Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I recall a recent General Conference talk, warning those receiving their own revelations vs. the Prophet's revelations.  Now if only I could find it, my memory is shot.  But the speaker may have been talking about speaking for the Lord for the church.  But I did find this Ensign talk when googling.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/08/the-debate-is-over?lang=eng

A couple of c/p's from the talk below:

"True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval."

"We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over."

Excellent points, Tacenda, and the Aug 1979 First Presidency message of Pres Tanner is a very good case.  He is talking about messages from the LDS prophet, and he gives a specific example of the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89), so we are not dealing with offhand, innocent opinions by a Mormon prophet, but rather with canonized or special, signed proclamations.  In the case of the Word of Wisdom, which dealt with the temporal realm, it was not applied at first as a commandment, and not made a question in temple recommend interviews until generations after it had been received.  We must always understand both historical and modern context, for therein lie the nuances.

I have already gone over above what it means to say that "the debate is over," for any executive office-holder.  Here, however, Pres Tanner says much the same thing that Brother Brigham used to say:  All of us are required to obtain a personal witness of any such message through the Holy Spirit.  If not, we cannot really say that it is correct and inspired.

[JulieM]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here are a  couple of opposing responses just made.  

How about you actually reply and tell us what is "systematically false" about her first statement:

"1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

Do you disagree with what she now believes?

This has to be one of the oddest discussions.  You and others are arguing that members are wrong to believe the thinking is done when a Prophet speaks, but then you state that this point above is  "systematically false" which is in agreement with you!

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What did I say that was false?  CFR.

Sorry, rockpond.  I did you wrong.  I erroneously thought you were responding to my comments to JulieM.  Please accept my apology.

And what is systemically wrong with her ten points.  CFR.

Systematic means that they are all wrong.  Since you are committed to believing all of them only because Viegas-Haws has said them, they must be "true" by definition.  Thus, no argument against any of them would carry any weight with you.  Your CFR is therefore pointless.  I have already said that I will happily discuss each of them in detail with Viegas-Haws herself, should she wish to join the discussion here.

p.s.  I am not in "lockstep with Viegas-Haws".  Please read for comprehension.

You have yet to take issue with any of her stated positions.  CFR that you are not in lockstep with Viegas-Haws.

 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
Correct major error.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

How about you actually reply and tell us what is "systematically false" about her first statement:

"1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

Do you disagree with what she now believes?

This has to be one of the oddest discussions.  You and others are arguing that members are wrong to believe the thinking is done when a Prophet speaks, but then you state that this point above is  "systematically false" which is in agreement with you!

So you utterly reject the notion of reading for context?  You don't see that her first point was engineered with a firm belief that Mormon theology requires that any statement by the LDS prophet is infallibly ex cathedra, and that Viegas-Haws is now informing us that such was false.  The point requires a false belief at the outset in the infallibility of the LDS prophet, and the subsequent announcement or discovery by Viegas-Haws that the fundamental LDS position was and is false.  It is just another "When did you stop beating your wife?"  question.  Any answer is automatically false and out of order.  However, for anti-Mormon purposes it is a classic fallacy, and I'm amazed that you don't see through it.  One of the first signs of her dishonesty is to place  NOT in caps.  That is a signal, Julie.

Anyone agreeing with her statement must admit that actual Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility, even though that was never correct Mormon theology anyhow.  Her premise is wrong, and so is her conclusion.  Taking her points out of context does not purify them.

[Maedros]

Blah blah blah....utterly deceptive twaddle-speak says I. Moses 5:

22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?

 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire.

or Alma 47:36  "Now these dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information of the Nephites, yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent....giving way to indolence, and all manner of lasciviousness; yea, entirely forgetting the Lord their God."

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 

This has to be one of the oddest discussions.  You and others are arguing that members are wrong to believe the thinking is done when a Prophet speaks, but then you state that this point above is  "systematically false" which is in agreement with you!

In their quest to defend Church leaders, apologists sometimes find themselves in the odd position of having to deny what they teach.

