"The first bullet"

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Roger...

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

BH Roberts made this argument many many years ago. I do not think it is really new.

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.

Course Roberts was probably one of the earliest LDS apologists and was one of the first to deal with some of the teachings from the 19th century leaders we wished were never said.

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.

Even Joseph Smith said that not everything he said was as a prophet.

However, I'm wondering if this new mantra will find its way into mainstream chapel Mormonism? I don't know

.

I think it more used by apologists than by mainstream members. Based on the comments I heard in HPQ today there is a lot of devotion to especially what the living prophet says.

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. 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).

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

It is an eye opener but keep in mind the author was never a church leader.

[_bcspace]

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

No. It's been around since at least D&C 107.

[_harmony]

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

No. It's been around since at least D&C 107.

Follow the prophet. God won't allow him to lead us astray. Therefore, there can never be a time when the prophet, acting in his capacity as the leader of the church, can be wrong. Period. Ever.

[_Roger Morrison]

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? (UL added by RM)

For some reason you do not address my concern? I'll rephrase: Do you, BCS, believe "loathsome" to be a matter of a, "skin-of-blackness"? As written in IINeph5:21-23...
Are you aquainted with any loathsome black-skinned folks, any not-loathsome black-skinned folks?

Do you think equating "blackness with spiritual condition" is correct for us to do today?

Roger

[_bcspace]

For some reason you do not address my concern?

I'm quite certain I did.

Do you think equating "blackness with spiritual condition" is correct for us to do today?

I don't see why not. Consider:

First we should be careful about color references to lightness and darkness in ancient texts.....

The Amorite people, according to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I:84, were "depicted ... with fair skins, light (also black) hair, and blue eyes" on Egyptian monuments. Yet, the Sumerians said they were "dark" savages (William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 166

An interesting verse set along these lines is Daniel 11:35, 12:10

Notice in Lamentations 4:6-8 that whiteness is equated with goodness before a moral fall and a black appearance with sin.

[_harmony]

For some reason you do not address my concern?

I'm quite certain I did.

Do you think equating "blackness with spiritual condition" is correct for us to do today?

I don't see why not. Consider:

First we should be careful about color references to lightness and darkness in ancient texts.....

The Amorite people, according to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I:84, were "depicted ... with fair skins, light (also black) hair, and blue eyes" on Egyptian monuments. Yet, the Sumerians said they were "dark" savages (William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p. 166

An interesting verse set along these lines is Daniel 11:35, 12:10

Notice in Lamentations 4:6-8 that whiteness is equated with goodness before a moral fall and a black appearance with sin.

And yet we know this is not the case. Try to get into at least the 20th century, bcspace.

[_bcspace]

I'm way ahead of you.

[_harmony]

I'm way ahead of you.

Only in your own mind.

[_Ray A]

Delete. Wrong thread again, reading too many at the same time.

[_ludwigm]

...
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).
...

What do the prophets do, when they are not speaking as prophets? (When? Who?)

Same as the question above, rephrased other way:
Please cite me one case, when The Prophet (any one of them) said that he is not speaking as a prophet but he is one common man saying private opinion.

What is the method to use, when one want to decide if the prophet is the prophet or isn't?
What is Your method? When do You take their sayings seriously - and when do You not?

Up to now, I have learned one and only one method. Wait until that prophet's death then You can call everything he said private opinion. Living prophets can not say anything improper.


I'm sorry but Your definition (prophets, when speaking as prophets) is as usable as bcpace's "doctrine" definition = zero. It is simply one sidestep to avoid any answer.