Are past sermons still in force from Prophets past, no matter our current Prophet?

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You can choose to mock rather than addressing the questions raised if you like.  But when speaking of doctrine and revelation truth is eternal.

If we accept every change because the current prophet says so we really have little testimony in any gospel principles except for the one that says follow the living prophet.  Which you can do without agreeing with every doctrinal opinion of the current day.

I apologize, but I stand by my assertion that it is neither your province nor Islander's to attempt to divine the fate of my eternal soul or my standing in the Church of Jesus Christ based on what I have said here.

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You can choose to mock rather than addressing the questions raised if you like.  But when speaking of doctrine and revelation truth is eternal.

If we accept every change because the current prophet says so we really have little testimony in any gospel principles except for the one that says follow the living prophet.  Which you can do without agreeing with every doctrinal opinion of the current day.

You are making the implicit assumption that every pronouncement is infallible doctrine. It’s not. See my post number three in this thread. 
Ive been quoted over my lifetime dozens of GA pronouncements from the drinking of Cola drinks to birth control. None of this informed opinion was doctrine. 

[Islander]

21 hours ago, Rain said:

Sure we do. It's the same thing we teach new members, primary children and adults very throughly.  If the present prophet contradicts a past prophet then we just need to prepare ourselves and pray to have the Spirit guide us in which way we should follow.

God's truths/doctrines do not have an expiration date, but even if prophets were infallible, God's applications for each era or individual may not apply. So when there are contradictory words from prophets we put our hearts in a place to listen to God and seek the Spirit to find out what applications apply to us.

That sounds like rationalization. Again, everybody continues to try and slide under the umbrella of "application". The OP talked about contradiction in the teachings of two prophets. I am not sure I have been faced with such a situation in  my life experience in the church, but it is a valid intellectual exercise. Rather than ignoring the inconsistency and the contradiction, as you suggest, we must be honest enough to face the situation. It is also important to note that we all have access to the truth when it comes to the revelation of God. It has never been the purpose of God to withhold the truth from the saints. In like manner, it is also obvious that prophets are also mere mortals and fallible. We don't have to simply obey but are encouraged to ponder, search and call on the Almighty for personal revelation in such matters. History can attest to the errancy of prophets. I suggest that questioning the validity of a statement made from the pulpit does not imply lack of faith in any way. Faith does not suspend or impair our intellectual faculties.

[Islander]

On 1/21/2021 at 8:29 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I apologize, but I stand by my assertion that it is neither your province nor Islander's to attempt to divine the fate of my eternal soul or my standing in the Church of Jesus Christ based on what I have said here.

I did not such thing neither was my intention. I just pointed out that suspending one's intellectual ability when faced with a challenging doctrinal issue is not faith. I was speaking in generalities, not you in particular. I lament that you decided on a tangent of feeling grieved rather than articulate on the issue. Your faith and and standing in the church are not determined by what transpires here, not am I an arbiters in such matters. I just thought there was merit in an honest exchange on the subject.

You directly called another poster intellectually blind and questioned his faith. This is against board rules and will result in being banned from the thread if you continue. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, Islander said:

I did not such thing neither was my intention. I just pointed out that suspending one's intellectual ability when faced with a challenging doctrinal issue is not faith. I was speaking in generalities, not you in particular. I lament that you decided on a tangent of feeling grieved rather than articulate on the issue. Your faith and and standing in the church are not determined by what transpires here, not am I an arbiters in such matters. I just thought there was merit in an honest exchange on the subject.

You've made the accusation, twice now, that, allegedly, I have "suspended my intellectual ability" (which, let's face it: That's simply a "nice" way of telling someone you think he's stupid).  Knock it off.  It doesn't become you.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

That sounds like rationalization. Again, everybody continues to try and slide under the umbrella of "application".

Talk to Elder Bednar about it being rationalization.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

The OP talked about contradiction in the teachings of two prophets. I am not sure I have been faced with such a situation in  my life experience in the church, but it is a valid intellectual exercise. Rather than ignoring the inconsistency and the contradiction, as you suggest,

I did not suggest that. That is an assumption on your part.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

we must be honest enough to face the situation.

