Tacit Notions/Expectations of Prophetic Infallibility: A Key Ingredient in Faith Crises?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Brigham Young wasn't acting as a prophet when he taught the Adam-God doctrine.  Nor was he acting as a prophet when he said that every sermon he gave was scripture.  Bam!  Problem solved.

That's not the correct solution, though.  So, in other words, Wrong!

Would you like to guess again?

Start by thinking Brigham may not have taught ... didn't teach, actually, but you could start with just the maybe as a possibility... what Spencer referred to as the Adam-God doctrine.

If while you study you can't figure it out for yourself, even with the Holy Ghost to help you, then I suppose you must wait for someone, like me, to tell you what a prophet of God really meant!

Not that I will be able to change your mind, either, but at least it is fun to try.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's not the correct solution, though.  So, in other words, Wrong!

Would you like to guess again?

Start by thinking Brigham may not have taught ... didn't teach, actually, but you could start with just the maybe as a possibility... what Spencer referred to as the Adam-God doctrine.

If while you study you can't figure it out for yourself, even with the Holy Ghost to help you, then I suppose you must wait for someone, like me, to tell you what a prophet of God really meant!

Not that I will be able to change your mind, either, but at least it is fun to try.

It doesn't matter, for me, what President Kimball was referring to.

I know, through the Holy Ghost, that the Adam-God doctrine is not correct.  Therefore, President Young was not acting as a prophet when he taught it.

How is that not the correct solution?

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Too late to repent:

There are plenty of scriptures warning us against procrastinating the day of repentance.  The opportunity to repent is not infinite.

"For some damn reason?"  It's not like throwing darts at a board while blindfolded, Stem.  Salvation is not a random thing.  It is a choice.

The Lord suffers in the same way.

A person who rejects the Savior's Atonement must suffer for his own sins, yes.

I encourage you to give this matter some further thought.  God's judgment is not arbitrary.  It's not random.  It is both infinitely just and, if one is willing, infinitely merciful.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you care to try and provide a reason to give it further thought, I'd be happy to.  I think by me replying here shows I"m willing to give it more thought.  But you haven't really given me reason to give it more thought.

  I read the passages you quote about repentance and have no idea how that applies to reality.  "O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?"  

The Lord is suffering me because I am hardened and stiffnecked?  What do you think that means?

"32 And in the days of your poverty ye shall cry unto the Lord; and in vain shall ye cry, for your desolation is already come upon you, and your destruction is made sure; and then shall ye weep and howl in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts. And then shall ye lament, and say:
33 O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out. …"

So people in poverty who cry for help from the Lord have already had their desolation decided, their future destruction?  People simply don't kill prophets and stone them and cast them out...not today.  So who could this possibly apply to?  

"38 But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.
39 O ye people of the land, that ye would hear my words! And I pray that the anger of the Lord be turned away from you, and that ye would repent and be saved."

Is God's anger directed at us in this generation?  If so, why?  

Quote

A person who rejects the Savior's Atonement must suffer for his own sins, yes

 What is rejecting?  Wondering if there ever really was an atonement?  Wondering if the story in the NT and subsequent works are just kind of mythological retellings of mythology held by a few people thousands of years ago?  If so, then I suppose my fate is sealed.  Is there time?  I guess not, because as you pointed out, you simply can't procrastinate...you can't in your poverty get out of it by appealing to God.  the fate of my destruction has already been decided.  

 

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't matter, for me, what President Kimball was referring to.

I know, through the Holy Ghost, that the Adam-God doctrine is not correct.  Therefore, President Young was not acting as a prophet when he taught it.

How is that not the correct solution?

He could have been acting as a prophet just as the prophets before the brother of Jared learned what they, or he for that matter, were not expected to know.

Edited August 23, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

On 8/22/2019 at 2:03 PM, california boy said:

Sad that the Church wants to decide for themselves what others want to be called.  It just makes the divide between the two groups even wider.  And what is gained other than some word game.  It doesn't change their orientation.  It just causes resentment.  I guess it goes along with the other policies the Church institutes against gays.  I always wonder, what next.

As so we should ban words like:

Racist

Homophobic

Fascist

Sexist

...and only use the terms which those groups prefer to call themselves? It doesn't change their orientation.

After all it's just a word game.

Edited August 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's like your local weatherman saying that his forecasts are 100% perfect.  Then when you point out that last week he predicted rain and there was no rain he says, well, at that time I was speaking as your neighbor.  I am only speaking as your weatherman when I give forecasts that are correct.

