When Is A Prophet A Prophet? Always!

[HappyJackWagon]

Since when did God make sockpuppets?

I have no clue what you're talking about. Please explain.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Since when did God make sockpuppets?

 

He doesn't, but why didn't the Holy Ghost tell the prophets to repent after teaching false doctrine? I am not aware that Brigham Young repented of his negative comments, and I am not aware he repented for allowing LDS to have slaves.

 

Remember when Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy? He didn't want to, but do you remember what he said?

Edited September 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

I have no clue what you're talking about. Please explain.

 

A sock puppet doesn't have agency. People including Mormon prophets/apostles included do. In the context of this discussion it appears that your belief is that if a prophet/apostle says some thing it is automatically God given doctrine, or that person isn't a prophet/apostle. Such is not what the Church teaches.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

If I am incorrect please clarify.

[thesometimesaint]

He doesn't, but why didn't the Holy Ghost tell the prophets to repent after teaching false doctrine? I am not aware that Brigham Young repented of his negative comments, and I am not aware he repented for allowing LDS to have slaves.

 

Remember when Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy? He didn't want to, but do you remember what he said?

 

Slavery wasn't a big issue for the Saints in the Utah Territory. There were very few slaves there, and it didn't last. Maybe God did and BY didn't obey. We just don't know.

 

It took JS a while to obey. Even so we don't know what JS really felt about obeying. Maybe he liked it, maybe he didn't.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 Maybe God did and BY didn't obey. We just don't know

 

What happens when a Prophet refuses to obey God? I can point to many examples in the scriptures.

Let's assume that BY didn't obey, but what about the other prophets and church leaders?

 

 

It took JS a while to obey. Even so we don't know what JS really felt about obeying. Maybe he liked it, maybe he didn't.

 

but he had to do it, whether he likes it or not.

 

" the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

 

There were very few slaves there, and it didn't last.

 

Imagine if General Authorities allow (without church discipline) LDS to perform few SSMs for one week?

Edited September 1, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

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.

 

Thank you.

 

 

A sock puppet doesn't have agency. People including Mormon prophets/apostles included do. In the context of this discussion it appears that your belief is that if a prophet/apostle says some thing it is automatically God given doctrine, or that person isn't a prophet/apostle. Such is not what the Church teaches.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

If I am incorrect please clarify.

 

Amen to that.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[HappyJackWagon]

A sock puppet doesn't have agency. People including Mormon prophets/apostles included do. In the context of this discussion it appears that your belief is that if a prophet/apostle says some thing it is automatically God given doctrine, or that person isn't a prophet/apostle. Such is not what the Church teaches.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

If I am incorrect please clarify.

You misunderstand my position which is very simple.

 

It is inconsistent to claim that we must currently follow God's prophet and be obedient to his teachings while acknowledging that prophets often don't speak for God but are really just sharing their opinions which are sometimes wrong. If we cannot trust the prophet to speak for God, and he isn't clear in when he is speaking for God versus sharing his own opinion, then we are not bound to follow him.

 

I view the mantra of Follow the prophet to be similar to putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

 

All I'm hoping for is an acknowledgement that obedience to the teachings of the prophet/church is at best a messy proposition. Therefore obedience to the prophet is not the same thing as obedience to God.

 

To me it feels the church and apologists wants to have it both ways. Follow the prophet, but when he is wrong, it is our fault for following because after all, he's just a man and is influenced by his culture.

 

If the prophet is an unreliable conduit for God we should not follow him so blindly. Instead we should listen and consider his advice.

 

Some will argue with me and say I'm not taking responsibility for my own beliefs or actions if I'm following the prophet blindly. Fair enough. But if I truly supposed to come up with my own answers via the spirit, the church should accept those answers. It doesn't.

[thesometimesaint]

So what happens when a Prophet refuses to obey God? I can point to many examples in the scriptures.

Let's assume that BY didn't obey, but what about the other prophets and church leaders?

 

 

 

but he had to do it, whether he likes it or not.

 

" the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

 

 

Imagine if General Authorities allow (without church discipline) LDS to perform few SSMs for one week?

 

Moses killed a man with very shaky justification. Jonah repeatedly refused to obey. Peter refused baptism to the Gentiles. The list of prophets/apostles that have done what we consider pretty disgusting things is long. I still consider them prophets/apostles. You are free to believe otherwise.

 

Never said the alternative to his obeying was pleasant. We just don't know what he personally felt about obeying. 

 

It wasn't illegal at time to own slaves in the Utah territories. The 14th Amendment was years away. I've never approved of slavery, but I'll save my Presentism angst for those that practice it in the present.

