Mormons arguing that “Mormon” is as derogatory as the N-word

[Dr. Shades]

Okay. Please share with us how a person being a prophet or not a prophet is a non-binary consideration.

First, one has to define “prophet,” and that is itself a non-binary task in my view.

In that case, how do YOU, Kishkumen, define “prophet?”

[huckelberry]

Only in a sentimental sense, at best.

That’s a very simplistic answer for a complicated set of questions. But it is your answer, and I can only say that your view and experience hardly define the full range of reasonable possibilities.

Okay. Please share with us how a person being a prophet or not a prophet is a non-binary consideration.

First, one has to define “prophet,” and that is itself a non-binary task in my view.

After that, perhaps you can share with us how being pregnant or not pregnant is a non-binary consideration.

Fatuous nonsense. Being a prophet, whatever that is, has very little in common with being pregnant.

Hopefully you will rectify that when you explain what I asked you to explain above. Not because I'm trying to assign you homework, but because I simply can't figure out how it's possible to believe that prophethood/pregnancy is non-binary and therefore I need to be educated.

That’s because you think the word prophet has a simple, straightforward definition to which everyone ascribes. I guess. The beauty of the whole thing is that we don’t ever have to agree about this topic.

I am stepping up to observe a basic point. Shades is thinking of the way prophet is used in the LDS church. There is only one and being that one is yes or no. Step outside of the LDS church and that understanding of prophet does not exist. There are a variety of definitions. I cannot think of any context outside of LDS that prophet has the same limited meaning.

[Kishkumen]

In that case, how do YOU, Kishkumen, define “prophet?”

A charismatic religious leader in the Judea-Christian tradition who claims inspiration from God, speaks authoritatively in accordance with that inspiration, and takes on a role of moral correction. Something like that.

[Kishkumen]

I am stepping up to observe a basic point. Shades is thinking of the way prophet is used in the LDS church. There is only one and being that one is yes or no. Step outside of the LDS church and that understanding of prophet does not exist. There are a variety of definitions. I cannot think of any context outside of LDS that prophet has the same limited meaning.

Yeah. I am definitely out of alignment with the basic LDS definition. Granted.

[Dr. Shades]

In that case, how do YOU, Kishkumen, define “prophet?”

A charismatic religious leader in the Judea-Christian tradition who claims inspiration from God, speaks authoritatively in accordance with that inspiration, and takes on a role of moral correction. Something like that.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If he claims inspiration from God, can we classify his claim as "true" or "false" based on whether he is really, truly receiving inspiration from God vs. whether he's lying about it or simply delusional?

[Kishkumen]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If he claims inspiration from God, can we classify his claim as "true" or "false" based on whether he is really, truly receiving inspiration from God vs. whether he's lying about it or simply delusional?

Yeah, that is where it gets messy. Charismatic leaders of this type often defy or subvert the cultural norms of their times. It is easy to dismiss them if the standard is the status quo. It is also easy to say that a prophetic prediction did not appear to come true, or that it was about as meaningful to you as a magic eight ball. Prophets can seem to be lying or delusional, and I think that is so for very understandable reasons, but a successful one manages to inspire listeners to seek after meaning in spiritually transformative ways. That transformation could be primarily moral, or it could involve a change of lifestyle or method of seeking meaning. Some prophets are tricksters. I would put Joseph Smith in this category. The trickster prophet. People say he was a con man, but I don't buy it. Would I want to have been his close associate? No way. Would I want my daughter to spend time with him? No way.

[I Have Questions]

What specific set of circumstances has led you to form the opinion that Brigham Young was “relatively decent”?

You act like “relatively decent” is some kind of high praise. This is because nothing but fierce criticism of Brigham Young will do on the board.

The set of circumstances is leader of a fugitive sect of thousands that saw a lot of violence and whose top leaders had been murdered. The sect must survive and make its way in dangerous territory shared by indigenous peoples (sometimes hostile) whose culture is quite different from theirs. Rough circumstances. I can hardly appreciate how tough it would have been to live through them.

Thanks, that's illuminating. You seem to treat "decency" as something of a flexible standard. I'm not sure I agree. I think "decency" is a measure of a person's behaviour despite circumstances, rather than a measure of them taking circumstances into account. Let me press you a little further. Do you see Ismail Haniyeh as a relatively decent man? Given that the Palestinians have seen a lot of violence directed at them, they are fugitive in their own lands, their top leaders have been murdered over the years, and they are trying to exist in dangerous territory shared by Israelis, who are sometimes hostile. Rough circumstances. So is the leader of Hamas a "relatively decent" man in your opinion? If not, what is the difference between him and Brigham Young?

