Ezra Taft Benson Talks About The Last Days

[theplains]

Near the end of this video on youtube, Mr. Benson said, "Whether by His voice or by the voice

of His servants, it is the same".

 

To me it sounds like when someone is speaking at a General Conference, whatever they say is

as if Jesus is actually doing the speaking ... unless the Church would place speakers at the

conference who are not really servants of the Lord.

 

Or is the context strictly about prophecy?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Calm]

" 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my wordshall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

 

If this is the talk, you can decide for yourself the context:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1973/04/watchman-warn-the-wicked?lang=eng

 

or this one:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1982/04/valiant-in-the-testimony-of-jesus?lang=eng

 

or this one:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-doctrine-and-covenants?lang=eng

 

or this one:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/01/a-voice-of-warning?lang=eng

Edited January 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[pogi]

That is actually from the preface to the D&C and is in reference to revelation. 

 

Section 1

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, on November 1, 1831, during a special conference of elders of the Church, held at Hiram, Ohio. Many revelations had been received from the Lord prior to this time, and the compilation of these for publication in book form was one of the principal subjects passed upon at the conference. This section constitutes the Lord’s preface to the doctrines, covenants, and commandments given in this dispensation.

 

 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

[pogi]

In the mouth of two...witnesses 

[teddyaware]

 

Near the end of this video on youtube, Mr. Benson said, "Whether by His voice or by the voice

of His servants, it is the same".

 

To me it sounds like when someone is speaking at a General Conference, whatever they say is

as if Jesus is actually doing the speaking ... unless the Church would place speakers at the

conference who are not really servants of the Lord.

 

Or is the context strictly about prophecy?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

I'm often astonished at how often non-LDS Christians can't see the forest for the trees. Can you not see you have the exact same "problem" when it comes to the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible? They were just men, just like the leaders of the LDS Church, yet so many believe they wrote the "word of God." The only difference between the two camps is that Evangelicals believe only the Bible's prophets and apostles spoke and wrote the word of God, while the Latter-day Saints believe all God's prophets, both ancient and modern, write and speak the word of God. What am I missing here?

Edited January 22, 2015 by teddyaware

[mass168]

I'm often astonished at how often non-LDS Christians can't see the forest for the trees. Can you not see you have the exact same "problem" when it comes to the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible? They were just men, just like the leaders of the LDS Church, yet so many believe they wrote the "word of God." The only difference between the two camps is that Evangelicals believe only the Bible's prophets and apostles spoke and wrote the word of God, while the Latter-day Saints believe all God's prophets, both ancient and modern, write and speak the word of God. What am I missing here?

That's not the only difference. Another one seems to be that EV's assert prophets cannot make mistakes when speaking in the name of the Lord. This is a very subtle point, because clearly there are prophets who get some things right, and they might even be things that are quite impressive/large. But unless they get every single thing they claimed for the Lord correct, no matter how small, they are not accepted as prophets. 

 

WHEN speaking for the lord. 

[thesometimesaint]

That's not the only difference. Another one seems to be that EV's assert prophets cannot make mistakes when speaking in the name of the Lord. This is a very subtle point, because clearly there are prophets who get some things right, and they might even be things that are quite impressive/large. But unless they get every single thing they claimed for the Lord correct, no matter how small, they are not accepted as prophets. 

 

WHEN speaking for the lord. 

 

We have a self correcting mechanism. It's called Common Consent.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[cinepro]

We have a self correcting mechanism. It's called Common Consent.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

But when the members exercise Common Consent to go against the Prophet, they're accused of being disloyal.

 

In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state.

I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, “Utah Kills Prohibition.”

President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel.

[DJBrown]

That's not the only difference. Another one seems to be that EV's assert prophets cannot make mistakes when speaking in the name of the Lord. This is a very subtle point, because clearly there are prophets who get some things right, and they might even be things that are quite impressive/large. But unless they get every single thing they claimed for the Lord correct, no matter how small, they are not accepted as prophets. 

 

WHEN speaking for the lord. 

 

And it is quite convenient to be separated from the prophets by thousands of years.  It is a little tougher to see those imperfections from that distance.

