I am confused. Can someone clarify

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

No, because I can't think of a case where I think they're wrong. The demand that this only matters if I call the prophet wrong seems silly first off given the limited things they speak on prophetically that aren't already pretty established beliefs and the problem of finding major mistakes.

My point is that it may be acceptable to question past prophets on historical teachings like race and the priesthood whereas it is not acceptable to question the current prophet on something like SSM. IOW- you can safely question a past prophet and notice their fallibility if the current prophet has already done so which means one is always expected to accept and follow the current prophet because they haven't been contradicted yet.

Therefore, if it's not acceptable to question the fallibility of a current prophet, then there is an attitude of infallibility granted to the current prophet.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

What about 3 Nephi 16:10?

It might not be taken from the earth, but it could be taken from a particular church.

I don't think of things in "Church" terms generally.  

The Church is a temporal construct founded in upstate New York under the laws of that state and a non-profit corporation.
What Joseph set up may have been within the auspices of a Church, but the Church as we know it will probably end one day, and the gospel and priesthood it contains continue on as the scripturally defined Church of Christ.

People forget that the Church was legally set up/taken down on numerous occasions:
April 6, 1830 in New York as the Church of Christ
1851 - incorporated under the laws of the State of Deseret as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
1887 - corporate Church legally dissolved
1916 - Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
1923 - Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (The 501c that the Church currently operates under)

So could the "Church" eventually be finished?  Sure.  There are several prophecies from our leaders about people being chosen out of the Church itself.
Doesn't mean a new Church, just an end to the usage of the earthly organization.  The "Church" into which we are baptized as a spiritual and authoritative representative of God will never be taken.  A new dispensation of priesthood, ordinances, and covenants will not become needed.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

My point is that it may be acceptable to question past prophets on historical teachings like race and the priesthood whereas it is not acceptable to question the current prophet on something like SSM. IOW- you can safely question a past prophet and notice their fallibility if the current prophet has already done so which means one is always expected to accept and follow the current prophet because they haven't been contradicted yet.

Therefore, if it's not acceptable to question the fallibility of a current prophet, then there is an attitude of infallibility granted to the current prophet.

There's no shortage of people questioning the prophet on SSM. Head over the BCC to see tons of examples. So I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable. If you mean at Church, don't you think that might have much more to do with most people in most wards agreeing with the prophet? Effectively all you're saying is that if most people agree with the prophet that entails an attitude of infallibility which is nonsense.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think most reasonable people will accept prophetic fallibility... in theory. They may even cite a past example. Old testament, New testament, maybe even D&C or later. But you cannot question a current prophet without being labeled as an apostate, or at least a trouble maker

When speaking to GA's did you cite an example of how the current prophet or teaching is wrong?

People will accept that prophets and apostles are not perfect. No one's perfect, right? But good luck trying to point out how you feel a current prophet is wrong without getting severe push-back.

Well said.  It seems to me that most of my fellow Mormons today will say that they completely accept that the prophet is not infallible.  But they can't/won't state any mistake that the prophets have made.

I can dismiss most of the troubling issues that have come up during the restoration by accepting that mistakes were made by our leaders.  My experience, however, is that most members would rather justify those issues, NOT as mistakes, but as the will of God manifested through our prophet but not understood by mortals.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Ask God

Do you ask God for all teachings in General Conference? The scriptures teach that revelation can take time, even years. Did you ask God about No Death, Flood, and many other topics? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My point is just that we accept science as reliable despite not being 95% accurate let alone infallible. It's a point that we don't require infallibility for reliability.

I don't accept experiments/papers that are non-replicable. 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you ask God for all teachings in General Conference? The scriptures teach that revelation can take time, even years.

Did you ask God about No Death, Flood, and many other topics? 

Personally I'm inclined to take the words of the prophets as true UNLESS there is a reason not to.
THEN I will pray over the things that concern me.

