He was speaking as a man, not a prophet

[_The Nehor]

This whole "speaking as a man" s*** 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.

Because some/most of the members of the LDS Church are not powerful enough to dictate revelation in a manner akin to the D&C. Those that can't need to hear the truth and then have the power to verify it. As one grows in power the need for prophets diminishes somewhat (though they can still be helpful) as the person develops strong enough avenues of communication with God.

[_cksalmon]

This whole "speaking as a man" s*** 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.

Because some/most of the members of the LDS Church are not powerful enough to dictate revelation in a manner akin to the D&C. Those that can't need to hear the truth and then have the power to verify it. As one grows in power the need for prophets diminishes somewhat (though they can still be helpful) as the person develops strong enough avenues of communication with God.

Is it really a matter of [spiritual?] power? What about member-sanctioned creativity?

In other words, not only do most members not have the power to dictate revelation in a manner akin to D&C, but the prophet doesn't, either.

Why not?

I know, I know: we need to live up to what we have received thus far, and then, perhaps, the heavens will open up again and shower down new revelation.

GC seems rather trite, predictable, and utterly non-prophetic over the last two years (that is, since I've been watching). I could be wrong, since I have a limited knowledge base. But, goodness, have the leaders really been stymied by a lack of divine interaction into talking about sweet pickles gestating in a jar?

Or, the number of earrings in a woman's ear?

Originally, as I understand the situation, the seer was the most important and influential leader in the Church. But, the LDS church has no seers now. Just corporate managers who voice platitudes (that is, as it appears from an admittedly outsider perspective).

Goodness, one of the most theologically-bereft books I've read was penned by Stephen Nadauld, entitled Justification By Faith, which was, despite its title, not really about justification or faith, but more about charts, graphs, and diagrams (that would have been more at home in a boardroom than a theological treatise) detailing the various sinful states (in graphical gray-scale glory) of Latter-day Saints, presumably.

Meh, Nadauld was a GA of the 2nd Council of 70's for some time. And CEO of a dairy coop, author of books on finance and management, etc.

In other words, one prone to expressing himself in charts and graphs.

Not a theologian.

And this is one of my biggest obstacles in accepting the Mormon Church as true: the current leaders appear to just be hand-picked managerial types who've done their time in lower callings.

There's no compelling revelation emanating from SLC these days. Just a steady-as-she-goes corporate mentality.

Who was the last real-life LDS prophet? John Taylor? I dunno.

Chris

[_moksha]

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?

Voices.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

This whole "speaking as a man" s*** 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.

Because some/most of the members of the LDS Church are not powerful enough to dictate revelation in a manner akin to the D&C. Those that can't need to hear the truth and then have the power to verify it. As one grows in power the need for prophets diminishes somewhat (though they can still be helpful) as the person develops strong enough avenues of communication with God.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

This is not true. The roles of the Q of 12 and the FP and equality was quite fuzzy till after JSs death. D&C 107 is not clear. It also seems the the High Council of the main stake of the Church had more authority than the 12 for local affairs of the Church but the Q of 12 had more authority where a stake was not organized. I know it is the vogue thing to take what we have now in the Church and put it back to 1830-1844 but it was not clear then.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Ummm let me think for a minute.....


Ok..

Why don't you kiss my ass?

Why don't yuo grow up and understand that people approach thing in life in different ways.

Why don't you grow up and understand that I am quite fine with you choosing to leave the Church. Why can't you be fine when others make differing choices. You are a TBM of Exmo's. You are the mirror of folks like Bob Crockett and Coggins.

What are all of two years old? You sure act like it.

[_Yoda]

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?

Interesting article, BC. I think that this is where a lot of confusion comes in:

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

(bold emphasis mine)

These official Church publications would be the Ensign if I am not mistaken? What I have always been taught is that the Ensign magazine is to be considered modern scripture. Is this correct?

If this is correct, then everything published in the Ensign is also considered doctrine.

Wasn't the Journal of Discourses considered the "Ensign" of the early Church? A lot of the misnomers of prophets "speaking as a man" are taken from the JoD.

Also, there is a problem with consistency. If a prophet of the Lord is speaking from the pulpit in an official capacity, addressing members of the Church, how can his words later be construed as a "theory", or that he was simply "speaking as a man"?

Either the prophet is a prophet and is communicating with God, or he isn't.

[_Yoda]

You are a TBM of Exmo's. You are the mirror of folks like Bob Crockett and Coggins.

Jason has a point, Boaz. I like you. You know I do. But this all or nothing stance of yours gets as old as Bob's "everyone who posts anonymously is a coward."

I understand that being a member of the Church proved to be a painful and bitter experience for you. I accept and am glad that you were able to make choices that benefited you and your family, and that you are on your way to being emotionally whole based upon those choices.

But the journey is different for all of us. And choices that are best for our emotional, spiritual, and family well-being are different for all of us.

Jason and I don't expect you to agree with our choice to continue to be active in the Church in spite of our disbelief in certain tenets, but it is not too much to ask for you to respect our decision to do so based upon our assessment of what will work best in our given circumstances.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You are a TBM of Exmo's.

Brilliant!

[_John Larsen]

You are a TBM of Exmo's. You are the mirror of folks like Bob Crockett and Coggins.

Jason has a point, Boaz. I like you. You know I do. But this all or nothing stance of yours gets as old as Bob's "everyone who posts anonymously is a coward."

I understand that being a member of the Church proved to be a painful and bitter experience for you. I accept and am glad that you were able to make choices that benefited you and your family, and that you are on your way to being emotionally whole based upon those choices.

But the journey is different for all of us. And choices that are best for our emotional, spiritual, and family well-being are different for all of us.

Jason and I don't expect you to agree with our choice to continue to be active in the Church in spite of our disbelief in certain tenets, but it is not too much to ask for you to respect our decision to do so based upon our assessment of what will work best in our given circumstances.

Very well said. I am reminded of this:

TWO MONKS AND THE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN

An old monk and a young monk were walking through a forest when they came to a river bank and saw a beautiful young woman standing at the edge of the bank.

The woman told the monks that she was afraid to cross the river because she might slip and be carried downstream. She asked if one of the monks might help her across.

Now it so happened that these 2 monks were members of a sect which practiced celibacy and they had both taken vows never to touch a member of the opposite sex. But the old monk, sensing the extreme anxiety of the young woman, lifted her onto his back and carried her to the other side of the river.

The young woman thanked him and went on her way. The 2 monks continued on their journey, but the young monk was shocked and disturbed at having seen his older companion break his vow so nonchalantly. Finally, after 3 hours of walking and thinking, he could contain himself no longer and he burst out, "Tell me, old man, what did it feel like to break your vow of so many years? What did it feel like to allow sensuality to tempt you from your spiritual path? What did it feel like to have her smooth warm thighs wrapped around your waist, her breasts brushing against your back, her arms around your neck and her soft cheek almost one with your own? Tell me, old man, what is it like to carry such a beautiful young woman?"

The older monk remained silent for several steps and then said, "It is you who should tell me what it is like to carry such a beautiful young woman. You see I put her down 3 hours ago at the river, but you are still carrying her."


© 1975 - 1981 by David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace

Now I have to go try to figure out which monk I am.