Expectations of a prophet…

[LoudmouthMormon]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

From where I'm standing, the most common reason folks lose faith/testimony/belief in this church, is an unrealistic expectation goes unmet.  When someone doesn't know why they believe what they believe, when they aren't even sure what they believe, and something comes along that throws 'em for a loop, they don't know what else to do besides leave.

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

I read it after I posted. It, like the black and the priesthood essay are examples of the church ALMOST apologizing and admitting fault… but not quite

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I hear you.

At the same time, I believe there is a difference between someone finding support in a scripture, teaching, and/or tradition, and someone just drilling in on a verse of scripture and ignoring context, distorting, and trying to treat Sacred Scripture like it's just a series of fortune cookie messages. I certainly hope that a Catholic priest giving a homily and an LDS missionary on the doorstep will both stick to the former and avoid the latter.

What I'm encountering, I think, is a series of questions related to prophets being expected to be perfect, or always beyond reproach, etc. Those questions are new to me because of 1 Cor 14, which seems to authoritatively settle the matter by invoking apostolic authority and describing what to do--let the other prophets weigh what is said, and by the way, I, Paul, am commanding all of y'all. I further believe Paul's authority as an apostle (apostello is a form of "send" in Greek) comes from being sent by Christ, Timothy's from being sent by Paul, etc., right up to the present. 

I should add that I believe prophets are part of the foundation of the Church. Clearly Paul considered them so.

I'm just intrigued by how my LDS friends intermingle their notions of apostolic and prophetic in an ordination. It's a different paradigm for me, and I'm curious how you all have arrived at a place where the expectations of prophets are contested.

Thanks for your response to my musings, and for this conversation. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

From where I'm standing, the most common reason folks lose faith/testimony/belief in this church, is an unrealistic expectation goes unmet.  When someone doesn't know why they believe what they believe, when they aren't even sure what they believe, and something comes along that throws 'em for a loop, they don't know what else to do besides leave.

If this is really why people are leaving, it seems like an easy fix. The church has hours of dedicated time each week to correct the problem of “unrealistic” expectations. Right? 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

..................., I believe there is a difference between someone finding support in a scripture, teaching, and/or tradition, and someone just drilling in on a verse of scripture and ignoring context, distorting, and trying to treat Sacred Scripture like it's just a series of fortune cookie messages. I certainly hope that a Catholic priest giving a homily and an LDS missionary on the doorstep will both stick to the former and avoid the latter.

What I'm encountering, I think, is a series of questions related to prophets being expected to be perfect, or always beyond reproach, etc. Those questions are new to me because of 1 Cor 14, which seems to authoritatively settle the matter by invoking apostolic authority and describing what to do--let the other prophets weigh what is said, and by the way, I, Paul, am commanding all of y'all. I further believe Paul's authority as an apostle (apostello is a form of "send" in Greek) comes from being sent by Christ, Timothy's from being sent by Paul, etc., right up to the present. 

I should add that I believe prophets are part of the foundation of the Church. Clearly Paul considered them so.

I'm just intrigued by how my LDS friends intermingle their notions of apostolic and prophetic in an ordination. It's a different paradigm for me, and I'm curious how you all have arrived at a place where the expectations of prophets are contested................

There is a kind of mini-magesterium in Latter-day Saint culture, in which words of modern prophets are given great weight.  Since there is no professional clergy in the LDS Church, that means that some slapdash and slipshod collections of the words of Joseph and Brigham have been encyclopedically assembled and used as a kind of commentary on Scripture.  This has not been quite so popular since the upending of some of the central claims of Apostle Bruce McConkie's commentaries and his once very popular Mormon Doctrine.  Elder McConkie was a lawyer by profession, and had no theological or biblical training.  However, he would have been the Roman Catholic equivalent of a canon lawyer, and not a very good one.

Paul, on the other hand, was a trained rabbi.  A Pharisee, which is the source of modern rabbinic Judaism.  He presents a broad view of early Jewish-Christianity, and does not focus on only one issue to the exclusion of all else.  I find that very satisfying.  It is also helpful to recognize his fundamental disagreements with his fellow apostles.  LDS members are often quite unaware of disputes within their own First Presidency and Twelve.  They generally know nothing of the harsh criticism by senior Apostle Orson Pratt against some of the claims and  policies of Pres Brigham Young.  Turns out, in retrospect, that the beliefs and policy claims of Elder Pratt were correct and Brother Brigham wrong.  Some find that hard to take, and so simply ignore it.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Fether]

30 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

From where I'm standing, the most common reason folks lose faith/testimony/belief in this church, is an unrealistic expectation goes unmet.  When someone doesn't know why they believe what they believe, when they aren't even sure what they believe, and something comes along that throws 'em for a loop, they don't know what else to do besides leave.

