He was speaking as a man, not a prophet

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Probably because you ask this same question monthly on this board or MAD?

I do??

Not really. It's just discussed at least that often, is all.

[_bcspace]

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

Since it's been known in the Latter-day Church since Joseph Smith's time that the FP and Qo12 are of equal authority (D&C 107), you have a way to tell for sure whether or not the Church considers utterances by the prophets as prophetic. See the link in my siggy. You have been able to pin us down on this for many decades and more and yet you refuse to take advantage of it. I wonder why?

[_Mercury]

Back in the mid- to late-1800s, How did the Holy Ghost counsel the members to adapt the Adam-God doctrine and make it more effective for them?

Apparently the Holy Ghost didn't.

Wrong. Well, first the holy ghost has to exist within reality, which it does not.

[_moksha]

How could one possibly interact with a prophet on a day to day basis if he didn't also speak as a man?

[_Scottie]

How could one possibly interact with a prophet on a day to day basis if he didn't also speak as a man?

Sure, but who are you to tell me when he was or wasn't speaking as a man? What gives you the authority to do so?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Back in the mid- to late-1800s, How did the Holy Ghost counsel the members to adapt the Adam-God doctrine and make it more effective for them?

Apparently the Holy Ghost didn't.

Wrong. Well, first the holy ghost has to exist within reality, which it does not.

What? No quip about my wife, or my living condition, or job, or something?

[_Coca Cola]

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?

This whole "speaking as a man" crap really gripes me. This goes totally against everything I was taught my whole life about prophets, why we need prophets, the role of prophets. etc.

If the prophet "speaks as a man" then why do we need a prophet anyway?

If a prophet has access to God, from whom he could learn all truth, why would he need to speculate and "speak as a man?"

It's just doesn't make any sense.

[_Mercury]

Back in the mid- to late-1800s, How did the Holy Ghost counsel the members to adapt the Adam-God doctrine and make it more effective for them?

Apparently the Holy Ghost didn't.

Wrong. Well, first the holy ghost has to exist within reality, which it does not.

What? No quip about my wife, or my living condition, or job, or something?

Learn to roll with the zings, coap.

I want you to actually pull something out of your rear a** and validate the belief of verification through "the holy ghost".

[_Mercury]

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

Since it's been known in the Latter-day Church since Joseph Smith's time that the FP and Qo12 are of equal authority (D&C 107), you have a way to tell for sure whether or not the Church considers utterances by the prophets as prophetic. See the link in my siggy. You have been able to pin us down on this for many decades and more and yet you refuse to take advantage of it. I wonder why?

Get a muthafurkin book:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[_Boaz & Lidia]

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.

Really? Then why not grow some balls and stand up for what you believe in and speak against that which you do not.