Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry. I misread his post. 

Most people today, I daresay, have no awareness of that ancient ward teachers message, and for those who do, the information that it was disavowed is readily available. Pretty much the only ones who care about it anymore are critics trying to discredit the Church. Those who bring it up are ethically obligated, in my view, to include the fact of it having been disavowed by the Church president. 

If I were trying to undermine your beliefs by citing an obscure printed message written over 70 years ago, and if I had knowledge that message had been authoritatively disavowed almost immediately, I would certainly mention that fact -- if indeed I chose to bring up the original message at all. 

That's not how I was brought up, nor the FLDS and their prophet.  What's a prophet for than?

proph·et

ˈpräfət/

noun

1.

a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

"the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah"

synonyms:seer, soothsayer, fortune teller, clairvoyant, diviner; More

2.

(in Christian use) the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It shouldn't be.  The whole point of study, ponder, pray, and receive a confirmatory personal revelation is to see if what the prophet says is from God.  If the person learns for hisself that it ain't from God, then the debate might just be beginning.

So then, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of today's Church are not up to the task of consistently leading the Latter-day Saints by the revealed mind and will of the Lord?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because Christianity has a history of all denominations being in agreement on doctrinal issues?

I agree that the AoF don't purport to be comprehensive. I never said they did, nor did I say they should be. But not mentioning the resurrection as THE fundamental principle of the gospel is curious. It seems that the point of publishing the AoF through the newspaper was to clearly state fundamental tenets of Mormon belief so nonMormons wouldn't assume false notions of Mormon belief.

The AoF don't need to be comprehensive to mention The most important tenet of faith when instead a large paragraph could be written about the literal gathering of Israel and the New Jerusalem on the American continent. Somehow the resurrection didn't make the cut. Come on, admit it. That's a little strange.

No, I won't admit that. 

The Articles of Faith were directed originally to a non-Mormon newspaper editor and, by implication to his readers, the bulk of whom were apt to already be acquainted with typical Christian gospel tenets such as the Resurrection. What they weren't apt to know about were uniquely Mormon beliefs such as the literal gathering of Israel and the establishment of Zion, the New Jerusalem, on the American continent. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

So then, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of today's Church are not up to the task of consistently leading the Latter-day Saints by the revealed mind and will of the Lord?

I dont' see it as a matter of being up to the task.  But it's true, they are human like the rest of us and can make mistakes, even when speaking to us in official capacity.  There's no need for us to put all our eggs in their baskets.  We have opportunity to speak to God ourselves. 

God does the leading, behind the scenes, I'd say.  He just has different tools, one being the leaders of the Church, to help.  But, it seems obvious none of the means are foolproof. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I dont' see it as a matter of being up to the task.  But it's true, they are human like the rest of us and can make mistakes, even when speaking to us in official capacity.  There's no need for us to put all our eggs in their baskets.  We have opportunity to speak to God ourselves. 

God does the leading, behind the scenes, I'd say.  He just has different tools, one being the leaders of the Church, to help.  But, it seems obvious none of the means are foolproof. 

Agreed. Whenever human hands touch anything, it's going to be messy. The idea that church leaders--even prophets--are incapable of making mistakes is something I was never taught and never believed. If that's true, why bother even praying for spiritual confirmation if they always get everything exactly right?

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree in many respects.  Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, and others who have left have demonstrated formidable talents and skills which they could have contributed to the Church through continued fellowship with the Saints and discipleship in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

T

Smac

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer were all excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.  Julienna Vegas-Haws has apparently chosen to leave the Church, but I'm not sure her excommunication was a fait accompli. 

I can understand why there wasn't room in the Church for the first three, but I'm not sure the Church is a better place for having Vegas-Haws leave.

 

 

[cinepro]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What happens if you receive personal revelation that what the prophet said doesn't represent the mind and will of the Lord?

 

As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that as a possibility.  If we were to receive a revelation that the Prophet isn't representing the "mind and will of the Lord", I suspect it would be classified under this provision:

 

Quote

All inspiration does not come from God. (See D&C 46:7.) The evil one has the power to tap into those channels of revelation and send conflicting signals which can mislead and confuse us. There are promptings from evil sources which are so carefully counterfeited as to deceive even the very elect. (See Matt. 24:24.)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/revelation-in-a-changing-world?lang=eng

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

Just now, cinepro said:

As far as I can tell, the Church has never acknowledged that as a possibility.  If we were to receive a revelation that the Prophet isn't representing the "mind and will of the Lord", I suspect it would be classified under this provision:

Yes. If the prophet is never wrong, then he is in every practical sense infallible. 

