- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.”
By itself, this one seems to me like a simple given – when parsed strictly on its own. After all, it applies to pretty much everyone who has lived, since it says nothing about whether what is spoken is correct to any degree.
There are a couple of issues with this idea, imo, but I’ll hold off on commenting until others have a chance to address it.
I personally have no issues with F5. The only problem as I see it, is if a prophet continually preaches the world is flat, and expects everyone to believe him because he “is the prophet”, even though everyone one with half a brain knows the world is NOT flat. There is a place for science and education in the church, and with the exception of BKP, I think our “prophets” today have done pretty good job keeping up with the science and technology, and of keeping their egos and their “prophecies” in check in that regard.
I think it’s implied that the prophet can speak with a certain amount of “correctness” given other principles in the 14 fundamentals. We can parse and take the literal meaning of words, but the overtone of the whole talk is that the prophet has a certain amount of correctness that involves following, and obedience. Again, I’m seeing this whole set of 14 Fundamentals as a consolidation of authority, meant to curtail naysayers and deal with excuses and objections in advance.
I keep thinking of my catch-phrase which I use in my family “Daddy can ask anyone to clean anything at any time for any reason”. I know I said this before, but these 14 fundamentals remind me of why I coined that statement. It was because I was tired of people arguing with me and disobeying with me on matters that were vital to me — the cleanliness of my house.
I can’t help but feel ETB might’ve had the same motivations….for good or bad.
Once again, Benson’s commentary and examples in this talk are even worse than the basic point he is trying to make: Quote:Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects….We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but
remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.How likely is it that the notion of Kolob versus the “earthly knowledge” of astronomers will ever be “vindicated?” How well is the idea that the Garden of Eden was a literal place in Missouri holding up over time? What about all the crazy things Brigham Young said that haven’t exactly stood the test of time very well? The problem is that this assumption basically gives prophets free license to ignore all common sense and empirical evidence and pull all kinds of crazy answers out of thin air based on their own prejudices and limited perspective.
Rather than any useful insight this assumption is just as likely to lead to absurdities like Joseph Fielding Smith’s prophecy that men would never go to the moon or Spencer W. Kimball’s claim that M-word makes people become gay. I don’t care if they were just future prophets in training at the time it still hurts the Church’s credibility for top leaders to act like they supposedly know more than the entire world in such a dogmatic way without really paying much attention to what the recognized “experts” in any field have to say.
This is actually one principle that I appreciated as a TBM, and can still appreciate in many respects. Looking at the Biblical pattern of who God chose to use and work with to accomplish His plan, “the learned” was rarely found among them so far as I can tell. Sometimes, it amazes me that we have such a rich and diverse theology when most of our leaders were trained “in the mission field” rather than purely academically. However, I also know that we are fond of using this principle to support the prophetic authenticity of Joseph Smith – he was just a stupid kid who could barely read and write, so he MUST have been guided by revelation becuase that bumbling fool couldn’t even tie a knot on his own. Hogwash! I think the evidence has shown clearly that, while Joseph Smith may not have had much formal education, he was far from ignorant in matters of religion.
In comparison, our current leaders seem quite well-educated and accomplished – most of them through church educational institutions. Nevertheless, they do not seem to speak “prophetically” in terms of proclaiming revelation on behalf of God. It has been a very long time since an acting president of the church has declared “Thus saith the Lord…”
If today we had an under-educated and broke man with a shady past standing as the President of the Church making bold proclamations in the name of God, how would the church react? Would Fundamental 5 still resonate, or would it cause division?
Sure he can speak on any subject at any time. That does not necessarily make him correct. The point is to what degree are people going to believe him. I just want to observe that NOM is a great community. But when we say TBM, BKP, and TSM, we are slowly erasing the difference between this community and NOM, imho. More practically speaking, we risk being less of a safe and welcoming place for our dear sisters and brothers who are staring for the first time into the dazzling uncertainty of a faith shift. Tom Haws wrote:I just want to observe that NOM is a great community. But when we say TBM, BKP, and TSM, we are slowly erasing the difference between this community and NOM, imho. More practically speaking, we risk being less of a safe and welcoming place for our dear sisters and brothers who are staring for the first time into the dazzling uncertainty of a faith shift.
EDIT
:wtf: :wtf: I don’t make the rules here – but I really don’t think we need any more egg shells on this site. Do we? Many here are already walking on egg shells as it is. If one has to be worried about offending folks when using acronyms initials than what’s the point.In theory I don’t have any problem with this one. But I am a scientist, and in my field, even the claims of the most trusted authority have to be tested. I have always thought (even before my crisis of faith) that the statements of the prophets should fit with both objective fact and with the “witness of the spirit”. I guess it’s that sort of radical thinking that got me here, though. 
