Listening to the Prophets

[Calm]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.)

 

So if President Monson did state in those terms in the next conference that the policy was a message that God gave him, you would accept it as such?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

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?

Two or three witnesses (at least) teaching is a prerequisite, but not the only one for establishing correctness.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Revelation is not equated to the "word of God" in your view, then?

[Zakuska]

You have to be careful who you listen too.

 

"Trust no one"

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Revelation is not equated to the "word of God" in your view, then?

Quite the opposite.  Revelation is the word of God in my view.  Merely feeling certain a course is correct however MIGHT be revelation and it might not.  No words are usually involved.

For instance, if I were a student and I pray about what subject to study in school, there is a world of difference between feeling certain that English is the right choice over Math and having the voice of the Lord come to my mind (or even my ears) saying "my son, it is my will for you that you study English, for that will be of most benefit to you".
Both can be revelation.  But only one is the word of God. 
The feeling might be from God, but if I am predisposed to love English and hate Math, it's kind of hard to be certain.  But I generally don't call myself "my son" so I would consider that a little clearer as being from a divine source.

If Joseph had only ever restored doctrines based on the things he felt were right and without God specifically telling him what to do Mormonism might look a lot different, and might be further from God's will than we care to admit.  The Kirtland and Nauvoo temples that he saw in vision might have looked very different for instance.

God actually speaking to us is a bit different than feeling that we know what the Lord wants.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if President Monson did state in those terms in the next conference that the policy was a message that God gave him, you would accept it as such?

I accept it anyway.  But it would be nice to know it was God's word being followed than just what President Monson felt was the right choice.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I accept it anyway.

I don't doubt that, but I am wondering if consig who is, imo, making a much bigger argument for it than you are, would see the policy differently if it was so.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Calm

[theplains]

22 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Every word spoken by modern prophets is scripture, end of story.

Canonization has nothing to do with anything.

The March 2008 edition of Ensign magazine echoes what former LDS President Joseph
F. Smith taught ... that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden.  But I'm not sure all Latter-day 
Saints believe this teaching to be true.

Regards,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

The March 2008 edition of Ensign magazine echoes what former LDS President Joseph
F. Smith taught ... that Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden.  But I'm not sure all Latter-day 
Saints believe this teaching to be true.

Regards,
Jim

I think EVERY Latter-Day Saint believes Adam "sinned", but it does depend on your definition of sin.
I don't believe he did anything wrong, but I do believe a law was transgressed intentionally.

[6EQUJ5]

5 hours ago, volgadon said:

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

Joseph Fielding Smith

When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church… the word of the Lord, as spoken by other servants at the general conferences and stake conferences, or wherever they may be when they speak that which the Lord has put into their mouths, is just as much the word of the Lord as the writings and the words of other prophets in other dispensations

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Joseph Fielding Smith

When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak.

Those are qualifiers, not guarantees.  It is a big assumption to think that happens in EVERY talk in the Ensign.  It's even an assumption to think it happens in every conference address.
And IF it were true that this happened every time, you would be forced to assume that the Adam-God doctrine that bothers you so very much would have been taught by the inspiration of the Lord, and would in fact have been the will of God to be taught.  And since God cannot lie, it would also be true. 

Quote

It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church… the word of the Lord, as spoken by other servants at the general conferences and stake conferences, or wherever they may be when they speak that which the Lord has put into their mouths, is just as much the word of the Lord as the writings and the words of other prophets in other dispensations

That is true.  INSPIRED words of today's prophets are every bit as much scripture as anything in the four standard works.
But how do we know which words are inspired, which talks are the will of the Lord, which came by revelation, and which are the works of the speaker, scholarly, probably usually correct, but their own nonetheless?  Our Apostles and Prophets no longer differentiate between their own words and the word of the Lord in public.

Edited January 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those are qualifiers, not guarantees.  It is a big assumption to think that happens in EVERY talk in the Ensign.  It's even an assumption to think it happens in every conference address.

That is true.  INSPIRED words of today's prophets are every bit as much scripture as anything in the four standard works.
But how do we know which words are inspired, which talks are the will of the Lord, which came by revelation, and which are the works of the speaker, scholarly, probably usually correct, but their own nonetheless?

If they came out of the mouth of a living prophet they are INSPIRED REVELATION.  We dont' get to pick and and choose.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

If they came out of the mouth of a living prophet they are INSPIRED REVELATION.  We dont' get to pick and and choose.

Then Adam-God must be true revelation.

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then Adam-God must be true revelation.

Living prophets.  We don't follow dead ones.  The moment President Monson passes, President Neslon will be God's mouthpiece.  That takes nothing away from President Monson.  It only means that the current living prophet is our living scripture and takes precedence over anything that came before.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Those are qualifiers, not guarantees.  It is a big assumption to think that happens in EVERY talk in the Ensign.  It's even an assumption to think it happens in every conference address.
And IF it were true that this happened every time, you would be forced to assume that the Adam-God doctrine that bothers you so very much would have been taught by the inspiration of the Lord, and would in fact have been the will of God to be taught.  And since God cannot lie, it would also be true. 

That is true.  INSPIRED words of today's prophets are every bit as much scripture as anything in the four standard works.
But how do we know which words are inspired, which talks are the will of the Lord, which came by revelation, and which are the works of the speaker, scholarly, probably usually correct, but their own nonetheless?  Our Apostles and Prophets no longer differentiate between their own words and the word of the Lord in public.

As are the inspired words of the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Mormon: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God,” and “if there are faults [in the Book of Mormon] they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

The leaders of the Church are included in “the things of God.” They can be inspired and say inspired things that might on occasion be translated incorrectly or be subject to mistaken or faulty expression, transcription or delivery. Yet we are commanded to give heed and diligence to the word of God as delivered through His mortal servants, as ordained by the holy order of God (see Alma 49:30; 1 Nephi 15:23-25). The word of God of course comes in many forms and formats, and the living oracles are the ones from which to take our cues. Sometimes (but very far from often; that is, rarely) they have put previous teachings that may have been subject to the failings mentioned above into proper perspective.

I am fond of pointing out that “heed” means to pay attention. Paying attention will qualify us to discern what we need to obey, whether by faith and past experience or by faith and personal revelation.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Living prophets.  We don't follow dead ones.  The moment President Monson passes, President Neslon will be God's mouthpiece.  That takes nothing away from President Monson.  It only means that the current living prophet is our living scripture and takes precedence over anything that came before.

How are you not getting this?  I don't see why you don't see the contradiction you are living under.  The logic and reason is just thrown out the window.  This way of thinking is taking a correct principle (following the living prophet, your priesthood head) and corrupting it into an absolutely unworkable, chaotic, and non-scriptural mess.

Step 1.  According to you the word of the living prophet is ALWAYS the word of God to that generation (and God cannot lie).
Step 2. Brigham Young was once the living  prophet.  He taught Adam-God and said it came by revelation.  Therefore Adam-God was true doctrine.  In 1852 every member of the Church should have accepted, taught, believed and followed the Adam-God teaching.
Step 3. A later prophet, Spencer W. Kimball called it a heresy but gave no explanation for his reasoning.  Therefore Adam-God was false doctrine.  From that moment forth no member of the Church should ever believe one word of Adam-God that the early members did.
Step 4. The problem is, they can't both be right.  One "living prophet" was wrong when he was the living prophet.  It's not just an issue of precedence.  The prophets can be wrong.  And why do we follow something wrong?

So was Adam-God a true doctrine?  Was it true when the living prophet proclaimed it?  Was it not true when the living prophet called it heresy?  Can it become true again when the next living prophet proclaims it again?
I look forward to discussing Adam-God with you when it is revealed to the "living prophet" again.



 

Edited January 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[volgadon]

2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Joseph Fielding Smith

When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church… the word of the Lord, as spoken by other servants at the general conferences and stake conferences, or wherever they may be when they speak that which the Lord has put into their mouths, is just as much the word of the Lord as the writings and the words of other prophets in other dispensations

Is that all you have got?

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

How are you not getting this?  I don't see why you don't see the contradiction you are living under.  The logic and reason is just thrown out the window.  This way of thinking is taking a correct principle (following the living prophet, your priesthood head) and corrupting it into an absolutely unworkable, chaotic, and non-scriptural mess.

Step 1.  According to you the word of the living prophet is ALWAYS the word of God to that generation (and God cannot lie).
Step 2. Brigham Young was once the living  prophet.  He taught Adam-God and said it came by revelation.  Therefore Adam-God was true doctrine.  In 1852 every member of the Church should have accepted, taught, believed and followed the Adam-God teaching.
Step 3. A later prophet, Spencer W. Kimball called it a heresy but gave no explanation for his reasoning.  Therefore Adam-God was false doctrine.  From that moment forth no member of the Church should ever believe one word of Adam-God that the early members did.
Step 4. The problem is, they can't both be right.  One "living prophet" was wrong when he was the living prophet.  It's not just an issue of precedence.  The prophets can be wrong.  And why do we follow something wrong?

So was Adam-God a true doctrine?  Was it true when the living prophet proclaimed it?  Was it not true when the living prophet called it heresy?  Can it become true again when the next living prophet proclaims it again?
I look forward to discussing Adam-God with you when it is revealed to the "living prophet" again.



 

I don't think God deals in logical steps.  Do you?

Is/was Adam-God true?  What does that have to do with anything?

For those under Brigham's stewardship, they had better have believed in Adam-God.  They were under oath and obligation to believe and heed the words of the living prophet.

Today, we are under the stewardship of President Monson, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  We are under oath and obligation to believe and heed their words and counsel.  The whole point of the restoration was to free us from creeds and past beliefs.  Elder McConkie declared Adam-God a heresy.  If we deny this, we are denying the importance of living prophets, IMO.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I don't think God deals in logical steps.  Do you?

Is/was Adam-God true?  What does that have to do with anything?

For those under Brigham's stewardship, they had better have believed in Adam-God.  They were under oath and obligation to believe and heed the words of the living prophet.

Today, we are under the stewardship of President Monson, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  We are under oath and obligation to believe and heed their words and counsel.  The whole point of the restoration was to free us from creeds and past beliefs.  Elder McConkie declared Adam-God a heresy.  If we deny this, we are denying the importance of living prophets, IMO.

And there we have it folks.  Blind obedience absolutely perfectly defined.  Truth is irrelevant.  Revelation or non-revelation makes no difference.  Receiving testimonies isn't necessary.  Check your brain and your ability to reason truth from error at the door.  Personal revelation isn't needed.  Gift of the Holy Ghost by which you may know the truth of all things - no longer needed.

Everything the anti-mormons falsely claim about all members perfectly expressed by one member.  All that matters is what is being taught right NOW and following the leader.  No matter what.  No matter the doctrine.  No matter the scripture.  No matter the contradiction.

Anyone else completely terrified. 

Oh, and there is NO oath or obligation or covenant to follow our leaders no matter what.

Edited January 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[6EQUJ5]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And there we have it folks.  Blind obedience absolutely perfectly defined.  Truth is irrelevant.  Revelation or non-revelation makes no difference.  Receiving testimonies isn't necessary.  Check your brain and your ability to reason truth from error at the door.  Personal revelation isn't needed.  Gift of the Holy Ghost by which you may know the truth of all things - no longer needed.
 

I claimed nothing of the sort.

We need individual revelation in order to gain a personal testimony of the prophetic call of Joseph Smith and of living prophets.  Without the Spirit we could not gain an knowledge of their call and responsibilities.  There have been a couple of threads lately dealing with the fact that when our own personal ideas or "revelation" is in conflict with what the living prophets have taught, the problem is with us and our understanding of the "revelation" we received.  On the other hand, when we receive revelation confirms the teachings of the living prophets we can be confident we are following the will of God.

 

[6EQUJ5]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And there we have it folks.  Blind obedience absolutely perfectly defined.  Truth is irrelevant.  Revelation or non-revelation makes no difference.  Receiving testimonies isn't necessary.  Check your brain and your ability to reason truth from error at the door.  Personal revelation isn't needed.  Gift of the Holy Ghost by which you may know the truth of all things - no longer needed.

Everything the anti-mormons falsely claim about all members perfectly expressed by one member.  All that matters is what is being taught right NOW and following the leader.  No matter what.  No matter the doctrine.  No matter the scripture.  No matter the contradiction.

Anyone else completely terrified. 

Oh, and there is NO oath or obligation or covenant to follow our leaders no matter what.

Elder McConkie:

Quote

It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what is doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets “for the edifying of the body of Christ,” and that their ministry is to see that “we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do.

As I said before, we are under obligation to sustain the words and teachings of the living Prophets.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I claimed nothing of the sort.

You just said if Brigham Young taught a false doctrine (because you consider Adam-God false) the Saints in his day were under obligation to believe it.  Even if they knew it was false.
You also implied that if a false doctrine was taught today that we are obligated to believe it.

Both are false.

[6EQUJ5]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You just said if Brigham Young taught a false doctrine (because you consider Adam-God false) the Saints in his day were under obligation to believe it.  Even if they knew it was false.
You also implied that if a false doctrine was taught today that we are obligated to believe it.

 

You probably need to take this up with Elder McConkie when you see him. 

Tell us, JLHPROF, what teachings of President Monson do you consider to be his "opinions?"  And could you also explain the difference between your view and that of the so-called Latter-day Saints who support SSM?

[volgadon]

Well, McConkie did publish a bestseller chock full of false doctrine.

[SamIam]

18 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Well, McConkie did publish a bestseller chock full of false doctrine.

Tsk, tsk, tsk volgadon.