FAIR: A Prophet Doesn't Speak For God

[_beastie]

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.

I'm not talking about "official positions" or doctrines. I'm talking simply about past teachings of prophets, which they delivered, over the pulpit, in their roles as prophet, "in the name of Jesus Christ".

So if revelation is unambiguous as charity claims, these should be easy to explain.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

The entire point is not that God may possibly tell the individual that the prophet is WRONG. The point is that God wants to give the member the opportunity to KNOW the prophet is right, and not just "think" he's right.

Nothing in Church doctrine prevents the Holy Ghost from telling me, Charity, or anyone that what the Prophet has said is his own idea and is not binding...take it or leave it. Its not that he's wrong, but that he's a human being and has his own opinions and perceptions (that he's free to teach, by the way, within limits, from pulpit, podium, or printed page).

I always use Spencer Kimball's teaching of continence-essentially marital celibacy outside of procreation-here as exhibit 'a'. He taught it. It has no basis in the Restored Gospel per se, and has never been seconded, to my knowledge, by a single Apostle (at least none I know of). Apparently he and Camilla were happy in this sense, and more power to them if they were. Most would not be, and there is no Church teaching on the matter at all. This kind of thing would, and did, bother me somewhat,, and so I can always pray, not for confirmation, but for clarification.

[_beastie]

Nothing in Church doctrine prevents the Holy Ghost from telling me, Charity, or anyone that what the Prophet has said is his own idea and is not binding...take it or leave it. Its not that he's wrong, but that he's a human being and has his own opinions and perceptions (that he's free to teach, by the way, within limits, from pulpit, podium, or printed page).

I always use Spencer Kimball's teaching of continence-essentially marital celibacy outside of procreation-here as exhibit 'a'. He taught it. It has no basis in the Restored Gospel per se, and has never been seconded, to my knowledge, by a single Apostle (at least none I know of). Apparently he and Camilla were happy in this sense, and more power to them if they were. Most would not be, and there is no Church teaching on the matter at all. I kind of thing bothered me, and so I can always pray, not for confirmation, but for clarification.

So apparently Spencer Kimball did not receive clear revelation on this point?

[_Coggins7]

I resolved my severe confrontation with polygamy as a teen in precisely the manner prescribed in the D&C; I studied it out in my mind, read, reflected, meditated, debated myself endlessly in my head, and then went to the Lord in prayer.

[_Coggins7]

So apparently Spencer Kimball did not receive clear revelation on this point?

I think, for some reason, you continue to miss the point. I see know reason to believe he received revelation on the subject at all. It was his personal philosophy and something he thought would be applicable to others. The question is whether its binding on me, not its philosophical or practical efficacy.

In the Church, we recognize supportive or adjunct principles and practices that would be useful or helpful to one, but not to another. The WoW is a good example. There are a number of ways in which the WoW could be observed. If one wanted to be vegetarian, due to one's own particular preferences and good effects achieved from the practice, the Gospel allows for this. Attempting to impose this as a principle of the WoW upon others as a condition of faithful observance would be well outside Gospel boundaries, however, since our own biological individuality precludes a one size fits all dietary rule made of iron.

In other words, within the demarcation lines of general Gospel principles, there are some things that work for some and don't work for others in living those principles. Its staying within the boundaries that matter, not our own idiosyncratic method of obeying the requirements of the Gospel. A couple could have sex once a day or once a year; if they are content with either, and growing spiritually, then within the Law of Chastity and following the Spirit (which usually leads one to moderation and balance in many of these things I think), there is room for human uniqueness.

The Spirit, and I think Charity would agree, both confirms and clarifies. He does not simply reaffirm our prejudices or assumptions.

[_beastie]

Why wouldn't the prophet of God have received revelation about what he was going to teach members of the church in his role as the prophet, "in the name of Jesus Christ"?

Didn't he bother to pray for inspiration beforehand? Do prophets really care that little?

[_Coggins7]

Why wouldn't the prophet of God have received revelation about what he was going to teach members of the church in his role as the prophet, "in the name of Jesus Christ"?

Didn't he bother to pray for inspiration beforehand? Do prophets really care that little?

Who is claiming he doesn't? He receives revelation upon matters that are to be taught as binding upon the members, or to prepare them for that which is to be binding. Beyond this, the prophet's are free to teach what they believe to be good and useful principles or ideas to the Saints. And the Gospel teaches us that their are many of those to teach, including truths and principles outside the Church from many areas. Their own philosophies or opinions, are of course, not binding on the Saints (even though many of them may, if fact, be good ideas).

Will we not be judeged or held accountable for whether we followed GBH's personal views (even though he probably has some very good and useful things to say of his own accord), but we will for whether we followed his counsel as it came through revelation from Jesus Christ.

OK Beastie, pull another hair out by the follicle and split it wide open. I'm really, honestly, not sure what problem you're having with this at this point.

[_MishMagnet]

I guess we're on the same page then as I've pretty much decided that all the prophets have only given personal opinion about everything. By your own definition I won't be held to anything any of them have said. I'm good!

[_beastie]

Who is claiming he doesn't? He receives revelation upon matters that are to be taught as binding upon the members, or to prepare them for that which is to be binding. Beyond this, the prophet's are free to teach what they believe to be good and useful principles or ideas to the Saints. And the Gospel teaches us that their are many of those to teach, including truths and principles outside the Church from many areas. Their own philosophies or opinions, are of course, not binding on the Saints (even though many of them may, if fact, be good ideas).

Will we not be judeged or held accountable for whether we followed GBH's personal views (even though he probably has some very good and useful things to say of his own accord), but we will for whether we followed his counsel as it came through revelation from Jesus Christ.

OK Beastie, pull another hair out by the follicle and split it wide open. I'm really, honestly, not sure what problem you're having with this at this point.

First, clarify what you mean by "binding".

Second, clarify why, for example, it would not be important enough for Saints to know the true nature of God.

[_Coggins7]

I'm not talking about "official positions" or doctrines. I'm talking simply about past teachings of prophets, which they delivered, over the pulpit, in their roles as prophet, "in the name of Jesus Christ".

So if revelation is unambiguous as charity claims, these should be easy to explain.

You continue to assume, just for the sake of keeping this coal on the fire, that any of these issues, to the extent we really understand most of them to any substantive degree, came through revelation. I'm saying that some things do come that way, and some do not. Each individual has he same spirit the Prophets have, and can use it to clarify ambiguities and problems such as this (at the very least, if the Spirit does not clarify the exact nature of the problem, he can reaffirm to one that the Gospel as a system and the Church as an organization are true and of divine origin and organization. This is what happened during my confrontation and wrestle with polygamy. I still don't really understand or comprehend its necessity, especially in mortality, but the Lord told me, in essence, not to worry about it; that he was in control and that that its his Church and that I can't understand everything or have all questions answered as a mortal with such limited comprehension).