 

Do you really think that would happen today? We excommunicate all those /members found to practice polygamy. SSM is in the same realm, Some excuse could, in theory, be presented for actions taken in horse and buggy days, but with instant world wide communication in today's world not so much.

[Ahab]

You misunderstand my position which is very simple.

It is inconsistent to claim that we must currently follow God's prophet and be obedient to his teachings while acknowledging that prophets often don't speak for God but are really just sharing their opinions which are sometimes wrong. If we cannot trust the prophet to speak for God, and he isn't clear in when he is speaking for God versus sharing his own opinion, then we are not bound to follow him.

I view the mantra of Follow the prophet to be similar to putting our trust in the arm of the flesh.

All I'm hoping for is an acknowledgement that obedience to the teachings of the prophet/church is at best a messy proposition. Therefore obedience to the prophet is not the same thing as obedience to God.

To me it feels the church and apologists wants to have it both ways. Follow the prophet, but when he is wrong, it is our fault for following because after all, he's just a man and is influenced by his culture.

If the prophet is an unreliable conduit for God we should not follow him so blindly. Instead we should listen and consider his advice.

Some will argue with me and say I'm not taking responsibility for my own beliefs or actions if I'm following the prophet blindly. Fair enough. But if I truly supposed to come up with my own answers via the spirit, the church should accept those answers. It doesn't.

You continue to call someone a prophet even when you don't think that person is speaking for God. And that is illogical and an unreasonable thing for you to be doing.

If you don't think someone is speaking for God then you should not be calling that person a prophet. All prophets speak for God because that is what a prophet does.

And I think you know that but are choosing to be illogical and unreasonable anyway.

I'm just calling you out on what you are doing.

[Gray]

You continue to call someone a prophet even when you don't think that person is speaking for God. And that is illogical and an unreasonable thing for you to be doing.

If you don't think someone is speaking for God then you should not be calling that person a prophet. All prophets speak for God because that is what a prophet does.

And I think you know that but are choosing to be illogical and unreasonable anyway.

I'm just calling you out on what you are doing.

 

There is more than one definition for the word prophet:

 

prophet [prof-it]

noun

1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

2. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets. (often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers. a person who practices divination.

3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.

4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

6. a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom. 7. a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement.

[Ahab]

There is more than one definition for the word prophet:

prophet [prof-it]

noun

1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

2. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets. (often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers. a person who practices divination.

3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.

4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

6. a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom.

7. a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement.

Sheesh! How much more can we water this down?

If Jack is calling some man a prophet even when Jack personally doesn't believe that man is speaking for God then I suppose Jack could call any man a prophet whatever he said.

Even Jack could be called a prophet according to your definition #7.

[HappyJackWagon]

Sheesh! How much more can we water this down?

If Jack is calling some man a prophet even when Jack personally doesn't believe that man is speaking for God then I suppose Jack could call any man a prophet whatever he said.

Even Jack could be called a prophet according to your definition #7.

Even HappyJackWagon could be called a prophet? I feel so special.

 

If someone shares the word via the spirit of prophesy then sure, he's a prophet, right? He's just not THE prophet who we know sometimes speaks for God but that we also know we can't really count on him speaking for God because sometimes he's wrong. Right?

[KevinG]

Even HappyJackWagon could be called a prophet? I feel so special.

 

If someone shares the word via the spirit of prophesy then sure, he's a prophet, right? He's just not THE prophet who we know sometimes speaks for God but that we also know we can't really count on him speaking for God because sometimes he's wrong. Right?

 

Somewhere along the line you missed several lessons on what a Prophet is and is not.

 

Inerrancy - not

More spiritual than others - not

Oracle - not

Should be followed blindly - not

Inspired - often

Revelatory - sometimes

Has responsibility for the Church as a whole - yes

Safe to follow - yes

safe to follow to hell - no

Checked by God - yes

 

I have left this quote on the board enough times that I would think you had seen it by now:

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.” Brigham Young Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )

Edited September 1, 2015 by KevinG

[Ahab]

Even HappyJackWagon could be called a prophet? I feel so special.

Even when anyone can be called a prophet whatever they say? Doesn't seem to take much for you to feel special.

If someone shares the word via the spirit of prophesy then sure, he's a prophet, right?

Yep, if by the word you mean the word of God as God understands it.

He's just not THE prophet who we know sometimes speaks for God but that we also know we can't really count on him speaking for God because sometimes he's wrong. Right?

THE prophet always speaks for God, at least by my definition of what any prophet is.

Prophet/prophet = someone who speaks for God, our Father either personally or through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think when you say THE prophet you are referring to the President of the Church, who doesn't always speak as a or even THE prophet, either, even though many members refer to the President as THE Prophet even while knowing that he isn't always speaking for God.

