- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
D&C 1:38 says: Quote:What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
Obviously, this CAN’T mean that prophets are infallible, especially since Joseph Smith is the most often chastised person in the Doctrine & Covenants – and since no Prophet ever has claimed the extreme interpretation too many members ascribe to this verse. The following is copied from another thread, where I wrote it as a comment.I wrote a long parsing of this verse, but the cliff notes version is that this says:
Quote:“the (collective)
VOICE(singular) of my SERVANTS(plural)”. 1) This doesn’t say the singular voice of any particular Prophet or apostle or GA; it says the collective voice of all the servants. That’s a critical distinction, and I think it’s an absolutely fair and “faithful” interpretation of the verse itself. I don’t use it to justify rebellion of any kind, but I really believe deeply in the principle. I’ve taught it in Stake Leadership meetings and not gotten any negative feedback or reprimand, fwiw.
Frankly, there are VERY, VERY few things that meet that standard, and I fully expect there to be even fewer 10-50 years from now.
2) The rest of the section prior to this verse speaks EXCLUSIVELY about prophecy – not doctrinal pronouncements. Let me repeat that: The rest of the section prior to this verse speaks EXCLUSIVELY about prophecy – not doctrinal pronouncements.
Apply the standard of total unanimity of collective voice exclusively to prophecy . . . Yeah, it doesn’t apply to NEARLY as much as most members assume when the verse is removed from context and interpreted (badly) alone.
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:
Quote:I do not think it means what you think it means.
INCONCEIVABLE!!!! (I couldn’t resist! I love that movie!) Great minds think alike. I just posted “Why can’t God speak English?” on my blog. I think there are too many people that think prophets see into a crystal ball. Here’s what I wrote in one of my comments. Here’s the whole post:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2010/06/08/why-cant-god-speak-english/ Quote:If I want someone else to understand something, it is up to me to do everything I can (or need to) to help that person understand. If God is doing less, then the question is why? If God will do nothing except He reveals His will unto His servants the prophets, then he can’t do anything unless the prophets understand. If He deliberately confuses the message, then He hasn’t revealed his will.
I believe any other interpretation is non-biblical.
I replied,
Quote:Who says God is deliberately confusing the message? Could it be that the prophet understands most of the message, and God believes that is good enough?
Sometimes there is value in struggling. As a teacher, I don’t tell my students all the answers or they will forget. If they struggle a bit, they are more likely to remember the answer. I think God works the same way.
I teach math. Some students look up the answers in the book while they do their homework. With the answer there, it’s easy to get the right answer. However, when the test comes, they are astonished that they can’t do well on the test. Struggling is an important part of learning. The student who struggles to figure out the answer before looking at the key does much better than the student who looks at the answer and works backwards.
…
God teaches us through our struggling. He often gives hints, rather than revealing everything through the crystal ball. Even when he gives a crystal ball revelation, like he did to Joseph in the Bible (your brothers will bow down), Joseph struggled for years as a slave and in prison in Egypt before the crystal ball revelation was fully revealed.
I’ve not seen this so much as a problem with what the president of the church has said or a general authority as when a stake president or bishop tells you that what he’s saying is from God’s mouth to his ear and that you, worker bee member, have a choice to make. GBSmith wrote:I’ve not seen this so much as a problem with what the president of the church has said or a general authority as when a stake president or bishop tells you that what he’s saying is from God’s mouth to his ear and that you, worker bee member, have a choice to make.
Worker Bee member!!! I laughed inside when I read that — good one GBSmith!!
I’d like to come at this from a different angle. I have been a priesthood leader many times over in my lifetime. And guess what, I didn’t always pray about things. There were times when I just used common sense, or made decisions about staffing that were based on who I felt would do the best job. So, here’s at least one exception to the rule. Nor was there any real questioning of my requests for people when I needed to staff my quorum. Sometimes you just have a blanket prayer at the beginning of the meeting and then use your best judgment.
One Bishop I knew said that he believed this “If we call someone to a position, AND they accept it, it was inspired”. The implication was that the calls are NOT always inspired.
So, one has to recognize how incredibly naive it is to think that every single, imperfect, busy and beleagured priesthood leader is going to pray about everything, and therefore become the Oracle of knowledge consistently. Way too much pressure, way too high expectations.
Also, there were situations where I made decisions as a priesthood leader, and the Bishop reversed my decision on me because he thought it was wrong. So, sometimes there isn’t even agreement among priesthood leaders about what is inspiration and what isn’t inspiration. And also, we had a situation where our bishop was stubborn about one issue, and no one could understand it. He was released, a new Bishop took over, and he immediately reversed the decision of the last Bishop. Who had the voice of the Lord? Neither in my view….
Also, what about Paul H. Dunn? His human weakness put him into a position where he wasn’t even telling the truth to the Church, and was disciplined for it.
So, I like Ray’s interpretation of that scripture above.
Do you believe the Proclamation To the World qualifies under that passage of scripture you quote? And also, can the brethren speak the voice of the Lord, without that “voice” becoming official doctrine? If so, doesn’t that make the voice of the Lord on a lower plane than our processes for accepting doctrine?
I pose that only as a question that occurred to me, as much as I like the interpretation of the scripture.
GB, I also think the bad interpretation has much more of a practical effect on more members when it is misapplied to the local level of church governance than at the top – simply because it’s easier for petty tyrants to emerge at the local level. Seriously, when you get to the FP & Q12 level, we are talking about 15 very accomplished, very thoughtful, very opinionated people – and little is done without consensus. I believe there is a natural checks-and-balances aspect at that level that isn’t as easy to create at the local level. The ideal is the same, imo (and the global leadership preaches that ideal constantly) – but it’s much harder to institute locally. SD, you asked:
Quote:1) Do you believe the Proclamation To the World qualifies under that passage of scripture you quote?
For this particular moment, I have no real problem accepting the Proclamation as the voice of God – for this particular people. That doesn’t mean I have to accept it as Ultimate, Absolute, Eternal Truth – since I believe God speaks to people “according to their own understanding”. Maybe the Proclamation is like the Word of Wisdom – in the sense that it might not be the eternal ideal, but it might be what the Church needs to follow right now to help the “weakest of the weak”. I don’t know for sure, but I do believe there are things that can be right for their time but not Eternal Truth. Maybe the Proclamation is ET; maybe it’s not. I don’t think the verse in question needs to dictate one interpretation or the other – especially since not all prophets and apostles over time have taught exactly what it teaches.
Fwiw, I really like the movement it shows in many areas – especially the explicit statement that husbands and wives are supposed to be equal partners and help each other in the accomplishment of SHARED, divine responsibilities.
Quote:2) And also, can the brethren speak the voice of the Lord, without that “voice” becoming official doctrine?
Absolutely, as I described above. I think there are MANY times in our scriptural canon when the Lord is believed to have spoken (and perhaps did speak) when what was said does not need to be seen as official doctrine.
Quote:3) If so, doesn’t that make the voice of the Lord on a lower plane than our processes for accepting doctrine?
Yes, it does. There is no question in my mind about that. It also puts the voice of the Lord to someone else on a lower plane than the voice of the Lord to me as an individual – and that principle is taught constantly by “The Church” now. I hear it over and over and over again – and the frequency has been increasing over the last 10 years or so.
The interesting thing to me is that most of these things have nothing to do with doctrine but more policy or procedure. I heard of one stake back in the 70s where boys with long hair weren’t allowed to administer the sacrament. Another funny one years ago was that girls couldn’t go to girls camp and wear front zippered pants. White shirts and no beards is a more modern one. Gospel principles haven’t changed because speculation about the mysteries are just not addressed in GC or by visiting authorities in stake and regional conferences. What becomes a problem is when someone decides that when GBH made his comment about ear rings it was God’s will to his people. Too bad they didn’t feel the same when Spencer W. Kimball gave his “don’t shoot the birdies” talk in the priesthood session of conference. Quote:To the death than?
Quote:No! To the pain!
I like Ray’s explanation. Very good. It’s a little bit better written and said than my terse “I don’t believe it” comment that I made about this scripture yesterday in another thread. I’ll second Ray and just leave it at that.
Quote:Vizzini: No more rhymes now, I mean it. Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut? I like MH’s practical lesson:
mormonheretic wrote:The student who struggles to figure out the answer before looking at the key does much better than the student who looks at the answer and works backwards.
If God gave a perfect, direct line of communication to the prophets…it would be like having the answer book. There wouldn’t be the learning we are required to gain when coming to this earthly existence, with a veiled understanding of things.
In Buddhism, they teach:
Quote:Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
GBSmith wrote:The interesting thing to me is that most of these things have nothing to do with doctrine but more policy or procedure. I heard of one stake back in the 70s where boys with long hair weren’t allowed to administer the sacrament…What becomes a problem is when someone decides that when GBH made his comment about ear rings it was God’s will to his people.
The problem with this scripture is that it is way too easy for hucksters like David Koresh to claim they have received revelations or authority from God and if you want to believe them you basically have to take their word for it because it’s not really a revelation to you. In our case, Church leaders inherit this prophet/apostle title so even if they don’t actually claim that most of what they say is a revelation this idea is often assumed anyway by many members. At the very least members often consider what they say to be inspired and authoritative as if it should not be questioned.
So what happens when Brigham Young says that Adam is God or Joseph Fielding Smith says that men will never go to the moon? Some Mormons will inevitably lose all faith in God and any hope of an afterlife over less damning evidence than this. To me this is one of the single biggest problems with traditional Mormonism; it has relied way too much on unreasonable and unrealistic faith in fallible men that clearly have their own opinions, limitations, prejudices, etc. This whole trustworthy prophet myth is a very shaky foundation to try to build on going forward especially when almost anything they say can be published and accessed fairly easily nowadays.
Cuts both ways DA, having a living prophet has also meant that certain unpleasant doctrines have been done away with. SamBee wrote:Cuts both ways DA, having a living prophet has also meant that certain unpleasant doctrines have been done away with.
Very good point.
cwald wrote:SamBee wrote:Cuts both ways DA, having a living prophet has also meant that certain unpleasant doctrines have been done away with.
Very good point.
I agree that Church leaders should have the authority to correct past mistakes and adapt to changing circumstances. However, if anything I think this nearly infallible prophet idea only makes them even more reluctant to change policies and doctrines or openly admit when they were wrong before. It looks almost like they were afraid to go against what Brigham Young or Joseph Smith had said before until they didn’t really have much of a choice anymore.
It’s a big difference between simply rejecting one man’s misguided ideas and opinions and contradicting the words of a prophet that is supposed to have a special calling to speak directly for God. Now their authority and credibility is at stake to some extent whenever they do anything. I don’t mind if they want to keep the prophet and apostle title, I just think we should be more clear about recognizing the fact that they are still fallible men that can and do make mistakes on occasion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.