FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God

[_beastie]

Once again, as I just posted on another thread:

The past erroneous teachings of prophets, delivered in their role as prophets, from the pulpit, to the church members who looked to them for revelation and guidance, proves that if there were such a thing as unambiguous revelation, LDS prophets couldn't access it. Of course, one could assume that they didn't care enough to pray beforehand to get revelation about what to church the members "in the name of Jesus Christ", but I think that would be an unlikely assumption, with a whole other set of troubling implications.

That so many internet apologists imagine they can receive unambiguous revelation when past prophets could not is bizarre.

[_charity]

Once again, as I just posted on another thread:

The past erroneous teachings of prophets, delivered in their role as prophets, from the pulpit, to the church members who looked to them for revelation and guidance, proves that if there were such a thing as unambiguous revelation, LDS prophets couldn't access it. Of course, one could assume that they didn't care enough to pray beforehand to get revelation about what to church the members "in the name of Jesus Christ", but I think that would be an unlikely assumption, with a whole other set of troubling implications.

That so many internet apologists imagine they can receive unambiguous revelation when past prophets could not is bizarre.

Unambiguity is in the eye of the critic. I don't find them ambiguous.

[_malkie]

When I need to communicate something important, I take the responsibility.

Good for you. But sometimes you can't get through to people. Ever read any stories about the idiots who don't read even the plainest instructions?

The more I study and learn, the less likely it seems to me that Mormonism is "true", in any normal sense of the word. And since I have no reason to believe in the existence of god, I also have no reason to think that praying and obeying are reasonable requirements.

So this is why you won't receive a witness of the Holu Ghost. Faith is Christ is a requisite before the Holy Ghost will witness.

I don't believe that the world accepts that this is a standard of proof, if for no other reason than that it appears to be strongly biased. A standard of proof should not require you to believe that which is to be tested, in order to accept that it is true.

This is a false idea. You don't have to believe in the Book of Mormon to get a testimony of its truthfulness. You have to believe in God and Christ.

And why would I, a priori, have faith in Christ? Especially since that is part of what discovering the "truth" of these things would entail.

Because as you read and pondered what you read you would have come across Alma's instructions on how to develope faith.

I'd still like to know how you can be certain that the feelings you ascribe to the influence of the HG are just that. How can you be certain that it is not satan? Do you really think that it is completely impossible that you are wrong?

I can't explain it to you any better than a sighted person can explain vision to a blind person. I tried in another post to let you know that the experience isn't anything like a really great musical experience. Or indigestion. Etc. Satan does not bring people to Christ. And yes, it is completely impossible that I am wrong about some very specific things. I can be wrong about others, however.

Again, if the great prophet Joseph Smith, even when using his god-given device, could be deceived, how can it be that I can expect to be totally immune? Is it not possible that satan will tell me a thousand truths in order to, in the end, trap me with a lie? If the LDS GAs cannot agree on what god is telling them when they debate and pray about issues, with the assistance of the HG, how can I possibly expect to do better than them.

Joseph was not deceived. The subsequent prophets and general authorities were not deceived. Satan can tell you a thousand lies, but you don't have to listen to him. The apostles always are unanimous on their decisions, confirmed by the witness of the Holy Ghost. And the witness given to millions of the membership.

The apostles may always be unanimous in their decisions at the end, but I believe that the obvious lack of unanimity during deliberations, sometimes lasting for quite a long period of time, indicates that they are not all getting the same message, or that, in spite of their positions as special witnesses, and, presumably as some of the most spiritual people on the face of the earth, the message is unconvincing to some.

You and I inevitably part company very early on in this process, and I suspect that you also part company with the vast majority of the population of the world. Without the requisite faith in Christ (something in support of which I can find no evidence), I cannot get started. Your standard of proof in Moroni 10: 3-5 is useless to me and to many other people, and will continue to be so.

I still think that the process is somewhat circular, since one of the major purposes of the Book of Mormon, If I recall correctly, is to testify of Christ. But your standard requires me to have faith in Christ in order to believe the Book of Mormon.

I wonder if this is why missionaries, in general, are able to convert so few people, especially those who are not christians to begin with. (Please don't CFR me on this - just my impression - not a fact that I can substantiate.)

Anyway, on the basis of your description of the proof process, and my inability to get started, everything else seems to be moot. I think I'm done here. Thank you for having the patience to follow my lines of reasoning and for providing your responses.

[_truth dancer]

I mentioned the phenomenon that leaders of the church do not always get a unanimous message from the HG but in fact have conflicting "revelations" and often get things really, really wrong.

Charity responded:

You ask some good questions. I think we have these questions because we don't know the process. I think we err when we suppose that God is standing around micromanaging and hitting the leaders upside the head with "inspiration." When has seemed to be the pattern is that God has to be asked a question.

Once the question is asked, then the inspiration can come. Myabe the fault was in not asking the question sooner.

