Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to be a prophet of God.
The LDS prophets are "inspired men called to speak for the Lord" and the current prophet is "the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church," according to the LDS Church website.
This does not mean that everything the prophet says comes straight from God, however. Some LDS members believe the prophet largely operates with autonomy and that he is mostly expressing his own, sometimes incorrect, opinions. So while what the prophet says may be useful or uplifting, "we don't need a lot of continuing revelation."
In 2007, the church released a public statement that says that individual statements made by church leaders are not meant to be "officially binding" doctrine, and are instead their personal views and opinions.
FAIR, an LDS apologetic website, says:
The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.
The difficulty here is that if the prophet can be wrong about divine matters, members in the pews can't really be expected to do any better. If the power of the Holy Ghost couldn't correct the only person on earth with the authority to speak for God, it probably can't be relied upon by lay members to determine if he's right or not.
History confirms that membership can't always distinguish between a prophet's opinion from a prophet's revelation. For example, the racism of Brigham Young could be excused as being his dated, personal views. But if it was only his opinion that blacks should be denied the priesthood because they are the cursed descendants of Cain, then this opinion extended through multiple leaders for over a century. The priesthood ban was sustained by the entire Presidency as doctrinal and direct from God in both 1949 and 1969. Opinion and revelation were indistinguishable.
To clarify between what is opinion and what is doctrine, a statement must be sustained by the First Presidency and the General Authorities before it can be regarded as official doctrine. Anything else is opinion.
If this is the case, it can be said that God has only spoken officially once in the 30 years since the priesthood ban on blacks was lifted. It was a brief letter called The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and it outlined the church's position on family, sex, and marriage. Even in an era of living prophets, it seems, God has little to say.
Even worse, it means that an opinion can become official doctrine simply because a group of men share that opinion and are willing to stand behind it.
"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth"
The church begins to define "Prophet" by saying "We can always trust the living prophets"
Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).
Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14–16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:
"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory" (D&C 21:4–6).
Searching the LDS website for anything related to "prophets" produces a long list of talks that emphasize obedience and faith in their inspired, God-given words. Few, if any, care to make the point that prophets are just men expressing thier personal opinions about divine matters. In his talk "Hear the Prophet’s Voice and Obey", for example, Elder Hales says that a living prophet "will speak the mind and will of God in showing the way to spiritual safety." Elder Watson in "His Servants, The Prophets" quotes Harold B. Lee who said that following the prophet might contradict our social or political views, but that "if [we] listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that … ‘the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." He quotes Lee again when he asked "Are you too close to the Brethren [so that you] think of them not as prophets but as men just guessing [such counsel] might be a good thing?” He finally concludes that "in a very real sense, the Master speaks to us through His prophet."
Searching official church lesson materials yields similar results. Lesson 12 in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual, "Following the Living Prophet", emphases that the prophet gives "inspired instructions" that "reveal or unlock the will of the Lord." It suggests reading D&C 68:4:
And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
Lesson 13 in The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part B, "Follow the Brethren", says that the prophet is "the mouthpiece" for God. The lesson includes a quote from George Q. Cannon which, to be fair, does mention that men who hold the priesthood are fallible. But it then goes on to say that:
“Nevertheless, God has chosen these men. He has singled them out. They have not done it themselves; but He has selected them, and He has placed upon them the authority of the Holy Priesthood, and they have become His representatives in the earth. …
“And those who lift their voices … against the authority of the Holy Priesthood … will go down to hell, unless they repent.
The lesson concludes by saying that the prophet "will never lead us astray."
Under the definition of "Prophet" the church links to some talks to provide more information. One of the most informative is titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" by Ezra Taft Benson.
When some Mormons say that doctrine is limited to what is found in the "Standard Works" of scripture, Ezra Taft Benson says that "the living prophet is more vital to us than the "Standard Works." Benson also said that "the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine."