Great analogy!!

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It doesn't matter, for me, what President Kimball was referring to.

I know, through the Holy Ghost, that the Adam-God doctrine is not correct.  Therefore, President Young was not acting as a prophet when he taught it.

How is that not the correct solution?

By the fact that what Spencer (and others) called the Adam-God doctrine is not exactly the same thing that Brigham Young actually taught.

As someone who hasn't shown an ability to tell the difference between similar thoughts, similar but not the same, I can see how you would be having some trouble on this issue as well as the issue regarding prophets, generally.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's not the correct solution, though.  So, in other words, Wrong!

Would you like to guess again?

Start by thinking Brigham may not have taught ... didn't teach, actually, but you could start with just the maybe as a possibility... what Spencer referred to as the Adam-God doctrine.

If while you study you can't figure it out for yourself, even with the Holy Ghost to help you, then I suppose you must wait for someone, like me, to tell you what a prophet of God really meant!

Not that I will be able to change your mind, either, but at least it is fun to try.

I see you have not changed one bit during your hiatus and remain the one true interpreter of the gospel.  Why you are not the prophet I will never understand. 

That alone proves the church is now in apostasy. 

 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great analogy!!

No, not really.  It didn't really fit the application. But you can still be his cheerleader if you really want to be.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I see you have not changed one bit during your hiatus and remain the one true interpreter of the gospel.  Why you are not the prophet I will never understand. 

That alone proves the church is now in apostasy. 

 

Well with so many other great men in the Church who can also rightly divide the word of truth I can easily see why I haven't been chosen as the ultimate presiding high priest on this Earth at this particular time.

And apparently it would take quite a bit more than me not being that man to set the whole Church, generally, into apostasy because that really hasn't happened yet, as I am sure you know, you jester, you!

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So minor? A tempest in a teapot?  

Yes! The "blunders" you mention do not seem so huge that I need to blame all of my trials on the Prophets.

What huge blunder has a modern day Prophet of the Lord has done to you that has been so devastatingly destructive? Has any of those choices been yours?

 

Quote

You haven't had to live thorough one of their blunders.

You do not know me or what I have had to live through. Some of my friends think I have been through a lot. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

can't imagine being saved into the Celestial realm knowing loved ones and others were not, left to suffer eternally

That allows for emotional blackmail though as in ‘I won’t repent unless you do things my way, etc.’ Do you see it as appropriate to put your own happiness in the hands of others rather than having it under your own control?  Is it really right for you to suffer all your life if you have done the other no harm yet they choose to self destruct?  Is there any reason to suppose this kind of behaviour won’t occur in the eternities?

The Great Divorce by CS Lewis does a great job at pointing out the unfairness of having good people suffering for the choices of evil people eternally. I don’t agree with everything the book presents, but it is useful thought experiment about heaven and hell. 

—————

Stem, If someone refuses to repent and instead wants to choose to be eternally depressed or angry, what do you believe God should do?

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

I like your interpretation but in context of the previous thirteen fundamentals there is a message that he can speak on anything at anytime and he is speaking for God. 

That's not how I take Pres. Benson. I think he's saying that the Prophet can when acting as a Prophet speak on anything at anytime. It's pretty clear contextually that he's referring to the Prophet not being able to speak to social or political issues. I suspect he's indirectly referring to critics of the Church on the ERA which was controversial in 1980, but his examples were from the early Church and people referring to Joseph's pronouncements on temporal matters.

One could take any politically controversial issue of course. The question is ultimately whether there's a limit on what a prophet can pronounce on.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not how I take Pres. Benson. I think he's saying that the Prophet can when acting as a Prophet speak on anything at anytime. It's pretty clear contextually that he's referring to the Prophet not being able to speak to social or political issues. I suspect he's indirectly referring to critics of the Church on the ERA which was controversial in 1980, but his examples were from the early Church and people referring to Joseph's pronouncements on temporal matters.

One could take any politically controversial issue of course. The question is ultimately whether there's a limit on what a prophet can pronounce on.

This is how I read it as well. 

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

That allows for emotional blackmail though as in ‘I won’t repent unless you do things my way, etc.’

I don't know what you're talking about.  What allows for that?  I certainly have not allowed for that.  Are you saying mormonism allows that?  

