Hamba Tuhan Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. Amen and amen! 1
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 55 minutes ago, consiglieri said: 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? I doubt it but it is technically possible. If the Spirit does tell you to go against the prophet I recommend carefully making sure you are on the right path spiritually first and that the revelation is genuine. Even then I would not share it unless specifically commanded to with said revelation as turning against the Lord's Anointed is covenant breaking for many members. If you do get such a revelation to fight the church try to maintain your dignity and don't whine about how the leaders of the church should accept you anyways and accept your excommunication with good grace. God obviously has a plan for you if the church has gone into apostasy so get on starting your own church. If you are too lazy to do this or God does not instruct you beyond the leaving part you may again want to question the source of your revelation. 2
RevTestament Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Although what I am about to say may shock a few, it is just my opinion. The executive office which leads the church is not the "prophet." The Church is led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The First Presidency is appointed by the Twelve to act as the Executive body of the church. Statements of church policy, doctrine etc. can be made by any general authority or stake president, but when the Church speaks authoritatively it does so through the Quorum of the Twelve. Church manuals of instruction, which are particularly authoritative, are vetted not by members of the First Presidency but by committees of the Q12, then by the Q12 and then finally approved by the FP. Thus, for a president of the church to say that man will never get to the moon is not the Quorum of the Twelve talking, but one of 15 (or so) "prophets, seers and revelators" who could also be easily capable of speaking harshly to a spouse or uttering a cuss word on the golf course. Further, it is improper to assert that a "unanimous FR and Q12 is quite infallible in doctrine." Rather, it is correct to say that the Q12, as executed by the FP, is the authoritative body to state doctrine. Thus, when Peter received his vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles, he wasn't infallible by stating it, but it became doctrine when the Q12 implemented it. 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. In a sense you may be correct, but imho the president may indeed be "the prophet" just as Joseph Smith was. The first presidency is not just just an administrative appointee of the 12. Prophet would be whoever the Lord chose through Joseph Smith to prophesy. To put it succinctly this may or may not be the president imho. Indeed, as I recall last time I affirmed all the apostles as prophets and revelators, thus, any of them might receive revelation to be acted upon. The President holds the temporal keys and is responsible for their being exercised correctly. But imho you are brave to point out this little area. Nowhere does D&C state that only the president may receive revelation. When Joseph Smith was president, it was only he or whoso he appointed. The problem was that others were claiming to receive revelation who were not. D&C doesn't really solve that dilemma since the time of Joseph Smith. We are still left with judging the prophets by their fruits. I have not heard any of our general authorities claim God has spoken revelation to them since the time of Joseph Smith. They have gone in prayer to the Lord and sought for confirmation of things apparently.
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: 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? I haven't even partially abandoned it. I absolutely accept it. I also have no problem with the prophet counseling with the other apostles about revelation received to get their input and their support. 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: 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? It gets you the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of all things. From what other source would you expect to learn the truth of those things? Do you think reading a book will tell you convincingly whether premortality was real? 3
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I doubt it but it is technically possible. If the Spirit does tell you to go against the prophet I recommend carefully making sure you are on the right path spiritually first and that the revelation is genuine. Even then I would not share it unless specifically commanded to with said revelation as turning against the Lord's Anointed is covenant breaking for many members. If you do get such a revelation to fight the church try to maintain your dignity and don't whine about how the leaders of the church should accept you anyways and accept your excommunication with good grace. God obviously has a plan for you if the church has gone into apostasy so get on starting your own church. If you are too lazy to do this or God does not instruct you beyond the leaving part you may again want to question the source of your revelation. An admission of technical possibility will do. You may be seated.
JLHPROF Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 Just now, consiglieri said: 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? President Kimball declared Adam-God to be a heresy. President Young stated repeatedly the doctrine came by revelation, restored to Joseph Smith, but revealed by him. Unless President Kimball received a revelation showing President Young's revelation to be from a false source, I consider his declaration of heresy to be just his opinion.
The Nehor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: An admission of technical possibility will do. You may be seated. By the way if you try to use what I said against the church without including all the numerous provisos I threw in there and try to truncate it down I will sic a Danite squad on you. Just fyi. Oh, and I prefer to decide for myself whether to sit or stand. 1
Zakuska Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Or my personal favorite, "He was just speaking as a man." How about when the Lords Anointed Prophet... ordains one of his subordinates to go back to NY in an official capacity, and officially "appologize" (defend) the church and prints an official publication for the church explaining the doctrine. Then later Apostles come along and quash all that "official" church doctrine and dis avow it as if it never happened. Or better... that same doctrine is preached from the pulpit at the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City for over 100 years as official Doctrine of the church and then latter Apostles come along and deny that it ever was preached at all.
Zakuska Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Yes, prophets of God are always correct otherwise they would not be prophets of God who are always speaking for God who is always correct about everything. Can God give false Prophecy? (carefull: Amos 7, 1 Kings 22) Quote If you meant to ask if Presidents of the Church are always speaking as a prophet/Prophet then the correct answer to that question is no. Men are prophets only when they are speaking for God When was the Last time any one of the 15 claimed to be "speaking for God" in an official capacity? Then why the heck are we sustaining them as prophets? Edited December 12, 2015 by Zakuska
Storm Rider Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 35 minutes ago, consiglieri said: 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. Sorry, I just don't like the Primary song; never has been one that appealed to me. I am a bit sensitive to anything that feels like inculcation of cult of personality. I believe there is a valid reason to teach the saints to follow the inspired words of the prophets and apostles; there is both wisdom and safety in listening to their guidance. However, when this desire or influence moves beyond a reverence for the mantle they hold to a reverence for the man himself, then I begin to get "itchy". Men are fallible and when we place them too high on a pedestal they will fall off. The history of God's dealings with men is clear that he uses weak vessels to accomplish great things - he makes them strong, but they remain just men. The glory should and must always go to our Father in Heaven. 1
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: President Kimball declared Adam-God to be a heresy. President Young stated repeatedly the doctrine came by revelation, restored to Joseph Smith, but revealed by him. Unless President Kimball received a revelation showing President Young's revelation to be from a false source, I consider his declaration of heresy to be just his opinion. But would you consider it President Kimball's opinion a heresy? That's what I am wondering.
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: By the way if you try to use what I said against the church without including all the numerous provisos I threw in there and try to truncate it down I will sic a Danite squad on you. Just fyi. Oh, and I prefer to decide for myself whether to sit or stand. I said "may." Sheesh! Some people are so touchy. And I would rather have you sicked on me than a lame-o Danite squad any day. That is sicked on me. Not sick on me.
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 26 minutes ago, Zakuska said: How about when the Lords Anointed Prophet... ordains one of his subordinates to go back to NY in an official capacity, and officially "appologize" (defend) the church and prints an official publication for the church explaining the doctrine. Then later Apostles come along and quash all that "official" church doctrine and dis avow it as if it never happened. Or better... that same doctrine is preached from the pulpit at the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City for over 100 years as official Doctrine of the church and then latter Apostles come along and deny that it ever was preached at all. Do you have something specific in mind, Zak?
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 22 minutes ago, Zakuska said: When was the Last time any one of the 15 claimed to be "speaking for God" in an official capacity? That would be never. A three-pointer for Zak!
consiglieri Posted December 12, 2015 Author Posted December 12, 2015 19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Sorry, I just don't like the Primary song; never has been one that appealed to me. I am a bit sensitive to anything that feels like inculcation of cult of personality. I believe there is a valid reason to teach the saints to follow the inspired words of the prophets and apostles; there is both wisdom and safety in listening to their guidance. However, when this desire or influence moves beyond a reverence for the mantle they hold to a reverence for the man himself, then I begin to get "itchy". Men are fallible and when we place them too high on a pedestal they will fall off. The history of God's dealings with men is clear that he uses weak vessels to accomplish great things - he makes them strong, but they remain just men. The glory should and must always go to our Father in Heaven. The more I read what you write, the more I like you, Stormy. 1
Zakuska Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 21 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Do you have something specific in mind, Zak? 2 Examples JOD The Seer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seer_(periodical)
sunstoned Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 No man/woman is infallible, nor is any group of men/woman infallible. 1
Guest Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 When they put into print via canon or with the signature of all the Apostles. Then it is doctrine, and meets the requirements of Timothy.
JLHPROF Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 7 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: When they put into print via canon or with the signature of all the Apostles. Then it is doctrine, and meets the requirements of Timothy. Still doesn't guarantee it's truth, only that it's officially accepted.
RevTestament Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: That would be never. A three-pointer for Zak! Actually, Wilford Woodruff had a vision which he felt the Lord had spoken to him through. I accept it as revelation.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 No, prophets are not infallible. But there's a whole lot of question-beggin' goin' on among those who think that that fact allows for some kind of argument to be made. The assumption appears to be something like, "Prophets aren't infallible, I disagree with the prophet, therefore the prophet must be wrong." In reality, neither prophets nor critics are infallible. If a critic disagrees with the prophet, then at least one of them is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's the prophet. And when we come down to cases, I don't see the slightest reason to suppose that those who disagree with the First Presidency and the Twelve on any recent issue are even remotely likely to be right.
omni Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 4 hours 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. I would love to hear what JS, BY, or even ETB would have to say about this newfangled definition of doctrine.
Calm Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 7 hours ago, consiglieri said: There seems to be a belief prevalent among Latter-day Saints that prophets are infallible on matters of doctrine. I would like to see how this is phrased by those you believe believe this.
Calm Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 6 hours ago, Senator said: My understanding of the current teaching, is that an individual prophet may indeed be fallible, but a unanimous 1st Pres. and Qoft12 is quite infallible in doctrine. Perhaps you could give a reference so we can see why you understand it that way?
Calm Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 5 hours ago, filovirus said: I believe that the prophets are infallible when it comes to the Doctrine, but can be fallible when it comes to the points of the Doctrine. Do you see this belief as supported by LDS teachings and if so, where.
Recommended Posts