Ask A Mormon

[stokemeister]

I don’t think you are understanding papal infallibility. The pope is infallible when teaching about faith and morals.

You are saying that the Mormon teaching regarding race was an opinion, right? Do you think that is what Mormons of the time believed? Is there something of faith or moral importance today, that you heard at your last general conference, that you thought, “nice opinion, but not coming from God”?

Quite likely I do not understand papal infallibility with nuance and how it influences Catholics interpretation of all statements/behaviors of the Popes in history. Would love to hear more, I have found the discussions I have heard about the resignation of Pope Benedict and how that is being interpreted by believers fascinating.

I’m saying that that particular quote by Spencer Kimball was shaded by his time and culture. I think the core teaching of Mormons, illustrated repeatedly in scripture, taught repeatedly by Spencer Kimball and other LDS prophets over time, is as most poetically captured in this verse in the Book of Mormon, “he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

And even with that principle and teaching, the history of God’s dealing with mankind is that he has made exclusions before (don’t mix with those people over there. Ok, Peter now it is ok to preach to the Gentiles. Women, don’t speak in the Church. Women should now officiate in the liturgy…etc).

Having read lots of the words of Spencer Kimball, knowing his heart and mind, if he was politically incorrect by today’s standards in the way he referred to the skin color of Native Americans or was overzealous in his attribution of their lineage, compared to DNA findings for example, in his efforts to call them as a people to Christ and to righteousness then I am fine with forgiving those apparent ‘prejudices’ or ‘incorrect knowledge’ as insignificant when it comes to evaluating his role or legitimacy as a “true” prophet.

As far as teachings in the last general conference, the themes and topics, take home messages, I found them to be of God. I was uplifted, felt called the repentance, felt impressions from the Holy Spirit of things I needed to do in my life and relationships. As an example of someone being an “offender for a word” or losing their faith in the Church for something that I don’t think is doctrinal but more of an opinion or a relic of tradition/result of fallible people running the church within the context of a culture and time is the fact that this last general conference was the first time that women have prayed from pulpit in this particular meeting. To me there is no doctrinal component in the equation, I think the change/gesture was long overdue and frankly a little sad that it took this long and a petition by women in the Church to make it happen. Do I dismiss my faith in the legitimacy of the leadership of the LDS Church because they were not the most progressive or thoughtful in how they conducted their meetings as it relates to women up until now - no. I’m happy the change was made and find it to be more in line with the teachings and values of God.

 

[Porknpie]

I guess i’m just confused by your reasoning, why would that make Jesus a liar?

Scripture says…Jesus own words say that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the Church to all Truth. Scripture also says that after the Holy Spirit came, the Church membership grew very quickly, guided by the Spirit.

There was no apostasy, let alone great apostasy which is why the LDS church can never determine when it occurred.

If you believe scripture is the Word of God, then you have to realize that Joseph Smith preached a new Gospel, one given to him by a fallen angel (Maroni). No where does it record him testing the Angel. We are not to follow another gospel even if from an angel.

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Why do you follow JS words when the bible says not to?

 

[TexanKnight]

Navy, lol. U.S Army 120th Battalion, 211 Company!!!
JK about the Navy. Got a good friend who is with the Teams.

Yes…I kid my youngest all the time for being Navy. I served Army 6 years and am a LTC in the Guard

GO ARMY!

 

[TexanKnight]

I think in both cases it shows that the authors were themselves tainted by prejudicial and racist thinking common in their time. Mormonism does not demand a corollary to papal infallibility.

No, it demands even greater infallibility because LDS prophets claim to talk directly to Jesus. If you want, we can post the horribly racist comments by LDS prophets…

The Nephites were the city dwellers, had education and what they viewed as a noble lineage.

Ok…please show me, on a map, those thriving cities. I can’t wait.