When apologists like Jeff Lindsay say that prophets can have "a wrong opinion on a matter of science," Benson says that "if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing." The prophet will always be right because, according to Benson, "the Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning." He quotes from the Bible:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isa. 55:8–9.
Benson cautioned against picking and choosing from the prophets words.
The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.
Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)
Benson agrees with Brigham Young, who once said
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.
FAIR offers additional information on what Brigham Young meant here, and explains that this quote is taken out of context. They say that critics "abuse" this quote from Brigham Young and use it to set up a false expectation that everything a prophet says is true.
If FAIR is correct, then Ezra Taft Benson made the same mistake in his talk about following the prophet. It was that exact line that he, the future prophet, used to help make his point about the importance of following the prophet.
Conclusion
We can agree that the prophet is a man, and can have his own opinions. But church lesson manuals, hymns, scripture, and conference talks all tell a clear and direct message - the prophet speaks for God. Follow him.
There are no qualifiers like "except when" or "only if." These are only presented when there is a need to slice away troubling history, odd teachings, or ideas now debunked by science.
The end result is a prophet who speaks for God... except for when he doesn't. The opinions and speculations of prophets have created a fuzzy line between what is truly gospel, and what is man-made. This uncertainty has led many members to accept Mormon "culture" as true doctrine.
We shouldn't be surprised by this when church leaders continually emphasize the importance of obedience, even if it means breaking up a relationship because a young woman won't take out an extra pair of earrings at the prophets request.
If it is possible for members, leaders, and even prophets themselves to sincerely believe in things that are not true, then there is nothing to prevent the possibility that the entire religion is false. We have no real reason to suspect that the temple ceremony or that polygamy was genuine revelation and not man-made, for example. Saying that these were revealed by God seems too much like special pleading.
But this is the utility of faith: a crutch for maintaining that something is true when nothing else will.
Email Jonathan: slcfreethinking@gmail.com
Read more of Jonathan's articles about science and religion
Comments
Wow! Great article, Jonathan!
Jonathan, when you can hold the same standard to prophets of old, then you might have a point. Right now you just have some insightful words with no conclusive evidence.
Seriously, there is not a man alive or an religion that doesn't have errors because the people themselves are imperfect. Should we shut them all down? God is patient with us all. The good news is 98% of what the LDS church puts out is phenomenal, let's focus on that.
This article constitutes the creation of what I can only concisely describe as an epi-straw man. That is a whole series of incorrect or misrepresented items laid out with the intent of portraying the false image of a dichotomy.
One of the key components holding together this epi-strawman is the statement following the first quote from FAIR "The difficulty here is that if the prophet can be wrong about divine matters"
Right there Mr Jonathan Montgomery is stating something that IS NOT STATED in the fair article. NOWHERE can you justifiably get out of that fair statement that they are saying that prophets can be wrong on matters divine. It simply isn't there, and with that seed Jonathan takes off on a whole rollercoaster ride of building up some strawman dichotomy.
Either Jonathan is confused as to what constitutes matters divine OR he is intentionally disingenuous.
His out of context quote from Pres. Young is one of the greater, of many, of his errors that cause concern.
Jonathan gives only this part of Young's statement
"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."
He fails to point out vital qualifiers that Brigham young gives. This means that either Jonathan is getting his matterial on Young from some previously edited/truncated source OR he has read and is omitting the fact that Brigham Young gave qualifiers when he gave that statement.
Jonathan it might be useful, if you seek to be seen as genuinely analytical and thurough in your critiques, to state that Brigham Young stated that RIGHT AFTER THE QUOTE YOU GAVE
"Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve."
Either you are very slopy in analysis and critique OR you are dishonest. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are demonstrating incompetency rather than dishonesty. Please strive to be accurate.
Hive Radical -
Jonathan can correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of the FAIR citation wasn't to imply that FAIR holds the position that the prophet can be wrong about divine matters - Jonathan used the FAIR quote to make a statement about those who hear and must assess the prophets' words.
Jonathan's FAIR quote says, "Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost."
