Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

NO!!!! Stop it already! OF COURSE listen to the church leaders. Of course obey as they lead you to Christ. Wow.

I think we all need to take a break. This mincing of words is contentious. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the restored church on the earth today. In it men have been called to serve as prophets, seers and revelators. I love and sustain them in their callings. God speaks to all mankind through the Light of Christ and through the power of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world. He saves. He has a voice. He speaks to mankind through the power of the Holy Ghost. We are invited to learn of Him personally. We can have a personal relationship with Him. He desires to sanctify us and teach us. He is the mediator of the new covenant. He is the great promise keeper even the one given to Adam & Eve in the garden (Moses 5:1-15). He is wonderful. He is patient. He is kind. He is truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

I will be held accountable for the words that the Lord speaks to me and what I do with them. I am ok with being accountable to the Lord. He is the one that saves, chastises, teaches, forgives, loves and more. An apostle does not save me and that does not belittle my respect for their service. But they are fallible. A person cannot agree they are fallible and then say that every word that proceeds forth from their mouth is the word of God. Since the restoration, church leaders have disagreed with one another on many subjects. In many of those cases they are citing their opinion and that is ok. What they knew at the time was good for their individual journey. I am not picking and choosing what I like or will do for convenience (I think that's what you mean by "cafeteria" mormon). I just thought it was straight forward doctrine: Jesus Christ is the Savior, He saves, He is perfect, He is truth, He has a voice, He is a teacher, He is a personal God, He has perfect empathy, He sanctifies, He is omniscient, He is omnipotent, He is omni-benevolent, He offers a personal journey, the role of church leaders is not to micromanage the personal lives of 15+ million people but rather to point them and direct them and lead them to the Savior Jesus Christ who is their personal Savior and teacher and much more.

So, just to summarize all this into a simple answer (I'm going for clarity so I want to stick with the question as much as possible trying my best to avoid the Cathy Newman syndrome):  What you're saying is that if you receive a personal revelation that contradicts the 15 Apostles then it must be that your revelation (or interpretation thereof) is correct and that all the 15 Apostles revelation is wrong (or their interpretation thereof). 

Did I get that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

I think we all need to take a break. This mincing of words is contentious. 

I'm not mincing words. This is straightforward. You and your website have gone out of the way to point out the fallibility of prophets and apostles. Why? You say to point people to Christ. How is SPECIFICALLY pointing out that our church leaders aren't perfect leading us closer to Christ if it isn't by way of making the point that you believe the membership at large relies too heavily on them?

You are the one mincing words and speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You cherry pick a bunch of non-binding, non-canonized quotes and twist their meanings to make a point that is, clearly, meant to get people to distrust God's anointed leaders. The same thing that progressives and anti's do to hurt the church, tear it down, cause people to falter and fall away from the church the second their "leaders" say something that they don't like. The same tactic used by those such as John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and Denver Snuffer, who end up excommunicated from the church in the end because they have turned away from the church under the guise of separating "the church" from "the gospel", believing themselves to be focused on a higher, more enlightened way.

I'm not mincing words. I'm saying flat out that this approach is wrong and will lead souls away from Christ, not toward them.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Project Doctrine of Christ,

Many of the Snufferites claim that they 'sustain' the President of the Church, but when you really get down to it, they do not believe he is actually a prophet.  So to be very specific, Do you believe that President Nelson is THE actual prophet, with the same prophetic/apostolic authority as Moses, Peter, and Joseph Smith?  Yes, or No?

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
28 minutes ago, person0 said:

@Project Doctrine of Christ,

Many of the Snufferites claim that they 'sustain' the President of the Church, but when you really get down to it, they do not believe he is actually a prophet.  So to be very specific, Do you believe that President Nelson is an actual prophet, with the same prophetic/apostolic authority as Moses, Peter, and Joseph Smith?  Yes, or No?

Actually, that is not the question to ask.  He's already answered it.  But look at the answer.

On 3/22/2018 at 11:45 AM, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

I love and sustain them in their callings.

The more telling question for him would be: What does he believe the role of prophet or apostle is? If any individual receives inspiration from the Holy Ghost, he says we're to go with our own revelation over the prophet's.  That is where the rubber meets the road.

For the record, I don't believe they are supposed to be above us in our relationship with the Lord.  I also disbelieve that they are below us.  I believe they are to be side-by-side with us.  

Careful about this last statement.  We don't ignore him any more than we blindly follow him.  There has to be a true partnership between the individual Saint and those with stewardship over him.

