Hebrew Idiom My Skin Is Black

[The Nehor]

Why not allow expert exegesis of such texts, rather than off the wall interpretations which do great violence to both logic and literature?

 

As C.S. Lewis once remarked:

 

"I would give a great deal to hear any ancient Athenian, even a stupid one, talking about Greek tragedy. He would know in his bones so much that we seek in vain. At any moment some chance phrase might, unknown to him, show us where modern scholarship has been on the wrong track for years"

 

Exegesis has the advantage of (short of new textual discoveries) never being proven wrong. It's a guessing game. It is a game I have played as an amateur and I read some of the experts. Some of it is probably right or close to being right. I still take it with a helping of salt. Revelation is better. After all the Holy Ghost was actually there when the writer wrote the text and knew the author's intent and how God wants me to read it now.

 

There are examples of bad exegesis (see this thread) of the text but I am less convinced that the good exegesis is some bright light of truth we can turn to instead.

[Robert F. Smith]

As C.S. Lewis once remarked:

 

"I would give a great deal to hear any ancient Athenian, even a stupid one, talking about Greek tragedy. He would know in his bones so much that we seek in vain. At any moment some chance phrase might, unknown to him, show us where modern scholarship has been on the wrong track for years"

 

Exegesis has the advantage of (short of new textual discoveries) never being proven wrong. It's a guessing game. It is a game I have played as an amateur and I read some of the experts. Some of it is probably right or close to being right. I still take it with a helping of salt. Revelation is better. After all the Holy Ghost was actually there when the writer wrote the text and knew the author's intent and how God wants me to read it now.

 

There are examples of bad exegesis (see this thread) of the text but I am less convinced that the good exegesis is some bright light of truth we can turn to instead.

I generally agree with this view, Nehor.  However , when dealing with insistence that secular, literal means alone are useful, I do try to bring the best available exegesis -- hopefully the consensus -- as a corrective to off-the-wall nonsense.

 

By the way, what do you make of this prophecy of "blackness" included in Mel Gibson's Apocalypto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmNGfSa2SmU .

[stemelbow]

That's the beauty of scripture. In any case you can read it as metaphor. That's how we escape the world of creationism. It must be metaphor, otherwise we're all just really dumb.

Wasn't it Pres Kimball who suggested Native's skin turned lighter as they heard the gospel? I think he was just seeing things. It was probably what happened between the Nephites and lamanites. they were just seeing things.

[Mars]

i have no problem with people way back when believing a literal account of the creation of the earth.

 

i have a slight problem with people seeing the science of today - carbon dating, the fantastic and breathtaking understanding of physics we have, and all the marvels that go with it - and then choosing to believe in a literal account of the creation of the earth.

 

God gave me a brain.  i use it to think and reason about the world around me to varying degrees of success.

 

God gave me a spirit.  i use it to gain revelation and insight about my relationship with Him.

 

the two necessarily influence each other.

 

in other words, if i read something and take it as a plain english, then later on along comes knowledge that challenges the plain english reading, i'm going to re-evaluate my understanding.  the decision to reevaluate hinges on the strength of the body of knowledge contained by the challenge.

 

up until i now i just assumed the nephites were racist, so to speak.  that they got to the new world, saw the natives, and decided that they were filthy others with darker skins who weren't of the house of israel, and not worth talking about.  or that laman and lemuel went against deuteronomistic law and married outside the covenant and as a result, their children were in some sort of less favored state as evidenced by the change in physical skin color. that may still be part of the text - but i'm becoming less and less convinced this is the case.  nephi and other book of mormon authors would have to have had the same thoughts i do about race when they wrote those words for me to take it according to A.D. 2015 understandings.  as it's human nature to ridicule the other and form tribal lines based on superficial differences, it may be so.  but, as i said, i'm getting less and less convinced.

 

i think marvin perkins has a very compelling case to reread the text in a different light.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Mars

[RevTestament]

That's the beauty of scripture. In any case you can read it as metaphor. That's how we escape the world of creationism. It must be metaphor, otherwise we're all just really dumb.

Wasn't it Pres Kimball who suggested Native's skin turned lighter as they heard the gospel? I think he was just seeing things. It was probably what happened between the Nephites and lamanites. they were just seeing things.

