- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cg, as I think of those two statements, I would explain my reaction thus: 1) I can accept the idea that there is someone to whom the Lord can speak about pretty much anything He chooses to address – when it comes to what is His will for the collective whole. That’s a pretty narrow application, but I’m ok within those parameters. Therefore, I am ok conceptually with the idea of a prophet being able to receive revelation about everything – again, as long as it is in the sphere of “people as a whole” and not persons individually.
2) I can’t accept the idea that there is only one person who can share God’s will about ANYTHING – that, by extension, nobody else can receive God’s will about anything. I don’t think that’s what the actual quote says – but it can be how some people interpret it. I don’t think very many, if any, Mormons actually believe this, since everything we teach says otherwise.
3) I also can’t accept that just because God CAN speak to a prophet about everything he actually WILL speak with a prophet about everything. I think agency applies to prophets, as well – and perhaps the best example I can give is evolution. I just don’t think God has pulled a prophet aside and explained how the creation occurred – so even the prophets are left to their own to take their shot and guess with the rest of us. This, I think, is the most common mis-interpretation of the quote – but both members and leaders.
4) Finally, I don’t think the quote has to be read as saying that everything a prophet says actually is God’s word. Even if we accept the idea that someone CAN speak to someone about everything, that doesn’t mean they DO speak about everything. That actually would be contrary to the principle that we shouldn’t ask God about everything – which is spelled out in crystal clear terms in our scriptures. (slothful servants and all) However, this probably is the second most common mis-reading of the quote, imo.
Cadence wrote:It is sort of mute because I can not recall when the last time a prophet actually spoke for God.
That’s a really good point…I’m not sure it really happens all that often, huh?
What about when the first presidency came out with a proclamation to the world on the family. Would you consider that speaking for the Lord?
Heber and Ray, I think I’m getting it. Yes, I can agree that the prophet can receive revelation on anything the Lord chooses to reveal to him given the keys he has etc. Sure. But now I’m beginning to see the difference between theory and practical use. We can work an understanding of this statement so that we can live with it but practically speaking not too many members take the time to try to translate these words. They take it like they hear it and seriously don’t you think that most hear it as whatever the prophet says goes? No thinking required. And then we have situations like cwald has experienced this past week. No one coached the speaker like you all have been coaching me. Did Costa help his audience understand what was really meant by these statements? And here is the honest question; didn’t he just mean exactly what he said. Did Pres. Benson really mean God will reveal things through the prophet because he has the keys. Or did he mean “The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.” Or perhaps Pres. Benson meant the statement to be confusing? I don’t know but I’m frustrated because we’re the only ones talking about it in a real, down to earth conversation because all the other members just FOLLOW THE PROPHET!!
I really am beginning to see just how confusing the 1st fundamental principle is. The more I read it the less I understand what is meant by it. I do appreciate Heber and Ray taking the time to help me understand. Thank you.
CG
canadiangirl wrote:And here is the honest question; didn’t he just mean exactly what he said. Did Pres. Benson really mean God will reveal things through the prophet because he has the keys. Or did he mean “The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.” Or perhaps Pres. Benson meant the statement to be confusing?
I think they meant it the way they said it, and sincerely believe it will be an inspiring message for their listeners, and that there is safety in obedience. For most of them, I think it makes perfect sense to them, and goes along with their experiences in their life. You know…pray, read the scriptures, go to church…these are the answers they believe in completely that provide them comfort. They are not dumb, or ignorant, or completely mindless…it is their belief and testimony and it helps them in their lives.That’s what I think, anyway. Sorry its confusing. Its frustrating sometimes, huh?
:eh: I guess what comforts me is to allow myself to think, “That doesn’t make sense to me”, and “I don’t agree with that”, and “That doesn’t go along with my personal experiences.” I will keep my mind open and hope to learn new things, allowing myself to think my own thoughts about it, and let others have their thoughts about it. In the mean time, I’m ok with not always agreeing, and not giving up on seeking to understand better, and not giving up on loving others and respecting their views. I guess I don’t know what else to do.
However church members or StayLDSers might want to interpret the remark, I just can’t come to any other conclusion than this, Benson meant EXACTLY what he said.
canadiangirl wrote:… And here is the honest question; didn’t he just mean exactly what he said.
