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

[canard78]

13 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

I have a question.

In the 1940s Dr Lowry Nelson wrote to the first presidency in attempt to engage in a discussion about the doctrines taught about why blacks were banned from the priesthood and why mixed race marriage was prohibited. In reply, the first presidency repeated the doctrines of pre-existence having an influence on race and privileges. The first presidency also told him that mixed race marriage was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.

Nelson wrote again, challenging their perspectives and received a reproving reply for not getting in line with the "revealed word of God."

Recently a "divinely approved source" disavowed the doctrines taught in those first presidency statements.

So tell me, Bobbie, who had the spirit of discernment in that particular exchange? Dr Nelson? Or the First Presidency?

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I have a question.

In the 1940s Dr Lowry Nelson wrote to the first presidency in attempt to engage in a discussion about the doctrines taught about why blacks were banned from the priesthood and why mixed race marriage was prohibited. In reply, the first presidency repeated the doctrines of pre-existence having an influence on race and privileges. The first presidency also told him that mixed race marriage was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.

Nelson wrote again, challenging their perspectives and received a reproving reply for not getting in line with the "revealed word of God."

Recently a "divinely approved source" disavowed the doctrines taught in those first presidency statements.

So tell me, Bobbie, who had the spirit of discernment in that particular exchange? Dr Nelson? Or the First Presidency?

As I"ve commented on this board many times in the past, the word disavow has many shades of intensity of meaning, a fact well-known in the legal world. And a careful reading of the Church letter you reference only indicates that the Church presently disavows the EXPLANATIONS as to why there was a ban, it does not reject the legitimacy of the ban itself. This is why the letter goes on to assert that a revelation was needed to lift the ban, and also why the letter makes it clear the lifting of the ban was a fulfillment of prophecy that one day the ban would come to an end. It's obvious to me the letter was very carefully crafted in order to say that while the Church does not clearly understand the reasons why the ban was instituted, the ban itself was divinely-ordained and was lifted by revelation in fulfillment of a long-promised prophecy.

The way you've interpreted the letter is based on wishful thinking; you see what you want to see in order to validate your position. When one wants to come to a soundly-reasoned knowledge of the truth on any particular doctrine or issue, it's important, as much as possible, that emotion be put aside as all the facts at hand are dispassionately considered and analyzed.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Which ones specifically? You think other church leaders don't seek the guidance of God? 

 

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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.

Based on what? Your only basis for making that determination seems to be personal prejudice. 

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

As I"ve commented on this board many times in the past, the word disavow has many shades of intensity of meaning, a fact well-known in the legal world. And a careful reading of the Church letter you reference only indicates that the Church presently disavows the EXPLANATIONS as to why there was a ban, it does not reject the legitimacy of the ban itself. This is why the letter goes on to assert that a revelation was needed to lift the ban, and also why the letter makes it clear the lifting of the ban was a fulfillment of prophecy that one day the ban would come to an end. It's obvious to me the letter was very carefully crafted in order to say that while the Church does not clearly understand the reasons why the ban was instituted, the ban itself was divinely-ordained and was lifted by revelation in fulfillment of a long-promised prophecy.

The way you've interpreted the letter is based on wishful thinking; you see what you want to see in order to validate your position. When one wants to come to a soundly-reasoned knowledge of the truth on any particular doctrine or issue, it's important, as much as possible, that emotion be put aside as all the facts at hand are dispassionately considered and analyzed.

You're mixing things up. There's an essay, not a letter, on lds.org

Are you saying that the doctrines taught in the 1947 letter (linked in my previous doctrine) were correct doctrines in their entirety? For example, is mixed-race marriage still "repugnant" in the eyes of God?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

I have a question.

In the 1940s Dr Lowry Nelson wrote to the first presidency in attempt to engage in a discussion about the doctrines taught about why blacks were banned from the priesthood and why mixed race marriage was prohibited. In reply, the first presidency repeated the doctrines of pre-existence having an influence on race and privileges. The first presidency also told him that mixed race marriage was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.

Nelson wrote again, challenging their perspectives and received a reproving reply for not getting in line with the "revealed word of God."