Maybe that's why they changed the BoM, it wasn't working:

 

• 2 Nephi 30:6

  6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure white and a delightsome people.

I think they should have left the original "white" here unless they are going to change the references to skin color to filthy and pure as well, because it drives home the point.

Now when this scripture is fulfilled, do you think their skin color is going to change? I don't, yet the curse will be lifted, and their countenance(skin) will be white like this:

 

• 3 Nephi 19:25

  25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

[Tacenda]

Maybe that's why they changed the BoM, it wasn't working:

 

• 2 Nephi 30:6

  6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure white and a delightsome people.

I think they should have left the original "white" here unless they are going to change the references to skin color to filthy and pure as well, because it drives home the point.

Now when this scripture is fulfilled, do you think their skin color is going to change? I don't, yet the curse will be lifted, and their countenance(skin) will be white like this:

 

• 3 Nephi 19:25

  25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

Don't know if this is what you meant, but agree, white should have been left in, since black is an idiom...white could mean light, as an idiom. Or the light of Christ..pure like Him.

If JS relayed word for word on the seer stone, even having OC repeat back words...how did he get that wrong?

[BlueDreams]

Please explain how in these verses the reference to skin color is a metaphor.

1 Nephi 11:13

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

3 Nephi 19:25

25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

3 Nephi 2

14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

 

This is actually fairly simple, in my mind. For Mary, it helps to look a little ahead in the verse. The language is directly and purposely mirroring the description of the tree of life (which is definitely assumed to be metaphorical). It's a way to attribute her character to the character of the tree, Christ as the pure white fruit that is sweet above all else:

 

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

 

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. 

 

I don't think this means that Mary would have won Miss Universe or that white skin = most beautiful...especially because God has specifically said that He doesn't look on the outward appearance. Her beauty is like unto the Mother Tree.  

 

3 Nephi, to me actually shows just how much it should be taken as symbolic (I prefer that over the word metaphor). You have it quoted in the wrong order. The Lamanite first "become white" like the Nephites. And then the Nephites and Lamanites become white again  like unto Jesus. How does someone become doubly white? In it are the use of 3 of the common symbolic imagery terms that are used interchangeably throughout all scriptures: Countenance, Garments, and Skin. 2 out 3 of those are used symbolically indicators of demeanor and covenants/righteousness without question from Adam and Eve to our latter days. One of them has traditionally not. Why should it be itemized or viewed as somehow different as a symbol? The only answer is that we are reading it from our race obsessed cultural background.      

 

What of Amos 3:8 that every LDS seminary student is taught?

Seriously, is the Lord revealing his secrets to PhDs and not to his Prophets?

 

hey now, I only have a masters....it's completely less pretentious

The other day, I heard Elder Ballard in regional conference refer to using Gospel Topics as a source for answering gospel questions or troubling concerns for bishops, SP's, and lay members. It's a place that states this: Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

That, to me, seems more than ample wiggle room to assume that maybe, just maybe, we've traditionally been reading the BoM wrong on this note. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 16, 2015 by BlueDreams

[JAHS]

 

Maybe that's why they changed the BoM, it wasn't working:

 

• 2 Nephi 30:6

  6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure white and a delightsome people.

I think they should have left the original "white" here unless they are going to change the references to skin color to filthy and pure as well, because it drives home the point.

Now when this scripture is fulfilled, do you think their skin color is going to change? I don't, yet the curse will be lifted, and their countenance(skin) will be white like this:

 

• 3 Nephi 19:25

  25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

 

 

Consider the following passages from the book of Daniel:

 

"And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). 

 

"Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). 

 

In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify.

 

When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions after 1840, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white."  It was not changed back to "pure" until the 1981 edition, which was probably an unnecessary change.  

 

In  this particular case the reference to the color "white" can be taken metaphorically, however I also still believe that at one point the sign of the curse applied to the Lamanites was literally a dark colored skin.  

 

As I mentioned before, the following scripture suggests that the Lamanites still carried the sign of the curse, which was the dark skin, even though they had turned to righteousness.