In the following paragraph, Jonathan speaks to this point of the FAIR article. I think you have misunderstood him.
Hive Radical -
Jonathan explicitly states that critics are accused of taking the BY quote out of context and abusing it (he even links to FAIR's argument that this is the case) - Jonathan's point is that even Ezra Taft Benson himself used the BY quote to make the very point that FAIR (and you, apparently) refute.
Which is no, biggie, of course - Benson was simply speaking as a man, right?
Jeremy,
Whether or not he derived the statement he made (that they can't be trusted divine matters) from the fair article or somewhere else it is still false AND untenable. YET it is what he basis the statement he makes about the members. The point you point-out as being his main point in the words persuant to his statement vis a vis divine matters.
Jonathan is welcome to present a defense of his premise to that point, but I am unaware of such and don't believe he can support the view. And I also see his claim there as key in his case concerning the membership of the Church.
Jeremy,
By failing to address what issue is taken with the BY quote he misrepresents it. It's this misprepresentation that is part and parcel to his whole epi-strawman construct.
For example he states that
"If FAIR is correct, then Ezra Taft Benson made the same mistake in his talk about following the prophet."
Since he's starting from an erroneous premise as to what and why FAIR disagrees with the misaplication of Young's words he either misreads or misrepresents what FAIR's position is, from this misrepresentation he sets up yet another delusion of conflict between Benson's words and their position.
Jonathan never attempts to point out how it's taken out of context and what that absence of context means to the claims either of FAIR or of anyone. Neither us nor fair refute what Brigham Young said, rather we refute the out of context conclusions that are arrived at by the likes of Jonathan.
so is that stuff Paul said about marriage and women's hair and speaking in church in this same catagory?
dave,
Paul actually states explicitly that he isn't, in those instances, speaking by way of commandment.
HiveRadical, I am having a difficult time understanding the points you're attempting to make (perhaps as difficult a time as you are having understanding this article, given the two times you have been corrected by another commenter). What, exactly, is the "epi-straw man" argument the article's author has constructed? What is the dichotomy?
Please answer as concisely as possible, because the longer your responses go the less coherent they become.
Thanks! =)
Bruce,
I apologize in advance for the errors I left in my haste in the previous responses.
The epi-strawman results in what is portrayed in the title of Jonathan's article. That there's confusion as to whether or not you are to give heed to the prophet or not.
Bruce,
To just make this crystal clear there is no real dichotomy between following the prophet's words on divine matters and relying on one's personal convictions and revelation.
We should always follow the Prophet. We should always follow the scriptures. We should always follw the spirit. The spirit sometimes speaks to our minds and sometimes to our hearts. The problem is what happens when the spirit and the prophet conflict or the scriptures and the prophet conflict? I can say a soldier should always obey his orders. Sometimes a soldier has to disobey his orders because of the law or circumstance. I believe the statements of Benson and Young are generalizations not absolutes.
Jeff I think it's important to state that there ultimately is never a conflict doctrinally, at the core, between what is given by prophecy. Often a finite perspective, with it's inherent limits, falsely leads one to an image of conflict, of dichotomy. But such is not the case. There is no doctrinal conflict between Joseph's initial ordaining of black men to the priesthood, the Church's restriction on who could hold the priesthood for some time, and the subsequent lifting of said ban. The image of a doctrinal or substantive conflict is something arrived at by only considering very narrow analysis of the whole. Substantively these perspectives of dichotomy lean massively on untenable assumptions.
I have to say I'd be happy to go and address individually the points that Jonathan describes here--
"These are only presented when there is a need to slice away troubling history, odd teachings, or ideas now debunked by science."
addendum to that last comment. I'd be happy to take them on one by one in the requisit detail. I'm not going to just try and guess what those are in Jonathan's mind. I'd want to address them point by point, preferably with Jonathan, to demonstrate that I don't think his claims are ultimately tenable. I certainly don't think there's any doctrinal points refuted by science, conjecture and things rooted in cultural Mormon thought, certainly, but not doctrinally.