Yep.  Which is why I feel people should prepare themselves before going to the Lord with it.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

It is also important to note that we all have access to the truth when it comes to the revelation of God.

Yes. Again, why I suggested going to the Lord.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

It has never been the purpose of God to withhold the truth from the saints. In like manner, it is also obvious that prophets are also mere mortals and fallible. We don't have to simply obey but are encouraged to ponder, search and call on the Almighty for personal revelation in such matters. History can attest to the errancy of prophets. I suggest that questioning the validity of a statement made from the pulpit does not imply lack of faith in any way.

Never implied that.  Again, it is why I suggested to take it to the Lord.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Faith does not suspend or impair our intellectual faculties.

Never said anything about this, but I agree with it.

[JLHPROF]

Apparently the current prophet is ok with tattoos now.  This has been making the rounds online...

[MrShorty]

On 1/21/2021 at 6:21 AM, JLHPROF said:

If we accept every change because the current prophet says so we really have little testimony in any gospel principles except for the one that says follow the living prophet.

I recently thought through the issue of slavery and observed that the Biblical authors/prophets did not condemn it (Moses included policies for its proper practice within his law). Book of Mormon peoples by the time of Ammon/Alma had reached a point of abolishing slavery. Brigham Young seemed to find slavery acceptable. It seems that slavery is one of those issues that, cynically, could be said to be one of those issues whose rightness/wrongness is at the whim of whoever is the prophet at the time.  Ben Spackman has a good discussion of the problem of slavery in the Bible on his blog (GD lesson materials for Philemon). He summarizes the problem by asking, "What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?"

I recently chapter 6 (need to read the rest of the book to put it all in context) of "The Crucible of Doubt" by the Givens where they propose a viceroy type model of prophets. In this model, they suggest that maybe (quoting Farrer), "[God] promises [Peter or Joseph or other prophet] that the decisions [the prophet] makes below will be sanctioned from above." In other, cynical words, God makes right whatever the prophet says, and maybe there are no important, eternal truths that really matter. Of course, I don't believe the cynical version, so I conclude that there must be something deeper that needs to be understood about the fallibility of prophets that I don't, yet, understand.

The OP focused on the relatively minor issue of tattoos. I feel like there must have been something more important underlying Pres. Hinckley's discomfort with tattoos, but I'm not sure what it is (and I'm not entirely sure that Pres. Hinckley could have articulated what that underlying principle or principles was/were). Growing up, those who got tattoos were "the rebellious kids", so maybe the underlying principle is one of general obedience versus rebelliousness. Which, in some ways, seems similar to what is going on with the "beard ban" at the BYUs, where we are essentially still living in the '60s and '70s when beards were associated with hippies and the counter culture movement and free love/sex and drugs and rock and roll."

[Islander]

On 1/20/2021 at 11:38 PM, Rain said:

Sure we do. It's the same thing we teach new members, primary children and adults very throughly.  If the present prophet contradicts a past prophet then we just need to prepare ourselves and pray to have the Spirit guide us in which way we should follow.

God's truths/doctrines do not have an expiration date, but even if prophets were infallible, God's applications for each era or individual may not apply. So when there are contradictory words from prophets we put our hearts in a place to listen to God and seek the Spirit to find out what applications apply to us.

That is either indoctrination or groupthink. In either case is rather pretty bad theology. It is simply not a matter of mere "application". I am referring to doctrinal contradiction. One prophet says is "blue" and the other one says is "red". Both can not be right and by ignoring the contradiction all you do (by seeking a possible angle of application) is  attempting a psychological coping mechanism. A way to protect yourself from the possibility that "someone is wrong" and the emotional consequences of that realization. That is not a very adult response. True faith and emotional maturity calls for us to confront the issue rather than retrieve into rationalizations. The problem is that you can't conceiver that a prophet could be wrong. Catholics, for example, continue to do that after 16-1700 years of being wrong in a significant number of issues. 