This is very true from what I have seen (and I acknowledge that I look through my own perceptive goggles) . I’ve watched my fair share of “this ex-bishop/stake president leaves the church” interviews and “tell-all why I left the church” videos from ex-Mormon moms (I’ll add in people who have a faith crisis of some sort to that list too).  A majority percentage stem from some variation of “the prophet did this and a true prophet would never do that”. There is this belief in them that a true prophet would never be a treasure hunter, racist, overzealous with revelation, confuse the spirit with opinion, be sexist, make a false revelation, be a polygamist, etc.

Thats not to say that people don’t leave because of abuse, changing of core beliefs, deciding they just aren’t into it, or buying into (what I believe to be) lies crafted by antis. I don’t even believe most people leave the Christ because of incorrect expectations. But I would say it is the reason that makes up the largest percentage of people who leave the church or experience a faith crisis of some sort.

I do recognize that anyone who left the church likely has a problem with my view because it inherit my assumes the truthfulness of the church and does put some blame on the people who leave. But let me also add that I believe these unrealistic expectstions are partly dueto how the church (mostly culture) teaches about prophets (I explain this a bit in my previous comments)

[mfbukowski]

5 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.

Perhaps you are not acquainted with how prophets are "selected"

First, one is called from a vast number of "Seventies" - a reference to 70 disciples who were followers of Christ.  These men all have had vast experience in church leadership, coming up through the ranks having been Mission presidents, temple presidents, stake presidents, university presidents etc - all of these positions might be compared to Catholic bishops, archbishops and Cardinals.

After many years in these eclesiastical positions, a total of 12 of them are appointed to be "Apostles" AND are ordained as "prophets, seers and apostles".  All of the "First Presidency" are of course also apostles- the first presidency consists of 

Each has various duties in the church, overseeing secular aspects of the church- like temple selection and construction, budgetary positions etc as well as their spiritual duties of teaching and speaking to members and visiting their appointed regions of the world as regional spiritual leaders.

These are life-long callings, and they are only released from these positions by the Lord calling them home.

So to be a "prophet" - he has to be the SENIOR apostle, who has been an apostle the longest.   Many if not most prophets have been apostles 50 years or more before being called by the Lord to their position.   Another way of looking at it is that the Lord himself has the "veto" of any of 15 men- the 12 plus the 3 members of the First Presidency- by bringing these individuals home before designating (we believe) Himself very clearly who is to be prophet.

In short, 15 men will be selected to pass away by the Lord before one is selected to become THE prophet seer and revelator.   No politics, no elections, picking of straws or casting lots.

No one "thinks he is a prophet" and selects himself for the position.

In a debate between two apologists one might point out that Paul himself COULD BE SEEN as- (not by ME!) selecting himself to be an apostle. 

His sole evidence of being selected by God was his vision- actually the same claim made by Joseph Smith if you want to look at it that way.

One might also see voting for a new pope- not my position- as a selection by men and not the Lord.    Hanging out on these boards for a while I have seen both positions.

But no, I cannot see any way that anyone can logically say that the LDS prophet selects himself, thereby avoiding the admonition of Paul made here. 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, Fether said:

I read it after I posted. It, like the black and the priesthood essay are examples of the church ALMOST apologizing and admitting fault… but not quite

Churches are not anthropomorphic and don't apologize or admit faults, people do:  Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was publicly self-critical and condemnatory of Brother Brigham on that very issue.  He was unsparing in stating that he and Brigham spoke without light and knowledge.  That was not an "almost" statement.

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Fether said:

True!

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

I found his 1978 statement to the BYU studentbody stunning.  Do we really need more?  I assume that you consider Pres Uchtdorf's statement on mistakes too general.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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:

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

I don't share the interpretation of Ed Kimball or others.  I have always thought that Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt and David O. McKay had it right all along.  Brigham was clearly a racist, and that was entirely normal in his day and age.  Those who are intimately familiar with history understand that humans have always had a herky-jerky approach to truth, with one step forward and maybe two steps back.  The notion of progress has always been nonsense.  Prophets are very much men of their time, prisoners of their own culture.  Occasionally they surprise us, and that can be very gratifying -- even if it costs them their mortal lives.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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. 

No, I think this is an error.

No one is routinely called to be a bishop or any position "higher" than that, but selected by others.  When I was selected to be a bishop, I was positive they got it wrong- but in the course of things I saw why I had been called.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would WANT to be called to be a bishop- we are not paid and it is at least a 40 hour per week job, in ADDITION TO your regular job-- without any material recompense, and that is the case for all but the highest level callings in the church

One is "called" by others in EVERY position in the church, from primary teacher to Prophet.

No one decides on their own that they have a "vocation" or that they have been called by God to be a leader, virtually no one is paid because they have been ordained a priest, a position they have decided themselves to seek in order to make a living.

[Fether]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I found his 1978 statement to the BYU studentbody stunning.  Do we really need more?  I assume that you consider Pres Uchtdorf's statement on mistakes too general.

I do remember his speech, I’ve read it before and was impressed with his line about working on limited light. I would like to see something a little more “official”. Like in general conference or on the church website itself. Was his address ever printed in an ensign?

And yes, every attempt I have seen at saying “Prophets are not perfect” have never hit the mark I hope for.  It is too soft of a message and leaves people thinking they are talking about mistakes like forgetting your birthday, being annoyed with a waiter at a restaurant, or having an impure thought if some sort. They don’t consider things like “implementing/upholding racist policy” or “lying to their wife about plural marriage”. That, in my opinion, is where the problem lies.

[Fether]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Churches are not anthropomorphic and don't apologize or admit faults, people do:  Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was publicly self-critical and condemnatory of Brother Brigham on that very issue.  He was unsparing in stating that he and Brigham spoke without light and knowledge.  That was not an "almost" statement.

Let me clarify my statement then.

I wish someone at the head of the church would acknowledge, in detail, the specific “mistakes” they so often are speaking about, and the church, as an organization, publish their words in an official source (like GC, Ensign, or church newsroom).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Let me clarify my statement then.

I wish someone at the head of the church would acknowledge, in detail, the specific “mistakes” they so often are speaking about, and the church, as an organization, publish their words in an official source (like GC, Ensign, or church newsroom).

Realistically, it ain't gonna happen.  Invent your own reasons.  When I was a young Marine, we had a regular column in Leatherneck magazine called "If I were Commandant."  Lots of interesting ideas were floated in that column, taken from letters guys would send in, and I'm sure the Commandant of the Marine Corps read it.  However, even good ideas could not realistically be put into effect, for a variety of reasons.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I do remember his speech, I’ve read it before and was impressed with his line about working on limited light. I would like to see something a little more “official”. Like in general conference or on the church website itself. Was his address ever printed in an ensign?

McConkie deliberately used the temple phrase "light and knowledge."  His address was not printed in the Ensign, instead simply with BYU Speeches:  https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/alike-unto-god/

1 hour ago, Fether said:

And yes, every attempt I have seen at saying “Prophets are not perfect” have never hit the mark I hope for.  It is too soft of a message and leaves people thinking they are talking about mistakes like forgetting your birthday, being annoyed with a waiter at a restaurant, or having an impure thought if some sort. They don’t consider things like “implementing/upholding racist policy” or “lying to their wife about plural marriage”. That, in my opinion, is where the problem lies.

A couple of apostles and the Church Patriarch were excommunicated in the 20th century.  Those were not small matters.  Most people today are not even aware of those events, and don't want to be.  The reasons were much more serious than the small indiscretions you mention.  The notion that the Brethren are united on everything is likely one of the biggest misconceptions.  Pres Kimball no doubt recognized that fact.  He could easily have simply given a revelation and have done with it in 1978.  Instead, he wanted to bring all the Brethren along with him, so engineered an approach which exposed every one of them to a group revelation -- which some no doubt did not want to receive, but it came anyway.  I think that Kimball was brilliant for having done it that way.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

McConkie deliberately used the temple phrase "light and knowledge."  His address was not printed in the Ensign, instead simply with BYU Speeches:  https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/alike-unto-god/

A couple of apostles and the Church Patriarch were excommunicated in the 20th century.  Those were not small matters.  Most people today are not even aware of those events, and don't want to be.  The reasons were much more serious than the small indiscretions you mention.  The notion that the Brethren are united on everything is likely one of the biggest misconceptions.  Pres Kimball no doubt recognized that fact.  He could easily have simply given a revelation and have done with it in 1978.  Instead, he wanted to bring all the Brethren along with him, so engineered an approach which exposed every one of them to a group revelation -- which some no doubt did not want to receive, but it came anyway.  I think that Kimball was brilliant for having done it that way.

