The Church needs a prophet. (?)

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

I can’t really add much more to the definitions so far, good responses.

LaLaLove, it sounds like you are not yet comfortable letting go of your notions and expectations of “the prophet.” You seem to know that something is wrong with the way you are thinking because it doesn’t make sense to you. But it also seems like you are not letting go of those things that trouble you. It seems like you are really close to that essential breakthrough.

I can’t tell you the right answer, but I think you are getting close. There are ways to reconcile this. My personal way is to have much lower personal expectations of what a “prophet” is and does. I think they are just regular people with divine messages. I don’t see it as very precise though, and not about talking to God “face to face.” I observe that these “prophets” throughout history sort of get a fuzzy message, and the edges aren’t quite clear. The message I hear from a prophet might be different from the person sitting next to me.

Another thing that helps me, is that my personal revelation trumps all others (for myself). I am ok with that, even if it requires a great deal of personal responsibility on my part. I could really screw up and get it wrong. I’m ok with that too. On some level, I don’t really care what someone with the title “prophet” says unless through them, I hear a message for me from God. I don’t always hear that. *shrug* but then again, I am one of 6 billion people on the planet. A prophet might not have a message for me every time.

You are correct in that I probably am not comfortable with “Prophet” expectations. I feel like I did not set the expectations though – I feel as if the leaders themsleves and the testimonies I’ve heard the past few years have built them. – BUT .. In the end I guess it is my fault for leaning on others testimonies while I waited to get my own. I really want to blame those expectations of prophets on the Church but I don’t know if that is right.

I like how you look at it. I am also ok with having responsibility … In fact I prefer it.

[Anonymous]

just me wrote:

Wilford Woodruff is the one who said “a prophet will never be allowed to lead you astray.” He said it when introducing the Manifesto to the church that ended the practice of polygamy.

We have no scriptures that promise us we won’t be led astray by a prophet.

The quote is used constantly in the Church. I probably hear it at least three times a month in different meetings! Random and kind of strange that we take little quotes like that so literally – That quote is basically doctrine – and if it really isn’t .. that is what it is made out to sound like. ( And to think all this time I thought it was doctrine .. silly me ) If anything that type of thinking is of the devil IMO , blind obedience is just so wrong, on so many levels. – We have scriptural warning about this kind of stuff 😯 Eeek.

But honestly is that JUST an opinion .. I honestly have no idea. Is it JUST a quote. – Can you see why I’m confused yet?

[Anonymous]

Wilford Woodruf made that statement. It was honestly, probably the right thing to say in that moment. WW was making a public announcement and signing a document that ended the practice of polygamy. This doctrine had been taught, by leaders of the Church back then for decades, as absolutely required for exaltation. I think WW needed to say something very reassuring as he tore apart something so deeply rooted in his people’s faith. It turned Mormonism on it’s head, causing additional splinter break-off groups who would not accept the change.

That is the specific context for that strong statement. So one explanation is that it was a context-specific “revelation” or doctrinal statement. It didn’t mean that a prophet NEVER makes a mistake. In fact, we know from our own history that some doctrines taught by former leaders (Brigham Young is classic for this) are later deemed incorrect. Another aspect is that these mistakes are not going to stop anyone from Salvation and Exaltation. So even if someone put their faith in something like Adam-God Theory, and was wrong, it would not lead them astray from Salvation. So the statement stands.

Someone once had a solution that I thought was interesting. WW and some other leaders have claimed a prophet will never lead you astray. Well that is true if you are living close to the Spirit and have your own personal revelation to depend on. We are all prophets. If we are lead astray, it is because we lead ourselves astray by listening and depending upon “the arm of flesh” or in other words another person, even if we call that person a Prophet. We are our prophet. It’s a little far out, but get across an interesting point — personal responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Valoel wrote:

It didn’t mean that a prophet NEVER makes a mistake.

