"The first bullet"

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi TD, I'll input in This :-)

Hi Roger...

I'm thinking this whole, "Prophets just speak their opinion" excuse is fairly new... is it?
I think it was a short time ago, which by my standard is vastly different from you young'uns. "...listen to the Living Prophet," might have been the first heads-up??
I could be wrong, and it might be that I just was unfamiliar with apologetics but until recently, I had never, EVER heard such a thing.
I had not heard of "Apologetics" until getting into/unto these LDS sites.
I was taught that prophets are in communion with Christ who is leading the church; that prophets are inspired, receive revelation, and are the mouthpiece for Jesus.
True. Yes BY was as good dead as alive! "And, don't YOU fergit It, hear!" Now, he and those other old guys are somewhat museum pieces.

You know... "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Actually I still here this in church, particularly prior to General Conference. The old Mantra remains with TBMs of any age, and of course in the spirit of GC.

However, I'm wondering if this new mantra will find its way into mainstream chapel Mormonism? I don't know. I believe it will, "one funeral at a time." As someone else once said.

I think the evolving "doctrine" concerning those with African ancestry (which is really all of us.. sigh), and dark skin, is going to be similar to the LDS stance on the SSA community.
Probably so. The 1978 Edict, while granting full Black rghts to Priesthood, etc. in no way errraces the absurd doctrine that LDS lived by to that date. That will NEVER go away. Nor should it. That IS a mark of Ignorance, Prejudice and Hypocracy that will stand out as one of the most dastardly Religious teachings of all time.

To this time never acknowledged as such, nor apologized for. Until that time of 'confession' & 'repentance', is made, publicly, it is obvious to rational, thinking, empathetic people, the Mormon Church has no more authority to act in "God's" name than does any other Church or Individual to do so. The egomaniacle profession that it does is an afront to traditional Christianity, even with its warts.

Just give it a few years (decades?), and this whole "Satan is behind homosexuality, which is just a horrible choice by misled people" idea will be eliminated as just the silly opinion of these leaders who just didn't understand, (or further light and knowledge... smile).
Time does correct, the willing to learn. And it does heal advancing generations simply by the nature of evolution. But, it can take a loooonng times. OTOH, with correct nurturing of good-feeling and straight thinking Leaders--such as MLKjr--things can change rather quickly... As demonstrated:

When the richest woman in America is Black, & the Presidential Candidate of the Country is Black, THAT reality has to be saying, "Something IS right in America!"

by the way, I also have a copy of Mormonism and the Negro... WOW! :-(

~td~

Dancer, the fact that such books are in print, are accessible and when read by greater numbers, the Mormon Church will adapt. Being, generally speaking, good folks with good intensions "God" will not allow them to act as leemings at the end... Look carefully, at what's happening now... YOU, as others, have already become aware of their tactics ;-)

Roger... (Hugs :-)

[_Daniel Peterson]

.I'm thinking this whole, "Prophets just speak their opinion" excuse is fairly new... is it?

No. It's a straw man that's been around for several years now.

No actually believing Latter-day Saint believes it, though it's frequently ascribed to "apologists" by a certain kind of critic.

[_truth dancer]

.I'm thinking this whole, "Prophets just speak their opinion" excuse is fairly new... is it?

No. It's a straw man that's been around for several years now.

No actually believing Latter-day Saint believes it, though it's frequently ascribed to "apologists" by a certain kind of critic.

Hi Dan,

I know you think this point is a strawman but as I have said before, I think it is a very important point; one of the most important actually.

It is a point that needs to be addressed because at the foundation of many of the other "issues" we discuss lay the crucial claim regarding what is a prophet.

My observation is that most believing members believe what they are taught concerning a prophet of the LDS church (prophets are the mouthpiece of God), ... apologists often reduce a prophet to basically a older man sharing his opinion who may or may not be inspired, who may or may not receive inspiration, who may or may not get it right.

This is much different that believing the "official doctrine" ie. "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same."

(And lets not go with the "not every single solitary word out of the mouth of a prophet must be absolutely true"; we are discussing a prophet in an official capacity representing Jesus Christ, as a prophet of the one and only true church on the earth). ;-)

~td~

[_Daniel Peterson]

I know you think this point is a strawman but as I have said before, I think it is a very important point; one of the most important actually.

It is a point that needs to be addressed because at the foundation of many of the other "issues" we discuss lay the crucial claim regarding what is a prophet.

I've addressed it. I've said that it's false. It's untrue.

My observation is that most believing members believe what they are taught concerning a prophet of the LDS church (prophets are the mouthpiece of God), ... apologists often reduce a prophet to basically a older man sharing his opinion who may or may not be inspired, who may or may not receive inspiration, who may or may not get it right.

This is much different that believing the "official doctrine" ie. "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same."

No Latter-day Saint leader has ever taught, and no mainstream Latter-day Saint believer has ever affirmed, prophetic infallibility or a view of prophets as divinely-manipulated puppets without personal opinions.

You're setting up a false dichotomy.

