When Is A Prophet A Prophet? Always!

[Zakuska]

I agree that a Prophet is only a Prophet when speaking as such. We see that in Pauls letters where he makes good and sure to state his Opnion as his Opinion. He says something like I give "My Judgement and not the Lords", so his audience knows he is speaking as a man. When he gives something the Lord has said he states... "Not I but the Lord"...

Edited August 31, 2015 by Zakuska

[Ahab]

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

They seem to be fine with my explanation and understanding and we usually have some good laughs together.

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.

No I say a prophet is always a prophet but a man is a prophet only when speaking for God. And I am the one who determines when I think that man is speaking for God.

Have you forgotten how our discussion got started back a few posts already?

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?

No. Why would you make such another unreasonable assumption?

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?

Yes I include restatements of previous statements about anything God has said or would agree with. Anything true, usually good and edifying to help us learn something about what is or has been or will be, sometimes with warnings about the consequences of not doing good things. Basically the opposite of what Satan wants us to think.

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

I often see things your way as well as God's way too. Both at the same time is enlightening.

[Calm]

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.

So please give examples that anyone on FM has ever claimed leaders are simply a product of their times and that there are no other influences on them, including their eternal nature and the Spirit.

Because that is the alleged defense I and I believe CV were challenging existed either on FM or as a trend among apologists.

[Guest]

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.

That's my take. Anybody else agree? Or am I totally off base?

I understand what you are saying, and I have often viewed such callings with absolutism. But then I remembered Elder Benson, who was always an Apostle, but worked in the Enisenhow administration, where he was a member of Gov't. While working in Gov't for those eight years he had very rigid ideas. They are also men dealing with family issues, economical issue, social (race) issues that reflected the age in which they lived. So as much as we would like to ke to place the views of all men of God in our age and our understanding, we cannot. So is this "excuse" or just "reality". I only wish I had the wisdom to know "always" what is right...or the wisdom to look into and judge the souls of other men.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

While you find it much more convenient to be able to take anything and everything ever attributed to a prophet, and use it as evidence against his prophetic mantle.

 

Why don't you admit that that's the real reason behind your objection to this principle?

[Stormin' Mormon]

It's blatantly obvious that a prophet can speak as a not-prophet.

 

He's at a dinner party and says, "Old El Paso Salsa is better than Pace Picante sauce."  Is he speaking as a prophet?  Are we bound to switch our salsa preferences?

 

His wife asks what color they should paint the bedroom.  He replies that a dark burgundy would be perfect.  Is his wife covenant-bound to follow this atrocious counsel?

 

And the list of hypotheticals can go on and on and on.  So, it can't be a question of whether a line needs to be drawn at all between prophet and not-prophet. It's self-evident that such a line must exist somewhere.  You may disagree with where apologists draw that line, but unless you are prepared to accept the above pronouncements as prophetic, you can't deny that such a line is necessary. 

[Russell C McGregor]

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

 

Call for references, please.  What "apologist" (ugh!) ever said that "prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on," or anything like it?

[Russell C McGregor]

The statement, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" was made by Joseph Smith (see HoC, 5:265).  As such, it is manifest that it is true, and binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

 

If Joseph was "acting as such" when he said that, then the statement rises to the level of revealed doctrine.  But if he was merely speaking as a man, then it is an example of the very principle under discussion.

 

Either way, it's the goods.

 

The critics' claim that it's merely some kind of dodge, designed to get the apologist (ugh!) out of trouble whenever a prophet can be shown to have said something unpalatable, is false.  But, despite being false, it is nonetheless valid evidence of what is really going on.  The critic wants to be able to saddle the Church with every statement she can plausibly attribute to a prophet, and thus wear down the Church's defenders by forcing them to defend every such statement.

 

It's a low and dirty trick, which is why the critics resort to it so easily and comfortably.

[provoman]

Call for references, please. What "apologist" (ugh!) ever said that "prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on," or anything like it?

