Monster Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 My personal view is that prophets must be infalliable. If they are not they are not prophets. To say someone talks with God and then makes critical mistakes that effect the lives of millions then what is the point? They then are just men like the rest of us. They make some good choices and some bad ones. They may be great captains of industry and leaders in their own right, but are not communicating with God any better than the next person. The word prophet comes from prophesy, which is to declare that a specific thing will happen in the future. If they make one error they are no longer a prophet. They are expressing an opinion based on experience and current knowledge.
JLHPROF Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 My personal view is that prophets must be infalliable. If they are not they are not prophets. To say someone talks with God and then makes critical mistakes that effect the lives of millions then what is the point? They then are just men like the rest of us. They make some good choices and some bad ones. They may be great captains of industry and leaders in their own right, but are not communicating with God any better than the next person. The word prophet comes from prophesy, which is to declare that a specific thing will happen in the future. If they make one error they are no longer a prophet. They are expressing an opinion based on experience and current knowledge. While you are absolutely entitled to hold this opinion, it doesn't fit with the gospel. Joseph Smith taught that a prophet was only a prophet when he was acting in that role. The scriptures teach that many blessings and prophecies are contingent upon the faith or the actions of those involved. Prophecy is often made based on the prompting of the spirit but prophets can misinterpret these promptings just as we do.We should remember to differentiate between "direct revelation" and the "promptings of the spirit". Not every word that comes from the prophet is based on direct revelation. When it is, it's infallible. When it's not, it's their best advice. Prophet does not mean psychic. Not every prophecy is based on a vision of the future.
CA Steve Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 While you are absolutely entitled to hold this opinion, it doesn't fit with the gospel. Joseph Smith taught that a prophet was only a prophet when he was acting in that role. The scriptures teach that many blessings and prophecies are contingent upon the faith or the actions of those involved. Prophecy is often made based on the prompting of the spirit but prophets can misinterpret these promptings just as we do.We should remember to differentiate between "direct revelation" and the "promptings of the spirit". Not every word that comes from the prophet is based on direct revelation. When it is, it's infallible. When it's not, it's their best advice. Prophet does not mean psychic. Not every prophecy is based on a vision of the future.Where do the scriptures or prophets teach that the blessings of one specific group of people, defined by the color of their skin, are based solely on the behavior the actions of another group of people and how would we reconcile such a teaching with the doctrine of accountability?
halconero Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 My personal view is that prophets must be infalliable. If they are not they are not prophets. To say someone talks with God and then makes critical mistakes that effect the lives of millions then what is the point? They then are just men like the rest of us. They make some good choices and some bad ones. They may be great captains of industry and leaders in their own right, but are not communicating with God any better than the next person. The word prophet comes from prophesy, which is to declare that a specific thing will happen in the future. If they make one error they are no longer a prophet. They are expressing an opinion based on experience and current knowledge. That's a fine view to have, but it doesn't jive with the Bible. If you wish to hold it, that's all well and good, but it isn't a biblical view.
halconero Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Where do the scriptures or prophets teach that the blessings of one specific group of people, defined by the color of their skin, are based solely on the behavior the actions of another group of people and how would we reconcile such a teaching with the doctrine of accountability? It isn't based on skin colour, but the Levites' special role in ancient Israel was received due to their reaction to the other tribe's idolatry (Don't read anything about the ban into this). As for how to reconcile it with accountability? God tells us that we'll be judged according to the light which we have received. If priesthood ordination was barred from a specific group of people, through genealogy, race, geography, or time period, they will be judged as not being able to fulfill that requirement. In other words, people are only accountable for the portion of the Gospel which is available to them, and if they are judged worthy in accordance with that portion they will receive all other blessings.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?To answer the thread question (as you spoke of many topics)...it is not enough to ask if The Lord still directs his Church, by only speaking of the 15 men at the top. If God directs his Church would have to include it's membership. Pastors of individual Churches can make mistakes and congregations follow suit. The scriptures are filled with men who God called making errors...Peter saying no to going to the Gentiles because of his upbringing, while Paul once converted having no issue with it. Jonah, saying no to his mission and once delivered to the mission field, having successes, and then aggravated that God did not deliver judgement. Every revelation does not come with a first vision...most of the time it is God chipping away the ice surrounding our hearts. Then the leadership and the Holy Ghost getting out their own ice picks to do the same for the rank and file. In short, sometimes revelation is a process rather than an event.
Palerider Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 If that were true as a general rule (which it certainly is not), wouldn't we expect swift action in all instances, or at least in the very important ones?How long did God wait before releasing the Children of Israel from bondage in Egypt?How long did God exile his people from Judah at the time of the Babylonian Captivity?How long did the exile of the Jews last, from the time when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, until our own time?How long is the Assyrian exile of the northern Ten Tribes supposed to last? God can so easily be blamed for every failure of His people, the exile lasting sometimes centuries, sometimes thousands of years. God presumably takes the long view. And, by the way, I wouldn't call murder to cover up adultery a "misstep." Just a suggestion on the sense of perspective we might want to bring to our discussions. Sadly you are conflating the correction of a "prophet in error" with the correction of a people on a time line that is according to the Lord's choosing. I'm sorry you weren't able to read with more discernment. And regarding the "murder" mistep, you have failed (rather miserably) to even know the content of the scripture I referenced in 2 Samuel 7. It has nothing to do with David's adultery but rather with his desire to build a temple to the Lord and Nathan's response. Too bad.........
canard78 Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 While I acknowledge Pres Kimball in essence had to lobby the Brethren to get the job done, for me I believe he was raised up and prepared for just that task as demonstrated by his life history. Isn't that how The Lord does things? When He has a specific task to be done he prepares and raises up a Prophet charged with the task?That's a nice way of viewing it but it also shows how broken the old paradigm is. The idea of having 1 prophet lobby 14 other prophets is not really the way revelation is taught.
CV75 Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?I'm not sure why the Holy Ghost would inspire us to testify of God's hand in a ban and in an exceptional marriage practice that no longer exist. I can't think of anyone who regularly testifies by the Spirit (such as the General Authorities) that does. There is so much more we need to witness, hear of and do to advance the Gospel for our current day and time
Stone holm Posted December 21, 2013 Author Posted December 21, 2013 I'm not sure why the Holy Ghost would inspire us to testify of God's hand in a ban and in an exceptional marriage practice that no longer exist. I can't think of anyone who regularly testifies by the Spirit (such as the General Authorities) that does. There is so much more we need to witness, hear of and do to advance the Gospel for our current day and time The testimony is that the Lord guides and directs His Church, but there seems to be this growing notion that apparently that is only periodically and that He is either asleep or gone for long periods of time, like from Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, etc. Either He was guiding it the whole time, or He isn't guiding it at all. I go with the first, what say you?
bluebell Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 The testimony is that the Lord guides and directs His Church, but there seems to be this growing notion that apparently that is only periodically and that He is either asleep or gone for long periods of time, like from Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, etc. Either He was guiding it the whole time, or He isn't guiding it at all. I go with the first, what say you? I personally go with the first as well.
Avatar4321 Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 That the Prophet is praying and receiving answers to important policy questions like who should be allowed to enter into the Lord's House, who should be sealed for time and all eternity. So to think that the Prophets from Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball never prayed about the Priesthood restriction or that the Lord just never bothered to converse with His Prophets about it -- well that seems borderline nuts. The members would be convinced that if the Lord wanted the restriction lifted, which they knew eventually it would be lifted, and they would expect the Lord to tell the Prophet when to lift it. So as far as they are concerned, it was the Lord. Of course it would be nuts. Especially since we have President McKay praying about it and the time not being right. I know it's hard for many to leave God to His own timing. I don't know why waits so long sometimes. There have been times I've been out of work and I would pray and search for work and would not find anything until my bank account hit bottom. The Lord often waits to the last possible second in teaching us. I don't understand why, but that's what He does. He knows when we need things and His decisions have wisdom we may not be able to see. But they are wise decisions. When we pierce the veil, and see the end from the begining, we will understand things better. So why not just act in faith and do what He asks? Especially when He has provided so many witnesses.
Avatar4321 Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 My personal view is that prophets must be infalliable. If they are not they are not prophets. To say someone talks with God and then makes critical mistakes that effect the lives of millions then what is the point? They then are just men like the rest of us. They make some good choices and some bad ones. They may be great captains of industry and leaders in their own right, but are not communicating with God any better than the next person. The word prophet comes from prophesy, which is to declare that a specific thing will happen in the future. If they make one error they are no longer a prophet. They are expressing an opinion based on experience and current knowledge. Then the only man who could be considered a prophet is Jesus Christ. Because everyone else is extremely flawed. The Spirit of Prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. If people realized that I think they would be more amazed by the fact that we have a meeting where we prophesy every month the day we fast. 2
Stone holm Posted December 21, 2013 Author Posted December 21, 2013 So why not just act in faith and do what He asks? Especially when He has provided so many witnesses. While I agree with the sentiments stated, I am not sure exactly how the last two sentences apply to the discussion? Care to explain?
ERayR Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Let's see......is this the part where I'm supposed to bow down in wonder at how powerful these "revelations" are from the D&C, and say "I want to come back to the great and powerful church again!"....? Not unless you are sincere and your heart is in it. 2
ERayR Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Well yes, but I don't think that is what the vast majority of members have going through their brains when they said that the Lord is guiding and directing His Church. Especially as to important matters such as polygamy and the Priesthood ban. If we were talking about the ban on beards for leadership, or women wearing pants, then yes -- but there is quite a difference in the importance of these policies. It might be wise not to try and read the minds of the "vast majority" of the members. There is a big chance that you don't read minds well and only project your own biases.
ERayR Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) The testimony is that the Lord guides and directs His Church, but there seems to be this growing notion that apparently that is only periodically and that He is either asleep or gone for long periods of time, like from Joseph Smith until Spencer W. Kimball, etc. Either He was guiding it the whole time, or He isn't guiding it at all. I go with the first, what say you? Anybody who thinks that way doesn't understand the long time periods between most of the prophets in the old testament. Edited December 21, 2013 by ERayR 2
Stone holm Posted December 21, 2013 Author Posted December 21, 2013 It might be wise not to try and read the minds of the "vast majority" of the members. There is a big chance that you don't read minds well and only project your own biases. Well I am no mind reader, but I don't think it requires much mind reading in this case -- just watching and listening.