Yeah, it almost seems to me like we are trying to come up with things to explain it away. We’re trying to make what we believe and WANT the doctrine to be and say, rather than what Benson actually meant it to mean. What did Benson say immediately after the first fundamental? Here it is again. This, IMO, is EXACTLY what the first principle meant to Benson.
Quote:Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words” — as if from the Lords’ own mouth.
I vote FALSE DOCTRINE – DANGEROUS DOCTRINE for fundamental 1.
Quote:I think they meant it the way they said it, and sincerely believe it will be an inspiring message for their listeners, and that there is safety in obedience. For most of them, I think it makes perfect sense to them, and goes along with their experiences in their life. You know…pray, read the scriptures, go to church…these are the answers they believe in completely that provide them comfort. They are not dumb, or ignorant, or completely mindless…it is their belief and testimony and it helps them in their lives.
I think this is absolutely TRUE. However, that doesn’t make Fundamental #1 true. It will help me to stomach it and bite my tongue when talking to members though. Still doesn’t make it “true” to me though.
Heber13 wrote:Cadence wrote:It is sort of mute because I can not recall when the last time a prophet actually spoke for God.
That’s a really good point…I’m not sure it really happens all that often, huh?
What about when the first presidency came out with a proclamation to the world on the family. Would you consider that speaking for the Lord?
No I do not look at it as revelation but more a statement of the way they want the world to be. Of course my concept of speaking for God or revelation is much more that the average member. Trust me I think it would be really cool if the prophet came out and said the Lord spoke to me and wants us to do … Maybe I could get excited thinking maybe there was something new on the horizon to.
Quote:The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
What this statement doesn’t say is “the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord”. That would be a problem. He is just the only one who speak about everything. When you simplify a message so that you can get something said in one sentence its going to get messed up.Still this bugs me a little but I see it as completely necessary. Here is why. (and this is not going to be a PC reason, your welcome to disagree)
Some people are dumb. Others don’t want to think. So speak at a level the dumbest person in the room will understand.Most people on this forum are at the opposite end of the spectrum and instead will think about everything and come to their own conclusions. While the non-thinker will take things at face value and follow blindly. (really, I’m not trying to be insulting, honest. This way of living just works for some people and they can be happy doing it. There is nothing wrong with living this way.) So the safest way to say things is always in the form of an absolute. People are not good at “all things in moderation”. For example what would happen if the church says that its ok to drink alcohol every once in a while? Alcoholics would start popping up and people would argue about how much is too much.
What would happen if they changed is to say, “The prophet sometimes speaks for god but he is only human so he is going to make mistakes”? Every time he said something the ones that didn’t like it would say he was mistaken. People would take side and the members would be divide on every issue. People would publicly debate every decision. With the current situation is seems to me most people are going to keep their opinions to themselves. This is what makes the church such a relaxing place to be. This is why I keep my mouth shut in public. This is why I go.
pickles wrote:Still this bugs me a little but I see it as completely necessary. …
Some people are dumb. Others don’t want to think. So speak at a level the dumbest person in the room will understand.… While the non-thinker will take things at face value and follow blindly. (really, I’m not trying to be insulting, honest. This way of living just works for some people and they can be happy doing it. There is nothing wrong with living this way.) So the safest way to say things is always in the form of an absolute. People are not good at “all things in moderation”. …
Very good. Yes, very well said indeed.
When I hear that, and try to hear it in a way that I can find common ground, I think: The prophet speaks for the direction of the church. The leader announces the direction for the group. People decide then if they are going to follow that or not. This is basic group dynamics. If the leader pushes too far out in front, or stalls too far behind the group, they will suffer from very little buy-in, and their proposal will fail. I don’t think anyone else has this responsibility. So sure. I can buy that. I don’t have a problem with the idea THAT WAY. The current President of the Church speaks for “the Lord” in everything (related to his stewardship to try and lead the organization). I would like for them to be successful as a leader. I will help whenever I can, and even flex and bend to support them when I don’t think it is the best plan. But if I feel it is wrong, and receive personal revelation that it is not for me. That’s my answer.
pickles wrote:…When you simplify a message so that you can get something said in one sentence its going to get messed up…Still this bugs me a little but
I see it as completely necessary.Here is why. (and this is not going to be a PC reason, your welcome to disagree) Some people are dumb. Others don’t want to think. So speak at a level the dumbest person in the room will understand.Most people on this forum are at the opposite end of the spectrum and instead will think about everything and come to their own conclusions. While the non-thinker will take things at face value and follow blindly. (really, I’m not trying to be insulting, honest. This way of living just works for some people and they can be happy doing it. There is nothing wrong with living this way…
I agree if you mean that it is sometimes necessary to simplify things so that most people will understand better. However, I don’t believe that’s what Benson was trying to do here, not based on this one statement alone but the arrogant self-righteous tone of the entire talk in context. Trying to dumb down a widely applicable message for a large and diverse audience is one thing but delivering a message that already sounds dumb to way too many people on average no matter how you try to say it is something else entirely.
The problem is that they are directly contradicting themselves by re-emphasizing this ridiculous talk in conference and now in lessons and sacrament meetings. Even as a young TBM before my mission I understood that prophets definitely have their own opinions and that not everything they say should be regarded as “inspired” scripture because we hear conflicting messages from them all the time. Even my wife understands the idea that Church leaders are only human with very little interest and exposure to the real details of Church doctrine and history. I know quite a few active members that probably don’t really believe most of the points in this talk if they were really paying close attention to it.
That’s why I just don’t believe that trying to revive this controversial talk will be good for the majority of active members because it fosters an environment where people are almost required to be ignorant and/or apathetic when the trend for the general population is toward becoming more informed with the popularity of the internet, the History Channel, bookstores like Barnes & Noble, etc. I could see this kind of extreme dogmatic approach making more sense if they were mostly just trying to cater to a limited number of people that feel the same way rather than putting so much emphasis on expecting family members to follow these traditions their entire lives from one generation to the next.
Cadence wrote:Heber13 wrote:Cadence wrote:It is sort of mute because I can not recall when the last time a prophet actually spoke for God.
That’s a really good point…I’m not sure it really happens all that often, huh?
Trust me I think it would be really cool if the prophet came out and said the Lord spoke to me and wants us to do … Maybe I could get excited thinking maybe there was something new on the horizon to.
I would also like that Cadence…
Over the years, especially post mission, I have pondered this question many times. You see, I was taught from primary on up that the prophets, seers and revelators talk, or communicate directly with God (one of the reasons I don’t need to question what they say). In retrospect I find there is an abundance of confusion and mistakes made at the top levels of this church that should not have occurred imo if direct communication with God were taking place.
f4h1
I think our scriptures make it crystal clear that God rarely speaks to people, including prophets, directly – “face-to-face, as a man talketh to another man” – at least in words that make it clear that the discussion wasn’t in some kind of vision. Even in the case of Moses, there is nothing that mandates it was a visitation rather than a vision. Also, it’s called the First Vision, not the First Visitation. Popular interpretations notwithstanding, it might not have been more than what we officially call it.
Old-Timer wrote:I think our scriptures make it crystal clear that God rarely speaks to people, including prophets, directly – “face-to-face, as a man talketh to another man” – at least in words that make it clear that the discussion wasn’t in some kind of vision. Even in the case of Moses,
there is nothing that mandates it was a visitation rather than a vision.Also, it’s called the
First Vision, not the First Visitation.Popular interpretations notwithstanding, it might not have been more than what we officially call it. This is true, but the church leadership ISN’T doing anything to clarify it or teach the people that they are “over-interpreting” the prophet’s mantel. Why? They know the church is teaching and believing that God is in direct communication with the leaders, and that JS had a VISIT. I heard this two weeks ago in F&T meeting — the guy said straight up that “he knew that Pres. Monson and the 12 Apostles speak ‘directly’ with god’.
Once again, it’s
cultural commandments and cultural doctrinethat I have issue with — and really as long as the leadership in SLC allow it, there really is nothing we can do about it, because this kind of argument will just get the majority of the membership riled up and the one making the claims will be deems as lacking in faith and not supporting the leadership. I have not heard anything here to change my mind on the F1. I still say it is FALSE TEACHING and DANGEROUS. I will concede however, that I did hear some things that will help me stomach it and bite my lip, as not to hurt others faith.
I’m ready for F2.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 1’ is closed to new replies.