The Logic here is inescapable... amusing too!

[_Philo Sofee]

Read this on Reddit as the title of a post.

"If prophets and apostles sometimes teach doctrine that later is disavowed with the excuse that they were "speaking as men", doesn't that make them guilty of teaching "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"?"

[_Quasimodo]

It's a serious indictment of the reliability of Prophets. It makes it very hard to know if he has ever told the truth or has always been BSing. That may be the worst of all apologetic excuses.

[_Markk]

Whats sad is that BY taught what are now "opinons" for how many years? i.e. Adam God, Blood Atonment, and Blacks were cursed.

[_Craig Paxton]

The apologetic head fake " they were only speaking as a man" is exactly the kind of apologetics's one would expect to find coming from a man made church. It's one of the bread crumbs one must discover to lead you out of the mind “F”.

[_Philo Sofee]

The apologetic head fake " they were only speaking as a man" is exactly the kind of apologetics's one would expect to find coming from a man made church. It's one of the bread crumbs one must discover to lead you out of the mind ____.

How right you are Craig! So is Markk on B.Y. giving so much opinion as "revelation" for decades! And yet..... that blasted Adam God has some very deep and fascinating insights from the Jewish Kabbalah. Perhaps he was focused on the Jewish aspect of the restoration instead of the Christian one....

[_deacon blues]

I've said this before and i'll say it again: If LDS leaders just stopped pretending that "the revelations" are 100% right, I would start giving them a little leeway on their mistakes, but they still try to maintain the 100% facade. (Our Stake Patriarch likes to quote Joseph: "I never said I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations") If they insist on 100% obedience why shouldn't they be called to accountability for every little mistake.

[_Philo Sofee]

I've said this before and i'll say it again: If LDS leaders just stopped pretending that "the revelations" are 100% right, I would start giving them a little leeway on their mistakes, but they still try to maintain the 100% façade. (Our Stake Patriarch likes to quote Joseph: "I never said I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations") If they insist on 100% obedience why shouldn't they be called to accountability for every little mistake.

Outstanding point!!! BRAVO! I mean it. They want the revelations to be infallible, then the evidence better show those are actually real and true.

[_Quasimodo]

I've said this before and i'll say it again: If LDS leaders just stopped pretending that "the revelations" are 100% right, I would start giving them a little leeway on their mistakes, but they still try to maintain the 100% facade. (Our Stake Patriarch likes to quote Joseph: "I never said I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations") If they insist on 100% obedience why shouldn't they be called to accountability for every little mistake.

I think the problem goes much deeper than this. The accuracy of prophetic revelations approaches zero. Especially JSjr.'s prophecies. I'm trying to understand how the leaders may see things. The days of constructing clever apologetics to excuse inconvenient truths is now over with the rise of the internet. I think that is the main lesson to take away from the published essays.

I think they know that they are fighting a losing battle. They have no options other than to demand that revelations are 100% correct (except when they are not). The Church stands or falls with the validity of the Book of Mormon. Every week there is more reliable evidence that it is not.

They have a very tough job and I think that they know that they are nearing the end.

[_JLHPROF]

Read this on Reddit as the title of a post.

"If prophets and apostles sometimes teach doctrine that later is disavowed with the excuse that they were "speaking as men", doesn't that make them guilty of teaching "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"?"

Yes.

[_moksha]

"If prophets and apostles sometimes teach doctrine that later is disavowed with the excuse that they were "speaking as men", doesn't that make them guilty of teaching "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"?"

Not necessarily if you think of philosophy as being something lofty. The Church's racial purity ban, for instance, was rooted in the primal emotion of hatred rather than a lofty and formal school of thought. A pro-church rebuttal to this statement would best be focused on trying to present a clear-cut instance when the prophet and apostles were truly speaking from those titles rather than as men.