When Is A Prophet A Prophet? Always!

[CV75]

This.  And it is clearly in opposition to the apologist trend of prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on.....

Assuming the correct answer is “a,” it has nothing to do with a trend that doesn’t exist. Since when do apologists explain that “prophets are simply products of their time and culture?” Everyone is influenced by his time and culture, but that is not how prophets are called and that is not what General Conference, scripture, etc. are about.

 

Scripture is connected to the will of the Lord, the mind of the Lord, the word of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (see D&C 68:14). There is always something in each talk that reflects the will, mind, word, and voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation, especially the testimonies.

 

This is why mutual sustaining is so essential, a oneness in the body of Christ.

[Teancum]

Assuming the correct answer is “a,” it has nothing to do with a trend that doesn’t exist. Since when do apologists explain that “prophets are simply products of their time and culture?” Everyone is influenced by his time and culture, but that is not how prophets are called and that is not what General Conference, scripture, etc. are about.

 

Scripture is connected to the will of the Lord, the mind of the Lord, the word of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation (see D&C 68:14). There is always something in each talk that reflects the will, mind, word, and voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation, especially the testimonies.

 

This is why mutual sustaining is so essential, a oneness in the body of Christ.

 

 

Check out the Elder Peterson thread them come back to me on this.

[CV75]

Check out the Elder Peterson thread them come back to me on this.

Let's stick with this thread, and with the present, which share the "time and culture" of the seminary question and your post. CFR for your claim that that there is a trend where apologists assert that prophets are simply products of their time and culture.

[Teancum]

Let's stick with this thread, and with the present, which share the "time and culture" of the seminary question and your post. CFR for your claim that that there is a trend where apologists assert that prophets are simply products of their time and culture.

 

 

Really?  You want a CFR for this?  Just read about any posting on such issues on this board. Go to FAIR.   That should do it for you.  If no I don't have time to do your own leg work.

[CV75]

Really?  You want a CFR for this?  Just read about any posting on such issues on this board. Go to FAIR.   That should do it for you.  If no I don't have time to do your own leg work.

Total cop-out. Weak. Yes, I want to see your basis from legitimate research that leads to the objective conclusion that there is a trend that apologists assert that prophets are simply products of their time and culture. That may be all you think a prophet is is a product of, but i want to see where LDS apologists are trending in that direction.

[Teancum]

Total cop-out. Weak. Yes, I want to see your basis from legitimate research that leads to the objective conclusion that there is a trend that apologists assert that prophets are simply products of their time and culture. That may be all you think a prophet is is a product of, but i want to see where LDS apologists are trending in that direction.

 

 

I have no time for doing YOUR leg work for YOU.  Go read FAIR and other apologetics.  My goodness this is a common apologetic defense on this board.  If you think I am wrong so be it. No skin off my teeth, 

[SmileyMcGee]

It is not a contradiction.  It can be applied to say a bishop.  A bishop is always a bishop when he is called.  But that does not mean he always is acting as a bishop 24/7.  

 

That's a bit clearer than Ahab's statement. 

[Calm]

And it is clearly in opposition to the apologist trend of prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on.....

 

I have no time for doing YOUR leg work for YOU.  Go read FAIR and other apologetics.  My goodness this is a common apologetic defense on this board.  If you think I am wrong so be it. No skin off my teeth, 

I have to agree with CV on this one.  I don't think I've ever read anything on FairMormon that suggests (at least without isolating it from its context) that prophets are solely/simply products of their time and culture and not also influenced by revelation or the Spirit in their thoughts and actions (which is what the use of "simply" implies) as well as having their own eternal natures that impact their mortal characters...though this may not be explicitly stated each time the topic comes up.

 

add-on:  I would really like to see this defense if it has happened on FM, so the error can be corrected.