 

Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father"

 

 

[RevTestament]

Don't know if this is what you meant, but agree, white should have been left in, since black is an idiom...white could mean light, as an idiom. Or the light of Christ..pure like Him.

If JS relayed word for word on the seer stone, even having OC repeat back words...how did he get that wrong?

Thank you

but mistakes did creep into the BOM by way of the translation process despite Joseph Smith's precautions. I'm not saying that Joseph Smith was necessarily wrong, but just that the scribes mispelled words, and missed words, etc. Clearly Jesus wasn't the Father, but the Son of the Father.

[RevTestament]

 

Consider the following passages from the book of Daniel:

 

"And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). 

 

"Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). 

 

In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify.

 

When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions after 1840, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white."  It was not changed back to "pure" until the 1981 edition, which was probably an unnecessary change.  

 

In  this particular case the reference to the color "white" can be taken metaphorically, however I also still believe that at one point the sign of the curse applied to the Lamanites was literally a dark colored skin.  

 

As I mentioned before, the following scripture suggests that the Lamanites still carried the sign of the curse, which was the dark skin, even though they had turned to righteousness.

 

Jacob 3:5

"Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father"

Thank you for clarifying what I said. I still feel that the verse should been left "white." Why change that and not the other verses? If the original read skin of filthiness instead of skin of blackness, we wouldn't be having this debate would we? We would then understand that it was speaking of a spiritual skin of countenance rather than physical skin pigmentation. When the "scales of darkness" fall from their eyes we understand it. As you point out the Bible also talks about being white as a countenance, rather than a physical skin color. Well it also talks about skin being black as result of loss of countenance and being treated with disdain. Does it not?

Job: "my skin is black upon me."

Lamentations 5:

 7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.

 8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.

 9 We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.

 10 Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

 

How is it we understand that to mean countenance but not in the Book of Mormon?

 

How do explain the need for other groups to be distinguished from the Lamanites with unshaven heads etc, if they did not have "black skin" like the Lamanites?

 

And finally, the skin of native Americans is hardly black. I'm probably as dark as many of them by working out in the sun, and I am in every sense of the word a "caucasian," which is really meaningless btw. Joseph Smith knew what "blacks" look like, and he knew what natives looked like. They aren't "black." So skin of "blackness" seems more scriptural than physical imho. I have a sister-in-law who is Mayan. She is not "black." She is a different shade of brown from me...I'm a little more reddish-brown except where I don't have a farmer's tan. She is also LDS btw, and a beautiful person. So do I expect her to turn into a "caucasian" like myself? Is her "curse" of skin pigmentation ever going to be lifted? Obviously not. But I think her "curse" of ignorance of the word is lifted and that she is white. You can see it when she smiles. She has a white countenance.

[RevTestament]

3 Nephi, to me actually shows just how much it should be taken as symbolic (I prefer that over the word metaphor). You have it quoted in the wrong order. The Lamanite first "become white" like the Nephites. And then the Nephites and Lamanites become white again  like unto Jesus. How does someone become doubly white? In it are the use of 3 of the common symbolic imagery terms that are used interchangeably throughout all scriptures: Countenance, Garments, and Skin. 2 out 3 of those are used symbolically indicators of demeanor and covenants/righteousness without question from Adam and Eve to our latter days. One of them has traditionally not. Why should it be itemized or viewed as somehow different as a symbol? The only answer is that we are reading it from our race obsessed cultural background.      

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

That, to me, seems more than ample wiggle room to assume that maybe, just maybe, we've traditionally been reading the BoM wrong on this note. 

 

With luv,

BD

:thumb:

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................

 

"And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed (Daniel 11:35). 

 

"Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10). 

 

In both of these passages, the meaning of the word "white" is obviously pure; to "make white" is to purify.

 

When Joseph Smith first translated the Book of Mormon, he gave the literal rendering of "white" for the passage in 2 Nephi 30:6. For the 1840 edition, it was changed to "pure," which better reflected the meaning of the word used by Nephi. Subsequent editions after 1840, however, relied on the 1837 Book of Mormon, which still read "white."  It was not changed back to "pure" until the 1981 edition, which was probably an unnecessary change.  

...............................................................................

