Was Noah Really a "Preacher of Righteousness"?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Regardless of hobbyist opinions and random general authority utterings...

Do the correlated materials and resources of the official Church education programmes - seminary, institute, Primary, Adult Gospel doctrine lessons etc teach anything other than a literal, global flood that wiped out all of humanity except the eight people and animals on the boat?

Yes or no?

I provided you with excellent scriptural references which you refused to look at.  A conversation must work both ways -- a two way street -- otherwise you will never even make marginal gains.  You also need to admit when you are wrong.  You are bound and determined to have a one way diatribe, instead of an open discussion.  That usually means a lack of substance and sincerity on that side.  Your mind appears to be as closed as a steel trap.

[Marginal Gains]

23 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Regardless of hobbyist opinions and random general authority utterings...

Do the correlated materials and resources of the official Church education programmes - seminary, institute, Primary, Adult Gospel doctrine lessons etc teach anything other than a literal, global flood that wiped out all of humanity except the eight people and animals on the boat?

Yes or no?

 

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I provided you with excellent scriptural references which you refused to look at.  A conversation must work both ways -- a two way street -- otherwise you will never even make marginal gains.  You also need to admit when you are wrong.  You are bound and determined to have a one way diatribe, instead of an open discussion.  That usually means a lack of substance and sincerity on that side.  Your mind appears to be as closed as a steel trap.

It’s not my mind we are talking about. I’m not debating around what I think about Noah and the Flood, I’m talking about what the institutional Church teaches on the subject. Your interpretation of scripture, Book of Mormon Central’s hobbyists interpretation of scripture, are not relevant to this point. It’s what is in the correlated teaching of the Church - and that is solely the flood was literal, global, wiped out all but 8 of humanity etc. You could argue that all explicit Church teachings are to be taken with a pinch of salt and members are free to accept them at face value or not. But what you can’t say is that your interpretation of a scripture reflects the correlated official position of the Church.

[MormonMason]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:45 AM, ksfisher said:

I'm afraid I'm a real doubting Thomas on the idea of rocks having any sort of intelligence.  Same with mud.

I try to keep an open mind on this. In my way of thinking intelligence is equivalent to what physicists refer to as energy.  It varies in content from substance to substance.

Experiments with photons sometimes show them making apparent choices and they have been seen acting according to how they are observed.  Observation can affect the outcome of the observation during experiments, photons even appearing to do what one wants them to do or designs the experiment for them to do.  Photons are quantum packets of energy.  It's wierd stuff.

Since energy is bound up in matter in varying degrees in all substances it's an open question to me.

Edited April 27, 2018 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/27/2018 at 1:14 AM, Marginal Gains said:

It’s not my mind we are talking about. I’m not debating around what I think about Noah and the Flood, I’m talking about what the institutional Church teaches on the subject. Your interpretation of scripture, Book of Mormon Central’s hobbyists interpretation of scripture, are not relevant to this point. It’s what is in the correlated teaching of the Church - and that is solely the flood was literal, global, wiped out all but 8 of humanity etc. You could argue that all explicit Church teachings are to be taken with a pinch of salt and members are free to accept them at face value or not. But what you can’t say is that your interpretation of a scripture reflects the correlated official position of the Church.

So you feel free to make your opinion about what an institution has published, while ignoring Holy Scripture.  How did you get your priorities so upside down and backward?

I showed you how your assumptions were completely false in a number of cases -- you were not even capable of using the LDS Bible Dictionary "Chronology" section accurately.  Did that realization humble you at all?  No.  You simply ignored your own ignorance and proceeded to hector me and others based on your imaginary version of reality.  Your narrow and superficial ranting is not the same as reasoned discussion of actual facts.  Why are you afraid of the reasonable give and take on this board?  I assure you that you can actually make more than just marginal gains if you will only inject some sincerity into the discussion.  Discussions are always a two-way street, or do you reject that also?

Edited April 28, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Atheist Mormon]

He wanted to convince people

Quote

Noah wanted to convince people

What did Noah have in mind?

Edited April 28, 2018 by Atheist Mormon

[Marginal Gains]

On 4/28/2018 at 1:40 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

So you feel free to make your opinion about what an institution has published, while ignoring Holy Scripture.  How did you get your priorities so upside down and backward?

