When Is A Prophet A Prophet? Always!

[Ahab]

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.

You still seem to be using the term prophet as if it could somehow refer to someone who is not speaking for God, at least according to my interpretation of your 2nd paragraph.

If you don't know whether or not a man is speaking as a prophet you should pray to God to find out whether or not he is.

If you already know a man is speaking for God, hence you know he is speaking as a prophet, then how could God possibly disagree with what that man said? By definition a prophet is someone who is speaking for God.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Ahab

[longview]

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"

Then you must disapprove of God's special instructions for dealing with slavery.  Read the Law of Moses provisions and Apostle Paul's preaching concerning this topic.

 

Slavery has been terrifying part of life throughout history.  Even today, it is practiced among Muslims and various communist countries.  And underground right here in the US of A.  It was not just whites doing it to blacks but many doing it to their own countrymen, women and children.  It was commonplace in Africa, Middle East, and various empires.

[Calm]

Who needs a prophet then?

Everyone who desires one it seems to me.

I earlier wrote a post on why even if they made mistakes as our leaders, why they were still of value to our faith community. Will try and find it.

[rpn]

 

So I think that God calls us to certain positions knowing that we are perfectly capable of screwing up. We still have our agency.

And sometimes we mess up in our callings even when we are trying our personal best to exercise our agency consistent with His will, and believe we have obtained spiritual confirmation.

[Calm]

Post was in the other thread so reposting here on the question of why have very fallible prophets:

Because they help us think of the questions to ask God when we go to him for one thing.  They also help us form a faith community, which is essential imo to getting enough momentum to seek out new revelation for mankind to be receiving as well as offering the support in our seeking (and sometimes opposition which is necessary for growth). If all interaction with God is done solely on an individual basis, then much knowledge will be lost.

 

And I believe that ordinances must be done with the proper authority (I believe this because of revelation that I believe I've had a spiritual witness to plus it just makes sense to me in terms of how government must work, even if it is divine).  Authority must come with an organization and appointed leaders, divine authority must come with appointment by God through revelation/inspiration.

 

I am sure I could come up with some other reasons if I took the time to think about it....

[TheSkepticChristian]

Then you must disapprove of God's special instructions for dealing with slavery.  Read the Law of Moses provisions and Apostle Paul's preaching concerning this topic.

 

EXODUS 21:20 "“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" 

 

That stuff certainly did not come from God. 

Why would a loving God condemn idolatry but allow slavery? 

Edited August 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[why me]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

 

I  think that you need to watch the edward kimball interview on youtube. For edward, his dad spencer was first a dad. I don't think that he saw him always as a prophet but as a father at home. We need to remember that church leaders have families: children and grandkids. I am sure that these relatives see such people as dads and grandpas. And I don't think that edward saw his father as perfect but rather as a falliable human being.

 

 

In this interview it seems that john is attempting to shore up his own disbelief. But it is a good interview with edward.

Edited August 30, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Who needs a prophet then?

No one really. We certainly can be our own prophets. However, it may at times be good to be aware of what god wants from us as a community of human beings. Listening to General Conference, I get a sense that the people speaking are giving advice on how to do life that would be pleasing to god. And the advice is certainly good advice. But most of the world does not have that advice and so most seem not to have a prophet to heed to. Is the world is good shape? I don't think so. So, maybe it is good to listen to the prophets voice.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

True. I do see "prophet" as a title that a man holds 24/7. Is there a reason I shouldn't view it this way? We sustain as such. On another thread Russell tried making the argument that a prophet is only a prophet when he is declaring God's word. This is a very narrow view which would only require us to follow the prophet when he declares explicitely that he is speaking for God. Otherwise we wouldn't know he is a prophet. While I may be willing to accept this definition for the prophet I don't believe the church authorities would allow for such a limited view.

 

But assuming you're right and that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet (speaking God's word), can you share with me the last 3 times the prophet as explicitely declared he is speaking for God?

 

I admit I chuckled when I read your admonition  to not "make any more unreasonable assumptions." It would be interesting to see a poll of all active church members to see how many would make the same "unreasonable assumptions". Or maybe I conjured those assumptions all on my own without the help of any church teachings.

[Gray]

A prophet is a spiritual teacher and leader. That does not mean he/she has an exclusive and infallible bat phone to God. 

