A Personal Perspective on Prophets – and Us

[Anonymous]

I want to float something past everyone and see what you think. It struck me as a result of some of the most recent discussions about Prophets and apostles and how much of what they teach is uniquely inspired and revealed by God.

I believe Prophets generally are called from amid the ranks ideologically of those they eventually will be called to serve. (not all apostles, but Prophets generally) Iow, I believe they are fairly representative of those they eventually will lead.

Similarly, I believe that, to a great degree, prophets are limited in what they can see and share by the capability of those they teach to see, understand and follow (and their own capabilities, as well). I believe this applies to “new” insight that can be revealed through them, but I also believe it applies to the over-turning of “old” ideas that were all that previous people (including previous prophets) could see, understand and follow. Iow, I believe Prophets generally can’t lead people to places they (the prophets AND the people) don’t want to go.

For this reason, I tend to “blame” Prophets less than most and “us” more than most.

That last belief sustains me greatly in the Church when I consider ONLY those apostles who are most likely to become the Prophet over the next 30 years and ONLY those members who are young enough to be leading the local church units as a block during that time.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Ray. I think there’s depths in there that I can’t articulate at the moment, but someday hope to reach.

I’ve had similar thoughts as I read Pres. Kimball’s biography.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I couldn’t agree more, Ray! I don’t think I’ve ever thought of putting it in words the way you did, but it is an extremely important concept. Especially for those of us who hope beyond hope for certain “changes” or “adjustments” in the dogma/theology. It kinda gets back to Dehlin’s idea of “staying” to be part of the group-think that will eventually effect positive change.

Not sure if that was your intent, but I’ll take it that way… 😳 🙄

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I believe this applies to “new” insight that can be revealed through them, but I also believe it applies to the over-turning of “old” ideas that were all that previous people (including previous prophets) could see, understand and follow. Iow, I believe Prophets generally can’t lead people to places they (the prophets AND the people) don’t want to go.

Ray, could you explain how this view would apply to seemingly contradictory revelations? For example, in 1886 John Taylor received what is known as the Centerville Revelation in which he claimed God told him to continue practicing polygamy and that it would never be revoked. Four years later, Wilford Woodruff announced The Manifesto that the Church would no longer practice polygamy. Were we, as a church, simply unable to follow it, so God allowed it to be retracted?

Also, how would your views apply to the following example that I gave in another thread?

MapleLeaf wrote: If you were LDS in the late 19th Century (particularly 1852-1877) you would have been led to believe in a cosmology in which Michael (Adam) was the identity of our Heavenly Father and the literal father of Jesus. It would have been sung about (see “Sons of Michael”) and preached about in Sacrament meeting, and if you believed otherwise you may be threatened with disfellowship (see Orson Pratt). Today, only a few generations later, the understanding that our great great grandparents had is considered false doctrine.

—

I do not understand how we can blame “us” more than the prophets for this one. The only options I can really see are that either the prophet received false information, or our leaders today have led us astray when it comes to these matters.

[Anonymous]

MapleLeaf, the second one’s the easiest, imo, so I will tackle them in reverse order:

1) Adam-God: Option #3 – There has been no revelation directly on these matters, so Brigham Young gave it his best thought and taught what he believed.

Frankly, I’m not hung up on these type of issues, since I don’t think we ever will know in mortality the exact nature of God and whether or not our current speculations are correct. After all, to Jacob, the idea that there was a ruling God over all the earth was incomprehensible; to the Jews at the time of Jesus, the idea of a physical God was just as incomprehensible; Joseph Smith’s theology changed and developed over time; in our own time, a literal belief in the fatherhood of God (with all that entails) is a completely foreign concept to Christians generally; within the Church, we have no way of dealing directly with the implications of much of our current theology concerning the existence of a Heavenly Mother.

Everyone thought they understood God, and I have no doubt they did as well as they could. We accept on-going understanding in all other areas of our lives; I have no problem with on-going revelation in these areas, as well – even if it changes or even rejects previous beliefs.

Finally, who knows? Perhaps he was right and our current rejection of that construct is wrong. I don’t believe that, but I need to be open to the possibility.

2) John Taylor’s statement about polygamy: What exactly was he told, and what exactly did it mean?

I don’t mean to be flippant with my answer, but there are myriad ways to make sense of that statement. Here are some perfectly legitimate possibilities of ways to interpret that statement as totally correct:

a) The principle of plural marriage never was revoked, at least not from an eternal perspective. Pres. Taylor was 100% correct in his statement. Two of our current apostles can attest to that fact.

b) He (John Taylor) never was required to revoke it in any way. The Manifesto was issued by his successor. (If the Lord’s words were, essentially, “YOU [singular] are required to continue, and YOU [singular] will never be commanded to revoke it,” again, that statement was 100% correct – even if the “you” got misconstrued as a plural you in the reception and recording.

c) The LDS Church ceased the practice of polygamy eventually, but it has not ceased to this day. Iow, John Taylor was required to continue, but the practice has never been revoked. Again, that statement might be 100% correct, as Bruce in Montana will assert.

Of course, there are ways to interpret that statement to show that Pres. Taylor’s statement didn’t come from God and was incorrect (including that it was just the desire of his heart masquerading as revelation), but my point simply is that whenever we have something like this there almost always are various and conflicting ways to see them – including legitimate ways that they just might have been totally correct and of God. How we choose to see them – or, perhaps more precisely, our openness at least to consider and allow for multiple options – often is much more important and “revelatory” on a personal level than the words themselves. That comes from the resident parser who also understands that parsing only can get you so far when there really are multiple legitimate options.

[Anonymous]

I have thought a lot about this concept of our leaders representing various factions of the members because of some of the thinking I have done about Greek mythology over the past few years. We tend to view it as silly superstition, but Greek mythology was a major world religion for thousands of years. Why was it so successful? Because the Greek Gods and Goddesses represented various types of people. Each person could find a God or Goddess to identify with, someone they could relate to as a role model. I think this is a powerful draw to adherents of various religions: the different gods of Hinduism, and the Patron Saints of Catholicism. We may not have mythologized our leaders (not that some haven’t unwisely done so), but that principle remains a great way to connect to the religion.

[Anonymous]

To follow up on Hawk’s comment, one of my favorite quotes is:

Quote:

“If you don’t like what a Mormon apostle says, don’t worry; another one has said something different.”

I first read that as a complaint and a criticism from someone who is truly anti-Mormon, but I like it as a testament to the concept that the LDS Church really doesn’t force everyone to believe and think the same way. I see examples of this all the time in General Conference, and it warms my heart. For every Bruce R. McConkie (whom I respect greatly in MANY ways) there is a Joseph B. Wirthlin; for every Mark E. Peterson (whom I respect greatly in MANY ways) there is a Hugh B. Brown. For every Pres. Benson (whom I respect greatly in MANY ways) there is a Pres. Hinckley.

I guarantee that if someone is horrified by a particular apostle’s words, there is another one whose words will calm their spirit and give a counter-perspective that is acceptable to that individual. That drives some people nuts, but I love it.

[For more on this, read: Paul vs. John: Why I Am Grateful for a Quorum of 12 Apostles (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=880)

[Anonymous]

I have always felt a special connection to Neal A Maxwell whenever he spoke, and keep copies of his talks in my journal and re-read them periodically. They really speak to me. Pres. Eyring is also one that I identify with every time I hear him speak.

We truly are individuals, and unique in so many ways, so I’m glad there is not only one voice, but that so many different personalities can express God’s teachings, and the truth is grand enough to accommodate all.

Thanks for the thread, Ray.

[Author]

Posts