I showed you how your assumptions were completely false in a number of cases -- you were not even capable of using the LDS Bible Dictionary "Chronology" section accurately.  Did that realization humble you at all?  No.  You simply ignored your own ignorance and proceeded to hector me and others based on your imaginary version of reality.  Your narrow and superficial ranting is not the same as reasoned discussion of actual facts.  Why are you afraid of the reasonable give and take on this board?  I assure you that you can actually make more than just marginal gains if you will only inject some sincerity into the discussion.  Discussions are always a two-way street, or do you reject that also?

The living Prophets words (as published on lds.org) and their interpretation of the Noah story, supersede your interpretation of Holy Scripture, do they not?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The living Prophets words (as published on lds.org) and their interpretation of the Noah story, supersede your interpretation of Holy Scripture, do they not?

Modern prophets do not supersede ancient prophets (= Scripture), even though our interpretation of modern prophets and Scripture might be faulty.  We are after all fallible humans, and so are the the prophets.  All the prophets.  If we are sincere, then all of us are attempting to get it right, but that entails discussing and studying the various points of view that exist about what is and is not true.  There are both matters of fact and matters of conscience, and we need to deal with both.

My complaint about your approach is that you play fast and loose with fact and are unwilling to admit when you make a mistake, e.g., your gross error on chronology in the LDS Bible Dictionary.  This also applies to your false notion that every LDS Church manual is on par with Scripture.  The manuals come and go, and they often change perspective.  They are there to help us understand, and they are not written with scholarship in mind, but are written to the lowest common denominator in understanding (around 14 years old).  The idea is that milk comes before meat in teaching the Gospel, and history is only one aspect of that education program.  The Methodist and Presbyterian Churches likewise publish church manuals to help their congregations understand the Gospel, for the very same reasons that the LDS Church does, and in very much the same way (hiring professionals to write them).

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Modern prophets do not supersede ancient prophets (= Scripture), even though our interpretation of modern prophets and Scripture might be faulty.  We are after all fallible humans, and so are the the prophets.  All the prophets.  If we are sincere, then all of us are attempting to get it right, but that entails discussing and studying the various points of view that exist about what is and is not true.  There are both matters of fact and matters of conscience, and we need to deal with both.

 

Quote

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Oops.

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/3/2018 at 2:51 PM, Marginal Gains said:

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Oops.

Once again, instead of engaging in sincere conversation, and replying to the points I have made, you choose to make ignorance the basis for your responses.  You make one article you have read the whole  basis for your entire belief system.  Is that wise?  As long as you reject Scripture and fail to use the brain God gave you, you will fail to make even marginal gains.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, instead of engaging in sincere conversation, and replying to the points I have made, you choose to make ignorance the basis for your responses.  You make one article you have read the whole  basis for you entire belief system.  Is that wise?  As long as you reject Scripture and fail to use the brain God gave you, you will fail to make even marginal gains.

No, you misunderstand. I’m just pointing out that your Church doesn’t agree with your take on things.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/24/2018 at 9:49 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Why, when Church doctrine, signed off by modern day Prophets, presumably after consultation with God, is that the flood of Noah was literal, global, happened around 2,300BCE and wiped out all of humanity except for the eight people and animals on a single boat? Are you saying the Church has it wrong?

People read the story of the flood and make assumptions in the story that may not be justified or go beyond what is required. 

1.  The flood wiped out all humanity.  This is not really stated in the scriptures and it does not make sense.  If only 8 people were left on the planet, how did the population humans on the earth rebound so fast.  It would have taken centuries or thousands of years for enough humans to repopulate the world.

2. If all the animals on the earth were on the ark, how did they get back to their native habitat so fast let alone cross the waters to get there.  Did the Koala bear really swim to Australia?

3.  If the flood was local, there is no need to build an ark.  Noah and those animals simply could have taken a walking trip to higher ground.  On the flip side, there is no reason to take the language to mean the entire earth was flooded as similar language is used in other parts of the scripture but the meaning in those places does not mean the entire planet.  Compare the language regarding the flood

Genesis 6:17: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

Genesis 7:19-24: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

To the expressions in other passages of the Bible

Deuteronomy 2:25: "This day will I begin to put the dread of thee [Moses] and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee." Compare to Genesis 7:19 that uses the same phrase: "...and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven"

Exodus 10:14-15: "And the locust went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.  For they covered the face of the whole earth..."

1 Kings 10:24: "And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart."

Jeremiah 15:10: "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth!..."

Jeremiah 50:23: "How is the hammer [Babylon] of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!