And lets not go with the "not every single solitary word out of the mouth of a prophet must be absolutely true"; we are discussing a prophet in an official capacity representing Jesus Christ, as a prophet of the one and only true church on the earth)

I believe that prophets, when speaking as prophets, represent the Lord. And I take what they say very, very seriously. I'm a "chapel Mormon" (to borrow Shades's ridiculous formulation).

But I don't believe that prophets wholly escape their situation as dated and placed human beings, nor that their expressions typically altogether transcend their culture. In this life, said the prophet and apostle Paul, "we see through a glass, darkly." He was including himself. That isn't to deny that we see. It's to suggest that we don't see perfectly.

[_cksalmon]

I know you think this point is a strawman but as I have said before, I think it is a very important point; one of the most important actually.

It is a point that needs to be addressed because at the foundation of many of the other "issues" we discuss lay the crucial claim regarding what is a prophet.

I've addressed it. I've said that it's false. It's untrue.

My observation is that most believing members believe what they are taught concerning a prophet of the LDS church (prophets are the mouthpiece of God), ... apologists often reduce a prophet to basically a older man sharing his opinion who may or may not be inspired, who may or may not receive inspiration, who may or may not get it right.

This is much different that believing the "official doctrine" ie. "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same."

No Latter-day Saint leader has ever taught, and no mainstream Latter-day Saint believer has ever affirmed, prophetic infallibility or a view of prophets as divinely-manipulated puppets without personal opinions.

You're setting up a false dichotomy.

And lets not go with the "not every single solitary word out of the mouth of a prophet must be absolutely true"; we are discussing a prophet in an official capacity representing Jesus Christ, as a prophet of the one and only true church on the earth)

I believe that prophets, when speaking as prophets, represent the Lord. And I take what they say very, very seriously. I'm a "chapel Mormon" (to borrow Shades's ridiculous formulation).

But I don't believe that prophets wholly escape their situation as dated and placed human beings, nor that their expressions typically altogether transcend their culture. In this life, said the prophet and apostle Paul, "we see through a glass, darkly." He was including himself. That isn't to deny that we see. It's to suggest that we don't see perfectly.

Guy walks into a bar in Provo and sidles up to the counter.

The conscientious 'keep reminds him, "LDS prophets have condemned the imbibing of alcoholic beverages on several occasions, my friend."

Says the patron, "I'll definitely drink to that."

[_Roger Morrison]

Nehor said: (I'll respond in this)

I don't get what the big deal is. The idea that our existence is molded by the Premortal Life. There's also no reason for anyone to be smug about it. Everyone I know has some kind of physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual defect. When everyone realizes that many of their challenges are given to them to correct flaws in their character the doctrine is humbling. And, outside of LDS superstition the "doctrine of Premortal Life" is without factual evidence of any kind--making it "FALSE" I found out through prayer and seeking that several of my flaws are there to protect me and to teach me because of flaws I have. When "seeking" one usually arrives at some conclusion. Generally (and figuritively) found in their own back-yard. This is not some new doctrine. Correct, it is OLD & False!

Which makes life harder? Not being able to receive the Priesthood or poverty? A slow mind or a slow body? A fragile emotional state or a missing limb? It seems that critics think we believe everyone comes to Earth equal. Only the unperseptive & ignorant in today's world would entertain such an idea. We don't. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. True. In addition, God has made it clear that difficulties do not always come from some premortal or mortal errors/flaws. As does science. OTOH LDSism makes it quite clear that the First Estate determines the Second Estate, which in turn determines the Third Estate... as I'm sure you know.

You are correct that most of us make life-work with, and/or in spite of, our flaws. Some, depending on their particular natures & nurturings, truly excell. W/could they have done so otherwise is strictly conjecture...

BUT, to teach...

...while details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege...the worth of (which) is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps...(is) deprivation as to holding of the priesthood by the negroes" (The First Presidency, 8/17/51) From, Mormonism and the Negro (Walmart. E. Berrett)

... is, IMSCO fallacious and irresponsible.

While such non-substantiable statements might have, in the past, given some solace (why?) to, "...why me/mine Lord?..." they do not Trump genetics, or an honest, "...we/I don't know."

I guess 'deceit, might be "the big deal"...

Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Dan, you said: (I'm inthis)

I believe that prophets, when speaking as prophets, represent the Lord. And I take what they say very, very seriously. I'm a "chapel Mormon" (to borrow Shades's ridiculous (???) formulation).
How do you ID what to, and not to, take "very, very seriously"? I am inclined to do the same.
But I don't believe that prophets wholly escape their situation as dated and placed human beings, nor that their expressions typically altogether transcend their culture. True, and cannot be overly considered when age & demographics are such important factors. In this life, said the prophet and apostle Paul, "we see through a glass, darkly." He was including himself. That isn't to deny that we see. It's to suggest that we don't see perfectly.
Paul was speaking to & in his own time. But he went on to say, "...time will come when we will see clearly..." I think we are seeing 'clearer' by the moment. Joseph Smith said too,
"...a prophet is not always a Prophet..." I think Emma might agree...

