He was speaking as a man, not a prophet

[_Scottie]

I wonder by what authority the apologists are able to make claims that prophets were speaking as men, not prophets for any given statement?

I mean, it sounds great on paper, but how could the apologists possibly know the intent of anything the prophets spoke? Especially the dead ones. Who gives them authority to determine that Adam/God theory (as one example) was BY speaking as a man and not a prophet?

If I were to go into my ward and question most of the chapel Mormons on whether they believe that whatever is said at the pulpit from the prophet is to be considered doctrinal, most of them would say that yes, it is! Apologists are the only ones I see that can discount certain cherry picked quotes as "not doctrinal" because, for some weird reason, they have insight that the prophet wasn't speaking as a prophet.

So, for you apologists that adhere to "speaking as a man" apologetics, where do you get your authority to make such bold claims, and why should we believe you?

[_John Larsen]

I believe the origin of this comes from the title page of the Book of Mormon: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

I prefer Joseph's defense which is some times they are inspired by God, sometimes by the Devil.

[_The Nehor]

The whole Holy Ghost thing. There isn't and won't be some standard test of measurement available to all.

[_Scottie]

The whole Holy Ghost thing. There isn't and won't be some standard test of measurement available to all.

How did I know that this would come into play here.

Ok, I guess we'll travel down this path.

The Holy Ghost witnesses different things to different people. Some may say that the HG told them a particular statement was from God while others will say the HG told them he was speaking as a man.

So, now we're back to the original question. Why should we believe you? Do you think such a subjective answer should be used as an apologetic argument?

[_The Nehor]

The whole Holy Ghost thing. There isn't and won't be some standard test of measurement available to all.

How did I know that this would come into play here.

Ok, I guess we'll travel down this path.

The Holy Ghost witnesses different things to different people. Some may say that the HG told them a particular statement was from God while others will say the HG told them he was speaking as a man.

So, now we're back to the original question. Why should we believe you? Do you think such a subjective answer should be used as an apologetic argument?

Should it be used as an argument? Nope. However, LDS have always said that the Prophet can speak as a man or a prophet. There is no standardized way to tell the difference (outside the Holy Ghost) so arguing which is which is pretty pointless. If you don't believe God spoke to the Prophet, it's even more pointless.

[_Dr. Shades]

The whole Holy Ghost thing. There isn't and won't be some standard test of measurement available to all.

Then why is it that the Holy Ghost always confirms the truth of whatever the prophet says, even when he's wrong?

[_The Nehor]

The whole Holy Ghost thing. There isn't and won't be some standard test of measurement available to all.

Then why is it that the Holy Ghost always confirms the truth of whatever the prophet says, even when he's wrong?

It doesn't. Other times the HG is more selective and may tell you that this or that counsel should be adapted in a certain way to make it more effective for you.

[_Jason Bourne]

I wonder by what authority the apologists are able to make claims that prophets were speaking as men, not prophets for any given statement?

I mean, it sounds great on paper, but how could the apologists possibly know the intent of anything the prophets spoke? Especially the dead ones. Who gives them authority to determine that Adam/God theory (as one example) was BY speaking as a man and not a prophet?

If I were to go into my ward and question most of the chapel Mormons on whether they believe that whatever is said at the pulpit from the prophet is to be considered doctrinal, most of them would say that yes, it is! Apologists are the only ones I see that can discount certain cherry picked quotes as "not doctrinal" because, for some weird reason, they have insight that the prophet wasn't speaking as a prophet.

So, for you apologists that adhere to "speaking as a man" apologetics, where do you get your authority to make such bold claims, and why should we believe you?

Well this is really the rub of it for me.

[_The Nehor]

I wonder by what authority the apologists are able to make claims that prophets were speaking as men, not prophets for any given statement?

I mean, it sounds great on paper, but how could the apologists possibly know the intent of anything the prophets spoke? Especially the dead ones. Who gives them authority to determine that Adam/God theory (as one example) was BY speaking as a man and not a prophet?

If I were to go into my ward and question most of the chapel Mormons on whether they believe that whatever is said at the pulpit from the prophet is to be considered doctrinal, most of them would say that yes, it is! Apologists are the only ones I see that can discount certain cherry picked quotes as "not doctrinal" because, for some weird reason, they have insight that the prophet wasn't speaking as a prophet.

So, for you apologists that adhere to "speaking as a man" apologetics, where do you get your authority to make such bold claims, and why should we believe you?

Well this is really the rub of it for me.

Apologists who use that argument are either guessing or know the answer but can't prove. Take such arguments with a large chunk of salt. However, by the same standard, critics who declare that Prophet A said this and this means the Mormon God thinks that way should also be taken with as much salt.

[_John Larsen]

I wonder by what authority the apologists are able to make claims that prophets were speaking as men, not prophets for any given statement?

I mean, it sounds great on paper, but how could the apologists possibly know the intent of anything the prophets spoke? Especially the dead ones. Who gives them authority to determine that Adam/God theory (as one example) was BY speaking as a man and not a prophet?

If I were to go into my ward and question most of the chapel Mormons on whether they believe that whatever is said at the pulpit from the prophet is to be considered doctrinal, most of them would say that yes, it is! Apologists are the only ones I see that can discount certain cherry picked quotes as "not doctrinal" because, for some weird reason, they have insight that the prophet wasn't speaking as a prophet.

So, for you apologists that adhere to "speaking as a man" apologetics, where do you get your authority to make such bold claims, and why should we believe you?

Well this is really the rub of it for me.

Apologists who use that argument are either guessing or know the answer but can't prove. Take such arguments with a large chunk of salt. However, by the same standard, critics who declare that Prophet A said this and this means the Mormon God thinks that way should also be taken with as much salt.

Or we could just cut to the chase an take everything the prophets say with the same measure of salt.