mentalgymnast wrote:GrandMoffTarkin wrote:
What is the use of having revelation if part of the time prophets are just giving opinion and other times they are wrong because the didn't understand the revelation? If individual members have to constantly pray to determine if something said by a prophet was: (a) personal opinion; (b) based on a real revelation but misunderstood by the prophet; or (c) based on revelation but properly understood by the prophet, I daresay that there is not much point of having prophets.
I'm going to quote from a blogpost I was reading yesterday....it doesn’t have the feel of a question that’s meant to be used as a question. It feels, instead, like the kind of question you’re meant to ask when you already know the answer. It feels inherently rhetorical. It feels like the kind of question a missionary is supposed to ask Mr. Brown, a Boolean question meant to force a binary response.
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... of-christ/
This "what is a prophet" question keeps coming up. And if a prophet doesn't fit strictly within the preconceived parameters/notions of a construct/creation which has been put in place by one who is thinking along binary lines of thought, then well, the prophet is not a prophet.
What if the purpose/function of a prophet varies depending on the time and place...the people...the doctrine already revealed...etc.? There seem to be those that would pigeonhole say, President Monson, into the same "restorationist" mode of operation/revelation that Joseph Smith functioned within.
Also, I haven't read through this whole thread (trying to spend less time in these parts), but here's a quote that might be looked at again if it hasn't already been referenced:In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116.
I'd guess Brother Brigham had read the scriptures which seem to dictate a very young earth. I'd guess Talmage and Co. had/have also. That didn't seem to prohibit them looking at a very old earth. And if you have a very old earth it seems to make sense that humans, in one form or another, have been around a very long time. Fact is (from the perspective of faith) we're only interested in the sons and daughters of Adam/Eve. The "Fall" and "Atonement" seem to apply only to them.
You haven't answered my question