[Kevin Christensen]

55 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A CHALLENGE TO THOSE BELIEVING LATTER-DAY SAINTS WHO THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE DICTUM THAT STATES "WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS, THE DEBATE IS OVER:"

Is it not Mormonism 101 for active and believing members of the LDS Church to readily acknowledge that when the Lord speaks through his living prophet the time for debate is over and the time to study, ponder, pray, and receive confirmatory personal revelation that the prophet has revealed the mind and will of the Lord has begun? 

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1)

 

There is the problem of proof-texting that ignores context.  D&C is whole chapter, dedicated, as it explains, to formally setting out "mine authority and the authority of my servants."

I've been treating this for years:

Quote

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Julie Smith over at Times and Seasons recently blogged on the final verse.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/03/a-closer-look-at-d-c-138/

D&C 1:38 cannot be saying that whatever an acting prophet says is the same as what the LORD says.  Rather the final verse refers to his own word, whether spoken directly or through those servants.  But those servants are not sock puppets who only think and say what they are permitted to say.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is the problem of proof-texting that ignores context.  D&C is whole chapter, dedicated, as it explains, to formally setting out "mine authority and the authority of my servants."

I've been treating this for years:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Julie Smith over at Times and Seasons recently blogged on the final verse.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/03/a-closer-look-at-d-c-138/

D&C 1:38 cannot be saying that whatever an acting prophet says is the same as what the LORD says.  Rather the final verse refers to his own word, whether spoken directly or through those servants.  But those servants are not sock puppets who only think and say what they are permitted to say.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yep, Bobbie's version of prophets is foreign to me and, I would imagine, to most Latter-day Saints. That said, there still doesn't seem to be any allowance for a negative answer of the spirit when praying about the prophet's counsel. 

[Bobbieaware]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Otherwise known as blind obedience.

There is the studying, pondering, praying and receiving of confirmatory personal revelation that comes after the prophets have revealed more of the mind and will of the Lord, and there is also the diligent study, pondering, praying and receiving of personal revelation that takes place prior to the occasions when the prophets receive anew more of the mind and will of the Lord. Thus such an ongoing process of inspired preparation hardly describes "blind obedience." What you describe as blind obedience may only seem that way to those who are not making a habit of preparing spiritually in the manner just described.

Because the Lord reveals his will line upon line, the newer revelations rarely come out of the blue but are usually natural extensions  and enlargements that are built upon the revelatory structures that have already been revealed. Again, an ongoing inspired process such as this hardly describes "blind obedience." 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There is the studying, pondering, praying and receiving of confirmatory personal revelation that comes after the prophets have revealed more of the mind and will of the Lord, and there is also the diligent study, pondering, praying and receiving of personal revelation that takes place prior to the occasions when the prophets receive anew more of the mind and will of the Lord. Thus such an ongoing process of inspired preparation hardly describes "blind obedience." What you describe as blind obedience may only seem that way to those who are not making a habit of preparing spiritually in the manner just described.

Because the Lord reveals his will line upon line, the newer revelations rarely come out of the blue but are usually natural extensions  and enlargements that are built upon the revelatory structures that have already been revealed. Again, an ongoing inspired process such as this hardly describes "blind obedience." 

Just to clarify then, you really are saying that the prophet is never wrong, never makes a mistake in his teachings and counsel. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Let's start with her points #1 and #2.  Do you deny that church leaders have taught that the prophet can not lead us astray, that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done and the debate is over, the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, and that primary children sing "follow the prophet, he knows the way"?

You can take any of her points that you wish, and the result will always be the same.  Your old nonsense here betrays a complete lack of attention on your part to virtually years of discussion on this board of each of those points.  It indicates either a rejection of  the elementary facts in favor of sheer falsehood and rumormongering at best, or an attempt by you to begin all of those old discussions over again -- as though no progress has ever been made, or denial that any discussions were ever held here.  Your dogged determination in either case makes no coherent sense, unless you and maybe consiglieri simply want to rehash old false claims.  Doesn't make any sense to me, and raises serious questions as to why you would want to be that obtuse rather than sincere.  

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You haven't established that.  And everyone's unwillingness to directly address her first two points is telling.  