Jeremiah 51:7: "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad."

Isaiah 23:17: "And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth."

Daniel 2:39: "And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass [Greece], which shall bear rule over all the earth."

Luke 2:1: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."

Acts 19:27: "So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth."

Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."

It is clear to me that the flood is far more than a local event but not to the point that it encompassed the whole earth and killed all life and including humans on the other side of the world where Noah lived.  If Noah lived in the Americas and preached to a wicked people in this part of the world and they rejected and those people were destroyed, it would not affect those 9000 miles away to those people who did not reject.  Noah moved from the Americas to the Middle East on the ark during the flood.  No reason to think the ark dropped anchor and stayed in the same spot until the water levels went down.  Places in the Middle East were given names after places where Noah came from.  The post flood Euphrates river currently known in Iraq is not the same river as the pre-flood river.  Terms like "all the earth" in the scriptures simply might mean the known part of the earth as understood at that time by the people being written to or referenced.  Greece did not rule over China,  Japan, or the Americas but they did rule over a fairly large portion of the world in the Middle East and Europe area..

Edited May 4, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

People read the story of the flood and make assumptions in the story that may not be justified or go beyond what is required. 

1.  The flood wiped out all humanity.  This is not really stated in the scriptures and it does not make sense.  If only 8 people were left on the planet, how did the population humans on the earth rebound so fast.  It would have taken centuries or thousands of years for enough humans to repopulate the world.

2. If all the animals on the earth were on the ark, how did they get back to their native habitat so fast let alone cross the waters to get there.  Did the Koala bear really swim to Australia?

3.  If the flood was local, there is no need to build an ark.  Noah and those animals simply could have taken a walking trip to higher ground.  On the flip side, there is no reason to take the language to mean the entire earth was flooded as similar language is used in other parts of the scripture but the meaning in those places does not mean the entire planet.  Compare the language regarding the flood

Excellent points.

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is clear to me that the flood is far more than a local event but not to the point that it encompassed the whole earth and killed all life and including humans on the other side of the world where Noah lived.  If Noah lived in the Americas and preached to a wicked people in this part of the world and they rejected and those people were destroyed, it would not affect those 9000 miles away to those people who did not reject.  Noah moved from the Americas to the Middle East on the ark during the flood.  No reason to think the ark dropped anchor and stayed in the same spot until the water levels went down.  Places in the Middle East were given names after places where Noah came from.  The post flood Euphrates river currently known in Iraq is not the same river as the pre-flood river. 

Or it’s a myth which may or may not be based on a flood of some description that actually happened.

[carbon dioxide]

Just now, Marginal Gains said:

Excellent points.

Or it’s a myth which may or may not be based on a flood of some description that actually happened.

It could be a myth or it could be an actual event simply misunderstood by modern readers.  The scriptures do not represent the story as a myth.  A long time ago I saved an article "Comets, Meteors, and Myth: New Evidence for toppled civilizations and Biblical tales" from Space.com and gave a possible cause of the flood from meteor impacts hitting the earth around the time period of Noah.

Biblical stories, apocalyptic visions, ancient art and scientific data all seem to intersect at around 2350 B.C., when one or more catastrophic events wiped out several advanced societies in Europe, Asia and Africa....

"The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the fire, brimstone and flood of possibly mythical events. Omens predicting the Akkadian collapse preserve a record that "many stars were falling from the sky." The "Curse of Akkad," dated to about 2200 B.C., speaks of "flaming potsherds raining from the sky."

"Roughly 2000 years later, the Jewish astronomer Rabbi bar Nachmani created what could be considered the first impact theory: That Noah's Flood was triggered by two "stars" that fell from the sky. "When God decided to bring about the Flood, He took two stars from Khima, threw them on Earth, and brought about the Flood."

"Mounting hard evidence collected from tree rings, soil layers and even dust that long ago settled to the ocean floor indicates there were widespread environmental nightmares in the Near East during the Early Bronze Age: Abrupt cooling of the climate, sudden floods and surges from the seas, huge earthquakes...

"One or more devastating impacts could have rocked the planet, chilled the air, and created unthinkable tsunamis - ocean waves hundreds of feet high...

"If it [the impact crater in Iraq] were a comet, the impact would have occurred on what was once a shallow sea, triggering massive flooding following the fire generated by the object's partial vaporization as it screamed through the atmosphere. The comet would have plunged through the water and dug into the earth below. ...