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How about you actually reply and tell us what is "systematically false" about her first statement:

"1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

Do you disagree with what she now believes?

This has to be one of the oddest discussions.  You and others are arguing that members are wrong to believe the thinking is done when a Prophet speaks, but then you state that this point above is  "systematically false" which is in agreement with you!

LOL.  Very true.

For someone to post over and over again that all of the points listed in this article are "systematically false" and then not be able to state what is false about them, is indeed odd.  

It may be time to move on though.  It seems we are all in agreement that her #1 point above is true (at least as stated).  Prophets are not infallible.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have already gone over above what it means to say that "the debate is over," for any executive office-holder.  Here, however, Pres Tanner says much the same thing that Brother Brigham used to say:  All of us are required to obtain a personal witness of any such message through the Holy Spirit.  If not, we cannot really say that it is correct and inspired.

CFR that President Tanner, or any other Church leader or publication, has ever said that if we don't receive a personal witness of any such message [from the Prophet] through the Holy Spirit, "we cannot say that it is correct and inspired."

If such a principle were ever to be acknowledged, then it would fundamentally change the teachings of the Church about the Prophet in very obvious ways, because we should only be obedient to those things which are "correct and inspired", and we can only know which things are so after we have received a personal witness.  So every lesson about obedience or following the Prophet would be predicated on the principle of first receiving personal witnesses of "the message" under consideration, and only needing to be obedient after receiving confirmation.

I've never seen anything like that discussed, and in fact, the opposite is usually taught (be obedient even if you don't have a confirmation).  For example, Apostle Delbert Stapley recommended we ask ourselves this question to judge our level of faithfulness:

 

Quote

 

In the light of these glorious promises, it is difficult to understand how any of our Heavenly Father’s children would voluntarily choose anything less than the best our God has to offer. Perhaps it would be well for each of us to reassess ourselves to determine where we presently stand in relation to the fundamental law of the celestial kingdom—the law of obedience. The results should reveal to us which kingdom we have chosen as our goal. For instance:

2. Do I follow the counsel of God’s living prophet, or do I merely select those things with which I agree, disregarding the others?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/11/the-blessings-of-righteous-obedience?lang=eng

 

 

 

What if someone disagrees with God's living prophet because they haven't yet received a witness from the Holy Spirit that the prophet is correct?  That would seem to be a very real possibility according to your methodology, but it would seem to contradict Elder Stapley.

Edited May 9, 2016 by cinepro

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Systematic means that they are all wrong.  Since you are committed to believing all of them only because Viegas-Haws has said them, they must be "true" by definition.  Thus, no argument against any of them would carry any weight with you.  Your CFR is therefore pointless.  I have already said that I will happily discuss each of them in detail with Viegas-Haws herself, should she wish to join the discussion here.

You have yet to take issue with any of her stated positions.  CFR that you are not in lockstep with Viegas-Haws.

What do you mean by "they are all wrong".  You haven't established that yet.  All you've said is that you don't like her implication that at least some church members believed the once published church teaching that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done".

Many on this thread have verified her statement that some members have, in fact, been taught that (admittedly, incorrect) idea so it isn't surprising that she once believed that.

So, I ask again for you to explain what she has written that is false, wrong, or in error (all statements I believe you have used to describe her ten points).

I don't need to answer your CFR since you continually ignore mine but I will say that I don't agree with some of her points (either entirely or in part).  I'd be happy to go through them but only if you're going to provide direct answers from your perspective.  I don't really enjoy the game you and Scott have been playing on this thread.

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anyone agreeing with her statement must admit that actual Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility, even though that was never correct Mormon theology anyhow.  Her premise is wrong, and so is her conclusion.  Taking her points out of context does not purify them.

Here is one thing I've learned as I transitioned from the beliefs of my childhood:

1. The United States is a republic, NOT a democracy.

I'm not saying that any person or political philosophy was wrong in claiming that the US was a democracy.... I'm just saying that at some point, I, personally came to an understanding of this fact, despite the common descriptions of the US as a democracy in the culture I was raised. 