The real question which doesn't really have a firm answer for all situations/individuals is: What do we do when we disagree with the prophet?

Hypothetical: If the prophet came out in GC next week and stated that we'd start solemnizing gay marriage in the temple, what would we do?

Hypothetical: If he came out next week and said we now need to officially add caffeinated soft drinks to the list of prohibited substances in the Word of Wisdom.

Quite different.  One is perfectly reasonable.  One is so far out of expectation that we would go nuts over it.  The latter is not about caffeine.

However, the truth would HAVE to be that our immediate course of action would be the same.  We would pray in all humility for the Spirit to confirm what we had heard, so we can gain a testimony of the Prophet's words for our selves on an individual level.  Then with the first example, we'd have another schism like that of the apostolic succession from Joseph to Brigham.

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

The problem with PDC is that he believes the fallacy of single result to the point that his conclusion is reductio ad haeresis.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

For the record, I don't believe they are supposed to be above us in our relationship with the Lord.  I also disbelieve that they are [supposed to be] below us.  I believe they are [supposed] to be side-by-side with us.  

Clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The real question which doesn't really have a firm answer for all situations/individuals is: What do we do when we disagree with the prophet?

I don't think that's the real question. The real question is, simply, "IS HE THE PROPHET?" Is he authorized to lead this church? Does he hold the keys of the kingdom?

If he is...if he does and if he does...then the what we do if we disagree with him becomes fairly plain fairly quickly.

And no, I'm not saying we just fall in line brainlessly. If the prophet commands you to go and murder someone you'd better pray your heart out and get confirmation before you obey. If he asks you to shave...you shave.

Of course you're saying the same thing in the examples you gave, with one exception: If the prophet says we're adding caffeinated sodas to the WoW I don't need to pray about it and doing so would be, imo, a showing of a lack of faith. I already know he's the prophet and authorized to do that and I will follow. It's not blind. I already know he has that authority. I wouldn't pray if he asked me to shave either.

Don't get me wrong...I don't have a problem with other's praying about any given thing that they are struggling with. But, in general, when it comes to basic directions that are not in conflict with any great moral code I have or don't seem to directly contradict truths that have been long-held, it's a matter of faith to me. God has told me this church is true and that His prophets are His. I don't need further confirmation on most matters, and asking would be faithless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The more telling question for him would be: What does he believe the role of prophet or apostle is?

I agree with what you are saying.  However, I still think my original question applies.  When PDC says this:

On 3/22/2018 at 12:45 PM, Project Doctrine of Christ said:

I love and sustain them in their callings.

To me that does not answer the question I was asking.  I once read a Snufferite article where he specifically claimed to have sustained President Gordon B. Hinckley as a prophet.  The author stated, however, that he was only a prophet insomuch as he was sustained as one, but not because he has/had actual prophetic or apostolic authority.  As a result, when PDC claims that he sustains the General Authorities in their callings, to me, that does not mean he actually believes they actually hold the complete authority one would assume comes with their calling.  In the mind of the person writing the article, it would be kind of like the Jews following and sustaining their leaders during the apostasy between the old and new testament events, but rejecting any actual authority on the part of the person holding the calling.

For what it's worth, if Pres. Nelson came out with your first hypothetical about homosexual marriage in the temple, I already know he is a prophet, so while I would be in absolute shock, I would jump on board the train and sustain the decision (assuming the entirety of the first presidency and overall majority of the apostles were in agreement with him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If the prophet says we're adding caffeinated sodas to the WoW I don't need to pray about it and doing so would be, imo, a showing of a lack of faith. I already know he's the prophet and authorized to do that and I will follow. It's not blind. I already know he has that authority. I wouldn't pray if he asked me to shave either.

Haha.  You beat me to it, but I basically just said the same thing.  :D

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The real question is, simply, "IS HE THE PROPHET?" Is he authorized to lead this church? Does he hold the keys of the kingdom?

I agree, I just updated my post with the question to reflect the emphasis on THE.

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, person0 said:

For what it's worth, if Pres. Nelson came out with your first hypothetical about homosexual marriage in the temple, I already know he is a prophet, so while I would be in absolute shock, I would jump on board the train and sustain the decision (assuming the entirety of the first presidency and overall majority of the apostles were in agreement with him).

In this specific example, I think it's more complicated than that. It's not simply about casting off bias. This sort of thing would be a change in the most CORE doctrine we have of eternal families. It wouldn't be like, "We're going to have the Sabbath on Wednesdays from now on." or some such.

Not saying this is the case with you (it's not like you or Carb are suggesting this might happen after all), but I don't think most people who suggest such an idea as an actual possibility have really thought the matter through to some of it's conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think that's the real question. The real question is, simply, "IS HE THE PROPHET?" Is he authorized to lead this church? Does he hold the keys of the kingdom?

That's probably valid.  But I don't see that as mutually exclusive with my question.  They're different sides of the same tetrahedron.  Take your pick.

1) Is he the Prophet hold the keys of the kingdom?
2) What role do each of the 15 have?
3) What role does the body of the 15 have?
4) What is the role of the formal organization that the Lord himself has established.  

Take your pick.

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And no, I'm not saying we just fall in line brainlessly. If the prophet commands you to go and murder someone you'd better pray your heart out and get confirmation before you obey. If he asks you to shave...you shave.

Of course you're saying the same thing in the examples you gave, with one exception: If the prophet says we're adding caffeinated sodas to the WoW I don't need to pray about it and doing so would be, imo, a showing of a lack of faith. I already know he's the prophet and authorized to do that and I will follow. It's not blind. I already know he has that authority. I wouldn't pray if he asked me to shave either.

Don't get me wrong...I don't have a problem with other's praying about any given thing that they are struggling with. But, in general, when it comes to basic directions that are not in conflict with any great moral code I have or don't seem to directly contradict truths that have been long-held, it's a matter of faith to me. God has told me this church is true and that His prophets are His. I don't need further confirmation on most matters, and asking would be faithless.

I can see that.  I'd agree that if the items are close to our current doctrines and beliefs, I don't think many would need to pray about it.  Especially the caffeine thing since it's been on the debate line since forever.  Might as well make it official.

But yeah, more severe departures from what we're used to?  The more severe the departure, the more severe the confirmation would have to be for us to go along with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In this specific example, I think it's more complicated than that. It's not simply about casting off bias. This sort of thing would be a change in the most CORE doctrine we have of eternal families. It wouldn't be like, "We're going to have the Sabbath on Wednesdays from now on." or some such.

Not saying this is the case with you (it's not like you or Carb are suggesting this might happen after all), but I don't think most people who suggest such an idea as an actual possibility have really thought the matter through to some of it's conclusions.

I absolutely agree.  I don't think this will ever happen.  For the very reason you mentioned, it would take a massive amount of revelation with a bunch of details that address so many aspects of doctrine, and especially that of eternal families.  I was merely saying, I know he's a prophet, so even something along those lines would not necessarily shake my faith, although I respect that it would for many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

But yeah, more severe departures from what we're used to?  The more severe the departure, the more severe the confirmation would have to be for us to go along with it.

Particularly with core doctrinal changes.

I mean...take another example. Pres. Nelson and the apostles announce that we are no longer the church of Jesus Christ, but of...Buddah or something (I don't know...something like that). We no longer believe in the atonement or Christ and the Book of Mormon is false.

I know. The idea is too ridiculous to contemplate.

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I was merely saying, I know he's a prophet, so even something along those lines would not necessarily shake my faith, although I respect that it would for many others.

What about the above? Where do you draw the line? Just out of curiosity?

(I understand that you may not be able to concretely answer. I couldn't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What about the above? Where do you draw the line? Just out of curiosity?

If there were to be something that drastic, I would probably question everything I've ever known to be true, and likely would end up leaving the Church.

I would have to draw the line at something that would completely change doctrine, and which could not be understood and explained as an addendum to existing doctrine and knowledge, but instead is a complete alteration of doctrine.  The specific examples you gave about Buddah, no Atonement, no Christ, and Book of Mormon being false, would all fall unto that category.

In another example, if Pres. Nelson were to say that the Lord is going to dissolve the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and use a different organization format for its leadership, I would think it was weird, but as long as they continued to state that it was accurate and correct to use the current format up until this new revelation, then I would be able to find a way to reason that in my mind.  Similarly if it was announced that we would have paid clergy in order to better enable the saints to prepare for the second coming by having 'full time' priesthood leadership at the local level, I could accept that as well, especially assuming they didn't change the format by which someone was called to said leadership.  I'm sure I could come up with other examples, perhaps even more drastic, like giving women the priesthood and priesthood offices, however, hopefully I'm getting my thoughts across adequately.

In short, if it can be harmonized and integrated as further light and knowledge, I could probably handle it, if I could not find a way to look at it through that perspective, I probably would have to draw the line there.  It would be easier to address these types of hypothetical situations on a specific case by case basis, which is why I assume it's hard to draw a clear cut line.  The good news is, as you said with your examples, the idea of certain things like that happening is almost too ridiculous to imagine actually taking place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I could accept anything if the Spirit directed. The line isn't what I could or could not accept that I'm speaking of. It is the line of needing to pray for confirmation. 

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I could accept anything if the Spirit directed. The line isn't what I could or could not accept that I'm speaking of. It is the line of needing to pray for confirmation.

Okay, well yes, and in that case, I don't know where I would draw the line of needing to pray for confirmation.  However, given your examples, if the prophet comes out and tells us that we are now the Church of Buddha of the Latter-Days, then to whom do I pray, and how do I then trust the answer?  Because everything I previously understood from a doctrine perspective will be turned on its head just by that one declaration.  At that point, for a moment, prayer and the Spirit would have to be secondary to reason, because I would first have to determine who would be answering, and how.  If I could rationalize in my mind how I could receive an answer, then I suppose the Spirit (if applicable) would again become the deciding factor.  That said, I'm not sure I could get to that point if something that drastic and seemingly absurd were to happen.

I'm sitting here imagining, "Dear God, please confirm that we should be following Buddha and his teachings as has been instructed by [name of current prophet], in the name of . . . uhh . . . ???? Amen."  Yeah, not sure I could get there.  I suppose it would be on a linear scale, kind of like this (not sure what it would take to change colors on the scale though):

image.thumb.png.9a293dce584eaaeda82565003398f0fa.png

Edited by person0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, person0 said:

Okay, well yes, and in that case, I don't know where I would draw the line of needing to pray for confirmation.  However, given your examples, if the prophet comes out and tells us that we are now the Church of Buddha of the Latter-Days, then to whom do I pray, and how do I then trust the answer?  Because everything I previously understood from a doctrine perspective will be turned on its head just by that one declaration.  At that point, for a moment, prayer and the Spirit would have to be secondary to reason, because I would first have to determine who would be answering, and how.  If I could rationalize in my mind how I could receive an answer, then I suppose the Spirit (if applicable) would again become the deciding factor.  That said, I'm not sure I could get to that point if something that drastic and seemingly absurd were to happen.

I'm sitting here imagining, "Dear God, please confirm that we should be following Buddha and his teachings as has instructed by [name of current prophet], in the name of . . . uhh . . . ???? Amen."  Yeah, not sure I could get there.  I suppose it would be on a linear scale, kind of like this (not sure what it would take to change colors on the scale though):

image.thumb.png.9a293dce584eaaeda82565003398f0fa.png

My laugh was at the prayer example you gave, btw.


"In the name of......buddah?.....Amen"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My laugh was at the prayer example you gave, btw.


"In the name of......buddah?.....Amen"

I assumed that was the case.  On an applicable note, there needs to be an emoji for 'understood', or 'ok'.  Something like this image.png.011c2772a1797a37bb72e7022b2b5d12.png.  I don't like to use the thanks icon when I mean those things; for some reason it feels like I'm being rude when I do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
14 hours ago, person0 said:

suppose it would be on a linear scale, kind of like this (not sure what it would take to change colors on the scale though):

image.thumb.png.9a293dce584eaaeda82565003398f0fa.png

There is also the concentric circles model.

download.jpg.47cf680a32eb1c9cc8a7d07833c7c2dd.jpg

Interpretation: No problem.

Belief: Have to get my head around it, but still no problem.

Doctrine: I have to spend some time thinking and praying.  May go along for a while and try to get it.  I would have to pray about it and get SOME sort of spiritual confirmation.  May result in a problem if it takes too long and requires something big from me.

Dogma: This would be on the level of gay marriage being accepted.  I'd have to have a REALLY strong spiritual direction to go along with anything on this level.  For some things, I'd have to have a spiritual prompting to simply have a desire to pray about it.

Core: No.  If we're going from Christian to Buddhist, or that the Book of Mormon was a fraud, these types of things simply take the whole thing and throw it out the window. 

No.  Just no.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
20 hours ago, person0 said:

I agree with what you are saying.  However, I still think my original question applies.  When PDC says this:

To me that does not answer the question I was asking.  I once read a Snufferite article where he specifically claimed to have sustained President Gordon B. Hinckley as a prophet.  The author stated, however, that he was only a prophet insomuch as he was sustained as one, but not because he has/had actual prophetic or apostolic authority.  As a result, when PDC claims that he sustains the General Authorities in their callings, to me, that does not mean he actually believes they actually hold the complete authority one would assume comes with their calling.  In the mind of the person writing the article, it would be kind of like the Jews following and sustaining their leaders during the apostasy between the old and new testament events, but rejecting any actual authority on the part of the person holding the calling.

I'm a bit confused here.  And I'm not trying to make fun of you.  But to be clear, I'm going to charicaturize what I seem to be reading.

  1. You asked question #1
  2. I suggested Q #2 is more appropriate.
  3. You said Q #1 was still valid.
  4. Then you gave an example of exactly why Q#2 was necessary.
Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Dogma: This would be on the level of gay marriage being accepted. 

FWIW, I think that is CORE and feel that anyone who doesn't see it as core is missing a bit what the core of the gospel is all about. Christ and the Atonement, certainly. But the reason for the atonement is so we can become like our Father in Heaven, and that is ultimately all about covenant of marriage. Everything else points to that. That purpose of the scriptures, faith, baptism, missionary work, etc., all point to the temple, and the temple is ultimately all about eternal family -- which is the husband/wife unit. Everything else therein points to that end. Casting that aside is as destructive to the core the the gospel as is the Atonement.

I think women being given priesthood offices/keys would fit this level better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm a bit confused here.  And I'm not trying to make fun of you.  But to be clear, I'm going to charicaturize what I seem to be reading.

  1. You asked question #1
  2. I suggested Q #2 is more appropriate.
  3. You said Q #1 was still valid.
  4. Then you gave an example of exactly why Q#2 was necessary.

I think both our questions are valid, and as you suggested to TFP, not mutually exclusive.  After reading both our questions once again, I think it is probably necessary for PDC to answer both.  He? dances around every question like a politician, and regardless, he hasn't actually attempted to answer either of our questions at this point.  I can see how my example/story validates both questions.  When writing that response, I was assuming that by giving Moses, Joseph Smith, and Peter as examples, that your question was inherently answered by their presence in the question, however, I realize that someone else (like PDC) might not hold them in the same esteem as you and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I think that is CORE and feel that anyone who doesn't see it as core is missing a bit what the core of the gospel is all about. Christ and the Atonement, certainly. But the reason for the atonement is so we can become like our Father in Heaven, and that is ultimately all about covenant of marriage. Everything else points to that. That purpose of the scriptures, faith, baptism, missionary work, etc., all point to the temple, and the temple is ultimately all about eternal family -- which is the husband/wife unit. Everything else therein points to that end. Casting that aside is as destructive to the core the the gospel as is the Atonement.

I think women being given priesthood offices/keys would fit this level better.

Upon reflection I can see why you'd think it's core (gay marriage).  I think it's close.  But to me it just doesn't quite cross that line.

To me the women/priesthood thing is closer to doctrine.  You've mentioned before that this is closer to the center.  But when I asked why, you didn't respond.  Would this be a good time to explain?

I've done some searching on this and an institute instructor mentioned something about how a man goes to a woman for one thing.  But if a woman didn't have to go to the man for the priesthood, then she'd have no spiritual need for a man.  I got that secondhand, so I'm not sure what he was getting at.  But it seemed to begin something, then died off.  That was as close as I came to finding a reason for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Upon reflection I can see why you'd think it's core (gay marriage).  I think it's close.  But to me it just doesn't quite cross that line.

To me the women/priesthood thing is closer to doctrine.  You've mentioned before that this is closer to the center.  But when I asked why, you didn't respond.  Would this be a good time to explain?

I've done some searching on this and an institute instructor mentioned something about how a man goes to a woman for one thing.  But if a woman didn't have to go to the man for the priesthood, then she'd have no spiritual need for a man.  I got that secondhand, so I'm not sure what he was getting at.  But it seemed to begin something, then died off.  That was as close as I came to finding a reason for this.

First -- I think that institute instructor was full of it.

This is a highly sensitive subject in today's politically correct world, particularly where certain politically correct have been purchased hook, line, and sinker by pretty much everyone. So I probably didn't answer you because the answer is "chauvinistic" by modern standards.

For now I'll throw out a concept for consideration in the matter and see what you make of it. Plural marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

First -- I think that institute instructor was full of it.

This is a highly sensitive subject in today's politically correct world, particularly where certain politically correct have been purchased hook, line, and sinker by pretty much everyone. So I probably didn't answer you because the answer is "chauvinistic" by modern standards.

For now I'll throw out a concept for consideration in the matter and see what you make of it. Plural marriage.

Well, I understand why plural marriage would have practical ramifications that simply wouldn't work if the sexes were reversed (genealogy).  But I'll have to think for a while regarding what that has to do with who is ordained to the priesthood.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now