- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Called to Serve…you had me, right up to this closing summary… Called to Serve wrote:… I don’t have a right to decide that for myself.
I just simple disagree with you. I’m not telling you your answer is right or wrong…but I certainly disagree with your conclusion that you don’t have a right to decide that for yourself. Perhaps I misread your post(s) somewhere?
Called to Serve, I agree completely with cwald that we have the right to decide that for ourselves. The Book of Mormon says explicitly that we are to be “agents unto ourselves”, and the D&C says we are not supposed to be commanded in all things. The D&C also says that God can speak to me in my “mind and in (my) heart” – so using my mind in response to these questions in extremely important to me.
Can you understand that God could have told me, personally, that I can accept our top leaders as prophets precisely because I am able to define that term, intellectually and/or spiritually, in a way that makes it possible for me to answer, “Yes,” to that question?
Now, in saying that, I’m not trying to discount your own way of defining that term, even if it is different than my own.What I’m saying is that I believe you absolutely have the right – and even the authority – to define that term (and any other term) in a way that makes the most sense to you, no matter what that definition is. I might or might not agree with your definition and your conclusion, but I will support your right to do so passionately. i think it is very important to understand the New Testament meaning of “prophet”. Paul said, Paul, in 1 Cor 13:8-10, wrote:…whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Note that in verse 9, there is a two part distinction within our faith/doctrinal schema: that which we “know”, and that which we…”prophesy”. In LDS doctrine, there is a lot that is in the category of “not knowable”. joseph and others speculated a lot about what we don’t know and cannot prove. he “prophesied” that the church would be centered in missouri, that he would have riches from some eastern trip. these were guesses, “prophecies”…and they failed.prophets simply are responsible for teaching that which we cannot empirically know. Although we all can guess, even have inspired guessing, the reality is that there needs to be order as to what is taught. Imagine if everyone could “prophesy” about the nature of the cosmos, eternal life, and so forth…we’d have doctrinal chaos. It’s bad enough that we have to justify all of Brigham Young’s speculations. Instead, there is a limited subset of inspired speculation, without restriction as to what we personally believe. note the following:
Alma 12:9 wrote:It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
When we agree that 15 men are the prophets, seers, and revelators, we are simply acknowledging that they have the exclusive decision power as to “what is taught” in the church. they are the keepers of the “portion of his word” we are to be taught today. and while the lack of “new revelation” may indicate to some that they aren’t actively “prophesying”, it is probably a good thing they don’t speculate further. Instead, the “prophets” have been “normalizing” church doctrine…setting aside the wilder speculations and embracing a more inclusive definition of things. i consider a lot of this pretty prophetic.Thanks, wayfarer. I think it is incredibly important to understand that foundation of what “prophecy” means in that context – and defining it as it is taught in that passage (and others) changes things in a fundamental way that I think is needed in our rush to want to know. Called to serve: even as much as I appear to be a dirty apostate, heretic, skeptic, democrat, agnostic, secular humanist fool, I absolutely sustain TSM as prophet seer and revelator and the only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. without reservation or equivocation in the least. cwald wrote:Called to Serve…you had me, right up to this closing summary…
Called to Serve wrote:… I don’t have a right to decide that for myself.
I just simple disagree with you. I’m not telling you your answer is right or wrong…but I certainly disagree with your conclusion that you don’t have a right to decide that for yourself. Perhaps I misread your post(s) somewhere?
Yes, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don’t have the right to decide whetherGod has called a specific man as a His prophet.Certainly, I believe I have a right to decide for myself whether I sustain someone as prophet based on whatever criteria I believe are important. My criteria is that I want the Lord to testify to me that a man is a prophet before I sustain him as such. I recognize that others have found other ways to define it and I am sure that is fine. I actually believe (thought I’m not entirely sure it’s true) that the Lord can use any person we chose to sustain as a prophet to us, so long as our desire is to come closer to Christ. Though I do believe that any person who truly wants to come to Christ cannot be led forever by someone who is not seeking to bring others to Christ. It just seems to me that nothing, absolutely nothing, can keep us from coming to Christ, no matter how confused we are by this world’s lies. Jesus will just use whatever He’s got to give us what we want.
Not so sound arrogant or anything, but I don’t think I need President Monson as a prophet. I don’t need the church. I don’t need the temple. I have the Lord Jesus Christ, and I don’t need anyone or anything else to give me salvation. But I do want to know how I should conduct myself in relation to the church. To try to fit in just seems dishonest for me personally, because I don’t want to just be a part of a church. I want to save souls. Of course, I realize that by doing odd things like refusing to sustain President Monson as prophet, I will probably just distance a lot of people, and that is why I hesitate and hope that I can find a way to work these things out. But if I can’t, I can’t.
I’m going with the notion that I just don’t believe President Monson is a prophet and refuse to do so until I receive personal revelation that he is. We’ll see what happens. I still have a couple of weeks until my bishop’s interview to discuss the matter. That’s plenty of time for the Lord to straighten me out on the matter, if He sees fit to do so.
Except that faith precedes the miracle. I can not decide these things for others, But I fear your proposal doesn’t end well, and I think it likely wouldn’t end with an answer the other way either (assuming he is a prophet until God tells you otherwise) wayfarer wrote:Called to serve: even as much as I appear to be a dirty apostate, heretic, skeptic, democrat, agnostic, secular humanist fool, I absolutely sustain TSM as prophet seer and revelator and the only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. without reservation or equivocation in the least.
Wayfarer, I can respect you even as a dirty apostate, heretic, skeptic, agnostic, secular humanist fool, but you’ve got me on the democrat part!Kidding! Totally kidding!
DBMormon wrote:Except that faith precedes the miracle. I can not decide these things for others, But I fear your proposal doesn’t end well, and I think it likely wouldn’t end with an answer the other way either (assuming he is a prophet until God tells you otherwise)
But the problem is, I did that already. When I prayed before for a testimony that President Monson was a prophet, I believed completely that he was. And I was completely thrown for a loop when the prayers didn’t turn out the way I figured they would.I would ask why I ought to assume President Monson is a prophet? Has he shown any signs that would indicate that he is? Is there any evidence besides the fact that the majority of active members of the church believe he is a prophet? If there is, I cannot see it. He seems quite opposite to the prophets in the scriptures.
There are other people who have caught my attention for their claims that they are called of God for certain missions. They have shown signs that they may be true prophets called of God. I have prayed about them. At this time, the Lord has not confirmed any person to me to be a prophet (though He did ask me if I would accept my husband as an angel one time but that’s maybe not quite the same thing). But the point is, that these people have shown indications that they might be prophets, without any popular support of the idea whatsoever, whereas President Monson has not. So then the only importance for me in seeking to know if he is a prophet is for me to fit in as a church member. That would be nice, but I don’t think that’s what the Lord has in mind for me.
Called to Serve wrote:Not so sound arrogant or anything, but I don’t think I need President Monson as a prophet. I don’t need the church. I don’t need the temple. I have the Lord Jesus Christ, and I don’t need anyone or anything else to give me salvation. But I do want to know how I should conduct myself in relation to the church. To try to fit in just seems dishonest for me personally, because I don’t want to just be a part of a church. I want to save souls. Of course, I realize that by doing odd things like refusing to sustain President Monson as prophet, I will probably just distance a lot of people, and that is why I hesitate and hope that I can find a way to work these things out. But if I can’t, I can’t.… Okay. I think I understand you now.
And perhaps I even might agree with your above thought. I don’t need the church or the temple either. I believe that President Monson is a prophet…but i don’t really believe he is MY prophet. I think he is the leader of the Mormon church. When I want to know how I should conduct myself…and to help save souls…I look to other prophets like Gene Roddenberry, Sister Simone Campbell, Robert Kirby, JRR Tolkien, the 14th Dalia Lama, Martin Luther King, Joanna Brookes, Wayfarer, Brian Johnson, Urctdorf, M&G, etc etc.
Quote:He seems quite opposite to the prophets in the scriptures.
Frankly, I think he has acted exactly like a prophet of the scriptures – identifying an issue that is keeping God’s children from being who they are meant to be and pounding it relentlessly in hopes the people finally will get it and change their ways.
I think he has been calling the Church to repentance for a long time with regard to real charity and care for the poor and needy.It’s just that he hasn’t phrased his words in terms of stern rebukes and “Thus saith the Lord;” rather, he tells stories and tries to allow people to govern themselves. In that sense, he is the consummate modern parable teller – trying to lead his people to the promised land (one in which he’s lived pretty much his entire adult life) despite their general insistence on not following him there. I recommend highly the following post about Pres. Monson. I honestly do think he fits the classic definition of a prophet as well as any President we’ve had in the Church – and I include Joseph Smith in that statement, as illogical as that sounds at first.
“
Thanks were given: The Sneaky Genius of Thomas Spencer Monson and Kung Fu Panda” ( http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/11/25/thanks-were-given-the-sneaky-genius-of-thomas-spencer-monson-and-kung-fu-panda/ My belief is that Pres Monson is a prophet. He leads the church and makes decisions for the church. He is a good man who serves others and seems to want people to live happy lives. He seems to largely stay out of politics and heavy doctrine which for me is a good thing. I doubt that he sees the future and reveals deep, godly secrets which I’m ok with because I think we have enough of those. Maybe he’s a bit lit Professor Trelawney – he gets a Revelation (capital R) every so often or maybe even never during his tenure.
I get revelation for myself without regard to those “above” me in the church and I have no problem supporting them as leaders or prophets. I’m responsible for my actions and I don’t believe we can “blame” our actions on prophets.
Roadrunner, those are my thoughts exactly. Back in the late ’80s when I was trying to reactivate in the church, and thru the ’90s I would cringe whenever TSM would be a speaker at conference. I just did not like his style and methods for getting his points across. It was like he was trying to fool me or manipulate my emotions into believing and I wasn’t buying it. Fast forward ~20 years and now he is the current President and Prophet of the church. I struggle and still don’t enjoy his talks, he brings too much personal character to the pulpit, but I can sustain him as a prophet called to lead this church because I believe he was chosen by God to do so and no man could lead this church in an inappropriate way or direction, at least for our salvation. God would not let it happen. That’s what I believe. Kipper wrote:Back in the late ’80s when I was trying to reactivate in the church, and thru the ’90s I would cringe whenever TSM would be a speaker at conference. I just did not like his style and methods for getting his points across. It was like he was trying to fool me or manipulate my emotions into believing and I wasn’t buying it. Fast forward ~20 years and now he is the current President and Prophet of the church. I struggle and still don’t enjoy his talks, he brings too much personal character to the pulpit, but I can sustain him as a prophet called to lead this church because I believe he was chosen by God to do so and no man could lead this church in an inappropriate way or direction, at least for our salvation. God would not let it happen. That’s what I believe.
I love the idea that we as saints can land at the same place through different paths. Not to take away what you said above, but I have always enjoyed Pres Monson’s talks, and love the personal character he brings to the pulpit.I can imagine that being the leader of the church would involve an extreme difficulty: what thrills one person might likely put off another. But pleasing mankind isn’t necessarily what it’s all about. Properly thought of, a prophet will say and do what needs to be said and done.
I do not share with you the idea that god would not allow a man to lead the church in an inappropriate direction — mistakes have happened, and at times very profound mistakes. The statement by Wilford Woodruff in reference to Declaration 1 that the Lord would never lead the church astray was in the context of the end of polygamy, supposedly ending in 1890 when he made that statement, yet the practice secretly continued until at least 1904 — my great-grandfather being one of those officially sanctioned by the leadership to continue getting new plural wives. As well, there were positions around blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, etc., where the church’s position is perhaps less than what the Lord would want.
Yet, to sustain, is to stand in support of them, and to uphold them. It is my firm belief that this means appropriate opposition to those things which are not in the best interests of the church. As I have had some leadership callings, I expect that those in my charge are willing to tell me when I am wrong, appropriately and discreetly, but nevertheless, firmly. Without the combined mind of all, the leader is less than effective. It should never be the case that I just dictate, and people will follow — that is someone else’s plan.
That said, where we land is to support Pres Monson as a prophet, and I do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.