Fallibility of prophets and scripture and revelation -- slavery


MrShorty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some thoughts to organize and see if anyone wishes to discuss. This started for me in Ben S.'s Gospel Doctrine blog discussion on Philemon: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/10/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/ He makes some assertions around the Biblical understanding and teachings around slavery that seem to enter into the ideas we have about prophets, scriptures, and whether prophets and scripture can be mistaken. The whole blog post is interesting, but I want to highlight something he wrote:

 

The problem, then, neatly encapsulated in Philemon, is that scripture fails to live up to a standard we see as ethically and morally cut-and-dried.

Modern Christianity maintains that the owning and trading of human beings as chattel is immoral and unacceptable in the eyes of God. How is it possible that this modern theological judgment, now so putatively unassailable and certain, was not reached and preached explicitly by the biblical writers themselves, who wrote under the influence of the Holy Spirit and so presumably knew —or should have known, it seems— that slavery was an abominable practice that dishonored human bearers of the divine image?- Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words, Ben's emphasis.


Scripture simply doesn’t reflect the ideal. How do we account for this? What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?

 

 

As I look at my own relationship to scripture (ancient and modern) and statements and proclamations from our Prophets and apostles (those currently living as well as their predecessors), this might be the way I see the question right now -- What is our model of scripture, revelation, and prophets?

 

 

In many ways, I find myself leaning towards some of Ben's conclusions and explanations.

[scripture] is, rather, a human-but-inspired record (of sorts) of God’s line-upon-line, accomodationist dealings with fallen humans.
and 
If we receive revelation line upon line, then scripture, as a partial history of revelations, should record earlier, less perfect times. And as time goes on, the revelations God gives, that we can accept, tailored to our own weaknesses and culture, will hew closer and closer to the ideal.... My view is that prophets and scripture can be inspired and still “wrong” in very real senses.
I have pulled much of this out of context, so read the whole thing to make sure I am not completely misrepresenting Ben's thoughts.

 

I recognize that some of this is not universally taught throughout Christianity. Some of this depends fairly heavily on the scholarship and research trying to piece togehter what "slavery" meant in the ancient context that the Biblical authors lived in.

 

I'm not overly concerned with the slavery question specifically, though some of it will naturally illustrate the principles of revelation that can be discussed. My main interest is understanding our model of revelation and scripture and how it interacts with the idea of "fallibility".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can call it fallible when a prophet accurately records what the Lord revealed, even if what the Lord revealed was "dumbed down" due to the weakness of the audience.  (That's not to say that a prophet might not make a mistake, either in understanding what was revealed, communicating it, or in personal statements or choices.)

 

Personally, I look at this kind of thing as follows:

 

1) Always keep in mind that we weren't there.  We don't know the details, and so our modern assumptions could be way off.

 

2) There's only so much the mortal mind can handle.  There's more than enough in the Old and New Testaments to condemn slave ownership (and every other evil).  The Lord knows full well that he can explicitly condemn slavery and other evils all the live long day and some people will still practice these evils (likely, all the same people).  So, the Lord chooses to provide guidance that's not micro-managing, not so vague that no one can get it, and not so voluminous that the average human could never learn it all even at a basic level.  And, he provides guidance that will let both the slave and the slave-owner come to Him, if they choose.

 

I'm convinced that the Lord is far more concerned with whether we're striving to come to Him than with where we're coming from (not that he isn't concerned with the evils perpetrated against so many of his children, just that given agency, evils will always happen, and the more important thing is for us to come to Him, even if we're the victim of those evils).

 

At the end of the day, evils are reduced by people coming to Him, regardless of where they come from.  And as more people come to Him, the greater their ability to eliminate or alleviate more of those evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The model of revelation and scripture within the Church appears to be documented pretty well within the Church; as to whether or not we are listening, better said hearkening, is to be determined on a individual and collective stand point.

 

Teaching of the Living Prophets is a wonderful institute manual discussing the need for living prophets (Amos 3: 7).  The concept of "fallibility" has already been expressed by Joseph Smith, "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such."

 

When acting as such the words of President Harold B. Lee give evidence to the specific pattern we taught while serving missions:

 

 

"When there is to be anything different from that which the Lord has told us already, he will give it to his prophet not to some Tom, Dick, or Harry that is thumbing his way across the country as we have had people tell the story; and not through someone, as another story relates, who swooped and came up and gave a revelation....

 

President Ezra Taft Benson further provides another witness:

 

Of all mortal men, we should keep our eyes most firmly fixed on the captain, the prophet, seer, and revelatory, and the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the man who stands closest to the fountain of living waters. There are some heavenly instructions for us that we can only receive through the prophet...All men are entitled to inspiration, and various men are entitled to revelation for their particular assignment. But only one man stands as the Lord's spokesman to the Church and the world, and he is the president of the Church. The words of all other men should be weighed against his inspired words."

 

He further declared, President Benson:

 

A good way to measure your standing with the Lord is to see how you feel about, and act upon, the inspired words of his earthly representative, the prophet-president. The inspired words of the president are not to be trifled with."

 

In light of this, to be frank, I am leery of conversations regarding the "fallibility" of prophets, God's chosen (elected) servants.  Their fallibility is noted due to human nature -- when they are acting as man -- as given by a prophet himself (first quote by Joseph Smith).   

 

When "fallibility" often is brought up by anti-Mormons and progressive Mormons they often assume that their personal revelation somehow trumps, or is more important than, prophetic revelation erroneously using Nephi as an example.  Ridicule often follows.  

 

Laman and Lemuel saw their father, the prophet, as a visionary man. They called him fallible and a liar. The people in Jerusalem were good people.  They will not be destroyed.  Our father is a liar, senile.  When Nephi received the mantle from his father, they continued to ridicule their brother, and prophet.  They confused his sincere desire to follow the Lord with selfishness, specifying his only desire was to rule over them.

 

Samuel urged the children of Israel to reconsider the desire for a King.  They refused, and received the prophesied consequences, and thus one of the greatest statements in the Bible, 1 Samuel 8:7, "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."  An individual walks a thin line, a very thin line, when determining an action from the Lord's elected to be wrong, because if they have had divine approval, people are not rejecting the fallibility of prophets -- they indeed are rejecting the Lord (i.e Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood).

 

Another aspect is that how can we fully determine "fallibility" of history we do not have all the facts?  We do not know the culture of the time.  It causes me to ponder, would I have been one who loved the Lord when he walked the earth, or would I have been one to think he spoke hard things, fallible things, and thinking I knew of myself -- no longer walked as his disciple. OR, would I recognized the Master, his servants, and continued to walk his way, his truth, and his life?

 

Irony from specific Mormons who esteem the prophet to be "fallible" when acting in his position is that I will often hear, "Do not judge, less ye be judged," while they are judging the prophet and apostles.  Why not follow the same principle with the prophets and their direction?  Judges not less ye be judged, and the sad part is if a member judges specific principles, practices, policies to be uninspired -- yet truly they have been inspired and have the stamp of divine approval, as Samuel said, they are not rejecting the prophets, but indeed they are rejecting the Lord.

 

How then do I judge? Whether I am disappointed (as with Scouting) my disappointment is not enough to say they are wrong -- and I move forward knowing they are the Lord's elect (chosen).

 

The Church practiced polygamy.  The Church now emphatically opposes polygamy.  Some will say, if the Church begins practicing again they will leave the Church (where then does their testimony sprout?).  

 

The Old Testament is intriguing and a hard read at the same time.  Were practices of old "wrong" -- I don't know, and would disagree with the sentiment that prophet's and scripture's can be inspired and in a real sense be wrong.  How is divine revelation wrong?  God is wrong? No.  

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Always keep in mind that we weren't there.  We don't know the details, and so our modern assumptions could be way off.

This is particularly true for ancient scripture. Even for "modern" scripture, it can be difficult for us in the early 21st century to understand some of the details and context for 19th century opinions and teachings. Does this reduce the utility of scripture if it is too difficult or even impossible for the average reader of scripture to truly understand the cultural context in which scripture is given and recorded?

 

 

There's more than enough in the Old and New Testaments to condemn slave ownership (and every other evil).  The Lord knows full well that he can explicitly condemn slavery and other evils all the live long day and some people will still practice these evils (likely, all the same people).

Maybe this is true, though I think some of the argument being made is that such condemnation of slave ownership can be hard to find. From our 21st century perspective, we have relatively little trouble "reading such condemnation" into recorded scripture. It seems quite obvious that 19th century man had some difficulty finding such explicit condemnation, and even found support for slave ownership in scripture. Clearly some of this is on the head of us who read and attempt to apply scripture to our lives within our own cultural context.

 

And, he provides guidance that will let both the slave and the slave-owner come to Him, if they choose.
An interesting interpretation of the problem. So God "adapts" His truths (or the way His eternal truth) is taught to invite as many sinners as possible to come to Him? I think I can buy this, though, again, it opens some possibilities regarding what is taught. Is something being taught in a way that placates certain sinners so they will come to Christ, even when the specific teaching does not quite represent God's truth?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is divine revelation wrong?  God is wrong? No.
How much of this question is about declaring "divine revelation" wrong, and how much is about discerning what comes from "divine revelation" and what comes out of a prophet's cultural background? As I see the question in my own life, it often comes down to this process of discernment.

 

they often assume that their personal revelation somehow trumps, or is more important than, prophetic revelation
But, in some way, is not personal revelation more important to me in this process of discernment? If God does not choose to give me the same revelation he gives to the prophet, then He expects me to rely on the prophet's voice in that matter. We assume that He will ratify what the prophet teaches through the Holy Spirit in keeping with Moroni 10:5, but what if He does not? Am I still obligated to believe that something is revelation from God if God does not confirm that revelation to me? This does not authorize me to teach against it, but am I obligated to believe it?

 

One example (because it is usually less emotionally charged than other examples) is the question of 6 April as Christ's birthdate. Many of our prophets and apostles (including Elder Bednar, Pres. Hinckly, Pres. Lee) have asserted that, "We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth." (Elder Bednar Apr. 2014 GC). Upon further inspection, though, this "revelation" seems to be suspect. What is my obligation regarding a revelation that I do not believe is a revelation?

 

In many ways, my thought process on this has really emphasized to me the importance discernment and seeking to know for myself. Perhaps I should not rely on "he's a prophet so he should know", but come to really know for myself. Accepting the very real risk that I may not receive the confirmation of what the prophet teaches, and figuring out what it means to sustain and follow the prophet when I don't agree with a few specific revelations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't live in a caste system. That affects culture immensely.  If we did, the Lord would provide revelations to His leaders to best support those of a lower caste, including slaves.  So, do I think the prophets were fallible because they taught things we find deplorable today?  Nope, God works within his means. And even He denied the Israelites higher blessings because of their circumstances and because there is a season and a time for everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, in some way, is not personal revelation more important to me in this process of discernment? If God does not choose to give me the same revelation he gives to the prophet, then He expects me to rely on the prophet's voice in that matter. 

 

This is the type of question MrShorty I find troubling. The answer is yes to both (Although it is not that God does not give the same revelation, it is whether or not we are prepared to receive the same revelation), the question and the statement. Joseph Smith was declared as a prophet by God (the Father), by his Son Jesus Christ, and by witness of the Holy Ghost.  Does God expect his children to believe in his prophet? Yes.  Are they held accountable if through personal study and prayer they believe God witnessed to them Joseph was not a prophet? Yes, indeed they are.  A member of the Church who believes through personal study and prayer that the Word of Wisdom doesn't apply to them, will they be held accountable for rejecting the Word of Wisdom as given by the prophets?  Yes, they will.

 

Let's review the Book of Mormon.  Lehi receive's revelation that they were to leave Jerusalem.  It is not God who chooses not to give the same revelation, it is the heart of the individual rejecting what has been taught (or simply not ready to receive due to their own heart and desires), and yes they are held accountable (We are all held accountable for all truth we reject). This is well taught throughout scripture.  Nephi received the same revelation as his father because he trusted his father and sought to know truth. Nephi did not seek his own will.  Laman and Lemuel on the other hand said, "We have not, for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

 

The Book of Mormon is or is not the word of God.  Baptism is supposed to be accomplished by immersion.  Are we held accountable if we reject the Book of Mormon and reject baptism by immersion while specifying the Lord has revealed no such thing unto me, and what I have received is a negative confirmation for both.  The Book of Mormon is not true.  Baptism by immersion is not important.  Would I be held accountable for the rejection of these truths? Yes, I will be.

 

God commanded the Children of Israel to wipeout a whole nation and all the animals.  Saul didn't receive the same witness as it was given by the prophet.  Instead of obeying he sacrificed, because the same was not witnessed to him.  How did this decision affect Saul?  How then do decisions affect us when we determine through our own study and prayer that, like Saul, we are wiser than the Lord's servants?

 

When the Lord stood before the Pharisees, and then said, "This day this scripture is fulfilled."  The spirit would have born witness of this truth.  They rejected it, in other words, they would have said, "Jehovah did not reveal the same witness."  Were they held accountable as they rejected this truth, yes.

 

Yes, personal revelation is very important; however, one must be careful that they don't pit their will against God and begin fulfilling scripture when the Lord declared through Joseph Smith, "They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world." (emphasis added)

 

One of the gifts of the spirit is to believe on another word's until one receives witness themselves.  When Joseph Smith tried to institute the law of consecration, and the saints rejected it, are we experiencing any negative result from this lack of obedience?  Yes, indeed we are.  

 

When Joseph Smith instituted, or put in practice again polygamy, the saints who did not receive the same witness as Joseph Smith, were they affected. Will God hold them accountable for rejecting his will.  Yes, indeed he will and he does.  

 

Was Joseph Smith held accountable when he prayed to know if he could allow Martin to handle the translated work?  This is a great example of how personal revelation can be superseded by what we want the revelation to be.  Joseph Smith received a witness.  How often do saints go before the Lord, he reveals the truth, and they reject it because it is not what they wanted to hear?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Anddenex's post from yesterday.  This question is certainly very interesting academically, but let's face it--in my experience, at least, these discussions never take place in a vacuum.  Never.

 

As for Ben Spackman's post (and I should note that generally, I think he's pretty awesome):  I agree that God's revelations are generally "accommodationist" in nature--He approaches us as we are, and works with us to take us to a higher level.  The society described in the Book of Mormon is something of a scriptural aberration, in that the believers were generally the ones setting the social agenda.  But a lot of the scriptural record, and Christian history, have to do with serenely accepting unjust situations that we are relatively powerless to change.  It strikes me as very rare that God calls on the believers to radically and violently uproot the established social order, no matter how rotten that social order may be.

 

That said, I am deeply suspicious of the ideas Spackman seems to embrace to the effect that the Old Testament law was, from its inception, a corrupt regime in need of "redeeming".  The scriptural excerpts Spackman (or his sources) cite as being "pro slavery" strike me as permitting, but not encouraging, slavery--much as scripture also permits, but does not encourage, divorce.  And, surely no latter-day Saint believes that a Christian slaveowner of the first century A.D. could have tortured or beaten his male slaves, or pimped out his female and juvenile slaves, and remained in good standing with the church? With regard to the Torah--certainly there were twistings and misapplications and portions that were deleted or added over time; but I think fundamentally the Mosaic law was divinely instituted and calculated so that, when properly understood and applied within the cultural milieu to which it was given, it would serve as a stepping stone stone, not a stumbling block, to a greater Gospel knowledge.

 

And, I reject the idea that human nature is improving or that we are inevitably more moral now than our forbears were a millennia or two ago.  Yes, social structures have evolved to the point that slavery is not tolerated through the modern western world; and maybe a century--or even a few decades ago--the practice was abhorred individually as well as collectively.  But, if legal constraints were removed, I think a critical mass--maybe even a majority--of westerners today would jump at the chance to appropriate the proceeds of someone elses's labor, or to give a sound physical thrashing to those they felt "deserved it", or have access to the sexual favors of a woman who would be otherwise unavailable.  On the whole, I think we mostly eschew slavery because there are easier ways of getting other people's stuff; not because we continue to entertain any dearly-held notions of individual and inalienable liberty.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of nothing--or of quite a lot--is the following, from this blog post:

 

Whenever I discover some gospel insight, I discover the prophets have been there all along. My virgin wilderness, my Newfoundland, always already has a little cabin that Joseph and Brigham built, with Ezra or Spencer on Gordon or Tommy out on the porch swapping tales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is particularly true for ancient scripture. Even for "modern" scripture, it can be difficult for us in the early 21st century to understand some of the details and context for 19th century opinions and teachings. Does this reduce the utility of scripture if it is too difficult or even impossible for the average reader of scripture to truly understand the cultural context in which scripture is given and recorded?

No, it does not reduce the utility of scripture.  Sometimes we need to learn about the original culture in order to have a _greater_ understanding, but the Lord is smart enough to ensure that scripture is universal.  Also, if we're willing to put in the spiritual effort, the Lord can open our minds - not to satisfy intellectual curiosity, not to remove our doubts (per se), but to confirm our faith and to reveal to the person that is willing to believe _and_act_ how that scripture should be _implemented_.

 

Truly, we must be willing to act, and we must come already exercising faith (like Nephi did with his father's vision) and then we can have confirmation and clarification direct from the source.  I do not believe the Lord is likely to answer someone who comes saying, "I'm not gonna believe this nonsense unless you tell me to, cuz it sounds like a load of...".  But I know He answers someone who comes testifying of their already-existing belief, and asking for confirmation or clarification, and willing to act in accordance with the confirmation.  If you want a flood of the Spirit, try that.

 

Maybe this is true, though I think some of the argument being made is that such condemnation of slave ownership can be hard to find. From our 21st century perspective, we have relatively little trouble "reading such condemnation" into recorded scripture. It seems quite obvious that 19th century man had some difficulty finding such explicit condemnation, and even found support for slave ownership in scripture. Clearly some of this is on the head of us who read and attempt to apply scripture to our lives within our own cultural context.

Fortunately, Christ knows all and will be the one to judge who acted honestly and who was "wresting the scriptures" to justify their own evil.  Fortunately, the thoughts, feelings, and justifications of a 19th century slave-owner have nothing to do with my salvation.

 

 

An interesting interpretation of the problem. So God "adapts" His truths (or the way His eternal truth) is taught to invite as many sinners as possible to come to Him? I think I can buy this, though, again, it opens some possibilities regarding what is taught. Is something being taught in a way that placates certain sinners so they will come to Christ, even when the specific teaching does not quite represent God's truth?

God speaks to us in our own language and to our understanding (see the D&C for where he says that, I believe there's also at least one place in the Bible).  Please note, however, that I never said the slave-owner could get very close to Christ while remaining a slave-owner.  I said the gospel is such that both the slave and the slave-owner can come to Christ, if they choose.

 

God never tried to placate any sinner (in my opinion).  He does try to help all of us see the light and choose it.  He does so in ways that are personal to us.  And He is infinitely merciful.

 

It almost sounds to me like you're getting caught up on the idea of 100% of God's truth all at once - no mortal could bear it.  There's ample scripture, stories from Joseph Smith's life, and simple logic to know that we're only going to understand a tiny fraction of truth in mortality; that God's not going to dump it all on us at once, thereby burning us up in such blinding light; and that we've got eternities wherein to finish learning all truth.  In the meantime, work on mastering the truth we do have.

 

Personally, I think the sermon on the mount, all by itself, is sufficient to require an entire mortal life to master.  When I've mastered that, then I'll worry about more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A law of justice can allow slavery and still be just (at least to a point). I do note that the within the law of moses that if it was being kept, servants had leaps and bounds more rights than slaves to any other ancient nation that i can think of at the moment. I further note that in this case servants were eventually guaranteed freedom at some point.

On the other hand I think a law of mercy would do away with any form of slavery/indentured servitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand I think a law of mercy would do away with any form of slavery/indentured servitude.

 

Blackmarch, at the risk of creating a threadjack--could you flesh this out a bit?  If indentured servitude is a voluntary arrangement entered into in exchange for something of value (historically, cash/transportation/a loan), and a law of mercy would do away with indentured servitude, then would such also do away with debt?  With credit?  What about simple exchanges of goods/services?  Does a law of mercy require, in the commercial realm, that tradesman and artisans and merchants and professionals must not charge for their products/services and instead must offer them to everybody for free?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of nothing--or of quite a lot--is the following, from this blog post:

 

Whenever I discover some gospel insight, I discover the prophets have been there all along. My virgin wilderness, my Newfoundland, always already has a little cabin that Joseph and Brigham built, with Ezra or Spencer on Gordon or Tommy out on the porch swapping tales.

 

Interesting thought. To jump off of this, what if I see Elder Talmage and Elder Bednar and Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Lee (and others) in their little cabins talking about the "insight that became revelation" that Christ was born on Apr. 6th. In my skeptical way, I follow the thoughts of many other faithful and not faithful LDS and decide not to join these apostles and prophets in that field of belief. Am I apostate for rejecting this "revelation"?

 

It almost sounds to me like you're getting caught up on the idea of 100% of God's truth all at once - no mortal could bear it.
I'm not sure that is my main concern, though it is certainly plausible. I think my main concern looks something like this. In some of these controversies over revelation/inspiration, I see/hear many voice the ultimatum, "Either the Church is led by prophets or it is not." Choose your side, because there is nothing in the middle. When I read this ultimatum, I want to ask about this middle ground. Is it possible to believe that our leaders are prophets and that "controversial teaching X" is wrong?

Or perhaps phrased another way -- What erroneous teachings would absolutely negate a prophet's calling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, a prophet's calling can only be negated by God.  If a prophet does something sufficiently worrisome, God will take care of it.  (This isn't over-confidence in prophets, it's complete confidence in God.  It's also His stewardship, not mine, to appoint and remove prophets.)

 

As for all the things typically cited as prophetic error, I suspect we're being awfully Monday-morning-quarterback about them (aka presumptuous).  We don't have the infinite capacity to go back in time and see _everything_ that would have happened to _everyone_ had the decision been the one we think it should have been.  Again, I trust God to right any wrongs.

 

Personally, I have yet to hear a prophet teach something that requires me to do something against my conscience in order to gain salvation.  There are so many teachings for me to work on to improve myself and serve others, that I really don't need to worry about things which have no impact on my eternal salvation.  Possible prophetic errors have no impact on my salvation.  When Christ's birthday was, and what various people believe on that topic, have nothing to do with my salvation.  Such things seem utterly irrelevant to me, little more than curiosities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weakness in all mortal prophets is precicely why we are instructed to seek the truth on our own, from the source himself. Thus, if a prophet doesn't get the message exactly right, the faithful followers can still get the message as it was intended.

 

The purpose of a prophet isn't, nor has it ever been, to rule over and command the faithful. Rather, it has been to lead the faithful back to the source of the prophet's own wisdomn and inspiration; to make sure everyone is on the same page. It's not necessarily that the prophet is any better than anyone else, it's just that God needs to start the message with somebody, so he chooses the most capable he can find, and begins with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to hear a prophet teach something that requires me to do something against my conscience in order to gain salvation.  There are so many teachings for me to work on to improve myself and serve others, that I really don't need to worry about things which have no impact on my eternal salvation.
I find that the things this tends to apply to for me are not things that the prophet would require me to do, but rather things that prophets declare to be "sin" that I do not believe are sin. Of course, this could be me trying to justify my sin because I am unwilling to give it up. IMO, this is where the real hard work of discernment really comes in. If I am correct in that this "sin" is really "not sin", then it has no impact on my salvation. If I am incorrect and this "not sin" is really "sin", then my salvation is in jeopardy. If I believe, like Ripplecut Buddha suggests, that part of the real goal here is to learn to go to the source of all knowledge and wisdom to learn for myself, then I go there. It can be a bit challenging when you feel that conflict and need to judge whether this is you holding on to your sin or the prophet being overzealous in calling something sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on a fundamental principle "personal revelation " This revelation is given by the Holy Spirit. so if our hearts are pure and desire to do the right thing , we need nothing more . that we would become our own agents and know what to do with our lives , what is right and wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thought. To jump off of this, what if I see Elder Talmage and Elder Bednar and Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Lee (and others) in their little cabins talking about the "insight that became revelation" that Christ was born on Apr. 6th. In my skeptical way, I follow the thoughts of many other faithful and not faithful LDS and decide not to join these apostles and prophets in that field of belief. Am I apostate for rejecting this "revelation"?

 

Frankly (to continue the metaphor)--it depends on what "wilderness" you're in.

 

But, here's the thing.  It's one thing to go into the valley, note the apostolic cabin off in the distance, decide that it's not for you, and quietly move on.  It's quite another thing to scoff at James or David or Gordon or Harold for having built their own little cabins there and harp on the supposed ugliness of some of the valleys they chose to inhabit.  And if your public questioning of their judgment leads other members of the Explorer's Club to miss out on the essential vistas that the membership really should be experiencing--well, the leadership of the Explorer's Club is well within their rights to ask that you quit carrying their banner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to go into the valley, note the apostolic cabin off in the distance, decide that it's not for you, and quietly move on.  It's quite another thing to scoff...
I agree, and I believe and hope that I am in the former camp and not in the scoffiing camp.

 

And if your public questioning of their judgment leads other members of the Explorer's Club to miss out on the essential vistas...
  Does this mean that only those in agreement get a voice at the discussion table (so that the discussion only occurs among the "yes-men"), or is there room in our discussion circles to allow those in disagreement to disagree respectfully?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that only those in agreement get a voice at the discussion table (so that the discussion only occurs among the "yes-men"), or is there room in our discussion circles to allow those in disagreement to disagree respectfully?

