rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 33484
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

Post by Jersey Girl »

Hello rcrocket,

I asked you this question on another thread. You expressed a desire not to see the thread derailed so I thought I'd ask you on a new topic thread. Here is my question:

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?

Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

I don't know.

rcrocket

User avatar
Southern Redneck
Star A
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:41 pm

Post by Southern Redneck »

That is one of the best questions I have come across in ages.

Thank you.
------------------------
Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.
Ludwig Borne

http://tomanyquestions.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

Southern Redneck wrote:That is one of the best questions I have come across in ages.

Thank you.


To bad Plu dodged the bullet.

mentalgymnast

Re: rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

Post by mentalgymnast »

Jersey Girl wrote:
When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?



MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Gazelam
Lightbearer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:06 pm

Post by Gazelam »

Did the Sons of Aaron have to give up their rights as bearers of the Ark because they understood and knew that Moses declared that he had brought forth the water form the rock?

Israel fully understood that Moses was both a man and a Prophet. On a few occasions he was also declared a fallen Prophet, Even by those closest to him.

The sooner we all understand what it is to be both a man and a prophet, the sooner we can also approach that pinnacle ourselves. There is nothing a biblical prophet did that we ourselves cannot accomplish. Remember that Christ was also a man, and was our example.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:I don't know.

rcrocket


Then why do you demand in furious style the abandonment of reason?

What else don't you know? A whole hell of a lot more
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 33484
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by Jersey Girl »

rcrocket wrote:I don't know.

rcrocket


Great answer. Now every time you choose to needle a TR holding LDS on this board for their criticism of Joseph Smith as flawed human, this brief exchange between you and I will be the response you get from me. Thanks so much for putting it "in writing".

Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

mentalgymnast

Re: rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

Post by mentalgymnast »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?



MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?


so, what say you?

Regards,
MG

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: rcrocket: TR's and Apologist Claims

Post by harmony »

mentalgymnast wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?



MG: I hope not, or there are a lot of us in deep doo doo. I didn't read the other thread, but I'm wondering why you would think that this would be reason enough for a member who is practicing orthopraxy in regards to gospel teachings and practices and also upholding their leader's right to lead/counsel, to give up their temple recommend?


so, what say you?

Regards,
MG


I say, stay out of it, unless you have reason to join this particular argument. Jersey is calling Plu on his hypocrisy regarding something and someone over which and over whom he has no stewardship.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

When the LDS Apologists on these boards claim that the Prophet was "speaking as a man" when he obviously erred, do you deny them the right to honestly and forthrightly hold a TR? Is that a failure to uphold the leadership of the church?


Obviously not and here's why. The Church defines doctrine as that which is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, upholding the leadership of the Church doesn't mean hanging on every word or opinion they write or speak.

User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Post by Mephitus »

Am i missing something, or isn't there a scripture or revelation stating in no uncertain terms, "the lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray"? As such a decree, wouldn't it be a small leap of logic to say that every word that flows from the mouth of the prophet to likewise be considered from the mouth of god?
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

Am i missing something, or isn't there a scripture or revelation stating in no uncertain terms, "the lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray"? As such a decree, wouldn't it be a small leap of logic to say that every word that flows from the mouth of the prophet to likewise be considered from the mouth of god?


If the prophet is giving his opinion, he is not leading the Church (though some will think he is).

User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Post by Mephitus »

Ok, so when is he giving opinion and when is he speaking for the lord? I don't know about you, but i count every time he stands at a pulpit of one kind or another and goes on record as prophet.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

Ok, so when is he giving opinion and when is he speaking for the lord?


When his words are published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would be for the whole Church. He may also speak directly and personally to YOU, just as any of our other ecclesiastical leaders might, and then the onus is on you to heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit if such words are of the Lord or not.

I don't know about you, but i count every time he stands at a pulpit of one kind or another and goes on record as prophet.


And many times you would be right (Conference issues of the Ensign for example).

User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Post by Mephitus »

bcspace wrote:
Ok, so when is he giving opinion and when is he speaking for the lord?


When his words are published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would be for the whole Church. He may also speak directly and personally to YOU, just as any of our other ecclesiastical leaders might, and then the onus is on you to heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit if such words are of the Lord or not.

I don't know about you, but i count every time he stands at a pulpit of one kind or another and goes on record as prophet.


And many times you would be right (Conference issues of the Ensign for example).


oh man....i don't know where to begin quoting stuff from the ensign and church distributed books that using that definition would be constituted as so very wrong.... (eh, why lie, ill be honest. im just too lazy. So ill let everyone else dogpile onto it. Have fun guys!)
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

oh man....i don't know where to begin quoting stuff from the ensign and church distributed books that using that definition would be constituted as so very wrong....


Feel free.

User avatar
Rollo Tomasi
God
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am

Post by Rollo Tomasi »

bcspace wrote:The Church defines doctrine as that which is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, upholding the leadership of the Church doesn't mean hanging on every word or opinion they write or speak.

I'm not so sure about that. Here is what David Bednar had to say, in reference to an RM who dumped his girlfriend when she didn't remove her extra earrings after Gordon B. Hinckley counseled women to wear just one pair:

For this [i.e., refusal to remove the extra earrings] and other reasons, he [i.e., the RM] stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times.

"Quick to Observe" (May 10, 2005 talk to BYU; reprinted in the Ensign) (emphasis added).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

bcspace wrote:
Ok, so when is he giving opinion and when is he speaking for the lord?


When his words are published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would be for the whole Church. He may also speak directly and personally to YOU, just as any of our other ecclesiastical leaders might, and then the onus is on you to heed the promptings of the Holy Spirit if such words are of the Lord or not.

I don't know about you, but i count every time he stands at a pulpit of one kind or another and goes on record as prophet.


And many times you would be right (Conference issues of the Ensign for example).


Not so. The prophet is only speaking as a prophet pronouncing doctrine from the Lord when what he says is presented and voted upon by the membership of the church. No vote takes place at any point just because something is printed in the Ensign or published by the church. Since it's the FP and the 12 that decide what is published by the church, such circular reasoning is ludicrous and completely self-serving. That would definitely be a case of unrighteous dominion, in that they would be making decisions and pushing their own agendas on the members without the members consent.

Remember common consent, bcspace. It's very important to the governance of the church. The members must be given the opportunity to reject the utterances of the prophet in order for agency to work.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

The Church defines doctrine as that which is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Therefore, upholding the leadership of the Church doesn't mean hanging on every word or opinion they write or speak.

I'm not so sure about that.


Anyone taking teacher prep class knows this. Part of the first lesson goes through a list of publications and identifies which are doctrinal and which are not. For example Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is not a doctrinal work. It is also wise to note if something being presented in a doctrinal work is actually being presented as doctrine (context).

Here is what David Bednar had to say, in reference to an RM who dumped his girlfriend when she didn't remove her extra earrings after Gordon B. Hinckley counseled women to wear just one pair:

Quote:
For this [i.e., refusal to remove the extra earrings] and other reasons, he [i.e., the RM] stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times.

"Quick to Observe" (May 10, 2005 talk to BYU; reprinted in the Ensign) (emphasis added).


Simply proves the point as the Ensign is published by the Church. Perhaps you'd better double check and see for yourself if the quote is indeed reprinted in the Ensign seeing as how you did not give a reference for it.

User avatar
Rollo Tomasi
God
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am

Post by Rollo Tomasi »

bcspace wrote:Simply proves the point as the Ensign is published by the Church. Perhaps you'd better double check and see for yourself if the quote is indeed reprinted in the Ensign seeing as how you did not give a reference for it.

I guess you missed Bednar's phrase "obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times." And, yes, the talk was published in the Ensign for December 2006 (pp. 30-36). Enjoy reading it.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZCaesar, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], RockSlider and 28 guests