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

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph changed a lot of his revelations, this is clear, so why did he do that?  To me his theology was changing over time, and its not all internally consistent either, some things contradict other things.  I'm ok with ambiguity and inconsistency, I think its important to explore and consider these things.  

He did learn more and more as he grew spiritually/ intellectually and I'm sure he would have no problem admitting that he was wrong from time to time.

But none of that really matters since all that anyone can do in God's name is only what God has authorized each person with keys to do, and at the moment anyone does anything other than what God has authorized to be done they are then acting outside of God's authority, acting only in their own name. 

Get yourself an understanding of keys and what they are for.  Being a prophet isn't all it takes to do all that God wants done.

[Aron]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think D&C 132 is one of our worst canonized scriptures.  I would love to have it edited or decanonized for a multitude of reasons, you just gave me one more.  Thanks!  :-)  

so are you saying John the Baptist did not come in 1829?

are you saying that story of John the Baptist giving the Aaronic priesthood was made up in 1842?

well you cannot deny what this video is proving the Book of Mormon is true and the priesthood keys are true just see for yourself

 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think D&C 132 is one of our worst canonized scriptures.  I would love to have it edited or decanonized for a multitude of reasons, you just gave me one more.  Thanks!  :-)  

I think it's wonderful and beautifully simple, but I recognize that I am among the minority in this world that feels this way about it.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Aron said:

so are you saying John the Baptist did not come in 1829?

are you saying that story of John the Baptist giving the Aaronic priesthood was made up in 1842?

well you cannot deny what this video is proving the Book of Mormon is true and the priesthood keys are true just see for yourself

 

Posting these videos on every thread regardless of topic is a quick way to get banned by the moderators.

[Aron]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And it seems your answer to my point is to find ways to reject Mormon teachings.
See, you asked:

•  I've always heard that God answers the sincere prayers of people all over the world without respect to religious affiliation.  Why is this principle halted when it comes to ordinances?  If God can answer the prayers of other faiths, without respect to form or belief, why can't God also honor and sanction a commitment someone makes through baptism or Bar Mitzvah or any other ritual spanning across different religions?  I guess the idea that my ritual is more valid than your ritual because God approves mine and God doesn't approve yours, seems petty to me.
   

The answer to why Mormons believe that is found in Mormon teachings.  So rather than " looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important" you reject the teachings that explain why they are important and pick them apart.

What you are really asking is what is the benefit to our rituals over another religions rituals.  The only answer is that God told us ours were the only ones he accepts.  The records of his telling us that are in the scriptures and history of the Church.  In order to believe all other religion's rituals are valid you have to reject our religion's teachings.  That's your right, but we can't have it both ways, even if that seems too black and white.

 

I believe God only wants us to obey His commandments and if the temple ordinances were given by God they are only valid if we are worthy to enter into His temple so any ritual done in the temple by an unworthy person is not valid. Thus rituals mean nothing if you don´t keep the commandments of God. There is too much ephesis on temple rituals but not on the obedience of the the basic Ten Commandments. What is a temple for if the people entering the temple defile it and the Holy Ghost is offended and withdraws from the unworthy members practicing rituals? The Lamanites are far more righteous than the Gentiles if you see in this video this is why they were given the Ark of the Covenant

 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think D&C 132 is one of our worst canonized scriptures.  I would love to have it edited or decanonized for a multitude of reasons, you just gave me one more.  Thanks!  :-)

As I said, no interest in reasoned discussion concerning uniqueness of rites and ordinances.
Ordinances are eternal, and that includes the ones mentioned in D&C 132.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Aron said:

I believe God only wants us to obey His commandments and if the temple ordinances were given by God they are only valid if we are worthy to enter into His temple so any ritual done in the temple by an unworthy person is not valid. Thus rituals mean nothing if you don´t keep the commandments of God. There is too much ephesis on temple rituals but not on the obedience of the the basic Ten Commandments. What is a temple for if the people entering the temple defile it and the Holy Ghost is offended and withdraws from the unworthy members practicing rituals? The Lamanites are far more righteous than the Gentiles if you see in this video this is why they were given the Ark of the Covenant

 

And, reported for spamming threads.

[Aron]

ordinance are eternal if the ordinance is practiced by worthy patrons but if the patron of the temple is unworthy the ordinances are defiled.

we have to understand nounclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God so if we try to trick the Bishop and say we are worthy to hold a temple recomend but really we are not then we condemn the blessings administered to those who were given the ordinances unworthly

[Eek!]

