Listening to the Prophets

[6EQUJ5]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Again, you are assuming the doctrine to be false.  Based on what?  McConkie and Kimball had their opinion.  Brigham and Heber had their opinion.  One of them claimed revelation on the subject the other didn't.

Why would I take McConkie's scholarly opinion over the prophet Brigham's revelation?
And how do you know McConkie was right and Brigham was wrong other than McConkie lived after Brigham did?

We follow the living prophet or the most recent prophetic statement on matters of doctrine.

And the doctrine is false because the living prophets have declared it false.  End of story in my book.

[Ahab]

Adam-God means different things to different people, so let's be a lot more specific here.

Even the word "God" means different things to different people, sometimes depending on context or circumstances, so you should clearly identify what you mean when you say God too.

Using the word God to refer to a kind of being, for example, the supreme kind which all of us are, Adam is God and the only God with whom we all have to do.  That's not saying that he is the Father of his Father though, or the Father we refer to as our Eternal Father.

Correctly understood, all teachings from all prophets concerning Adam and God are true, but all the incorrectly understood teachings are heresy. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Ahab

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

We follow the living prophet or the most recent prophetic statement on matters of doctrine.

And the doctrine is false because the living prophets have declared it false.  End of story in my book.

My point.
President Young's statement was prophetic.  Neither President Kimball or Elder McConkie claimed any prophetic backing for their statements.  They simply disagreed with President Young's revelation.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[consiglieri]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

#1.  McConkie wasn't God's mouthpiece.  Did he have the approval of all 15 Apostles for his heresy discourse?  Without that this was just his opinion, not scripture.

Plus, he was just plain wrong.

The second of your two points is the strongest, I think.

The first point, though, is an example of what I see as the LDS penchant for determining truth not by what is said, but by who says it.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In the words of two or three witnesses, right?

The scriptures stand as a second witness to the words of the living prophets.  

The idea of two or three witnesses originally meant that a person could not be convicted of a crime unless there were multiple witnesses to the event.

That original meaning was enlarged upon in the New Testament to suggest that several persons teaching the same principle establish the correctness of the principle.

History, as well as personal experience, suggest strongly that this is not true.

Is there no principle you can think of so wrong but that it had two or three witnesses attesting to its correctness?

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Correctly understood, all teachings from all prophets concerning Adam and God are true, but all the incorrectly understood teachings are heresy. 

What about the teachings that are correctly understood but contradicted by modern prophets?

You forgot about those.

 

[6EQUJ5]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My point.
President Young's statement was prophetic.  Neither President Kimball or Elder McConkie claimed any prophetic backing for their statements.  They simply disagreed with President Young's revelation.

So you are one of those "In order for it to be from God the Prophet must say 'thus sayeth the Lord'?"

[consiglieri]

Just now, 6EQUJ5 said:

So you are one of those "In order for it to be from God the Prophet must say 'thus sayeth the Lord'?"

I am one of those who think it would be nice if a prophet just said this is a message God gave to me.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So you are one of those "In order for it to be from God the Prophet must say 'thus sayeth the Lord'?"

I have no specific wording demands.  However, in order to tell when a prophet is speaking as a prophet (as Joseph said was so important) they should differentiate between their inspired words and their personal opinions.  The early prophets certainly made a point of it.

Unless you believe EVERY word the current prophet speaks is infallible.  Because that is demonstrably false, both using your argument and mine. 

Using your argument if every word the current prophet spoke was infallible then in 1856 Adam was God and today he isn't.
And you being you, if you had lived in Brigham's day instead of today you would have 100% accepted Adam-God for no other reason than Brigham said it.  That kind of following blindly has never been what God expects.  At least I studied Brigham's teachings and McConkie's opposing teachings and prayed before deciding which I believed.

And using my argument there are plenty examples of the current prophets teaching doctrines in their day that members in those day had every right to disagree with.  And we have every right to disagree with President Monson.  Who knows which of his teachings the next prophet may learn were actually wrong.

Edited January 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am one of those who think it would be nice if a prophet just said this is a message God gave to me.

So i'm assuming you appreciate Elder Nelson confirming the recent handbook changes as revelation to President Monson.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So i'm assuming you appreciate Elder Nelson confirming the recent handbook changes as revelation to President Monson.

Unfortunately, that is far from qualifying as "a prophet just saying this is a message God gave to me."