 

[TexanKnight]

I personally find lots of archaeological evidence consistent with the culture and setting as described in the Book of Mormon, as do many well-educated, trained archeologists who are Mormon.

lol…sure…I can see whatever I want to see that helps my pre-determined position. Your problem is, you can’t really do what you say, and no non-LDS archaeologist agrees. Because it simply does not exist

Generally I find the “no archaeological evidence” arguments to be straw-men arguments, they refute claims that the text itself, when studied properly, does not claim - such as that all native inhabitants of the Americas are descended from Book of Mormon peoples or that the Nephites/Lamanites were the only people on the scene in Mesoamerica. I also think any good analysis of the ancient world would not rely exclusively on one arm of scientific inquiry.

No…you find them frustrating arguments because it leaves you looking foolish. There is absolutely no evidence to support the geographical claims of the book of Mormon. Your real problem is, you clueless prophets did not realize how far technology would progress, so when they made their bold claims about the Book of Mormon being in Central America or South America and the Hill Cumorah being in New York, they had no idea how unsupportable that would become leaving you to make the vague argument you just made.

There is a thick annotated bibliography of thousands of academic papers showing evidence or pre-Columbian voyaging/contact between the ancient Americans and the Old World (anthropology, archaeology, art history, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, folklore, geography, linguistics, history, and nautical history). maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=95

Referring us to LDS propaganda sites does not strengthen your position. I have read these things. I also read Voices From the Dust, written by another Mormon who claims the Book of Mormon occurred in South America. Bottom line, y’all have no clue. You could, if the Book was what it claims to be

Of course it would be academic suicide to imply that such evidences support a divine explanation of the Book of Mormon, so making the arguments directly will always be left to the apologists.

Ah…when logic and reason fail;, and scijence disproves you, fall back to the “divine” argument. That fails, too.

 

[TexanKnight]

In my understanding, no, prophets are infallible men that the Lord chooses to work through, so I fully expect them to show signs of being men of their times and culture. I would also expect their primary prophecies to be conditional - namely prophesying that if people accept Christ and follow his commandments they will be saved and blessed. John’s description was the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I think the general rule to determine true prophets is Christ’s description in Matt 7, by their fruits ye shall know them, combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost, what in described as the sheep knowing the voice of the shepherd or wisdom that is given when asked for.

Good…we have gotten to the fruits.

Let us look at Joseph’s “fruits”

1. Con man and treasure seeker
2. Convicted criminal
3. Cheated thousands in a bank scandal
4. Cheated on his wife
5. Started polygamy to cove up his infidelity
6. Tried wife-swapping with William Law
7. Ego maniac- needed to be general, mayor, wear military clothing like a third-world despot
8. Broke laws to suit him (like freedom of the press)
9. And the list could go on

are these the fruits to which you referred?

 

[lynnettejane]

With pleasure, About 2 years ago, i started to question a lot in my life after a tragic accident involving my grandparents, I only sought answers that i thought could be answered as a true truthseaker. I’ve never “left” the Mormon church but for a year or so I did decide to not be affiliated with a specific group, which ironically, lead me to the catholic forums because my grandparents are catholic. Out of love and compassion for them i decided to delve deeper into the understanding of catholicism and place my self in the church, so i made myself catholic without actually being baptized, if that makes any sense. I thought if i renounced a false religion and accepted the true church i would receive an anser to my prayers.I simply wanted truth and sought any and all means to receive it. I’m still a mormon purely out of respect for my parents, I haven’t seen enough evidence to deter me away and haven’t found enough evidence to lead me to another church. But i am open minded and am willing to listen and learn. Hope this makes sense, that was a rough time in my life so a lot of my past posts will be, one day im catholic, the next protestant, the next buddhist. But I do attend the LDS church each sunday and am still looking for the one true church. Hope this helps

