A
Ahimsa
Guest
Actually, in post 180, I show that APB was not part of core LDS scripture or prophetic revelation – unless you can show me otherwise.
- Status
S
scipio337
Guest
Considering that all faithful LDS, including past presidents, considered the APB as part of revealed doctrine, AND it took another revelation to overturn, I’m not sure why you keep using this circular logic.
You seem to be stuck by your own belief that
Perhaps you should discuss this with a practising LDS member? Tell them why their Presidency misinterpreted revealation, or why the “restored church of Jesus Christ” took the wrong path, for over 100 years.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
SirThomasMore;6790422:
with the quote below?
B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:
The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.
Since the African Priest Ban (APB) revocation is in the D&C, and since I haven’t seen anyone here quote from Mormon core scripture (which includes Prophet revelation) in support of the specifically African Priest Ban, then it seems clear that B. H. Roberts accurately describes the sources of LDS doctrine.
If that is true, then the APB is not part of core Mormon scripture/revelation – unless someone can show me otherwise.
What someone can show you otherwise means nothing.
It was doctrine. Your acceptance of it means little. So, believe whatever makes you feel all special.
It was doctrine. End of story.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
“All” faithful LDS? Not Joseph Smith. And not post-1978 LDS.
The fact that it took a revelation in 1978 to revoke APB, doesn’t mean that the APB was itself a revelation. For instance, the 1978 revelation may have been necessary, because most LDS simply assumed that the APB was in fact a revelation found in the core sources of scripture/revelation.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Except Joseph Smith…
Most Mormons I’ve talked to simply accept the fact that either (1) God can reveal new revelations, due to human growth in spiritual maturity; or (2) Prophets can be mistaken. It’s no big deal.
S
scipio337
Guest
Smith’s doctrine was ever-changing.
You don’t believe it. LDS members up until 1978, did. All I can say is take the issue up with practicing LDS. Start with Zerinus.
Have a great day!
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Thanks. You too!
S
scipio337
Guest
A
aquabatix
Guest
Yeah, if I were you, I would ignore the fact that I said that an apostacy could be temporary too. That opens up a whole can of worms that you wouldn’t want to deal with.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Well, it wouldn’t be an actual “apostasy”, since no faith was rejected.
But it might be considered an unfortunate intepretation of scriptural revelation.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
If Prophets can be mistaken then they’re not Prophets.
I submit THAT’S a big deal. If they’re not Prophets, then who are these people that the Mormon faithful have been sustaining as “Prophets, Seers and Revelators” for over 100 years? Are they just guys who have hopelessly misunderstood the Mormon god? How can anyone claim to build a faith on the revelations to “Prophets” who, as it turns out, weren’t “Prophets” after all?
If this is how it works in Mormonism how are we to know that, a few decades from now, perhaps the racist doctrine, previously sustained as doctrine and then reversed, might be changed BACK? Or changed to something else? How can a commandment from a supposedly eternal god keep changing??
R
rainman10
Guest
Just in case God was mistaken, maybe we should play it safe and call the Ten Commandments, the Ten Policies.Those were teachings, and not revelation.
Your quotes also show Kimball making that statement when he was an apostle, not the president, and clearly supports my claim:
Regardless of you calling it “policy”, or “practice” It was LDS revelation. Like polygyny, “demanded from God”, and indefensible by any means.
The “It’s not my policy, it’s God’s” excuse rings hollow.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
That’s not a perspective shared by Mormons:
The Bible doesn’t suggest that prophets are infallible. Writing about the Old Testament prophet Elijah, James said that he was “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17). Jeremiah got so mad at God that he claimed the Lord had “deceived” him and he swore he would never speak in the name of the Lord again (see Jeremiah 20:7, 9.) Even Peter and Paul had disagreements (see Galatians 2:11-14).