(I also tend to suspect the accuracy of his account.)

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So i'm assuming you appreciate Elder Nelson confirming the recent handbook changes as revelation to President Monson.

I do.  I'd love to know which of the many methods of revelation God used to communicate it, but I doubt we'll ever know.  At least the early prophets described how their revelations came - visions, dreams, audible voices, words to their minds, etc.  At least they specified when it was the word of God.

[Ahab]

47 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What about the teachings that are correctly understood but contradicted by modern prophets?

You forgot about those.

 

There are none of those.  Some teachings from some prophets have been updated and superseded,  but no prophets of God have ever contradicted other prophets of God.

If you think there are or ever have been contradictions between them then you just don't correctly understand them.

[volgadon]

6EQUJ5, I am issuing a CFR. Please provide a statement from prophets that the Ensign is scripture.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no specific wording demands.  However, in order to tell when a prophet is speaking as a prophet (as Joseph said was so important) they should differentiate between their inspired words and their personal opinions.  The early prophets certainly made a point of it.

Unless you believe EVERY word the current prophet speaks is infallible.  Because that is demonstrably false, both using your argument and mine. 

Using your argument if every word the current prophet spoke was infallible then in 1856 Adam was God and today he isn't.
Using my argument there are plenty examples of the current prophets teaching doctrines in their day that members in those day had every right to disagree with.  And we have every right to disagree with President Monson.  Who knows which of his teachings the next prophet may learn were actually wrong.

If you're relying on people telling you they are speaking as prophets of God then you're not doing it right. Anyone can say they are speaking for God, whether or not they are.

You should be checking with God for yourself rather than just taking them at their word. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

If you're relying on people telling you they are speaking as prophets of God then you're not doing it right. Anyone can say they are speaking for God, whether or not they are.

You should be checking with God for yourself rather than just taking them at their word.

Oh, I agree.  In fact I edited my post to make that point even clearer.
 

[Ahab]

I see your edit now but you should make it even clearer. Prophets are always speaking as prophets, otherwise we shouldn't be calling them prophets when they are not speaking for God. 

The one thing prophets always are is people, and as people they either are or are not speaking for God. When we know they are we call them prophets and when we know they are not we just call them people.

So sometimes when YOU say "prophets speaking as prophets" you should be saying "people speaking as prophets". And you should be saying those people are speaking as prophets only if YOU know that they are.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Ahab

[consiglieri]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There are none of those.  Some teachings from some prophets have been updated and superseded,  but no prophets of God have ever contradicted other prophets of God.

If you think there are or ever have been contradictions between them then you just don't correctly understand them.

You live in a nice, warm and comfortable world, Ahab.

[consiglieri]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You should be checking with God for yourself rather than just taking them at their word. 

When I do that, you get all "prison" on me.

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So sometimes when YOU say "prophets speaking as prophets" you should be saying "people speaking as prophets". And you should be saying those people are speaking as prophets only if YOU know that they are.

Just don't say they contradict each other.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The second of your two points is the strongest, I think.

The first point, though, is an example of what I see as the LDS penchant for determining truth not by what is said, but by who says it.

Here is how the Lord set things up in this regard: “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power …” (3 Nephi 12:1)

“Heed” means to pay attention, or take notice. The choice is entirely ours to follow and obey with faith and diligence (D&C 84:43-44).

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Here is how the Lord set things up in this regard: “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power …” (3 Nephi 12:1)

“Heed” means to pay attention, or take notice. The choice is entirely ours to follow and obey with faith and diligence (D&C 84:43-44).

I know our apostles are old.

But are they that old?

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I know our apostles are old.

But are they that old?

The way the Lord set things up is definitely very old! On both counts! but let's look at the way the Lord set things up rather than pick on our fellow beings.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I should clarify. 

The *current* edition of the Ensign is scripture.  Articles in past issues are scripture unless they have been overturned by more recent comments by a living prophet.  

Question:  All articles are scripture in your view...even those short helpful hints that are teaching about food storage or how to have a fun and meaningful family home evening written by someone whose calling might be limited to the ward library, or just those by church leaders (men and women), just those by those called as prophets, seers, and revelators or the ones by the current at the time of publishing president of the Church?  Or some other group?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[volgadon]

And why does lds.org distinguish between scriptures and magazines?