Race and the Priesthood. I suspect you are not unfamiliar that "apologists" have passed off past racism or other foibles of past leaders using the "product of their times" reasoning.

Edited September 1, 2015 by provoman

[Teancum]

Call for references, please. What "apologist" (ugh!) ever said that "prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on," or anything like it?

The word simply was hyperbole that I already admitted on this thread that should not have been used. But certainly the race and priesthood issues and the so called folklore to defend the ban has been passed off as cultural as have other things as well.

You don't like the word apologist?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Teancum

[Russell C McGregor]

Race and the Priesthood. I suspect you are not unfamiliar that "apologists" have passed off past racism or other foibles of past leaders using the "product of their times" reasoning.

 

Teancum has already admitted that he overstated his position.  He's allowed to do that; but if you're going to try to defend it, good luck to you.

 

Just for you, I re-read the essay.  Nowhere does it say anything similar to, "prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on."

 

Your attempt to answer the CFR fails.

 

Next!

[Calm]

The word simply www hyperbole that I already admitted on this thread that should not have been used.

Can you nudge provoman and Zakuska about that, please?

[Teancum]

Can you nudge provoman and Zakuska about that, please?

I would but I have trouble keeping myself out of trouble.

[provoman]

Teancum has already admitted that he overstated his position. He's allowed to do that; but if you're going to try to defend it, good luck to you.

Just for you, I re-read the essay. Nowhere does it say anything similar to, "prophets are simply products of their time and culture and so on."

Your attempt to answer the CFR fails.

Next!

The word "simply" was deemed hyperbole; that acknowledgment does not dissolve the underlying point. The statement you are harping about is not found in the essay. The point of the statement you are harping about is. If the essay was not trying couch the "ban" as a product of racism of the day, then why does the essay cover the racism of the day? You might want to re-re-read the essay. Edited September 1, 2015 by provoman

[Russell C McGregor]

The word "simply" was deemed hyperbole; that acknowledgment does not dissolve the underlying point. The statement you are harping about is not found in the essay. The point of the statement you are harping about is. If the essay was not trying couch the "ban" as a product of racism of the day, then why does the essay cover the racism of the day? You might want to re-re-read the essay.

 

But what is the point? To say that a prophet or apostle is influenced by the cultural currents of his day is simply to say that he is a man. As the late, great Boyd K. Packer pointed out, this isn't news; we knew that already.

 

To say that they were influenced by such things is quite different than to say that they were influenced by nothing but such things. In admitting his hyperbole, Teancum has basically admitted that he has no point to make.

 

No-one has ever claimed that the prophetic call instantly and entirely sanitises a prophet's opinions, yet without that "simply," that's all you've managed to refute: a claim no-one makes.

 

A straw man, in other words.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[provoman]

But what is the point? To say that a prophet or apostle is influenced by the cultural currents of his day is simply to say that he is a man. As the late, great Boyd K. Packer pointed out, this isn't news; we knew that already.

To say that they were influenced by such things is quite different than to say that they were influenced by nothing but such things. In admitting his hyperbole, Teancum has basically admitted that he has no point to make.

No-one has ever claimed that the prophetic call instantly and entirely sanitises&a prophet's opinions, yet without that "simply," that's all you've managed to refute: a claim no-one makes.

A straw man, in other words.

WOW, you are really going to go with this line of "logic" - Teancum admits to hyperbole of a single word, therefore he had no point to make. The "product of their times" is used and is in use on this very board. Go read the first few pages on the Mark E Peterson on Race thread. One of your posts in that thread, incidentally, is the second post after someone posted "everybody was racist". And in that same thread another posted "It took only two replies for somebody to appeal to the product of the times excuse." In the end we are in agreement "that a prophet or apostle is influenced by the cultural currents of his day" and it is not news.

[SmileyMcGee]

The statement, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" was made by Joseph Smith (see HoC, 5:265). As such, it is manifest that it is true, and binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

If Joseph was "acting as such" when he said that, then the statement rises to the level of revealed doctrine. But if he was merely speaking as a man, then it is an example of the very principle under discussion.

Either way, it's the goods.

The critics' claim that it's merely some kind of dodge, designed to get the apologist (ugh!) out of trouble whenever a prophet can be shown to have said something unpalatable, is false. But, despite being false, it is nonetheless valid evidence of what is really going on. The critic wants to be able to saddle the Church with every statement she can plausibly attribute to a prophet, and thus wear down the Church's defenders by forcing them to defend every such statement.

It's a low and dirty trick, which is why the critics resort to it so easily and comfortably.

Actually...if joseph was speaking as a man when he made that remark and the remark was untrue, that would mean he was not a prophet, because if a prophet never speaks as a man and Joseph spoke as a man, then if must follow that JS was not a prophet. The scenario that acts as an "example of the very principle under discussion" is an impossibility.

Edited September 1, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[HappyJackWagon]

The statement, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" was made by Joseph Smith (see HoC, 5:265).  As such, it is manifest that it is true, and binding upon the Latter-day Saints.

 

If Joseph was "acting as such" when he said that, then the statement rises to the level of revealed doctrine.  But if he was merely speaking as a man, then it is an example of the very principle under discussion.

 

Either way, it's the goods.

 

The critics' claim that it's merely some kind of dodge, designed to get the apologist (ugh!) out of trouble whenever a prophet can be shown to have said something unpalatable, is false.  But, despite being false, it is nonetheless valid evidence of what is really going on.  The critic wants to be able to saddle the Church with every statement she can plausibly attribute to a prophet, and thus wear down the Church's defenders by forcing them to defend every such statement.

 

It's a low and dirty trick, which is why the critics resort to it so easily and comfortably.

Yes, it's a dirty trick to "saddle" the church by requesting explanations about statements made by official representatives of the church and by prophets of God who speak on His behalf. How dare anyone pay close attention to what the prophets and general authorities say which need clarification or explanation.

 

If you're so worn down by trying to defend indefensible statements by church leaders (like the racist teachings) then just don't do it. You generally admit they are fallible so admit they were wrong and move on. You're wearing yourself out trying to put a faithful spin on a mistake and in so doing make the "faithful spin" look even more ridiculous and the problematic statements even less defensible.

[Ahab]

Actually...if joseph were speaking as a man when he made that remark and the remark was entries, that would mean he was not a prophet, because if a prophet never speaks as a man and Joseph spoke as a man, then if must follow that JS was not a prophet. The scenario that acts as an "example of the very principle under discussion" is an impossibility.

Are you really having so much trouble understanding the principle under discussion or are you simply acting as if you are?

A prophet is always a prophet otherwise we will have to come up with another word for what a prophet is.

How about if we all simply admit that a man is a prophet only when he is speaking for God, otherwise he is simply speaking as a man within his own time and culture?

That's something everyone should be able to understand, I think.

[Tacenda]

I wonder if a prophet is just merely a man who has proven worthy through the dedication of his life to God.  So many leaders of the church in the last century have showed faithfulness in callings and seem to worthily get to prophet-hood.  Just as someone in a corporation rises to be CEO or President.  He's given his life to the company or institution.  He knows it inside and out, or he knows the workings of the Lord and has that closeness where he is able to speak for the Lord, or direct the church as the God would want it.  I also think leaders of other faiths have the same thing, they've gone to a theologian/seminary school also.  They've served missions, callings etc.  I wonder if it's just wordage more or less.  I believe the prophets or presidents in the LDS church have earned their crud, slang for credibility.  I respect the process, and appreciate that our faith gives us the responsibility to discern for ourselves.  Doesn't make the prophet infallible, although the members themselves sometimes believe that.  I guess all faiths need some kind of leader.  And if they lead straight most of the time, awesome.  But if the leader doesn't, then it's up to the follower to figure it out.  Maybe I'm talking smack but just figuring things out for myself.  I feel that most of the prophets of my generation didn't lead any astray much.  But this is a personal thing, maybe to some on the board they have. 