Hello Erin, thankyou for your explanation, but your post seemed to be the exact opposite, you did sound very sure in your mormon faith. Believe me there are not many questions about mormonism that have not been asked and answered very effectively on this forum. So what are you hoping to achieve? I mean are you hoping that having to defend the mormon faith will rekindle your faith? You will find that any answers you give will be soundly challenged, which may seem unkind to you, but truth will be presented as it is no holds barred. If you are seeking truth, have you no questions about the Catholic faith? I mean why put yourself in the position of mormon apologist if your faith in that church does not seem to be personal but out of respect for other people, and you say you are searching, then obviuosly you are not convinced. So how can you hope to effectively answer questions other than merely putting forward the mormon position, which we are actually all aware of. Please while you are here feel free to enquire about the Catholic faith, and hopefully we can help you in your faith journey.
Just one question, were you doubting whilst a missionary? If so how could you look people in the eye and give a testimony of something you are not sure about… and all the rest of the missionary fables that you cannot possibly have totally believed yet you will have convinced people are true. If you did this, then you should feel ashamed because that is deceit.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

I haven’t read the other questions, because it’s late, but I just wanted to get this out there to at least ask it.

I’m sure you believe as many do that if something is true, it can only be objectively true. There is no such thing as subjective truth (something that is absolutely true for one person and not true for another). And if something appears to be subjectively true, someone must be right, and someone must be wrong. Which brings me to my question:

If God is to teach only truth, then why isn’t the LDS “continuation of doctrine” a building upon of doctrine, like in the Catholic Church (adding definition to doctrine) instead of the LDS church’s changing of doctrine, in some cases drastically? Something cannot be true at one time and then no longer be true. Something either is or isn’t. Truth is timeless. How do you reconcile this?

And if the Mormon church is the true church, then why is there division among the LDS with differing doctrines. Should they all be subject to the ‘prophet’? Shouldn’t the ‘prophet’ know which teachings are true? Like how some LDS churches believe that God was once a man, and others don’t. Would you consider the other LDS groups, not truly within the church?

And lastly, if apostasy is defined as “the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person”, then if there was a Great Apostasy, wouldn’t that mean that the Catholic Church had rejected God and Christ, and then by extension, the Protestants as well? If so, then why do many LDS call Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc. fellow Christians, which, if there were a Great Apostasy, they would not be if they rejected God, Christ, and His teachings? And if we are fellow Christians, then wouldn’t that mean that the Great Apostasy never happened, because we still follow God and Christ like we have for almost 2 thousand years?

I look forward to your response

Hello bzkoss236, I will be frank here and say that you have a very valid point in objective truth vs subjective truth. Something that I have found to be true and are just now being taught is what is to be taken as doctrine and whats to be taken as a persons own theology. The church is very VERY careful in stating what is and isn’t doctrine. Also, it’s imperative to understand that when a prophet speaks or an other general authority, what they say is not necessarily doctrine. The church leaders gather and take a vote, kind of like congress and decides what is or isn’t doctrine.

I would simply like to ask what these “drastic” changes are, the only real big one i can think of is polygamy and I can go into detail with that if you like.

And no, even though popular belief wants to state that the Prophet is infallible in everything that they do, including doctrine, that just isn’t the case. Any mormon that has a lick of sense will tell you that the Prophet is like any other man and is subject to sin and mistakes. The only difference is that he has the authority to speak on behalf of God to the whole church. But you have to figure out when he is talking on behalf of God and when he is talking on behalf of himself.

Why we have so many “dissenters” if the Mormon faith is true? I could ask the same question about the Catholic church. The truth is, Satan will do anything and everything to break the church of Christ down. The best way to do that? divide the church and break it from within. And no, the RLDS FLDS and other splinter groups are not affiliated with the church.

This is what we are taught about apostasy, “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.”

And the reason why we call Catholics, Anglicans and other denominations Christians? Simple, they believe in Christ, they rejoice in Christ, they testify of Christ. A Christian to me is a follower of Christ, not a church, so yes of course i would call you a Christian.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Of course but were they innies or outies?

They were probably innies only because mine is an innie and i think its the most beautiful belly button in the wold

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Scripture says…Jesus own words say that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the Church to all Truth. Scripture also says that after the Holy Spirit came, the Church membership grew very quickly, guided by the Spirit.

There was no apostasy, let alone great apostasy which is why the LDS church can never determine when it occurred.

If you believe scripture is the Word of God, then you have to realize that Joseph Smith preached a new Gospel, one given to him by a fallen angel (Maroni). No where does it record him testing the Angel. We are not to follow another gospel even if from an angel.

