Expectations of a prophet…

[Calm]

Topic gets brought up in relation to lots of subjects as well as being repeatedly addressed itself, but this is new to me and thought others might be interested:

https://www.keitherekson.com/2022/02/expectations-of-a-prophet/?

 Video and/or transcript available 

Quote

            One thing I have observed is that many questions invoke the existence and role of living prophets. Sometimes the connection is stated directly, “If he was a prophet, then how could such-and-such happen?” Most often the connection remains unstated as an underlying concern about trust. During the past half century, we have, as a society generally, abandoned our trust in leaders, in experts, in institutions, even in superheroes. So it is certainly no surprise that suspicion of prophets would abound in latter-days long prophesied to be populated by “false prophets” who “shall deceive many.” Losing trust is one of the perils of our “perilous times.”[1]

Quote

Perhaps the most common oversimplification of living prophets posits an either/or of being inspired oruninspired, “called of God” or “just a man.” A revelation given on the day the Church was organized can improve this simple binary. If you ever visit the Church History Library, you will see the beginning of the message emblazoned on the wall in the lobby, “Behold, there shall be a record kept among you.” The instruction went on to explain what kind of information should be found in the record—“in it thou [Joseph] shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.” And what should we expect of this prophet? Three things. Joseph will be considered a prophet “through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost.”[5] Prophets cultivate relationships with each of the three members of the Godhead and understanding these relationships helps dispel common misunderstandings of their work.

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Calm

[rchorse]

It took me a while to learn that inspiration is not an all or nothing thing. If a prophet says or does something that isn't inspired, it does not mean that everything else he's done or said was uninspired. Similarly, just because some (or most, as has been my experience) of what was said/done was inspired, it doesn't mean all of it was.

Mistakes happen, but that doesn't then mean by extension that everything is a mistake or wrong. What it does mean, though, is that I need to get my own inspiration about how to respond to things the prophets say and/or do, especially when they don't sit quite right with me.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Topic gets brought up in relation to lots of subjects as well as being repeatedly addressed itself, but this is new to me and thought others might be interested:

https://www.keitherekson.com/2022/02/expectations-of-a-prophet/?

 Video and/or transcript available 

 

I am sure my comments won't be popular but in general this article was a classic gaslighting price. The LDS leaders in the past and currently tell us to follow them, to follow the prophet, to keep your eye on the brethren, that they cannot lead us astray, that the do see into the future, that if the prophet tells you to do something wrong and you do it you will be blessed. I know of no disaffected member that expect perfection.  But to put the blame on a member and say they had erroneous expectations of the leader when the member just believed what these men have consistently preached about their words is a bit too much.

[Saint Bonaventure]

Do LDS folks bring 1 Cor 14 into expectations of prophets?

For me, Paul puts the apostolic over the prophetic when he writes that:

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Cor 14:37-38)

Do LDS have scriptures, teachings, or traditions that contribute to a different belief or practice? Please help me understand.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do LDS folks bring 1 Cor 14 into expectations of prophets?

For me, Paul puts the apostolic over the prophetic when he writes that:

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Cor 14:37-38)

Do LDS have scriptures, teachings, or traditions that contribute to a different belief or practice? Please help me understand.

In the Church apostles are all prophets (and seers and revelators). We call the senior apostle ‘the Prophet’ but he is also the senior apostle, president of the Church, president of the High Priesthood, and probably some additional titles that we also don’t use often.

The gift of prophecy is not limited to apostles and others manifest it. Paul is probably calling out people who profess to be prophets and aren’t. Apostles (who all have the gift of prophecy) do outweigh a run-of-the-mill member with the gift of prophecy in terms of authority.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Topic gets brought up in relation to lots of subjects as well as being repeatedly addressed itself, but this is new to me and thought others might be interested:

https://www.keitherekson.com/2022/02/expectations-of-a-prophet/?

 Video and/or transcript available 

 

I expect them to have the keys of the priesthood by which I was baptized and received the other ordinances, and by which I have the gift of the Holy Ghost. This expectation comes from personal spiritual witness. There are other keys of this dispensation for sure, and I have faith and hope that they exercise them regularly (revelation, gathering, sealing, etc.). So, I see my expectations of prophets as a function of my trust in the Lord first. My take is that this trust-expectation dynamic is similar to the faith-knowledge dynamic (or is it more of a dynamo?) from Alma 32.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Topic gets brought up in relation to lots of subjects as well as being repeatedly addressed itself, but this is new to me and thought others might be interested:

https://www.keitherekson.com/2022/02/expectations-of-a-prophet/?