I agree with all the comments, DA and Spock – and I also like your analogy SD. I agree, the 14Fs put together are terribly egregious SD. I think the message is false. HOWEVER – if one takes just the blank statement of F5 – I think it is okay. I’m trying real hard to find something positive boys. Really. Especially after Tom’s comment that kind of irked me to be honest, but I’m trying. To state that a prophet does not need to be wearing a white shirt and hold a doctorate degree is okay with me, and rings “true.” In fact, I kind of wish we had more farmers and blue collar workers in the Q12 to be honest. Ray posted a list of all the apostles and their college and education some time back, and I was surprised at just how many of them are “white collar” professionals and attended law schools like Harvard and Yale. Tom Haws wrote:I just want to observe that NOM is a great community. But when we say TBM, BKP, and TSM, we are slowly erasing the difference between this community and NOM, imho. More practically speaking, we risk being less of a safe and welcoming place for our dear sisters and brothers who are staring for the first time into the dazzling uncertainty of a faith shift.
I don’t think people here are really trying to ridicule or disrespect anyone by the TBM term as much as simply quickly identify the most common type of active members that believe in most of the major doctrines like the Book of Mormon, restoration, priesthood, etc. when some of us don’t. Anyone overly sensitive about something like that will probably be scared off or offended by a lot of what we talk about here anyway even if we never use the TBM term. I agree that we shouldn’t be intolerant toward TBMs but I don’t see why this distinction would automatically be offensive by itself because they already have many other members around that will openly agree with them and we are the ones that are the outcasts.
Tom Haws wrote:I just want to observe that NOM is a great community. But when we say TBM, BKP, and TSM, we are slowly erasing the difference between this community and NOM, imho. More practically speaking, we risk being less of a safe and welcoming place for our dear sisters and brothers who are staring for the first time into the dazzling uncertainty of a faith shift.
I understand the point you are making. I think I’ll try to start using the word “orthodox” to describe TBM. It’s more clear. After all, I’ve never actually met a Mormon who is truly blue. Smurfs, perhaps, but not Mormons.
Cadence wrote:Sure he can speak on any subject at any time. That does not necessarily make him correct. The point is to what degree are people going to believe him.
The further point is to what degree to people feel obligated to believe him?? Shouldn’t the words stand on their own merit rather than the office from which it came from? The spirit should confirm it to me…so the prophet can speak on anything, but I am not obligated to accept it against the dictates of my conscience.I also do not support these types of statements to suggest science or formal education is not valued or important.
To be learned is good…just like GHinckley emphasized over and over.
Science, philosophy, and reasoning skills have their place in the kingdom of God. I agree the prophet doesn’t need to earn his way to the position through man made institutions, but I sure will teach my kids they better get as much of that as they can!!
Just something to consider about the talk, in general: Pres. Benson gave this address at BYU while he was Pres. of the Q12 – NOT when he was the President of the Church. Elder Costa is a 70 who many consider to be the “ranking” Hispanic leader in the global hierarchy. Pres. Benson didn’t reference his talk once he became “The Prophet” – as far as I know; in fact, his rhetoric dropped dramatically once that occurred. As an apostle, he was a leading conservative; as the President, most of what he said was moderately conservative, at worst.
Maybe part of this is the subconscious desire of the people who wrote and referenced it to show respect for a position and a person they respect highly – as “damage control” and/or “protection” like SD said in his comments on the other thread. My mother was a secretary for David O. McKay for a while before she married my father, and some of the hate mail she screened . . . I can understand a protective mentality developing in someone who sees and hears about constant “attacks” on someone they admire and love deeply. Maybe the 14 Fundamentals was more “reactionary” than “instructive” – especially with regard to Pres. Benson (who was part of lifting the Priesthood ban) and Elder Costa (given the controversy around Prop
. With regard to this post, in particular, much of the criticism directed at the President at the time the talk was given was that they were out-of-touch old guys who never attended Divinity School and weren’t classically educated in many of the subjects about which they were speaking – like race relations, evolution, etc. That is a valid concern, but if it is used to dismiss everything they say about “anything” about which they don’t have special training . . . that seems like a denial of inspiration / revelation that could be extended to you and me and anyone else who lacks such specialized training.
Iow, I am very glad that our current apostles and Prophets don’t speculate to the extent that former ones did, but I’m not ready to write off this particular “fundamental” at the most basic level.
epiginosko wrote:Tom Haws wrote:I think I’ll try to start using the word “orthodox” to describe TBM. It’s more clear. After all, I’ve never actually met a Mormon who is truly blue. Smurfs, perhaps, but not Mormons.
Now that’s blue.
😆 I always used to think of myself as a “True Believing Mormon”.Hey, cwald, feel free to give an “inspired translation” (The Cwald Translation) of my little thought. I’m sure that you can express it better than I did. What do I know anyway?
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 5’ is closed to new replies.