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Do you see it as appropriate to put your own happiness in the hands of others rather than having it under your own control?

I dont' get this.  Wouldn't mormonism require that our happiness to be  completely in God's hands?  That is to say without him we couldn't be happy?   Are you asking me if I think it's appropriate we have to rely on God to be happy?  I don't know about that.  If there is no god then it's just a make believe notion that religion puts on us.  If there is a God then sure...I guess our existence itself depends on him, let alone happiness.  

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Is it really right for you to suffer all your life if you have done the other no harm yet they choose to self destruct?  

I can't make sense of this question either.  Have I suffered all my life?  Or do I know anyone who has done something like self destruct?  I'm sad at the notion of people's suffering.  I imagine if eternity is anything like what Mormonism proposes than I'm likely going to suffer no matter God's decision about where I belong.  If I'm exalted, I'll suffer many pains of all sorts for those who God condemned to suffer.  Apparently because that's what God does.  If God condemns me to suffer, to whatever extent, then I suppose I'll so suffer.  

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there any reason to suppose this kind of behaviour won’t occur in the eternities?

Yes.  Mormonisms version of the eternities is just silly and I dont imagine it'll play out that way.  

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Great Divorce by CS Lewis does a great job at pointing out the unfairness of having good people suffering for the choices of evil people eternally. I don’t agree with everything the book presents, but it is useful thought experiment about heaven and hell. 

—————

Stem, If someone refuses to repent and instead wants to choose to be eternally depressed or angry, what do you believe God should do?

I don't really imagine there is anyone who refuses to repent and instead wants to choose to be eternally depressed or angry..  Or well maybe you are talking about God Himself?  If so, then I dont' know what he should do with himself.  But, if you don't mean God, the hypothetical is too absurd to answer.  Everyone feels bad for their misdeeds--particularly as they are made aware of how their actions are misdeeds--and everyone wants to avoid eternal depression and anger.  If that's not true and someone does want that, then color me surprised.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I guess it says that.  But as I see it I doubt anyone aside from a select few psychopaths repent.  We all feel bad when we do something mean or selfish and work to correct that most often.  

See I think the psychopaths make the choices they do just because of biological limits. I think if that the reason they do evil they're really not accountable and would repent when given a true chance and not limited biologically. It's the people who aren't psychopaths that don't choose God that I think won't repent in the stronger sense. They might repent in the broader sense of just changing behavior, but the terrestrial kingdom is full of ethical people who won't ultimately choose Christ. So to me the fundamental distinction between the celestial world and terrestrial world is whether repentance is only ethical or whether it involves restoring the relationship with God.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I can't imagine being saved into the Celestial realm knowing loved ones and others were not, left to suffer eternally.  that feels to me like suffering eternally, much like God and Christ must suffer for each person who doesn't believe...and people will be coming for eternity, so they'll continue to suffer...if they do, then I can't imagine the rest of the saved not also suffering in the same way.  

But if the suffering is just the intrinsic nature of their choice, you can't choose for them. One could always choose to be with them. However the usual interpretation of D&C 76 is that celestial beings can visit the terrestrial and telestial worlds. So you'll not be cut off. But if someone is a good person but refuses to return to God because someone they loved also didn't that seems an excellent example of terrestrial glory.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm asking how you know that?  If an atheist and a Mormon suffer to the same extent then what benefit or blessing does the Mormon have?  

I'm making more of a semantic point that certain terms like happy or suffer aren't properties that we can assign absolute values to. So comparisons are always somewhat metaphoric. I can say I'm happier than an other in terms of external behaviors because that's how in practice we use the terms. So if someone is crying and an other is laughing we say one is happier than the other. But again that's just a claim about behaviors not the inner state that the terms really are referring to. I can say someone suffers but I don't think simply because of those semantic uses that someone suffers more except by talking about external behaviors. So a person in a hospital for a kidney stone is suffering more than a healthy person on the beach.

Relative to sin I think suffer means long term, includes behaviors like regret and also includes consequences for the actions the most prominent of which is being cut off from God.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that my position is if someone has an incorrect view they can't have charity. 

From your examples and the examples of mine you reject. Put again, could someone in the 1960's oppose the civil rights act for bad reasons yet still act charitable towards African Americans? You indicated they couldn't.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  The fire and brimstone is impossible.  how to hurt immortal beings with fire and brimstone?  I figured the fire and brimstone was merely sybmollism, representing the relative suffering you speak of.  