[longview]

EXODUS 21:20 "“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" 

 

That stuff certainly did not come from God. 

Why would a loving God condemn idolatry but allow slavery? 

Are you saying you do NOT believe God provided the "Law of Moses" to His rebellious and recalcitrant and perverse Hebrew former slaves?  Or are you simply ignorant of the basic fundamental teachings of the LDS Gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith?  I do not know your background or level of commitment BUT I do not have time to help you with your "baby steps" but I would strongly urge you to get on mormon.org and request a complimentary copy of the Book of Mormon and a visit with the delightful missionaries.  The BoM has several great sections on why the "Law of Moses" was given.  Good luck! 

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Follow that answer where ever it leads.

[HappyJackWagon]

A prophet is a spiritual teacher and leader. That does not mean he/she has an exclusive and infallible bat phone to God. 

True. But we treat the prophet as if he does have a bat phone to God. Why else would we be so determined to be perfectly obedient in following the prophet. Maybe it's time to retire that song, or change it to Follow the Savior

[thesometimesaint]

While not perfect these are very good men. They can help us achieve the goal of true discipleship. It behooves us to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost on everything we do.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Are you saying you do NOT believe God provided the "Law of Moses" to His rebellious and recalcitrant and perverse Hebrew former slaves?  Or are you simply ignorant of the basic fundamental teachings of the LDS Gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith?  I do not know your background or level of commitment BUT I do not have time to help you with your "baby steps" but I would strongly urge you to get on mormon.org and request a complimentary copy of the Book of Mormon and a visit with the delightful missionaries.  The BoM has several great sections on why the "Law of Moses" was given.  Good luck! 

 

The Book of Mormon and the D&C condenm slavery, the Old Testment allows it without consequence. 

Slavery is wrong, a loving God wouldn't be more concerned about idolatry (worshiping statues) than slavery.

 

God never regulated idolatry, he simply condenmed it.

Edited August 31, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

True. But we treat the prophet as if he does have a bat phone to God. Why else would we be so determined to be perfectly obedient in following the prophet. Maybe it's time to retire that song, or change it to Follow the Savior

 

The obedience thing is I think based on some incorrect assumptions about the nature of prophets. 

[HappyJackWagon]

The obedience thing is I think based on some incorrect assumptions about the nature of prophets. 

Incorrect assumptions or incorrect teachings?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Incorrect assumptions or incorrect teachings?

 

Like some of the teachings that are found in the Bible?

[Gray]

Incorrect assumptions or incorrect teachings?

 

One leads to the other. I would say both are incorrect, in my opinion. 

[HappyJackWagon]

One leads to the other. I would say both are incorrect, in my opinion. 

Incorrect assumptions by those in authority lead to incorrect teachings. Those incorrect teachings lead to incorrect understanding the rest of the way down the line. So at worst, I think many have incorrect understanding, based on incorrect teachings which originated with the authority's incorrect assumption.

[Ahab]

True. I do see "prophet" as a title that a man holds 24/7. Is there a reason I shouldn't view it this way? We sustain as such.

When I say that I sustain any GA or other man as a prophet I mean that I do and will sustain him when I know that he has spoken as a prophet. So it is conditional on me knowing that he is speaking as a prophet. I don't mean that I sustain every word that he has ever spoken as if God had said what he said, and I don't think anyone else means that either. And that is the only way I believe anyone should ever sustain any man as a prophet.

And as for titles go there is no title for any office in the priesthood of God that is called prophet or Prophet, but if you want to regard it as a title I think you should use it only if and when you personally know that a man is speaking for God.

On another thread Russell tried making the argument that a prophet is only a prophet when he is declaring God's word. This is a very narrow view which would only require us to follow the prophet when he declares explicitely that he is speaking for God.

No, unreasonable assumption #???. A prophet isn't required to say something like "thus saith the Lord" to be able to speak for God. All anyone has to do is say something that God agrees with. Speaking for God is simply saying something God agrees with.

Otherwise we wouldn't know he is a prophet.

I think that still counts as the same unreasonable assumption.

While I may be willing to accept this definition for the prophet I don't believe the church authorities would allow for such a limited view.

Another unreasonable assumption from you, and the Church can't really do anything to prevent such a limited view.