Stone holm Posted December 21, 2013 Author Posted December 21, 2013 Anybody who thinks that way doesn't understand the long time periods between most of the prophets in the old testament. Not sure that the OT is terribly relevant to the question of the perceived closeness of the Prophets of the Last Dispensation to the Lord and their connection and authority within the True Church. Do you?
Duncan Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 One thing I don't know is what the Lord permits but would prefer otherwise and what is directed by him. I have this book by Elder Gerald Lund about divine signatures and it talks about how the Lord weaves his hand into various lives and things which is all fine and dandy. It leaves questions like what if God wants something but we are hard hearted or we don't think to ask and just do something without his approval. I have heard all kinds of stories about mission calls to places that are a perfect fit for people and yet other people they have had to have it changed. I know a guy that is from Pennsylvania and worked in Ogden, Utah for a year before his mission and then he went home to Penn. and guess where he got his mission call to, where most of his relatives live? Ogden, so he got it changed, I just wonder why does that happen when other things fit so well. 1
Palerider Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 Perhaps, but errors among the leadership that seemed to be ironed out quickly may just seem so because the Bible doesn't give us a timeline. The Council of Jerusalem occurred around roughly 50 AD, roughly 20 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. The vision of Peter, which occurred around the time of Saul's conversion, is dated between 33-36 AD. This would indicate that it took between roughly 14-17 years between Peter's vision on extending the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the Council's decision to make that doctrine (I would argue that previous to the council converts were being asked to convert to Judaism as a precursor to full Gospel blessings). Yes, it is shorter than the 100+ years that it took to change some of our policies, but even the minimum of 14 years is still quite a time for an individual. On the contrary, the correction had already been revealed by the Lord to His servants. It was THEIR prejudices and failure to understand that took the 14 years to correct. And the church paid a price for their negligence. I would also argue that even though God has power to correct error, that his ability to do is contingent on the spiritual/intellectual cooperation of his leaders. Perhaps that's why it took James, Peter and the other apostles to call such a conference. See above. Furthermore, the fact that the Nazarenes (Jewish-Christians) continued to exist for almost 300 years afterwards serves as an indication that the apostles were not big pushers of the new standards on the converts around them. Perhaps another indication of the apostacy that was already occuring.........
Stone holm Posted December 22, 2013 Author Posted December 22, 2013 One thing I don't know is what the Lord permits but would prefer otherwise and what is directed by him. I have this book by Elder Gerald Lund about divine signatures and it talks about how the Lord weaves his hand into various lives and things which is all fine and dandy. It leaves questions like what if God wants something but we are hard hearted or we don't think to ask and just do something without his approval. I have heard all kinds of stories about mission calls to places that are a perfect fit for people and yet other people they have had to have it changed. I know a guy that is from Pennsylvania and worked in Ogden, Utah for a year before his mission and then he went home to Penn. and guess where he got his mission call to, where most of his relatives live? Ogden, so he got it changed, I just wonder why does that happen when other things fit so well. If one expects them to nail it every single time, then it is almost impossible the expectations will be met. While we cannot expect any leader to get it right on every little day to day thing, we can expect and should expect them to at least get the big things right. And you have to bear in mind, the Lord probably would have preferred it if America hadn't ever been racist. Under that situation there would not have been a ban, but the Lord knew His people were not ready to shed their racism, so we had the ban. It has been suggested from time to time that when Moses first came down the mountain he had the gospel in its fullness, when he saw what the Israelite were up to he knew they weren't ready and the Lord agreed -- so they got a prepartory gospel. Would God have probably preferred it to have been different? No doubt in my mind, but He had to work with what He had. What He had in the Saints were really honest, hardworking, god-fearing, mostly righteous people, who were also racists -- like most Americans and Europeans of the time.
Palerider Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 If God turns a blind eye to something does that indicate he does not care enough about it to say yea or nay? Matthew 19: 11,12 The Lord said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.......He that is able to receive it let him receive it." I think the Lord knows better than we ourselves what state of spiritual maturity we're in and gives us the level of law we are prepared for. I think plural marriage was a cutural custom that was normative to ancient societies when women were seen more as chattel. It is a lower law.........
Palerider Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Not unless you are sincere and your heart is in it. I agree whole heartedly. Nothing I have read here on this site gives me hope however, so I'm not holding my breath. Edited December 22, 2013 by Palerider
Stone holm Posted December 22, 2013 Author Posted December 22, 2013 Matthew 19: 11,12 The Lord said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.......He that is able to receive it let him receive it." I think the Lord knows better than we ourselves what state of spiritual maturity we're in and gives us the level of law we are prepared for. I think plural marriage was a cutural custom that was normative to ancient societies when women were seen more as chattel. It is a lower law......... Possibly, or possibly that is just our culture talking to us, but what is clear it is not a law for all times and seasons.
Recommended Posts