- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was thinking this the other day: we claim we are better because we have direct communication, and a prophet to lead us in this day, however we seem to be learning from trial and error just like other churches. What do you think?
Potential reasons to agree:
The LDS church tried polygamy, but stopped when it wasn’t working.
The LDS church tried communal living, but stopped when it wasn’t working.
The LDS church has modified its doctrine.
The LDS church has modified its policies.
Official changes in religious ceremonies indicate that the ceremony was not inspired.
Reasons to disagree:
Just because a church tries something, and then stops it, doesn’t mean a religious goal was not accomplished.
Moses tried to teach the people the higher law, but they couldn’t handle it.
Christ tried to establish a church, but the apostles were all killed.
Failure does not indicate that an organization is not inspired, but what else is a prophet goof for, if not to prevent failure?
What are the most Probable interest of those who agree, and disagree? Books, websites, values, and people that agree or disagree?
I think there needs to be a prophet who does just that. We live in one of the most bizarre periods in history, even if we’re not aware of it – I mean look at how we are communicating here. We’re not even in the same country! With that in mind, we need guidance in this age.
With Gordon B. Hinckley, I often found it hard to work out exactly which prophecies he had made. I remember the Larry King interview, where he was vague and directly contradicted some well attested teachings.
On the other hand though, a lot of LDS think wrongly that they are the only church to have a “prophet”. The Seventh Day Adventists had ones for years, to use a fairly mainstream example. And they’re common in Pentecostalism, although not in the same way.
I also have some issues with how the mainstream LDS calls its prophets. It’s just longevity of tenure, not any particular calling. We end up with old men in the job, unlike Jesus or Joseph Smith perhaps.
I’ll admit…reversing policy or changing doctrine destroys some credibility in my eyes. However, if we didn’t have modern revelation to denounce polygamy, reverse racist policies, and correct wrong teachings, I wouldn’t still be a member today, that’s for sure.
I guess I’m less interested in finding the perfect church with infallible prophets, and more interested in finding a church that helps me be a better guy and teaches my family how to develop greater Christ-like attributes…and benefit from those fruits in the pursuit for continual improvement.
“I was thinking the other day . . .” I think we have a troll. This just seems very staged and dishonest – especially on top of his other post.
Same thought, but who knows. Just googled his name and he has his own Wikipedia page. Who does that? Here’s a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myclobhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myclob” class=”bbcode_url”> Thanks for checking him out, Hawk. I think I will send him another private message and ask him to read the format that works best here, then rework his posts. I’m uncomfortable with the poll-based, agree/disagree format. It’s too much like classic debate, and I don’t want to start that here. Let’s use a combined topic to discuss coaching this new user in one place: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1431 Good idea. I will lock this post, so we can continue on the combined one.
- The topic ‘Need for a prophet?’ is closed to new replies.