"Jeff I think it's important to state that there ultimately is never a conflict doctrinally, at the core, between what is given by prophecy. Often a finite perspective, with it's inherent limits, falsely leads one to an image of conflict, of dichotomy. But such is not the case..."
Big words that say nothing more than "I'm right, you're wrong"
"Often a finite perspective, with it's inherent limits.."
Bingo! We all have a finite perspective with it's inherent limits, including prophets. So given that, how do we mortals distinguish between apparent and actual conflict and dichotomy? Through the spirit, right? Jonathan's point, however, is that this is apparently (there's that word again!) inconsistent and unreliable. What are we left with?
Stan,
Actually if you read and understood what I was saying you'd see that I understand with the spirit of what Jeff said. Jeff was right in referencing the relativistic nature of applying revelation--regardless the source (be it scriptures, the prophet or personal revelation). I agreed with Jeff's view of there being instances where the edicts that an individual should follow appear to be contrary to a general edict, my point (far from the 'I'm right, you're wrong' summation you tried to put in my mouth) was merely that there is no reason for Jeff to concede any kind of real conflict doctrinally between the various revelatory mediums (be they living mortal prophets, past prophets, scriptural canon, personal revelation etc.).
Thanks Jonathan. Every time you publish your anti-mormon diatribe, it only strengthens my testimony in the LDS church. It causes me to study out what you have written, and upon merely looking past the paper thin arguments of your article, I easily find the truth to the lies you spew. Hive Radical put it best when he described your article as a "[false] dichotomy" and "epi-straw man." Thanks again for the thought provoking article, regardless of your intention to mislead.
I really felt the spirit when I read the quote from Harold B. Lee that "if [we] listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that … ‘the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." I felt spirit again very strongly when I read "in a very real sense, the Master speaks to us through His prophet." I absolutely know that the prophets speak the word of God and are inspired to do so. We just have to open our ears to hear the truth. In general conference they definitely speak the word of God and don't deviate with personal opinion. Privately they may have their own opinions that don't really matter one way or the other to God, like disliking vanilla cake and liking chocolate. We should focus on the revealed word of God at conference and the messages in the Ensign, rather than on the hearsay through the grapevine.
I think we've seen the latest defense tactic from Hive here... ridiculously verbose inarticulacy.
Hive- When I say that prophets can be wrong about divine matters, I'm referring specifically to items such as BY's "Adam-God theory." This was evidently taught over the pulpit in sermons, but has been rejected as his own personal speculation. Kimball in 1976:
"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine (Church News, Oct. 9, 1976)."
BY was apparently wrong about the nature of God.
The reasons for banning blacks from the priesthood are similarly dismissed as speculation. (Curse of Cain, less valiant in pre-existence, etc.) These were said in sermons, but were never doctrine, and have since been rejected. Another divine matter, but they were wrong.
Hive- Please compare how Benson used that Brigham Young quote in his own talk with how critics use it. If critics are taking it out of context, so is Benson.
Jonathan,
You seem to not be willing to actually read what you quote. At least not to read it for what it says--
"which are ALLEGED to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations."
You miss that word and you misread the whole thing. You see Kimball is not negating what Brigham Young said, rather he is negating the false conclusions people have come to by extrapolating from it. The same is the case with all the others you mention, the curse of cain for example and the lack of valiance in the spirit world. There was a curse on cain, there were spirits that were less valiant in the spirit world, but the likes of Ed Decker take the erroneous conclusions emergent from people's assumptions about what these doctrines mean, they connected the dots in ways that were never revealed, simply because their connections were made in error doesn't mean either that the dots are connected NOR that the dots are not true doctrine.
I always wondered about the "cursed" seed of Cain that were "marked so they could be recognized"*. Two things, One, since when does 'recognize' mean, restrict from positions in the church.
Two, if the "curse" were lifted in the seventies, and the seed of Cain were no longer cursed. . . why are they still black? Still marked? Don't you think it would have sparked international conversions if the curse were lifted and a whole race changed pigment and were suddenly allowed to hold the priesthood?