I would not have joined the church in 1978, but I seriously considered the possibility as "open" in 1979, and did in fact join that year.

I would be interested in more info on this, I have only seen the standard stories.  PM me if you like.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Church Patriarch [was] excommunicated in the 20th century.

I'm not aware of that. Which one are you thinking of?

[Fether]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

McConkie deliberately used the temple phrase "light and knowledge."  His address was not printed in the Ensign, instead simply with BYU Speeches:  https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/alike-unto-god/

A couple of apostles and the Church Patriarch were excommunicated in the 20th century.  Those were not small matters.  Most people today are not even aware of those events, and don't want to be.  The reasons were much more serious than the small indiscretions you mention.  The notion that the Brethren are united on everything is likely one of the biggest misconceptions.  Pres Kimball no doubt recognized that fact.  He could easily have simply given a revelation and have done with it in 1978.  Instead, he wanted to bring all the Brethren along with him, so engineered an approach which exposed every one of them to a group revelation -- which some no doubt did not want to receive, but it came anyway.  I think that Kimball was brilliant for having done it that way.

I’m not arguing that the church refuses to accept the mistakes of previous leaders, I’m just saying that should the church a be just a little more vocal about specific mistakes, it may squash many of the the members improper expectations for prophets. When it comes to receive info from the church, The vast majority of members only expose themselves to GC, whatever is brought up at church, and perhaps an occasional ensign article on occasion.

Now perhaps such members are not meant for the kingdom of God, in which cases we don’t need to make steps to keep them in the church, but I doubt that is something the higher ups are even considering. Nor do I think they should be.

[Fether]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Realistically, it ain't gonna happen.  Invent your own reasons.  When I was a young Marine, we had a regular column in Leatherneck magazine called "If I were Commandant."  Lots of interesting ideas were floated in that column, taken from letters guys would send in, and I'm sure the Commandant of the Marine Corps read it.  However, even good ideas could not realistically be put into effect, for a variety of reasons.

I bet that by the time my generation (genZ/Millenial) gets to the leadership age, we will be more open about the issues we are talking about now. Unless, of course, the Bureaucracy of the leadership gets a stronger hold on how the Q15 runs things

Edited February 7, 2022 by Fether

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I bet that by the time my generation (genZ/Millenial) gets to the leadership age, we will be more open about the issues we are talking about now. Unless, of course, the Bureaucracy of the leadership gets a stronger hold on how the Q15 runs things

All our illusions need to be tempered by realism.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m not arguing that the church refuses to accept the mistakes of previous leaders, I’m just saying that should the church a be just a little more vocal about specific mistakes, it may squash many of the the members improper expectations for prophets. When it comes to receive info from the church, The vast majority of members only expose themselves to GC, whatever is brought up at church, and perhaps an occasional ensign article on occasion.

Now perhaps such members are not meant for the kingdom of God, in which cases we don’t need to make steps to keep them in the church, but I doubt that is something the higher ups are even considering. Nor do I think they should be.

Winnowing the wheat from the chaff is a central feature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  People need to decide whether they want to go with the world or with the Holy Spirit.  It is a time of testing.  A time of winnowing.  People are not really told what to do.  Instead they are given opportunities.  Latter-day Saints are actually laissez-faire Saints.  The LDS Church is not a top-down church.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not aware of that. Which one are you thinking of?

I'm not referring to Patriarch William Smith, who was excommunicated by Brigham Young in 1845.

I am referring to Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith (not the famous one) in 1946.

[Fether]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All our illusions need to be tempered by realism.

Which is why the illusion that is indirectly given to the general populace of saints will one day be toppled and we will talk about it more openly. Just like how we talk about these controversial topics more openly today than we did in decades past

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would not have joined the church in 1978, but I seriously considered the possibility as "open" in 1979, and did in fact join that year.

I would be interested in more info on this, I have only seen the standard stories.  ................

Excellent details are available from FAIR at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2018/05/31/elder-bruce-r-mcconkies-witness-of-the-1978-revelation-on-the-priesthood

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

Which is why the illusion that is indirectly given to the general populace of saints will one day be toppled and we will talk about it more openly. Just like how we talk about these controversial topics more openly today than we did in decades past

All of that is to the good, but I was referring to our unrealistic illusions about perfect prophets and the false doctrine of progress.