DiscussMormonism.com

I recently had this exchange with Harmony on the thread http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5493

Since our discussion was not about evolution per se I've started this thread to follow up.

harmony wrote:

Chap wrote:So the unique role of a prophet is to "correct the doctrine", and that may involve "cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets"?

Can you give me an example of where that has been done? I am essentially looking for a situation where prophet A states something as doctrine and it is accepted as such by the church at the time, and fulfills the conditions demanded today for something to be stated doctrine, but then prophet B later "corrects" that doctrine?

Has that ever happened?

Or is it always just a case of most (or at least many) members of the church being under the mistaken impression that something was doctrine (such as the denial of the priesthood to black men), and later being told by the current prophet that it never really was?

They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted. Often, they get it backwards (such as the time Joseph F Smith moved Relief Society from being a free standing organization on the same level as priesthood quorums to being a mere auxilliary like Primary). Then someone else, more in tune with the way things should be, comes along and has to point out the foolishness of the action. We can only hope this idiocy will eventually be corrected.

The priesthood ban is an example of a correction. We can debate 'til the cows come home whether it was doctrinal or not, but for the vast majority of the church, it was, and when the correction was made, it was considered to also be doctrinal.

Stopping the earthly practice of the Abomination was another correction, albeit at the hands of the government, but then God tends to use whatever is necessary to make the needed corrections.

Taking the penalties out of the endowment was another correction.

It's the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections. Others may call it ongoing revelation. I call it correcting the path of the church. We've had some courageous leaders; we've had some gynormous dunderheads too.

malkie wrote:Harmony, I hope that your "dunderheads" comment is not a criticism of a church leader (;=> - even if it is justified.

harmony wrote:Why? Are you saying church leaders are never to be criticized?

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that I cannot accept your view that in making changes the prophet is "correcting the path of the church".

Gosh, I'm so surprised.

Here's why (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm getting this wrong - please do):

1. You say "They make corrections all the time, some of which are actually warranted."
2. You also say "Often, they get it backwards ..."
3. I say that then they don't seem to know when it's a case of a warranted correction (1.) and when it's backwards (2.), otherwise they would presumably never get it backwards.
4. It's even conceivable, in this scenario, that prophet C (to expand on Chap's example) might later "correct" prophet B's "correction", and re-institute the original doctrine - kinda messy, don't you think?

Well, what can I say, malkie? They're men. They often make messes. Occasionally they get things right. It's all part of being human.

My thought is, if it's "the job of the prophet to be the leader in making these corrections", and often (or even sometimes) they get it backwards, what is the point in making "corrections" at all, if often/sometimes they are making things worse, not better.

Exactly. Especially if your name is Joseph F Smith and the incorrect correction you're making takes away power from women.

Furthermore (and no disrespect intended at all to you), I wonder how it is that you get to decide when it's a warranted correction and when it's backwards?

Because the question was put to me, therefore the answer is mine. If the question had been put to you, you would then own your answer.

All in all, "correcting the path of the church" seems to be a completely worthless activity. A religion whose doctrine is developed in this way is way beyond a joke (IMHO).

It's only worthless if men keep their fingers in it (which of course they do). We continually spend our time parseling out the doctrine of God from the doctrines of men.

----------------

(by the way, I believe that it was Elder Oaks who said that church leaders should not be criticized.)

Harmony says that prophets "... often make messes. Occasionally they get things right." This suggests to me that they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

What I would like to know is:

1. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine is incorrect?
2. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine was correct at some time, but has been messed up? (like when Joseph F Smith changed the Relief Society organization)
3. Do we (non-seers/non-prophets) know what is correct and what is incorrect?
4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?
5. Does it seem likely that god would allow this situation to occur and to persist?
6. Does "They're men. They often make messes. Occasionally they get things right. It's all part of being human." give you any confidence that the doctrine LDS church is a reasonable expression of god's will? Or that is ever has been?
7. Is it reasonable that the followers of the one true church should "continually spend our time parseling out the doctrine of God from the doctrines of men"?
8. Does the correctness of a change depend on whether it "takes away power from women"?
9. Do they "make messes" because they are men (i.e., not women)?

My answers, based on Harmony's posts, would be:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. (Assuming god exists) No
6. (Assuming god exists) No
7. (Assuming god exists) No
8. It shouldn't
9. Could be

Even if we are generous, and allow that they get it wrong no more often than they get it right, I'm failing to see what value the church leaders have, and wonder what value Harmony thinks they have.

If, as Harmony says, "I've often asked that same question: why do we need a prophet? And the answer is, there is still so much that needs to be corrected, and only the prophet can correct the doctrine. We're still cleaning up the messes from the earlier prophets. And we probably will continue to clean it up for at least another generation.", and if it is also true that prophets sometimes/often mess up what was already OK, I'm not sure that we can be confident of ever getting out of the mess by the efforts of the prophets in making corrections.