Surely I jest!
*If we believe that 'we will be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgressions', why was the seed of Cain not afforded that same protection? Yeah, yeah, cuz the prophet sayeth so, yeah.
And another thing Jonathan vis a vis the Benson use of the BY quote. Your claim that if the anti crowd was misreading it then so to was Benson is also not defensible because both are coming from a different premise and they are addressing it to an audience with different understandings. The anti- crowd is approaching generally an audience generally unversed in virtually none of the nuances of our theology, while Benson isn't purely addressing an audience of well read theologians he's also not addressing it with the intent (clearly) to say that everything he speaks to any person, anywhere, ever, is God's word. That's just understood by the audience in question. His omission on giving the sentence immediately following is not some grave omission because his intent is not to give some in-depth analysis, he was not approaching this as though he was empirically defending some conclusion. He and his audience had a shared understanding of the matter at hand. The anti-Mormon citing this ##@
##@ does not. The anti-Mormon either asserts or feigns to be giving the facts, to be laying out a case, so as far as agreed to common ground concerning Brigham Young as seen by his audience to assume a common ground would be to blatantly demonstrate that he's not really engaging in a rational examination. Thusly there's the claim or feigning of a somewhat objective look at the facts of what were said. So in that case, because there's not a shared understanding on the subject matter, the omission of Brigham Young's qualification of his statement that his words were essentially as good a scripture as was deserved by the audience they demonstrate either (at best) ignorance and sloppiness or (at worst) intentional deception.
Rob,
You said about me-
"I think we've seen the latest defense tactic from Hive here... ridiculously verbose inarticulacy."
While I do apologize for my errors the which I make due to the pace at which I try to respond and the quantity of things to which I try to respond, and while I am trying to get better at producing more readily understandable posts I wish to offer some perspective on this as a kind of rejoinder to your insult.
I've been in conversations like this for some time, about a decade at this point. I find it difficult to give precise and succinct replies which counter as many possible needless rejoinders which often come when a subject is not sufficiently nor accurately dealt with. Because of this I try to obtain and use vocabulary that facilitates this sought after sharpness/exactness with as much conciseness as I can get without having to think forever about how to formulate a response. I've learned why law is so insanely worded, it's because if your words ar
*&* if your words are not sufficient to covering the ground as thoroughly and completely as possible then people run around your words. You certainly try to avoid this in law because lawyers are experts at wiggling through words. It turns out some anti-Mormons are proficient at it as well. So if my responses read like the first draft of some long winded piece of litigation or penal code THAT is why, because out of a great amount of experience I've learned that preciseness, conciseness and sufficiency are what are needed to keep the detractors from being as capable of distorting things.
Surely Interesting,
When Christ went through the atonement and overcame death and hell people weren't automatically freed from having to die. The fall and death were overcome, but that didn't mean that they wouldn't still run their course. To add to that, simply being mortal doesn't mean we share in the sin of Adam and Eve, likewise the mark of a curse doesn't mean you share in the curse just as the house of Israel's title as a chosen people doesn't exempt them from the damnation of hell if they don't do the works of Abraham. You imply/have an interesting view of the requisites for removing a curse. Just because we don't suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve doesn't exempt us from other effects of it (death).
Your statement on the mass conversion is interesting in it's assumptions also. If they had a study come out stating that darker pigmentation was decreasing through the generations would that have you convert? Or can you envision other explanations you could attribute such to?
lol...awesome...I think I have a revelation coming on.....geez how does anyone over the age of 3 believe this stuff
The mind has an extraordinary capacity to deceive itself. Regardless of education, upbringing, raw intellect and even disciplined reasoning, we are all self deluded. What fascinates me most is the veracity with which we all defend our delusions, no matter how wacky. Just as fascinating is the reluctance to admit our delusions as such even in the face of clear facts and reasoning. There are so many cultural beliefs in the church that stem from perhaps a misguided leader, a false or misunderstood statement or quotes out of context, or even just plain untenable doctrine. It would be nice if the spirit of God cleared it up and came through with its promise of revealing to us "the truth of all things", but it doesn't and it can't. Our brains are too good at deceiving us. The debates will continue to rage regarding caffeinated drinks, evolution, Adam-God, age of the Earth, Zelph, Gays etc... I for one will continue to be fascinated by how wacky we all are. :)
btw Hive-way to keep your cool!