 Video and/or transcript available 

 

@Teancuma bit of a response to your comment 

My complaint about this topic is that the church declares this from the rooftop… yet they won’t come out and say what EXACTLY has been done and said that was a mistake. Then there is the idea that we cannot criticize our leaders. The message is being given is “Prophets make mistakes, but if you tell us what those mistakes are, you are sinning”

Edited February 6, 2022 by Fether

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, Fether said:

@Teancuma bit of a response to your comment 

My complaint about this topic is that the church declares this from the rooftop… yet they won’t come out and say what EXACTLY has been done and said that was a mistake. Then there is the idea that we cannot criticize our leaders. The message is being given is “Prophets make mistakes, but if you tell us what those mistakes are, you are sinning”

Rather, I think the message is, 1) Individual Church leaders at all levels are fallible, hence the quorum and council systems. 2) "Telling" what their mistakes are is subject to Church discipline, depending on the obvious several factors. 3) The Lord will intervene  as necessary to set things aright. There are expectations of members, too.

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Rather, I think the message is, 1) Individual Church leaders at all levels are fallible, hence the quorum and council systems. 2) "Telling" what their mistakes are is subject to Church discipline, depending on the obvious several factors. 3) The Lord will intervene  as necessary to set things aright. There are expectations of members, too.

I agree completely. I just think if the church came out and said “refusing the blacks the priesthood was a mistake” or “the 2015 policy co evening children of LGBTQ was a mistake”, it would go a long way and soften up the mindset MANY church members have that they aren’t fallible.

I spoke to a lady a few months ago who whole heartedly believes the Q12 and FP speak with Jesus face to face every day, and that that is the mode in which Christ runs the church. She is not alone, and if someone grows up in the church but never spends time doing serious study, that is a very plausible outcome of thought.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Fether

[Saint Bonaventure]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the Church apostles are all prophets (and seers and revelators). We call the senior apostle ‘the Prophet’ but he is also the senior apostle, president of the Church, president of the High Priesthood, and probably some additional titles that we also don’t use often.

The gift of prophecy is not limited to apostles and others manifest it. Paul is probably calling out people who profess to be prophets and aren’t. Apostles (who all have the gift of prophecy) do outweigh a run-of-the-mill member with the gift of prophecy in terms of authority.

And here are the differences. Thank you for responding, and I think, clarifying.

I gently suggest a re-reading of 1 Cor 14, as I believe it is very clear that Paul is allowing for genuine prophets in verses 29-32:

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets."

A difference between myself and an LDS perspective seems to be that LDS don't see prophecy as a gift that is subordinated to apostolic authority, but that prophecy seems to have two contexts: 1) It is somehow part of, linked to, or essential to ordination to the LDS apostleship, and thus an LDS apostle is a prophet, in the same sense that one could be a deacon, priest, or bishop and 2) a gift that just anyone can have (but if a regular LDS person started saying they were a "prophet," I expect there might be measures taken/discipline/encouragement to conform to norms. 

I see Paul in 1 COR 14:37 as declaring that the prophets need to defer to his apostolic authority. He doesn't appeal to prophetic authority.

I'm observing an intertwining of prophecy and authority in the LDS tradition, and while I find it fascinating, I don't see the notion supported in the New Testament, in Sacred Tradition, etc.

If there are LDS scriptures or teachings that elaborate this prophet-seer-revelator teaching, I'd enjoy learning more.

Again, thank you for responding and trying to help me understand.

 

 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

I agree completely. I just think if the church came out and said “refusing the blacks the priesthood was a mistake” or “the 2015 policy co evening children of LGBTQ was a mistake”, it would go a long way and soften up the mindset MANY church members have that they aren’t fallible.

I spoke to a lady a few months ago who whole heartedly believes the Q12 and FP speak with Jesus face to face every day, and that that is the mode in which Christ runs the church. She is not alone, and if someone grows up in the church but never spends time doing serious study, that is a very plausible outcome of thought.

I think mistakes are contextual and relative.

How would today's leading councils of the Church know that the leading councils up until 1978 were making a policy mistake? At best it would be expressing an opinion. The same with the November 2015 policy: in today's world, a lot changed between its implementation and reversal 40 months later. The today's leaders were generally involved in this instance, but how could anyone know they made a mistake? This is a matter of opinion also.

The best all of us have, when push comes to shove, is the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost to stay with the Church and keep our covenants, no matter how our fallible, intellectually or emotionally based expectations may be challenged or shattered.

[InCognitus]

36 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

A difference between myself and an LDS perspective seems to be that LDS don't see prophecy as a gift that is subordinated to apostolic authority, but that prophecy seems to have two contexts: 1) It is somehow part of, linked to, or essential to ordination to the LDS apostleship, and thus an LDS apostle is a prophet, in the same sense that one could be a deacon, priest, or bishop and 2) a gift that just anyone can have (but if a regular LDS person started saying they were a "prophet," I expect there might be measures taken/discipline/encouragement to conform to norms. 

I see Paul in 1 COR 14:37 as declaring that the prophets need to defer to his apostolic authority. He doesn't appeal to prophetic authority.

I see Paul using prophet and the gift of prophecy as two different things.  Certainly, a person who has the gift of prophecy can be called a prophet (as he uses it in 1 Corinthians 14).  However, Paul also used the word prophet in an authoritative way in the church, and as one of the offices in the church.  For example, Paul refers to the living apostles and prophets as the very foundation of the church:

Eph 2:19-22  "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

He also listed the offices of apostles and prophets along with other offices in the church as continuing until "all come in the unity of the faith", and explains that we need those offices to prevent us from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine":

Eph 4:11-14:  "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" 

As you probably know, we also believe in apostolic authority, but the authority was restored by the apostles to those in the latter-days.

Edited February 7, 2022 by InCognitus

[Hamba Tuhan]

Once again, I assert that those who are intimately familiar with the processes of revelation in their own lives will not fail to see those same processes at work in the way the Lord chooses to lead His Church through men He calls apostles and prophets.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

One thing I have observed is that many questions invoke the existence and role of living prophets. Sometimes the connection is stated directly, “If he was a prophet, then how could such-and-such happen?” Most often the connection remains unstated as an underlying concern about trust.

To be clear this isn’t Calm, but is Calm quoting someone. 
 

I guess my question is where do members of the church who were born and raised as members, attended three hours a week, attended Sunday school, served missions, attended fireside’s, and consistently read their scripture; where do these people get their expectations of what a prophet is and should be from? If this is a common occurrence perhaps the church curriculum should be looked at? Perhaps instead of never criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true some lessons could be put together about what to do when the men that lead us mess up. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To be clear this isn’t Calm, but is Calm quoting someone. 
 

I guess my question is where do members of the church who were born and raised as members, attended three hours a week, attended Sunday school, served missions, attended fireside’s, and consistently read their scripture; where do these people get their expectations of what a prophet is and should be from? If this is a common occurrence perhaps the church curriculum should be looked at? Perhaps instead of never criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true some lessons could be put together about what to do when the men that lead us mess up. 

That's a good question.

I don't think that kind of interpretation of prophet is ever taught anywhere (in the last few decades at least) in church curriculum, but it does seem to be an "idea" that a lot of members have that is just assumed.

Now I'm wondering where it comes from too.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a good question.

I don't think that kind of interpretation of prophet is ever taught anywhere (in the last few decades at least) in church curriculum, but it does seem to be an "idea" that a lot of members have that is just assumed.

Now I'm wondering where it comes from too.

I think transmitted family influence is stronger than curriculum or local "roulette" as far as what is taught. I think that is why things persist or fade away.

Who knows? Maybe "Saints Unscripted" style interpretations will win out, long term because of this. But there continues to be a lot of traditionalism transmitted via families as well.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

And here are the differences. Thank you for responding, and I think, clarifying.

I gently suggest a re-reading of 1 Cor 14, as I believe it is very clear that Paul is allowing for genuine prophets in verses 29-32:

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets."

A difference between myself and an LDS perspective seems to be that LDS don't see prophecy as a gift that is subordinated to apostolic authority, but that prophecy seems to have two contexts: 1) It is somehow part of, linked to, or essential to ordination to the LDS apostleship, and thus an LDS apostle is a prophet, in the same sense that one could be a deacon, priest, or bishop and 2) a gift that just anyone can have (but if a regular LDS person started saying they were a "prophet," I expect there might be measures taken/discipline/encouragement to conform to norms. 

I see Paul in 1 COR 14:37 as declaring that the prophets need to defer to his apostolic authority. He doesn't appeal to prophetic authority.

I'm observing an intertwining of prophecy and authority in the LDS tradition, and while I find it fascinating, I don't see the notion supported in the New Testament, in Sacred Tradition, etc.

If there are LDS scriptures or teachings that elaborate this prophet-seer-revelator teaching, I'd enjoy learning more.

Again, thank you for responding and trying to help me understand.

 

 

And that is how the church works. Those with the gift of prophecy are expected to defer to apostolic authority. They defer to “the Prophet” who is the senior apostle. We tend to use terms like “prophetic counsel” and “prophetic authority” but use those terms to refer to what comes from the apostles. It is a semantic distinction. We are doing it the way you suggest we just culturally call “apostolic” authority “prophetic” instead since it comes from “the Prophet”.

In basic terms if Brother Goober in the ward (congregation) declares himself to be a prophet called to counsel or replace the apostles the general response would be to consider him apostate and possibly crazy and not to believe that this guy outranks the apostles.

Occasionally we have had break off groups formed by such individuals if they can attract a following but that is not the norm.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Do LDS folks bring 1 Cor 14 into expectations of prophets?

For me, Paul puts the apostolic over the prophetic when he writes that:

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Cor 14:37-38)

Do LDS have scriptures, teachings, or traditions that contribute to a different belief or practice? Please help me understand.

One problem for both Latter-day Saints as well as non-LDS people is a tendency to cite proof texts and ignore all the rest.  People of faith should already know that they must depend upon the Holy Spirit for confirmation of any prophetic claim (written or oral, in the Canon of Scripture or outside it).  Cutting corners is the easy way out.  Reading actual canonical texts and taking them to heart is not so easy, but it is very sobering, edifying, and stimulating.  Ancient and modern prophets have much in common, but being perfect is not part of that commonality.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Topic gets brought up in relation to lots of subjects as well as being repeatedly addressed itself, but this is new to me and thought others might be interested:

https://www.keitherekson.com/2022/02/expectations-of-a-prophet/?

 ..............................

One way of looking at this dilemma is to take Erekson’s own quote and raise an historical issue with it:  

Quote

 A revelation given on the day the Church was organized can improve this simple binary. ..., “Behold, there shall be a record kept among you.”

He refers of course to D&C 21:1, a revelation received April 6, 1830.  But where was that revelation received?  The official position of the LDS Church is that “The place was a log farm home belonging to Peter Whitmer, Sr., in Fayette, Seneca County, New York” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/01/april-6-1830-the-day-the-church-was-organized?lang=eng ).

There are two major problems with this claim:

1.  It does not appear that the Church was actually founded in Fayette on April 6, but instead at the Joseph Smith Sr log home in Manchester, New York.  Indeed, prior to 1834, all church publications and documents explicitly stated that the church was organized in Manchester, New York.  Eye-witnesses include William Smith (Smith 1883, p. 14), Joseph Knight Sr. (Jessee 1976), and several non-believing Palmyra residents who had attended (Tucker 1867, p. 58).

D&C 20 (Constitution of the Church) through 22 all appear to have been received in Manchester, New York.  Michael Marquardt, "An Appraisal of Manchester as Location for the Organization of the Church," Sunstone, Feb 1992, pp. 49-57, online at Wayback Machine, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/087-49-57.pdf .

2.  By April of 1830, before the formal organization on April 6, the actual restored Church of Christ already included 6 elders and 70 members from Fayette, Manchester, and Colesville.   Howso?  By revelation: In May 1829, Joseph received BofC 9:16, "Behold, this is my doctrine: whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church: whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me: therefore, he is not of my church" (=D&C 10:67-68).  Also in May 1829, both Joseph & Oliver were given the Aaronic priesthood and performed baptisms – dozens were baptized by June 1829.  These people considered themselves “the Church of Christ” (Roberts, HC, I:6,59).

A revelation to Joseph in June 1829 told him more about how to govern that Church (D&C 18), and this was capped by Oliver’s “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 – indicating that the church should ordain priests and teachers "according to the gifts & callings of God unto men" (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1#facts ).  The church was to meet regularly to partake of bread and wine, and Oliver was described as "an Apostle of Jesus Christ."

