Prophets and Revelation

[Anonymous]

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.  

D&C 21:4 (Referring to Joseph Smith) Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

There are many quotations by church leaders, which I’m sure you all have read, which state that we should follow the prophet, his counsel is from God, and if we do we will not be lead astray. A clear reading of the scriptures seems to make it obvious what prophets and revelation are; it appears that God, Christ, or an angel communicates directly (visually or auditory) or through dreams to the prophet. The prophet then delivers the message to the audience via the spoken word or by writing – sometimes prefaced by “Thus saith the Lord”.

Nowadays, this pattern of revelation seems to be softened and less “flashy”. But it is taught that the communication from God to prophet continues via thoughts or impressions or auditory communication in a more personal way. The other impression I have of revelation and prophets is that prophets are not just making it up from their own reservoirs of good ideas – God is communicating a message. We all know prophets are not infallible, but it seems that their message is, for the most part. Like Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but their is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” Today’s leaders will give voice to the fact that they are not sinless and prone to idiosyncrasies of human beings, but they usually don’t say they, or past prophets, sometimes teach things that are wrong while acting as prophet.

Maybe my views are too “authoritarian” or supported by quotations, but it is a fairly mainstream view of prophets and revelation taught today widely in the church. With that as background, let me ask my questions which stem from the facts that seem to contradict such a neat and tidy picture of what prophets are, and what revelation is. These facts seem to minimize what prophets and revelation are, to the point that they are indistinguishable from “good men” and “good ideas”, respectively.

It seems that the end point of many “wrestlings” with the thorny issues in the church (for those who stay) is that despite the problems, the church is good, it’s leaders are good, and even if they have been and sometimes still are wrong, it is worth being a part of because of the greater good it offers to us and our families. I can accept that.

But here’s my question that I want your help with: What do we make of the prophets and revelation both past and present? Can I selectively pick and choose what to accept and what to reject? I like the term “Cafeteria Mormon”, but by embracing the title, am I also saying that the prophet IS NOT always the prophet, when he is speaking as the prophet? Aren’t we also candidly admitting that “revelation” is not from God, but from the opinions of the prophet? And if they can speak their opinion and call it revelation once, what makes us think that it is ever anything other than their opinion? If they are just speaking their opinions, aren’t we going to agree with them sometimes anyway, and call it revelation with them? It seems that if I accept prophets and revelation as “good men” and “good ideas”, then the church’s authority to save crumbles with it (we don’t claim that other good men who speak good ideas preach a gospel with the power to save our souls). I can’t seem to get past this paradox.

[Anonymous]

Well, that’s a question that I struggle with as well. My response has generally been to believe that the Church doesn’t have any special authority to save. As you say, there are a lot of scriptural supports for the idea that the message of the prophets is generally either infallible or so far beyond the capabilities of others that it might as well be. I think what we call prophets are influenced so much by their time and worldview that I can’t really give them a special status beyond being pretty good men in my tradition to whom I should pay some attention. I don’t know how much God speaks to us, or even if he does, but I don’t think the prophets have a record that’s good enough to indicate that they hear from God and others don’t.

I think a logical resolution if you want to stick with the idea that the Church is unique is that the message given to the prophets is perfect. Since we see through a glass darkly, their understanding of it is flawed to some extent. Since we see through a glass darkly, our ability to understand their message is flawed to some extent. Since we’re all motivated by pride and self interest, we consciously or subconsciously distort what we’re told, whether it’s God or a man talking. It doesn’t take too many of those qualifications to get an imperfect understanding. But if you’re willing to accept those assumptions about the receipt and transmission of divine messages, then you don’t need to impose a bar of perfection on what you hear from the prophets. The faith that following them brings you closer to God can serve as evidence that you’re on the right path and in the right Church. I’m sure it’s nothing you haven’t considered, but that’s the best I can do.

[Anonymous]

jpacman wrote:

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.  