 

Just my musings...I really feel like I need to figure out who the real God is.  And in our church he's a pretty good guy, a very loving God.  I like that!     

[SmileyMcGee]

Are you really having so much trouble understanding the principle under discussion or are you simply acting as if you are?

A prophet is always a prophet otherwise we will have to come up with another word for what a prophet is.

How about if we all simply admit that a man is a prophet only when he is speaking for God, otherwise he is simply speaking as a man within his own time and culture?

That's something everyone should be able to understand, I think.

 

I understand your view of prophets. I just think it resolves nothing. Regardless, your diatribe doesn't even address my comment. I was addressing the logic Russell's argument, not your view of prophets. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, it's a dirty trick to "saddle" the church by requesting explanations about statements made by official representatives of the church and by prophets of God who speak on His behalf. How dare anyone pay close attention to what the prophets and general authorities say which need clarification or explanation.

 

If you're so worn down by trying to defend indefensible statements by church leaders (like the racist teachings) then just don't do it. You generally admit they are fallible so admit they were wrong and move on. You're wearing yourself out trying to put a faithful spin on a mistake and in so doing make the "faithful spin" look even more ridiculous and the problematic statements even less defensible.

 

Yes it is a dirty trick to "saddle" the church by constantly requesting explanations about statements made by official representatives of the church and by prophets of God who speak on His behalf. When explanations have already been given.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

It's blatantly obvious that a prophet can speak as a not-prophet.

 

He's at a dinner party and says, "Old El Paso Salsa is better than Pace Picante sauce."  Is he speaking as a prophet?  Are we bound to switch our salsa preferences?

 

His wife asks what color they should paint the bedroom.  He replies that a dark burgundy would be perfect.  Is his wife covenant-bound to follow this atrocious counsel?

 

And the list of hypotheticals can go on and on and on.  So, it can't be a question of whether a line needs to be drawn at all between prophet and not-prophet. It's self-evident that such a line must exist somewhere.  You may disagree with where apologists draw that line, but unless you are prepared to accept the above pronouncements as prophetic, you can't deny that such a line is necessary. 

No one is arguing about a situation like you mention. It gets a whole lot messier when an apostle is speaking as an apostle at a BYU devotional saying racist things. This isn't about salsa and there's no question about whether he is representing the church or not.

 

If I were to claim that he is only speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer and revelator...an apostle, even when he's speaking as Elder Peterson at BYU, then I'm just not being honest.

[thesometimesaint]

No one is arguing about a situation like you mention. It gets a whole lot messier when an apostle is speaking as an apostle at a BYU devotional saying racist things. This isn't about salsa and there's no question about whether he is representing the church or not.

 

If I were to claim that he is only speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer and revelator...an apostle, even when he's speaking as Elder Peterson at BYU, then I'm just not being honest.

 

Since when did God make sockpuppets?

Edited September 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

No one is arguing about a situation like you mention. It gets a whole lot messier when an apostle is speaking as an apostle at a BYU devotional saying racist things. This isn't about salsa and there's no question about whether he is representing the church or not.

If I were to claim that he is only speaking as a man, not as a prophet, seer and revelator...an apostle, even when he's speaking as Elder Peterson at BYU, then I'm just not being honest.

Same argument. Different words now:

An apostle is not always speaking as a prophet, even when he is speaking in his official God-sanctioned capacity as an apostle

And the President of the Church isn't always speaking as a prophet, either, even when he is speaking in his official God-sanctioned capacity as the President of the Church.

The ONLY time ANY man is speaking as a prophet is when he is speaking for God, saying what God agrees with, and would say himself even though he may use his own language and not necessarily use the same words as another man who is essentially saying the very same thing.

So as I said before:

A prophet is always a prophet and thus always speaking for God but the only time any man is a prophet is when he is speaking for God.

That is both true and easy to understand, but you can disagree and continue to argue for as long as you want to.