Quoting the article from the OP and asking to discuss it is hardly a red herring.

I'll back up a little to make my point more clear if you wish.

Let's just talk about what she said in her point #1 for now.  Can you not see her misleading statement? Her false statement? What she said that was not true? That the thinking is NOT done when a leader says whatever he says.  She said something that was not true when she said that it is done.  And anybody else who has ever said that all the thinking is done is saying something that is not true too.  Whoever says it.  Because it's not true.  So she is NOT representing our true beliefs when she says we believe that all the thinking is done because we don't believe that it is,  generally, although some ex-Mormons or maybe even a few out-of-touch oddball members may believe that all the thinking is done because someone said something.  

Edited May 5, 2016 by Ahab
typo

[smac97]

On 5/5/2016 at 1:08 PM, cinepro said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer were all excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.  Julienna Vegas-Haws has apparently chosen to leave the Church, but I'm not sure her excommunication was a fait accompli. 

I'm not speaking of the mechanisms of departure.  Whether through resignation or through excommunication, the net effect is that Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer and Julienna Viegas-Haws are no longer in fellowship.  And their talents and ongoing contributions are no longer available to the Church.

The Church relies heavily on lay members contributing their time, talents, and resources toward the mission and programs of the Church.  The Church values each one of us, both for our contributions and for our inherent worth as children of our heavenly father.  So when people choose to engage in conduct that is incompatible with continuing fellowship in the Church, which all of these people have done, and when they fail to repent, then that is a sad thing.

Quote

I can understand why there wasn't room in the Church for the first three, but I'm not sure the Church is a better place for having Vegas-Haws leave.

I never said "there wasn't room in the Church" for these people.  Of course there is.  There is room for all of them.  I would welcome any and all of them back with open arms.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There is the studying, pondering, praying and receiving of confirmatory personal revelation that comes after the prophets have revealed more of the mind and will of the Lord, and there is also the diligent study, pondering, praying and receiving of personal revelation that takes place prior to the occasions when the prophets receive anew more of the mind and will of the Lord. Thus such an ongoing process of inspired preparation hardly describes "blind obedience." What you describe as blind obedience may only seem that way to those who are not making a habit of preparing spiritually in the manner just described.

Because the Lord reveals his will line upon line, the newer revelations rarely come out of the blue but are usually natural extensions  and enlargements that are built upon the revelatory structures that have already been revealed. Again, an ongoing inspired process such as this hardly describes "blind obedience." 

No, it's blind because you've already decided the prophet and apostles are right before they've even said anything. You assume confirmation before anything is ever said as if they are perfect. You claim prophetic infallibility and I don't accept that.

What happens when you study and pray and you do not get confirmation? What happens when you have a spiritual witness that what they have taught is incorrect? My guess is you will claim that it could never happen because the prophet is always right, to which I could cite numerous examples of how prophets and apostles have been wrong. But you won't care about them because it doesn't fit your paradigm of blind obedience.

To be fair to Bobbie, I know MANY people who view this issue exactly like her. She is not an anomaly. In fact I think she represents the majority of chapel Mormons I know. But I don't think they are willing to play out the idea to it's logical end. Why? Because it would disrupt their paradigm. It would be uncomfortable. It would cause them to question everything  

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'll back up a little to make my point more clear if you wish.

Let's just talk about what she said in her point #1 for now.  Can you not see her misleading statement? Her false statement? What she said that was not true? That the thinking is NOT done when a leader says whatever he says.  She said something that was not true when she said that it is done.  And anybody else who has ever said that all the thinking is done is saying something that is not true too.  Whoever says it.  Because it's not true.  So she is NOT representing our true beliefs when she says we believe that all the thinking is done because we don't believe that it is,  generally, although some ex-Mormons or maybe even a few out-of-touch oddball members may believe that all the thinking is done because someone said something.  

Maybe you and Bobbie should debate this because Bobbie is totally backing up the idea that the prophet is infallible, therefore when he speaks the debate is over. In fact she's incredulous that any Mormon wouldn't think that.

Bobbie is not unique in her view. Many people see it the same way and it is taught this way so it's impossible to dismiss Julienna's statement as false. This was Julienna's experience growing up just as it was mine. It is pervasive still today.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I just want you to argue rationally -- if you are going to argue at all. 

I won't argue with you anymore Scott. The thinking has been done.  Had I shared any rational thoughts in my early years, I would have been exed.

Everyone else needs to move on too. This seems to be a dispute over opinions about the meaning of widely published.

[Kevin Christensen]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, Bobbie's version of prophets is foreign to me and, I would imagine, to most Latter-day Saints. That said, there still doesn't seem to be any allowance for a negative answer of the spirit when praying about the prophet's counsel. 

Sure there is.  But what is allowed on my part operates within the constraints of stewardship, and that I personally covenant to "Sustain" general and local leaders.  So it helps to know exactly what that means, and therefore what kinds of responses are appropriate.

Quote

[1] Some years ago, while my wife was preparing for a Relief Society Lesson on “Sustaining our Leaders,” we decided to look up “sustain” in a good dictionary.  The results proved amazingly enlightening:

1. to keep up; maintain prolong.
2. to supply as with food or provisions.
3. to hold up, support
4. to bear, endure
5. to suffer; experience: “She sustained a broken leg.”
6. to allow: to admit, to favor
7. to agree with; confirm

If I permit myself to consider the full range of meanings for the word “sustain” I can also see a full range of options to employ in dealing with other LDS members in all their varieties of temperament, maturity, and level and quality of knowledge.  If I select and apply only the last meaning when I sustain someone, I may, like Emily, be letting myself in for a world of pain.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

That's not how I was brought up, nor the FLDS and their prophet.  What's a prophet for than?

proph·et

ˈpräfət/

noun

1.

a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

"the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah"

synonyms:seer, soothsayer, fortune teller, clairvoyant, diviner; More

2.

(in Christian use) the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.

Not following you here. What's "not how [you] were brought up?"

What in your definition is inconsistent with Mormon belief? 

And I don't understand your FLDS reference. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I won't argue with you anymore Scott. The thinking has been done.  Had I shared any rational thoughts in my early years, I would have been exed.

Everyone else needs to move on too. This seems to be a dispute over opinions about the meaning of widely published.

Hallelujah! I tried to move past that one several posts ago. 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hallelujah! I tried to move past that one several posts ago. 

Congrats.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not following you here. What's "not how [you] were brought up? 

What in your definition is inconsistent with Mormon belief? 

And I don't understand your FLDS reference. 

The FLDS tend to hold to the early way of Mormonism, but that's my opinion.  When I grew up, the prophet was distinct and was chosen to lead the church, you listen to him since it's like getting direction from the one above.  

I don't believe it now, but at one time I believed he talked with God like you and I talk to each other.  Therefore his guidance had clout, and we really shouldn't contradict it, or go by our own instincts.  

I think that message seeps into this day in our General Conference talks, again my opinion.  I believe the FLDS follow the prophet religiously, excuse the pun.     

[Bobbieaware]

10 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is the problem of proof-texting that ignores context.  D&C is whole chapter, dedicated, as it explains, to formally setting out "mine authority and the authority of my servants."

I've been treating this for years:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Julie Smith over at Times and Seasons recently blogged on the final verse.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2016/03/a-closer-look-at-d-c-138/

D&C 1:38 cannot be saying that whatever an acting prophet says is the same as what the LORD says.  Rather the final verse refers to his own word, whether spoken directly or through those servants.  But those servants are not sock puppets who only think and say what they are permitted to say.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

I thought I made myself fairly clear I was speaking of the prophets when they receive revelation and then set forth that revealed heavenly knowledge in an official capacity in the name of the Lord..

Based on your interpretation of D&C 1: 24-25, do you believe there are errors of doctrine and principle to be found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and in the Pearl of Great Price?  If there are such errors, I would appreciate it if you would point a couple of them out to me? I ask these questions with all due deference because I'm genuinely curious to know if there are errors. If what you say is true, it would seem such errors are likely. But if not, why not?

 

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you and Bobbie should debate this because Bobbie is totally backing up the idea that the prophet is infallible, therefore when he speaks the debate is over. In fact she's incredulous that any Mormon wouldn't think that.

Bobbie is not unique in her view. Many people see it the same way and it is taught this way so it's impossible to dismiss Julienna's statement as false. This was Julienna's experience growing up just as it was mine. It is pervasive still today.

A prophet always is infallible but a man... any man, even a President of the Church... is a prophet ONLY when he is speaking for God. 

So the only reason a prophet is infallible is because what God is saying through him is infallible.

(wondering if this will also fall on deaf ears)