53 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

To each his own. I just don't think the text supports that inference. Mormon and Moroni certainly did not say anything about the church leaders straying and causing the people to stray.

Mormon and Moroni say that the Nephites became more wicked than the Lamanites, and both are silent about church leaders.  So we must infer that either they went the way of the Nephites, or that they didn't.  The Book of Mormon narrative seems to follow the believers, and there at the end it's following a general and then his son.  Imo righteous church leaders are conspicuous by their absence, so I infer that the church went the way of the Nephites. 

If you see a plausible scenario that has something else happening, could you describe it? 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Eek!

[Ahab]

48 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Mormon and Moroni say that the Nephites became more wicked than the Lamanites, and both are silent about church leaders.  So we must infer that either they went the way of the Nephites, or that they didn't.  The Book of Mormon narrative seems to follow the believers, and there at the end it's following a general and then his son.  Imo righteous church leaders are conspicuous by their absence, so I infer that the church went the way of the Nephites. 

If you see a plausible scenario that has something else happening, could you describe it? 

I think it's just semantics, again.  Saying church leaders strayed just doesn't sound right because church leaders that stray are really not the ones that are leading the true disciples who make up the true church of Jesus Christ.

That's kinda like saying that true disciples of Christ are led by people other than Christ, instead being led by people who are on the wrong path.  

As a true disciple of Christ, and a member of his church, can you imagine being led by someone who is on the wrong path?  Who is not who you should be following?

People who stray are not being led by Christ and true disciples of Christ are not the cause of people who stray from Christ, either. 

Kinda reminds me of how some people talk about the true church of Christ becoming the corrupt Catholic church, which isn't how it really was either.  The true church of Christ and any corrupt church are not the same church.

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think it's just semantics, again.  Saying church leaders strayed just doesn't sound right because church leaders that stray are really not the ones that are leading the true disciples who make up the true church of Jesus Christ.

That's kinda like saying that true disciples of Christ are led by people other than Christ, instead being led by people who are on the wrong path.  

Okay, let me try using different wording.

Somehow the Nephites, who in 231 AD were identified as "the followers of Christ", went very badly astray over the course of the next hundred years, and that evidently included those in positions of ecclesiastical leadership.    

Edited June 30, 2016 by Eek!

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

Okay, let me try using different wording.

Somehow the Nephites, who in 231 AD were identified as "the followers of Christ", went very badly astray over the course of the next hundred years, and that evidently included those in positions of ecclesiastical leadership.    

Sad, but true, and perfectly phrased, I think.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The answer to why Mormons believe that is found in Mormon teachings.  So rather than " looking for critical thought and analysis about why these things are so important" you reject the teachings that explain why they are important and pick them apart.

What you are really asking is what is the benefit to our rituals over another religions rituals.  The only answer is that God told us ours were the only ones he accepts.  The records of his telling us that are in the scriptures and history of the Church.  In order to believe all other religion's rituals are valid you have to reject our religion's teachings.  That's your right, but we can't have it both ways, even if that seems too black and white.

Work with me hear, I don't claim to understand your perspective on this, it perplexes me.  I've read your posts enough now to know that you are aware of complexities around the history of the D&C and HoC and early Mormon teachings and writings.  So help me understand that bolded statement.  I'm guessing this is an expression of your faith when you say that God told us these things through the scriptures and HoC.  But you also are aware of the history of how these records were recorded, the human imprints of bias and culture and memory loss, etc, all these elements are in the scriptures and the HoC accounts.  

Can you please explain to me how you reconcile the knowledge of the above things, and then how you can make simple statements that this is what God told us when you know things were much more complicated than that.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

He did learn more and more as he grew spiritually/ intellectually and I'm sure he would have no problem admitting that he was wrong from time to time.

But none of that really matters since all that anyone can do in God's name is only what God has authorized each person with keys to do, and at the moment anyone does anything other than what God has authorized to be done they are then acting outside of God's authority, acting only in their own name. 

Get yourself an understanding of keys and what they are for.  Being a prophet isn't all it takes to do all that God wants done.