And yes, sometimes revelation takes years.  Faith is still a requirement prior to knowledge if I remember rightly.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 8/30/2017 at 10:24 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

LDS manual reviewed by the First Presidency teaches, "As you pray for inspiration, you should also confirm your feelings. For example, compare your decisions with the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets."  In General Conference Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find". The Gospel Topics website states, "Each Gospel Topic includes a brief overview sharing what Latter-day Saints believe about the topic". Right after a "No Death before Fall" talk Gordon B Hinckley confirmed, " The speakers have been inspired, every one of them". I also quoted a Testimony on Mormon.org on "No Death", it probably means many Mormons in the wards have a testimony about it. 

I always confirm my revelations (thoughts or ideas that come to my mind) in the scriptures, general conference, gospel topics, and church manuals, that is the only way it works for me. However, Robert told me "Most people just don't take that approach -- except for evangelical fundamentalist christians, who do not believe in the seeking the Holy Spirit, but who instead believe that they can suss everything out through application of ordinary understanding of mere words spoken or in print."  

 Many here are telling me that some church teachings like The great flood, no death, Book of Mormon historical, traditional marriage could be wrong. If so how am I suppose to know what is inspired and what is not inspired? If many General Conference teachings are wrong then do we even have Conference? Why do we read church manuals and the scriptures? Why do we read the Gospel Topics?

I believe General Conference is inspired by God, so can someone please help me understand how is General Conference a guide if we start to assume that some teachings could be wrong? If some teachings are wrong I don't see how it can be reliable 

 

I'm with you....no death before fall IS Mormon doctrine...the church teaches this took place approximately 6,000 years ago

[rodheadlee]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm with you....no death before fall IS Mormon doctrine...the church teaches this took place approximately 6,000 years ago

Um yeah, in the Garden of Eden.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/31/2017 at 3:23 PM, jkwilliams said:

Seems a bit nebulous. When does one know that getting big things wrong has not ventured into apostasy?

That's like asking if psychology ventured into apostasy because of phrenology.

It got better, so what? 

Uh oh.   I have responded to you.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't accept experiments/papers that are non-replicable. 

 

So why did you marry your wife?

The most important decisions in life are non-replicable.

This is really interesting because that is exactly what atheists say- there is no replicable evidence for God

Edited September 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/1/2017 at 7:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

So why did you marry your wife?

The most important decisions in life are non-replicable.

I think there is a difference between fact and opinion. Would you take a new medicine that hasn't been tested for a simple common cold virus?    

On 9/1/2017 at 7:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is really interesting because that is exactly what atheists say- there is no replicable evidence for God

The scriptures testify there is a God.  Elder Eyring taught, "The truth that matters most is verified only by revelation from God. Our human reason and the use of our physical senses will not be enough...The Lord taught His Apostle Thomas, who wanted physical evidence of the Savior’s Resurrection by touching His wounds, that revelation is safer evidence"

Edited September 3, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[katherine the great]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think there is a difference between fact and opinion. Would you take a new medicine that hasn't been tested for a simple common cold virus?    

I wouldn't because there aren't any anti viral medications for the common cold.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I think there is a difference between fact and opinion. Would you take a new medicine that hasn't been tested for a simple common cold virus?    

The scriptures testify there is a God.  Elder Eyring taught, "The truth that matters most is verified only by revelation from God. Our human reason and the use of our physical senses will not be enough...The Lord taught His Apostle Thomas, who wanted physical evidence of the Savior’s Resurrection by touching His wounds, that revelation is safer evidence"

Scriptures are not physical evidence!

Elder Eyring is exactly right, he said that making the same point I am trying to make. Testing a common cold virus is not the same as receiving revelation. One is dependent upon science the other is dependent upon the spirit. Both can give us truth but it is a different kind of Truth than the other.

Scriptures do not give us facts about the world they give us truth that we need in order to live according to God's plan. That is why sometimes the scriptures appear to be in conflict with science but they are not really because they are speaking of a different subject. The parable of of Noah for example is to teach us to trust in God not to tell us that there was a worldwide flood. It is not important If there really was a worldwide flood or not but what is important is that we learn the principle of trusting in the Lord.

What science teaches is verified by the senses. That is exactly what Elder Eyring is talking about. The evidence for scripture is found in the heart it is much more reliable for the heart's purposes.

