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

[canard78]

On 6/26/2016 at 4:23 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes.

Yes.

Others have address this point above. I would add that people intimately familiar with revelation in their personal lives are less likely to be tripped up by the fact that God communicates to and through other human beings.

Prophets are not gods, so one can't have a 'theology' of them, but to answer the question as I suspect you intended it, no, we just need to understand and take seriously the one we already have.

Your third point comes across as being quite condescending, but perhaps that wasn't your intention, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I spent 30+ years being "intimately familiar" with the Mormon experience of personal revelation. Is a prophet's experience of receiving revelation any different to the method Mormons teach primary children, the youth, an 18-year old Melchizedek priesthood holder giving a blessing?

I'd willingly accept that there is no difference at all. I don't see any evidence of prophets having any superior source of divine will and word than the method the rest of the membership is using.

Saying that, I don't think that's what mainstream Mormonism does teach. I think if you read the chapter, for example, in Gospel Principles on the role and truth-speaking abilities of prophet, then I think you'd find a description of something very different.

[Storm Rider]

47 minutes ago, canard78 said:

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?"  Yes.  I think all three things occur.  God has never had a prophet on earth whose purpose was to reveal all that God knows and has to teach God's children.  He has revealed a little bit at a time - sometimes he has gone forward one step only to have to go back two steps.  Humanity has proved not to be very faithful and their unfaithfulness has limited what God can do with us throughout history.  There are times when God reveals specific things to be done at a specific time - Moses comes to mind among others.  At other times prophets are been more administrators striving to implement what has been given - the early Apostles where like this as much as our apostles today.  In the administering phase we see a lot of man doing what he thinks is best, rather than being led in all things by God - Peter comes to mind and the transition of teaching the Jews to teaching the world.  At other times an angel or heavenly being, Spirit comes upon a prophet and commands him.  God appears to use all of the above.  
   • 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? You are stretching here in order to fit your agenda.  Your definition of secrets does compare to what I think of such.  Men think everyone needs to be circumcised in order to enter the Kingdom of God; yet, that was not from God.  It was just Peter striving to do what he thought was right.  Being called as a prophet does not require forfeiting one's free agency.  (The flip side of this coin is that they are also responsible for their actions - nope don't want to be in those shoes when it comes time to report and prophets have to explain why they did what they did).  Men serve in the capacity of prophets and they remain men.  It seems like we need to be reminded of that consistently for two main reasons:  1)  to keep us from elevating prophets above their station, and 2) to ensure that we never think it is acceptable to forfeit our own responsibility to find and live God's teachings.  
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?  You are conflating different contexts of the term.  I consider anyone that has received a revelation that Jesus is the Christ to be a prophet as Revelation defines it.  The prophet is a calling and this individual holds the keys of the priesthood.  I believe God calls many people to serve as prophets, the pope being one, just as he calls other individuals to fulfill a great work on his behalf.  God is working through all people and religions to subtly soften the hearts of his children to turn toward him.

1.  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.  I agree.  We have not had anyone since Joseph serve as a seer though they have been called as such.  When we have need of a seer then we will see such work again on the earth.  I see the leaders of the Church being more Kingdom administrators than expanding doctrine, revealing new truths, etc.  I think we have been told as much - we still have not learn to live the fundamentals of the Church and until such time as we magnify these truths we will not be given more.  We are judged by the truths we are given, know, and live.  Do we really want to be held accountable for even more when we have such a need to lengthen our stride?  

 

 

[Avatar4321]

Been thinking about this. What is our theology of prophets?

 

It's that every man, woman, and child can become a prophet in their own right and receive Revelation for their own life and for matters under their stewardship. The fact that the first presidency and twelve are prophets, seers, and revelation for the Church does not change the fact that we are supposed to become prophets as well.

When we as individuals embrace that aspect of our theology, we will see the church grow leaps and bounds

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Been thinking about this. What is our theology of prophets?

 

It's that every man, woman, and child can become a prophet in their own right and receive Revelation for their own life and for matters under their stewardship. The fact that the first presidency and twelve are prophets, seers, and revelation for the Church does not change the fact that we are supposed to become prophets as well.

When we as individuals embrace that aspect of our theology, we will see the church grow leaps and bounds

Well when we're given the okay, sure!