If you understand that Joseph was wrong from time to time, how can you have so much confidence that your perspective about authority and keys is right?  BTW, you mentioned personal prayer earlier, but don't you think that Joseph prayed about those items he was wrong about as well?  Prayer isn't a 100% fail safe way to ensure you understand the divine.  Its a tool, but you still have your mortal brain interpreting whatever you pray about.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said, no interest in reasoned discussion concerning uniqueness of rites and ordinances.
Ordinances are eternal, and that includes the ones mentioned in D&C 132.

I don't think this is an entirely fair critique.  I have been discussing these things and I'm trying to understand your's and Ahab's perspectives.  I don't really want to debate the doctrines in D&C 132 though, and i don't think we have enough common ground belief to effectively do that.  

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you understand that Joseph was wrong from time to time, how can you have so much confidence that your perspective about authority and keys is right?

Because I have that much faith that what I understand is an understanding that God has given to me, personally, and I believe that God and an understanding given to me by God are the best things for me to rely on.

Like that person who said something like: trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not on thine own understanding, in all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy path.

So even if I am wrong about something, I believe God will help to straighten me out.

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Because I have that much faith that what I understand is an understanding that God has given to me, personally, and I believe that God and an understanding given to me by God are the best things for me to rely on.

Like that person who said something like: trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not on thine own understanding, in all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct thy path.

So even if I am wrong about something, I believe God will help to straighten me out.

I think it makes sense to have a level of confidence in our beliefs, but I think we should also remain open to new information and have a sense that our current understandings are limited and flawed and mortal.  Maybe I put more emphasis on that flawed and limited element than you do, but it sounds to me like you also are aware of that principle as well.  

To me, trusting in the Lord doesn't mean I should trust that any interpretation of scripture or theological proposition that I have or any church leader has somehow represents the mind and will of God.  My trust of the Lord is a trust that God loves me and that God loves life and creation.  I also have a trust that there is an inherent goodness that exists in the universe. 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

To me, trusting in the Lord doesn't mean I should trust that any interpretation of scripture or theological proposition that I have or any church leader has somehow represents the mind and will of God.  My trust of the Lord is a trust that God loves me and that God loves life and creation.  I also have a trust that there is an inherent goodness that exists in the universe. 

I think your trust in the Lord doesn't go far enough, or doesn't take enough into account, if you don't trust that God is and can continue to communicate personally with you.  I try to run every experience I have with anything by God so that together he and I can work out what I should glean and think about that particular experience.  That is my understanding of what it means to have prayer with God continually.  He actually shares his thoughts and feelings with me, and his thoughts and feelings that he shares with me "represent the mind and will of God" well enough to me that yes I am going to continue to think that they do, regardless of whether or not you think they do.

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think your trust in the Lord doesn't go far enough, or doesn't take enough into account, if you don't trust that God is and can continue to communicate personally with you.  I try to run every experience I have with anything by God so that together he and I can work out what I should glean and think about that particular experience.  That is my understanding of what it means to have prayer with God continually.  He actually shares his thoughts and feelings with me, and his thoughts and feelings that he shares with me "represent the mind and will of God" well enough to me that yes I am going to continue to think that they do, regardless of whether or not you think they do.

I feel good about our back and forth on this thread because I think we both understand each other better now, and I'm glad we could continue to engage on this subject.

In the same way that you think my trust for the Lord doesn't go far enough, I think your trust for the Lord goes too far.  I think you're at risk of misinterpreting your own ideas, thoughts, feelings as the will of God.  I think you're at risk of logical fallacies like confirmation bias, presentism, and so many other natural limitations to thought and reasoning.  

I'm trying to live my journey authentically, and there is something that I've expressed to many of my close friends and family about my faith journey that started three years ago for me and has drastically changed my perspectives about religion and my entire belief system.  The thing I've told them is that when this all started, I had a point early in the process where I was feeling extreme conflict in my mind and soul where I was really being torn up inside and didn't know what to do, and in that moment in spite of my feelings of betrayal towards the church and God and all that I had been taught, I had an epiphany.  This epiphany was a spiritual experience for me, just as powerful as any prior spiritual experiences I had earlier in my life as an orthodox believer, and this moment gave me great peace in the midst of all the conflict.  I felt loved and appreciated and accepted by a higher power.  I call this God, but I don't know what it was.  