Even prophets are mere mortals and fallible. The scriptures and, of course, history can attest to that. The fact that Joseph made many mistakes does not diminishes him in his standing as a prophet and as the mouthpiece of the Lord when called to be so. No need to be afraid to look a the facts for what they are regardless of the circumstances and those involved.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Islander said:

I am referring to doctrinal contradiction. One prophet says is "blue" and the other one says is "red". Both can not be right and by ignoring the contradiction all you do (by seeking a possible angle of application) is  attempting a psychological coping mechanism. A way to protect yourself from the possibility that "someone is wrong" and the emotional consequences of that realization. 

I agree.  The argument is usually made that contradictions came from opinion, not revelation.  But at the same time there are previous non-canonical revelations that are no longer considered to be from God.  This creates dangerous precedent since the next prophet can always claim revelation to undo a previous prophet (much like Presidents and executive orders).  Despite the prophet Joseph teaching that new revelation contradicting previous revelation should be considered false.

Quote

Even prophets are mere mortals and fallible. The scriptures and, of course, history can attest to that. The fact that Joseph made many mistakes does not diminishes him in his standing as a prophet and as the mouthpiece of the Lord when called to be so. 

It's also important to recognize a difference between mistakes in decisions and mistakes in revelations.

Joseph said “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught”.

And I believe that.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree.  The argument is usually made that contradictions came from opinion, not revelation.  But at the same time there are previous non-canonical revelations that are no longer considered to be from God.  This creates dangerous precedent since the next prophet can always claim revelation to undo a previous prophet (much like Presidents and executive orders).  Despite the prophet Joseph teaching that new revelation contradicting previous revelation should be considered false.

It's also important to recognize a difference between mistakes in decisions and mistakes in revelations.

Joseph said “I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught”.

And I believe that.

While I don't have the concerns you do I appreciate how you wrote this.

[MustardSeed]

I certainly hope we don't have to follow all directions of all prior prophets.  I'm pretty sure ol Brigham had some things to say about the way he wanted his womenfolk to dress and behave that I'd prefer not to ascribe to. 

 

PS when I turn 60 I'm getting a tattoo.  If the brethren's women can get plastic surgery without any issue I think I'm safe

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I certainly hope we don't have to follow all directions of all prior prophets.  I'm pretty sure ol Brigham had some things to say about the way he wanted his womenfolk to dress and behave that I'd prefer not to ascribe to. 

 

PS when I turn 60 I'm getting a tattoo.  If the brethren's women can get plastic surgery without any issue I think I'm safe

Just curious who you're talking about? 

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just curious who you're talking about? 

I should say the women who lead in the church.

 

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I should say the women who lead in the church.

 

What kind of plastic surgery? Or I guess I didn't know this is public knowledge. And I have nothing against tattoos or plastic surgery. We have enough billboards in Utah for plastic surgery/body enhancements...you name it, so it's definitely a thing. 

I'm turning 60 next year, maybe I should think of getting a small meaningful tattoo. 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

I'll send you a PM, I don't want to derail too far off topic

 

[Ahab]

On 1/12/2021 at 1:25 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is clear that “continuing revelation”, makes changes in Church Doctrine, a necessary event. Such as the “ending of Polygamy”, and  “Priesthood for those of all races“, but what about sermons that make behavior very clear? It is clear that coverts join who have tattoos, such as former military, and others who did not grow up in the Church. I remember one sermon, very well when President Hinckley, in a sermon made very clear, and very forcefully the comment; “..,tattoos are graffiti on the Temple of God...”. He had this practice, when speaking as the “Prophet”, of making gestures with his dominant hand in the air, by doing this to those attending General Conference, be they in the Conference Center, or watching from home. When addressing this topic, he was being very, very,  forceful! 
 

I wonder if any here, remember this sermon, and the gesture he would use, when driving a point home? 

Whatever anyone says is simply an indication of what they think and how they feel about whatever they are talking about whenever they say something about it.  And whatever they say is either true or false.  There is no other option.

