Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Expectations of a prophet…


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 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.

Apostle Bruce McConkie (and brother Brigham) was on the record of stating priesthood ordination wouldn’t happen before the second coming. Then it did. He admitted to the bare minimum. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

Who, if I'm not mistaken, was never excommunicated?

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Nothing you said disagrees with Ed Kimball and your post does nothing to refute the fact that Elder McConkie (despite your claim to the contrary) held on to the racist “folklore” doctrine well past giving the statement you quoted. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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.

Yes I expect this sort of gaslighting from you and others here.  Apologists excel at it.

Edited by Teancum
Posted
10 hours 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.

My experience is 180 degrees from this.

Posted
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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.

Let's start with this creepy song that kids sing from a very young age. The indoctrination starts early:

 

Posted (edited)
11 hours 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.

 

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My experience is 180 degrees from this.

This is me, but perhaps in a more literal way than you meant.  I didn’t leave because my expectations were too high. I left because they were too low  

 

I kept lowering and lowering my expectations. I found that I could keep attending and serving this way and did so for at least a decade. There came a point though when I stepped back and looked - and my expectations were so low (in order to match reality as I saw it) that there was no room for the divine left in the church and it’s  leadership.

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Posted
13 hours 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. 

Without good, concrete examples this would be an academic exercise. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I have found that when faithful people have a valid issue, the Lord prepares them a way to express it in a valid way. So maybe some scriptural examples of righteous individuals' reactions to fallible prophets. They are led by the Spirit. The curriculum (and I've seen more Liahona articles touch upon this) could have express teaching on how councils work. 

Good question as to where our expectations come from. @Kevin Christensenhas a good deal of expertise in explaining the developmental stages of faith and spirituality.

Posted
10 hours 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).

They wouldn't or couldn't do that, it would create too much doubt, IMHO.

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My experience is 180 degrees from this.

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Same.

Not unexpected that you would disagree with this. Anyone who has left the church would disagree with this, even if it were 100% true.

This claim comes with the assumption that the church is true and the culture of the church is the problem. Which you don’t have

Edited by Fether
Posted
12 hours ago, Fether said:

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

Where does this quote come from?

An alternative viewpoint is that “We acknowledge that leaders past and present have made/make mistakes. We learn from them. Well-established examples are shared in the curriculum including Church History publications."

My previous remark was specific to the opinion that the policies concerning Blacks and children of LGBTQ+ parents were mistakes. No one has established that as they did in the examples found in Church materials.

Posted
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Where does this quote come from?

An alternative viewpoint is that “We acknowledge that leaders past and present have made/make mistakes. We learn from them. Well-established examples are shared in the curriculum including Church History publications."

My previous remark was specific to the opinion that the policies concerning Blacks and children of LGBTQ+ parents were mistakes. No one has established that as they did in the examples found in Church materials.

The line comes from me attempting to put into words the messages I have received in my life.

And what specific mistakes have we learned from? Please tell me which events in church history we’re mistakes because The Church, as an organization, hasn’t come out and said what is a mistake and what isn’t.

Perhaps I am wrong, please share with me church published articles that list out mistakes that previous leaders have made.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Fether said:

The line comes from me attempting to put into words the messages I have received in my life.

And what specific mistakes have we learned from? Please tell me which events in church history we’re mistakes because The Church, as an organization, hasn’t come out and said what is a mistake and what isn’t.

Perhaps I am wrong, please share with me church published articles that list out mistakes that previous leaders have made.

Maybe it's that they aren't apologising?

Posted

The attitude that God/Christ wouldn't call a racist as prophet is interesting, considering that Peter (selected by Jesus himself) had to receive a vision before he was willing to preach to the Gentiles. And then all the other apostles (most also selected by Jesus himself) were mad at him for having done it. These are racist ideologies. So why couldn't Jesus have picked people who weren't so racist? Then we have the Old Testament prophets. Moses killed a guy, Noah liked his alcohol, and Elisha watched a bear kill a bunch of children without intervening because they made fun of his baldness. 

Prophets have flaws and make mistakes. The oft-quoted comment from Wilford Woodruff (could that be an oversimplification by a prophet? Impossible!) notwithstanding, the church puts much more emphasis on personal revelation than it does on following the prophet. "Follow the prophet, but be careful he might get it wrong once in a while" is nearly impossible to communicate without undermining all confidence in any church leadership. What organization on the planet teaches regularly and emphasizes the fallibility of its leadership? It seems a sure way to weaken and even potentially destroy an organization. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it's that they aren't apologising?

