Mystery Meat Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: Actually, I think that begs the question. I will let you take that up with Scott. 1
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 Just now, Mystery Meat said: I will let you take that up with Scott. Are you saying Scott begs the question, too?
Ahab Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 No, Senator. A prophet is always speaking for God regardless of whether or not that prophet gets a sustaining vote from any apostle or member of the First Presidency of our Lord's church. Sustaining votes of agreement are not what makes a man speak as a prophet. All that matters is whether or not a man is speaking as a prophet, although all other prophets would think that he was as long as they were also thinking as prophets.
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: It seems we have decided that "doctrine" is to be determined not by direct revelation to the prophet, as I was taught when I joined the Church, but instead by the deliberation of councils. Something I was taught was a sign of the apostasy from the church Christ established. Interesting. When I was a full-time missionary, one of our favourite examples to share of continuing revelation was the New Testament apostles meeting in council to discuss matters and then receiving inspiration on how to proceed. 2
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 Just now, Ahab said: No, Senator. A prophet is always speaking for God regardless of whether or not that prophet gets a sustaining vote from any apostle or member of the First Presidency of our Lord's church. Sustaining votes of agreement are not what makes a man speak as a prophet. All that matters is whether or not a man is speaking as a prophet, although all other prophets would think that he was as long as they were also thinking as prophets. What I need to know is whether you are speaking as a prophet right now.
Bob Crockett Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: And some people say the LDS Church is too legalistic . . . No reason to be snarky about me. How would your rather see it? You say you're no longer a believer; so, what would you like to see to make you a believer. 1
filovirus Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 10 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So when Brigham Young said the world needed to believe the Adam-God teaching or they would not be saved, that was just a "point of doctrine"? In my mind, yes. Although I still have yet to come to the conclusion of for myself on whether he is right or wrong on the matter. It will probably be in the next life, if not at Judgment Day, that I actually find out for sure. If Christ were here it would make things so much easier. He had to correct the Nephites on at least one point of doctrine. 3 Nephi 11:28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: No reason to be snarky about me. How would your rather see it? You say you're no longer a believer; so, what would you like to see to make you a believer. I don't think I said I am no longer a believer. And I wasn't trying to be snarky about you personally, Bob. I actually think you did a good job of setting forth the way things are currently run in the Church. It is this process which strikes me as legalistic, not you. The way I would like to see it, though, since you ask, is for the president of the LDS Church to function as prophet the same way members are taught he functions. . . and that missionaries teach investigators. By which I mean the person who receives revelation from God face to face, even as Moses. I didn't see anything about that in your previous post. (Okay, that was a bit snarky.)
Ahab Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What I need to know is whether you are speaking as a prophet right now. So how is one to tell the difference? By receiving the testimony of Jesus Christ, also known as the spirit of prophecy, any man can know whether or not another man is speaking as a prophet of God and at the same time become a prophet himself 2
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 Just now, Ahab said: By receiving the testimony of Jesus Christ, also known as the spirit of prophecy, any man can know whether or not another man is speaking as a prophet of God and at the same time become a prophet himself Do you hold out the possibility that the Spirit may tell a person that what is being spoken by the prophet of God is incorrect?
consiglieri Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 3 minutes ago, filovirus said: If Christ were here it would make things so much easier. I thought Mormons believed Christ was personally leading the Church.
Storm Rider Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: There seems to be a belief prevalent among Latter-day Saints that prophets are infallible on matters of doctrine. I think this view is demonstrably incorrect, but wanted to hear what others think on the issue. All the Best! --Consiglieri This is really an open-ended question in need of clarification. If you are asking whether a man who is a prophet will always speak perfectly about eternal truths the answer is no. If you are asking if they speak eternal truths every time they speak in Church or at Church meetings, the answer is no. If you are asking if they speak perfec eternal truths when giving or relaying revelations I would say that the intent is perfect,but the delivery may be hindered on the verbal ability of the individual; however, the revelation can still be true and accurate. What gave you the idea that a man called as a prophet is somehow perfected while still on earth?
Ahab Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 No, consiglieri, the Spirit would never say a prophet of God is or was wrong. But again if you would change your word choice from prpphet to President or Apostle or Elder or some other such word the correct answer to that would be yes. Prophets are always speaking as prophets and as such are always as right as God is right, but men are not always speaking as prophets. And that goes for men who are Presidents or Apostles, too, since even they are not always speaking as prophets.