 

Well, from an administrative/church disciplinary standpoint it's quite clearly the LDS leadership's call.  The guidelines they seem to take into consideration, speaking very generally, are that a) there's a difference between questioning statements of individual GAs (even very highly placed ones) versus questioning statements made by the unified Church leadership; b) some doctrines are more essential than others, and orthodoxy on the latter is not as important as on the former; and c) the manner of expression of dissent, matters a great deal.  

 

There's also the principle expressed within the initiatory temple ordinances (in conjunction with various scriptures) that we--at least the priesthood holders among us--will be stained with the blood and sins of our generation unless we take affirmative steps to rid ourselves of those sins.  I strongly believe that we will one day stand partially accountable for the sins of those whose noncompliance with Divine precepts we encouraged or excused. 

 

So, I understand and see little harm in a discussion on a particular topic (say, the April 6 birthdate) saying "I respect ______'s opinion, but I believe it was informed by scholarship/documentary interpretation that is problematic", and going on to weigh the totality of the evidence.  But when the whole point of the discussion is "the unified voice of the GAs can be/is wrong about this core doctrine/behavioral standard, because individual GAs were wrong in this particular pronouncement about the body temperature of translated beings"--I don't think that discussion leads to anywhere good. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting thought. To jump off of this, what if I see Elder Talmage and Elder Bednar and Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Lee (and others) in their little cabins talking about the "insight that became revelation" that Christ was born on Apr. 6th. In my skeptical way, I follow the thoughts of many other faithful and not faithful LDS and decide not to join these apostles and prophets in that field of belief. Am I apostate for rejecting this "revelation"?

 

The definition of apostasy is noted in the idea of falling away from (even outright rejection of) truth.  A concept in the Book of Mormon I have grown to love is found within the book of Alma (Alma 32:34), "And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect?  Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know..."

 

The insight in this verse is that our faith becomes dormant when our knowledge is perfect; however, our knowledge in not perfect in totality. We still exercise faith in other things.  The same principle applies with being apostate or in "that thing" we may experience apostasy on an individual basis, rather than our whole state (depending on the truth we reject).  If we reject "truth" we indeed do experience a form of apostasy, individual apostasy, and we loose out on increasing in intelligence in that truth.  

 

In light of RipplecutBuddha statement, "The weakness in all mortal prophets is precicely why we are instructed to seek the truth on our own, from the source himself." doesn't appear to be a supported scriptural teaching.  I can't find any support in scripture for this teaching.

 

The instruction to ask, seek/knock, and receive has very little to do with the imperfection (fallibility) of prophets.  Our Savior was a "prophet" of prophets.  He was perfect.  When he walked the earth, the sons and daughters of God would still have been encouraged (as he did encourage) people to ask, seek/knock, and receive, and despite his perfection there were far too many who walked no longer as his disciple because in their view he was wrong, or spoke hard things. Evidence, when the Lord ask who he was, it was Peter that was blessed because the Lord knew truth was revealed to him from the Father, through his Holy Spirit.  If all the prophets (from Adam down to President Monson), were like unto their/our Master, perfect, we would still be instructed to ask, seek/knock, and receive.

 

The precise reason we are instructed to ask, seek, and receive is that we may "know" for ourselves.  In other words, that we may obtain Eternal Life, because Eternal Life (Exaltation) is "that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." (John 17:3)  This is the main reason we are instructed to pray and to ponder the words of the prophets.  We are to search the prophets in order to "have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy, and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea."

 

Other reasons we are instructed to read, ponder, and pray is to protect us from false teachers and false prophets, as when Jacob met Sherem, and stated these important words, "And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they ministered unto me." (Jacob 7:5). The aspect of prophetic fallibility being a reason is very, very low on the totem pole of why we read, ponder, and pray.

 

Examples of false prophets (false prophetess) would be Kate Kelly, the individual who is now teaching "second baptism" and others who seek to reveal truths outside of their stewardship, because they have felt the actual prophets are "wrong" and "fallible" in their teachings.

 

Also, what do you mean by deciding if a prophet is right with regards to declaring something "sin"?  Their stewardship and keys bestow upon them this right, when they are acting in their office.  My responsibility is to obey, even if I don't receive the same witness.  What example could you provide where a prophet has declared something "sin" and it was false, not sin?  

 

************************************************************************

@RipplecutBuddha, please clarify more regarding the second paragraph of which I believe I am in agreement (assuming I am understanding intent); however, when I read this the spirit brings these verses back to my remembrance, "And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren." 

 

"And behold, the words of the Lord had been fulfilled unto my brethren, which he spake concerning them, that I should be their ruler and their teacher..."

 

Adam was considered a ruler (presider) who indeed did command and give commandments unto his children, as inspired by the Lord.  

 

I assume your paragraph highlights the concept in the Old Testament, "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!"  Although, we can all be prophets, only one man holds the keys. 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing to be watchful for on this subject... Are the times the Lord gives in and gives us what we want, to our condemnation.  Using the Prophet to do so.

 

For example consider the lost 116 pages.  They asked.  God said no.  They wanted it anyways so God instructed Joesph Smith to hand it over to Martin Harris.  Did Joseph Smith lead Martin Harris astray?  I would say no.  But I would also say I bet Martin later wish Joseph had held firm and that they had listened to the first answer.

 

Another example is Israel's desires for a king.  They ask God (through Samuel). God (through Samuel) said no.  They wanted it anyways so God instructed Samuel to give them a king.  He even picked the man for them.  Did Samuel lead the Israelite astray?  Again I would say no... But history shows what Kings led to.

 

How many other things might look questionable but could very well be God giving people what they wanted (through the prophets) to their condemnation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackmarch, at the risk of creating a threadjack--could you flesh this out a bit?  If indentured servitude is a voluntary arrangement entered into in exchange for something of value (historically, cash/transportation/a loan), and a law of mercy would do away with indentured servitude, then would such also do away with debt?  With credit?  What about simple exchanges of goods/services?  Does a law of mercy require, in the commercial realm, that tradesman and artisans and merchants and professionals must not charge for their products/services and instead must offer them to everybody for free?

a vendor can always deny the goods/services to someone who does not have the money pay for them in either case. In which case a vendor can either deny the transaction, cut the price or do it for free, if the buyer does not have the means to pay.

Allowing credit and holding people to debts has caused so very many problems throughout history- it binds the debtor to the creditor for future transactions whether it is with money or some other form of service.

If one is willing to take the risk of allowing someone to "pay" through future promises... the creditor risks the debtor of not being able to fulfill their end of the contract. Justice requires a creditor to be paid and for the debtor to pay it, if the debtor cannot pay it then it must be forced from him in some manner or another until every part is payed off.

but in the end yes, if you are going to be merciful and follow that kind of law you will be giving away products/services for free in the end.

but even if one should deny the transaction one must still be careful-

The law of mercy on the requires us to forgive others even as we are forgiven. We are commanded to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick- without thought for ourselves. all of those require goods and services.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. It's not necessarily that the prophet is any better than anyone else, it's just that God needs to start the message with somebody, so he chooses the most capable he can find, and begins with them.

.. "any better than anyone else.." If by that you mean no more *loved* than any of His other children then I agree. However, foreordination of prophets and others makes the whole process much less casual than your statement seems to imply. I believe the entire plan of salvation was carefully prepared with specific individuals to play very specific roles.. The Father knowing full well who He could trust.. We can with certainty cast our full trust in Jesus at the pinnacle of this plan as our Savior. I hope nobody here doubts or disputes that... That being said I think we can put our trust and hope behind our leaders as well.. because the Son has called them and the Son has power to reprove, rebuke and even REMOVE them if necessary. How often did the Lord rebuke, Peter for things he missed or misunderstood? How about Joseph Smith? Remember we're talking primarily about apostles and prophets. It wasn't Brigham Young who called Joseph to repentance EVER .. Why? Because that wasn't Brigham's job... It was THE LORD Himself.. Through Joseph's own mouth! We have it clear as crystal right in the D & C!

So, when somebody rebukes or calls anyone to repent, especially in cases of false doctrine.. It better darn well be someone who presides over that person and not anyone else.. I would not DARE to call President Monson a teacher of anything false, even if I was convinced that he was, because if I did such a thing, I'm essentially saying I'm equal to the LORD .. which, without a doubt, I am not. The Lord is fully capable of performing His own calling. He doesn't need me, or you, or Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin.. or anyone else who is not fit to even consider walking in His shoes ..

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