The next logical step

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, back when the forum software allowed for post “signatures”, @The Folk Prophet had one saying something along the lines of “If the prophet can be wrong, then the second prophet who says the first prophet was wrong can also be wrong.”

I think it was:

If prophets and apostles can be wrong, then it's possible that the prophets and apostles who said prophets and apostles can be wrong were wrong.

[SpiritDragon]

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This hits to the heart of what I am talking about and asking.  How strongly do we feel about the Prophet and his ability to receive revelation.  If he stated something that we did not feel conjoins to our personal beliefs, perhaps even something very strongly, what do we decide and what do we do?

I feel very strongly about the prophets ability to receive revelation, but I also feel very strongly about consistency of doctrine throughout the ages. My personal feelings on what the prophet teaches are somewhat irrelevant to whether or not the teachings are true. For instance, if I don't like ministering, it doesn't change the fact that ministering is the current church-endorsed program of looking after our ward family. If I don't like the idea that sleeping around isn't okay, it doesn't change the fact that it's not okay and has never been an accepted doctrine. However, what does matter is the tripod @Carborendum has brought up. Is the teaching consistent with past teachings found in the scriptures? Consistent with prophetic teachings? Does the spirit bear witness now?

So what to do, whether the teaching aligns or not with personal beliefs, is to study the words of scripture and prophetic counsel and pray for an answer. 

[zil]

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it was:

If prophets and apostles can be wrong, then it's possible that the prophets and apostles who said prophets and apostles can be wrong were wrong.

This is kind of like today's software development lesson (you know, the sort lesson you re-learn when you try to test code that you haven't implemented into the test environment):

You can't include an include in an include.  Instead, you must include the content of the include you wish to include in the include in which you wish to include it.

(This statement is true for the development tool I'm using.)

[SpiritDragon]

1 minute ago, zil said:

This is kind of like today's software development lesson (you know, the sort lesson you re-learn when you try to test code that you haven't implemented into the test environment):

You can't include an include in an include.  Instead, you must include the content of the include you wish to include in the include in which you wish to include it.

(This statement is true for the development tool I'm using.)

That sounds very inclusive  

[The Folk Prophet]

The plain fact of the matter is the prophets and apostles CAN be wrong, but not when speaking by the Spirit of God. So the only question is: when the prophets and apostles said that prophets and apostles can be wrong, were they speaking by the Spirit?

 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The plain fact of the matter is the prophets and apostles CAN be wrong, but not when speaking by the Spirit of God. So the only question is: when the prophets and apostles said that prophets and apostles can be wrong, were they speaking by the Spirit?

This sentence is incorrect. But this sentence is correct, and by the way so is the previous one.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

This sentence is incorrect. But this sentence is correct, and by the way so is the previous one.

The following sentence is correct. The previous sentence is incorrect.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

Image is forever burned into my retina.

[JohnsonJones]

Double Post

Edited November 21, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, zil said:

And the problem with the argument that previous prophets were wrong (for not doing it the way we do now) or that current prophets are wrong (for not continuing to do things the way we used to), is that we have no evidence whatsoever that either was wrong.  Doing things differently now than we did then is not evidence that either was wrong.  I have yet to see the evidence that the differences are actually differences in doctrine.  They are only differences in policy / procedure. ::sigh::

I'd actually like to point out that my point was actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you stated.

That the prophets have ALL been correct and received revelation.

I pointed out that there are MANY and MULTIPLE replies here that make it appear there are those would take issue with the Prophet if he stated something was revealed that they did NOT agree with.  They may read something in the scriptures and if what the prophet reveals does NOT agree with what they feel that scripture means, there could be a chance of them falling away.  Those who feel this way should be VERY afraid in relation to the numbers that have been shared in this thread in regards to the attitudes of the Church with where the church's stance may go in the future, if they truly believe this way.

My conclusion, on the otherhand for myself and what I suggest,  then was that we need to have the SPIRIT to Guide us at all times and if we do so, it will (as it has in the past) confirm that the Prophet is called as such and that we should follow the prophet.  In fact, I think coming up those that do NOT have this type of spiritual guidance may be so off put by changes that the church may be having in the near future that they will have such a crisis between what the Prophet states and what their personal beliefs and interpretations of various scriptures may state that they actually MIGHT fall away.

I think that no matter what, we stick with the prophet.  Once we have a testimony that he IS the prophet (and hopefully most have received this testimony by this point), then, even if we don't have a personal testimony of whatever change he has put forth yet, we still follow him in faith regardless.

And yes, that means EXTREME PROPHET following...as you would put it.

We have various different opinions though, and that is okay.  I respect that others have their own take and opinions on these matters.

I think that most do NOT share my feelings on this manner, however.   In fact, I think many probably will mock me over the way that I feel about this in regards to...once again...as you so aptly put it...

Extreme Prophet Following.

Edited November 21, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[zil]

46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'd actually like to point out...

But then for your example of what the prophet might do, instead of suggesting that he will continue to lead us to follow core doctrine, increase in righteousness, come out of Babylon, and resist the increasing wickedness of the world, you suggest that maybe he'll jump in with the wickedness and pronounce that core doctrine has been false all along and what was consistently wicked from the beginning is actually righteous.  And then you wonder why people argue with you?

People weren't arguing with following the prophet, per se.  They were arguing with the ridiculous notion of following the prophet into calling wickedness righteous.  You may not have sufficient testimony of the core doctrines which mandate that having sex with someone of your sex always has been and always will be sin¹, but some of us do.  Or perhaps there were things which you so strongly believed were doctrinal, while all the time being procedural, that their change has yanked your foundation and you no longer know the difference between doctrine and procedure, and have therefore decided you're game for anything - I have no idea (though that's how it appears - you're game for anything, including calling good evil and evil good).

¹Regardless of whether some prophet tries to lead us to think it's not sin.

The difference between us is that I know a prophet would never lead us there (and if a hypothetical prophet did, no, I would not follow, because he would no longer be a prophet of God); and you appear to think it's possible, and are therefore willing to pre-commit to following this hypothetical prophet if he leads there.

Where I do think a prophet will lead us, and many will have trouble following, is increased devotion, increased righteousness, coming out of Babylon and giving up the things of the world, remaining true despite increased pressure and even persecution from the world - to the point of having to give up much that we now take for granted, until that day when Zion is not just in our hearts, but is actually a separate place to which one will have to flee if one wishes to remain righteous.  But that's not going to include sealing same-sex couples in the temple.

Edited November 21, 2018 by zil