Excellent point, Valoel. I think this is a very difficult thing for people to grasp, and has been since the church was restored. Believing in living prophets is more difficult than dead ones, because they are fallible, you usually just don’t hear or read about the mistakes the dead prophets make (Old Testament and since).

But to me, it is still reassuring that only Christ was and is perfect. Therefore, my faith needs to be on Christ, not on anyone else, including the prophet. I can have a testimony the prophet is a true prophet, without him being a perfect prophet.

You said it best, that makes it harder, and requires more personal responsibility, as you said.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But to me, it is still reassuring that only Christ was and is perfect. Therefore, my faith needs to be on Christ, not on anyone else, including the prophet. I can have a testimony the prophet is a true prophet, without him being a perfect prophet.

BINGO! Well said.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I’m gonna give it a shot now, although there isn’t a lot left to add.

@LaLaLove

I mean no offense when I say this, but here goes. It sounds to me like you haven’t really had a full deconstruction yet. You are still hanging on to various definitions, doctrines, practices etc. As long as you do this you will need to invent various arguments, and explanations to resolve the dissonance in your mind. Once I finally had full deconstruction, things got SO SO much easier for me. What everyone on the forum is saying, is that you would be well served to redefine what a prophet is, rather than trying to interpret it in the Mormon box (which becomes difficult given the plethora of contradictory quotes, as evidenced in this thread). (I hope I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth)

The fact is, I just don’t worry much about this anymore. Is President Monson a prophet? Sure. Am I a prophet? Sure. Are you a prophet? Absolutely. The question is, how does one get here.

Let me divert a bit away from this specific discussion. I believe that many people in this world would benefit greatly by reading two key books. The Demon Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, and The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. In The Demon Haunted World we learn the nonsense that is purported in religion, UFO abductions, witch hunts, visions, etc. Carl Sagan does a nice job of debunking the idea that these things happened in reality. That is to say, that something external actually happened. When Joseph had a vision of Moroni, I don’t believe Moroni was really there. I believe it was in Joseph’s head. That doesn’t make the experience less real, but it means that we ought to be very suspicious of people who claim that their memories, visions, or dreams, were external realities and therefore have significance for the rest of humanity. Science has shown us that these are almost universally untrue.

This doesn’t mean that the visions aren’t important, but it does change their efficacy on the entire human race. Valoel, you said it best,

Valoel wrote:

…my personal revelation trumps all others (for myself). I am ok with that, even if it requires a great deal of personal responsibility on my part.

Personally, I think if everyone had this opinion we’d have a lot fewer Jim Jones, suicide bombers, polygamy, Sun Myung Moons, and yes, even Mormonism etc. etc. etc. And my guess is that we’d all be healthier, happier, live longer, and have a lot less conflict in the world (although maybe we’d just find something else to replace it, I dunno).

The point is, your visions, revelations, and ideas should trump everyone else’s. No one can tell you what’s best for you, although you would be foolish to ignore everyone’s counsel. Herein comes the great art of learning to make correct decisions amongst the myriad of “counsel” available. At the end of the day, you are your best guide.

So, for me personally, I would have no problem stating that President Monson is God’s prophet, holds all the keys, etc. The church, I believe, is a man-made organization, which uses the idea of a patriarchal priesthood (not unlike a myriad of other churches) to establish its governing body. Hence, in the Mormon theology, President Monson is all he is claimed to be. It’s just that, I don’t believe he is that for every single individual, or even for all Mormons (who have outgrown the Mormon box).

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

When Joseph had a vision of Moroni, I don’t believe Moroni was really there. I believe it was in Joseph’s head. That doesn’t make the experience less real, but it means that we ought to be very suspicious of people who claim that their memories, visions, or dreams, were external realities and therefore have significance for the rest of humanity. Science has shown us that these are almost universally untrue.