 

I think CV is simply pointing out the absolute nature of your comment, which you may not mean that way but I am not sure how else it can be read.  It is how I read it and in trying to think of other options, I have to put too many other assumptions to be comfortable in any interpretation.  Maybe you were just using "simply" to emphasize apologists were using this defense of time and culture having some, even heavy influence on prophets too often in your view?  If by chance that is it, you need to rephrase it to be better understood.  If not, you need to clarify even more because I am totally lost on what you mean unless you are making the claim that apologists claim prophets are born blank slates with no influence from God on what they do or even suggest that at times...which seems highly unlikely that you would think that.

 

That rebuttals occur that are stating that prophets are products of their time and culture, meaning that their time and culture has a significant impact on their behaviour, both external and internal...that I would agree with is commonly used, but I think mostly when it is appropriate myself (though I realize that is a subjective judgment).

 

But it would be kind of bizarre if prophets weren't influenced by their time and culture, it would be as if they were dropped into it through a wormhole in time or something.  The debate should center around how much influence is acceptable and how much they should be abnormal for their time period due to the presence of the Spirit that is allegedly with them.  For those who believe in the scriptures, examples can be found there to compare to.  I am not sure what standard someone who finds the scriptures full of errors or uninspired would use besides personal opinion.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

This.  And it is clearly in opposition to the apologist trend of prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on.....

 

So either they are influenced by the product of their times or they are wiped clean and are pure mouthpieces of God every second once they are called? The idea that the truth may lie somewhere between these two extremes is ludicrous?

[Calm]

 We expect a bishop to behave while at work or driving a car etc. The things he says and does there is part of who he is. It's not simply a switch to turn on and off. We always expect a bishop to act as a bishop. 

There is expectation and then there is reality.

 

My practically perfect brother has never in my personal experience lost his temper, not ever in my memory though I supposed I may have forgotten incidents when he was a toddler.  My older sister expressed the same perception/expectation of him.  The reason this came up in our conversation was because he lost it a couple of weeks ago due to a misunderstanding.  It was a royal blow for which he apologized the next day.  My sister was very shaken because it was so unexpected, but all one has to do is look at his current life situation with such complications he is juggling at work, family, extended family and I am certain church as well and one's perception shifts to why in the world it hasn't happened before and no big deal that it did happen.  I can think of a number of times in the past where anyone less nice than he is would have forcibly expressed themselves and no one would think the less of them.  And you know what...I bet it has happened, just not in our presence.  And if it happens again, we won't be as surprised because now our expectations are more realistic.

 

So the question for me when we get into these types of judgments on whether someone is acting appropriately for themselves and the roles they play in life is are our expectations realistic?  Do we create false ideals of people based not on what they are really like, what resources we think they have and what they are going through, but on what we want them to be like?  It was nice thinking my brother was always going to be a sea of calm in the midst of chaos as it is so nice to have one family member who doesn't get into dramatics, but that wouldn't be fair to require him to play that role because it makes me feel better.

 

Do we need prophets to be high standards in all things because that is what prophets really need to be by calling or because that is how we want prophets to be?

 

For me, I just can't get past the many examples in the scriptures of at times---from my perspective---very weak men playing very important roles of leadership.  And given that Israel was God's chosen people, how could they treat women and foreigners so poorly...at least in comparison to how I think they should be treated.  Either I need to accept God chooses really strange people at times to fulfill his will or I have got to dismiss scripture as portraying anything close to reality.

 

And why someone would choose to portray their leaders as less than majestic or nearly divine**** when they were really practically perfect is beyond me, we have plenty of examples of the tendency for people to do idealize in our own culture, so I don't buy that in the case of the Bible they did just that.  Having read a lot of mythologies of different cultures, while there is the trickster character often present, that individual is rarely a leader.  I don't see much of an 'golden age' attitude in the biblical stories written even if there are later writers who refer to previous times and leaders in that manner.