Well there's various theologies here. Like you I agree it's metaphoric/mythic in some sense. The question is ultimately whether there's a retributative punishment of some sort, a transformative punishment of some sort, or merely a claim about glory. You can find all three historically. Augustine's view of retributative punishment tended to catch on. Universalists at the time of Joseph tended to see suffering in terms of the pain of being transformed. I wrote a little on this last year at T&S. My view is that the imagery originally comes out of Egyptian notions of judgment of the soul.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You're speaking of politics while I'm speaking of individual beliefs. 

I'm speaking of individual political beliefs by particular people. Again I think the parable of the good samaritan is the key imagery. The whole point was two groups of people who had bigoted views towards each other and whether they'd help them. The point Christ was making was to love our enemies. In loving enemies we may well have erroneous views of them but the general idea is that eventually we'll come to know the truth.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You're speaking of politics while I'm speaking of individual beliefs. 

I don't think beliefs are charitable. That seems a category error. I think people can be charitable but I don't think beliefs can be. We might talk about intepretations being charitable but that's a metaphoric use of charity.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm saying if someone has an uncharitable view towards another, that view means they are being uncharitable.  It's as simple as that.  Mormons, for the most part (leaving room for possible exceptions), held uncharitable views towards black people.  It seemed to me you disputed that by suggested it is possible a Mormon before 1978 could have done something of service for someone who was black.  But that deed doesn't do away with their uncharitable view.  It just means Mormons could be decent in spite of their uncharitable view.  

Again I'd just turn back to my example. If I think someone is a bad person because of what they did and I'm wrong, am I being uncharitable in your use? Put an other way I'm making a distinction between beliefs and practices. I think people can have erroneous views. 

In any case, it seems to me that the above usage entails that everyone is both charitable and uncharitable since we're all flawed and have views towards people that are not perfectly Christlike. If that's all you mean then I agree, but I'm not sure it gets us too far. Sometimes I act charitably and sometimes I don't. Sometimes it's for bad choices and other times it's out of ignorance. 

But it appears now your point is more just that beliefs are a type of action (which I agree) that can be made charitably or uncharitably. I agree. But that's not really what I was discussing. In the sense you're using it it woudl seem we're always a combination of the charitable and uncharitable.

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

See I think the psychopaths make the choices they do just because of biological limits. I think if that the reason they do evil they're really not accountable and would repent when given a true chance and not limited biologically. It's the people who aren't psychopaths that don't choose God that I think won't repent in the stronger sense. They might repent in the broader sense of just changing behavior, but the terrestrial kingdom is full of ethical people who won't ultimately choose Christ. So to me the fundamental distinction between the celestial world and terrestrial world is whether repentance is only ethical or whether it involves restoring the relationship with God.

But if the suffering is just the intrinsic nature of their choice, you can't choose for them. One could always choose to be with them. However the usual interpretation of D&C 76 is that celestial beings can visit the terrestrial and telestial worlds. So you'll not be cut off. But if someone is a good person but refuses to return to God because someone they loved also didn't that seems an excellent example of terrestrial glory.

I'm making more of a semantic point that certain terms like happy or suffer aren't properties that we can assign absolute values to. So comparisons are always somewhat metaphoric. I can say I'm happier than an other in terms of external behaviors because that's how in practice we use the terms. So if someone is crying and an other is laughing we say one is happier than the other. But again that's just a claim about behaviors not the inner state that the terms really are referring to. I can say someone suffers but I don't think simply because of those semantic uses that someone suffers more except by talking about external behaviors. So a person in a hospital for a kidney stone is suffering more than a healthy person on the beach.

Relative to sin I think suffer means long term, includes behaviors like regret and also includes consequences for the actions the most prominent of which is being cut off from God.

From your examples and the examples of mine you reject. Put again, could someone in the 1960's oppose the civil rights act for bad reasons yet still act charitable towards African Americans? You indicated they couldn't.

Well there's various theologies here. Like you I agree it's metaphoric/mythic in some sense. The question is ultimately whether there's a retributative punishment of some sort, a transformative punishment of some sort, or merely a claim about glory. You can find all three historically. Augustine's view of retributative punishment tended to catch on. Universalists at the time of Joseph tended to see suffering in terms of the pain of being transformed. I wrote a little on this last year at T&S. My view is that the imagery originally comes out of Egyptian notions of judgment of the soul.

