Fallible Prophets: Does Mormonism need to come up with a better theology of prophets?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I would say 100%.  Nevertheless, to me, there is no way to be sure that they are speaking as men or as supposed prophets.  The race ban killed my shelf.  Sure, one may say that one can know through the amorphous confirmation biased emotion called the "spirit," but other religions use the same criteria.  Are those religions correct too?  Are they simply delusional?  How does one know this, the spirit? Isn't that circular reasoning?

They are simply flawed men through which God did impossible things. When you call every Prophet delusional, you do the same to all who follow them. Is that your intent? 

[gopher]

It's interesting to read the differing expectations people have for prophets.  For example, I refuse to keep the ten commandments because Moses killed a man.

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's interesting to read the differing expectations people have for prophets.  For example, I refuse to keep the ten commandments because Moses killed a man.

Would you elaborate a bit? Are you expressing a hypothetical or real life personal?

Thanks,

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I'm a skeptic so that's what my first question is when one says that they speak for God.  May I suggest that is your first thought when someone other than the Q12 or FP says that they are speaking for God?  You know, throughout the Bible and the BofM, the characters seem to always get an experience that gives knowledge but we are required to act in faith and not question the leaders.  How do you square that?

If you are actually a skeptic, then it should be your first thought to verify your automatic assumptions.  You do not appear to be doing that here.  I advised the SkepticChristian to make a list of all prophets and figure out what they have in common, and what is not in common.  Is there in fact a pattern(s), and if so what is it?  Then present us with the results of your inquiry.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

It's interesting to read the differing expectations people have for prophets.  For example, I refuse to keep the ten commandments because Moses killed a man.

So did biblical Samuel and Nephi.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I would say 100%.  Nevertheless, to me, there is no way to be sure that they are speaking as men or as supposed prophets.  The race ban killed my shelf.  Sure, one may say that one can know through the amorphous confirmation biased emotion called the "spirit," but other religions use the same criteria.  Are those religions correct too?  Are they simply delusional?  How does one know this, the spirit? Isn't that circular reasoning?

Perhaps you could list for us the actual names of those religions which use the very same criteria, i.e., the amorphous confirmation biased emotion called the "spirit."  Only the Pentecostal/charismatic christians employ the Holy Spirit.  All other Protestants use sola scriptura.  While not denying the Spirit, Roman Catholics primarily use the magesterium or faith tradition.  Perhaps you are speaking of Hindu or Buddhist meditation, although they do not speak of the  Holy Spirit at all.  I'd say your claim is blatantly false, but would be interested in seeing you make your case.

Also, could you address your personal theory of how we know what we do know in every day life (your espistemology)?  Are you using methods which could be described as "delusional" or "circular"?  Or are you an objectivist?  Or positivist?  How do you decide what is true and what is false?  What is authentic and what is fake?

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Why don't the "prophets" ever tell us when they are speaking for the Lord as in "thus sayeth the Lord?" Is it so they can fall back on the "speaking as men" excuse if there are problems with what they've said? It seems it is wanted by them to be taken as from the Lord when spoken but from men when looked at historically.

They do if you pay attention 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Why don't the "prophets" ever tell us when they are speaking for the Lord as in "thus sayeth the Lord?" Is it so they can fall back on the "speaking as men" excuse if there are problems with what they've said? It seems it is wanted by them to be taken as from the Lord when spoken but from men when looked at historically

 

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I would say 100%.  Nevertheless, to me, there is no way to be sure that they are speaking as men or as supposed prophets.  The race ban killed my shelf.  Sure, one may say that one can know through the amorphous confirmation biased emotion called the "spirit," but other religions use the same criteria.  Are those religions correct too?  Are they simply delusional?  How does one know this, the spirit? Isn't that circular reasoning?

The Holy Spirit makes it quite clear. But you have to actually listen to Him instead of mocking him.

 

The race ban bothered you but the gentile ban didn't?

[James Tunney]

4 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

They are simply flawed men through which God did impossible things. When you call every Prophet delusional, you do the same to all who follow them. Is that your intent? 

No.

[James Tunney]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

They do if you pay attention 

When was the last time they said they had a message directly from the Lord and what was it? Why don't they ask the Lord to answer the big questions like war and poverty? Aren't those questions bigger than who is going to be president over a given mission or who is going to be a stake president?

[James Tunney]

7 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The Holy Spirit makes it quite clear. But you have to actually listen to Him instead of mocking him.

 

The race ban bothered you but the gentile ban didn't?

How do you know if I'm mocking or not? Also, do you mean the gentile ban in the new testament? If that's what you mean, then yeah it's bothersome too. The whole concept of god favoring one race over another is definitely problematic

[canard78]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

1. By the spirit
2. Consistency with previous revelations and scripture
3. When they state clearly which they are doing.

1. What if two people reach different spiritual conclusion? It's an unreliable and inconsistent method. 

2. What if they are just being consistent with an original error (e.g. the perpetuation of the doctrines on blacks)?

3. Not sure what that means. So if a prophet says: "This is God's doctrine" or similar, it means it speaking as a prophet? Also unreliable. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

When was the last time they said they had a message directly from the Lord and what was it? Why don't they ask the Lord to answer the big questions like war and poverty? Aren't those questions bigger than who is going to be president over a given mission or who is going to be a stake president?

All these questions depend on you -- your apriori assumptions.  You need to broaden your purview and ask that in a global manner.  Do we find biblical prophets performing according to your automatic assumptions?  Did you do the basic research which would tell you how many and how often prophets do particular things in particular ways?  If so, you could then graph the results and talk about this or that rate of particular kinds of prophetic activity (whatever you assume that activity entails).  Instead, your only reason for addressing any LDS issue is to attack and destroy.  You actually have no curiosity for, or interest in a factual assemblage of data.  You are overwhelmed by anti-Mormon bias.

[James Tunney]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All these questions depend on you -- your apriori assumptions.  You need to broaden your purview and ask that in a global manner.  Do we find biblical prophets performing according to your automatic assumptions?  Did you do the basic research which would tell you how many and how often prophets do particular things in particular ways?  If so, you could then graph the results and talk about this or that rate of particular kinds of prophetic activity (whatever you assume that activity entails).  Instead, your only reason for addressing any LDS issue is to attack and destroy.  You actually have no curiosity for, or interest in a factual assemblage of data.  You are overwhelmed by anti-Mormon bias.

Is this part of the new program to label questioners as anti-mormon?

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

1. What if two people reach different spiritual conclusion? It's an unreliable and inconsistent method. 

2. What if they are just being consistent with an original error (e.g. the perpetuation of the doctrines on blacks)?

3. Not sure what that means. So if a prophet says: "This is God's doctrine" or similar, it means it speaking as a prophet? Also unreliable. 

If you want "reliability" then religion, which is naturally a faith based enterprise, is not the right place to look.
 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Is this part of the new program to label questioners as anti-mormon?

Thomas was not anti-Christ because he doubted the resurrection.
Judas was anti-Christ because he actively went against Christ.

Too many "questioners" and "doubters" allow those doubts and questions to let them resist and fight.

[gopher]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Would you elaborate a bit? Are you expressing a hypothetical or real life personal?

Thanks,

Glenn

I was just being snarky.  It's how I imagine the reaction many would have for a prophet like Moses today.  I'm glad imperfect people are called by God to do great things.  It shows me that He truly knows our potential in spite our our weaknesses.

[stemelbow]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 3:40 AM, canard78 said:

I'd like to discuss four questions in response to Patrick Mason's interview with Bill Reel (quote posted after the questions):

1) Is the claim that God calls prophets in modern days "as central as it gets" for Mormonism? 

2) If we give away this central claim, is it true to say that we "might as well become Methodists or something?" Or would it be possible to have a viable Mormonism where an 19thC founder, Joseph Smith, was a prophet, but the leaders since him have not been? (This is my question, not Patrick's, the others are his questions or statements)

3) If the answer to #1 is 'Yes' then how do we "hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?"

4) Do we need a better theology of prophets? If so, what should that theology look like?

Here's the quote for context (I've paraphrased slightly for clarity):

Patrick Mason (49:40): 

Once you admit to the fallibility of prophets, it opens the possibility that anything they say or do is fallible. 

We've been hesitant to go there. Everyone, intellectually, can acknowledge that prophets can and have made mistakes, but it's hard to say that. It's avoided because it's seen as a slippery slope. The slippery slope argument says that there's a risk that if we admit that prophets are ever fallible then that means they must be fallible all the time. That's simply not true. It doesn't follow.

One of the tasks before us is to come up with a better theology of prophets. We have to do it. I think it's one of the most pressing things before us.

In Mormonism, we do not want to give up the claim that God calls prophets in modern days. That's about as central as it gets. If we give that up then let's all go be Methodists or something like that. 

We have to be able to make a strong claim that God is speaking in the world today; that he does so through ordinary people to whom he gives a special calling. We don't understand why, but somehow, in some way, God reaches down and touches people, with a certain kind of grace. In some kind of way, he calls them to speak for him. 