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]

Why do you follow JS words when the bible says not to?

Hello porknpie, i’m sorry if i have offended you in any way. I am simply stating what the LDS church teaches and believes. I’m not here to bash on the Catholic church. As for what you have said through scripture, i would agree 100% in both cases. I would simply ask what gospel is being preached that is different then the one that Christ preached? If you could provide me with concerns i can do my best to answer them.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hello bzkoss236, I will be frank here and say that you have a very valid point in objective truth vs subjective truth. Something that I have found to be true and are just now being taught is what is to be taken as doctrine and whats to be taken as a persons own theology. The church is very VERY careful in stating what is and isn’t doctrine. Also, it’s imperative to understand that when a prophet speaks or an other general authority, what they say is not necessarily doctrine. The church leaders gather and take a vote, kind of like congress and decides what is or isn’t doctrine.

I would simply like to ask what these “drastic” changes are, the only real big one i can think of is polygamy and I can go into detail with that if you like.

And no, even though popular belief wants to state that the Prophet is infallible in everything that they do, including doctrine, that just isn’t the case. Any mormon that has a lick of sense will tell you that the Prophet is like any other man and is subject to sin and mistakes. The only difference is that he has the authority to speak on behalf of God to the whole church. But you have to figure out when he is talking on behalf of God and when he is talking on behalf of himself.

Why we have so many “dissenters” if the Mormon faith is true? I could ask the same question about the Catholic church. The truth is, Satan will do anything and everything to break the church of Christ down. The best way to do that? divide the church and break it from within. And no, the RLDS FLDS and other splinter groups are not affiliated with the church.

This is what we are taught about apostasy, “When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.”

And the reason why we call Catholics, Anglicans and other denominations Christians? Simple, they believe in Christ, they rejoice in Christ, they testify of Christ. A Christian to me is a follower of Christ, not a church, so yes of course i would call you a Christian.

So you are saying Jesus was too weak to keep His Church today? Are you saying He lied when He said he would be with us ALWAYS? You think He lied when he said the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail? Are you saying Jesus was just a cruel man who, knowing the future would be an Apostasy, sent his best friends out anyway to die horrible cruel deaths for an idea that would vanish for 1800 years?

Sorry…I can’t follow a God who is like that

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Yes…I kid my youngest all the time for being Navy. I served Army 6 years and am a LTC in the Guard

GO ARMY!

I have a cousin thats a PJ in the airforce, my brother and 2 other cousins are in the army. So i figure I can join the Navy and my 2 little cousins already want to join the Marines so we’ll have all our bases cleared And i love to travel and absolutely love the ocean so Navy life is for me. Hopefully I’ll be able to go through OCS by this time next year.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hello porknpie, i’m sorry if i have offended you in any way. I am simply stating what the LDS church teaches and believes. I’m not here to bash on the Catholic church. As for what you have said through scripture, i would agree 100% in both cases. I would simply ask what gospel is being preached that is different then the one that Christ preached? If you could provide me with concerns i can do my best to answer them.

That God was once a sinful man

In the plurality of Gods

That Adam is our God

Just to name three

 

[TexanKnight]

I have a cousin thats a PJ in the airforce, my brother and 2 other cousins are in the army. So i figure I can join the Navy and my 2 little cousins already want to join the Marines so we’ll have all our bases cleared And i love to travel and absolutely love the ocean so Navy life is for me. Hopefully I’ll be able to go through OCS by this time next year.

I have a nephew in the Army in Afghanistan and a cousin in Russia in the marines. My grandfather, Uncle and Stepdad all retired Airforce

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Hello Erin, thankyou for your explanation, but your post seemed to be the exact opposite, you did sound very sure in your mormon faith. Believe me there are not many questions about mormonism that have not been asked and answered very effectively on this forum. So what are you hoping to achieve? I mean are you hoping that having to defend the mormon faith will rekindle your faith? You will find that any answers you give will be soundly challenged, which may seem unkind to you, but truth will be presented as it is no holds barred. If you are seeking truth, have you no questions about the Catholic faith? I mean why put yourself in the position of mormon apologist if your faith in that church does not seem to be personal but out of respect for other people, and you say you are searching, then obviuosly you are not convinced. So how can you hope to effectively answer questions other than merely putting forward the mormon position, which we are actually all aware of. Please while you are here feel free to enquire about the Catholic faith, and hopefully we can help you in your faith journey.
Just one question, were you doubting whilst a missionary? If so how could you look people in the eye and give a testimony of something you are not sure about… and all the rest of the missionary fables that you cannot possibly have totally believed yet you will have convinced people are true. If you did this, then you should feel ashamed because that is deceit.

I am simply doing what the thread intro talked about, giving and explaining doctrine of the Mormon faith by one that has been raised and is still active within the Church.

Now as for me, am i still seeking? of course! am i trying to rekindle my faith? who isn’t. I will always strive to look for and find truth and cherish it, Whether that truth is in the LDS church, the Catholic Church, the muslims or what-have you. I am always willing to look for truth.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

So you are saying Jesus was too weak to keep His Church today? Are you saying He lied when He said he would be with us ALWAYS? You think He lied when he said the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail? Are you saying Jesus was just a cruel man who, knowing the future would be an Apostasy, sent his best friends out anyway to die horrible cruel deaths for an idea that would vanish for 1800 years?

Sorry…I can’t follow a God who is like that

If that was the case, I wouldn’t even want to be a Christian.

Here’s how the LDS reconcile this, which as you’ve stated before you were once a member so everything i’m about to explain and tell you is something that won’t come as a surprise.

Jesus too weak? of course not, its men that are too weak not Christ.

He lied when He said he would always be with us ALWAYS? of course not, just because Christ church isn’t on the earth, does not mean all hope is lost and that the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding people to keep the faith.

I am and will always be eternally grateful to those persons who died for the cause of Christ. Christianity as a whole owes so much to those persons who through adversity and persecution, kept the faith a live, I firmly believe and to be honest, the LDS faith believes that those persons were guided by the Spirit. Did the spirit guide the Catholic Church to keep the record of the apostles? ABSOLUTELY! Without the Catholic Church, we have no Bible today, eternally grateful.

The church teaches that an apostasy is just a withdraw of God’s authority. Not the belief in God, or the Spirit of God or even Revelations from God, but just the authority to act in God’s name. How we reconcile that? Baptisms for the dead. I imagine you’ll have more questions, ill do my best to answer them.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That God was once a sinful man

In the plurality of Gods

That Adam is our God

Just to name three

That Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient for some sins.

 

[kimg901]

I read that in the context of mourning. If you wear your dead grandfather’s military jacket, it doesn’t make you a soldier, but it can help with the mourning process.

Sorry, I didnt read it that way. My bad

 

[LivingWaters7]

I think in both cases it shows that the authors were themselves tainted by prejudicial and racist thinking common in their time. Mormonism does not demand a corollary to papal infallibility. In fact I find the way race and skin color is spoken of in the Book of Mormon to be an evidence of its authenticity as a ancient document and different from how one would expect an 19th century American would incorporate race into a fictions work. The way the Nephites are prejudice and racist themselves against the Lamanites is completely consistent with ancient cultures and what we would expect from an ethno-political point of view. The Nephites were the city dwellers, had education and what they viewed as a noble lineage. The Lamanites were the “uncivilized savages”, the hunters/people of the wilderness, they were wild and ferocious. My eyes were opened to this reading having lived some summers in Cambodia, learning their language and hearing my educated colleagues talk about their countryside countrymen in the same way. Bear in mind that ethnically Cambodians are pretty similar throughout the country and are all generally “dark” skinned compared to world populations. The city dwellers literally try to be more white - facial creams/bleaching, women wearing long sleeves in the hot sun as to not tan and the word they use to describe their skin is “white.” Light skin is a mark of cleanliness, of wealth (not having to work outside in the fields). And my educated colleagues, working in the field of poverty alleviation no less, would use words similar to the words chosen by the Nephites to describe the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, calling their poor countrymen “dirty” and “dark” and they were literally darker skinned from working in the fields and living in dirtier circumstances.