 

****Adam hides behind Eve, Abraham avoids dealing with his wives'  conflict, Jacob tricks his dad, Judah sleeps with his daughter-in-law, Moses kills a man and tries to avoid becoming God's prophet, Elijah? has someone killed because they mock him for being bald, Jonah runs the opposite way and then sulks because God forgives, Captain Moroni arrogantly assumes the worst and chews out someone without finding out first they are in deep difficulties, Lehi, Alma, Mosiah have problems as fathers, etc and Brigham Young and Mark E Peterson and many other leaders were racist and two of my former bishops had affairs---okay, that actually was contrary to their calling and caused them to be excommunicated, but I include it to show that just because the mantle is dropped on their shoudlers, doesn't automatically mean the person chooses to carry it the right way or even at all---and another bishop was rather arrogant in how he treated others and another one was close-minded and my current one I want to adopt into my family he is so great...but I bet he gets mad on occasion, ignores something he should be paying attention to and a host of other imperfections.

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

I have to agree with CV on this one.  I don't think I've ever read anything on FairMormon that suggests (at least without isolating it from its context) that prophets are solely/simply products of their time and culture and not also influenced by revelation or the Spirit in their thoughts and actions (which is what the use of "simply" implies) as well as having their own eternal natures that impact their mortal characters...though this may not be explicitly stated each time the topic comes up.

 

I think CV is simply pointing out the absolute nature of your comment, which you may not mean that way but I am not sure how else it can be read.  It is how I read it and in trying to think of other options, I have to put too many other assumptions to be comfortable in any interpretation.  Maybe you were just using "simply" to emphasize apologists were using this defense too often in your view?  If by chance that is it, you need to rephrase it to be better understood.  If not, you need to clarify even more because I am totally lost on what you mean unless you are making the claim that apologists believe prophets are born blank slates with no influence from God on what they do...which seems highly unlikely that you would think that.

 

That rebuttals occur that are stating that prophets are products of their time and culture, meaning that their time and culture has a significant impact on their behaviour, both external and internal...that I would agree with is commonly used, but I think mostly when it is appropriate myself (though I realize that is a subjective judgment).

 

But it would be kind of bizarre if prophets weren't influenced by their time and culture, it would be as if they were dropped into it through a wormhole in time or something.  The debate should center around how much influence is acceptable and how much they should be abnormal for their time period due to the presence of the Spirit that is allegedly with them.  For those who believe in the scriptures, examples can be found there to compare to.  I am not sure what standard someone who finds the scriptures full of errors or uninspired would use besides personal opinion.

How about this that Bobbieaware quoted from FAIR on the Elder Peterson thread:

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

And if you read that thread this is a common theme there.

Further go read Benson's 14 fundamental principles of a prophet. Benson was often fond of saying that living Prophets were more important than dead ones and tha they had TNT...today's news today. Well if they have that then they should not simply be influenced by their culture. If God speaks to them as Prophet, Seers and Revelators and they are teaching something like bad racist ideas why wouldn't God correct them. When I was a missionary we taught we had something special and more than others religions because we gave apostles and prophets.

But the apologist tosses anything that is odd, strange and uncomfortable as opinion or culture or a prophet is such only when acting as such . The latter I am quite fine with. But when they speak from the pulpit in GC or at BYU or some other official capacity, no I don't think that applies.

[Rivers]

So......in light of the fallibility of prophets, you state "this is why access to pesonal revelation for every individual member of the church is so important."

What exactly are you implying?

I am saying we need both prophets and revlation for ourselves. They are both important.  We can't be too spiritually dependent on our leaders.  I believe this is why our leaders so often exort us to be in tune with the Holy Ghost. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by Rivers

[Calm]

How about this that Bobbieaware quoted from FAIR on the Elder Peterson thread:

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.