Whether such changes are necessary or not, these were changes made by Joseph Smith himself for the 1837 and 1840 editions, but implementing all the changes systematically just wasn't possible back in those days.

 

Reminds me of Richard Bushman discussing his experience as a stake patriarch.  He used no secretary.  He would record his patriarchal blessings, then later type them up and mail them to the recipients.  While typing he would sometimes edit the blessing.  Why?  Because, sometimes during the blessing he didn't feel that he had gotten just the right expression or word.  Later, while typing, he could be more precise.

 

As the Joseph Smith Papers Project has conclusively shown, Joseph and his brethren frequently edited the revelations.  The Bible itself was updated and edited in a very similar way -- according to the best scholarship.

[williamsmith]

Hebrew Idiom My Skin Is Black

 

 

Yep...  From the moment I first heard the claims that "The Book of Mormon was Racist" I haven't been able to stop laughing.

These are clearly people who have zero clue of scriptural symbolism, that is all over the Bible also, many different ways of saying the same exact thing.

Garmet, covering, skin, whatever symbol is used, all refers to the same thing, ones spirit and countenance.

[Gray]

The treatment of race in the Book of Mormon seems perfectly in keeping with the environment in which it was written (19th century America). However it's also perfectly appropriate to find new ways to approach scripture. There are always going to be parts of any book of scripture (ancient or modern) that will require special interpretation, whether it's outmoded theories on race or outmoded ideas about genocide. Scripture is always a human product, and as such will contain both wisdom and error. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by Gray

[Hillel2]

Indeed, the New Jerusalem Bible (a translation by Roman Catholic scholars) contains a note indicating that Gen 4:15 refers to clan markings warning of blood vengeance, while the New Oxford Annotated Bible refers to it as "a protective mark, perhaps a tattoo."  The Hebrew term for that mark is 'ot "sign."   One should also compare the mark of the beast in Revelation 12:16-18, a mark placed in the right hand or forehead (the number or name of the beast).  In each case, the marks appear to be made by humans, even if divine power is entailed.  That is how expert exegetes understand all of them.

Hello. Can't CFR for You but i remember reading somewhere on line about a tribe in the vicinity of the Holy Land whose name contained the root qain-...The group in question tattooed its face and forehead and were blacksmiths...the ethnonym may have been applied to them from the outside since local folklore held that they were indeed the descendants of Cain. They even had pictures of the group...late 19th century.

[canard78]

Reading metaphors requires that the reader understand them. Texts do not contain directions on how to read them. That is something the reader brings to the text. If the reader doesn't know what an allegory, metaphor, or symbol is, then he will not see it.

God has not given instructions on how many earrings should be worn by pirates or young women.

The modern day depiction of prophets by apologists is one I'm inclined to agree with.

God didn't tell President Hinkley how many earrings to advise girls to wear. President Hinkley made that up based on his bias as cultural conditioning.

Is that a prophet, seer and revelator or just a nice old man sharing his opinion?

[pogi]

The Lamanite first "become white" like the Nephites. And then the Nephites and Lamanites become white again  like unto Jesus. How does someone become doubly white?

 

How does someone become doubly white?  You listen to Josh Groban during the week but play your banjo in bluegrass jam sessions on the weekends (I can check off one of the two). 

 

Seriously though, that is a good point considering that Jesus wasn't even white.  

Edited September 17, 2015 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

The modern day depiction of prophets by apologists is one I'm inclined to agree with.

God didn't tell President Hinkley how many earrings to advise girls to wear. President Hinkley made that up based on his bias as cultural conditioning.

Is that a prophet, seer and revelator or just a nice old man sharing his opinion?

Each of us must make his own determination as to how to take such statements, just as we must try to figure out whether St Paul actually intended that we understand that the early Christian Church had female apostles and deacons (I Tim 3:1 "women must"; Romans 16:7).

 

We should all be aware that an apostle can express his opinions, by which we are not bound (I Cor 7:6,12, II Cor 11:17).

[canard78]

Each of us must make his own determination as to how to take such statements, just as we must try to figure out whether St Paul actually intended that we understand that the early Christian Church had female apostles and deacons (I Tim 3:1 "women must"; Romans 16:7).