"[Astronomer Bill Napier] and his colleagues have been arguing since 1982 that such events are possible. And, he says, it might have happened right around the time the first urban civilizations were crumbling.

"Napier thinks a comet called Encke, discovered in 1786, is the remnant of a larger comet that broke apart 5,000 years ago. Large chunks and vast clouds of smaller debris were cast into space. Napier said it's possible that Earth ran through that material during the Early Bronze Age.

"The night sky would have been lit up for years by a fireworks-like display of comet fragments and dust vaporizing upon impact with Earth's atmosphere. The Sun would have struggled to shine through the debris. Napier has tied the possible event to a cooling of the climate, measured in tree rings, that ran from 2354-2345 B.C. ...

"For every crater discovered on land, we should expect two oceanic impacts with even worse consequences," he [Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who studies such impacts] said.

"Tsunamis generated in deep water can rise even taller when they reach a shore..."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, you misunderstand. I’m just pointing out that your Church doesn’t agree with your take on things.

What you really mean is that your flawed interpretation of what some manual writer says is normative, that Scripture is irrelevant, and that no discussion is possible.  As usual you personify a church organization instead of citing actual sources by name and context.  Churches are not people, yet you prefer that fallacy.

Had you been sincere, you would first admit that you don't know anything about Scripture, and that you have made major errors in this discussion which embarrass you.  You need to own your ignorance.  That would be a start toward making marginal gains in knowledge.  There are none so blind as they who will not see.

[Marginal Gains]

21 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, you misunderstand. I’m just pointing out that your Church doesn’t agree with your take on things.

 

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What you really mean is that your flawed interpretation of what some manual writer says is normative, that Scripture is irrelevant, and that no discussion is possible.  As usual you personify a church organization instead of citing actual sources by name and context.  Churches are not people, yet you prefer that fallacy.

Had you been sincere, you would first admit that you don't know anything about Scripture, and that you have made major errors in this discussion which embarrass you.  You need to own your ignorance.  That would be a start toward making marginal gains in knowledge.  There are none so blind as they who will not see.

No. What I really mean is that the Church (organisation) doesn’t agree with your take on things. It explicitly and in plain English doesn’t agree with your take on things. And that’s all I’m doing - showing you what the organisational Church says and espouses. I’ve provided references from said organisational Church.

Please stop putting words in my mouth that I didn’t use and remember, it’s not me you’re rebutting, it’s the Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No. What I really mean is that the Church (organisation) doesn’t agree with your take on things. It explicitly and in plain English doesn’t agree with your take on things. And that’s all I’m doing - showing you what the organisational Church says and espouses. I’ve provided references from said organisational Church.

Please stop putting words in my mouth that I didn’t use and remember, it’s not me you’re rebutting, it’s the Church.

If you knew anything at all about the LDS Church and about history, I would take you seriously.  Yet you have shown by your failure to get even elementary things right that you are a monomaniac and afraid of real discussion.  You do not speak for the Mormon Church, and your claims are flawed by your lack of knowledge.  Go back to square one, admit your faults, and we can go from there.  Up till now, you have shown a propensity for misstating not only what I have said, but also what Mormonism stands for.

You could start by owning your arrogant ignorance on just chronology alone.  A sincere person would have no problem admitting that.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/3/2018 at 5:22 AM, Marginal Gains said:

The living Prophets words (as published on lds.org) and their interpretation of the Noah story, supersede your interpretation of Holy Scripture, do they not?

They do not.

We must always follow the spirit first as protection against drinking the kook aid (not a typo)

We cannot know the church is true in the first place without the spirit and so of course that spirit supersedes anything said by the church.  The spirit tells us to follow the scriptures, etc etc.  Moroni, Alma and James and others tell us to "ASK GOD"- not someone who says he is a prophet.  That just doesn't make sense.

Once we have an answer from God about one principle we must ask again for every principle.

We cannot know that Jesus died for us personally without the spirit- so why follow a book of legends unless the spirit tells you to do so?

The spirit takes precedence over everything.

Anything other than that priority simply does not make sense- that is why we have the spirit in the first place.

Does everyone get the same answer?  No-  that is because we are all at different places along the path and God teaches each of us individually.  Some need to learn long division, some calculus and some need to question the entire enterprise of math or religion in general.   What makes logic logical?   That in itself is a major question - is it about how the world works or how the mind works?

Some would never even consider these questions and do what they are told.  We are all at different places on the path.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/3/2018 at 1:51 PM, Marginal Gains said:

 

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Oops.