Papal infallibility is relevant because the underlying assumption by the questioner, particularly in reference to the extended quote of the LDS Prophet in the 70’s, was - how does a Mormon come to terms that their leaders said racist things - why would they still follow their prophet? Isn’t that a sign that he is a false prophet? And my response is we have a different underlying assumption when we consider the words of our leaders/past prophets, it does not force us into the dichotomy of ‘he must be a false prophet.’ I think the difference in that root assumption is that Mormonism does not subscribe to the dogma of papal infallibility from the First Vatican Council, that idea, that line of questioning is not the same in the Mormon mindset.

I don’t think you understand papal infallibility, since I was certainly not correlating papal infallibility with LDS understandings of inspiration/revelation. Papal infallibility is only invoked under certain specific circumstances, and does not apply at all times, even when the Pope is speaking in official capacities. Sure, it’s probably good guidance, but it is not an instance of the Spirit-protection of not formally defining as dogma a false belief afforded through Papal Infallibility. So no, it is not relevant at all, and certainly is not an underlying assumption of mine in how I approach LDS prophets and their prophetic role.

…continued…

 

[LivingWaters7]

…continued…

Instead, I am talking about the clear, and quite common LDS understanding of prophets, apostles, and others, and hearing their inspired words in General Conference. We are invited to come listen to living prophets during General Conference. We are told that the prophets, apostles, etc have sought “Heaven’s help” in formulating their messages. Many frequently talk about how we believe in continuing revelation and ongoing scripture, and that it is in General Conference that we hear the word of the Lord for our times, that the inspired words of living prophets, as heard in GC and other settings, become scripture for us, etc (I mean, what do I know, I’m only Elders Quorum President in my ward ). I’d wager to bet that the vast majority of Latter-day Saints do not go into Conference and think during a talk “oh, I’ll just disregard that, it was his opinion. He wasn’t inspired to say that” (indeed, obedience was a clear theme for part of the last GC, and another recent GC talked about Obedience to the Prophets and the 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, twice).

Instead, I’d say that most believing Latter-day Saints go into Conference thinking “yes, I know the Church is true, and that we have living prophets, and I’m so excited to hear their inspired words and revelation for our lives and times. The prophet won’t lead us astray. Can’t wait to be energized and uplifted.”. We’ve had many a lesson about the role of Conference in the context of continuing revelation and living prophets. So, my point in bringing up the quote about dark skinned individuals becoming lighter as they accepted the Gospel (a principle of course seen in the Book of Mormon) is in wondering how LDS at that time viewed that statement as taught by a prophet, with the clear scriptural principle behind it. I’d venture to say that most completely agreed and nodded/smiled in agreement, as we do today when we hear the prophets and apostles speak.

Similarly, many LDS seem to not agree with Joseph teaching in a General Conference that God has not always been God (in contrast to the traditional Christian teaching of God eternally being God and eternally existing as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), and progressed to Godhood. Other prophets and apostles have taught this view of the nature of God as well. Yet, there are many LDS that perhaps aren’t even aware of such a fundamental teaching (certainly not taught during the missionary discussions), or just disagree with it completely (I believe the previous poster Zerinus used to disagree with it since he was a Standard-Works-Only Latter-day Saint). We have an LDS poster, Tom, here that agrees with LDS philosopher Blake Ostler on interpreting the King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove as not teaching a progressing to Godhood God, or an infinite regress of God, despite the clear teachings throughout the ages of the restored Church. So again, it is interesting to see how LDS prophets are seen in the role that they are sustained as (prophets, seers, and revelators), and how their inspired words throughout time are regarded. Yes, they are entitled to their opinions. However we’re not talking about what they had for breakfast, or if BYU is better than UoU. We’re talking about doctrinal teachings and principles, interpretation of scripture and scriptural principles (at least on the dark skin lightening issue), and not being led astray. I’d hope that the prophets could accurately interpret scripture.