 

I agree with her statement that this is something that she learned as she transitioned away from the faith of her childhood.  I am not required to see her statement as claiming that Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility.  She's describing the transition of her personal understanding.... perhaps an understanding that differed from common thoughts she was exposed to in her cultural surroundings.

Please explain to me why I must admit that actual Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility, even though that was never correct Mormon theology anyhow.  Are you sure that you're not reading more into this than can be gleaned from the text?

-cacheman

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, I ask again for you to explain what she has written that is false, wrong, or in error (all statements I believe you have used to describe her ten points).

#1 is false because being right or infallible is no reason for the thinking to be done. In fact, there is no reason for the thinking to ever stop.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you utterly reject the notion of reading for context?  You don't see that her first point was engineered with a firm belief that Mormon theology requires that any statement by the LDS prophet is infallibly ex cathedra, and that Viegas-Haws is now informing us that such was false.  The point requires a false belief at the outset in the infallibility of the LDS prophet, and the subsequent announcement or discovery by Viegas-Haws that the fundamental LDS position was and is false.  It is just another "When did you stop beating your wife?"  question.  Any answer is automatically false and out of order.  However, for anti-Mormon purposes it is a classic fallacy, and I'm amazed that you don't see through it.  One of the first signs of her dishonesty is to place  NOT in caps.  That is a signal, Julie.

Anyone agreeing with her statement must admit that actual Mormon theology is wrong in claiming infallibility, even though that was never correct Mormon theology anyhow.  Her premise is wrong, and so is her conclusion.  Taking her points out of context does not purify them.

I don't know that its fair to say she is claiming anything about actual Mormon theology, when she doesn't claim as much.

All she seems to know is that many members have suggested to her that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done--that, its apparent, as an LDS person she at one time accepted it.   Why she ties that into what LDS believe is pretty irrelevant.  All she knows is that she once thought it and that other LDS believe it.  I don't get what your disagreement is, really. 

[cacheman]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

#1 is false because being right or infallible is no reason for the thinking to be done. In fact, there is no reason for the thinking to ever stop.

I'm confused....it sounds like you're agreeing with her statement. Can you clarify?

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I'm confused....it sounds like you're agreeing with her statement. Can you clarify?

Obviously statements like #1 bank on people’s confusion.

She is saying that another person's fallibility is the reason her thinking doesn’t or shouldn’t stop. But there is no good reason, (in this case, another person's fallibility), for anyone’s thinking to ever stop.

The statement is also false because “fallibility” is being used a red herring, since she along with everyone else is fallible.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

All she knows is that she once thought it and that other LDS believe it.

But her statement is still false.

Edited May 9, 2016 by CV75

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

How about you actually reply and tell us what is "systematically false" about her first statement:

"1. When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done because he could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

Do you disagree with what she now believes?

This has to be one of the oddest discussions.  You and others are arguing that members are wrong to believe the thinking is done when a Prophet speaks, but then you state that this point above is  "systematically false" which is in agreement with you!

I agree.  I am still confused. 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think you have set forth the facts exactly right, HJW.

Here is why I think this whole discussion by some Church members is disingenuous:

There is a tension built into the LDS Church of general revelation (from Church leaders) versus personal revelation.

Joseph Smith sought to ameliorate this tension by saying that personal revelation has its limits--being the stewardship of the person receiving it--but that only the general officers (i.e., the prophet in his day) can receive revelation that is binding on the entire Church.

That much makes sense.

CFR

D and C actually says 

Doctrine and Covenants 28:2

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

In my HP group we just had a lesson on this subject, and the section was read as "But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant [the President] for he receiveth them even as Moses" - obviously inserting the bracketed text. But is this faithful to the original meaning? Are the subsequent presidents the same as Joseph Smith? I don't believe such a proposition follows from D and C. D and C also says that no one authorized to receive revelations excepting Joseph Smith or receives the gift through him.