 

We should all be aware that an apostle can express his opinions, by which we are not bound (I Cor 7:6,12, II Cor 11:17).

 

We agree to an extent... we just draw very different conclusions from that view. When a prophet speaks the thinking should have only just started (to paraphrase a very different message from the church's history).

 

My conclusion from years of studying this topic is that when a prophet speaks we're hearing his well considered and well-intended opinion. What we're not hearing is the will and wishes of God. I only wish more Mormons would be comfortable with that position.

[pogi]

My conclusion from years of studying this topic is that when a prophet speaks we're hearing his well considered and well-intended opinion. What we're not hearing is the will and wishes of God. I only wish more Mormons would be comfortable with that position.

 

Always or never - I am not comfortable with either of those positions.

 

The position you suggest would essentially strip Mormonism of one the key principles of Mormonism - revelation. God is not silent. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by pogi

[canard78]

Always or never - I am not comfortable with either of those positions.

 

The position you suggest would essentially strip Mormonism of the one the key principles of Mormonism - revelation. God is not silent. 

 

Yep, absolutely. I don't believe that the Mormon prophets are no more inspired than the Dalai Lama, the Pope or your good self.

 

I'm sure occasionally the prophets do say things that are in line with God's view and will. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Edited September 17, 2015 by canard78

[pogi]

Yep, absolutely. I don't believe that the Mormon prophets are no more inspired than the Dalai Lama, the Pope or your good self.

 

I'm sure occasionally the prophets do say things that are in line with God's view and will. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

I certainly would not compare my level of inspiration to that of the Pope, Dalai Lama or Prophet by any means.  I agree that we all have access to the same inspiration, but there is certainly a spectrum among the inspired - we are not all equally inspired due to our own inconsistencies.  The parable of the sower is a good example of that spectrum. 

 

I am of the view that divine "revelation" is more of a rare event, but the prophet is the only one entitled to receive it for Christ's church as a whole.  Revelation is required to give us the proper foundation.  I think most of the time, you are right, the prophet speaks through inspiration rather than "revelation" per se.  However, we tend to interpret inspiration based upon the foundation we stand on.  In other words, our foundation of revelation gives inspiration the proper context.  It keeps us more in-line.  Without revelation, we are just another church - one no better than the other. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by pogi

[Russell C McGregor]

Joel 2:6

Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness.

[JAHS]

We agree to an extent... we just draw very different conclusions from that view. When a prophet speaks the thinking should have only just started (to paraphrase a very different message from the church's history).

 

My conclusion from years of studying this topic is that when a prophet speaks we're hearing his well considered and well-intended opinion. What we're not hearing is the will and wishes of God. I only wish more Mormons would be comfortable with that position.

 

Sometimes we are hearing a well-intended opinion. But for the most part a prophet's words that he speaks to the entire church and the world are inspired by God and/or the Holy Ghost.  He achieves this level of connection with God through a long life of experience and obedience to God's will.  He is still human. God does not take over a prophet's brain and make him do and say everything perfectly. Prophets have to live this life by faith the same as we do; but their higher level of faith and willingness to live the gospel leaves their minds and spirits more open and receptive to revelation from God a little more than the average member.  

[canard78]

Sometimes we are hearing a well-intended opinion. But for the most part a prophet's words that he speaks to the entire church and the world are inspired by God and/or the Holy Ghost. He achieves this level of connection with God through a long life of experience and obedience to God's will. He is still human. God does not take over a prophet's brain and make him do and say everything perfectly. Prophets have to live this life by faith the same as we do; but their higher level of faith and willingness to live the gospel leaves their minds and spirits more open and receptive to revelation from God a little more than the average member.

And what you've just described is also your well-intended opinion. On the question of whether the prophets speak by revelation, how often and under what circumstances we're really only left with opinion. Just like they seem to be.

The question I have for you and others who hold this view is this: what happens when you reach a conclusion, through prayer, that a particular statement was revelation not opinion but another member goes through the same process and concludes the prophet was speaking his opinion.

Robert seems to have suggested, for example, that President Hinkley's statement on earrings was a well meaning opinion and not revelation. If another member concludes that it was inspired by God. Who's right and how can you tell the difference?