But here’s my question that I want your help with: What do we make of the prophets and revelation both past and present? Can I selectively pick and choose what to accept and what to reject? I like the term “Cafeteria Mormon”, but by embracing the title, am I also saying that the prophet IS NOT always the prophet, when he is speaking as the prophet? Aren’t we also candidly admitting that “revelation” is not from God, but from the opinions of the prophet? And if they can speak their opinion and call it revelation once, what makes us think that it is ever anything other than their opinion? If they are just speaking their opinions, aren’t we going to agree with them sometimes anyway, and call it revelation with them? It seems that if I accept prophets and revelation as “good men” and “good ideas”, then the church’s authority to save crumbles with it (we don’t claim that other good men who speak good ideas preach a gospel with the power to save our souls). I can’t seem to get past this paradox.

Excellent post. Please indulge me as I share a few thoughts.

We are all to be prophets in our own right. Sometimes God appears to us in the flesh, personally, and we are One in a way that just can’t be described or explained. Sometimes, we have just a hint of a thought from God that we can’t well differentiate from our own thoughts. It sounds identical to our inner mind.

And then there’s everything else in between. This applies to everyone on the Earth.

To me there are a few really important truths. Allow me to pontificate: 😳

FIRST: God is in charge. There is an order to heaven and heavenly things, but it is not typically limited as we are taught, or as we tend, to think it is. If God wants someone ‘saved’, then it is so. Regardless of our immature reasons as to why it shouldn’t be so.

SECOND: The Church is a facilitator and introduction to the realities of heaven. My personal belief is that it is the single best one on the earth today. Even so, it is not the reality itself. For every outward, physical ordinance (Baptism, Marriage, Priesthood, Endowment, etc.) in the Church, there is a inner, esoteric fulfillment to that ordinance that is the true essence of the thing. Everything we see & do is simply pointing to, or promising, or leading us to, the inner fulfillment.

THIRD: The weakness and limitations of the membership of the Church REQUIRES that Church leaders and leadership come not from the most spiritually in tune or Godly Saints, but from the men and women that the body of the Church can respect and look up to. Rarely, we get both types of ‘leader’ in one individual. The rest of the time, pragmatism wins, by the will of the Lord.

FOURTH: The Church and the Gospel are NOT the same thing.

FIFTH: Everything we hear in Church, everything in General Conference, in the Ensign, etc. is what the temple endowment refers to as “the doctrines of men, mingled with scripture”. ALL OF IT, even within the Church. The temple tells us where to get the ‘pure’ truth. There’s only one Source for that. “We are true messengers from Father”. “How shall I know…?” Etc.

SIXTH: The veil is BIG. And for very good reasons. A critical aspect of this is that God ALLOWS and/or REQUIRES us to misunderstand practically anything. Even His own revelation to us. Our task is to have clean hands and pure hearts so that the messages we receive are not distorted nor confusing.

SEVENTH: There never will be a bigger, more important key to living life than faith. Period.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly,

All I can say is, “By this I know that you are a true messenger this day.” There are moments when we speak the pure truth of heaven, and you just did it above. My hat is off to you. Keep the faith. May we all keep believing.

Tom

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

thanks for your candid reply. I tend to agree more with your first paragraph than your second (maybe you do too). However, I don’t think I can “come back” physically and mentally if I don’t believe the prophet leaders are, in some way, actually receiving reliable revelation from God. People with good ideas are ubiquitous – and at least most aren’t claiming to get their ideas from God. The explanation in the second paragraph why prophets “see through a glass darkly” can explain small errors in doctrine and policy (not being honest about church history or Prop 8, for example), but seems inadequate to explain things like polygamy (a 60 year mistake that cut across multiple presidencies and involved the entire church and nearly destroyed it).

HiJolly,

thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I feel your love and concern. I thought your fifth reason was especially pertinent. You say that everything we are taught from our leaders is the “doctrines of men, mingled with scripture”. But I thought that is what Satan was teaching to Adam and Eve and their posterity – symbolizing the confusion in the philosophies of men and teachings of other churches? Our prophets, symbolized by Peter who is a “true messenger”, give the pure message straight from the source, unpolluted and undefiled. Maybe I’m getting this wrong – please correct me if I am.

To me it just feels like an attempt to rationalize our desire to believe in a prophet who is in communication with God, with many of their actual teachings that seem to be “philosophies of men” – easier to see in retrospect (polygamy, blacks and priesthood, evolution, theocracy, etc) than it is with contemporary issues (Prop 8, historical whitewashing, anti- intellectualism, and anti-feminism). I’m not trying to criticize your point, but I’m not sure if I can degrade a prophet and revelation to that level and still follow them as a “prophet, seer, and revelator”.

One solution would be for the church to come to terms with our history, open the archives again, disillusion the church members of their literalist beliefs regarding “infallible” revelation and the mythical Joseph Smith, etc. I know this would be extremely painful in the short-term, but in the long-term it would prevent a lot of disillusioned members like me from being marginalized to the “borderlands” or just walking away entirely. Maybe there are trends in this direction. I will be paying attention during General Conference to hear any.

[Anonymous]

I literally am out of time this morning. I wish I would have read this thread first, but I will be back on tonight. Frankly, this is one topic that is HUGE for most people who face a crisis of faith, and there are other issues that weigh on my mind and heart, but this is one that has never bothered me. I reconciled this one VERY early in my life, and I’ll share why in a regular comment tonight.

For now, simply know that there are ways to work through this issue without resorting to mental gymnastics and twisted justifications – and that I think the biggest impediment to that reconciliation is our historical inability to accept what our own scriptures say.

[Anonymous]

jpacman wrote:

Gabe,

thanks for your candid reply. I tend to agree more with your first paragraph than your second (maybe you do too). However, I don’t think I can “come back” physically and mentally if I don’t believe the prophet leaders are, in some way, actually receiving reliable revelation from God. People with good ideas are ubiquitous – and at least most aren’t claiming to get their ideas from God. The explanation in the second paragraph why prophets “see through a glass darkly” can explain small errors in doctrine and policy (not being honest about church history or Prop 8, for example), but seems inadequate to explain things like polygamy (a 60 year mistake that cut across multiple presidencies and involved the entire church and nearly destroyed it).

I realize that this is not my business, but I’d just comment that personally, I think Gabe’s second paragraph was most helpful. Perhaps the difference between small errors and large ones is not in the principles involved, but rather are a matter of degree of intensity (of error). FWIW.

jpacman wrote:

I thought your fifth reason was especially pertinent.

Yes, it most directly addresses your OP, with #3 as a close second and all the others relating to it to some extent.

jpacman wrote:

You say that everything we are taught from our leaders is the “doctrines of men, mingled with scripture”. But I thought that is what Satan was teaching to Adam and Eve and their posterity – symbolizing the confusion in the philosophies of men and teachings of other churches?

Right, but… What actually happened at the Fall? Adam and Eve (IOW, all of us) came to the earth, wherein the god is Satan. Knowing that the temple endowment is symbolic, what can this mean? Another side to this same coin is that man, in his ‘natural’ state, is an enemy to God. Who is an enemy to God? Could it be…. Satan? (sorry– Church Lady of SNL fame is affecting me). We all are gods in embryo; we are also satans in embryo. The difference is found as we exercise our agency. So for me to say that Satan is the ‘god’ of this world, is to say symbolically that everything that is in the world is influenced by some degree by darkness, the devil and his angels. It is because we are free to choose it if we will, and the veil makes that possible.

Point being, every man woman and child is influenced by satan, or evil influences. It is our natural state, now that we are here in mortality. Does the Church operate in the world? Yes. Is it run, operated, lead and directed by mortal, fallible men and women? Yes. Are those men & women influenced by Christ, or by the god of this world? Yes. BOTH. Who wins? …that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?

In the meantime, bad things happen; good things happen. It is the state of all things in and on the earth. To think that the Church or its leaders cannot err in big ways is to think they cannot err in little ways, and that is contrary to scripture; is contrary to reality. But, say you, we are promised that the prophets will never lead the Church astray. My answer: Sort of, but not in the way you are thinking (or you wouldn’t bring it up ). It is very helpful to read what Pres. Woodruff actually said, and less important to read what others (including leaders) have interpolated it into. After all, OD1 is doctrine, and all the commentary, regardless of whom said it, is NOT.

Quote:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

Were he to attempt it. Look at that carefully. BY taught Adam-God. Some debate that he did teach it. After 20-odd years of study, I do not. Most LDS believe that was not a true teaching. Was BY attempting to lead the Church astray? Regardless of whether he was right or wrong, the answer is: I think not. He believed it and taught it for 40 some-odd years. Think on that.