[thesometimesaint]

But when the members exercise Common Consent to go against the Prophet, they're accused of being disloyal.

 

 

I didn't say it didn't have a downside.

[JLHPROF]

But when the members exercise Common Consent to go against the Prophet, they're accused of being disloyal.

 

 

Sounds like the members had a better understanding of agency than Pres. Grant...

[bluebell]

That's not the only difference. Another one seems to be that EV's assert prophets cannot make mistakes when speaking in the name of the Lord. This is a very subtle point, because clearly there are prophets who get some things right, and they might even be things that are quite impressive/large. But unless they get every single thing they claimed for the Lord correct, no matter how small, they are not accepted as prophets. 

 

WHEN speaking for the lord.

 

You should be prepared to get rid of some biblical prophets with this kind of belief system.

 

From Jeff Lindsay-

 

"Deut. 18:22 reads:

 

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

 

 

This doesn't exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet. James L. Mays, editor of Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, p. 226), writes:

 

Prophecy in the names of other gods is easily rejected, but false prophecy in God's name is a more serious matter. This dilemma requires the application of a pragmatic criterion that, although clearly useless for judgments on individual oracles, is certainly a way to evaluate a prophet's overall performance.

 

 

The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. Moreover, God sometimes appears to reverse certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

 

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

 

 

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophesy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).

 

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar's army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, as prophesied in Ezek. 27:31. However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for Ezekiel 29:17-20 reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29. Here are verses 17-20:

 

17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 

18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it: 

19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. 

20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

 

Yes, Tyre was eventually destroyed, but its complete destruction apparently did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and certainly the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure." (The analysis above is derived from an article by Daniel C. Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 49-50.) 

D.C. Pyle has also commented on Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre:

 

Of course, my favorite part of the prophecy against Tyre is the part found in Ezekiel 26:14 and 27:36, where the Lord states that Tyre would "not be rebuilt" and "exist no more forever."

 

Of course, after it was left unconquered by the Babylonian armies, it eventually fell to the Greeks under Alexander and was destroyed by his armies.

But then, the city which was never to be rebuilt forever rose again to wealth and power in 125 BCE! During the Roman period, the city rose to even more prominence and had a Christian community living in the mainland portion. Muslims reduced the city to ashes in 1291. It was rebuilt again sometime after this. In 1983, it had an estimated population of 23,000.

 

The prophecy stated that the place would "be a bare rockface for spreading nets and would never be rebuilt" but today, the place has become a fairly important maritime center.

 

To those who refuse to believe that Tyre still exists today, pictures can be see at http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/index.html. Note that there are many buildings - it has been rebuilt. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy coupled with a belief in Biblical inerrancy leads to obvious problems. 

 

My purpose in discussing the prophecies about Tyre is not to question the truthfulness of the Bible (it is true - we just need to struggle to understand it properly, as we must with all scripture and all prophecy, and we need to understand its potential limitations). My primary purpose in discussing Tyre is to point out that an overly critical attitude and a strict application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed - but beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed, even though they be mortal and fallible. As for Tyre never being rebuilt, I think it's fair to mention that Hebrew writers used extreme words like "never" or "all" or "forever" in a rather loose way. Tyre was "never" to rebuilt and animal sacrifices were to continue "forever" - but these expressions can best be understood as figures of speech rather than absolutes. But if we're going to take the reasonable, thoughtful path of understanding the Bible rather than looking for apparent flaws to condemn it out of hand, we should extend the same courtesy to the Book of Mormon and the words of modern prophets.

 

Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah - a great and inspired prophet - who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity - not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes - albeit in prison - yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

 

Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud.