What does that mean, that they speak in his name and his voice... and at the same time they are fallible? How do we hold on to the very obvious fact that they are fallible, without giving up the gift of a claim that God calls prophets in our day?

How do we do that? We haven't done the theology on this yet? No one else is going to do this for us. On this one, we're on our own. We have to do it individually, but we also have to do this work together.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

 

I simply could not possibly be Mormon if I didn't come to the conclusion that prophets were fallible.  What can we do besides promote individual personal experience as the means for a good path for us?  I mean to say let each individual member conclude what from prophets, and other sources, is worth holding to and let each member toss out any particular from prophets that he/she doesn't believe.  It's exactly what we all do.  Most just don't admit it, or at least don't seem to recognize that's what they're doing. 

I don't think there's anything more to it than that.  I mean Patrick says unequivocally that prophets are fallible.  We already know that.  The problem is most will say that but then obtusely try and argue otherwise.  Going to Church seeing this is a little bit of a comedy of errors. 

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Hoe do we know when prophets are speaking as prophets and when they're just speaking as men?

This is the critical question.

It doesn't make any difference if Joseph Smith said it.

It doesn't make any difference if the First Presidency said it.

It doesn't make any difference if all Q15 say it.

What is spoken can still be wrong.  There is no guarantee against doctrinal infallibility.

Any theology of prophets that will stand the test of time must ultimately throw this question back on the individual.

Only the individual can decide when a prophet is speaking for the Lord.

It is the individual, and only the individual, who can make this determination for the individual.

I can't make it for President Monson.  I can't make it for the Twelve.  I can't make it for you.

But I can make it for me.  And I am the only one who can make it for me.

That responsibility is mine, and mine alone.

It is the power God gives us that we tend to want to give to somebody else.

Most would rather have somebody rule over us than rule ourselves.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Is this part of the new program to label questioners as anti-mormon?

You brought up the issue of bias yourself, instead of dealing with substantive issues, and you are clearly motivated by an overwhelming anti-Mormon bias.  It would have been very easy for you to have dealt instead with substantive issues, but you are unwilling to do so.

[James Tunney]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is the critical question.

It doesn't make any difference if Joseph Smith said it.

It doesn't make any difference if the First Presidency said it.

It doesn't make any difference if all Q15 say it.

What is spoken can still be wrong.  There is no guarantee against doctrinal infallibility.

Any theology of prophets that will stand the test of time must ultimately throw this question back on the individual.

Only the individual can decide when a prophet is speaking for the Lord.

It is the individual, and only the individual, who can make this determination for the individual.

I can't make it for President Monson.  I can't make it for the Twelve.  I can't make it for you.

But I can make it for me.  And I am the only one who can make it for me.

That responsibility is mine, and mine alone.

It is the power God gives us that we tend to want to give to somebody else.

Most would rather have somebody rule over us than rule ourselves.

 

If it's ultimately on us, then what is the point of having a prophet?  I'm all for personal responsibility, but the prophets tell us that their word overrules our own.  So, I think it is up to them to prove their usefulness.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

If it's ultimately on us, then what is the point of having a prophet?  I'm all for personal responsibility, but the prophets tell us that their word overrules our own.  So, I think it is up to them to prove their usefulness.

I agree that the current crop of prophets wants to have all the authority with none of the responsibility.

They want the title of prophets, and everything that goes with it, without producing one scrap of revelation.

In answer to your question, though, I suppose it could be argued that having a prophet at least gives us something to test.

For example, I likely would not have known how reprehensible the new anti-gay policy is unless it had been put in words.

On the other hand, I might not ever have concluded that God calls prophets among every people throughout time to give his Word if that concept had not been taught in the Book of Mormon.

[Gray]

We already have a model at the local level that works. We say that bishops and stake presidents are entitled to revelation, but when they say or do something dumb, most of us are comfortable saying they are wrong without much controversy.

For some reason that breaks down a with the bigger callings. If you disagree with something that a current apostle teaches, suddenly you're disloyal and apostate. It's silly. Apostles and bishops are equally fallible, and potentially equally inspired. The focus and attention needs to move away from whatever human being happens to occupy the calling of apostle or president. The focus instead should be to the gospel itself. It shouldn't be "Follow the prophet," but instead "follow the gospel". We don't teach the kids to have an unhealthy fixation on local leaders. That model should simply apply at every level.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, James Tunney said:

How do you know if I'm mocking or not? Also, do you mean the gentile ban in the new testament? If that's what you mean, then yeah it's bothersome too. The whole concept of god favoring one race over another is definitely problematic

Yeah, that whole "chosen people" thing about Israel is difficult to swallow.  Why would God do something racist like that?