But perhaps Harmony's answers to 1. - 9. would be different from mine, and so prophets actually do have a value.

I see the prophet's role as one of declaring doctrine. And if the current doctrine is incorrect, correcting it. Of course that assumes that the prophet would know the doctrine was incorrect, which assumes a basic humility not shown in many of our current leaders. One must admit that it's possible for one to be wrong, or one's friends or relatives to be wrong, in order to actually correct anything.

An example of an incorrect doctrine was the priesthood ban. An example of a correction to an incorrect doctrine is the lifting of the priesthood ban. Brigham established an incorrect doctrine; Kimball corrected it. Brigham is responsible for a number of incorrect doctrines (Adam-God for one). Other later prophets had to correct them.

God can only correct that which he is asked about. All the prophets from Brigham to Kimball did nothing about the incorrect doctrine of the priesthood. Kimball asked; God answered; doctrine was corrected.

Why is this so hard to understand?

PS. Please understand that often when I'm writing about the foolishness of men, and the lack of inspiration regarding the role of women in the church, I'm writing tongue in cheek. Mostly.

harmony wrote:I see the prophet's role as one of declaring doctrine. And if the current doctrine is incorrect, correcting it. Of course that assumes that the prophet would know the doctrine was incorrect, which assumes a basic humility not shown in many of our current leaders. One must admit that it's possible for one to be wrong, or one's friends or relatives to be wrong, in order to actually correct anything.

An example of an incorrect doctrine was the priesthood ban. An example of a correction to an incorrect doctrine is the lifting of the priesthood ban. Brigham established an incorrect doctrine; Kimball corrected it. Brigham is responsible for a number of incorrect doctrines (Adam-God for one). Other later prophets had to correct them.

God can only correct that which he is asked about. All the prophets from Brigham to Kimball did nothing about the incorrect doctrine of the priesthood. Kimball asked; God answered; doctrine was corrected.

Why is this so hard to understand?

PS. Please understand that often when I'm writing about the foolishness of men, and the lack of inspiration regarding the role of women in the church, I'm writing tongue in cheek. Mostly.

Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit that I didn't pick up on the position of your tongue (;=>

I still find it hard to understand that a god would allow an incorrect and hurtful doctrine or practice to persist, simply because the leaders didn't ask about it. And, actually, if I'm not mistaken, Pres K described a long, hard struggle, like he and the other leaders were almost fighting with god to get him to change his mind. Is this not going somewhat beyond the idea of asking if the doctrine/practice is wrong?

Also, BY seemed to be pretty adamant about how correct the priesthood ban was, even down to giving details about the circumstances to be fulfilled before the ban could be lifted. Is god really prepared to let his leaders make such asses of themselves, and bring the whole idea of doctrine by inspiration into such disrepute?

Is there something somewhere in the canon to back up your view of this, or is it (again, no slight intended) just your opinion of how god works with his leaders? I don't recall this being described anywhere.

Also, sorry to be a bug, but I'd really like to see your answers to the 9 questions from my original post. Could you pls oblige? TIA!

by the way, do you think that the brethren are currently asking god about the role of women in the church?

1. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine is incorrect?

Considering it's claims, I think it has to be all or none.

2. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine was correct at some time, but has been messed up? (like when Joseph F Smith changed the Relief Society organization)

I think there are some minor nit picky doctrines that merit re-evaluation such as the location of the garden of Eden. The scriptures used to support it are way too circumstanstial. Either that or they should more prominently print whatever modern revelation says that it is in Missouri.

3. Do we (non-seers/non-prophets) know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Yes.

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Only as it relates to what the Lord is telling them. Otherwise, they are entitle to their opinion.

5. Does it seem likely that god would allow this situation to occur and to persist?

What situation is that?

6. Does "They're men. They often make messes. Occasionally they get things right. It's all part of being human." give you any confidence that the doctrine LDS church is a reasonable expression of god's will? Or that is ever has been?

D&C 107 gives me that confidence

7. Is it reasonable that the followers of the one true church should "continually spend our time parseling out the doctrine of God from the doctrines of men"?

????

8. Does the correctness of a change depend on whether it "takes away power from women"?

Never.

9. Do they "make messes" because they are men (I.e., not women)?

Because they are human.

I still find it hard to understand that a god would allow an incorrect and hurtful doctrine or practice to persist, simply because the leaders didn't ask about it. And, actually, if I'm not mistaken, Pres K described a long, hard struggle, like he and the other leaders were almost fighting with god to get him to change his mind. Is this not going somewhat beyond the idea of asking if the doctrine/practice is wrong?

Also, BY seemed to be pretty adamant about how correct the priesthood ban was, even down to giving details about the circumstances to be fulfilled before the ban could be lifted. Is god really prepared to let his leaders make such asses of themselves, and bring the whole idea of doctrine by inspiration into such disrepute?

Anyone privy to the same historical information presented by Darius Gray and Margaret Young would know that the ban had less to do with the will of God than the imposition of the prejudices of a few policy makers. Unfortunately by the turn of the Century, the exact reasons were forgotten and those few remarks claiming this policy was an actual Church doctrine held sway, especially among those desiring to believe it. They even became embellished by the most ardent of those wishing for this exclusion.

Being inspired by God happens not because of these errors of men but despite them. Most likely the policy hindered the understanding of God's wishes.

The example in the evolution thread is just one of many, many times that doctrine, clearly stated by a "prophet, seer and revelator" has been changed, discounted or ignored by succeeding leaders. Now if the office was just that of president, you could overlook a lot of this as just a bunch of men trying to do what they think is right. Something like a the Southern Baptist counsel. I think this his how some cafeteria members justify things. But if you believe the D&C and take these guys at their word, that they are God's mouth piece for his one true church, then you have got to wonder why the contradictions.

To answer the OP, the leaders of the church are acting in the roll of just that, leaders of a large organization. There is value there. Acting in the roll of Prophet, seer and revelator, they have repeatedly failed. It is clear they are no more inspired than anyone else.

bcspace wrote:

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Only as it relates to what the Lord is telling them. Otherwise, they are entitle to their opinion.

The problem is that LDS Prophets also have a fundamentally difficult time distinguishing between their own opinion and what the Lord is telling them.

If they can't distinguish between the two, how can others?

Are LDS Prophets also entitled to their opinion as to whether they are getting revelation from God?

Also, bc space, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether a prophet is speaking his opinion or relating what the Lord is telling him?

malkie wrote:(by the way, I believe that it was Elder Oaks who said that church leaders should not be criticized.)

And to that I say, big frickin' deal. If he really wanted to be above criticism, he'd modify his actions so they would not generate it. He doesn't, so he isn't.

What I would like to know is:

1. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine is incorrect?

Some

2. Is it possible that some/much/most/all current LDS doctrine was correct at some time, but has been messed up?

(like when Joseph F Smith changed the Relief Society organization)

Some.

3. Do we (non-seers/non-prophets) know what is correct and what is incorrect?

If it's got man's hand in it, it's likely not correct. Man's track record isn't real good.

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

They should; after all, it's part of their calling. But they don't, for the same reason most men won't see their mistakes: pride.

5. Does it seem likely that god would allow this situation to occur and to persist?

God allows the situation to occur and to continue because God does not force his will on his children, and his leaders are full of pride and arrogance.

6. Does "They're men. They often make messes. Occasionally they get things right. It's all part of being human." give you any confidence that the doctrine LDS church is a reasonable expression of god's will? Or that is ever has been?

That which is, is. That which isn't, isn't.

7. Is it reasonable that the followers of the one true church should "continually spend our time parseling out the doctrine of God from the doctrines of men"?

Whether or not it's reasonable is not the question.

8. Does the correctness of a change depend on whether it "takes away power from women"?

*tongue in cheek* of course!

9. Do they "make messes" because they are men (I.e., not women)?

They make messes because they're human and they're full of pride and arrogance.

I don't have a lot of respect for our leaders, malkie. If you read in the archives here and on other LDS boards, you'll see me continually upholding the doctrine of prophet fallibility, and blaming many of our current problems on the hubris and myopia of our past and present leaders.

guy sajer wrote:

bcspace wrote:

4. Do seers/prophets know what is correct and what is incorrect?

Only as it relates to what the Lord is telling them. Otherwise, they are entitle to their opinion.

The problem is that LDS Prophets also have a fundamentally difficult time distinguishing between their own opinion and what the Lord is telling them.

The problem with LDS prophets historically is that they put words into God's mouth, resulting in personal maelstorm. God will not be mocked, especially by his prophet.

If they can't distinguish between the two, how can others?

A personal relationship with God helps. So does common sense.

Are LDS Prophets also entitled to their opinion as to whether they are getting revelation from God?

No. That isn't to say they obey that particular piece of advice.

Also, bc space, I'm wondering, what's the decision rule for determining whether a prophet is speaking his opinion or relating what the Lord is telling him?

Well, I'm not bcspace, but it's a pretty good bet that the prophet is speaking as a man when his "prophecy" either doesn't come true or adversely effects only half of his children.

harmony wrote:
Well, I'm not bcspace, but it's a pretty good bet that the prophet is speaking as a man when his "prophecy" either doesn't come true or adversely effects only half of his children.

What about ex ante decision rules? If we're expected to obey God's will as expressed through his official spokesmen, we need to know up front whether the prophet is speaking for God or expressing his own opinion. It's too late to find out after the fact that the Prophet was only spouting off his opinion (thought he might have mistakenly thought he was speaking for God). I want to know BEFORE I act on his words, not after.