@HiveRadical
Conciseness? Surely you must be joking. Big words, sure... concise? No.
@HiveRadical
To imply that the color of one's skin is a curse in any way is morally reprehensible. End of story.
Like many, you leave out the parts of our teachings and history that explain in detail why your conclusion is is wrong.
Some choose not to give the truth about us, and others are too lazy to learn the truth.
Either way, it give you the ability to look like you realy backed up your false conclusions.
If you are tryly trying to follow God, you might want to be more careful about your study of our teachings and history.
If you are only an anti-Mormon, you need to learn no more.
fred
Once again, the sodomite, one who lies with other men, is pontificationg about things of the spirit. Remember, "if ye receive not the spirit, ye shall not teach". The spirit cannot reside in an unholy tabernacle. One who lives as you do , as a sodomite, will not have the spririt to instruct anyone about anything spiritual. Clean up your own life and maybe then you can share the blessings of the spirit with others, fight against him and reap misery.. Good Luck in your struggle of the flesh.
Paul S.
Mr Rhino,
Conciseness is relative, the big words enable it to be as concise as possible without leaving out something vital.
And it's neither implied nor our belief that the color of one's skin is a curse, far from it. It may have at one time been the mark of a curse, just as our capacity to die is a mark of a past infraction, but neither the curse nor the mortality are indicators of failings or faults on the parts of those who bare them.
Stan,
"wackiness" is a rather meaningless descriptor as it can simply suggests foreign nature in the face of prevailing expectations. Like black swans and other things emergent from a world we have only a fleeting finite vista on and understanding of.
Find a single significant player in the great fields of physics and theoretical physics that doesn't have 'wackiness' emergent in some vital part of it's description. Thus an inherent attribute of any one of the men defending any one of the theories is that they are defending something 'wacky.'
I am so grateful for the God-given gift of reason which is clearly telling me that the apostate/anti-mormon/agnostic writer Jonathon is making more sense than the apologists. Debate all you like about quoting/misquoting, interpreting/misinterpreting, but the Church is not making much sense anymore even to members who try to use the Spirit to guide them. D&C 49 says one wife, Joseph and Brigham had many. Joseph said God was once a man, now the new 2009 Gospel Principles manual has removed that concept (not to mention Pres. Hinckley's "I don't know that we teach that.). I could go on and on. Most of you already know the issues and have decided your position.
But - what is a struggling-to-believe mormon to do? Definitely not try to wade through the mess of apologetics out there, with its rash of snide comments and arrogance. I want the Church to do the honorable thing and clarify every ounce of contradiction in its doctrine and history. Are you reading this, Ms. Farah?
Wait, which one of us is the sodomite?
@HiveRadical
To say that skin color "...may have at one time been the mark of a curse..." is still morally reprehensible. Only a racist would look at someone with differet skin color than himself and conclude that the reason for the different skin color is a curse or the result of a curse on the other individual's ancestors.
Dear Hater: You really need to get past this obsession. You're spending way too much valuable time in your life on this. Consider a hobby! . . . Stamp collecting, video-games, or filling food pantries.
Jonathan:
Have you ever thought of going into business as a straw-man argument writer? You're really good at it.
You wrote:
"We can agree that the prophet is a man, and can have his own opinions. But church lesson manuals, hymns, scripture, and conference talks all tell a clear and direct message - the prophet speaks for God. Follow him."