Even Bobbieaware's comments indicate that Elder Peterson was not solely moved upon by the cultural beliefs, etc. of his time, but only partially influence by his culture (i.e. there were other influences too).  After all, she is arguing, if I understand her correctly, that the influence of his culture was much less than those such as myself believe in regards to that talk of his that I really wish he never gave, but did, and that he was instead much more inspired by the Spirit than culture because of the divine principles she seems to think he was teaching (while I think the principles he was teaching are mostly contradicted by current doctrine and teaching).

 

Again, I think the problem with your comment is the absolutely nature of the term "simply".  Since you use Bobbieaware as an example, I am thinking I am not getting my point across too clearly because she is an example of what I am saying apologists do (they state there is some influence among others) while you are claiming she is doing the opposite (which looks like to me you are claiming she is saying Elder Peterson was only influenced by his culture).  It seems a relatively simple point which may be why you are missing it, you may see it as a 'given', something that really doesn't need to be spelled out so what I (and I assume CV) am trying to justify must be something else.

 

But I am enough of a nitpicker to focus on simple points.  Hopefully my point of why I challenged your comment is clear now if it wasn't before.

 

If God speaks to them as Prophet, Seers and Revelators and they are teaching something like bad racist ideas why wouldn't God correct them.

 

 

The only reasonable reason I can come up with is because he doesn't want us to ultimately rely solely on them instead of him.  He allows enough mistakes that we, if we take the hints which sometimes amount to a sledgehammer such as with Elder Peterson's talk does for us today for many, will step back and take the time and make the effort to seek out his will on an issue, even if we choose to commit to it first on faith in their role as prophets.  I feel the Spirit has confirmed this for me, but it isn't a certainty that I can just give to someone else.  I can't say to myself after learning of how the Priesthood ban was developed or reading Elder Peterson's talk 'hey, the prophets have always been right in the big things and the little things don't really matter, can't do much harm with them, so all I need to do is listen to them and I am guaranteed to be square with the Lord'...not that that was ever my inclination, but I hope if it is someone's inclination, that when they encounter such things from our leaders, that it will cause them to rethink their easy reliance and instead start including healthy doses of seeking the Lord's opinion on pretty much everything.  If at first they approach it as "just in case", in time I think developing that spiritual connection will become necessary to them for the experience itself because they love having that presence in their life, not just for the peace and knowledge of the right path it can bring, but for everything else I can't explain that is so magnificent and complete in it.

 

It seems worth the cost and risk of having men and women that are not even close to practically perfect as leaders to me, even though it is really nice when we get that practically perfect person from time to time.

 

Prophets should be only one of the many influences in our own lives imo---why else would life be so crowded if all we really needed to do to get what we need out of mortality is to listen to the prophets?.  I also believe in most times in our lives that influence should be only one step down from the highest level of influence.  The Spirit (which means God), imo, should be the highest outside influence.  Our own thoughts and beliefs will be the highest influence on our behaviour, even when they shouldn't be, so expecting something else there is useless imo so I am not going to suggest we should replace it with something else save for how we attempt over time to align our hearts and minds with God's.  Other influences will be spouses, family, and everything in our culture and environment and these will vary as to what level of influence they will and should have on us.  We would be mentally and emotionally and physically dysfunctional if we are not influenced by such, imo. 

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[longview]

So what? In the ancient near east idolatry was very common, but God was quick to tell Moses that idolatry is a sin. Today, pornography is very common, but the church always talks against it.

 

Joseph Smith was against slavery.

 

 

but Brigham Young allowed LDS to have slaves, and some of his statements about blacks are not acceptable today, but at least he condemned abuse and bad treatment. 

I have noticed in many of your posts you like to argue for the sake of petty argument.  If you had done your homework, you would know that BY allowed immigrant slave owners a few years to free their slaves.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I have noticed in many of your posts you like to argue for the sake of petty argument.  If you had done your homework, you would know that BY allowed immigrant slave owners a few years to free their slaves.

 

It is not okay allow slavery, not even for one day.

 

Can you imagine General Authorities allowing SSM couples to adopt children?