I'm speaking of individual political beliefs by particular people. Again I think the parable of the good samaritan is the key imagery. The whole point was two groups of people who had bigoted views towards each other and whether they'd help them. The point Christ was making was to love our enemies. In loving enemies we may well have erroneous views of them but the general idea is that eventually we'll come to know the truth.

I don't think beliefs are charitable. That seems a category error. I think people can be charitable but I don't think beliefs can be. We might talk about intepretations being charitable but that's a metaphoric use of charity.

Again I'd just turn back to my example. If I think someone is a bad person because of what they did and I'm wrong, am I being uncharitable in your use? Put an other way I'm making a distinction between beliefs and practices. I think people can have erroneous views. 

In any case, it seems to me that the above usage entails that everyone is both charitable and uncharitable since we're all flawed and have views towards people that are not perfectly Christlike. If that's all you mean then I agree, but I'm not sure it gets us too far. Sometimes I act charitably and sometimes I don't. Sometimes it's for bad choices and other times it's out of ignorance. 

But it appears now your point is more just that beliefs are a type of action (which I agree) that can be made charitably or uncharitably. I agree. But that's not really what I was discussing. In the sense you're using it it woudl seem we're always a combination of the charitable and uncharitable.

 

 

 

I might find some time in the next couple of days to get back to this, but I doubt it.   So I may just end up moving on, just so you know.  

It's apparent to me we just keep talking past each other.  I have no idea what direction you are taking this.  I've not said most of what you think I've said and it appears you feel similarly.  I'm not sure it's productive beyond where we've been.  I've enjoyed the discussion and if I find time, I might get back and respond more fully, but for now, have a good one.  

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

don't know what you're talking about.  What allows for that?  I certainly have not allowed for that.  Are you saying mormonism allows that?  

If we can’t be happy in the eternities unless all those we love are with us, then that gives the power of our happiness to others and they then can use emotional blackmail on us

I have seen that happen a lot in families, as in “I won’t come to the family party unless this relative is barred”.  Can you imagine someone telling God ‘I won’t choose to be exalted unless you turn John Smith into a son of perdition’?

Quote

don't really imagine there is anyone who refuses to repent and instead wants to choose to be eternally depressed or angry.

This is a massive assumption given what humanity is like. Why assume there won’t be those who continue to choose unhealthy pleasure over eternal joy Or who just don’t want to make the effort to be good but prefer to remain at 0, not evil but uncaring to do any good?

Quote

Everyone feels bad for their misdeeds--particularly as they are made aware of how their actions are misdeeds

I doubt you can actually know this.  There seem to be people who are well aware of the impact of their crimes and it gives them pleasure.  This may be biological or twisted nurturing, but what if it is something eternal that has manifested in mortality and the individual doesn’t want to change that part of him?

Plus there is the issue of actually convincing someone who is certain they are right that they are wrong. Arrogance is likely the ultimate sin in my view. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Who wants to feel exalted above another?  I don't.  Some likely do.  Good for them I guess.   

The glory of God is intelligence.  So to be as exalted as he is means to be as intelligent as he is. 

Why would anyone choose to be less intelligent?  I have an idea about that but I still have a hard time believing some people would actually choose to be less intelligent than that.  

Stupid is as stupid does, though, I suppose.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If we can’t be happy in the eternities unless all those we love are with us, then that gives the power of our happiness to others and they then can use emotional blackmail on us

I have seen that happen a lot in families, as in “I won’t come to the family party unless this relative is barred”.  Can you imagine someone telling God ‘I won’t choose to be exalted unless you turn John Smith into a son of perdition’?

I really don't understand what your driving at.  This makes no sense to me.  How can someone who God condemns eternally blackmail us?  And your last question is eerie in light of Mormonism.  The only people outside of God, it seems to me, who might have a say in salvation are people like Joseph Smith according to Mormonism.  Are you saying Joseph Smith might threaten God that he won't go to heaven if God doesn't consider some particular person a son of perdition?  "Oliver got upset with me about my relationship with a teenager...you better call him a son of perdition or I'm outta here".  Seems like an odd idea, but perhaps a bit comical to think about.  

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is a massive assumption given what humanity is like. Why assume there won’t be those who continue to choose unhealthy pleasure over eternal joy Or who just don’t want to make the effort to be good but prefer to remain at 0, not evil but uncaring to do any good?