Joseph Smith understood that he was fallible when he wrote: “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”3 On another occasion he said: “I am subject to like passions as other men, like the prophets of olden times.”4 He also declared: “I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”5 Lorenzo Snow, who had a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, nevertheless wrote that he saw Joseph’s “imperfections” and “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 weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me…”6 “We are all liable to err,” wrote Brigham Young “and many may think that a man in my standing ought to be perfect; no such thing.”7
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
That seems to be very convenient.
The so-called Mormon “prophets” of the past often stated unequivocally as doctrine those things that are currently described as “opinion”. It is interesting that such persons were considered “prophets” in their own time and their statements were doctrine at the time, but now those same things are disavowed as doctrine and labeled as “opinion”.
If it was opinion, despite the fact that they claimed it to be doctrine at the time, then they were not prophets. and they were never prophets and the entire construct of Mormon “prophets” falls apart. You can’t have it both ways. The Mormon prophets can’t be prophets when you want them to be, and yet their proclamations be relegated to “opinion” when what they claimed as doctrine becomes inconvenient.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
It seems that the you would have an issue with any prophetic religion, not just LDS.
A
aquabatix
Guest
So these are the 2 pieces of scripture that you have to prove that prophets are not always prophets? James commenting on the humanity of Elijah (not saying he ever did anything wrong or misspoke about God/faith/righteous living but affirming he was human like us and not an agel or something) and Jerimiah getting mad once?!? These are not proof of anything. This time it is YOU making these verses say things for your personal gain.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I don’t have any problem at all with any religion, prophetic or not.It seems that the you would have an issue with any prophetic religion, not just LDS.
But Mormons have a problem if they claim to have prophets who proclaim things as doctrine, and then, when that doctrine becomes inconvenient, they label it as “opinion” because in so doing, that shows that they were not prophets after all and the entire idea of their “prophetic religion” fails. It is Mormonism that is falling apart here.
Nice try tho’.
A
aquabatix
Guest
I agree with MelanieAnne. “Prophetic Religion” would be one where the prior revelation would be true AND the later one as well. This is not the case with the LDS. The prior are deemed as “opinion” and the later, revelation.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I should clarify that Mormons don’t invoke “opinion” in the case of the revocation of the ABP. I don’t know where you got the word “opinion” from; perhaps I used that word.
In any event, “opinion” would not be correct. I’ll quote from a Mormon who has written on this issue quite a bit:…I am aware that the official “explanation” offered these days
for denying the priesthood to blacks is that “we don’t know.”
That response to questions
about the past is perhaps technically accurate, since very few
members or even leaders know much about the history of our
black members or of their part in our larger history. It is true
also that we can’t be sure of all that lay behind Brigham Young’s
1852 declaration that “descendants of Cain” could not have
the priesthood. In the absence of all such knowledge, certainly
the safest thing for a Church member or leader to say today is
that “we don’t know.” It is also a good public relations tactic,
since it has the effect of changing the subject before it gets
complicated! Yet it is also somewhat disingenuous to say that
we don’t know, and it is certainly an unsatisfactory response to
any of our converts, investigators, or youth who are conscientiously
troubled by this chapter in our history, especially if they
are black. The fact is that we do have a lot more relevant historical
knowledge than the we-don’t-know response would indicate.
This knowledge, furthermore, is based on authoritative
historical research by responsible scholars, to which I have alluded
in the hypothetical conversation just summarized.
Although this historical literature cannot tell us anything
about the mind of God, or about revelatory encounters of our
leaders with Deity, it can tell us a great deal about the evolving
historical contexts within which racial conceptions developed
across time, both in the nation and in the Church.
Understanding these contexts, in turn, will help us to understand
the ideas and policies of Church leaders, especially
where influences upon them from those contexts can be
demonstrated or at least reasonably inferred. Obviously divine
guidance does not depend upon historical context, but it
seems clear from history that some revelations have been received
by prophets in response to inquiries motivated by the
surrounding social and political environment…
- Status