Recently a "divinely approved source" disavowed the doctrines taught in those first presidency statements.

So tell me, Bobbie, who had the spirit of discernment in that particular exchange? Dr Nelson? Or the First Presidency?

The issue isn’t one of discernment. If you look closely at the available correspondence, the issue is one of being able to function properly in priesthood council. The correspondence allows a virtual council to take place.

Nelson was asked to share his sociological expertise and opinion, which he did in a way, but by offering far more than he was asked or was warranted.

He was asked his opinion about the advisability of doing missionary work where there were practical limits for Church development imposed by the Church’s concept of the blacks holding priesthood and its additional lack of appeal due to competing religion and superstition. He should have given it. But instead, he first and foremost shared his disagreement with and condemnation of the Church’s teaching and policy. He sets up sociological standards of brotherhood, the universal God, world peace, etc. (admitting his “limited study”), shares some observations from his visits, and then shares the opinion that missionary work would be a disservice.

But he then writes a separate letter to President Smith despite copying him on the first reply to Meeks. How gauche! He sets up a false dichotomy (perform a great service vs. promoting racial distinction), and suggests that his vision of “love and harmony” is superior.

President Smith acknowledges the tension between educators’ take on interracial marriage and Church doctrine (at the time). He is not saying who is “right” or “wrong” on this subject, only laying out the facts and clarifying what the Church councils have accepted.

And then Nelson doesn’t seem to know when to quit, and defends his position with a tirade from a professional and sociological perspective. He uses this to speak of progress, change, institutional resistance to change, ethnocentrism, etc. and hypocritically infuses gospel principles with his own “aura of the sacred.”

It is fine that he wants to be understood, set down the steps in his thinking, be honest, disagrees, etc. … and even rant --everything we see unhappy members do on this board! But he was understood in council already (in the first letter), and that was all that was asked on him. The problem isn’t that he had ideas to share, or even a certain kind of "discernment," but that he did so outside the spirit and process of council, and in an escalating spirit of contention.

Nelson needed to be reminded that if he felt the doctrines of the Church are not true, there is a safe place where that can be discussed (in council), and a place where one-way discussion becomes apostasy.

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

You're mixing things up. There's an essay, not a letter, on lds.org

Are you saying that the doctrines taught in the 1947 letter (linked in my previous doctrine) were correct doctrines in their entirety? For example, is mixed-race marriage still "repugnant" in the eyes of God?

 

I'm sorry, I forgot the piece is an essay and not a letter.

Though it grates against today's politically correct sensibilities, the answer to your last question is yes. If a man married interracially during the time the ban was in place, he would have deprived himself -- and his posterity -- of the right to hold the holy priesthood and the right to the fullness of eternal glory that holding the priesthood affords.

But just as many of the strict prohibitions that existed under the law of Moses were lifted at the time of Christ's sacrifice and glorious resurrection, when a previous dispensation of truth administered under the law of Moses came to an end, similarly, we are now operating under a new paradigm as the edict of a former time has passed away and all things have become new.

 If you will recall, there was a time when a Nephite could not marry a Lamanite without bringing himself -- and his posterity -- under the condemnation of the curse the Lord placed upon the Lamanites. But many years later things changed when the Lamanites and Nephites became one people under God. In fact, during the first decades after the resurrected Lord visited his American people the merger of the Nephites and Lamanites became so complete that we are told there were no longer "any manner of 'ites'" because formerly separated peoples were all one children of God. For those with the spiritual eyes to see, sacred history has simply repeated itself in our day.

But here's the bottom line: Until the spiritually blind come to realize the mystery that God's curses are great blessings in disguise, and that a far greater ultimate good for all will eventually come about as a consequence of a given curse, they will continue to be flummoxed as they kick against the pricks. And if you believe what I'm saying is nonsense, just remember the greatest divine curse in disguise Is the fall of the race of Adam; for without the great curse that came upon the entire human race through the transgression and fall of father Adam, there would be no hope for eternal glory and endless happiness.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Eek!]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 7:11 AM, Glenn101 said:

I see something as plausible as the leaders of the church being killed.

I agree, that is plausible.