it doesn't).  If our leaders are doing the best they can, but don't have explicit direction from the Lord in the affairs of his Kingdom, we may not be heading the direction God wants.

[CV75]

It seems that as some acknowledge that prophets make mistakes, they seem to also conclude that prophets aren't as important as they once thought, even if they decide to stay in the Church. But under LDS theology, can we be so dismissive of the Prophets? Don't they play an essential role in the Latter-day Church, mistakes and all? Or are they just well intentioned men who we can ignore or quietly disregard when we disagree with them? If so then what is their role? It seems to me that the new trend among some members of the Church, perhaps especially those who have come out of a faith crisis is to diminish their role. Can we do that and still be...Latter-day Saints? I have my own answers for me but I am curious to see how everyone else feels.

 

Thoughts?

I think their indispensable role is to carry the keys of the kingdom and preside over their use for the various ordinances. This is far more important than any mistake they might make. Far more good is accomplished by all that is right than anyhting that could result from any mistake they could make. The Lord is watching over everything and can set straight, and even prevent, anything that might be amiss if He wanted to.

[Palerider]

This is exactly what the EV's are talking about! When written as a parable like this it's plain to see. Thank you for this.

 

 

[stemelbow]

I think the 15 prophets, seers, and revelators are important to the whole scheme of the Church.  But I also think we should take some of their comments with a fair amount of caution, at least.  I dont' think its fair to say that would be dismissing them.  But perhaps seeing them as they are, and treating them as such. 

[rick7475]

What about the OT prophets? How do we deal with those that slept with prositutes, got drunk and passed out, refused to do what the Lord instructed, ordered the annhilation of entire villages including men women and children and so and so forth.

[stemelbow]

What about the OT prophets? How do we deal with those that slept with prositutes, got drunk and passed out, refused to do what the Lord instructed, ordered the annhilation of entire villages including men women and children and so and so forth.

 

We say "eh..no big deal.  They were a product of their culture.  Must like BY and JS were concerning racism."  I guess? 

[jkwilliams]

There is plenty of disagreement among the apostles and the prophets today, but they do not act unless they reach a consensus and are united. I once saw a major church publication that was pretty much done until it went to the Twelve for review. 11 of them made minor changes but generally praised the content and expressed enthusiasm about the project. One disagreed with the entire project and would not agree to publication unless quite a lot of it was removed, drastically reducing the scope of the publication. In the end, the publication went out in that gutted form because that was the only way to reach consensus. Some people I knew who were involved in the project were deeply upset that their work was disregarded, but that's how it works. Nothing gets approved unless the brethren are united and in complete agreement.

[stemelbow]

There is plenty of disagreement among the apostles and the prophets today, but they do not act unless they reach a consensus and are united. I once saw a major church publication that was pretty much done until it went to the Twelve for review. 11 of them made minor changes but generally praised the content and expressed enthusiasm about the project. One disagreed with the entire project and would not agree to publication unless quite a lot of it was removed, drastically reducing the scope of the publication. In the end, the publication went out in that gutted form because that was the only way to reach consensus. Some people I knew who were involved in the project were deeply upset that their work was disregarded, but that's how it works. Nothing gets approved unless the brethren are united and in complete agreement.

 

The tedious nature of this practice makes me exhausted thinking about it.  It's like a peer review process much like modern scholarship.  what we end up with is bland ol' same as before milk.  Its something but I fear it makes some of us, at least, bored.  Bored with it all.  Uninspired people following along, afraid "to go there". 

[Tacenda]

Some disaffected LDS have likened our church to "Amway".  I know several members that have sold products for pyramid type companies like "Amway".  What if our church and it's teachings are similar.  We have the salesmen (missionaries) and then we have the product (a good life and the Lord's spirit). 

 

So what if the church is like a corporation?  I guess no big deal as long as it builds places of worship or somewhere that give meaning (temple) to so many lives or implement all 4 Mission Statements.  I think the leaders know this and stand behind it. 

 

I wish I knew for a surety that they speak with God face to face, but I don't.  Apostles in Jesus' time, would testify of knowing Jesus face to face.  Can we say that about our current Apostles?  Or is that necessary?  We all can have the testimony of knowing the Lord, having that relationship, just as the leaders.  So what is their purpose?  Help people to Christ?  Yes, and we have that to go on, we follow the Prophet and Apostles as long as we know they lead us to Christ and following the first two commandments, since all the rest ride on these two. 

[jkwilliams]

The tedious nature of this practice makes me exhausted thinking about it.  It's like a peer review process much like modern scholarship.  what we end up with is bland ol' same as before milk.  Its something but I fear it makes some of us, at least, bored.  Bored with it all.  Uninspired people following along, afraid "to go there". 

 

I always preferred seeing it as a check against excess.