[thatjimguy]

Quote

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

 

Yes, this is why you have to use the spirit to confirm something they say. Always.

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

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.

 I cited the situation with the 116 pages as an example of a course correction when a prophet has erred, It was not a doctrinal issue, as such. There have been few doctrinal revelations since the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most have been new policies, changes to policies, or clarification or emphasis on current policies or doctrines. For example, the recent re-emphasis on keeping the Sabbath Day Holy was the result of a revelation. I will try to find the actual quote if a CFR is required. It is obvious that the prophets do not always speak the actual words of the Lord, nor do they claim to do so.

I doubt that any present of past leader of the church will claim that every policy, idea, opinion, etc. that came from them while at the head of the church was via actual revelation. They use their knowledge, experience, wisdom, etc. in many things without seeking direct revelation, although they seek inspiration and guidance from the Lord on a daily basis. But when thorny issues present themselves, they will seek revelation from the Lord. Sometimes, I expect that the Lord will interject something without them asking a specific question, such as the Sabbath observance. That one is non-controversial, so no one gives it a second thought.

When developing a theology of what speaking for God means, we need to look to the scriptures. The theology has already been established. We just nee to try to understand and heed it. When a prophet declares that he is speaking the mind and will of God that has been revealed to him, we need to take note of that. An example being the revelation to President Woodruff ending the practice of polygamy here on this earth.

We do have the right to gain our personal confirmation. However, we do need to spend as much time and effort in reaching that confirmation as those who revealed the revelation. There were those who disagreed with President Woodruff, but I don't think there are many LDS today who would disagree with it.

I don't know what would happen if President Monson came forward at General Conference and stated that he had received a revelation restoring the practice.

Glenn

 

[Glenn101]

On 6/29/2016 at 7:40 PM, 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 see something as plausible as the leaders of the church being killed.

Glenn

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

 

Yes, this is why you have to use the spirit to confirm something they say. Always.

in other words, you become a prophet too

[thatjimguy]

17 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

in other words, you become a prophet too

Not with any keys or anything of the sort, but enough to know if something is right or wrong. If not, what good is it to confer with the Holy Spirit?

 

[JLHPROF]

On 7/2/2016 at 6:09 AM, Glenn101 said:

When a prophet declares that he is speaking the mind and will of God that has been revealed to him, we need to take note of that. An example being the revelation to President Woodruff ending the practice of polygamy here on this earth.

There were those who disagreed with President Woodruff, but I don't think there are many LDS today who would disagree with it.

I don't know what would happen if President Monson came forward at General Conference and stated that he had received a revelation restoring the practice.

Oh, I know exactly what would happen.  And so do you.

[canard78]

21 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

in other words, you become a prophet too

 

4 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Not with any keys or anything of the sort, but enough to know if something is right or wrong. If not, what good is it to confer with the Holy Spirit?

 

So if the spirit tells me the prophets have erred in their position on a whole variety of doctrines... what's the problem? False read? Or unreliable method?

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

So if the spirit tells me the prophets have erred in their position on a whole variety of doctrines... what's the problem? False read? Or unreliable method?

Then live by what the spirit tells you. It is still between you and God. As long as you allow me the same right we're good.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

So if the spirit tells me the prophets have erred in their position on a whole variety of doctrines... what's the problem? False read? Or unreliable method?

Prophets, by definition, are men who speak for God by sharing whatever God reveals to them.

Perhaps you are thinking of something else when you use the word prophet.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I know exactly what would happen.  And so do you.

Yeah, I guess I do. In general terms.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

 

So if the spirit tells me the prophets have erred in their position on a whole variety of doctrines... what's the problem? False read? Or unreliable method?

 You are bringing up the semi-vicious circle problem here. And really that is what is the crux of the matter, the crux of the problem. There are scores of people who claim that their personal revelations are at variance with revelations from the First Presidency.

When there is a variance, it stands to reason there was a "false read" on the part of one or the other. I have never received a personal revelation confirming a single one of those variances.

I respect the time and effort the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency spend in seeking inspiration and revelation for the church. I do believe that all too often a disagreement with something that comes from the leadership is a gut reaction and that gut reaction colors how a person approaches praying about the subject.

We need to be seeking the truth when we pray, but too often we seek an answer that coincides with our own assumptions about the way things should be. I know that I have been guilty of that, and I have paid for it, in more way than one.