 

 

PS slavery ended after the civil war

FairMormon, "Slavery was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and it took a war to end it. LDS scripture forbade slavery (Alma 27:9-10, DC 101:79), but Latter-day Saints (like believers in every age) did not always live up to the light given them. Those who practiced slavery during a historical time in which it was legal will have to answer to God's justice and mercy"

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[CV75]

I think CV is simply pointing out the absolute nature of your comment, which you may not mean that way but I am not sure how else it can be read.

Thank you, and fo the rest of your comments to help Teancum who "in his anger did go forth" into the wrong camp LOL

[Teancum]

I

So either they are influenced by the product of their times or they are wiped clean and are pure mouthpieces of God every second once they are called? The idea that the truth may lie somewhere between these two extremes is ludicrous?

I don't think I am making this argument.

[Teancum]

Thank you, and fo the rest of your comments to help Teancum who "in his anger did go forth" into the wrong camp LOL

I am not angry at all. But if it helps your argument then fine.

As for my other comments I will agree I over stated that apologists argue that prophets are SIMPLY a product of their time and culture. However it does seem to be a common defense when something we don't like or accept today is being discussed to argue that specific uncomfortable teaching was due to the time and culture they lived in and was simply opinion.

[Ahab]

This makes for a convenient way to disavow particular teachings or practices of a prophet long after the fact, even though the expectation is obedience at the time the prophet is acting as a man and not speaking for God.

You use the term prophet as if it is a title, 24/7, but any man is a prophet only when he is speaking for God and if you just assume that man is always speaking for God without checking with God to be sure it is your own fault for making such as assumption and acting as if you should always assume he is a prophet.

A man can be called as a President of the Church, the presiding high priest, and have that title 24/7, but any man is or can be a prophet ONLY when he is speaking for God.

Try not to make any more unreasonable assumptions.

[Tacenda]

Even Bobbieaware's comments indicate that Elder Peterson was not solely moved upon by the cultural beliefs, etc. of his time, but only partially influence by his culture (i.e. there were other influences too). After all, she is arguing, if I understand her correctly, that the influence of his culture was much less than those such as myself believe in regards to that talk of his that I really wish he never gave, but did, and that he was instead much more inspired by the Spirit than culture because of the divine principles she seems to think he was teaching (while I think the principles he was teaching are mostly contradicted by current doctrine and teaching).

Again, I think the problem with your comment is the absolutely nature of the term "simply". Since you use Bobbieaware as an example, I am thinking I am not getting my point across too clearly because she is an example of what I am saying apologists do (they state there is some influence among others) while you are claiming she is doing the opposite (which looks like to me you are claiming she is saying Elder Peterson was only influenced by his culture). It seems a relatively simple point which may be why you are missing it, you may see it as a 'given', something that really doesn't need to be spelled out so what I (and I assume CV) am trying to justify must be something else.

But I am enough of a nitpicker to focus on simple points. Hopefully my point of why I challenged your comment is clear now if it wasn't before.

The only reasonable reason I can come up with is because he doesn't want us to ultimately rely solely on them instead of him. He allows enough mistakes that we, if we take the hints which sometimes amount to a sledgehammer such as with Elder Peterson's talk does for us today for many, will step back and take the time and make the effort to seek out his will on an issue, even if we choose to commit to it first on faith in their role as prophets. I feel the Spirit has confirmed this for me, but it isn't a certainty that I can just give to someone else. I can't say to myself after learning of how the Priesthood ban was developed or reading Elder Peterson's talk 'hey, the prophets have always been right in the big things and the little things don't really matter, can't do much harm with them, so all I need to do is listen to them and I am guaranteed to be square with the Lord'...not that that was ever my inclination, but I hope if it is someone's inclination, that when they encounter such things from our leaders, that it will cause them to rethink their easy reliance and instead start including healthy doses of seeking the Lord's opinion on pretty much everything. If at first they approach it as "just in case", in time I think developing that spiritual connection will become necessary to them for the experience itself because they love having that presence in their life, not just for the peace and knowledge of the right path it can bring, but for everything else I can't explain that is so magnificent and complete in it.

It seems worth the cost and risk of having men and women that are not even close to practically perfect as leaders to me, even though it is really nice when we get that practically perfect person from time to time.

Prophets should be only one of the many influences in our own lives imo---why else would life be so crowded if all we really needed to do to get what we need out of mortality is to listen to the prophets?. I also believe in most times in our lives that influence should be only one step down from the highest level of influence. The Spirit (which means God), imo, should be the highest outside influence. Our own thoughts and beliefs will be the highest influence on our behaviour, even when they shouldn't be, so expecting something else there is useless imo so I am not going to suggest we should replace it with something else save for how we attempt over time to align our hearts and minds with God's. Other influences will be spouses, family, and everything in our culture and environment and these will vary as to what level of influence they will and should have on us. We would be mentally and emotionally and physically dysfunctional if we are not influenced by such, imo.

Who needs a prophet then?

[Teancum]

You use the term prophet as if it is a title, 24/7, but any man is a prophet only when he is speaking for God and if you just assume that man is always speaking for God without checking with God to be sure it is your own fault for making such as assumption and acting as if you should always assume he is a prophet.

A man can be called as a President of the Church, the presiding high priest, and have that title 24/7, but any man is or can be a prophet ONLY when he is speaking for God.

Try not to make any more unreasonable assumptions.

If I pray about something the prophet says in an church publication or from GC pulpit and I get an answer that what he said was wrong can I set it aside and not follow it? What about things past prophets have said? If I pray and ask and I get an answer they were wrong what then?

[Ahab]

Who needs a prophet then?

We all need to be prophets, and I think the main reason God has established the position of President or the presiding high priest over all of the Earth is to have somebody directly under God (the big 3) to disseminate information to everybody else on Earth on a need to know basis.

Structure/organization/hierarchy is apparently a big deal to our Father, but he still wants everybody to talk to and hear directly from him through Christ and the Holy Spirit and the presiding high priest and anybody else who gets revelations and inspiration from him.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

If I pray about something the prophet says in an church publication or from GC pulpit and I get an answer that what he said was wrong can I set it aside and not follow it? What about things past prophets have said? If I pray and ask and I get an answer they were wrong what then?

You too are now using the term prophet as if it is a title 24/7, and I think you should be using the term President or presiding high priest instead. And whether or not that man is speaking for God when he says something he is still speaking as the President of the Church, and he is entitled to be regarded as the President of the Church as long as he is in that position.

But of course you should always accept what a prophet says. A prophet is by definition someone who speaks for God.

[CV75]

I am not angry at all. But if it helps your argument then fine.

As for my other comments I will agree I over stated that apologists argue that prophets are SIMPLY a product of their time and culture. However it does seem to be a common defense when something we don't like or accept today is being discussed to argue that specific uncomfortable teaching was due to the time and culture they lived in and was simply opinion.

Your anger (or lack thereof) has nothing to do my argment--my remark is just a joke at your expense. Thank you for clarifying that you overstated and are only crtiticizing others who also overstate.

 

Prophets act as prophets within their own time and culture. Dead ones have stopped acting. The saints try to bring heaven into the world, doing the best with what we've got.

[Teancum]

You too are now using the term prophet as if it is a title 24/7, and I think you should be using the term President or presiding high priest instead. And whether or not that man is speaking for God when he says something he is still speaking as the President of the Church, and he is entitled to be regarded as the President of the Church as long as he is in that position.

But of course you should always accept what a prophet says. A prophet is by definition someone who speaks for God.

No I used specific instances of when a prophet is acting as such not 24/7.

So if I should simply accept what a prophet says why pray about it as you suggested if getting a different answer does not change how I should act.