[jkwilliams]

Some disaffected LDS have likened our church to "Amway".  I know several members that have sold products for pyramid type companies like "Amway".  What if our church and it's teachings are similar.  We have the salesmen (missionaries) and then we have the product (a good life and the Lord's spirit). 

 

So what if the church is like a corporation?  I guess no big deal as long as it builds places of worship or somewhere that give meaning (temple) to so many lives or implement all 4 Mission Statements.  I think the leaders know this and stand behind it. 

 

I wish I knew for a surety that they speak with God face to face, but I don't.  Apostles in Jesus' time, would testify of knowing Jesus face to face.  Can we say that about our current Apostles?  Or is that necessary?  We all can have the testimony of knowing the Lord, having that relationship, just as the leaders.  So what is their purpose?  Help people to Christ?  Yes, and we have that to go on, we follow the Prophet and Apostles as long as we know they lead us to Christ and following the first two commandments, since all the rest ride on these two. 

 

I think it's too easy to expect humans--even prophets, seers, and revelators--to be something more than human. My father taught my siblings and me to expect human failings in others, especially those who assumed a position of religious authority above us. Some might call that cynical, but as my active LDS sister put it, we've never been shocked or disappointed by leaders.

 

I know I'm assuming a lot from your post, and I hope this doesn't come across as judgmental, as it's meant as a reminder to me, too. I've always worried more what God wants me to believe and think and do than what other people want from me. Following my conscience and trying to know and do God's will has always led me in the right path. When my life has hit rough patches it has been when I let my emotions and judgments determine my behavior.

[Scott Lloyd]

I always preferred seeing it as a check against excess.

Indeed.

 

The real irony -- and I've seen it this very day on this board -- is that some of the ones who complain about prophets and apostles having been inconsistent in their statements over the decades are some of the very ones who complain that Correlation, which is the instrument for preserving consistency and purity of doctrine, causes the Church curriculum to contain only "milk" or "pablum" or whatever unflattering characterization they want to use.

[stemelbow]

Indeed.

 

The real irony -- and I've seen it this very day on this board -- is that some of the ones who complain about prophets and apostles having been inconsistent in their statements over the decades are some of the very ones who complain that Correlation, which is the instrument for preserving consistency and purity of doctrine, causes the Church curriculum to contain only "milk" or "pablum" or whatever unflattering characterization they want to use.

 

Can't help it.  There's negatives to both.  If some leader of the past claimed revelation and doctrine about something that today is said to be uninspired drivel, what does that say about the whole process?  Errors creeped in then, why not now? 

 

If by sticking to the Correlated material we rarely feel inspired because the hum-drum nature of the result has us all itching for something else.  Then we're in troubs.  I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of the correlated material but perhaps that's part of the fear of it.   

[Scott Lloyd]

Can't help it.  There's negatives to both.  If some leader of the past claimed revelation and doctrine about something that today is said to be uninspired drivel, what does that say about the whole process?  Errors creeped in then, why not now? 

I'm afraid you altogether missed my point: Correlation is intended to safeguard against that.

 

If by sticking to the Correlated material we rarely feel inspired because the hum-drum nature of the result has us all itching for something else.

There is scarcely a Sabbath that goes by that I fail to be inspired in gospel doctrine class. And our teachers do stick to correlated material, as I did when I taught the class.

 

By "itching for something else," perhaps one is looking beyond the mark.

 

Edited to add:

 

Not intending to cast aspersions, but I can't help but see irony in your use of the verb "itching" above as I recall 2 Timothy 4:3,

 

 

 3 For the time will come when they will not ^aendure sound ^bdoctrine; but after their own ^clusts shall they heap to themselves ^dteachers, having itching ears;

 

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the ^atruth, and shall be turned unto ^bfables.

 

An apparent allusion that I'm sure you didn't intend, but ironic notwithstanding.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[mercyngrace]

I tried to minimize a prophet once.

 

 

Took away his orthopedic shoes and made him squat. He was still taller than me.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2013 by mercyngrace

[stemelbow]

I'm afraid you altogether missed my point: Correlation is intended to safeguard against that.

 

There is scarcely a Sabbath that goes by that I fail to be inspired in gospel doctrine class. And our teachers do stick to correlated material, as I did when I taught the class.

 

By "itching for something else," perhaps one is looking beyond the mark.

 

There's definitely a difference between you and I.  A member like you and a member like me.  A good member (you) and a bad member (me).  I guess.

 

I don't think I missed the point.  That is to say I realize the errors of the past might have well been made because there was no Correlation.  One thing to add to this confusion, thanks to your input, is is Correlation keeping us from hearing and knowing of truths and revelation because such truths and revelation doesn't quite fit within the boundaries of Correlation rules?  uh oh.  That would be terrible.

 

There's too much room to gripe for me.  That's the biggest difference between us, I guess.