Are you saying anyone who might, for instance, choose drugs or something (unhealthy pleasure) are people who will refuse to repent and instead choose to be depressed and angry for eternity?  I thought you had suggested there are people who will refuse to repent and will choose to be depressed and angry for eternity?  Do you have any examples?  I mean we can consider Hitler or something.  But I don't know that he will refuse to repent.  If he exists now, he might very well feel really bad about this life decisions  "oops.  In the moment I wasn't realizing how bad I was.  In light of my current perspective I wish I didn't act so evil, so selfishly, so disgustingly."  

In light of this discussion though, I don't know that I'd feel so bad if I ended up exalted and saw Hitler suffering for eternity.  If I see my grandma or friend suffering for eternity, though, I'd probably feel many sad pains causing some degree of suffering.  I'd likely feel the same if an average person from the 3rd century was so suffering too, or a Neanderthal, or most anyone else.  But according to the Mormonism I'm familiar with, it's not just the Hitler's who'll suffer for eternity, but often average people who might not have done anything much to hurt others.  They simply might not have accepted the gospel of Christ, or were very honorable people but somehow got mislead about something.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

By the fact that what Spencer (and others) called the Adam-God doctrine is not exactly the same thing that Brigham Young actually taught.

As someone who hasn't shown an ability to tell the difference between similar thoughts, similar but not the same, I can see how you would be having some trouble on this issue as well as the issue regarding prophets, generally.

But what President Kimball said isn’t relevant since I know that Brigham Young wasn’t acting as prophet when he taught the Adam-God doctrine.  So whether or not Kimball or anyone else talked about something that was or wasn’t exactly the same and Young’s Adam-God doesn’t matter.

You see, I already have my confirmation that Adam-God doctrine isn’t true so I don’t need another prophet or a man with the title of prophet to tell me whether it is or isn’t true. 

How does this not fit what you described as how I can know when the prophet is acting as a prophet.  I’ve done exactly what you’ve described.

Or, are you saying that I’m wrong and that Young was acting as a prophet when he taught Adam-God?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not how I take Pres. Benson. I think he's saying that the Prophet can when acting as a Prophet speak on anything at anytime. It's pretty clear contextually that he's referring to the Prophet not being able to speak to social or political issues. I suspect he's indirectly referring to critics of the Church on the ERA which was controversial in 1980, but his examples were from the early Church and people referring to Joseph's pronouncements on temporal matters.

One could take any politically controversial issue of course. The question is ultimately whether there's a limit on what a prophet can pronounce on.

The Fourteen Fundamentals does not refer to “when the prophet is acting as a prophet”.  That’s not a qualifier that Benson includes. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

How can someone who God condemns eternally blackmail us?

I am talking about the logic of your assumption we won't be happy unless all our loved ones are with us.  What if our loved ones put strings on their willingness to join us?  Do we accept the conditions or can we choose to be happy without them with us in the celestial kingdom?

Edited August 23, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But what President Kimball said isn’t relevant since I know that Brigham Young wasn’t acting as prophet when he taught the Adam-God doctrine.  So whether or not Kimball or anyone else talked about something that was or wasn’t exactly the same and Young’s Adam-God doesn’t matter.

You see, I already have my confirmation that Adam-God doctrine isn’t true so I don’t need another prophet or a man with the title of prophet to tell me whether it is or isn’t true. 

How does this not fit what you described as how I can know when the prophet is acting as a prophet.  I’ve done exactly what you’ve described.

Or, are you saying that I’m wrong and that Young was acting as a prophet when he taught Adam-God?

Care should be taken to differentiate between the so-called "Adam-God theory" and the doctrine Brigham taught about Adam and God.  The two are not the same thing. He did teach what he taught about Adam and God, and what he taught was actually true, but he didn't teach what many people misrepresent to be his teachings from that discourse.

If you'll look into this a little deeper you may eventually see what I mean, but then again, maybe you won't.  Or maybe it will just take you a while before you do. 

 

[Analytics]

Believe it or not, I dreamed about this thread last night. I was in a 2-seater airplane piloted by Russell M. Nelson. Despite his reassurances to the contrary, President Nelson had no clue how to fly the plane. After several close calls it eventually crashed. We somehow survived, and I walked away thinking how naïve I was for getting in that plane in the first place.

The only thing missing was Smac97 witnessing the crash and saying the reason I became disillusioned was because I expected Nelson to be infallible.