 

Joseph Smith made some amazingly correct prophecies: predicting in 1832 that a civil war would erupt, beginning in South Carolina, with Great Britain to be involved; prophesying that tobacco is harmful to human health and giving a dietary code with nutritional principles much like the modern "food pyramid;" predicting his own martyrdom; prophesying of the global success that the restored Church would experience, with persecutions; predicting that the Saints would become established in the Rockies; and predicting other important events relative to Native Americans, the United States of America, the Church, future calamities, many details related to specific individuals, etc. Several of these fulfilled prophecies are discussed in detail on my LDSFAQ page, prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophetic nature of the Book of Mormon is also noteworthy. Even mundane passages such as the physical description of Nephi's journey through the Arabian peninsulaserve as validated prophecies, in a sense, for none of the many accurate details in the text could have been fabricated in 1830 based on what was then known about Arabia, and the "direct hits" (e.g., the place Bountiful and the burial site named Nahom) serve as evidencesvindicating Joseph Smith as a prophet. 

 

The specific prophecies that are said to be false or incorrect by critics are typically based on hearsay or unreliable sources or are based on incorrect interpretations of what is said. There is no reliable evidence to say that Joseph Smith fails any sound test based on Deut. 18:22. Some of the most common specific objections are treated in my answers below, including a discussion of the Missouri temple prophecy (from Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants) and the Lord's command to David Patten (Section 114 of the Doctrine and Covenants). 

For further reading on this topic, Michael T. Griffith has a useful article, Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid, which deals with false standards applied by anti-Mormons to LDS prophecy and prophets - standards which would invalidate the Bible as well. That article is part of his book One Lord, One Faith (Horizon Publishers, 1996). Below is a portion of that article (quoted here since the Web link may have quit working):

 

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever. [Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.]...

 

 

[Another example of a problematic Biblical prophecy is] Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

 

Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

 

Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.

 

Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so."

 

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml#infallible

Edited January 22, 2015 by bluebell

[mass168]

And it is quite convenient to be separated from the prophets by thousands of years.  It is a little tougher to see those imperfections from that distance.

Does that make it an any less valuable rule to live by? 

[mass168]

bluebell: 

 

That is a rational response thank you. I have heard of these things before and studied them because they were initially troubling to my worldview as well. I think for every scholarly article that proves your point of view, there is an equally convincing article for the opposite. The question becomes would you even read and consider those? 

[canard78]

You should be prepared to get rid of some biblical prophets with this kind of belief system.

From Jeff Lindsay-

"Deut. 18:22 reads:

This doesn't exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet. James L. Mays, editor of Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, p. 226), writes:

The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. Moreover, God sometimes appears to reverse certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophesy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy.

-SNIP-

So if a prophet can speak "presumptuously" how is that President Joseph Fielding Smith says they don't:

Now, brethren, I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1972/04/eternal-keys-and-the-right-to-preside?lang=eng

And, on the topic of ancient prophets being able

to prophesy accurately, do you have any view on why Nephi appears to have been able to prophecy the future of the Americas with incredible apparent accuracy right up until 1830 but seems to have not seen any further than that?

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell: 

 

That is a rational response thank you. I have heard of these things before and studied them because they were initially troubling to my worldview as well. I think for every scholarly article that proves your point of view, there is an equally convincing article for the opposite. The question becomes would you even read and consider those? 

 

I've read the ones I've been able to find. and I agree with Jeff Lindsey. Please make the argument that Mr. Lindsey is wrong.

[mnn727]

     Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

From: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[thesometimesaint]

So if a prophet can speak "presumptuously" how is that President Joseph Fielding Smith says they don't:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1972/04/eternal-keys-and-the-right-to-preside?lang=eng

And, on the topic of ancient prophets being able

to prophesy accurately, do you have any view on why Nephi appears to have been able to prophecy the future of the Americas with incredible apparent accuracy right up until 1830 but seems to have not seen any further than that?

 

What are you talking about? JS spoke repeatedly about what the Church, and the America's would be like in the future.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

[bluebell]

bluebell: 

 

That is a rational response thank you. I have heard of these things before and studied them because they were initially troubling to my worldview as well. I think for every scholarly article that proves your point of view, there is an equally convincing article for the opposite. The question becomes would you even read and consider those? 

 

If you have a scholarly paper that supports your interpretation on prophets and prophecy and refutes what i linked to then please provide it here so that it can be considered.  

[canard78]

What are you talking about? JS spoke repeatedly about what the Church, and the America's would be like in the future.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

Uhhh... I said Nephi.

