DiscussMormonism.com

We all have seen, or even used, the “prophets are not perfect” defense. Since these men that call themselves prophets tend to be human, I would agree with that statement. However, whenever I have witnessed the application of this defense I am left to wonder if any poor behavior or “mistake” one of these prophets could make would have implications for their position of prophet. Is there anything they could do that would have a bearing on the legitimacy of their claims of being god’s mouthpiece?

Does the second endowment, which I assume all prophets have received, exempt them from every error or sin except murder?

I hope to get the opinions of any resident believers too.

There is a means laid out in the D&C on how to try a member of the First Presidency's membership.

I am not sure why this posted twice. Hopefully one of the moderators can delete one of them.

The Nehor wrote:There is a means laid out in the D&C on how to try a member of the First Presidency's membership.

Unless the section you are referring to specifies what things would affect the prophet's legitimacy as god's mouthpiece, you have not addressed the question.

EDIT: For example: Could a prophet be involved in murder and still be a prophet? Could a prophet teach false doctrine and still be a prophet? Could a prophet fart at the dinner table and still be a prophet? Is there any action that would invalidate their "calling"?

Mad Viking wrote:

The Nehor wrote:
There is a means laid out in the D&C on how to try a member of the First Presidency's membership.

Unless the section you are referring to specifies what things would affect the prophet's legitimacy as god's mouthpiece, you have not addressed the question.

EDIT: For example: Could a prophet be involved in murder and still be a prophet? Could a prophet teach false doctrine and still be a prophet? Could a prophet fart at the dinner table and still be a prophet? Is there any action that would invalidate their "calling"?

In order.

No, unless the murder was ordered by God (see Samuel or Nephi).
Yes, though he will be corrected. If he will not be corrected he will be removed. If the spiritual danger of this doctrine is high enough (the Atonement is a lie or the Book of Mormon is a good fictional book) he will be removed before the offending message can be said.
Yes.
The judge of such things is God unless it involves sin independent of teaching. In this case it is up to the rest of the First Presidency and the Twelve (with inspiration) to make such decisions). This hasn't happened since the days of Joseph and with no real precedents I don't feel qualified to guess as to what situations this would come up in.

Mad Viking wrote:EDIT: For example: Could a prophet be involved in murder and still be a prophet? Could a prophet teach false doctrine and still be a prophet? Could a prophet fart at the dinner table and still be a prophet? Is there any action that would invalidate their "calling"?

I learned answers to your questions in EV-land. I'm not sure how they translate in the Mormon Church. But I learned that the Old Testament states that if a prophet makes a false prophecy he is no longer a prophet (or never was). (False prophecy = something predicted that does not come to pass).

Other signs of a false prophet, according to EVs at least, are:

Truth - Does what he says (especially when prophesying) correlate with known truth? (e.g., what he says cannot contradict accepted scriptural truths).

Fruits - How does his behaviour stack up against Christian standards? He must exhibit character traits that glorify God.

Jesus and Gospel - Does he preach the gospel (in accordance with truth, see above)? Does he believe in and teach the Jesus of the Bible (as understood by EVs, at least)?

I can see a potential clash with the above approach and the Mormon belief in ongoing revelation in that today's LDS revelation could contradict yesterday's revelation, which is seen by non-LDS as proof of non-inspiration or non-revelation but to some Mormons, at least, any discrepancy is rendered irrelevant because they believe that current revelation supercedes past revelation.

The way I learned to understand the Bible (by attending EV denoms) is that there are foundational truths that are immutable. Any teaching or "revelation" that contradicts them is automatically deemed to be false. This actually makes sense to me. It prevents those mind-bending internal inconsistencies within doctrine and beliefs.

As for the area of personal revelation; again, many Christians believe that they receive personal revelation for their own lives but the control is still the foundational doctrines - anything that conflicts with those perceived truths is automatically in error.

Based on the above, it is easy to see why me joining the Mormon Church was somewhat of a Big Deal to my EV pals. Especially that whole "false prophet" and "another Jesus" thing. :)

So, according to this approach, there are set ways to determine if a prophet is a prophet and whether a prophet becomes a non-prophet. The big one is declaring false prophecy. Just one will do it.

Yes, though he will be corrected. If he will not be corrected he will be removed. If the spiritual danger of this doctrine is high enough (the Atonement is a lie or the Book of Mormon is a good fictional book) he will be removed before the offending message can be said.

How would he be removed before he said it? Would god take him out first?

Hmmmm. What about Brigham? I mean he said Adam is our God and the father of Jesus Christ. Either he was right or the teaching seems like a pretty spiritual dangerous one-high in your words. But he taught it lots, for a long time and he was not removed. The only person that stood in his way on this one was Orson Pratt. But for Orson maybe this would be official doctrine today.

Jason Bourne wrote:

Yes, though he will be corrected. If he will not be corrected he will be removed. If the spiritual danger of this doctrine is high enough (the Atonement is a lie or the Book of Mormon is a good fictional book) he will be removed before the offending message can be said.

How would he be removed before he said it? Would god take him out first?

Hmmmm. What about Brigham? I mean he said Adam is our God and the father of Jesus Christ. Either he was right or the teaching seems like a pretty spiritual dangerous one-high in your words. But he taught it lots, for a long time and he was not removed. The only person that stood in his way on this one was Orson Pratt. But for Orson maybe this would be official doctrine today.

You are a member today so it is obvious Briggie's Adam-God doctrine did not lead the church astray! And Brigham is OK up in yonder kingdom because he was corrected by Kimball, so he will not be removed from the CK.

*gag*

Really there is nothing a prophet can do that would cause a non-believer to think he is not a prophet. The church is set up pretty good to deal with a rogue prophet. Even if the prophet did something terrible, like commit murder, or rape, or get convicted of serious crimes, the other 14 members of the Q12 and FP would remove him from his duties, and put the next in line as prophet. It is easy to say he was a fallen prophet. No big deal, even the elite are sometimes led astray.

I just wonder why members still listen and obey the prophets when they have been shown to be wrong on so many things. Even the apologists admit they are just guys with opinions, but members take their words as if they are from God himself when history has shown that is not the case.

Jason Bourne wrote:

Yes, though he will be corrected. If he will not be corrected he will be removed. If the spiritual danger of this doctrine is high enough (the Atonement is a lie or the Book of Mormon is a good fictional book) he will be removed before the offending message can be said.

How would he be removed before he said it? Would god take him out first?

Hmmmm. What about Brigham? I mean he said Adam is our God and the father of Jesus Christ. Either he was right or the teaching seems like a pretty spiritual dangerous one-high in your words. But he taught it lots, for a long time and he was not removed. The only person that stood in his way on this one was Orson Pratt. But for Orson maybe this would be official doctrine today.

God would kill them. Sorry, I just watched this clip and was being ambiguous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0KmNVZs ... re=related

How was it dangerous? What spiritual dangers exist in it? How does a belief in Brigham's doctrine change what and how people act? What danger is there in the belief?