Very interesting to think about…I need to spend more time researching this idea, which has been a hang up of mine recently on whether my prayers are for my mind to focus and meditate for my own benefit, or if there is an external force inspiring my mind. On the one hand, “it was all in Joseph’s head” makes sense when you consider he lived in this tiny house and shared a room with siblings, but he was the only one to see Moroni. On the other hand, it is difficult how visions shared by people, like Oliver and Joseph and the restoration of the priesthood or the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon could ALL be seeing the same thing inside their heads. Can science ever prove any of that?

jmb275 wrote:

Personally, I think if everyone had this opinion we’d have a lot fewer Jim Jones, suicide bombers, polygamy, Sun Myung Moons, and yes, even Mormonism etc. etc. etc. And my guess is that we’d all be healthier, happier, live longer, and have a lot less conflict in the world (although maybe we’d just find something else to replace it, I dunno).

For personal revelation, yes I agree. Do you believe there is institutional revelation, that is, Doctrine and Covenant revelations where many others who were receiving revelations were needed to be controlled for the church’s governance sake to have the prophet be the only spokesman for the church?

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Okay, I’m gonna give it a shot now, although there isn’t a lot left to add.

@LaLaLove

I mean no offense when I say this, but here goes. It sounds to me like you haven’t really had a full deconstruction yet. You are still hanging on to various definitions, doctrines, practices etc. As long as you do this you will need to invent various arguments, and explanations to resolve the dissonance in your mind. Once I finally had full deconstruction, things got SO SO much easier for me. What everyone on the forum is saying, is that you would be well served to redefine what a prophet is, rather than trying to interpret it in the Mormon box (which becomes difficult given the plethora of contradictory quotes, as evidenced in this thread). (I hope I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth)

I’m definately trying to hold on to a little bit of all of those things! I feel like I have to or all will be lost .. B/C honestly I don’t think I have the will, love or energy to redefine every single principle. Do I love Jesus Christ – Yes. Do I love the “Gospel”- Yes. Do I love my DH- Absolutely! Do I love the organization as it is run today – NO WAY. History I can deal with .. Men are Men .. I’ve made horrible mistakes .. And have ( thankfully ) a new forgiving heart – For the most part. Manipulating .. and slightly decieving people .. asking for blind obedience in some cases ..I guess I can forgive that too but if it depresses me and indoctrinates my child to the point of being somewhat unhealthy in ways – it is not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Hang in there, LaLa.

I think you’ve expressed the value of this forum and why this group is still posting messages to each other. There is still so much of value to hold on to that we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I, too, am just trying to find a way to hold on to the plain and precious parts this church has to offer, and let go of the rest, as jmb suggests. I haven’t figured it out yet, but something tells me I can do it if I can focus on the right things.

“Obstacles are what you see when you take your mind off the goal”

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Very interesting to think about…I need to spend more time researching this idea, which has been a hang up of mine recently on whether my prayers are for my mind to focus and meditate for my own benefit, or if there is an external force inspiring my mind. On the one hand, “it was all in Joseph’s head” makes sense when you consider he lived in this tiny house and shared a room with siblings, but he was the only one to see Moroni. On the other hand, it is difficult how visions shared by people, like Oliver and Joseph and the restoration of the priesthood or the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon could ALL be seeing the same thing inside their heads. Can science ever prove any of that?

Well, I won’t try to push one way or another. I do know this, psychology, group psychology, and culture are very powerful. There is testimony after testimony of multiple people being abducted at the same time by aliens, and even share the same story. Therapists will also testify as there are many who believe it. But I still don’t believe it. And upon digging deeper into the subconscious some interesting things are discovered about the power that exists in that realm. Science cannot show that Joseph didn’t see Moroni with his natural eyes. But, science can show that many people who had never before mentioned anything about alien abductions can be cued with a directive under hypnosis to relate a story about alien abduction and can henceforth weave a detailed, fully believable account, and even believe it themselves upon awakening.

I highly recommend “The Demon-Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. It will give you a good feel for what science is, and what it isn’t. He almost exclusively focuses on debunking alien abduction accounts, but the parallels to various religious visions are undeniable.

Heber13 wrote:

For personal revelation, yes I agree. Do you believe there is institutional revelation, that is, Doctrine and Covenant revelations where many others who were receiving revelations were needed to be controlled for the church’s governance sake to have the prophet be the only spokesman for the church?

Good question. Yes and no. Sure, I believe Joseph received “revelation” for the entire church’s sake. And I believe the prophet to be the only spokesman for the church. But that’s because we give it to him, not because he has some external communication means to God Himself. In this sense, it is like saying that I believe Steve Jobs gets institutional revelation for running Apple Inc.

I guess for me, a lot of this comes down to the various voices I hear from the beginning of time. Many are the same, many are slightly different. Who is right? Do I believe that by reading a few passages out of the BoM, praying, and feeling a spiritual confirmation means that the LDS church is God’s only true church? No, absolutely not. No more than I believe I could do the same thing with the Koran and believe Islam is true. I believe that the human mind has a tendency to convince itself that hallucinations, dreams, ideas, and emotions come from external sources (sleep paralysis is just one phenomenon where science has proved this is true). Certainly they are influenced by many various things, mainly cultural (according to my research), but they come from within, and are meant for us. Joseph Campbell explores this idea in more depth.

However, let me make something clear here. I am by no means certain of my position. I hope I am humble enough, and follow the true scientific method enough, that, should further evidence be presented that I am wrong, or if there is another theory that better fits the data, I hope to be open to accepting it. For me, the abounding contradictions that exist if everyone’s claims of divine inspiration are really external (from God Himself), mean one of two things. Either God doesn’t really care what we do, or rather, there are many paths to Him (and indeed many characterizations of Him), or it is all just an expression of our commonality as human beings, an innate urge we all have to transcend our physical being. Currently, I think the latter is more likely. But I could be persuaded since we won’t ever know for sure in this life.

[Anonymous]

LaLaLove wrote:

I’m definately trying to hold on to a little bit of all of those things! I feel like I have to or all will be lost .. B/C honestly I don’t think I have the will, love or energy to redefine every single principle. Do I love Jesus Christ – Yes. Do I love the “Gospel”- Yes. Do I love my DH- Absolutely! Do I love the organization as it is run today – NO WAY. History I can deal with .. Men are Men .. I’ve made horrible mistakes .. And have ( thankfully ) a new forgiving heart – For the most part. Manipulating .. and slightly decieving people .. asking for blind obedience in some cases ..I guess I can forgive that too but if it depresses me and indoctrinates my child to the point of being somewhat unhealthy in ways – it is not worth it.

Indeed, I share your sentiment. And I understand not having the will, love or energy. In all honesty, there were moments of severe depression, and even thoughts of suicide in my darkest moments. I would not wish that on anyone.

A lot of this has to do with the way we have formed our worldview and our culture. It is fairly easy to reshape that worldview when it’s still pliable, as children. As adults it’s nothing short of horrifying (as most of us here can attest to).

LaLaLove wrote:

I feel like I have to or all will be lost

This is your most telling statement. I understand it, but I promise you it is a lie. All will not be lost. The church, and our culture, and our own psyche feeds on this fear and lie (maybe not intentionally, I’m not accusing the Brethren of any conspiracy). It took me quite a while to convince myself my life wouldn’t end if I stopped hanging on.

Keep on plugging along, and we’re all here for you. I don’t want to pretend that I am much different than you. As I read your statements I identify with much of what you say.

[Anonymous]

I came across this while studying, which I thought was well said. I always like reading Neal A. Maxwell’s words:

Quote:

Only Jesus was perfect in all things, including love and meekness. Even the greatest of mortal prophets fall short of Christ’s high and perfect standards.

Thus, as members of the Church, if we can see the life of discipleship, whether for ourselves or for the prophets, as a combination of proving, reproving, and improving, we will be much better off.

Throughout scriptural history, we see recurring efforts to demean prophets in order to dismiss them—to label them in order to diminish them. Mostly, however, they are simply ignored by their contemporaries and by secular history. After all, early Christians were merely called “the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5.)

…

Some followers became disaffected, but later returned—including once-statusful men like Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Thomas B. Marsh. Yet these men voted with their feet to rejoin and reconcile with the kingdom. The true doctrines drew them back, however, and the only status sought or conferred was membership, once again, in the Lord’s church.

In all this, there is great cause for hope and even gratitude. Moroni prescribed:

“Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, … but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.” (Morm. 9:31.)

And Lorenzo Snow practiced:

“I can fellowship the President of the Church,” he said, “if he does not know everything I know … I saw the … imperfections in [Joseph Smith] … I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me … I thanked God that I saw these imperfections.”

From Elder B. H. Roberts, who loved the Prophet dearly, there were these words:

“Joseph Smith … claimed for himself no special sanctity, no faultless life, no perfection of character, no inerrancy for every word spoken by him. And as he did not claim these things for himself, so can they not be claimed for him by others. …

“Yet to Joseph Smith was given,” said Brother Roberts, “access to the mind of Deity, through the revelations of God to him.” (Comprehensive History, 2:360–61.)

In fact, brothers and sisters, the Prophet Joseph, just a few days before his martyrdom, confirmingly said,

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught?” (History of the Church, 6:366.)

…

Granted, there is not full correlation among the four Gospels about the events and participants at the empty garden tomb. (See Matt. 28:1–8; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–9; John 20:1–10.) Yet the important thing is that the tomb was empty, because Jesus had been resurrected! Essence, not tactical detail! Moreover, the faithful, then and now, understand why the resurrected Jesus did not appear to the Sanhedrin, to Caiaphas, or Pilate—but, instead, to the bands of believers at Bethany and Bountiful. –Ensign, Nov84

Interesting words to ponder.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

I guess for me, a lot of this comes down to the various voices I hear from the beginning of time. Many are the same, many are slightly different. Who is right? Do I believe that by reading a few passages out of the BoM, praying, and feeling a spiritual confirmation means that the LDS church is God’s only true church? No, absolutely not. No more than I believe I could do the same thing with the Koran and believe Islam is true. I believe that the human mind has a tendency to convince itself that hallucinations, dreams, ideas, and emotions come from external sources (sleep paralysis is just one phenomenon where science has proved this is true). Certainly they are influenced by many various things, mainly cultural (according to my research), but they come from within, and are meant for us. Joseph Campbell explores this idea in more depth.

However, let me make something clear here. I am by no means certain of my position. I hope I am humble enough, and follow the true scientific method enough, that, should further evidence be presented that I am wrong, or if there is another theory that better fits the data, I hope to be open to accepting it. For me, the abounding contradictions that exist if everyone’s claims of divine inspiration are really external (from God Himself), mean one of two things. Either God doesn’t really care what we do, or rather, there are many paths to Him (and indeed many characterizations of Him), or it is all just an expression of our commonality as human beings, an innate urge we all have to transcend our physical being. Currently, I think the latter is more likely. But I could be persuaded since we won’t ever know for sure in this life.

What is really interesting to me is when I have a powerful *subjective* spiritual experience that is externally verified. Data-wise. Where did that come from? I’m not saying ‘God’ per se, but the alternatives are really not very compelling, either. Why not “God”? Is the ‘god of the gaps’ tendency such that we will use it to miss the simplest, most probable answer? If so, then what? Why is another alternative more probable? What makes the alternative more probable? A priori thinking?

In like vein, when a *physical* yet incredibly improbable event occurs out of the blue, resulting in my not falling to my death — I have to pay attention to things like that. I concede that physically speaking it is (barely) conceivably possible for my physiology to create the ‘saving’ effect or action. Yet the circumstances are such that if it was *me* saving myself unconsciously, then that unconscious self may as well *be* God.