 

You aren't listening- this is a waste of time.

As Bob has said, this is written for 14 year olds.

AND it was written in 1981 by one of the most conservative prophets ever, BEFORE he was even the church prophet.    I love President Benson, but like all of us, he was a human being with a viewpoint and prejudices.

Have you examined yours?

I see no evidence of that.  Why not list your prejudices and views of the nature of truth and we will discuss them?   You get to do that to us, and what is fair for one is fair for everyone. 

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 5/4/2018 at 4:25 AM, Marginal Gains said:

No, you misunderstand. I’m just pointing out that your Church doesn’t agree with your take on things.

You are mistaken.

There IS no "church" who has opinions- there are only people with opinions, and all are human

It is time for you to put away childish things and get a more sophisticated and real view of the church, and get out of primary.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/4/2018 at 6:48 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Excellent points.

Or it’s a myth which may or may not be based on a flood of some description that actually happened.

I agree and guess what- I am a church "leader" in our stake.

What does that say about what "THE CHURCH" teaches??

Would I be a "leader" in YOUR conception of what the church is?  I mean believing "false doctrine" and all?  (it's not false)

[mfbukowski]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:00 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

What you really mean is that your flawed interpretation of what some manual writer says is normative, that Scripture is irrelevant, and that no discussion is possible.  As usual you personify a church organization instead of citing actual sources by name and context.  Churches are not people, yet you prefer that fallacy.

Had you been sincere, you would first admit that you don't know anything about Scripture, and that you have made major errors in this discussion which embarrass you.  You need to own your ignorance.  That would be a start toward making marginal gains in knowledge.  There are none so blind as they who will not see.

YES !

It's really weird because I am commenting as I read each post- which means you wrote yours before I did but I am just seeing them and responding independent of what you wrote.

Now I go back and see I am paralleling your points post for poist!

Gosh how odd that we would have the same opinion of what the church teaches and does not teach!! 

But of course he will not listen.  His agenda will not permit that.  And he thinks we are blind!!

[Marginal Gains]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You aren't listening- this is a waste of time.

As Bob has said, this is written for 14 year olds.

AND it was written in 1981 by one of the most conservative prophets ever, BEFORE he was even the church prophet.    I love President Benson, but like all of us, he was a human being with a viewpoint and prejudices.

Have you examined yours?

I see no evidence of that.  Why not list your prejudices and views of the nature of truth and we will discuss them?   You get to do that to us, and what is fair for one is fair for everyone. 

 

Well, the Lianhona may well be written for 14 year olds, but when Elder Benson gave the original counsel, what age group was aim8ng at?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

And then when Elder Costa quoted it in a Conference talk, still aimed a 14 year olds?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

I’m yet to see a quote from a senior Church leader that supports the claim that the scriptures and your interpretation of them is more important than the living Prophet. Do you have such a quote? 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well, the Lianhona may well be written for 14 year olds, but when Elder Benson gave the original counsel, what age group was aim8ng at?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

And then when Elder Costa quoted it in a Conference talk, still aimed a 14 year olds?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

I’m yet to see a quote from a senior Church leader that supports the claim that the scriptures and your interpretation of them is more important than the living Prophet. Do you have such a quote? 

Of course, there are many in the scriptures, James 1 5, Moroni 10 5, Alma 32 and others including conference talks. You should learn how to use search engines

You are missing the point.

All are written for 14 year olds, see comments above. And though that may not be the level of your intelligence it appears to be your level of understanding of the gospel.

Edited May 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Well, the Lianhona may well be written for 14 year olds, but when Elder Benson gave the original counsel, what age group was aim8ng at?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

And then when Elder Costa quoted it in a Conference talk, still aimed a 14 year olds?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

I’m yet to see a quote from a senior Church leader that supports the claim that the scriptures and your interpretation of them is more important than the living Prophet. Do you have such a quote? 

 

Just now, mfbukowski said:

You are missing the point.

All are written for 14 year olds, see comments above. And though that may not be the level of your intelligence it appears to be your level of understanding of the gospel.

I repeat my CFR for “a quote from a senior Church leader that supports the claim that the scriptures and your interpretation of them is more important than the living Prophet.”

Just one will do.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I repeat my CFR for “a quote from a senior Church leader that supports the claim that the scriptures and your interpretation of them is more important than the living Prophet.”

Just one will do.

Here's a ton

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible