- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I forgot to keep going with these. Sorry. Quote:Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
As worded, this one seems like a no-brainer to me. The issue is the difference between “can” and “does” – with a big caveat for me that includes “if / when necessary”. I think there are LOTS of matters where there is not a need for a revelation given through the President of the Church or one of the apostles. Iow, I think that even though there is a theoretical ability to receive revelation about anything, there is not a practical need to receive revelation about everything – and that distinction is important to me.
I also think it would be better if it said “a prophet” and not “the prophet”. With that wording change, I think there might be a need for revelation about every matter – at least for someone, somewhere with each unique matter.
I like. A prophet, not the prophet. Can a prophet receive a revelation about sub-atomic physics from God through Stephen Hawking?
I don’t have an issue with this one — only that the overarching principle of the 14 Fundamentals are meant to give the prophet ultimate flexibility to do anything he wants at any time for any reason, perhaps as a response to naysayers?. I’ve said that before so I won’t expand on it. Tom Haws wrote:I like. A prophet, not the prophet.
Can a prophet receive a revelation about sub-atomic physics from God through Stephen Hawking?
Theoretically (no pun intended)… Although I think since the days of BY, most of them have (sensibly) kept quiet about it.
I don’t have a big problem with this particular fundamental actually.
SilentDawning wrote:the overarching principle of the 14 Fundamentals are meant to give the prophet ultimate flexibility to do
anything he wantsat any timefor any reason, perhaps as a response to naysayers? It’s a good thing he is a Prophet or he would sound a lot like a dictator!
f4h1
Hindsight is 20/20 see church history, the untold story.
Don’t forget the commentary: Quote:Said Brigham Young: Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs…In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, “Ye Elders of Israel…will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?” Not one of them could do it…
I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.In hindsight, maybe some of these members in Kirtland had good reasons to want to separate temporal and spiritual advice from the prophet considering what happened with the Kirtland Bank debacle. In theory this point sounds plausible but in practice this general idea has often led to less than ideal results when members just assumed that the prophet always knows best. For example, Ezra Taft Benson and other Church leaders have emphasized the idea that women should be stay-at-home moms and not wait to have children for the sake of other goals like pursuing education and careers and many of them later regretted taking a leap of faith based on this advice. That’s why I think it would generally be a better idea to do what makes the most sense for you and your family independent of what the prophets have said because you are the one that will ultimately have to live with the consequences of these decisions.
I thought we believed that EVERYONE could receive spiritual and temporal knowledge simply through prayer. Second-guessing the prophet is a fool’s errand. If things turn out to be a disaster (Kirtland Safety Society, as DA mentioned, Zion’s Camp, Willie/Martin handcart companies, etc) then it was inspired revelation because some valuable lessons were learned. If it turns out great, then it was obviouslyrevelation, so no need to discuss it. So, yes, the prophet can receive revelation on whatever.
(Sarcasm warning, in case it isn’t obvious.)
That is a vague statement. Might as well in insert Jim Bob instead of prophet. Are we all not suppose to be able to receive revelation In and by itself, this doesn’t sound to bad, and I could live with it. And, yes, I like all the suggestions of how it should have been stated. I believe I can recieve revelation on both spiritual and temporal matters. I just wish the church would “accept” my revaluation as is, rather than telling me that it has to match up with the LDS church priesthood leadership’s revelation, or it must be coming from the wrong source. This is how I see it…
SilentDawning wrote:I don’t have an issue with this one — only that the overarching principle of the 14 Fundamentals are meant to give the prophet ultimate flexibility to do anything he wants at any time for any reason, perhaps as a response to naysayers?. I’ve said that before so I won’t expand on it.
All of these 14 Fs stem from the post polygamy days of the early 1900s. I understand why they went down this path, with John Taylor Jr. and such claiming revelation and authority, and claiming that the LDS church had gone apostate because they gave up “celestial marriage.” But man oh man, have we taken it so far down the wrong pathway. It stinks.
If you want to understand the genesis of the 14 Fs, listen to Daymon Smiths’ Podcast,
The Book of Mammon.Fantastic information about how correlation, and how the church was forced to change to the 14 Fs mentality, which took us from the MAN-GOD-CHURCH theology, to the present situation that most of us hate, and that stinks so much where it now goes, MAN-CHURCH-GOD. cwald wrote:the church was forced to change to the 14 Fs mentality, which took us from the MAN-GOD-CHURCH theology, to the present situation that most of us hate, and that stinks so much where it now goes, MAN-CHURCH-GOD.
I still think Elder Oaks tried to present a different model than that.
More like…
Quote:G O D
/ over
Man — Church
The prophet receives revelation for the church, in spiritual or temporal matters (sometimes but sometimes not, as per God’s will).
Heber13 receives revelation for Heber13 in spiritual and temporal matters (sometimes but sometimes not, as per God’s will).
There should be a check and balance of the revelations (personal not conflicting with the church and scripture), but the church still teaches we are to receive revelations ourselves without going through the church for answers, right?
Heber13 wrote:cwald wrote:the church was forced to change to the 14 Fs mentality, which took us from the MAN-GOD-CHURCH theology, to the present situation that most of us hate, and that stinks so much where it now goes, MAN-CHURCH-GOD.
I still think Elder Oaks tried to present a different model than that.
More like…
Quote:G O D
/ over
Man — Church
The prophet receives revelation for the church, in spiritual or temporal matters (sometimes but sometimes not, as per God’s will).
Heber13 receives revelation for Heber13 in spiritual and temporal matters (sometimes but sometimes not, as per God’s will).
There should be a check and balance of the revelations (personal not conflicting with the church and scripture), but the church still teaches we are to receive revelations ourselves without going through the church for answers, right? No. They do not. Do you think I have the right to go to god and ask him if abortion is okay? No way in hell will the church accept my personal revelation on something like that UNLESS it matches the priesthood leaders revelation.
And I think the 14 Fs and Oaks are VERY clear on how we are to approach our salvation. GOD, CHURCH, MAN. They (the prophets) tell us everything we need to know, as far as our salvation is concerned. WE MUST GO THROUGH THEM, via priesthood ordinances/temples. Period. There can be no debate that this is what our culture is teaching. Is it what the church really believes or the way it was set up? I doubt it, but lets call a spade a spade. I don’t see how there can even be wiggle room about what the Oaks Two lines of communication and the 14 Fs are all about. Call a spade a spade.
Sure, they tell us that we can get our own revelation, just as long as is doesn’t differ from theirs. Well, what is the point? Why bother? They won’t trust us with anything of consequence. What, pray about what kind of cereal to eat in the morning? I get revelation that the 14 Fs are false. I get personal revelation that wearing white shirts to church does more harm than good. I get revelation that the BoM is NOT a historical accurate. I get revelation that being gay is genetic. I get revelation that the WofW is a man made commandment and complete joke of a commandment, and has done FAR more harm to people and kept them from enjoying the LDS gospel, than it’s ever helped. “Well, the hell with you cwald,” because, your personal revelation doesn’t fit what the GA and apostles are saying, so you are NOT getting your revelation from god, but from other sources.”
Really, what is the point then? Church leaders want us to get our own revelation, unless it’s really important, and then we need to NOT pray for revelation because they already have the answers.
I would love to see an apostle next week get up and say — “you all have access to personal revelation. Why don’t you all go to the Lord and find the answers whether we should allows gay marriage within the church. Come back and let us know, and we will listen your answers and decide how to proceed.”
Let’s just take this abortion example. Not only does the church NOT trust the individaul with personal revelation, but the CHI clearly states that abortion is only to be considered in cases of incest or rape, and even then, the person should consult his/her priesthood leader. Why? Don’t we believe in personal revelation? Why do we have to go through priesthood to speak to god and get the answer? Well, it’s easy – because the church claims that authority and responsibility over it’s members, and they believe they have all the answers to the important questions pertaining to our salvation —- and that if our own individual answers are different than the priesthood leaderships’, than we are getting our communication from a different source than god..(Oaks words, not mine)
I view it more in terms of jurisdiction. I get revelation for me. The priesthood line gets it for their stewardship. Guidelines in the handbook are guidelines, not to replace personal revelation.
Priesthood revelation says WoW is a commandment, personal revelation tells me how to apply it.
If a woman feels abortion is the right thing, and there is no medical reason or incest or rape, then there is no justification for it to go against church revelation on the subject.
If there is incest or rape, the priesthood leader will counsel, but would never take away that family’s right to personal revelation on the matter.
A church allowing personal revelation to rule the body of the church is a house of chaos.
Prophet gets revelation for the church, not specific circumstances.
I get revelation for specific circumstance, not the church. Aligning them can be tricky, but not impossible or necessarily conflicting.
(Something tells me I kicked a hornets nest with this one????)
Actually, the Church’s stance on abortion, when it comes right down to it, is that the ultimate choice is up to the individual(s) involved – although, obviously, the default is to encourage birth over abortion as the general rule. Acceptable exceptions are listed, but, even so, in the end, it really is an individual choice – even though there is STRONG discouragement. Going on a mission is a personal choice – even though there is STRONG encouragement to serve.
Accepting a calling is a personal choice – even though there is STRONG encouragement to accept it.
Wearing a whit shirt is a personal choice – even though there is STRONG encouragement from many local leaders.
Paying tithing is a personal choice – even though there is STRONG encouragement, including the “incentive” of temple attendance.
Following the Word of Wisdom is a personal choice – even though there is STRONG encouragement plus incentive.
NONE of the things I just listed will get a member excommunicated (unless someone has a Nazi Bishop / Stake President who acts totally out of form) – or even disfellowshipped, in and of itself.
There really are very few things, relatively speaking, that are not left up to personal choice – when it comes right down to it.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 9’ is closed to new replies.