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page,between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

Section 43
1 O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you.
2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.
3 And this ye shall know assuredly; that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.
4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.
5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;
6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

It is talking about the gift of revelation. It is saying that only those who receive the priesthood through him can have this gift. This is the last time the priesthood will be restored to the earth. All the other "interlopers" on the internet, and in books etc claiming to be modern day prophets can be dismissed. The Lord is saying he is only going to provide the gift of revelation to those who hold this priesthood(this is different form the gift of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to what many believe it doesn't even infer they have to be president of the church. 
So, for instance, the two witnesses who shall prophesy according to Revelation will hold the priesthood received through Joseph Smith. 

Doctrine and Covenants 64:5

5 And the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., through the means I have appointed, while he liveth, inasmuch as he obeyeth mine ordinances.

So the gift of revelation is conditional upon obedience to the ordinances as well. There is nothing in D and C which says the President cannot go astray or mislead the church, which is another well-meaning common reference. If Joseph Smith can lose the gift, so can others. Therefore it behooves followers to always be diligent and compare new declarations with those of prior prophets, and to seek confirmation from the Holy Ghost if doubt arises.

Quote

What has happened since is rather different.  Today general revelation from leaders is seen as binding on individual members, and the individual member is powerless to receive personal revelation that trumps general revelation--even as regards the individual receiving it.

The disingenuous part kicks in when some Mormons continue to claim that the thinking has not been done upon the receipt of general revelation, but that the individual may think about it and receive personal revelation on the issue, with the idea that the individual's revelation may trump the general revelation.

But that is an illusion.

This is form over substance; shadow over reality.

The only reason this illusion is put forward as reality is because it is generally understood to be an untenable position to maintain that when the leaders speak, the thinking has been done, or the debate is over.

Most reasonable people simply cannot bring themselves to defend this proposition.

And so they will say it isn't true, because of this illusion that a person can receive personal revelation on the issue.

But when pressed, these same people will usually eventually admit that personal revelation cannot conflict with general revelation.

Why?

Because we "know" that the leaders speak for God, and hence the general revelation is divine.

Any other revelation that conflicts with the general revelation can therefore not be from God, and must be discarded as personal invention or revelation from some source other than God.

(Bobbieaware is a refreshing exception because he/she actually admits what the others believe, but can't find it in themselves to just say plainly.)

Sorry for going into so much detail, but I think it important to put in words why it is I feel frustrated with these types of discussions, which generally proceed the way this one has; with certain Mormons claiming that the thinking is not done when the leaders speak, but actually believing that the thinking is done.

This is why I consider this argument to be disingenuous.

Personal revelation can confirm general revelation. Any new revelations which seem to conflict with prior revelation should be confirmed by the Holy Ghost. By this means alleged revelations from those who are not general authorities can usually be detected as false.  I believe it is possible "personal revelation" might become general revelation. Clearly the two witnesses of the seventh seal will only receive the gift of revelation through the priesthood received through Joseph Smith, but cannot both be "the prophet" or president of the church, but are not receiving just personal revelation. Joseph Smith ordained all the apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators, and thus, they are all empowered as a body to receive revelations, but that doesn't mean they have received the gift of revelation. Nevertheless, the idea that only the President of the church can receive revelation for the world, does not seem to follow from scripture. Only the President holds all the keys of temporal ordinances, offices of the church and so forth, but the gift of revelation is not so limited. That is mho. 

The idea that when "the prophet" speaks the thinking is done is also not found in the scriptures. The Lord told the Hebrews they could determine who was a prophet in that if what they said did not come to pass, they did not need to fear them. Jesus said we would be able to determine prophets by their fruit - not by virtue of any particular office. Again, this calls upon the followers to use their own intelligence. There is a tension in the church between having "blind obedience" and receiving truth for oneself. I have always erred on the side of the latter, but do not fault others if they want to follow in blind obedience. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  I am still confused. 

May I suggest that you might still be confused because, in order make statement #1 comprehensible, one has to believe the false notion that the capability (and/or incapability) of another person to make an error determines whether one engages or ends his own thinking.

