Why the truthfulness of the Church doesn't matter.

[_grindael]

MG, your description of the top 15 as "just the same as you or me" is not consistent with how the Church portrays them:
https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

Here is a talk given a while back that fleshes out where I'm coming from.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng

It's a bit more complex and nuanced than you make it out to be. Elder Faust understood that.

I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste highlights from the talk, but I'd suggest reading it for clarification on how revelation works in the church.

Regards,
MG

That talk by Faust is hilarious. Here is one oxymormon that stood out to me,

For some strange reason it seems easier for many to believe the words of dead prophets rather than those of living prophets. The greatest revelator in our time has been Joseph Smith.

For some strange reason he seems to be focusing on the words of a dead prophet when he said that we should not do this. This kind of hilarious buffoonery is commonplace in modern Mormon "authorities". If they are all PROPHETS then shouldn't they be believed equally? Why is what Brigham Young taught not relevant now? (Speaking doctrinally of course). Because they have thrown out what clearly shows that he wasn't any kind of prophet. But that doesn't stop him from liberally quoting dead "prophets".

Then we have the prophetic infallibility claim:

I do not believe members of this church can be in full harmony with the Savior without sustaining his living prophet on the earth, the President of the Church. If we do not sustain the living prophet, whoever he may be, we die spiritually.

"Sustain" means to agree with him completely whatever he says and does. "Out of Harmony" is a code phrase that has been used since the beginning by Mormon "authorities" against those who disagree with them. He then tries to claim that the giant gaffe in restricting the priesthood was some kind of miraculous "revelation" from 1978! He then perverts Isaiah by claiming,

Line upon line and precept upon precept, new knowledge and direction have been given to the Church.

This quote from Isaiah has been perverted by Mormon "prophets'. This was Isaiah describing how "scoffers" viewed revelation from God in his day.And especially for you MG:

This continuous revelation will not and cannot be forced by outside pressure from people and events. It is not the so-called “revelation of social progress.” It does not originate with the prophets; it comes from God. The Church is governed by the prophet under the guidance and direction of God.

Hilarious. Thanks for that. It was so 80's.

[_mentalgymnast]

"Sustain" means to agree with [the prophet] completely whatever he says and does. "Out of Harmony" is a code phrase that has been used since the beginning by Mormon "authorities" against those who disagree with them.

OK. So if I sustain the Prophet in his calling as being the only ordained man on the earth that holds the keys necessary to keep the kingdom of God rolling along...I am not able to look at him simultaneously as being a man with faults/imperfections and getting things wrong? When you read the article by Elder Faust you probably remember having read that when the revelations come and are approved unanimously by the First Presidency and Q12 we are then duty bound as Saints to view that revelation/inspiration as being part of the revelatory canon, so to speak.

For example, Brigham's Adam/God teachings weren't unanimously sustained/approved by the rest of the brethren...so it's not considered doctrine.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

"Sustain" means to agree with [the prophet] completely whatever he says and does. "Out of Harmony" is a code phrase that has been used since the beginning by Mormon "authorities" against those who disagree with them.

OK. So if I sustain the Prophet in his calling as being the only ordained man on the earth that holds the keys necessary to keep the kingdom of God rolling along...I am not able to look at him simultaneously as being a man with faults/imperfections and getting things wrong? When you read the article by Elder Faust you probably remember having read that when the revelations come and are approved unanimously by the First Presidency and Q12 we are then duty bound as Saints to view that revelation/inspiration as being part of the revelatory canon, so to speak.

For example, Brigham's Adam/God teachings weren't unanimously sustained/approved by the rest of the brethren...so it's not considered doctrine.

Regards,
MG

Actually The Adam God doctrine was, in January of 1860. And who said you can't view him as a man with faults? That has nothing to do with doctrinal infallibility. That is just an old mopolotgst straw man. And they only have to be approved if they want them to become BINDING. It has nothing to do with the validity of their "revelations". This is what I mean by your trying to pawn off BS here.