Since that time I've had many insights and inspiration, honestly I think I've had more insight and inspiration than I used to have as an orthodox member sometimes just going through the motions of activity in my church callings. I've had so many more moments where the paths that I would need to take are so unclear.  Orthodox Mormonism is great in that it gives you a roadmap of where to go and how to live your life.  Heterodox Mormonism has no clear path of where to go, how to interact with family and friends and continue to foster the relationships that are so important.  What to do with my excess time and funds and resources.  All of these simple daily questions of life require decision making, and all my life I've used my intellect and my heart (spirit) to make decisions on what to do.  I still do this now.  It looks a little different, but I feel the same.  I hope this helps you understand better what my experience has been and how I identify at this time.  I'm sure I'll continue to learn and grow and change and I'm looking forward to that journey.  

Edited June 30, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What to do with my excess time and funds and resources.  All of these simple daily questions of life require decision making, and all my life I've used my intellect and my heart (spirit) to make decisions on what to do.  I still do this now.  It looks a little different, but I feel the same.  I hope this helps you understand better what my experience has been and how I identify at this time.  I'm sure I'll continue to learn and grow and change and I'm looking forward to that journey.  

Sounda much the same as what I am doing, with my own understanding expanded by all that God does to inspire me and reveal things to me that I may not even notice if I didn't think about God being there to help me and experience my experiences with me.

Knowing that he can be there for us and that we don't have to experience our lives without him makes a lot of difference to me and what I would experience without him.  Been there, done that, too.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sounda much the same as what I am doing, with my own understanding expanded by all that God does to inspire me and reveal things to me that I may not even notice if I didn't think about God being there to help me and experience my experiences with me.

Knowing that he can be there for us and that we don't have to experience our lives without him makes a lot of difference to me and what I would experience without him.  Been there, done that, too.

Nice, best of luck to you, and thanks for the dialogue.  

[canard78]

On 6/26/2016 at 1:54 PM, Glenn101 said:

The theology of prophets is the one we have had from the beginning. God never gave us a better theology of prophets. He continually called prophets from among fallible men from the very beginning. The Bible is rife with examples of prophets that erred in some manner or other. Some errors were great enough that the Lord issued a "course correction" to such prophets. Jonah was one such prophet of note. If not for the intervention  of his wife in the case of a circumcision, we might have had a new prophet of the exodus than Moses. Moses had many interactions with the Lord, direct revelations, yet could be advised by his father-in-law, Jethro in matters. Balaam was given several course corrections when the king of Moab tried to get him to curse the Children of Israel. In 1 Kings chapter 13, we read of a prophet  that was killed by a lion because the prophet disobeyed God, in a seemingly trivial (to us) matter. Noah became thoroughly intoxicated on at least one occasion. Isaac was deceived by his wife and son Jacob, in that he gave the birthright blessing that would have gone to Essau as the first born.  Joseph, the prophet, that was sold into Egypt presented his son Manasseh to his father for the birthright blessing ut was overridden by Israel/Jacob who gave the birthright blessing to Ephraim. Joseph Smith made mistakes. Allowing the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation is a good example. The Lord chastised him for it also. Fallible people are all that God has to work with here on this earth.

If we believe in prophets, in the restored, Gospel, we have to believe in God, to trust Him that He will not allow a prophet to lead His Church astray. Can we rely on that assurance? But what choices do we have? Can we devise a better theology ourselves? I mean, really, here we are, a bunch of fallible people trying to judge judge other fallible people. What better means can one propose than having prophets called of God and confirmed by the spirit of revelation?

Glenn

Thanks Glenn. I don't think there's any dispute that a prophet is not perfect in action. They, like all humans, make mistake. There's no possible alternative.

Your example of the 116 pages is an error of judgement on the part of Joseph. Was it, however, an error of doctrine or an inaccurate representation of God's will? 

The question from the interview is what does it mean when we say a prophet is called to speak for God. What do you think it means? Do you think it means that when a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God is speaking? Whether it was God who spoke, or if the prophet who spoke, would the words and messages we hear be identical?

Or does God give the leader of the LDS church the position of leadership to be His spokesperson? The prophet isn't speaking the exact words that God would speak. Instead, the Prophet is speaking his own words, his own beliefs and views, but has the authority to do that because God is happy for the prophet to be in that position of leadership and authority.

I don't think the message I took from the interview was about changing our view of whether a prophet is imperfect, but to develop a theology of what speaking for God actually means, in practice and reality.

[canard78]

On 6/26/2016 at 2:09 PM, Storm Rider said:

This is a great topic and has value as we grow in the restored Church of Jesus Christ.  I believe that all of the theology to understand that men are called of God to serve as prophets and apostles and how they serve is already taught.  For me, I consider the most important thing that the prophets and apostles to today is hold the Keys of the Priesthood - we are enabled to perform ordinances that are recognized on earth and in the eternities.  Without this fulfilling this role then Houston, we have a problem in a major way.