filovirus Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I thought Mormons believed Christ was personally leading the Church. Going from us not understanding perfectly to Christ not leading the Church is quite a leap, and I am sorry if I mislead you in my previous post on that matter. Of course Christ is at the helm. You seem a little overly aggressive. I'm out. Edited December 12, 2015 by filovirus
Gervin Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Infallibility is not a church doctrine. Authorities do not speak in the church ex cathedra. But the Q12 states doctrine. There is no reason why doctrine cannot change. Examples: God would not permit Moabites to enter the congregation of Israel until the tenth generation, but David's grandmother was a Moabite. Jesus refused to minister to Canaanites, but did so when there was enough pleading. God told Peter to not treat the Gentiles any different than the Jews, but in the church's first general conference he refused to eat with Gentile members. I believe that Jesus purposefully traveled to Canaan to perform a miracle, and did so in response to faith, not pleading. Faith that I also believe He knew resided there. Here's a better study (with some history thrown in): https://bible.org/seriespage/23-faith-canaanite-woman-matthew-1521-28
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: This is really an open-ended question in need of clarification. If you are asking whether a man who is a prophet will always speak perfectly about eternal truths the answer is no. If you are asking if they speak eternal truths every time they speak in Church or at Church meetings, the answer is no. If you are asking if they speak perfec eternal truths when giving or relaying revelations I would say that the intent is perfect,but the delivery may be hindered on the verbal ability of the individual; however, the revelation can still be true and accurate. What gave you the idea that a man called as a prophet is somehow perfected while still on earth? I appreciate your comments, Storm Rider. You have obviously given this a lot of thought. What gave me this idea, though, was the lyrics to the song, "Follow the Prophet." Among other things.
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 30 minutes ago, Ahab said: No, consiglieri, the Spirit would never say a prophet of God is or was wrong. Then we really don't need the Spirit, do we?
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 29 minutes ago, filovirus said: Going from us not understanding perfectly to Christ not leading the Church is quite a leap, and I am sorry if I mislead you in my previous post on that matter. Of course Christ is at the helm. You seem a little overly aggressive. I'm out. You are the first person who has ever called me a little overly aggressive. Usually I am called a lot overly aggressive.
JLHPROF Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 IF the men are prophets then: When speaking as men, they are fallible. When speaking the word of the Lord they are infallible. But you have to know: 1. That they ARE prophets 2. When they are speaking the word of the Lord (that's why we need the Spirit). Not that complicated in principle, a little trickier in practice. 1
JLHPROF Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: So when Brigham Young said the world needed to believe the Adam-God teaching or they would not be saved, that was just a "point of doctrine"? I love how Adam-God is always held up as a primary example of "a prophet being wrong". Have any of us actually met God our Father face to face? How about Adam? Can you say for certain they are not the same person as fact, not opinion? Personally, I think the heresy declaration of President Kimball is a better example of a prophet being wrong.
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: So you think being doctrinally right is not important? No, and I am not sure how you can possibly draw that conclusion from what I said: 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: If we worried more about obedience to God and less about being intellectually right about all our beliefs we would be more obedient and more intellectually right. I was stating that obedience is the better course to determine what is doctrine as opposed to picking apart doctrine trying to figure it out. The former gets you both the blessings of obedience and the power of the Holy Ghost which can clarify doctrine. The latter is an exercise in futility without the Holy Ghost. This is is accordance with the words of the Savior when he tells us that if we do what we are commanded we will know the truth of the doctrine and whether it is of man or whether it is of God. If many people would spend half the time living the gospel that they spent trying to figure out which of the teachings of the prophets are absolutely correct or infallible and which may be flawed in some way or whatever they would know much more of the doctrine and be able to discern both the doctrine and more importantly what they should be doing. Side benefit is they would also end up getting exalted and ruling the Universe. 4
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Yes, the LDS Church seems to be drawing the circle of what constitutes "doctrine" smaller and smaller. It seems we have decided that "doctrine" is to be determined not by direct revelation to the prophet, as I was taught when I joined the Church, but instead by the deliberation of councils. Something I was taught was a sign of the apostasy from the church Christ established. No, the sign of apostasy was losing the keys of the Priesthood and the spirit of revelation. Councils are good and I pity you if you have never had the privilege of being in a council meeting where the Spirit guides the presiding authority in his decisions and inspires the members of the council with his wisdom. 1
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I love how Adam-God is always held up as a primary example of "a prophet being wrong". Have any of us actually met God our Father face to face? How about Adam? Can you say for certain they are not the same person as fact, not opinion? Personally, I think the heresy declaration of President Kimball is a better example of a prophet being wrong. You misapprehend me. I am not saying Brigham Young was "wrong." I am only saying that he conflicts with President Kimball, as you point out. What do you mean by "the heresy declaration of President Kimball," if I may ask?
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I was stating that obedience is the better course to determine what is doctrine as opposed to picking apart doctrine trying to figure it out. How does obedience tell us whether the doctrine of the pre-mortal existence is true? Or the nature of the Godhead? Or the King Follett Discourse? Or the Adam-God Theory? Or the truthfulness of any of the myriad things taught as doctrine in Mormonism?
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, the sign of apostasy was losing the keys of the Priesthood and the spirit of revelation. Councils are good and I pity you if you have never had the privilege of being in a council meeting where the Spirit guides the presiding authority in his decisions and inspires the members of the council with his wisdom. So we have completely abandoned the teaching that the president of the Church is a prophet who speaks with God and receives direct revelation to lead his people?
Recommended Posts