But assuming you're right and that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet (speaking God's word), can you share with me the last 3 times the prophet as explicitely declared he is speaking for God?

No. I don't keep track of such things, but I often hear men say a lot of things that I know God agrees with which to me means they are speaking for God even when they are not saying so explicitly.

I admit I chuckled when I read your admonition to not "make any more unreasonable assumptions." It would be interesting to see a poll of all active church members to see how many would make the same "unreasonable assumptions". Or maybe I conjured those assumptions all on my own without the help of any church teachings.

Yes, a poll on this might be interesting for you, but even with poll results you should still try to avoid unreasonable assumptions.

[HappyJackWagon]

When I say that I sustain any GA or other man as a prophet I mean that I do and will sustain him when I know that he has spoken as a prophet. So it is conditional on me knowing that he is speaking as a prophet. I don't mean that I sustain every word that he has ever spoken as if God had said what he said, and I don't think anyone else means that either. And that is the only way I believe anyone should ever sustain any man as a prophet.

And as for titles go there is no title for any office in the priesthood of God that is called prophet or Prophet, but if you want to regard it as a title I think you should use it only if and when you personally know that a man is speaking for God.

No, unreasonable assumption #???. A prophet isn't required to say something like "thus saith the Lord" to be able to speak for God. All anyone has to do is say something that God agrees with. Speaking for God is simply saying something God agrees with.

I think that still counts as the same unreasonable assumption.

Another unreasonable assumption from you, and the Church can't really do anything to prevent such a limited view.

No. I don't keep track of such things, but I often hear men say a lot of things that I know God agrees with which to me means they are speaking for God even when they are not saying so explicitly.

Yes, a poll on this might be interesting for you, but even with poll results you should still try to avoid unreasonable assumptions.

In your experience, how do priesthood leaders respond during TR interviews that you sustain the prophet and apostles conditionally?

 

You say a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks the word of God yet it is unecessary for a prophet to explain or claim when he is speaking for God. That seems ineffective.

 

You say it is an unreasonable assumption that I make when I say the church wouldn't allow such a narrow view of following the prophet. You say the church can't prohibit such a narrow view. So if I don't have a testimony that the word of wisdom is a commandment of God and therefore choose not to follow it, you don't think the church can do anything to show disapproval with my failure to accept the word of the prophet?

 

I'm surprised you don't keep track of the actual revelations of God. They really don't happen very often. Or are you qualifying restatements of doctrine or quotations of other General Authorities to be revelation?

 

We really see the world differently, don't we?

[Rivers]

The Book of Mormon and the D&C condenm slavery, the Old Testment allows it without consequence. 

Slavery is wrong, a loving God wouldn't be more concerned about idolatry (worshiping statues) than slavery.

 

God never regulated idolatry, he simply condenmed it.

Jesus condemned divorce and yet we still tolerate it today.

[Zakuska]

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.

Every time the subject is breached that BY made disparaging statements about Blacks. I see this defense raise its head. Same with the Moon Men and the Sun Men.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Mark E. Peterson topic has got me thinking about the general question of prophetic fallibility. I often hear the "prophet is only a prophet when acting as such" excuse. This quote has never sat well with me. Its too simple of a loophole in my opinion. I don't buy it. I would argue that a prophet is always acting as a prophet. When one is called to a calling or office, he/she has the burden of having to live up to certain expectations. There is not a prophet on/off switch.

In fact I believe that all of us as members of the church have that burden. When I was baptized into the church I promised to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ and am obligated to act the way He would act. There is no on/off switch where I can change to not being part of the body of Christ and vice versa. I cannot turn off my melchezidic priesthood either.

 

So, what you are saying is that you preform all of your duties perfectly? If not, why?

 

Why hold the prophets to that standard? I really don't think this represent reality. I might be an elder but I certainly don't always act as one. And what I mean by that is that it is an unreasonable expectation to think that i must act as and elder perfectly. Prophets make mistakes. And sometimes they give their opinion and it is not as a prophet but as a man.

 

When I give an answer to a question in Sunday school is that Mola Ram the Elder responding?  Or is it Mola Ram the member? Context dictates who is speaking. 

 

A prophet making a comment when not acting as a prophet cannot be held as the same standard as when he is at the pulpit at GC making comment. So, I would say your off base.  And it is not an excuse, it is valid.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram