Recommended Posts

I see this quote as not saying his concern was that the people would follow the leaders of the church, but that they would do so without gaining a testimony for themselves through the spirit. We are always to pray for confirmation of any principle that the brethren teach us. Once we have received revelation/confirmation then we are to move forward in faith. 

 

The crux of the matter again is the concern being putting our faith in the wrong place. Brigham seemed to be worried that the people may wrongly put their faith in men (church leaders) and NOT God. This is the problem, if our faith is in Christ and we trust that he will make good on His promise that this church and kingdom have been restored for the last time, that the keys of the kingdom have been restored and will not be removed. Thus we put our faith in Christ and we use the reminders and cautions given by the church leaders to draw nearer to Christ, and we get the added benefit of knowing that they will not lead us astray... but we still need to do our part to always get a witness from the spirit to build our testimony, not to simply base it on words spoken. So to be clear I feel that the issue is not in following the prophet and apostles, but doing so without also getting confirmation from God. God will ratify what he has told His servants to teach, but we still need to draw unto him and thus not make idols of His servants.

 

I know this will get a rise out of Suzie and a few others, because it has in the past, but I simply don't buy that I need to get a specific testimony of every single thing spoken by our leaders.

 

I have a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, the Book or Mormon is the word of God, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the keys were passed by him to Brigham Young and the 12 and then on to the succeeding leaders.

 

By virtue of the fact that the spirit has revealed to me that this structure, organization, and pattern is true and correct, I may safely follow the words given by them without a specific spiritual witness of every word they speak.

 

I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

 

For example, I never prayed to know if the lowering of the missionary age to 18 and 19 was given by God. And yet I have full and absolute confidence that it was. I trust, implicitly, that President Monson, his counselors, and the twelve guide this church through revelation.

 

You are dead-on correct about the fact that we must have testimony in Christ, the fact that this is His restored church, and that He leads it.

 

The Brigham Young quote given by Suzie means that we need this testimony so that we may safely and surely follow our leaders. We must have spiritual witness that Christ is at the head of this church, or we are putting our faith in man and our confidence is reckless. But, as you said, there is no implication that once we gain this testimony that Christ is in charge that we should not show absolutely loyalty and confidence in our leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this will get a rise out of Suzie and a few others, because it has in the past, but I simply don't buy that I need to get a specific testimony of every single thing spoken by our leaders.

 

I have a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, the Book or Mormon is the word of God, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the keys were passed by him to Brigham Young and the 12 and then on to the succeeding leaders.

 

By virtue of the fact that the spirit has revealed to me that this structure, organization, and pattern is true and correct, I may safely follow the words given by them without a specific spiritual witness of every word they speak.

 

I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

 

For example, I never prayed to know if the lowering of the missionary age to 18 and 19 was given by God. And yet I have full and absolute confidence that it was. I trust, implicitly, that President Monson, his counselors, and the twelve guide this church through revelation.

 

You are dead-on correct about the fact that we must have testimony in Christ, the fact that this is His restored church, and that He leads it.

 

The Brigham Young quote given by Suzie means that we need this testimony so that we may safely and surely follow our leaders. We must have spiritual witness that Christ is at the head of this church, or we are putting our faith in man and our confidence is reckless. But, as you said, there is no implication that once we gain this testimony that Christ is in charge that we should not show absolutely loyalty and confidence in our leaders.

 

Nice clarification. by stating that we should pray for confirmation about any principle, I did not mean to imply that we need to pray about every principle. We have intelligence for a reason so that we can draw connections that the spirit may bear witness of for us as we study and/or listen. For instance it is common to have a testimony of Joseph Smith based on the fact that one has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon... not too much of a leap. Further once someone has this testimony of the Book of Mormon it may be easier for them to recognize the spirit and feel a witness while attending a class concerning Joseph Smith or perhaps during testimony meeting confirming his calling as a prophet. Each of us is different and some may still feel to confirm that what they felt in conjunction with said doctrine/principle just to be sure it wasn't a witness of something else also discussed or being thought about at the time.

 

I do believe that anyone who is struggling with a particular aspect of gospel doctrine should seek for a testimony of it through study and prayer. We do need to get a testimony of every true principle, but this does not always require prayer about it. Again as an example once we have a testimony that some one is a prophet we should do what they say and in the doing of it  develop a testimony of individual points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "faithless and ungrateful" about going to the Lord and saying "I'm not sure about [something taught in General Conference/Sacrament Meeting/Sunday School], please help me understand." ??

 

There is nothing faithless and ungrateful about praying for answers and understanding. However, I believe the point the folk prophet is trying to make is that once he has already been told that some one is called to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, he doesn't feel it is his place to continually question what the Lord has to say through His divinely appointed servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing faithless and ungrateful about praying for answers and understanding. However, I believe the point the folk prophet is trying to make is that once he has already been told that some one is called to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, he doesn't feel it is his place to continually question what the Lord has to say through His divinely appointed servant.

 

The key here being that he has a testimony of the prophet, so in accordance with that testimony follows his teachings with little/no hesitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice clarification. by stating that we should pray for confirmation about any principle, I did not mean to imply that we need to pray about every principle. We have intelligence for a reason so that we can draw connections that the spirit may bear witness of for us as we study and/or listen. For instance it is common to have a testimony of Joseph Smith based on the fact that one has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon... not too much of a leap. Further once someone has this testimony of the Book of Mormon it may be easier for them to recognize the spirit and feel a witness while attending a class concerning Joseph Smith or perhaps during testimony meeting confirming his calling as a prophet. Each of us is different and some may still feel to confirm that what they felt in conjunction with said doctrine/principle just to be sure it wasn't a witness of something else also discussed or being thought about at the time.

 

I do believe that anyone who is struggling with a particular aspect of gospel doctrine should seek for a testimony of it through study and prayer. We do need to get a testimony of every true principle, but this does not always require prayer about it. Again as an example once we have a testimony that some one is a prophet we should do what they say and in the doing of it  develop a testimony of individual points.

 

Right. I would never discourage someone seeking to gain a testimony on any given issue. But there is a big difference between knowing something is correct because you know the church is true and that God leads the church through our leaders, but you still struggle with the idea so you need help and spiritual confirmation of the idea to bring you peace -- vs. -- going to the Lord with an "I don't believe this is true so please prove it to me through the Spirit" attitude. Or a refusal to believe anything said until the Spirit confirms it.

 

It is very different going to the Lord from a position of faith but not understanding and going to the Lord from a position of doubt. Very, very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing faithless and ungrateful about praying for answers and understanding. However, I believe the point the folk prophet is trying to make is that once he has already been told that some one is called to be the mouthpiece of the Lord, he doesn't feel it is his place to continually question what the Lord has to say through His divinely appointed servant.

 

Thank you. Well said.

 

Going to the Lord for answers and understanding is, obviously, important.

 

Mistrusting our leaders' every word until God backs it up with the Spirit is faithless and ungrateful. It fits nicely into the idea of sign seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this will get a rise out of Suzie and a few others, because it has in the past, but I simply don't buy that I need to get a specific testimony of every single thing spoken by our leaders.

 

 I recall having this discussion with you and I recall stating that we are probably not going to pray for every single counsel we receive however, if someone needs to do so as many times as they want, it is their right. And you actually agreed.

 

 

 

 

I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

 

Wow, how come? And why you don't see a problem with others doing it as suggested by Young himself but if you do it it would be an attitude of faithlessness and ungratefulness? I read your replies but still do not fully understand your position. But let me ask: Are you suggesting that someone who prays for example about the principle of Tithing or the WOW is because they do not have a testimony of the Savior and the Prophet? Because in your line of reasoning if they did have a testimony of Christ they would automatically know He leads this Church and the Prophet is his mouthpiece? Is that what you are saying or am I totally off?

 

A couple of other quotes with regards to some of the things that have been discussed here with regards to Prophets speaking outside the Church:

 

 

 

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they don't square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as the standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works

"Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 203-204)

 

 

 

 

“Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety. Along the path, I have found that the way had been prepared for me and the rough places made smooth. God led me to safety along a path which was prepared with loving care, sometimes prepared long before” ( Henry B. Eyring “Finding Safety in Counsel,” Ensign, May 1997, 25).

 

 

 

 

Mistrusting our leaders' every word until God backs it up with the Spirit is faithless and ungrateful. It fits nicely into the idea of sign seeking.

 

Not sure how praying to receive confirmation through the Holy Spirit about a particular principle equals mistrusting our leaders and being faithless and ungrateful. Your reply puzzles me. And yes, you connected both when you stated "I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I would never discourage someone seeking to gain a testimony on any given issue. But there is a big difference between knowing something is correct because you know the church is true and that God leads the church through our leaders, but you still struggle with the idea so you need help and spiritual confirmation of the idea to bring you peace -- vs. -- going to the Lord with an "I don't believe this is true so please prove it to me through the Spirit" attitude. Or a refusal to believe anything said until the Spirit confirms it.

 

It is very different going to the Lord from a position of faith but not understanding and going to the Lord from a position of doubt. Very, very different.

 I think this comes full circle to the original thoughts on faith and doubt. Seeking for spiritual confirmation of gospel truth through faith is commendable, while doubting unless a strong spiritual witness is continually received is not.

 

Faith allows one to give a gospel principle the benefit of the doubt ( :D  idioms!) while doubt does not, it merely doubts unless proven otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I recall having this discussion with you and I recall stating that we are probably not going to pray for every single counsel we receive however, if someone needs to do so as many times as they want, it is their right. And you actually agreed.

 

Of course it's their right. That doesn't make necessarily make it wise.

 

Wow, how come?

 

Because I already know. I think this has been pretty well covered by the preceding interchange between Spirit Dragon and myself.

 

Not sure how praying to receive confirmation through the Holy Spirit about a particular principle equals mistrusting our leaders and being faithless and ungrateful. Your reply puzzles me. And yes, you connected both when you stated "I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

 

Please refer to the words "in general" -- as opposed to "exclusively", and also see the exchange between Spirit Dragon and myself, which I believe makes the position quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it's their right. That doesn't make necessarily make it wise.

 

  

If someone needs to pray to Heavenly Father for every single counsel they receive, and have it confirmed through the Holy Spirit, what exactly makes it unwise? I want to believe you are not suggesting praying and seeking the Holy Spirit is unwise.

 

I am trying hard to understand here where the assumption comes from that someone who prays to the Lord and seeks confirmation from the Holy Spirit,  they might do it with the wrong attitude, it puzzles me really.

 

SpiriDragon:

 

 

 

God will ratify what he has told His servants to teach, but we still need to draw unto him and thus not make idols of His servants.

 

That's one of the things that concern me about idolatry to Church leaders. Yes, they are great men, yes they try their best to do their callings, yes we all love them but we need to learn to draw a certain line and not fall victims of idolatry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone needs to pray to Heavenly Father for every single counsel they receive, and have it confirmed through the Holy Spirit, what exactly makes it unwise? I want to believe you are not suggesting praying and seeking the Holy Spirit is unwise.

 

I am trying hard to understand here where the assumption comes from that someone who prays to the Lord and seeks confirmation from the Holy Spirit,  they might do it with the wrong attitude, it puzzles me really.

 

I'm not going to continue a discussion where you're bent on twisting everything I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to continue a discussion where you're bent on twisting everything I say.

 

I am very surprised by your reply. I just asked a question and you did not answer it. No offense but I really dislike your style of discussion, you take things too personal and most times, the discussions turn a little too dramatic for my liking so I will put you on my "ignore" list to avoid a similar situation (since this is not the first time). I apologize if you felt offended in any way. Take Care and wish you all the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let summarize it like this.

 

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing B> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing C> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing D> is this correct?"

God:  Sigh... "Did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?  I confirmed it repeatedly"

 

Which is quite a bit different then

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A>.  I am really struggling with it.  I want to believe, I've studied it, I've prayed about it but I am just not getting it.  Will you help me understand what you are trying to say here"

God : "Yes <God' explanation>"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am very surprised by your reply. I just asked a question and you did not answer it. No offense but I really dislike your style of discussion, you take things too personal and most times, the discussions turn a little too dramatic for my liking so I will put you on my "ignore" list to avoid a similar situation (since this is not the first time). I apologize if you felt offended in any way. Take Care and wish you all the best.

 
I am not taking it personally. I have very clearly explained myself and the attitudes with which I believe one should approach prayer. When you ignore all that and say, "I want to believe you are not suggesting praying and seeking the Holy Spirit is unwise." it comes across as if you have either not bothered to read what I have said, are purposefully misunderstanding me, or are just ignoring the things I've posted. I don't want to banter back and forth saying the exact same things I've already said. If you can't understand it from what I've already explained, I'm not sure how restating it will help.
 
Would you rather I restate what I've already said?
 
These posts are the answer to your question. Now wherein does it imply or say that seeking the Holy Ghost is unwise? How can you possibly have read that into my view?
 

I would never discourage someone seeking to gain a testimony on any given issue. But there is a big difference between knowing something is correct because you know the church is true and that God leads the church through our leaders, but you still struggle with the idea so you need help and spiritual confirmation of the idea to bring you peace -- vs. -- going to the Lord with an "I don't believe this is true so please prove it to me through the Spirit" attitude. Or a refusal to believe anything said until the Spirit confirms it.

 

It is very different going to the Lord from a position of faith but not understanding and going to the Lord from a position of doubt. Very, very different.

 

Going to the Lord for answers and understanding is, obviously, important.

 

Mistrusting our leaders' every word until God backs it up with the Spirit is faithless and ungrateful. It fits nicely into the idea of sign seeking.

 

By virtue of the fact that the spirit has revealed to me that this structure, organization, and pattern is true and correct, I may safely follow the words given by them without a specific spiritual witness of every word they speak.

 

The bottom line is that we have been repeatedly promised that if we will cling to the guidance of our leaders that we will be safe. This is not a replacement for testimony and spiritual guidance, but neither is spiritual guidance and testimony a replacement for living prophets and apostles. They are both necessary, both part of God's means, both part of the living church, and both requisite.

 

And from Spirit Dragon, which I showed strong agreement with:

 

We have intelligence for a reason so that we can draw connections that the spirit may bear witness of for us as we study and/or listen. For instance it is common to have a testimony of Joseph Smith based on the fact that one has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon... not too much of a leap. Further once someone has this testimony of the Book of Mormon it may be easier for them to recognize the spirit and feel a witness while attending a class concerning Joseph Smith or perhaps during testimony meeting confirming his calling as a prophet. Each of us is different and some may still feel to confirm that what they felt in conjunction with said doctrine/principle just to be sure it wasn't a witness of something else also discussed or being thought about at the time.

 

I do believe that anyone who is struggling with a particular aspect of gospel doctrine should seek for a testimony of it through study and prayer. We do need to get a testimony of every true principle, but this does not always require prayer about it. Again as an example once we have a testimony that some one is a prophet we should do what they say and in the doing of it  develop a testimony of individual points.

 

And finally, of key importance:
 

I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let summarize it like this.

 

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing B> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing C> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing D> is this correct?"

God:  Sigh... "Did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?  I confirmed it repeatedly"

 

Which is quite a bit different then

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A>.  I am really struggling with it.  I want to believe, I've studied it, I've prayed about it but I am just not getting it.  Will you help me understand what you are trying to say here"

God : "Yes <God' explanation>"

 

As compared to:

 

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A> is this correct?"

God : "No. That doesn't apply to you."

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing B> is this correct?"

God : "No. He got it wrong on that one."

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing C> is this correct?"

God : "No. He got it wrong on that one too."

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing D> is this correct?"

God : "Um...no on that one too. It's a good thing your coming to me with all these, 'cause otherwise...boy howdy! What do I even have a prophet for?"

 

Is this what some people expect? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let summarize it like this.

 

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing B> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing C> is this correct?"

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I should do <Thing D> is this correct?"

God:  Sigh... "Did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?  I confirmed it repeatedly"

 

Which is quite a bit different then

Person :"God is this man your prophet?" 

God : "Yes"

Person: " He says I shouldn't do <Thing A>.  I am really struggling with it.  I want to believe, I've studied it, I've prayed about it but I am just not getting it.  Will you help me understand what you are trying to say here"

God : "Yes <God' explanation>"

 

So your point of view is: It all boils down to whether or not we believe in the Prophet and because he is a Prophet of God he cannot err with counsel? At least that's what I understand from the dialogue...

 

  In your first dialogue, God answers in the affirmative when is asked if "this man" is His prophet and then when other questions are asked based on the Prophet's counsels, God keeps saying they are correct and then finally sighs and tells the person "did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?" implying in my understanding that God is stating that because this man is a Prophet, he is always correct with counsel.

 

Is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your point of view is: It all boils down to whether or not we believe in the Prophet and because he is a Prophet of God he cannot err with counsel? At least that's what I understand from the dialogue...

 

  In your first dialogue, God answers in the affirmative when is asked if "this man" is His prophet and then when other questions are asked based on the Prophet's counsels, God keeps saying they are correct and then finally sighs and tells the person "did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?" implying in my understanding that God is stating that because this man is a Prophet, he is always correct with counsel.

 

Is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding you?

 

You are appear to taking it to extremes.  I never said the prophet could not err.  I am saying that if God is willing to confirm to you that a man is a prophet, then you should default into believing and thinking that the prophets words and councils are true.  And that the burden of proof is not in proving them true before you follow but proving them them false (Or at least not applicable to a limited situation) before you go counter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are appear to taking it to extremes.  I never said the prophet could not err.  I am saying that if God is willing to confirm to you that a man is a prophet, then you should default into believing and thinking that the prophets words and councils are true.  And that the burden of proof is not in proving them true before you follow but proving them them false (Or at least not applicable to a limited situation) before you go counter.

 

I'm sorry, I  might be slow today because honestly I don't understand this reasoning (not trying to be difficult but trying to understand). If you are not saying the prophet could not err, then the dialogue contradicts itself.

 

In the scenario in question, God confirmed in the dialogue that the man is a Prophet. Full point. Then when questions were asked to Him about the counsel giving by the same Prophet, the Lord keeps answering that they are all '"correct". And finally, he sighs and asks : ""Did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?  I confirmed it repeatedly".

 

He is implying: "I told you already he is my Prophet and his counsels are always correct".

 

Isn't that what the dialogue is about? Which means:

 

"If someone is called as a Prophet, he is unable to err in counsel". You said you never said that (that Prophets cannot err) then I don't understand your point at all.

 

 

 

And that the burden of proof is not in proving them true before you follow but proving them them false (Or at least not applicable to a limited situation) before you go counter.

 

Please expand more on this point, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts strike me.

 

1. Faith and belief are a choice.

2. Questioning and not understanding are not necessarily the same thing as doubt.

I agree, one can hunger and thirst for knowledge without having doubt.  Doubt isn't necessary to trigger some kind of extra-powerful hunger for knowledge and understanding.  The problem with doubt is that one can doubt and have no interest in finding the truth. For maybe a few doubt can trigger a drive to understand but I would say for most doubt makes a person indifferent to the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I  might be slow today because honestly I don't understand this reasoning (not trying to be difficult but trying to understand). If you are not saying the prophet could not err, then the dialogue contradicts itself.

 

In the scenario in question, God confirmed in the dialogue that the man is a Prophet and then when questions were asked to Him about the counsel giving by the Prophet in question, the Lord keeps answering that they are '"correct" and finally, he sighs and asks : ""Did you not believe me when I answered you the first time?  I confirmed it repeatedly".

 

He is implying to me: "I told you already he is my Prophet and his counsels are always correct".

 

Isn't that what the dialogue is about? Which means:

 

"If someone is called as a Prophet, he is unable to err in counsel".

 

 

 

 

Please expand more on this point, thanks.

 

 

Is it really that hard for you to understand the idea that if God has confirmed for you that a person is a prophet that you should default to assuming that he is speaking as a prophet, until you know otherwise?  Rather then saying God told me he is a prophet but until God personally verifies every word he is not really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really that hard for you to understand the idea that if God has confirmed for you that a person is a prophet that you should default to assuming that he is speaking as a prophet, until you know otherwise?  Rather then saying God told me he is a prophet but until God personally verifies every word he is not really?

 

But that's the point, nobody is saying that and I think is a misinterpretation.One can believe in the Prophet and at the same time, perfectly reconcile the fact that he is also a man, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. In my view, confirmation of his words through the Holy Spirit is something we have been taught repeatedly as I stated in earlier quotes provided.

 

As I stated many times before, it does not mean I would be praying for every single counsel received  but at the same time, I do not see the harm for those who do need to do that and most of all, I do not see them as not seeing the Prophet as a Prophet. It is prayer, and is a wonderful tool.

 

Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand now your position. We agree on some things and in others we disagree. Thanks for the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a more concrete example: http://lds.net/forums/topic/53930-is-april-6th-official-doctrine-as-jesus-birth-day/

 

I find the discussion around Apr. 6 as Christ's birthdate to be an interesting example of the issues I see coming up here. The linked discussion starts with Elder Bednar's rather certain assertion that "we know, by revelation" that Apr 6th is the correct date, and he even goes so far as to document several other statements by previous prophets and apostles to the same effect. But, there is some fairly solid evidence and rationale for "doubting" this alleged historical fact.

 

In introducing this example, I don't want to open up the debate on this specific fact, but to illustrate the process of doubting that I see. Prophets/apostles make an assertion -- hearer has questions about the issue -- studies the issue using scriptural and other sources, prays for wisdom and understand -- doubts not resolved to satisfaction --- ???? what comes next?

 

Some of what comes next could be patience in waiting for the Lord to clarify -- we all know the Lord does not always answer immediately. Some of it could be a person who has hardened his/her heart against the truth so that God cannot give him an answer. When you are in the middle of that step, the honest seeker of truth may very well need to grapple with the possibility that the prophets and apostles are not speaking for God in this thing (without necessarily losing credibility in other things) and how to discern between man's wisdom and God's truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share