Edited September 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I wouldn't because there aren't any anti viral medications for the common cold.

Oh you of little faith!

 

[thesometimesaint]

On 8/30/2017 at 9:24 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

LDS manual reviewed by the First Presidency teaches, "As you pray for inspiration, you should also confirm your feelings. For example, compare your decisions with the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets."  In General Conference Elder Andersen taught "True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find". The Gospel Topics website states, "Each Gospel Topic includes a brief overview sharing what Latter-day Saints believe about the topic". Right after a "No Death before Fall" talk Gordon B Hinckley confirmed, " The speakers have been inspired, every one of them". I also quoted a Testimony on Mormon.org on "No Death", it probably means many Mormons in the wards have a testimony about it. 

I always confirm my revelations (thoughts or ideas that come to my mind) in the scriptures, general conference, gospel topics, and church manuals, that is the only way it works for me. However, Robert told me "Most people just don't take that approach -- except for evangelical fundamentalist christians, who do not believe in the seeking the Holy Spirit, but who instead believe that they can suss everything out through application of ordinary understanding of mere words spoken or in print."  

 Many here are telling me that some church teachings like The great flood, no death, Book of Mormon historical, traditional marriage could be wrong. If so how am I suppose to know what is inspired and what is not inspired? If many General Conference teachings are wrong then do we even have Conference? Why do we read church manuals and the scriptures? Why do we read the Gospel Topics?

I believe General Conference is inspired by God, so can someone please help me understand how is General Conference a guide if we start to assume that some teachings could be wrong? If some teachings are wrong I don't see how it can be reliable 

 

Because we don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal man/woman. Do I believe that inspiration come to man from God? Yes, but inspiration is not infallibility. IE; I believe God inspired Beethoven to write his beautiful music. But that doesn't mean that other music isn't inspired by God also.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What science teaches is verified by the senses.

and that is why I don't believe in non-replicable papers. Thanks for clarifying for me  

[thesometimesaint]

HUH? We can't replicate the conditions in the sun. So the sun can't exist?

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

and that is why I don't believe in non-replicable papers. Thanks for clarifying for me  

So you don't believe in the spirit then. I see why you are confused

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

So you don't believe in the spirit then. I see why you are confused

 

For Science I don't believe in non-replicable papers. For Church I believe in the spirit. See the difference? 

[thesometimesaint]

You are entitles to believe anything you want. However the sun exists whether you believe in its non-replicability in science papers of it or not.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

For Science I don't believe in non-replicable papers. For Church I believe in the spirit. See the difference? 

OK fine then that is why I have been saying

So there is no need then to believe the earth is 6,000 years old because that is science.

That God created it for us, that we may fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein, is confirmed by the spirit and that is a religious belief.  See the difference?

HOW God created people can be verified by science

WHY God created people can only be verified by the spirit.   When we confuse the two we get the nonsense of the Scopes trial, etc.

Edited September 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

HOW God created people can be verified by science

WHY God created people can only be verified by the spirit.   When we confuse the two we get the nonsense of the Scopes trial, etc.

Or God simply made our world appear to be godless with millions of years of death and evolution to test our faith. It is a philosophical idea, some Mormon intellectuals argue for "divinely approved deception".

If Science is How and Religion is Why, please tell me how God used millions of years of Evolution? How do mutations work under a plan? Science has a rational explanation for the formation rivers, mountains, earth, please show me where is God or How in Science

Edited September 5, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Or God simply made our world appear to be godless with millions of years of death and evolution to test our faith. It is a philosophical idea, some Mormon intellectuals argue for "divinely approved deception".

If Science is How and Religion is Why, please tell me how God used millions of years of Evolution? How do mutations work under a plan? Science has a rational explanation for the formation rivers, mountains, earth, please show me where is God or How in Science

Study science then.

You are the only one confused here, and you are not here to learn, only preach. 

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still

Name one Mormon "intellectual" who thinks the Bible is science

Edited September 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Study science then.

You are the only one confused here, and you are not here to learn, only preach. 

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still

Name one Mormon "intellectual" who thinks the Bible is science

No, the Bible is not science. See new thread