Maybe we can take a lesson from the Book? of Enos in the Book of Mormon. The lengths that Enos went through to get an answer to his prayers. The answer to Enos was unequivocal. He did not have to wonder if it was a false read. That is the type of revelation I would have to have to go against a pronouncement from the leadership.

Glenn

[canard78]

On 7/3/2016 at 8:28 PM, Glenn101 said:

 You are bringing up the semi-vicious circle problem here. And really that is what is the crux of the matter, the crux of the problem. There are scores of people who claim that their personal revelations are at variance with revelations from the First Presidency.

When there is a variance, it stands to reason there was a "false read" on the part of one or the other. I have never received a personal revelation confirming a single one of those variances.

I respect the time and effort the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency spend in seeking inspiration and revelation for the church. I do believe that all too often a disagreement with something that comes from the leadership is a gut reaction and that gut reaction colors how a person approaches praying about the subject.

We need to be seeking the truth when we pray, but too often we seek an answer that coincides with our own assumptions about the way things should be. I know that I have been guilty of that, and I have paid for it, in more way than one.

Maybe we can take a lesson from the Book? of Enos in the Book of Mormon. The lengths that Enos went through to get an answer to his prayers. The answer to Enos was unequivocal. He did not have to wonder if it was a false read. That is the type of revelation I would have to have to go against a pronouncement from the leadership.

Glenn

Exactly Glenn. This is the problem of the whole model. The 12 & 1st Presidency are just as mortal as you and I. They see through the same glass, darkly. 

The fact that the majority of the rest of the world sees truth differently to them suggests to me that things aren't working as approach. In fact, never mind the rest of the world, the fact that two prophets can reach different doctrinal conclusions suggests the model isn't working.

As an approach for guiding your own decisions, it's probably the only possible option. Even people who consider themselves "rational" and who have no religious belief have to, at some point, make decisions based on what they feel is right. Mfbukowski's Rorty video says as much.

But as a method for leading an organisation... it's unreliable.

[Gray]

On 7/2/2016 at 7:09 AM, Glenn101 said:

I don't know what would happen if President Monson came forward at General Conference and stated that he had received a revelation restoring the practice.

Glenn

 

I suspect most active members of the church would leave. 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

Exactly Glenn. This is the problem of the whole model. The 12 & 1st Presidency are just as mortal as you and I. They see through the same glass, darkly. 

The fact that the majority of the rest of the world sees truth differently to them suggests to me that things aren't working as approach. In fact, never mind the rest of the world, the fact that two prophets can reach different doctrinal conclusions suggests the model isn't working.

As an approach for guiding your own decisions, it's probably the only possible option. Even people who consider themselves "rational" and who have no religious belief have to, at some point, make decisions based on what they feel is right. Mfbukowski's Rorty video says as much.

But as a method for leading an organisation... it's unreliable.

We have no other method of leading an organization that is supposed to be headed by God. By taking continuing revelation out of the picture, we have achieved over 39000 different Christian denominations. And even in the mainstream denominations, there have been doctrinal changes. There have been accommodations and reconciliations by committee(s) rather than revelation. At one time, the different mainstream Christian Denominations were adamant that their respective denomination was the one only true church and everyone else was going to hell. However they generally state that members of other denominations will be able to make it to heaven now.  The Catholic church did not recognize baptisms from protestant churches until the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1962 to 1965.

I think that the method of prophets receiving revelation for the Church from God is a much more reliable process than the scene that existed prior to the restoration of the Gospel.

 

Glenn

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

We have no other method of leading an organization that is supposed to be headed by God. By taking continuing revelation out of the picture, we have achieved over 39000 different Christian denominations. And even in the mainstream denominations, there have been doctrinal changes. There have been accommodations and reconciliations by committee(s) rather than revelation. At one time, the different mainstream Christian Denominations were adamant that their respective denomination was the one only true church and everyone else was going to hell. However they generally state that members of other denominations will be able to make it to heaven now.  The Catholic church did not recognize baptisms from protestant churches until the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1962 to 1965.

I think that the method of prophets receiving revelation for the Church from God is a much more reliable process than the scene that existed prior to the restoration of the Gospel.

 

Glenn

When other organizations make changes to doctrine, they're "accommodations and reconciliations by committee(s) rather than revelation"? But not in the LDS church? Doesn't sound like a fair read on the situation. 

Quote

By taking continuing revelation out of the picture, we have achieved over 39000 different Christian denominations.

There are many Mormon denominations as well.

[Bobbieaware]

On June 26, 2016 at 5:40 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/

 

The only thing the Church needs are members who enjoy the same spirit of prophecy the General Authorities enjoy. When an individual comes to possess the spirit of revelation, in his own right, the veil of spiritual blindness is lifted and he immediately comes to realize the Church is now, and always has been, awash in the spirit of revelation. But when one does not personally possess the spirit of prophecy and revelation, the aforementioned veil remains drawn tightly shut and all seems spiritually silent and empty. This is why the Lord said each member must have a sufficient supply of the Spirit in each of their 'lamps.' We cannot be spiritually aware and healthy if we do not possess the same divine Spirit enjoyed by the angels and the Lord's apostles. When a rank and file member receives revelation on a continual basis, he can easily discern the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are filled with a spirit of revelation more than sufficient to lead the Church to eternal glory in our own day.

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

When other organizations make changes to doctrine, they're "accommodations and reconciliations by committee(s) rather than revelation"? But not in the LDS church? Doesn't sound like a fair read on the situation. 

 

There are many Mormon denominations as well.

There was no claim to revelation in those accommodations and reconciliations. The LDS leaders claim that the revelations fro God. 

Truly there have been several schisms from the LDS Church. That is not the point. My point is that I will take the LDS model as more reliable than the models followed by the 39000 plus other Christian denominations. That is my choice. Yours may be different.

 

Glenn

[nobcis]

Concerning prophets being called in these modern times I have been wondering whether the mandate of these prophets is to the Church or to the entire world. The reason I bring this up is during general conference or whenever the prophets and apostles speak, their message seem to be directed at members of the church. Majority of the world do not even know of their existence... is this how it was intended to be? 

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Truly there have been several schisms from the LDS Church.

And by several we mean somewhere around 100 at this point since the foundation of the Church in 1830.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, nobcis said:

Concerning prophets being called in these modern times I have been wondering whether the mandate of these prophets is to the Church or to the entire world. The reason I bring this up is during general conference or whenever the prophets and apostles speak, their message seem to be directed at members of the church. Majority of the world do not even know of their existence... is this how it was intended to be? 

Prophets/ members of the Church generally share their knowledge with others while inviting those others to "come and see" what members experience in membership meetings, so wherever members are gathered for general meetings there are usually visitors/ investigators in attendance.

Thus, the only things visitors/ investigators don't generally see in the Church are the things that go on in the non-general meetings... meetings in which only the people in specific callings are gathered in those meetings to see.

And yes this is the way it is meant to be.

[canard78]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We have no other method of leading an organization that is supposed to be headed by God. By taking continuing revelation out of the picture, we have achieved over 39000 different Christian denominations. And even in the mainstream denominations, there have been doctrinal changes. There have been accommodations and reconciliations by committee(s) rather than revelation. At one time, the different mainstream Christian Denominations were adamant that their respective denomination was the one only true church and everyone else was going to hell. However they generally state that members of other denominations will be able to make it to heaven now.  The Catholic church did not recognize baptisms from protestant churches until the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1962 to 1965.

I think that the method of prophets receiving revelation for the Church from God is a much more reliable process than the scene that existed prior to the restoration of the Gospel.

Glenn

All that happened is that Joseph created number 39,001. Then Brigham and James Strang created 39,002 and 39,003... and that's before we start counting the dozens other Mormon factions.

The Mormon model has little actual difference compared to others. A single man, or group of men, consider the situation, discuss and even debate the options, then reach a conclusion and implement it. Do you consider the 1978 race ban reversal to be revelation? Have you read a description of the process the leadership went through? It was an extensive series of group discussions and deliberations. At the end of it they prayed together and got a reassurance that they were doing the right thing. 

Mormon doctrine and policy is framed by the questions its leaders are willing to consider and explore. Their personal views and biases shape the principles they consider and their own views influence the answer they are willing or able to receive.

Your so-called reliable method is no more reliable than any other approach a church takes given it is, ultimately, the same.

I see Gray has already responded in a similar message.