DiscussMormonism.com

When I began studying the "meat", I quickly developed the opinion that the prophets (particularly ones in early stages of the LDS church), in hind sight, suffer from a credibility problem. Their reliability as spokesmen for a God is threatened by their refusal to run some of their opinions past their God before espousing them as the truth. It matters to me very little whether or not a given utterance is considered "official" or "sanctioned". Are we to believe that the prophets of God a average men? Or, are they the elect? I believe it is the claim of the LDS that the latter is the case. I hold their opinions and utterances to a higher standard. After all... they have access to ultimate truth.

Are we to believe that the prophets of God a average men?

Yes.

Or, are they the elect?

Yes.

I believe it is the claim of the LDS that the latter is the case. I hold their opinions and utterances to a higher standard. After all... they have access to ultimate truth.

Since both are the case, this is why there is D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. Thus all must agree and this agreement is signified by official publication.

bcspace wrote:Since both are the case, this is why there is D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. Thus all must agree and this agreement is signified by official publication.

You've missed my point. I don't care whether or not some opinion is ratified by the other 14. Here we have an individual that speaks to the creator of the universe and he can't be bothered to check with god whether or not his opinions are accurate let alone appropriate. Couple this with the fact that some of the opinions are repulsive to me. Access to the ultimate truth (God, as the LDS see him) seems to have had no bearing on the formulation of their opinions.

Mad Viking wrote:

bcspace wrote:Since both are the case, this is why there is D&C 107 wherein we see that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority. Thus all must agree and this agreement is signified by official publication.

You've missed my point. I don't care whether or not some opinion is ratified by the other 14. Here we have an individual that speaks to the creator of the universe and he can't be bothered to check with god whether or not his opinions are accurate let alone appropriate. Couple this with the fact that some of the opinions are repulsive to me. Access to the ultimate truth (God, as the LDS see him) seems to have had no bearing on the formulation of their opinions.

This whole concept of fallible prophets is a fairly new, and internet only phenomenon. If you were to walk up to your average church going LDS and say that prophets can and do make mistakes and not to trust what they say, that would be tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes.

Believe me, I've had this conversation multiple times with chapel Mormons and they most certainly do not believe that prophets are fallible. They honestly believe that God speaks to them, and they are led in everything they say.

Scottie wrote:This whole concept of fallible prophets is a fairly new, and internet only phenomenon. If you were to walk up to your average church going LDS and say that prophets can and do make mistakes and not to trust what they say, that would be tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes.

Believe me, I've had this conversation multiple times with chapel Mormons and they most certainly do not believe that prophets are fallible. They honestly believe that God speaks to them, and they are led in everything they say.

It seems to only apply to dead prophets, and the longer dead, the better. You're not likely to get anyone to point out anything that a current (or fairly recent) prophet has said that shows their fallibility.

Young or Taylor spouting their fallible opinions? Sure. Hinckley or Monson? No way.

Mad Viking wrote:Their reliability as spokesmen for a God is threatened by their refusal to run some of their opinions past their God before espousing them as the truth.

Excellent point; one that I've never seen the Internet Mormons address.

It matters to me very little whether or not a given utterance is considered "official" or "sanctioned".

That might be what makes a former Chapel Mormon take the fork in the road toward either Internet Mormonism or apostasy: The amount of weight he or she gives to the whole "official doctrine/unofficial doctrine" thing.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Mad Viking wrote:Their reliability as spokesmen for a God is threatened by their refusal to run some of their opinions past their God before espousing them as the truth.

Excellent point; one that I've never seen the Internet Mormons address.

I think Bcspace hit the nail on the head when he said, "I think sometimes the Church feels pressured to make a statement on some minor issue and personal opinion get's put into doctrine without any scripture or revelation to back it up". Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Past mistakes have been made. The inportant thing is the quest for doing better in the here and now, so as to better live Christ-like lives.

This whole concept of fallible prophets is a fairly new, and internet only phenomenon.

So the internet Mormons are more realistic. No surprise, they are more technologically literate and have access to a wider range of reference materials too. How many humans are perfect anyway?

moksha wrote:I think Bcspace hit the nail on the head when he said, "I think sometimes the Church feels pressured to make a statement on some minor issue and personal opinion get's put into doctrine without any scripture or revelation to back it up". Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Past mistakes have been made. The inportant thing is the quest for doing better in the here and now, so as to better live Christ-like lives.

You are going to need to provide an example of what you and Bcspace are talking about, because I don't see the application of what you are referring to. Let's try... Brigham Young since many of his opinions are hotly debated amongst believers and critics. Please explain to me how Brigham Young's opinions about black people were the result of him feeling pressure to make a statement on the subject.

Mad Viking wrote: Please explain to me how Brigham Young's opinions about black people were the result of him feeling pressure to make a statement on the subject.

I'll try. During this period of history, the debate about slavery was an all consuming issue. To show one's conservatism, frequently they bashed the downtrodden (take that you system-cheating welfare mothers). However, had he more closely searched the scriptures or consulted with God, he would have found a mandate to love his fellow human beings. This dovetails exactly with Bcspace's statement.

moksha wrote:

Mad Viking wrote: Please explain to me how Brigham Young's opinions about black people were the result of him feeling pressure to make a statement on the subject.

I'll try. During this period of history, the debate about slavery was an all consuming issue. To show one's conservatism, frequently they bashed the downtrodden (take that you system-cheating welfare mothers). However, had he more closely searched the scriptures or consulted with God, he would have found a mandate to love his fellow human beings. This dovetails exactly with Bcspace's statement.

Maybe I am confused but you seemed to be making my point. Brigham let his opinions about some of his God's children be formulated by his personal prejudices and the popular opinion amongst southern slaveholders instead of consulting his God or his scriptures (although, I am sure he could have found plenty of support for slavery in there). Makes me wonder if he really ever spoke to him (his God). Furthermore, his God never bothered to set him straight either. Just exactly what was the relationship between the two I wonder.

Why would one need to bash the downtrodden to show one's conservatism? I don't understand this statement. Could you provide an example.