Micromanaging the Saints

[hordak]

If God won't tell the prophet whether or not it is proper for, say, a woman to have pierced ears, why do you think that God would tell someone else?

Ignoring your specific example, to avoid this thread turning into the very type i am trying to discourage, because the prophet speaks to the church as a whole and not to it's members as individuals. This means that the issues may not brought up until they affect a large portion of the church.While the Web has been around since the early 90s the church hasn't really spoken about it until the 2000s as it has become more common place in the homes of members. Or the issue might have a different answer for different people, like fast offering encouraged to "generous" and not a specific amount as generous to the wards lawyer would be different the to the wards janitor . Or perhaps it's the law itself that is important, and not the specific variable. Service is about helping others. This is what is important, there is no need to mandate x amount of hours per month.

[MrsAri]

If a prophet speaks, do it.

If the exact guidelines of the commandment are hazy, seek clarifying information (including discussion with other faithful members of the Lord's church).

Most importantly, obey all the commandments (both direct and indirect) of the prophets- wisdom comes from action; understanding comes from doing; and testimony comes from a trial of faith.

We are required to act once the prophet states, "Thus sayeth the Lord". Ultimately, we are each given the power of prayer and revelation to choose our own path and make our own decisions. We are admonished to support our leaders "in righteousness", and to not put our trust in the arm of flesh.

[sixpacktr]

I guess I'm confused on how posting an opinion on a board is considered 'micromanaging'?

No one here has any ability at all to enforce any opinion they may hold. Some may argue that they are right to the exclusion of others, but so what? Why take it so personally? And if you've ever had the privilege of being micromanaged at work, you'll know that this forum is far from it...

I have found in my years in the church that some people take offense when they are taught correct doctrine because it conflicts with their view of how things should be. We all need to have a sense of humility in hearing other's opinions to see if we are somehow lacking in being as obedient as our HF wants us to be.

So when you say 'micromanaging' it makes no sense...

[Snow]

If a prophet speaks, do it.

You mean like when the prophet Paul instructed us not to marry and to be celibate? Like that?

[lattelady]

Except that Paul wasn't a prophet. He was an apostle.

[Maxel]

You mean like when the prophet Paul instructed us not to marry and to be celibate? Like that?

This is such a disingenuous example, I'm sure you're not actually looking for a response.

[Dravin]

She does have you there Snow, you'll have to find another example. Shouldn't be that hard but most of what comes to my mind is Law of Moses stuff and thus wouldn't necessarily be applicable. I'm sure Brigham Young said something somewhere though, he's good for that. I particularly enjoy his comment about any man without a beard doesn't belong in the Church (that may just be urban legend though).

[HEthePrimate]

Somebody's probably already said this, but the way I look at it is, "It is not meet that I [the Lord] should command in all things." I thought part of the point of the new covenant was to throw off many of the burdensome, nitpicky rules the rabbis had come up with over the centuries--why create new nitpicky rules now?

HEP

[Snow]

Except that Paul wasn't a prophet. He was an apostle.

I can see that English is not your first language.

prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. (American Heritage Dictionary)

There is no other figure in mainstream Christianity who has more shaped Christian belief and theology than Paul. Paul meets every applicable definition of the word prophet.

[Snow]

This is such a disingenuous example, I'm sure you're not actually looking for a response.

I notice, without surprise, that you no rebuttal, other than to pout.

[Snow]

She does have you there Snow, you'll have to find another example.

Is it your point, then, that apostles are not prophets, seers and revelators and that Paul did not speak through divine inspiration and that his writings are not canonical scripture?

[Gatorman]

Is it your point, then, that apostles are not prophets, seers and revelators and that Paul did not speak through divine inspiration and that his writings are not canonical scripture?

Not to speak for Dravin, but for myself. However, Paul has since been over ridden by subsequent Prophets/Seers/Revelators. So, Paul is out of date in this case, except as a reference to the times.

[lattelady]

Snow, I know that you despise being wrong...alas, you are wrong. Paul was not a prophet, was never called of God to be a prophet, and..you are wrong on yet another note--english IS my first language. Sorry! You're funny. :)

Edited September 19, 2009 by lattelady

[lattelady]

Snow, I must admit that I'm suprised you would fail to note how Paul refers to himself:

1 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, called to be an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus...";

2 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,..."

Ephesians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..."

Colossians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

1 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope..."

2 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..."

Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God and an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ..."

But then the conclusion I am forced to draw is once again, you do not like being wrong. So you ignore the evidence in front of you and either 1) make rude comments about others who are right so you don't feel embarassed like, "I see that english isn't your first language." I've seen you use that dig before. OR 2) You try to assert your opinion through foolish arguments that have no foundation,(like: "Paul WAS a prophet. He WAS."). You have no evidence to prove your claims. I do.

[Snow]

Not to speak for Dravin, but for myself. However, Paul has since been over ridden by subsequent Prophets/Seers/Revelators. So, Paul is out of date in this case, except as a reference to the times.

Paul was not overridden for about 1800 years. Do you believe that during those 1800 years people should have followed his instructions? Maxel doesn't even though that violates his own maxim.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Snow, I know that you despise being wrong...alas, you are wrong. Paul was not a prophet, was never called of God to be a prophet, and..you are wrong on yet another note--english IS my first language. Sorry! You're funny. :)

Wow - that's a persuasive argument. You say so. That's it. Nothing more.

You know, there's a reason that you or those like you, when backed into a corner, respond with no logic and no evidence, but instead merely repeat your claim.

Care to explain how it is that Paul did NOT "speak by divine inspiration" and did NOT express and interpret the will of God. Obviously you do not believe that the NT is inspired. Are you even Christian? What kind of Christian rejects the Bible? You can believe anything you want and that is neither good nor bad but I am interested to know why you consider yourself Christian if you do not think that Paul was divinely inspired to speak God's will - which BY DEFINITION made him a prophet.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Snow, I must admit that I'm suprised you would fail to note how Paul refers to himself:

1 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, called to be an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus...";

2 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,..."

Ephesians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..."

Colossians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..."

1 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope..."

2 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..."

Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God and an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ..."

But then the conclusion I am forced to draw is once again, you do not like being wrong. So you ignore the evidence in front of you and either 1) make rude comments about others who are right so you don't feel embarassed like, "I see that english isn't your first language." I've seen you use that dig before. OR 2) You try to assert your opinion through foolish arguments that have no foundation,(like: "Paul WAS a prophet. He WAS."). You have no evidence to prove your claims. I do.

Now I know that you are merely joking.

You say that Paul was an apostle and imply that such excludes being a prophet. Hah hah, very funny. Do you even know what an apostle is?

a. One of a group made up especially of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel.

b. A missionary of the early Christian Church.

c. A leader of the first Christian mission to a country or region.

Care to explain how being a chosen follower of Christ excludes one from speaking by divine inspiration? That is what you are claiming - that being a disciple of of Jesus means that you cannot speak by divine inspiration. Where on earth did you get such a strange idea.

By your logic, Paul could not have been a man because he was also a Jew. That's your argument - right? That being one things excludes you from being another thing.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[Gatorman]

Paul was not overridden for about 1800 years. Do you believe that during those 1800 years people should have followed his instructions? Maxel doesn't even though that violates his own maxim.

Interesting thing, those dark ages. You know, not the 'Knights' type of dark ages, but the type when there were not Prophets and Aposotles. And, interestingly enough, people didn't listen to other commandments or teachings either. In fact, they created their own, twisted the teachings, and created philophies of men intermingled with scripture. Sorry, your argument holds no weight and really is moot.

[Snow]

Interesting thing, those dark ages. You know, not the 'Knights' type of dark ages, but the type when there were not Prophets and Aposotles. And, interestingly enough, people didn't listen to other commandments or teachings either. In fact, they created their own, twisted the teachings, and created philophies of men intermingled with scripture. Sorry, your argument holds no weight and really is moot.

Let's examine YOUR argument.

During the "dark ages" people didn't listen to other commandments therefore mankind was released from following the instructions of a prophet.

Wow! That's a persuasive argument. I am not sure where the logic is though - perhaps you can explain it. While you are at it, perhaps you explain MY argument, which you say holds not weight - as your point is irrelevant to my argument. Do you even know what my argument is? Methinks not.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[Gatorman]

Let's examine YOUR argument.

During the "dark ages" people didn't listen to other commandments therefore mankind was released from following the instructions of a prophet.

Wow! That's a persuasive argument. I am not sure where the logic is though - perhaps you can explain it. While you are at it, perhaps you explain MY argument, which you say holds not weight - as your point is irrelevant to my argument. Do you even know what my argument is? Methinks not.

Fine Snow. You have no valid, reasonable, or worthwhile point. Have a nice day.

[Snow]

Fine Snow. You have no valid, reasonable, or worthwhile point. Have a nice day.

Which is ample illustration that you:

1. Have no clue what my argument is, and

2. Have no argument to support your claim.

... and that is why guys like you simply proclaim things by imagined fiat instead of actually demonstrating something.

Let me tell you what the problem is with your point - (it wasn't really an argument, it was simply a statement without any argument.)

1. You mistakenly thought it interacted with my point - it did not. It was irrelevant to my point.

2. It is based on nothing but your imagination. There is no legitimate and demonstrable argument that because there was "darkness" that men are released from obeying God.