[Fether]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think mistakes are contextual and relative.

How would today's leading councils of the Church know that the leading councils up until 1978 were making a policy mistake? At best it would be expressing an opinion. The same with the November 2015 policy: in today's world, a lot changed between its implementation and reversal 40 months later. The today's leaders were generally involved in this instance, but how could anyone know they made a mistake? This is a matter of opinion also.

The best all of us have, when push comes to shove, is the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost to stay with the Church and keep our covenants, no matter how our fallible, intellectually or emotionally based expectations may be challenged or shattered.

Why are we dancing that line then? “Past leaders have made mistakes… but we won’t acknowledge what those mistakes are”

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rchorse said:

It took me a while to learn that inspiration is not an all or nothing thing. If a prophet says or does something that isn't inspired, it does not mean that everything else he's done or said was uninspired. Similarly, just because some (or most, as has been my experience) of what was said/done was inspired, it doesn't mean all of it was.

Mistakes happen, but that doesn't then mean by extension that everything is a mistake or wrong. What it does mean, though, is that I need to get my own inspiration about how to respond to things the prophets say and/or do, especially when they don't sit quite right with me.

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am sure my comments won't be popular but in general this article was a classic gaslighting price. The LDS leaders in the past and currently tell us to follow them, to follow the prophet, to keep your eye on the brethren, that they cannot lead us astray, that the do see into the future, that if the prophet tells you to do something wrong and you do it you will be blessed. I know of no disaffected member that expect perfection.  But to put the blame on a member and say they had erroneous expectations of the leader when the member just believed what these men have consistently preached about their words is a bit too much.

Such responses tell us more about the people responding than about the nature of the question being considered.  This is part of the winnowing process, and must be expected.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

Why are we dancing that line then? “Past leaders have made mistakes… but we won’t acknowledge what those mistakes are”

Actually some of the most important mistakes have been directly acknowledged, as with Bruce McConkie's blistering public acknowlegment that he and Brother Brigham were completely wrong about African male ordination.  He left the hard core racists nowhere to hide.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually some of the most important mistakes have been directly acknowledged, as with Bruce McConkie's blistering public acknowlegment that he and Brother Brigham were completely wrong about African male ordination.  He left the hard core racists nowhere to hide.

I believe if you read his actual remarks and note the his book Mormon Doctrine continued teaching racist doctrine until it went out of print, you’ll find this just isn’t true. As for the quote:

Quote

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Context provides that he is talking about the timing of Black people of African descent receiving the priesthood. You are reading the rest in there. 
 

Quote

What is surprising about Elder McConkie is that he created an updated version of Mormon Doctrine in 1979, but he did not revise his teachings in the book.  In the footnote 25, Edward Kimball states,

Despite this sweeping language, Elder McConkie may have changes his views only about when the curse should be lifted. In the 1979 revision of his second edition of Mormon Doctrine, he continued to express the view that those of black African lineage descend from Cain and at least those who lived before 1978 come to earth under a curse related to their pre-mortal lives.  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, sv. Cain (108-9) Caste System (114), Egyptus (214), Ham (342), Negroes (526-28), Races of Men (616)/  And he said in McConkie, “New Revelation,” “The ancient curse is no more. The seed of Cain and Ham and Canaan and Egyptus and Pharaoh–all these now have power to rise up and bless Abraham as their father” (128).  But he also said, “[W]e can only suppose and reason that it [the restriction on Blacks] is on the basis of preexistence and of our premortal devotion and faith.” [pages 130-31].  Dennis B. Horne, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from His Life and Teachings (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2000), 151-52, attributes to Elder McConkie unchanged views as to the basis for the policy. (emphasis in original)

From here: https://mormonheretic.org/2012/08/12/rehabbing-elder-mcconkie/

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually some of the most important mistakes have been directly acknowledged, as with Bruce McConkie's blistering public acknowlegment that he and Brother Brigham were completely wrong about African male ordination.  He left the hard core racists nowhere to hide.

True!

Do you know of more? Your comment seemed to suggest multiple

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

True!

Do you know of more? Your comment seemed to suggest multiple

Actually myth. He admitted the minimal amount of fault only (ie the timing was wrong) - see my post above. This is an example of the church minimizing and downplaying the faults of prophets.