When you've been around Internet Mormons as long as I have, you'll learn that pitting them against their prophet phases them not at all. My overall experience has been that on the balance, the prophets really know nothing special, often less than the Internet Mormon does, and that his stewardship is so narrow and technical that the Internet Mormon can believe whatever he wants and it will never conflict with that microscopic kernal of absolute truth.
The problem is that in an environment like this the only words of the Prophets that are brought up are of a controversial nature. I can say that I agree with over 99% of everything I've heard coming from the Prophets and Apostles and disagree with most of what is brought up here. I have a slightly more balanced perspective as I hear and read the words of the Prophets often. The critics search for errors. Actually, most look for others who say they've found errors and trumpet them. How many of those who search out errors here routinely read the Ensign, read old conference editions, even read the Journal of Discourses without looking for a specific reference?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Daniel Peterson wrote:Sethbag, you're being cartoonish.
There are interesting and important issues here, but caricature isn't very useful.
That depends what one is trying to accomplish.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I know that sort of ambiguity is difficult for some people, and has become a nice point for former believers to trumpet, but I feel fine with it. It's not a matter of being "in denial," it's just a simple fact. Clearly, believing that everything any President of the Church ever said must be 100% accurate and aligned with science and etc. or else they are false prophets, would lead one to conclude they were all false prophets. I don't believe in prophets that way.
You know, this is complete nonsense. :-)
Please give us a reference of even one critic of the LDS church who believes that "everything any President of the Church ever said must be 100% accurate and aligned with science and etc. or else they are false prophets..".
Really, I tire of this silliness LoaP.
Let's be clear. What critics suggest is that a prophet, while speaking as a prophet, claiming to be the representative of Jesus Christ himself, after praying and believing he is receiving revelation/inspiration, should not be completely wrong, speaking untruths.
The LDS church claims they are not like the rest of the world's churches mingling the philosophies of man with scripture, but are being led by Jesus Christ, with representative of God on earth.
I have yet to hear any believer provide a good reason that under these conditions and with these claims prophets and leaders can be totally completely utterly wrong. Can you explain this?
Again to be really clear, we are not discussing every single solitary word ever spoken by a prophet. OK? We are discussing claimed revelation by prophets who claim to be representing Jesus Christ, who claim to be in communion with God, who claim to be led by the HG, who claim to be speaking truth in an official capacity as a prophet of God.
How can they be so misled?
In the future would you do me a favor and stop with the "every word ever spoken out of the mouth of a prophet" nonsense?
It really misrepresents the problem.
Why not address the actual issue? ;-)
Thanks,
~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
These guys claim to represent God on Earth, and claim to be the only ones through whom God will ever reveal truth to the world. If the LDS Prophet is to be recognized as the only one through whom God will reveal things to the Earth, there has got to be some kind of accountability for that.
They claim to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and to receive revelation directly from God. At some point, what they say has to mean something. It has to be credible. There has to be some reason why we should trust them and believe what they say.
You believe that what they say is credible, regardless of how their teachings stack up with reality, because you've had a good feeling in your heart about it, which good feeling you ascribe to the influence of the Holy Ghost. Since your rationale for belief is subject to your own whims, and you can choose to believe, or not believe, whatever you want, and for whatever reason you want, there's not a whole lot I can do to change your mind about that. I will just say this: you're mistaken, and there is ample evidence for this.
The excuses you make for the prophets, that they aren't infallible, that not everything they say has to be correct, etc., are just manifestations of your ability at problem solving.
Problem: prophets teaching things that later are shown to be manifestly untrue
Reason why this is a Problem: this undermines the credibility of the Prophets
Correlary to the Problem: since you claim personal revelation from God confirming the Prophetic ability and calling of these men, if they are shown not to be credible after all, this undermines the value of your claimed "personal revelation", by showing it to have been mistaken or not mean what you thought it meant.
Correlary to the Corellary: this method of personal revelation is the same method by which you convince yourself that the LDS Church really is "true", so if personal revelation is discredited, there goes your testimony
You attempt to side-step the entire problem by simply claiming, even against the words of the Prophets themselves, that what they teach doesn't actually have to be true.
What you're claiming, in effect, is that there is no such thing as credibility and reliability in the calling of Prophet of Elohim the Creator of the Universe to the People of Planet Earth. The LDS Church goes around claiming that they have the "answers", they have "the Truth", they've got God at their head, they receive knowledge, light, and truth from God through revelation through his Prophets, but that there's no reliable way that it can be ascertained whether any given thing the Prophets "reveal" really is in fact true, or whether they're just pulling it out of their own rear ends.
And it's obvious that the "revelation through the Holy Ghost" method that you claim backs up the Prophets even though they're just making stuff up as they go along, is just as deeply flawed and unreliable. There's Meldrum getting his revelations, Paul Ray and Paul Osborne and other "chapel Mormons" we find getting their revelations, and for some strange reason (hint: red flag time) they don't agree with each other. This Holy Ghost sure is a spirit of confusion, wouldn't you think? And then when we try to point this out to people like you, and Nehor, and others, the answers come back with something like "getting accurate, reliable, credible personal revelation is very hard work, and it takes a long time and a lot of effort to learn to discern the real revelation from the wishful thinking or personal opinion or feeling, and obviously everyone else who disagrees with me about these things just hasn't figured it out like I have."
This is no kind of epistemology worth having, Loap. I'm not trying to be condescending here, and I sincerely apologize that it comes across that way. What I'm trying to do is point out what it is you're doing. It's obvious what you're doing, and yet you can't see it, because the defense mechanisms your religion has built up in you specifically to fend off attacks on your faith this way are preventing you from seeing the issue clearly.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
What I said applies to the Prophets teachings and "prophetic utterances". If a Prophet was asked what he had for breakfast the day before, and said he mistakenly said ham and eggs, when it in fact he'd had oatmeal, I wouldn't say that was proof he was no real Prophet.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Chap wrote:That depends what one is trying to accomplish.
Exactly.
So it seems that DCP and I agree that Sethbag should carry right on.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
For those who were asking about the "Mr. Meldrum" thing earlier, I was looking through some stuff by Blake Ostler today, completely unrelated to FAIR, etc. and found a FAIR paper he gave a while ago. In the intro he is "Mr. Ostler."
Mr. Ostler is a partner in the Salt Lake City law firm of Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler. He is the past Chair for the Education Law Section of the Utah State Bar (1996), and past Chair for the Law for Clergy Section of the Utah State Bar (1990).
The following is a transcript of Mr. Ostler's presentation.
If anyone cares.
cue the continuing criticism
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam