stemelbow Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 On 12/11/2015 at 2:43 PM, 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 I know I'm five pages behind on this, but I wanted to register my take--No. Not even close to infallible, and lucky for us that is the case.
Gray Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: So will we no longer have agency when we become gods? In my very unorthodox (for a Mormon) view, God is the only thing that exists. So I don't see us becoming gods in anything more than a figurative or poetic sense. And of course under my view, we already are part of the substance of God. But eventually, we may lose agency too, if there isn't any conscious existence beyond this life. I don't know if there is or is not. But of course anything's possible. Edited December 15, 2015 by Gray
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Author Posted December 15, 2015 38 minutes ago, Gray said: In my very unorthodox (for a Mormon) view, God is the only thing that exists. So I don't see us becoming gods in anything more than a figurative or poetic sense. And of course under my view, we already are part of the substance of God. But eventually, we may lose agency too, if there isn't any conscious existence beyond this life. I don't know if there is or is not. But of course anything's possible. Coming from the presupposition that agency to act is a good thing, I find it problematic to think mortals have a power that God does not.
Gray Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Coming from the presupposition that agency to act is a good thing, I find it problematic to think mortals have a power that God does not. On the other hand, the agency to act but failure to do so is, I think, a pretty bad thing. There is no problem of evil when you move beyond human-like Gods with egos and agency.
Ahab Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Joseph claimed that a prophet was only a prophet when he was speaking as such, which would fit in with your second sentence here, but not with your first sentence. Perhaps you mispoke yourself in that case.T I agree with Joseph and his "only when" statement just happens to be all of the time. Said another way: a prophet is a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet. And that is just common sense because a prophet is a man who is speaking as a prophet. Not that the man is always speaking as a prophet, but when a man is speaking as a prophet he is of course speaking as a prophet. Most of the time it seems that some people have some kind of problem knowing what a prophet really is. For example, there is a difference between the meaning of these statements: 1. A prophet is always speaking as a prophet. 2. A man is always speaking as a prophet. 3. An apostle our Lord is always speaking as a prophet. 4. A presiding high priest of our Lord's true church is always speaking as a prophet. Only #1 is correct because a prophet is, of course, and always, a prophet.
JLHPROF Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: I see something different when I look at the evening news . . . You see a God choosing evil?
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Author Posted December 15, 2015 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You see a God choosing evil? Every day.
Zakuska Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) On 12/11/2015 at 3:16 PM, consiglieri said: Every Day Prophets throughout time have too... Psalm 13 1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?1 2 How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily? how long shall mine enemy be exalted over me?3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death;4 Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him; and those that trouble me rejoice when I am moved.5 But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.6 I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me. Hab1 1 The burden which Habakkuk the prophet did see. 2 O LORD, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save! 3 Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention. 4 Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.1 Edited December 15, 2015 by Zakuska
cinepro Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I disagree, cinepro. Some people are indeed confused, and we see that confusion frequently on this board, but I maintain that it is primarily based on lack of familiarity with history and theology. I have yet to see a legitimate argument from either sphere which would make the priesthood ban more than a policy, and of plural marriage less than a doctrine. I too believe the Priesthood Ban was just a policy. But the question is whether or not there were LDS General Authorities who believed it was doctrine. I think there were, hence the confusion.
Zakuska Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: I too believe the Priesthood Ban was just a policy. But the question is whether or not there were LDS General Authorities who believed it was doctrine. I think there were, hence the confusion. On my other thread... the 1st Presidency declared the Priesthood Ban "Foundational Doctrine" and not mere "policy. In an Official Declaration to the world. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66624-priesthood-ban-was-not-policy-but-doctrine-approved-by-the-q15/ Edited December 15, 2015 by Zakuska
consiglieri Posted December 15, 2015 Author Posted December 15, 2015 I sometimes think the jangling about whether something is a "doctrine" or a "policy" is just to provide cover when it subsequently changes. If it changes, it was a policy. If it doesn't change, it is a doctrine. Until it changes . . . 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 5 hours ago, Gray said: On the other hand, the agency to act but failure to do so is, I think, a pretty bad thing. There is no problem of evil when you move beyond human-like Gods with egos and agency. The classic problem of theodicy is, of course, that if God is the only thing that exists, then evil is His fault. That is a logical consequence of God having necessary existence, and every thing else being contingent. Moreover, since that is the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, it sets up a major contradiction between omnibeneficence and the existence of evil. One way out is to claim that all evil is only figurative or poetic, but most philosophers find that unconvincing. LDS theology doesn't suffer from that major contradiction, since both God and all humans have necessary existence and are coeternal. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, Zakuska said: On my other thread... the 1st Presidency declared the Priesthood Ban "Foundational Doctrine" and not mere "policy. In an Official Declaration to the world. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66624-priesthood-ban-was-not-policy-but-doctrine-approved-by-the-q15/ True enough. The problem is that they were unable to find any foundational revelation to support that "doctrinal" position. Mere supposition and lack of historical knowledge misled them. That often happens when push comes to shove. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 5 hours ago, Ahab said: I agree with Joseph and his "only when" statement just happens to be all of the time. Said another way: a prophet is a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet. And that is just common sense because a prophet is a man who is speaking as a prophet. Not that the man is always speaking as a prophet, but when a man is speaking as a prophet he is of course speaking as a prophet. Most of the time it seems that some people have some kind of problem knowing what a prophet really is. For example, there is a difference between the meaning of these statements: 1. A prophet is always speaking as a prophet. 2. A man is always speaking as a prophet. 3. An apostle our Lord is always speaking as a prophet. 4. A presiding high priest of our Lord's true church is always speaking as a prophet. Only #1 is correct because a prophet is, of course, and always, a prophet. You may be in an infinitely regressive time warp. That's what happens when you depend upon circular logic. That isn't at all what Joseph Smith meant.