One more thing. You mention “other churches”. First let me say that ‘us vs. them’ thinking is contrary to the Gospel in its purity. We see a lot of it, even in the scriptures. Yet, it is not part of the fullness of the Gospel. In the BoM, we are told that there are only two Churches (ultimately) — The Church of the Lamb (all believers in Christ) and the Church of Satan (all who fight against the Church of the Lamb). There is SO MUCH that can be said on this point, but let me just summarize by saying that the inner fulfillment of the Church of the Lamb of God is the “Church of the Firstborn”. We Mormons are not the only ones that speak of that Church. All who belong to the first, can become members of the second, be they Catholic, Muslim, Hebrew or whatever. I know this is true, of myself. You don’t need to believe it. But try to consider the possibility, and what it can mean.

jpacman wrote:

Our prophets, symbolized by Peter who is a “true messenger”, give the pure message straight from the source, unpolluted and undefiled. Maybe I’m getting this wrong – please correct me if I am.

It is true and helpful to understand that God does speak, sometimes personally and directly, even face to face, with the leadership of the Church. I believe this. He also speaks face to face with other people. However, in this specific case (temple), Peter is a messenger. Any messenger directly from God IS authorized by the ‘true Source’, and is known as an ‘angel’. In the D&C, this is spoken of as “communion with members of the Church of the Firstborn”.

Quote:

D&C 107:19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

BTW, ‘mysteries’ are those things that can only be taught or communicated via the Holy Ghost (2 Ne 32). Any attempt to communicate them without the FULL influence of the Holy Ghost, fails. The temple is attempting to teach us how to facilitate this process. It is NOT primarily for the dead, but for the living (you and I). Think about it, for this is contrary to the current thinking of many of the Saints.

jpacman wrote:

To me it just feels like an attempt to rationalize our desire to believe in a prophet who is in communication with God, with many of their actual teachings that seem to be “philosophies of men” – easier to see in retrospect (polygamy, blacks and priesthood, evolution, theocracy, etc) than it is with contemporary issues (Prop 8, historical whitewashing, anti- intellectualism, and anti-feminism). I’m not trying to criticize your point, but I’m not sure if I can degrade a prophet and revelation to that level and still follow them as a “prophet, seer, and revelator”.

I wish I could convey the fullness of my understanding of what you say. It is a quandary, a puzzle, and many folks when reaching this point regrettably are tempted to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Have you read my post in the introductions forum? If you haven’t, please do. I personally had to be prepared to toss it all out.

The problem as I see it is when we do not fill our hearts and lives with the Spirit then we find ourselves unprepared to deal with the transition from ‘child’ to ‘adult’ in terms of our understand of the things of God in the world.

Quote:

1 Cor. 13: 11

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

jpacman wrote:

One solution would be for the church to come to terms with our history, open the archives again, disillusion the church members of their literalist beliefs regarding “infallible” revelation and the mythical Joseph Smith, etc. I know this would be extremely painful in the short-term, but in the long-term it would prevent a lot of disillusioned members like me from being marginalized to the “borderlands” or just walking away entirely. Maybe there are trends in this direction. I will be paying attention during General Conference to hear any.

Me too. I see much that brings hope and gratitude to my heart, in the last few years.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

jspacman,

HiJolly’s comments that precede mine are well worth reading slowly.

Yes. Ray is right. The place we come to can really be more peaceful and make more sense. And I am anxious to hear Ray’s thoughts. I can tell he has been as deeply affected by love and compassion for Sheder’s story as have I, and many of your concerns echo Sheder’s, and seem reminiscent of pain we have all felt.

Quote:

in some way, actually receiving reliable revelation from God

Revelation, yes; reliable, no. That’s just not how human beings are.

Quote:

a glass darkly…seems inadequate to explain things like polygamy

Yes. You are right. “Think of your brethren like unto yourself.” Is your glass dark? Is your revelation reliable? Are you being fair in your expectations of them? Do you believe in Agency? Can God turn them into perfect “channels” while respecting their agency?

For me at least, I had to let go of ALL preconceptions, even the idea that there is a Heaven with a Father. Everything that was my reality could then come wandering back to me freely, without gymnastics, without co-dependency, without compulsory means. I laid it all out on the table and walked away. I earnestly recommend you ponder on that if you are in a deep enough crisis to hunger and thirst after righteousness.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

For me at least, I had to let go of ALL preconceptions, even the idea that there is a Heaven with a Father. Everything that was my reality could then come wandering back to me freely, without gymnastics, without co-dependency, without compulsory means. I laid it all out on the table and walked away. I earnestly recommend you ponder on that if you are in a deep enough crisis to hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Oh, Tom. My eyes are wet. Truth can be SO painful, so frightening. God is so good to those who trust in Him/Her/Whatever.

For the camel to pass through the eye of the needle, it must off-load ALL its burden. All must be laid at the feet of God. All must be sacrificed.

Just be sure you have faith in a higher power, or whatever you want to characterize it as, FIRST.

First I believed in Truth. Then Truth taught me Love. In Love I gained Joy.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Hijolly – thanks for a great comment on prophetic leadership. I had never thought of it that way.

[Anonymous]

I think that prophets speak messages from God, when they are acting as prophets. I know we have all heard that, but I don’t think many members understand what that means. I probably don’t understand either, but this is how I see it. I agree also that we are ALL prophets, and I believe that personal revelation trumps all other sources. Personal revelation is higher than all other authorities because there is no mediator. It is God speaking directly to us.

I am not dodging the literal errancy of prophets past and present. They are all flawed. They all have a divine impulse that is filtered through them as an imperfect medium. They will mess it up.

Most importantly, I don’t think their messages are literal or absolute. Our personal revelation can be absolute (maybe sometimes), but not anything coming from a third-party source. We must obtain personal revelation about any message delivered to us from another person.

When it comes to messages from prophets, I see them as a mirror. This is where I deviate substantially from traditional members. A prophet will deliver a message, when they are chanelling the divine, but it is not the exact message to everyone that hears it. And not everyone is receiving a message at all. Everyone sees their own message in the mirror. We are looking into our own soul and drawing out the wisdom specfically tailored to fit our needs. That message could have nothing to do with the literal words and ideas being spoken. What matters is the sense of receiving the whispers of the divine, and trying to figure out what the message might be.

I will give a couple examples:

FIRST EXAMPLE:

I could be listening to a general conference talk. The speaker, an apostle, is speaking on one subject. Let’s say he is telling everyone in the broadcast audience to obey God, that obedience is the first law of heaven and we can’t be saved unless we are perfect at all of the commandments. I start thinking about how irritating that is, and how he isn’t right. I then start thinking about the love of God, and how that love makes me want to make the world a better place. I then think about some specific things I could do right now, and feel the spirit of personal revelation witness to me that course of action. I am hearing the message that God wants for me. I saw the right message in the mirror.

Well, the guy sitting next to me is hearing a different message. He hears a call to do more home teaching. He thinks about that family he never visits. He thinks “I really need to go visit them, they might need something from me.” So he does that. That was just for him.

The lady sitting behind me hears another message. She feels a draw to stop smoking. She thinks that separates her from God, like she is not worthy for God to love her. So she takes the message very literally and resolves to try and stop smoking. Maybe that act of sacrifice helps her get closer to God. Smoking may or may not separate somone from the presence of God, but this lady believes it; therfore, it does. She heard her message.

SECOND EXAMPLE:

Our Church emphasizes a particular interpretation of the Word of Wisdom right now. They teach some things are important, and some things are not. It is very obsessive to me. Through my disaffection process, I have disengaged from their interpretation and views. I do not have faith that their current teachings matter much at all to me. I really don’t think it should be treated with the extreme view they have. I believe right now, that for me individually, for some reason, I am to experience an exception. I fully acknowledge that is the height of arrogance, but it is my message nonetheless. I just don’t feel it. I don’t. And other parts of the WofW concept are very important to me. I still believe in the WofW. I do not agree with the focus that is traditional these days. There is something here for me to learn. And I might never go back into “compliance” with the group standards. My answer is NOT the “right” answer for everyone else.

So what I basically come down to is that a “revelation” may be more or less literal. I honestly think that everything in this life experience is symbolic. I don’t think anyone knows “the real story.” But I still believe a lot of things are true — in the directional sense.

Everything is true and false and meaningless. Don’t blame me . I didn’t make it that way.

I put my trust in God to lead me in just the right way. That is my hope and prayer.

Things that are wrong have a message for us. Being wrong is a message. Being right is a message. Disagreement is a message. Being angry tells us where we hurt. Everything is for our “good.”

[Anonymous]

jpacman – You’re right that I probably believe the first paragraph more than the second. I think Hijolly’s understanding of my second paragraph is also right.

Here’s another way to think of it. This will sound horribly arrogant and may well define trusting in the arm of flesh, but I think there’s some truth in it. The root question as I see it is where our expectations should be. What “goods” must the prophets be able to deliver if they are truly ordained by God in some special way? Perhaps we shouldn’t answer that question with reference to ourselves. I wasn’t a wealthy kid growing up at all, but I did grow up in America and I’m now at one of our greatest universities. My career prospects look pretty solid. In short, I’m a lucky person, and have been temporally blessed in a way that is, I’m sure, in the top 99.9% of people out there. I got a pretty good deal. I also got a mind that is good enough to get me to this school while staying away from heroin or whatever. Again, I got a pretty good deal.

For those of us who got a “pretty good deal”, many of the things that we’re taught seem hopelessly basic or pablum that provides a feel-good substitute for real engagement of the questions that trouble us. All of us are not in that position. For a guy like me, if I can’t figure out to stay out of debt and not watch porno with the mind I’ve been given, it pretty much doesn’t matter what the Lord wants to tell me with regard to those things. I’ve been given the equivalent of a divine visitation on those matters and if it isn’t clear by now, it probably won’t ever be, regardless of what happens in the spiritual realm. I’ve personally met folks who aren’t in that position. For them, hearing this stuff with the divine stamp of approval is the very definition of salvation.

I’m really not trying to be arrogant or say “well, God can’t help us, but it’s awfully nice for the little people”. I think the next step, which I don’t yet understand, is how to get from that realization to a fuller understanding of how we’re called to participate and what the Church experience might be able to give us. Maybe that understanding would meet the high bar that I think we rightfully set for prophets. Maybe that’s the position they themselves were in a while ago.

[Anonymous]

Valoel, that’s excellent. I really got a lot from that post.

[Anonymous]

jpacman wrote:

But here’s my question that I want your help with: What do we make of the prophets and revelation both past and present? Can I selectively pick and choose what to accept and what to reject? I like the term “Cafeteria Mormon”, but by embracing the title, am I also saying that the prophet IS NOT always the prophet, when he is speaking as the prophet? Aren’t we also candidly admitting that “revelation” is not from God, but from the opinions of the prophet? And if they can speak their opinion and call it revelation once, what makes us think that it is ever anything other than their opinion? If they are just speaking their opinions, aren’t we going to agree with them sometimes anyway, and call it revelation with them? It seems that if I accept prophets and revelation as “good men” and “good ideas”, then the church’s authority to save crumbles with it (we don’t claim that other good men who speak good ideas preach a gospel with the power to save our souls). I can’t seem to get past this paradox.

Good question! We do know that Brigham Young felt inspired in declaring that Adam was God the father, so yes in the history of the church it has been proven that a prophet can be “wrong”. I don’t think this is a fatal problem, ALL men are fallible, we should know that. When do we accept their words as revelation? When the spirit confirms those things to us (a discussion on possible translations or ideas of “the spirit” and what to consider can be another topic). I think there has been much teaching along these lines in the church. No, not always, but it is still there.

“The church’s authority to save crumbles…” here we may just need to think in the Martin Luther mindset — that no earthly authority can get between a man and his God. Maybe if we look at earthly “authority” as facilitative instead of absolute and literal then we can move forward and find the spiritual food where it exists. Maybe what really “saves” are the personal commitments or covenants. Sure authority can provide the framework for these covenants, but it is our personal journey (our “becoming”) that is the real “salvation” of ourselves and the world.

Today’s thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Valoel, I really think your examples rock.

Gabe P wrote:

This will sound horribly arrogant and may well define trusting in the arm of flesh, but I think there’s some truth in it.

That’s funny. I think of it in the opposite way. Are prophets and priests God or men? How do you have faith in the Eternal rather than in men? I think you are learning to move your trust AWAY from the arm of flesh. As long as you believe the great spiritual teachers (Jesus being right at the top), you aren’t straying. Listen to heaven, observe how others listen, and fear not.

[Author]

Posts