[omni]

What are you talking about? JS spoke repeatedly about what the Church, and the America's would be like in the future.

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml

You can't compare the prophesies made by Nephi in the BoM and those made by JS. They're worlds apart in their detail and accuracy. As a believing member alarm bells would always sound off in my head when reading that portion of the BoM and I would have to quickly rush through it.

[thesometimesaint]

Uhhh... I said Nephi.

 

Sophistry.

 

For better or worse Nephi wasn't alive in 1830.

[teddyaware]

That's not the only difference. Another one seems to be that EV's assert prophets cannot make mistakes when speaking in the name of the Lord. This is a very subtle point, because clearly there are prophets who get some things right, and they might even be things that are quite impressive/large. But unless they get every single thing they claimed for the Lord correct, no matter how small, they are not accepted as prophets. 

 

WHEN speaking for the lord. 

 

Your post brings to my mind the following saying of the Lord:

 

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

 

The Savior is speaking of the oft manifested trait of many of the professed followers of Jehovah who honor, praise and extol prophets who have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years but reject the living prophets. And why do they reject them? because when they read the scriptures they can make the prophets say almost anything they want them to say, and cause the prophets be any kind of prophet their imaginations want them to be. They have never had to practice their religion under the guidance and disciple of living prophets, so they have no point of reference or life-experiences that will enable them to understand how and why, in the real world, God would allow an imperfect man to dare to speak for Him. 

 

It is my testimony that the voice of the Spirit is clear, strong and powerful in the LDS Church. And because each man and woman in the Church, no matter how lowly, is strongly encouraged to become a prophet or prophetesses in his or her own right, it's a fairly straightforward and simple thing to determine when a prophet is speaking the word of the Lord. In the LDS Church, the same Spirit that inspires the prophets is given to every member, if they will receive it. So it is not at all difficult for a rank and file member, so inspired, to pick a rare and occasional 'pin bone' or small seed out of an otherwise perfectly luscious, delicious and heartily nutritious spiritual feast.

 

Ever since I stated attending General Conference in October of 1970, one month after being baptized into the LDS Church, I cannot think of a single address or session when I wasn't mightly edified and inspired. The reason for this is that while I watch or listen the same Spirit that inspires the General Authorities simultaneously inspires me.

 

In the Lord's infinite wisdom, he empowers His people so as to be enable them to discern when they are being exposed to truth or error. We don't expect our prophets to be perfect automatons; but do we honor, praise and extol them as living oracles of God, even though on rare occasion they might spiritually "hiccup" or "burp," which only reminds us that they, like the rest of us, do on occasion still "look through a glass darkly."

Edited January 22, 2015 by teddyaware

[pogi]

And, on the topic of ancient prophets being able

to prophesy accurately, do you have any view on why Nephi appears to have been able to prophecy the future of the Americas with incredible apparent accuracy right up until 1830 but seems to have not seen any further than that?

 

Are you insinuating that it is because Joseph Smith was the author of a fictional Nephi, and therefore Nephi could only prophecy as far as Joseph Smith could see?  Did not Joseph Smith himself prophesy beyond his time?

 

Nephi explains that he saw up to the end of the world, but that he was forbidden to write his vision of the last days as that job was "ordained" unto John (1 Nephi 18-28).

[canard78]

Are you insinuating that it is because Joseph Smith was the author of a fictional Nephi, and therefore Nephi could only prophecy as far as Joseph Smith could see? Did not Joseph Smith himself prophesy beyond his time?

Nephi explains that he saw up to the end of the world, but that he was forbidden to write his vision of the last days as that job was "ordained" unto John (1 Nephi 18-28).

It's just a bit odd that there are some incredibly specific prophecies about events 2000+ years into the future but no further than the events that were, for Joseph, historical.

Nephi's were far more specific than anything from Joseph's and much further into the future than Joseph's. Joseph might have made a few slightly vague predictions about short term possibilities but if he'd been able to prophecy, with similar accuracy, 100, 200, 2000 years into the future then I would be more impressed.