[Kishkumen]

Thanks, that's illuminating. You seem to treat "decency" as something of a flexible standard. I'm not sure I agree. I think "decency" is a measure of a person's behaviour despite circumstances, rather than a measure of them taking circumstances into account. Let me press you a little further. Do you see Ismail Haniyeh as a relatively decent man? Given that the Palestinians have seen a lot of violence directed at them, they are fugitive in their own lands, their top leaders have been murdered over the years, and they are trying to exist in dangerous territory shared by Israelis, who are sometimes hostile. Rough circumstances. So is the leader of Hamas a "relatively decent" man in your opinion? If not, what is the difference between him and Brigham Young?

There are bad people who do have some decency. Decency isn't necessarily an absolute standard. You have heard, I would bet, the phrase, "s/he hasn't a shred of decency!" Not a shred. Which means it is possible to have a shred. I think BY had more than just a shred, but I would place him far below the decency of Jimmy Carter, for example. And Jimmy Carter did some really bad things as president, things that, taken on their own, would be hard to call decent at all. I refrain from commenting on the Gaza situation.

[yellowstone123]

Thanks, that's illuminating. You seem to treat "decency" as something of a flexible standard. I'm not sure I agree. I think "decency" is a measure of a person's behaviour despite circumstances, rather than a measure of them taking circumstances into account. Let me press you a little further. Do you see Ismail Haniyeh as a relatively decent man? Given that the Palestinians have seen a lot of violence directed at them, they are fugitive in their own lands, their top leaders have been murdered over the years, and they are trying to exist in dangerous territory shared by Israelis, who are sometimes hostile. Rough circumstances. So is the leader of Hamas a "relatively decent" man in your opinion? If not, what is the difference between him and Brigham Young?

There are bad people who do have some decency. Decency isn't necessarily an absolute standard. You have heard, I would bet, the phrase, "s/he hasn't a shred of decency!" Not a shred. Which means it is possible to have a shred. I think BY had more than just a shred, but I would place him far below the decency of Jimmy Carter, for example. And Jimmy Carter did some really bad things as president, things that, taken on their own, would be hard to call decent at all. I refrain from commenting on the Gaza situation.

Oh, wow! Kishkumen gets a direct hit and many thoughts have been expressed and covered; I think in this thread. For me there's good, bad and evil. We all make mistakes. We all come from a certain time and culture which might be concerned with certain actions of one and maybe not another at the same time. I love reading about those born in the first ten years of the 19th century. Joseph Smith was around 1805. Brigham Young was around 1801. Abraham Lincoln 1809. William H. Seward 1801. Brigham Young wanted to be a carpenter as a teenager. He did some work on a home which would later be owned by William H. Seward. Seward would become Governor of New York, Serve in the U.S. Senate and run against Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and was completely shocked he wasn't the pick of Republican Party for the election. Lincoln included many of those who ran against him in his administration. William H. Seward would be his Secretary of State. Lincoln was a lawyer and frequently was in Springfield Illinois. Joseph Smith was in Springfield about the same time wanting to address legal issues he presently faced. I always wondered if they walked past each other wearing a tall hats.

[Res Ipsa]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If he claims inspiration from God, can we classify his claim as "true" or "false" based on whether he is really, truly receiving inspiration from God vs. whether he's lying about it or simply delusional?

Yeah, that is where it gets messy. Charismatic leaders of this type often defy or subvert the cultural norms of their times. It is easy to dismiss them if the standard is the status quo. It is also easy to say that a prophetic prediction did not appear to come true, or that it was about as meaningful to you as a magic eight ball. Prophets can seem to be lying or delusional, and I think that is so for very understandable reasons, but a successful one manages to inspire listeners to seek after meaning in spiritually transformative ways. That transformation could be primarily moral, or it could involve a change of lifestyle or method of seeking meaning. Some prophets are tricksters. I would put Joseph Smith in this category. The trickster prophet. People say he was a con man, but I don't buy it. Would I want to have been his close associate? No way. Would I want my daughter to spend time with him? No way.

I think our view of prophets is heavily influenced by the Old Testament. From Deuteronomy 18 (KJV):

15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And from Deuteronomy 13: (KJV)

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

So, a prophet is a person who purports to speak for God. But the God has to be Yaweh, or the prophet must be killed. And the test for a true prophet of Yaweh is that what he says in the name of the Lord comes true.

That's pretty much the notion of "prophet" that has been adopted by the COJCOLDS. Nelson purports to speak for God, so he is a prophet. The tricky part is that, in contrast to Old Testament prophets, modern LDS prophets don't prophecy much. They don't make testable predictions by Old Testament standards. That puts them in sharp contrast to Smith and Young.

I don't think "decency" was a concept that applied to Old Testament prophets. Weren't there children torn apart by a bear for making fun of a bald prophet? I suspect that the notion of evaluating the "decency" of a prophet is a modern one.

From my perspective, there are no "true" prophets, as there is no god to speak for. So I guess I have to think about the functional aspects of prophets: how do people who purport to speak for a god affect the society in which they live? So, from my perspective, Nelson is a prophet. So are Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer and the modern prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation.