Listening to the Prophets

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Elder McConkie:

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

This was from a private letter.  Do you have something that was from public discourse?  Surely if it is doctrine, this should have been taught over the pulpit multiple times by multiple church authorities and easily found.  It seems extremely strange to appeal to a private letter to demonstrate it if all of us are so obligated by our membership in the Church.

 

BTW, when you post quotes, you need to post the source which includes name of who said it and where it was written, preferably a link from which you copied and pasted the quote if that is what you did, so that people can see the context.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Calm

[SamIam]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

This was from a private letter.  Do you have something that was from public discourse?  Surely if it is doctrine, this should have been taught over the pulpit multiple times by multiple church authorities and easily found.  It seems extremely strange to appeal to a private letter to demonstrate it if all of us are so obligated by our membership in the Church.

 

BTW, when you post quotes, you need to post the source which includes name of who said it and where it was written, preferably a link from which you copied and pasted the quote if that is what you did, so that people can see the context.

Only by way of illustration, there is a principle and precedent for potential consideration.  It is found in the Old Testament.  Please Consider:

Quote

Deuteronomy 17:8-12

8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment,between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversywithin thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;

9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:

10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:

11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, norto the left.

12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

I am in no way saying this supports egregious interpretations of extremism only that there is a principle that when one appeals for guidance of spiritual leaders there is a strong obligation to be very careful about casting off their council.  For myself I find this more applicable to specific considerations such as when a person should meet with his Bishop seeking life counsel of some form.  Failure to heed counsel given is not wise if you have solicited that help. I do believe that God does bless those that honor his servants in such situations thought the counsel may not appear as sound as one should hope. However, I can see this also applying to cases where we, in seeking specific assistance from the spirit, are led to writings, talks, scriptures that provide insight into our pleadings. Failure to give credence to the spirits direction, though it be through the writings of proper authorities does, result in a withdrawal of the spirit and thus a penalty of sorts is rendered.  

As a principle there can be broad latitude in application but also excessive latitude can be taken. However, it may be that there is a greater issue here than singular issues of an individual leader giving poor counsel and that the greater sin was in manifesting a cavalier attitude towards the servants of the Lord. Otherwise this behavior might not be characterized as requiring that those responding in such fashion should be slain to put the evil of their disregard away from Israel.  Based on the emphasis, it was apparently a greater evil to undermine priesthood authority in such matters by indifference to their counsel which example could spread amongst the populace.  

Edited January 19, 2016 by SamIam

[consiglieri]

17 hours 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?

Of course not.

My definition of truth has more to do with what is said rather than who says it.

And President Monson will make no such declaration.

You can test my prophetic gifts against his by waiting to see if this prophecy is fulfilled. 

 

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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

No it isn't.

Truth is truth regardless of how many people teach it.

And even if nobody teaches it.