Do the leaders of the Mormon Church fulfill the definition of being a prophet and/or seer?  I define it as follows:

1. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”  Amos 3:7
2. A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth.  - If God is talking to the Church as a whole he will talk through his prophets/apostles
3. a prophet/apostle is a special witness to Jesus Christ.

4.  Mosiah 8:17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.  18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Addressing each point:

1. The prophets/apostles have added very little to the canon of the Church since the time of Joseph Smith.  If there are more secrets to reveal (which I strongly believe there are), God has not chosen to speak much in this area since Joseph.
2. Yes, I think our prophets and apostles represent God on earth and they address the Church officially twice a year in General Conference.  
3. Yes, they consistently testify of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.
4. No, I don't think they manifest this gift of revealing things past and future.  Miracles? Yes, in a subtle way that many will not recognize - they testify of Christ and through their ministry they assist in opening hearts to the Spirit that individuals may repent, be baptized, and live in faith.  No, they are not moving mountains, changing the flow of great rivers, or stopping the damage of earthquakes.

Prophets speak when moved upon by the Holy Spirit.  Too many people forget this qualifier defined in D&C 68 and think that a man called to serve as a prophet forfeits his free agency and becomes an automaton or dummy that God has placed his fingers to move the prophets mouth and out come the words of God.  They remain human in every sense of the word just as each of us are human.  They have the mantle upon their shoulders and the responsibility to speak when Holy Spirit is upon them.  

I think we can do a better job of explaining the role of being a prophet and apostle.  However, I think most of criticisms are leftovers from 50 years ago and earlier times and have very little to do with how the prophets and apostles speak of themselves today or even the last 50 years.  We are dealing with historical commentary and misunderstanding as well as Mormon culture.  Yet, it suffices as an example that teaching is never done once or twice, but requires to be repeated and then repeated some more to prevent individuals from creating false teachings, correcting misunderstandings, and informing the new members. 

 

Thanks for your detailed reply. 

Can I ask some follow up questions to your first list?

1. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”  Amos 3:7
2. A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth.  - If God is talking to the Church as a whole he will talk through his prophets/apostles
   • My question: How is that happening, on a practical level? Does the prophet formulate his own ideas and then take them to God in prayer? Or do ideas come into the prophet's mind spontaneously, not thoughts of his own? Or does God, or a messenger, physically visit and deliver that "secret?"
   • My issue with this doctrine is that the method the prophet uses for understanding God's "secrets" seems fairly unreliable. Is mixed race marriage a sin? Do black people carry the curse of cain? These were all "secrets" that the prophets taught as points of doctrine. Did they get it wrong? If so, why did they think they were teaching doctrine when they hadn't actually been taught that? How was it that the experience of them learning these false doctrines close enough to the experience of learning true doctrines so similar that they got the two mixed up? 
3. a prophet/apostle is a special witness to Jesus Christ.
   • I'm happy with that being part of what defines a prophet. I've not seen anything particularly distinctive in the way they do that, but the fact that they dedicate their full time life to being a witness of Jesus is pretty special. Having said that, it's not exclusive to Mormon leaders. Would you consider the Pope a prophet, given he's also a "full time" witness of Jesus Christ?
4.  Mosiah 8:17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.  18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.
   • I've not seen the prophets of this era actually able to do that. The only time I've seen that appear to happen is when the record is written in retrospect. Samuel, for example, did a great job of predicting things to come, but then we've not certainty that Samuel actually said what the Book of Mormon attributed to him. I've seen no examples of modern Mormon prophets doing that.

 

[canard78]

On 6/26/2016 at 6:52 PM, Avatar4321 said:

if you want an infallible prophet, you will be waiting a long time. I'd rather have an imperfect prophet than no prophet at all

Uhhh... where did I say I did?

The message of the interview, and my questions, was: given the prophet is undoubtedly fallible (in both action and teaching), how do we reconcile that with the belief in prophets leading the church and speaking for God.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 given the prophet is undoubtedly fallible (in both action and teaching), how do we reconcile that with the belief in prophets leading the church and speaking for God.

Like this:

Brigham Young
"Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.
It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not.  
He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.
It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still."
JD 4:297