The office of "Prophet" is found only within the First Presidency of the Church, as the President if the Church The First Presidency is a quorum of three men who are called to that office. The next quorum of the Church is the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Those two quorums are equal in authority in matters of the Church and their decisions must be unanimous. This is the law of the Church as outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 112.
Mormons follow these men WITHIN the two highest quorums of the Church.
The tenet to follow "one man" without the authority and counsel of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the 12 is not a tenet of Morm
Jonathan wrote:
"When apologists like Jeff Lindsay say that prophets can have "a wrong opinion on a matter of science," Benson says that "if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing." The prophet will always be right because, according to Benson, "the Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning." "
While true a Prophet is not limited by man's reasoning, I don't see any new revelations on scientific matters in the LDS canon.
Counsel from a prophet usually comes in the form of identify which human behaviors will lead to a glorious life with God and which behaviors will not.
Jonathan does not like that Mormon prophets have identified premartial sex, homosexual or lesbian sex acts, stealing, gambling, or drunkeness as behaviors inconsistent and contrary to God's will.
Jonathan:
You wrote:
"If it is possible for members, leaders, and even prophets themselves to sincerely believe in things that are not true, then there is nothing to prevent the possibility that the entire religion is false."
I have told you this previously in other post, but I'll say it again here. Your conclusion only can be valid if humans were always infallible.
Prophet are human and therefore it is possible for prophets to be wrong. The only way to avoid this problem is for God to call only perfect men. This is not possible, so the imperfection of man is a part of the equation of receiving truth.
Mormonism teaches that a person does not have to rely on one man's word to know the truth but can seek a witness from the Holy Spirit that it is true.
Jonathan, why isn't this necessary Mormon tenet ever a part of your discussion?
So Jonathan, the question is whether or not the teachings (revelations) of Joseph Smith or LDS prophets accurately lead a person to think and act consistently with God's will or not.
Which group of men can more accurately lead a man to do God's will?
Modern philosophers? Popes? Or Mormon Prophets?
Which men can accurately predict the reality of the universe and man's place within it?
I challenge you to find another man, who received more accurate revelations through prayer about the soul of man, and the reality of the universe than Joseph Smith.
Name a better philosopher than Joseph Smith (apart from Jesus Christ). Name a more enlightened religionist than Joseph Smith or LDS prophets.
Then identify the philosophy and the accompanying behaviors that lead to more happiness, more contentment or more human fulfillment than those of Mormonism.
Here's your chance to show us a better philosophy to follow than Mormonism and why.
Jonathan wrote:
"The end result is a prophet who speaks for God... except for when he doesn't. The opinions and speculations of prophets have created a fuzzy line between what is truly gospel, and what is man-made. "
Any fuzziness is immaterial and unimportant when it comes to the basic principles of the Mormon religion.
There is no confusion on what a man must think or what he must do to be blessed with a glorious existence beyond death. Within Mormonism it is very clear:
1. Make sacred covenants with God (the highest in LDS temples)
2. Keep sacred covenants made with God.
Fuzziness problem solved.
Jonathan (3)
Furthermore, these principles do not become true or false even when the LDS Church continues to teach that homosexual and lesbian acts are inconsistent with the natural identity of human attraction and the natural human family, or inconsistent with the society of God that exists beyond death.
Popular belief is not a substitute for obvious human identity.
Jonathan (2)
These two principles do not become true or false because Brigham Young said black skin was a curse and instituted an ordination ban for most blacks from 1848 -1978 or whether 19th century America loathed the practice of plural marriage.
Why? Authority to act in God’s name began with Joseph Smith. God gave tangible evidence of Joseph Smith’s calling and authority: the Book of Mormon. Today, the Book of Mormon narrative enjoys archeological verification, in part, and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
So there you have it Jonathan. You can try to argue your way out of this but in the end you’ve got archeological evidence starring you in the face.
LDS doctrine teaches that prophets are fallible men but that God will not allow men to be lead astray. Led astray from what? Led astray to think or act in a way that cuts them off from God’s blessings – in this life now and in the life to come.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!