Credibility of "Prophets"

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wheat, my first time addressing You, so a belated "Welcome to MDB!" You said: (I'm blue)

I realize that there is absolutly nothing I can say to convince the folks here on this board that this is just bull, but I know it is.Maybe you give up too easily? I don’t believe it and I don’t know anyone who does believe it. I don’t doubt that there a few people in any ward or stake that think like that, but they are a miniscule minority. What demographic do you represent? Most people recognize that prophets, apostles, and the like are just ordinary men doing their best to be sensitive to the prompting of the spirit as they attempt to conduct the affairs of the church. they aren't commanded in all things. I think most here would agree with you They aren’t *led in everything they say.* They don’t have weekly meetings with God and discuss the affairs of the church with Him face to face.You are totally & absolutely correct they just try to do their best by living in such a way that the Holy Ghost can effectively inspire them to dothe will of God. Like as you implied, do most honourable, well intended folks. My deceased Mother being one of those.And from time to time __ maybe only once or twice every generation __ one or more of them is the recipient of a major revelation on something relevant to the times. Sort-of like the one-hit muscian? (Sorry ;-) I consider the Proclamation on the Family to be of that nature.Generally speaking, I think most folks would endorse that. As far as it goes. Unfortunately, it tends towards prejudice, discrimination, exclusivity and small-mindedness, in my seriously considered opinin (IMSCO) To me, it is scripture. It is the word of God. It was inspired of God. Have it as you will. But, as you pointed out earlier about, "being commanded in all things." To me, limiting Gay & Lesbian access to "God's" Kingdom, (LDSism) is simply a current attitude once held by LDS Officialdom towards Blacks. And, as before this too will pass.

Wheat, you seem to suggest "internet Mos have more in common with Chapel Mos than they might admit"?? Reading your thoughts, seems to me you might have more in common with us than You realize?? A few questions please, if you will allow, might clear that up:

You mentioned the Universal flood. Do you accept that as fact? Also, Adam's rib making Eve? Tower of Babel, realies or mythologies? Jonah in the great fish? The Fall? Resurection???

Warm regards,
Roger

[_moksha]

I see. You are referring to contemporary conservatism. I have always been under the impression that in these cases conservatives are complaining about abuses of the welfare system. They are not bashing the downtrodden per se, but those individuals who abuse the welfare system, who happen to be downtrodden. Regardless, I fail to see the parallels between current conservatives complaints about abuse of the welfare system by some of the downtrodden and Brigham Young’s opinions about the customs, intelligence, and status with regard to his God of the black race.

The issues of conservatism do change over time. One day they can be arguing against the Barons asserting their rights before the King, another day they can point out that slavery is in everyone's best interest, then later on they can protest strongly against the workers right to unionize or insist that the fast food industry will collapse if they have to raise the minimum wage above $1.40 an hour.



Now as to Wheat's statement, I agree with most of it.

[_beastie]

I realize that there is absolutly nothing I can say to convince the folks here on this board that this is just bull, but I know it is. I don’t believe it and I don’t know anyone who does believe it. I don’t doubt that there a few people in any ward or stake that think like that, but they are a miniscule minority. Most people recognize that prophets, apostles, and the like are just ordinary men doing their best to be sensitive to the prompting of the spirit as they attempt to conduct the affairs of the church. they aren't commanded in all things. They aren’t *led in everything they say.* They don’t have weekly meetings with God and discuss the affairs of the church with Him face to face. they just try to do their best by living in such a way that the Holy Ghost can effectively inspire them to dothe will of God. And from time to time __ maybe only once or twice every generation __ one or more of them is the recipient of a major revelation on something relevant to the times. I consider the Proclamation on the Family to be of that nature. To me, it is scripture. It is the word of God. It was inspired of God.

Do you - and other believers you know - feel entitled to ignore the teachings of the prophets made over the pulpit, in the name of Jesus Christ, at conferences wherein they are functioning in their roles as prophets?

[_Danna]

As a missionary for the Mormon church, following the discussions word for word (as we memorized them), we taught that Christ is the head of the church, and the prophet talks to him. That it why it is Christ's church, a "living" church - because the prophet communicates with God. That is how the truth was restored - the heavens were opened again and prophets communed with God once again. The prophet receives revelations from God - not just impressions of the spirit.

This is what we have always taught; that is what everyone believes. That is what sets the LDS church apart from all the other churches on the earth.

To try and backtrack now and say that the prophet is just a regular guy with an important calling who tries to "feel the spirit" and just do the best he can - is re-writing history and doctrine.

Hear, hear

[_Neo]

To try and backtrack now and say that the prophet is just a regular guy with an important calling who tries to "feel the spirit" and just do the best he can - is re-writing history and doctrine.

re-writing LDS history = LDS doctrine
LDS doctrine is re-writing history and doctrine.

[_harmony]

re-writing LDS history = LDS doctrine
LDS doctrine is re-writing history and doctrine.

It's called continuing revelation.

[_Roger Morrison]

As "Prophets" the LDS Presidentcy has absolutely no credibility. As CEOs they most certaintly have, IMSCO.... Credit where credit is due, eh.

[_Neo]

re-writing LDS history = LDS doctrine
LDS doctrine is re-writing history and doctrine.

It's called continuing revelation.

I would call it "convenient revelation".

It is continuous only when the prophet says something you want to hear.
Otherwise they are only speaking as a man.

[_Inconceivable]

I don't believe there has been a valid claim of divine revelation from a Mormon prophet since Joseph Smith.

When was the last time the Corporation of the President validated a current, "thus saith the Lord"? Never for 160+ years.

That's why it's all about Joseph Smith.

The Mormon church defines "prophet, seer and revelator" differently than it did in the days of Smith.

Smith (with some exceptions from Young) was the only "prophet" willing to stretch his neck out enough to say he spoke the words of Jesus or God.

Think about it - Smith was the only one that claimed to dictate for Them.

What is the Doctrine and Covenants? Book of Mormon? PoGP? The temple endowment? It's Joseph Smith - and no other "prophet". Period.

Perhaps the reigning presidents after Smith (and Young) were too afraid to make stuff up because they might be drawn and quartered. Young did make his own laws and "thus saiths.." in the Mexican territory. Perhaps being outside the grasp of the laws of the USA was why he thought he could get away with his nut case revelations. But you might note, he has no credibility, does he? (Quakers on the moon? Murdering black men that marry pasty white women? Officially santioning the abomination of plural marriage? Adam/God etc.. etc.. etc..)

When was the last time a Mormon prophet said, "thus saith the Lord"?

Perhaps they have enough fear of their vengeful God not to lie directly from the pulpit. But it sure doesn't seem to bother them that the members will testify of their calling for them.

[_Roger Morrison]

Well conceived ;-) Makes one wonder, IS there ANY INTEGRITY IN THE CHURCH LEADERS WHEN IT COMES TO CHURCH TITLES??

No! That's why I vote "NO" to them being PsSs&Relief Society. They are not. Why enable their fantasy??