Statement #1 is false by putting forth the false notions that “Because they are fallible, my thinking is never done,” or conversely, “Because they are infallible, my thinking is done.”

[cacheman]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Obviously statements like #1 bank on people’s confusion.

 

She is saying that another person's fallibility is the reason her thinking doesn’t or shouldn’t stop. But there is no good reason, (in this case, another person's fallibility), for anyone’s thinking to ever stop.

The statement is also false because “fallibility” is being used a red herring, since she along with everyone else is fallible.

 

So, you would agree if she removed the 'because' from her statement, and instead made it two sentences like below?

When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done . He could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

May I suggest that you might still be confused because, in order make statement #1 comprehensible, one has to believe the false notion that the capability (and/or incapability) of another person to make an error determines whether one engages or ends his own thinking.

 

Statement #1 is false by putting forth the false notions that “Because they are fallible, my thinking is never done,” or conversely, “Because they are infallible, my thinking is done.”

 

I disagree... where you are inserting the word "capability" I would instead suggest the word "need".

If you knew, absolutely knew with 100% surety that everything the prophet said was correct, you would never have to think about it, right?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But her statement is still false.

Well there we go--an LDS here still believes it.  So I'm really not sure what Robert is disagreeing with. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

LOL.  Very true.

For someone to post over and over again that all of the points listed in this article are "systematically false" and then not be able to state what is false about them, is indeed odd.  

It may be time to move on though.  It seems we are all in agreement that her #1 point above is true (at least as stated).  Prophets are not infallible.

Is there anybody, faithful member, critic or apostate, who contests that? What is her real clash here? To falsely insinuate without directly saying so that Mormons are taught not to think for themselves. And to the extent that her departure is over that false perception, it is for naught. She is only harming herself. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there anybody, faithful member, critic or apostate, who contests that? What is her real clash here? To falsely insinuate without saying so that Mormons are taught not to think for themselves. And to the extent that her departure is over that false perception, it is for naught. She is only harming herself. 

She believed it in her previous state of faith.  She doesn't say or even insinuate that "Mormons are taught not to think for themselves."  You are reading more into her statement than is there -- you do it often with me so it isn't suprising.  I attribute it to your apologetic zeal:  you see criticisms where they don't actually exist.

But you've seen on this thread a number of members who had heard the same idea throughout their years of membership in the church.  You need to stop pretending that it isn't out there as a part of our culture.  It may be incorrect but your "widely published disavowal" hasn't stopped the idea from promulgating throughout the church.  The 14 Fundamentals talk (also privately disavowed) was quoted in General Conference just a few years ago and it taught the same idea Viegas-Haws touches on in her first point.  The specific "thinking is done" language is obviously not there but the similar ideas and tone are.  I consider it obvious to any intelligent long-time church member that these are the ideas she is referring to in her first point.  You may and probably will continue to ignore what I see as a clear reality in this regard.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

May I suggest that you might still be confused because, in order make statement #1 comprehensible, one has to believe the false notion that the capability (and/or incapability) of another person to make an error determines whether one engages or ends his own thinking.

 

Statement #1 is false by putting forth the false notions that “Because they are fallible, my thinking is never done,” or conversely, “Because they are infallible, my thinking is done.”

 

On this thread, I am beginning to just not think at all.   

[CV75]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

So, you would agree if she removed the 'because' from her statement, and instead made it two sentences like below?

When the prophet speaks the thinking is NOT done . He could be wrong as many have been in the past and present time."

It depends, and thus I’m going to discuss statement #1 as it stands, and in the context of the editorial and the OP.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I disagree... where you are inserting the word "capability" I would instead suggest the word "need".

If you knew, absolutely knew with 100% surety that everything the prophet said was correct, you would never have to think about it, right?

I’m using “capability” because that is what fallibility (infallibility) refers to. Look it up, even! Changing the word to “need” would weirdly alter the meaning of statement #1. Why would you want to do that?

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well there we go--an LDS here still believes it.  So I'm really not sure what Robert is disagreeing with. 

Still believes what? Be as clear as you can.