You seem to be suggesting that the reason leaders get conflicting messages or get things wrong is because they are not asking the correct questions. You wrote... "maybe the fault was in not asking the question sooner"..., does this not suggest the leaders did not ask the question at the appropriate time?

If you meant something completely different than what you wrote, perhaps you could address my initial question.

Why do you think leaders get conflicting revelation? Why do you think leaders get things really wrong when they believe they are inspired? Why do you think leaders seem to think they are inspired when it later turns out they were not. but just sharing an opinion?

You suggest any wrong interpretation or mistake in understanding the HG is the fault of the person doing the asking, is this an accurate reflection of your opinion?

If so, then how do you explain the fact that prophets and church leaders seem to not understand what is or is not inspiration?

My point is.. if the prophets and leaders know the process, and if they do indeed pray prior to speaking as the mouthpiece for God, and yet they still seem to get things REALLY wrong, there is obviously some problem for even the very righteous/chosen when it comes to knowing what is or is not revelation/inspiration.

If the prophets and other leaders of the church can't figure it out, it seems amazing that other regular old folks think they can know with certainty.



~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

I still think that the process is somewhat circular, since one of the major purposes of the Book of Mormon, If I recall correctly, is to testify of Christ. But your standard requires me to have faith in Christ in order to believe the Book of Mormon.

One could have no faith in Jesus, pick up the Book of Mormon, start reading it, and then start having faith, then pray and try to get their answer.

[_beastie]

Unambiguity is in the eye of the critic. I don't find them ambiguous.

Well, then, please explain the correct teachings regarding these three items, just as an example:

1 - adam/god
2 - whether Jesus was conceived through physical relations
3 - the nature of the priesthood ban

Thanks!

[_Coggins7]

Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct? Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

This is in all essential particulars, correct. The scriptures and the counsel and teachings of the Brethren as a body. Infymus's tortured straw grasping is just more confirmation of the kind of bad faith that infects the committed anti-Mormon mind when questioning and debating the Church.

[_Coggins7]

Exactly my point. The underlying assumption is that what the prophet is teaching is, actually, correct and God-given, and the point of praying is simply to strengthen the resolve of the member. The purpose of prayer is NOT to really find out whether or not what the prophet is teaching is correct at all, because the possibility that the prophet is wrong cannot exist.

Incorrect. One can be argued out of a belief, but its a much taller order to argue someone out of that which they know to be the case. Then there are the "hard doctrines". Some of these can be general, and others can be personal issues. Regardless, sometimes we do not know whether what the Prophet has said is the truth, even when we assume that under normal conditions, that is the case. When there is an inherent tendency to rebel against his counsel or teachings because that which he has said is in strong contradistinction to our own traditions, cultural assumptions, or personal views, that is when we need the confirmation more than at any other time, and that is when if fulfills its other purpose of assurance when we don't know (or, perhaps more properly for the faithful LDS, when we would rather not know the truth, or rather not have to deal with it).

Yes, I'm familiar with the "stupor of thought". It's what I felt each time I prayed and asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and whether the church is, indeed, the "one true church", the sole church with the authority of JC to perform saving ordinances.

That has not been my experience.

But each time I share that, believers - including you - parse and pick at my experience

Only because its rather out of the mainstream against a background of so many others who attempted communion with God was successful in this realm. We don't know what you actually experienced, or why the experience was what it was. What's interesting is that you've become a aggressive critic of the Church and are seeking now, for some reason, to destroy that which you do not understand.

[_Coggins7]

Well, then, please explain the correct teachings regarding these three items, just as an example:

1 - adam/god
2 - whether Jesus was conceived through physical relations
3 - the nature of the priesthood ban

We could give you the accepted explanations and/or theological speculations regarding them, but as there has never been an official doctrine regarding any of the three and the general membership has never been asked to accept any of them (including the Priesthood ban, which, for all I know, may have been part of the Lord's plan. The main problem, in my mind, isn't the ban, for which we have no historical documentation, but the various speculations regarding its meaning, and these were taught with an authoritative tone by many of the Brethren, and come as close to "official" as you could get with any of these--even though they weren't)

The Adam/God idea is an utter mystery. Nobody knows what Brigham Young was actually trying to get at, what was going on in his mind, and what he was trying to say. What is certain is that he taught it to a few people privately and slipped a few references to it in sermons here and there, but that's where it ends. There is no "Adam/God" theory in the Church; that's an invention of Mormonism's critics. Brigham had some idea regarding the offices and names of various members of the Godhead and related characters, but what we see in his lecture in the St. George Temple is convoluted, at best. In essence, a non-issue.

Whether Jesus was conceived through physical relations or not, the Church has no position whatever.

[_Coggins7]

And you miss the entire point, Charity. If a Prophet says "multiple earrings are wrong", and a member doesn't get that special sensation under their nipples, well, it is the member's fault.

Speaking of multiple earrings and nipples Infy, is this an especially sore point for you?