Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[consiglieri]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fallibility means that they will make mistakes.

Thanks for pointing that out, but unfortunately it destroys your case.

So pointing out that Church leaders make mistakes while claiming to not mistakes destroys my case?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

So pointing out that Church leaders make mistakes while claiming to not mistakes destroys my case?

Church leaders have never claimed they don't make mistakes.

[Senator]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Church leaders have never claimed they don't make mistakes.

Regarding individuals? Yes

If we're speaking of the FP and Q of 12?  I can't recall where they have claimed fallibility.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Senator said:

 

Somehow I don't think the FP and Q of 12 would agree with that.

Well they certainly admit that they are fallible.  

I take that talk at face value.  I follow the prophets but ALWAYS test their advice against my own testimony

I don't know if that talk is intended to deny that we should do that, but it seems to be the implied tone.  If that is what it is saying I am against it.  Simple as that.

[Senator]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well they certainly admit that they are fallible.  

 

I was unaware of that!

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So pointing out that Church leaders make mistakes while claiming to not mistakes destroys my case?

Where exactly does this say that they don't make mistakes?

 

Quote

 

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Strange that the FAIRMormon article to which you link makes no mention of President Ezra Taft Benson's 14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

You know, the one that was recycled in last year's official RS/Priesthood manual.

The one that is approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve . . .

We'll talk when ETB's "14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet" is put into our D&C.

Even if it were to be I'd still have a big problem with it.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where exactly does this say that they don't make mistakes?

Number 5 is problematic.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We'll talk when ETB's "14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet" is put into our D&C.

Even if it were to be I'd still have a big problem with it.

I have big problems with it too.

I think the phrasing used is very clever and sounds right until you think about it.
"More important" is a very different term than "More correct".

The living prophet IS more important than a dead prophet.  However, a living prophet's teachings aren't automatically more correct just because they are the current prophet.
And "astray" can have many implications.

Personally, I don't like that list at all.  It is worded very poorly, and perhaps intentionally deceptive.
 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Strange that the FAIRMormon article to which you link makes no mention of President Ezra Taft Benson's 14-Fundamentals of Following the Prophet.

You know, the one that was recycled in last year's official RS/Priesthood manual.

The one that is approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve . . .

It does here:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

"In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball—Working Draft"

[consiglieri]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

It does here:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

"In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball—Working Draft"

Unfortunately it is not in the same FAIRMormon article.

Perhaps somebody at FAIRMormon could add that material to the other article.

If they aren't busy deleting people like Bill Reel from their webpage, that is. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

 

Somehow I don't think the FP and Q of 12 would agree with that.

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern(Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology. 

[mfbukowski]

For some reason I am having trouble editing the above post

Read it carefully.  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

It does here:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

"In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball—Working Draft"

If it actually made the living prophet at the time uncomfortable why on earth does this questionable essay keep getting recycled.
Same with McConkie's "Seven Deadly Heresies".

Non-authoritative discourses issued by an individual apostle who wasn't the President of the Church that get reprinted and recycled as unquestioned doctrine (by some members - not all fortunately) in spite of obvious issues.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It does here:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/Church_leadership/The_thinking_has_been_done

"In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" that emphasized the precedence of living prophet's statements over those of earlier prophets. ... Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking "follow the leader" mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to "underscore President Kimball's prophetic call."
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball—Working Draft"

The FAIR article needs to be updated to point out that President Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk was published worldwide as the First Presidency message in the Church's official magazine in 1981 (and President Benson wasn't even a member of the First Presidency!)

Then, the talk was referenced twice in General Conference in 2010:

Obedience to the Prophets

Our Very Survival

Trusting in and following the prophets is more than a blessing and a privilege. President Ezra Taft Benson declared that “our [very] salvation hangs on” following the prophet. He described what he called “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” In the session this morning, Elder Claudio Costa of the Presidency of the Seventy so eloquently instructed us on these 14 fundamentals. Because they are of such great importance to our very salvation, I will repeat them again.

So just to be clear, you have a Seventy telling us, from the pulpit in General Conference, that President Benson's 14 points "are of such great importance to our very salvation."

And then, the principles of the talk were again reiterated in the Church's official worldwide curriculum for all Relief Society and Priesthood lessons in 2015:

Follow the Living Prophet

So if you ever wonder why apologetics seems to fail in some areas, I think that's a pretty good example of where things can go wrong.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is a good example of why it is hard to take you seriously, Russell.

I say the prophets claim infallibility for themselves and encourage members to do the same.

You ask for a reference.

I give you a reference.

And your reference does not claim infallibility for prophets and/or apostles.

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You first complain how all I came up with is one reference, and imply I am an anti-Mormon, as "it's one that anti-Mormons love to cherry-pick."

You then dispute the interpretation of my reference, adding that I am "falsely accusing the brethren," and then say it is something I "habitually do."

You next claim victory by changing the argument, saying that this reference does not "assert that the prophet never says anything except when he is speaking for the Lord."

But that is the only way the statement could be interpreted as a claim of infallibility.

(By any reasonable person, that is.)

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But of course, that isn't what I said.  I expect you know that, though.

You then accuse me of being "unscrupulous" and acting in "bad faith."

But am I really the one who is acting in "bad faith"?

I will let the readers decide.

Hugs!

Yes, I'm certain they will all see your "Hugs!" as deeply sincere.

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So if you ever wonder why apologetics seems to fail in some areas, I think that's a pretty good example of where things can go wrong.

There are good principles in it, but it should be revised and reissued instead of continuing to republish the flawed version.

Isn't that what we do these days?  Look back at earlier GA teachings that aren't quite right and either disavow them or clarify them.

Edited February 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[busybee]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0LMxUnzQU

Your point being?

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The FAIR article needs to be updated to point out that President Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk was published worldwide as the First Presidency message in the Church's official magazine in 1981 (and President Benson wasn't even a member of the First Presidency!)

Then, the talk was referenced twice in General Conference in 2010:

Obedience to the Prophets

Our Very Survival

 

So just to be clear, you have a Seventy telling us, from the pulpit in General Conference, that President Benson's 14 points "are of such great importance to our very salvation."

And then, the principles of the talk were again reiterated in the Church's official worldwide curriculum for all Relief Society and Priesthood lessons in 2015:

Follow the Living Prophet

So if you ever wonder why apologetics seems to fail in some areas, I think that's a pretty good example of where things can go wrong.

Plus 1,000,000!

[consiglieri]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Isn't that what we do these days?  Look back at earlier GA teachings that aren't quite right and either disavow them or clarify them.

Actually, I think the Church just ignores them and hopes people won't notice.

 

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If it actually made the living prophet at the time uncomfortable why on earth does this questionable essay keep getting recycled.
Same with McConkie's "Seven Deadly Heresies".

Non-authoritative discourses issued by an individual apostle who wasn't the President of the Church that get reprinted and recycled as unquestioned doctrine (by some members - not all fortunately) in spite of obvious issues.

Everyone brings their own set of sensitivities to the conversation.  And interpretations.  It would appear for some reason those publishing are currently comfortable with it.

[consiglieri]

54 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If it actually made the living prophet at the time uncomfortable why on earth does this questionable essay keep getting recycled.
Same with McConkie's "Seven Deadly Heresies".

Non-authoritative discourses issued by an individual apostle who wasn't the President of the Church that get reprinted and recycled as unquestioned doctrine (by some members - not all fortunately) in spite of obvious issues.

The reason such questionable teachings keep getting recycled is because Church leaders pretty much never tell the membership an apostle has gone off the reservation.

They may do it privately, but seldom publicly.

The result is that the Church continues to publish the errant articles long after both the speaker and the disapprobating prophet are long gone.

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The FAIR article needs to be updated to point out that President Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk was published worldwide as the First Presidency message in the Church's official magazine in 1981 (and President Benson wasn't even a member of the First Presidency!)

Why?  I don't see FM saying it was rejected, just clarifying Elder Benson's meaning through his own words.

[mfbukowski]

 

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Number 5 is problematic.

 

Quote

5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

What's wrong with that?

He is not claiming infallibility- he just just saying he can talk about plumbing if he wants.  Read what the words say.  That's just freedom of speech

Edited February 9, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Senator]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well they certainly admit that they are fallible.  

 

As councils?

If they have said that the FP and Q of 12 (as a collective group) are fallible, then I would like to see that statement.