[AtlanticMike]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Whatever anyone says is simply an indication of what they think and how they feel about whatever they are talking about whenever they say something about it.  And whatever they say is either true or false.  There is no other option.

Plenty of scenarios can be true and false at the same time.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Plenty of scenarios can be true and false at the same time.

No, I don't think so.  Similar scenarios, yes, but not the same scenarios.

[AtlanticMike]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, I don't think so.  Similar scenarios, yes, but not the same scenarios.

Early in my life, over an 8 year period, i was diagnosed by 3 different doctors as bipolar. Dozens of test, 100s of therapy sessions, dozens of medications, a short stay in a home for troubled youth, all evidence that pointed toward a bipolar diagnosis. Today those same doctors, if looking at my past history with depression would swear, you cant not be bipolar if your actually bipolar. But I've lived the past 20 years without drugs or entering into a manic episode. I say I'm not bipolar! Who's right? The three psychiatrists with degrees, or me, the person living a life without manic episodes? 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Early in my life, over an 8 year period, i was diagnosed by 3 different doctors as bipolar. Dozens of test, 100s of therapy sessions, dozens of medications, a short stay in a home for troubled youth, all evidence that pointed toward a bipolar diagnosis. Today those same doctors, if looking at my past history with depression would swear, you cant not be bipolar if your actually bipolar. But I've lived the past 20 years without drugs or entering into a manic episode. I say I'm not bipolar! Who's right? The three psychiatrists with degrees, or me, the person living a life without manic episodes? 

Determining who is right or who knows the truth is a separate issue over whether or not there is a right or true answer.  If you're bipolar, you are, and if you're not bipolar, you're not.  Maybe you are only sometimes and not all of the time?

Do you know if it is possible for anyone be at both poles at the same time?

[AtlanticMike]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Determining who is right or who knows the truth is a separate issue over whether or not there is a right or true answer.  If you're bipolar, you are, and if you're not bipolar, you're not.  Maybe you are only sometimes and not all of the time?

Do you know if it is possible for anyone be at both poles at the same time?

If a mormon, jehovah witness and a seventh day Adventist are given a lie detector test by the supreme lie detector tester in the world and he determines the mormon knows Mormonism is true, and the jehovah witness knows the Jw religion is true, and the seventh day Adventist knows the seventh day Adventist religion is true, are they all correct? What if an atheist comes along and tells all 3 that they're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, would the atheist be correct? Who determines what is true?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If a mormon, jehovah witness and a seventh day Adventist are given a lie detector test by the supreme lie detector tester in the world and he determines the mormon knows Mormonism is true, and the jehovah witness knows the Jw religion is true, and the seventh day Adventist knows the seventh day Adventist religion is true, are they all correct? What if an atheist comes along and tells all 3 that they're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, would the atheist be correct? Who determines what is true?

The main problem with lie detectors is that they can only detect what someone thinks/believes is right or true.  They don't detect whether or not the thought/belief is actually true.

Truth is knowledge of what is, or was, or will be... not based on what any particular person thinks or believes or claims to "know" is truth but based on what actually/really is or was or will be.

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If a mormon, jehovah witness and a seventh day Adventist are given a lie detector test by the supreme lie detector tester in the world and he determines the mormon knows Mormonism is true, and the jehovah witness knows the Jw religion is true, and the seventh day Adventist knows the seventh day Adventist religion is true, are they all correct? What if an atheist comes along and tells all 3 that they're cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, would the atheist be correct? Who determines what is true?

Fact determines what is true, regardless of someone's ability to observe it correctly.

[AtlanticMike]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The main problem with lie detectors is that they can only detect what someone thinks/believes is right or true.  They don't detect whether or not the thought/belief is actually true.

Truth is knowledge of what is, or was, or will be... not based on what any particular person thinks or believes or claims to "know" is truth but based on what actually/really is or was or will be.

There are very few truths. Most of the time, the truth is what you want it to be. To most people, their truth is a coping mechanism.