- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The SL Tribune is reporting that apostle Christofferson has clarified what constitutes revelation: “Divine instructions could come directly to the church president or through the combined deliberations of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles with the governing First Presidency, Christofferson said. “The objective is not simply consensus among council members, but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.”
In the process he admitted that the prophets were not infallible and that sometimes they pronounced on personal beliefs that did not constitute church doctrine. The article does not say if the church will let us know when a doctrine or just an opinion has been expressed.
I know that some people on here will say this is a good thing, a step in the right direction. At least they are allowing for some past mistakes and trying to move forward. Some people will find comfort in the notion that prophets today are fallible just as prophets of old were, as that seems to be a real popular justification nowadays for the GAs’ confusing and contradictory statements over the years. Others of us will now doubt feel that this just proves yet again that the church is of man not God and sit in utter disbelief that they are still saying they receive divine revelation. Who are they kidding?
Well. everybody has to come to their own conclusions of what is true and what isn’t. It reminds me that God is the perfect judge of truth. Not us. curt wrote:The SL Tribune is reporting that apostle Christofferson has clarified what constitutes revelation:
“Divine instructions could come directly to the church president or through the combined deliberations of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles with the governing First Presidency, Christofferson said. “The objective is not simply consensus among council members, but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.”
In the process he admitted that the prophets were not infallible and that sometimes they pronounced on personal beliefs that did not constitute church doctrine. The article does not say if the church will let us know when a doctrine or just an opinion has been expressed.
in the quoted portion, SLTrib was likely quoting the official,watered-down summary of the talk on LDS.orgnothingabout the possibility that the brethren could everbe wrong or differing in opinion. I wonder what kind of tongue lashing Elder C got from his quorum president BKP after the conference. it can’t be pretty. i smell the potential of a poelmenization here, although given the negative reaction in the past, and the fact that Elder C is Q12, this might be unlikely. curt wrote:I know that some people on here will say this is a good thing, a step in the right direction. At least they are allowing for some past mistakes and trying to move forward. Some people will find comfort in the notion that prophets today are fallible just as prophets of old were, as that seems to be a real popular justification nowadays for the GAs’ confusing and contradictory statements over the years. Others of us will no doubt feel that this just proves yet again that the church is of man not God and sit in utter disbelief that they are still saying they receive divine revelation. Who are they kidding?
i assume from your language that you are in the latter category. some questions:1. does the church have to be infallible in order to be “of god”?
2. what scriptural or historical precedent is there of an infallible church?
3. did peter, paul, and james agree on doctrine?
4. after the jerusalem accord, did peter, james, and paul stick to the accord in their teaching and practice?
5. what did paul say was the authority and doctrinal basis of the gospel he preached?
6. is divine revelation a precise process, resulting in an explicit and complete statement of doctrine?
7. is the process of seeking and receiving divine revelation any different for the prophet than any other person?
Ilovechrist77 wrote:Well. everybody has to come to their own conclusions of what is true and what isn’t. It reminds me that God is the perfect judge of truth. Not us.
hmmm. truth lives in an independent sphere: god is subject to truth and not the other way around.to say that we are not to ‘judge’ (discern) truth is not quite right, although this may not be what you meant. in my opinion, god does not judge ‘truth’ (as in arbitrarily declares what is true), but rather judges (evaluates) us on the integrity and authenticity with which we judge (discern, decide) truth on a daily basis.
Confirmation bias is an interesting thing. Fwiw, I think the characterization of that talk in this post is badly mistaken, and I personally loved the very clear statement in the talk that prophets are not infallible.
[Admin note: This post almost got deleted by me last night, simply because, as written, it is a direct attack on an apostle AND lots of people who comment here at StayLDS – with no seeking for solutions about a perceived problem or request for multiple points of view. We don’t do personal attacks here. Period. I left it alone last night – mostly because I wanted to re-evaluate it once my initial reaction faded away. That reaction hasn’t changed, but I am leaving it alone in order to add this admin note and reiterate the basic rules of this site. We are not an apologetic site in any way, but we won’t tolerate simple attack posts of any kind – and that is magnified when those attacked include people who comment here.]
I think the whole talk was a positive step in the right direction. I am pretty well completely inactive…jwald goes once or twice a month and still has a calling but….and we are okay and at peace…We have branch conference coming up and we decided that we would not attend and give the leadership the impression that we were interested in continuing participation.
After Urchdorf’s talk, and Christoffersons’ and the few others I watched…..we are reconsidering going to branch conference.
I have been disappointed in the past…and have been told I was not welcome….but, perhaps this time the people will listen to their own prophets and allow us to find a middle way within the mormon tent.
Not certain but I am guessing the comment that this post “directly attacked an apostle” was directed at me, the original poster? I don’t see at all how this is a direct attack on anyone in particular, except the church’s claim to receiving divine revelation. I have nothing against any of the apostles or GAs, and certainly not this one. So really am a bit perplexed here and would appreciate some clarification. Someone actually told you that you are not welcome in church? How can they do that?
I would go to just “piss” them off.
Sit right next to them too.
And besure to shake their hands everytime you attend so they don’t miss you.
(Or am I missing something. I do that sometimes.)
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:Someone actually told you that you are not welcome in church?
How can they do that?…
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2456http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2456” class=”bbcode_url”> curt, maybe I read the last question (“Who are they kidding?”) too broadly and literally. It appears to be one of two things: 1) A sweeping statement that those described previously are kidding themselves – meaning anyone who takes the admission that prophets are fallible as a good thing and/or continues to believe they actually do receive revelation (mingled with their own philosophies of men), including the prophets themselves.
If that is the case, many people here are riduculed by the question.
2) A unequivocal statement that the apostles and prophets don’t receive revelation at all and are nothing more than fakes who are lying to others or delusional and “kidding themselves”.
If that’s not what you meant, I apologize for taking that meaning from it. I waited for an extra day to read it again with a careful, unemotional view, but I still got one of the messages above. If I mis-read that question, please explain what you meant in different terms, so I can understand better.
I can see how the question could be taken that way but it was not meant to be nor especially was it meant to offend anyone, and I apologize if it did. Plus, whom am I to say who or who has not received revelation? The question was more rhetorical in nature, like when one is having a bad day and asks, in exasperation and at no one in particular, “what could possibly go wrong next?” It is an old complaint of mine that serves as a continuous source of frustration. It lies in the fact that every single time a seemingly true doctrine or belief that the church once espoused is proved wrong or proved to have been misunderstood or what not, there is always some justification for it, some way of making it right. After awhile, these justifications just stretch the limits of credulity. As I have stated elsewhere I just find it difficult to believe that God would put us through such an incredible test if in fact the church is true. I mean accepting it as true goes beyond even accepting Christ as one’s savior. There seems to be all these hurdles one has to jump over in order to believe. It just gets tiring. Hmm. I took curt’s “Who are they kidding” as a rhetorical question, him presenting two contrasting reactions to the talk, not necessarily advocating one of them. Anyway, I think it’s a Catch-22 scenario. If we talk about prophets being fallible (which they obviously are and admit to) then it’s a slippery slope to say we don’t have to listen to what they say and we can do whatever we want (according to the dictates of our own conscience), and then there is no Mormon identity and no benefit from being in the church. The value prop goes away. Or we can pretend prophets are perfect and that we can never go astray if we do what they say because their advice is time-tested. Either way, I think people ultimately have to figure out for themselves. Everyone should find that balance between their own conscience and questioning the assumptions of their own thinking by giving credence to alternate ways of looking at things from church leaders. My biggest disappointment was that the 14 Fundamentals talk that was given twice in one GC was not refuted openly since it has been refuted elsewhere. Both extremes are dangerous, IMO – unquestioned authority and unquestioned personal assumptions. It’s the unquestioning part that’s a problem.
I struggle to find value in what prophets and apostles say, unless it is more generic and good advice like Uchtdorf tends to deliver. When they stray into things like tithing and obedience for obedience sake where is the value in committing to follow someone who is admitted they are fallible. At that point are they any more right than anybody else? So I agree with the talk and its frankness about the fallibility of the leaders, but where does that leave us. I see a church with leaders who admit they are fallible yet require total obedience to their instructions, at least if you want to keep God happy. I am not sure I have a solution other than stop with the whole revelation thing altogether or start getting some real relevant revelation.
cwald, thanks for the link. Now I understand.
That’s a tough position to be in.
I wish you the best life & God has to offer.
Mike from Milton.
Thanks Mike. Cadence wrote:I struggle to find value in what prophets and apostles say, unless it is more generic and good advice like Uchtdorf tends to deliver. When they stray into things like tithing and obedience for obedience sake where is the value in committing to follow someone who is admitted they are fallible. At that point are they any more right than anybody else?
So I agree with the talk and its frankness about the fallibility of the leaders,
but where does that leave us. I see a church with leaders who admit they are fallible yet require total obedience to their instructions,at least if you want to keep God happy. I am not sure I have a solution other than stop with the whole revelation thing altogether or start getting some real relevant revelation. Yes. I think that is true, and I think that is the point. It it time the Mormon people stop relying on spiritual welfare. It’s time for the Mormon people to stop relying on the prophets to do all their spiritual communion with the gods, it’s time for the Mormons to get off their collective butts, and start to figure some of this stuff out for themselves.
Our entire religion was founded on this concept —- James 1:5…if any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God…. Why have gone so far away from it? It’s time for the Mormons to throw out the correlated spiritual model of GOD>CHURCH>MAN/WOMAN, and get back to the model that started it all which is GOD>MAN/WOMAN>church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.