Well that’s my view, and I would like to see some officially accept apology. But I imagine it will be a little while before we get that

Posted
20 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Being a racist is bad, but that one negative facet does not completely negate every other admirable quality, gift, or talent that a person brings to bear in the Lord's service.

I think one needs to look at the negative quality in context…how much impact does the negative facet have on the overall actions and impact a person has.  If the negative quality dominates almost all the person’s decisions and not just a small percentage of their interactions with others or has a massive impact, it seems highly appropriate to focus on it as the person’s character and judge “yes, that negates every admirable quality” (for example, finding out your neighbour was a cannibal would generally be seen as making the fact he was a great gardener and never made noise or blocked your driveway irrelevant to judging his character).  If not an extreme or dominant attribute though, it is important if trying to be just and/or realistic in judgment to take a more complicated, fuller view of their behaviour.

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, rchorse said:

The oft-quoted comment from Wilford Woodruff (could that be an oversimplification by a prophet? Impossible!)

“Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right" - Brigham Young

I think this is a more complete phrase that explains what Woodruff meant (as woodruff was around when Brigham young said this). The prophet may make directives that are false, but never on purpose or with I’ll intent

Edited by Fether
Posted

I would expect a prophet to be honest, among other things. I would expect him or her to not lie or to falsify faith promoting stories to make them look better.

Posted

The LDS Church will never be without a prophet and that prophet will never lead the church astray, a member of the church's First Presidency told a regional conference this week.

Gordon B. Hinckley, first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, on Sunday responded to a paper presented at the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City two weeks ago.In the paper, Mormon feminist housewife Janice Allred said statements by President Hinckley that God never would allow the church to be led astray do not have a scriptural basis.

"She can present her paper until doomsday," President Hinckley said at a Tri-Stake Regional Conference at church-owned Ricks College, but God will see to it that the church will not be led astray.

Report ad

In her paper, Allred said, "The scriptures do not give any unconditional promises that the church will never fail, although there are some conditional ones. The condition of the promises is obedience to God, not obedience to leaders."

People who have been taught to accept anything their leaders say without seeking spiritual confirmation are "easy to deceive," Allred said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church whose members sing, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet," President Hinckley told those gathered from the church's Ashton, Driggs and St. Anthony stakes.

Following that prophet is the way to salvation, President Hinckley said. "Our peace, safety and salvation lie in following the prophet."

President Hinckley, who has worked with eight LDS presidents, said there was never a question among the church's apostles who would succeed President Ezra Taft Benson after he died May 29.

"We knew what to do," President Hinckley said, when the remaining 14 apostles met in the Salt Lake Temple after President Benson's death.

The quorum elected its senior member, President Howard W. Hunter, as the church's 14th president and prophet. President Hinckley said he and the other apostles "knew the Lord sustained (President Hunter's) life through a terrifying sickness for a reason."

President Hunter nearly died in May 1993 of complications from gall bladder surgery and was hospitalized as recently as January with an undisclosed ailment.

https://www.deseret.com/1994/9/1/19128430/prophet-won-t-lead-us-astray-counselor-says

 

 

Posted
14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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.

It is always intriguing to me when I see a response like this.  It is almost like the true believer relishes this so called winnowing process. It also seems rather prideful and arrogant to me.  It seems the true believer is saying " Well I am special and more spiritually mature than you because I had the proper view of (inset whatever doctrine, historical issue, etc that is being discussed) than you did.  It does not matter the topic.  The apostate is always at fault.  We took things to literally. We did not really understands the nature of prophets and had the wrong expectations, just like the article that is the topic of this thread says.  Truly this is a mind control attribute at its finest.  It keep the true believer safe and comfortable and paints the apostate as always somehow flawed even when they were true believers as well.

Posted
1 hour ago, Fether said:

Not unexpected that you would disagree with this. Anyone who has left the church would disagree with this, even if it were 100% true.

This claim comes with the assumption that the church is true and the culture of the church is the problem. Which you don’t have

I am not sure I understand your comment.  Can you clarify?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...