3. "Dark ages" is an inappropriate term as The Church does not believe that the world was in darkness. It believes that truth and good existed and many followed God according to the light and truth that they had received.

[Maxel]

I notice, without surprise, that you no rebuttal, other than to pout.

Why do you think I'm pouting? Why do you always resort to insults? Why do you constantly take the low road in discussions?

Anyway...

I assume you're talking about 1 Corinthians 7. I don't know what the scholarly consensus says about the chapter, but from the text it's clear that Paul was speaking (and giving advice) in very specific context. I think McConkie's chapter heading gives one good possibility: men serving missions shouldn't be married.

It's clear from modern teachings that an emphasis on lifetime celibacy when marriage is an option is not from God. Therefore, Paul simply could not have taught this and still be a prophet of God (apostles are still prophets and can teach doctrine; nevertheless policy isn't dictated by any one member of the 12). There's reason to believe that he did not, in fact, teach that lifetime celibacy is superior to marriage.

[Snow]

Why do you think I'm pouting? Why do you always resort to insults? Why do you constantly take the low road in discussions?

Are you not the one that called me insincere or lacking candor? What is the word for it when one person accuses someone else of doing what they themselves do?

Anyway...

I assume you're talking about 1 Corinthians 7. I don't know what the scholarly consensus says about the chapter, but from the text it's clear that Paul was speaking (and giving advice) in very specific context. I think McConkie's chapter heading gives one good possibility: men serving missions shouldn't be married.

It's clear from modern teachings that an emphasis on lifetime celibacy when marriage is an option is not from God. Therefore, Paul simply could not have taught this and still be a prophet of God (apostles are still prophets and can teach doctrine; nevertheless policy isn't dictated by any one member of the 12). There's reason to believe that he did not, in fact, teach that lifetime celibacy is superior to marriage.

Sure - you can talk about what Paul woulda, shoulda, coulda meant but let's just take what he actually DID say, not what he might have said but didn't. He said that it's good for man to be celibate and that man had a spouse because of immoralities. There is no mention of missionaries. Paul was not addressing missionaries. You are simply imposing your modern idea of the LDS youth missionary program on the first century Jesus movement which had so such program.

Your point, however, was that when a prophet says jump, one should jump and here you are arguing your way out of your own claim.

It goes without saying that the celibate prophet Paul would not even be called as a general authority in today's Church.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Snow

[sixpacktr]

I have to say something here, because there is a contention (not angry, but a point being made) that apostles are not prophets, or that Paul was SIMPLY an apostle.

Every April conference, and during our ward and stake conferences, we sustain the First Presidency AND the Quorum of the 12 PROPHETS, Seers and Revelators.

THE Prophet, or President of the church, speaks for the entire church as pertaining to doctrine and policy FOR the church. It can be argued that the SP and Bishop/Branch President is the prophet for their respective jurisdictions in making policy (as long as it does not contradict church policy).

So, I have to say that Paul WAS a PROPHET, and had the divine authority to be such. Peter was THE Prophet and President of the Church during Paul's ministry, but it doesn't make Paul any less of a prophet.

[lattelady]

Snow,

I continue to ask you for proof from scripture that anyone besides YOU considers the apostle Paul to be a prophet. Did he ever PROPHECY as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel did? Do you know what the role of prophet was in the Bible? You're talking about PAUL, a biblical character, not a modern day prophet and revelator whom you can define as you see fit. Biblical prophets were called by God to go to a certain people group, one that was in rebellion (many times it was the Israelites themselves) to prophecy (thus the title) coming wrath if they did not repent. Paul wasn't called in that way. He was called in a dramatic way, yes, but not as a prophet. He preached the gospel. He wasn't foretelling the future as a rule of thumb. He was a missionary.

The role of prophet, at least in the Bible, is considered a VERY IMPORTANT ONE. Only a select amount of people had it. It was a role assigned by God to prophecy, often prophecy about coming wrath because a people had turned their hearts from God. I recognize that within the LDS church, many people are considered prophets (apparently even people who haven't been given that title--like Peter and Paul of the Bible. In the Bible, that is not the case.

The truth is you know the difference. You are a proud person who can't stand to be wrong. You simply used one word out of context. It's an easily forgiveable mistake. Just admit, "whoops! I'm human, like everyone else, and I accidentally used the word prophet instead of apostle. ' I'm sure you knew that he was an apostle. But for some reason you want everyone to think you always know the right answer, so now you think it'd be better to argue your point by using lots of words and an unkind attitude. It would be much more appreciated if you just humbly admitted you don't know everything, just like the rest of us (you're in GREAT company), and we'd really get along splendidly.

Edited September 19, 2009 by lattelady