From your perspective, do you see LDS hiearchial adaptivity accommodating science more in the present/future than in the past? i.e. Genesis: Creation, Rib, Fall, Universal Flood, Tower of Babel etc...

To your knowledge is there such a LDS Department, that for lack of a better term I'll say, as, an R&D Department that advises on new-sciences in ALL fields? Also, are there contiuous up-dated courses on Humanities, World Religions, and Religious Studies for GAs?

All answers will be appreciated.

Roger

[_truth dancer]

I know you think this point is a strawman but as I have said before, I think it is a very important point; one of the most important actually.

It is a point that needs to be addressed because at the foundation of many of the other "issues" we discuss lay the crucial claim regarding what is a prophet.

I've addressed it. I've said that it's false. It's untrue.

What is untrue?

My observation is that most believing members believe what they are taught concerning a prophet of the LDS church (prophets are the mouthpiece of God), ... apologists often reduce a prophet to basically a older man sharing his opinion who may or may not be inspired, who may or may not receive inspiration, who may or may not get it right.

This is much different that believing the "official doctrine" ie. "whether by my voice or the voice of my servant it is the same."

No Latter-day Saint leader has ever taught, and no mainstream Latter-day Saint believer has ever affirmed, prophetic infallibility or a view of prophets as divinely-manipulated puppets without personal opinions.

You're setting up a false dichotomy.



Nope, I have never heard anyone claim that prophets are "divinely-manipulated puppets without personal opinions". :-)

However, I have repeatedly heard that prophets are speaking for Jesus Christ. I have repeatedly heard that prophets are representing Jesus Christ as if he were here on the Earth. (Whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same).

Have you not heard this claim in the LDS church? Read the scripture? (smile)

My understanding as a believer which was consistent with virtually every talk and scripture I ever heard was that the prophets are speaking for and in behalf of Jesus Christ.

So, help me understand.

I admit I do not understand how someone can believe that a prophet is being led by Jesus Christ himself, that the HG is inspiring and leading him with the spirit of revelation and yet speak complete mistruths, and time and time again get things completely wrong.

And lets not go with the "not every single solitary word out of the mouth of a prophet must be absolutely true"; we are discussing a prophet in an official capacity representing Jesus Christ, as a prophet of the one and only true church on the earth)

I believe that prophets, when speaking as prophets, represent the Lord. And I take what they say very, very seriously. I'm a "chapel Mormon" (to borrow Shades's ridiculous formulation).

Representing the Lord is not the same as literally speaking for Jesus Christ... (whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same). And, taking something serious is not the same as believing the words are true or share truth, or that the teachings are what Jesus Christ would say.
I'm not asking if you take what a prophet says seriously... my point is that some apologists seem to think that prophets may be only speaking their opinion rather than sharing truth from Jesus Christ as is the claim of the LDS church.

Would Christ speak mistruths?

If the prophets teach a mistruth is it because Christ is directing them to speak mistruths or are they sharing their opinion?

But I don't believe that prophets wholly escape their situation as dated and placed human beings, nor that their expressions typically altogether transcend their culture. In this life, said the prophet and apostle Paul, "we see through a glass, darkly." He was including himself. That isn't to deny that we see. It's to suggest that we don't see perfectly.

I understand this... but the LDS church claims to be led by Jesus Christ. The LDS church claims that a prophet is in communion with Jesus Christ and that what a prophet speaks (in an official capacity... etc), is the same as if Jesus Christ himself were speaking. Does Christ see through a glass darkly?

The church may not have ever officially claimed that a prophet was infallible but it DOES teach that the prophets speak for Jesus Christ. (Whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same).

Unless one is suggesting that Jesus Christ is making the mistakes, it seems to me that prophets are not inspired or not speaking the words of Jesus Christ.

In other words, if a prophet (in an official capacity after prayer and pleas to the divine), gets is wrong, it is because the prophet is not in tune? Is the HG not doing its job? Is Christ deliberately misleading? What?

I understand there are cultural influences and all that... it doesn't negate the fact that Christ is supposedly LEADING THE PROPHET?

~td~

[_bcspace]

That being the case how would the following be tagged?

Is it published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and if so, is there a later doctrinal statement that (according to the principle of continuing revelation) superceeds it?

I understand this... but the LDS church claims to be led by Jesus Christ. The LDS church claims that a prophet is in communion with Jesus Christ and that what a prophet speaks (in an official capacity... etc), is the same as if Jesus Christ himself were speaking. Does Christ see through a glass darkly?

No, but I think it possible the Church may give an opinion or a certain interpretation as doctrine until actual revelation reveals the true details.

A modern example might be the doctrine of location of the Garden of Eden in which the verses given in support don't really support it; they're just circumstantial.

[_bcspace]

Here's one from II Nephi, 5:21-23 (Book of Mormon :-) "...cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed with even the same cursing (skin of blackness) ...that they shall be loathsome..." Here we have ref to the NA Indians...

The Bible also equates blackness with spiritual condition. How do you know the Book of Mormon is not doing the same?