These things have helped me to the conclusion that regardless of how tenuous our belief in what we can only have faith in may be, sometimes there is something really *there* that correlates to something ‘real’. The real crux seems to be how we label it. I’m not biased against ‘God’, so that works for me.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

LaLaLove wrote:

I’m definately trying to hold on to a little bit of all of those things! I feel like I have to or all will be lost .. B/C honestly I don’t think I have the will, love or energy to redefine every single principle. Do I love Jesus Christ – Yes. Do I love the “Gospel”- Yes. Do I love my DH- Absolutely! Do I love the organization as it is run today – NO WAY. History I can deal with .. Men are Men .. I’ve made horrible mistakes .. And have ( thankfully ) a new forgiving heart – For the most part. Manipulating .. and slightly decieving people .. asking for blind obedience in some cases ..I guess I can forgive that too but if it depresses me and indoctrinates my child to the point of being somewhat unhealthy in ways – it is not worth it.

LLL, holding on is natural, and sometimes it really is necessary. Only you can be the judge. I would like to invite you to read my introduction on this board, I think some of my story may be of interest to you. God bless you in your journey!

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=174

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

What is really interesting to me is when I have a powerful *subjective* spiritual experience that is externally verified. Data-wise. Where did that come from? I’m not saying ‘God’ per se, but the alternatives are really not very compelling, either. Why not “God”? Is the ‘god of the gaps’ tendency such that we will use it to miss the simplest, most probable answer? If so, then what? Why is another alternative more probable? What makes the alternative more probable? A priori thinking?

Well, I will definitely not attack your spiritual experiences because I have not had them and don’t understand their intricacies. So I will attack my own. I personally, have yet to see one of my spiritual experience externally verified that didn’t involve obvious confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is one of the most powerful psychological functions in our minds. Our interpretations of various events, memories, experiences, etc. are so encumbered by our environment, past experience, emotion, etc. I don’t think we can reliably determine the alternatives. Yes, absolutely, IMHO, we will most likely miss the most probable answer. “Why is another more probable”? Well, it depends. This is a hard problem. Correlation does not equal causation. How do we determine causation? Very carefully. Through repeatable experiments, tons of data, and very skeptical reasoning. “What makes the alternative more probable”? Yes, for many people, it is a prior thinking. This is the great danger, I think. This is why independent verification of claims is so important. However, this is not what makes an alternative more probable in a scientific sense. In that sense there are usually complicated manifolds, distributions, and mathematical techniques to discover correlation, significance, and causation. Causation, at some level is always subjective, but at some point, we reach a personal (or group) threshold where we’re willing to say that “yes, these two things are so highly correlated that we agree that one causes the other.”

HiJolly wrote:

In like vein, when a *physical* yet incredibly improbable event occurs out of the blue, resulting in my not falling to my death — I have to pay attention to things like that. I concede that physically speaking it is (barely) conceivably possible for my physiology to create the ‘saving’ effect or action. Yet the circumstances are such that if it was *me* saving myself unconsciously, then that unconscious self may as well *be* God.

It certainly could be. I will not be the judge of that. But for me, I would thoroughly exhaust virtually all possible logical, physical hypotheses before I assigned them to acts of God. It has been my own personal experience when people claim it must have been God, within a few minutes of brainstorming with another person, the individual can see that there are other explanations he/she didn’t account for. This is simply a function of human psychology, confirmation bias is very powerful.

HiJolly wrote:

These things have helped me to the conclusion that regardless of how tenuous our belief in what we can only have faith in may be, sometimes there is something really *there* that correlates to something ‘real’. The real crux seems to be how we label it. I’m not biased against ‘God’, so that works for me.

My only caution, once again, is that correlation does not equal causation.

[Author]

Posts