Ahab Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Thank you for telling me that. I'll change my mind immediately. Oh wait. Perhaps I should check with God before assuming you are speaking as a prophet of God. 1
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 Have we come to a consensus on the opening question yet? By way of comment, I will offer that much of the difficulty goes away when we admit that doctrine can, and frequently does, change. And that different disciples can believe mutually contradictory doctrines at one and the same time. (The Bible is full of such instances.) And more than that, even just one disciple can believe in mutually contradictory doctrines at one and the same time. I would imagine every poster on this board is in that category in some way or other. Perhaps in many ways.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Have we come to a consensus on the opening question yet? By way of comment, I will offer that much of the difficulty goes away when we admit that doctrine can, and frequently does, change. And that different disciples can believe mutually contradictory doctrines at one and the same time. (The Bible is full of such instances.) And more than that, even just one disciple can believe in mutually contradictory doctrines at one and the same time. I would imagine every poster on this board is in that category in some way or other. Perhaps in many ways. And that critics don't give a flying rat's posterior whether any doctrine is true or false, but only whether they can use it against the Church.
CV75 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 13 hours ago, consiglieri said: Have we come to a consensus on the opening question yet? I think so: changing doctrine and perceived doctrinal contradictions are not reliable indicators of either prophetic fallibility or infallibility. 1
stemelbow Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 35 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think so: changing doctrine and perceived doctrinal contradictions are not reliable indicators of either prophetic fallibility or infallibility. That doesn't answer the opening question. The question is a simple yes or no. I say no. Can't tell if everyone agrees though.
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I think so: changing doctrine and perceived doctrinal contradictions are not reliable indicators of either prophetic fallibility or infallibility. LOL! Then apparently nothing is!
Gray Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The classic problem of theodicy is, of course, that if God is the only thing that exists, then evil is His fault. That is a logical consequence of God having necessary existence, and every thing else being contingent. Moreover, since that is the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, it sets up a major contradiction between omnibeneficence and the existence of evil. One way out is to claim that all evil is only figurative or poetic, but most philosophers find that unconvincing. LDS theology doesn't suffer from that major contradiction, since both God and all humans have necessary existence and are coeternal. That's only true if God is a conscious being with a specific ego/identity and the ability to prevent evil, which is not what I believe. Any human-like God with the ability to prevent evil is of course on the hook for evil. I agree with you about the problem with a necessary God/contingent everything else. But I believe that there is only God. Essentially, what I'm talking about is pantheism. I think the problem of evil is still a problem in LDS theology. God has the ability to intervene and yet does not. The problem is not as bad as it is with mainstream Christian theology, but it's still there. Edited December 16, 2015 by Gray
CA Steve Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The classic problem of theodicy is, of course, that if God is the only thing that exists, then evil is His fault. That is a logical consequence of God having necessary existence, and every thing else being contingent. Moreover, since that is the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma, it sets up a major contradiction between omnibeneficence and the existence of evil. One way out is to claim that all evil is only figurative or poetic, but most philosophers find that unconvincing. LDS theology doesn't suffer from that major contradiction, since both God and all humans have necessary existence and are coeternal. Robert! I have tried many times to explain this issue to other LDS people and never have I seen it so clearly and simply laid out. I wish I could give you more than one rep point for it. I do have a question and it may be thread worthy. Doesn't this mean that LDS God is not omniscient? If not then why do we worship a being who is less than perfect?
CV75 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: That doesn't answer the opening question. The question is a simple yes or no. I say no. Can't tell if everyone agrees though. I answered the opening question in previous pages. This post answers the question: "have we come to a consensus on the opening question yet?" You want a "yes" or "no"? How about a "maybe," or "I think so"? I said, "I think so." 37 minutes ago, consiglieri said: LOL! Then apparently nothing is! LOL! Who even needs reliable indicators for prophetic fallibility? As far as I can tell, no prophet's fallibility has ever interfered with me doing the Lord's will and knowing the doctrine.
consiglieri Posted December 16, 2015 Author Posted December 16, 2015 39 minutes ago, CV75 said: As far as I can tell, no prophet's fallibility has ever interfered with me doing the Lord's will and knowing the doctrine. But how would you know? (I'm serious about this, because I think it is a vitally important question.)
CV75 Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 38 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But how would you know? (I'm serious about this, because I think it is a vitally important question.) I think D&C 59:4 offers some insight: “They that are faithful and diligent before [God]” shall be “crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time…” When one enjoys a good relationship with God, the Gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost give ongoing commandments that bear good fruit and revelations that come when needed, all contributing to the privilege to advance like Him. When fallible prophets give commandments not a few and revelations in their time, he is able to leverage those for his advancement as well. So we know by our advancement.
Recommended Posts