Have I got you straightened out yet?

[Zakuska]

Moses once said...

 

"Would to God that ALL of Gods people were Prophets and that he would pour out his Spirit upon them and they would all Prophesy".

 

Num. 11:29

 

Anyone who speaks by the Spirit is a Prophet.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Zakuska

[HappyJackWagon]

Somewhere along the line you missed several lessons on what a Prophet is and is not.

 

Inerrancy - not

More spiritual than others - not

Oracle - not

Should be followed blindly - not

Inspired - often

Revelatory - sometimes

Has responsibility for the Church as a whole - yes

Safe to follow - yes

safe to follow to hell - no

Checked by God - yes

 

I have left this quote on the board enough times that I would think you had seen it by now:

 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.” Brigham Young Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )

I think you and Ahab should get together because you are fighting opposite points here.

 

I am curious though, how do you know if it is "safe" to follow the prophet when you admit he is fallible?

[Zakuska]

I think you and Ahab should get together because you are fighting opposite points here.

 

I am curious though, how do you know if it is "safe" to follow the prophet when you admit he is fallible?

 

Did not Moses and Aaron Screw up and thus weren't able to enter the promised land?

The People still followed him even though he wasn't infallible.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Moses killed a man with very shaky justification.

 

I don't think he was a prophet at that time

 

 

Jonah repeatedly refused to obey.

 

but God told him to repent

 

 

 Peter refused baptism to the Gentiles.

 

Why didn't God tell him to repent? I though God was the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

 

 We just don't know what he personally felt about obeying.

 

and why is that relevant to the point?

 

 

It wasn't illegal at time to own slaves in the Utah territories.

 

So what? That doesn't mean it was good.

 

 

Do you really think that would happen today?

 

you didn't understand my point

 

 

Did not Moses and Aaron Screw up and thus weren't able to enter the promised land?

The People still followed him even though he wasn't infallible.

 

True, but at least Moses repented because God chastened him. 

 

PS Moses was not the author of the first five boos of the Bible.

[KevinG]

I think you and Ahab should get together because you are fighting opposite points here.

 

I am curious though, how do you know if it is "safe" to follow the prophet when you admit he is fallible?

 

I think you and Ahab should get together because you are fighting opposite points here.

 

I am curious though, how do you know if it is "safe" to follow the prophet when you admit he is fallible?

 

At some point we must use our own good sense, personal revelation, and the written scriptures to find "safe".  Of course God requires us to live according to the revelations we've already received before we can receive more.

 

Being "safe" in following authorized leaders is not a matter of never being mistaken.  Joseph himself made mistakes.  But the Lords house is a house of order.  We follow our leaders within reason, and if they are in error the sin is upon their head not ours.  (I'm searching for this principle in the Standard Works - can I get some help finding the particular scripture where this principle is outlined?)

 

There is balance in these things and no absolutes in mortality.

Edited September 1, 2015 by KevinG

[Gray]

Sheesh! How much more can we water this down?

If Jack is calling some man a prophet even when Jack personally doesn't believe that man is speaking for God then I suppose Jack could call any man a prophet whatever he said.

Even Jack could be called a prophet according to your definition #7.

 

Any spiritual teacher can be called a prophet. 

[KevinG]

We are talking about the LDS Prophets and Apostles who are considered Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.  Use this description:  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

Exactly. That "single word" was the key to his argument. That's what made it an argument and not merely a rather banal observation.

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.

Exactly. Just like everyone else, a prophet or apostle is influenced by the cultural currents of his day. This is not news.

What matters is that, from time to time as the Lord requires, a prophet may receive revelation to guide the Church.

That's the news.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

No, it's not an "impossibility." The notion that "a prophet never speaks as a man" is counter-scriptural, unreasonable and arguably incoherent.

And it's all you've got to prop up the anti-Mormon straw man you are trying to save.

[SmileyMcGee]

No, it's not an "impossibility." The notion that "a prophet never speaks as a man" is counter-scriptural, unreasonable and arguably incoherent.

And it's all you've got to prop up the anti-Mormon straw man you are trying to save.

okay.

[Stormin' Mormon]

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.

 

I am reminded of the old story about Lord Beaverbrook:

 

Lord Beaverbrook was speaking with a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you sleep with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if he paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are haggling over the price" 

 

If it is possible for a prophet not to be a prophet when opining about salsa, then at this point we are "just haggling over the price."  Your contention is no longer the same as the OP, who claimed that a prophet is always a prophet and can never NOT be a prophet.  The quibble now seems to be with how and when apologists determine when and if a prophet is speaking as one. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by Stormin' Mormon