Instances of Prophetic Fallibility

[_Morley]

Most prophesies work on the same principle as fortune telling and fortune cookies and horoscopes - be vague enough so that it could apply to almost anything. That's not prophesy. And then when you occasionally do get something specific enough to nail to a wall, it doesn't happen. Once in blue moon you get a prophesy that sort of works out, but chance more than explains such a low success rate. So yes, there is no such thing as authentic prophesy.

"It does not pay a prophet to be too specific." L. Sprague de Camp

[_Drifting]

TBMs often say that they do not claim that their Latter-day prophets are infallible. But I don't believe I've ever heard a TBM cite an example of a Latter-day prophet's fallibility.

So I'm asking the TBMs (only) who admit that their Latter-day prophets are fallible: What is an instance of a Latter-day prophet being wrong? What is an instance of Thomas S. Monson being wrong? What is an instance of Gordon B. Hinckley being wrong?

In view of the statement "The prophet will never lead the church astray," could it be correctly said that Mormons believe that their prophets have limited-in-scope infallibility? That is, that their prophets are infallible in matters of doctrine?

arguably, polygamy is an example.
The salamander letters may also be an example.
Pretty sure we can find some "flaws" with Brigham Young.

Now, the scriptures are full of examples where prophets are "wrong" even with specific prophecies, we even see JC get one wrong. All that proves is that the alleged prophecy was mistakenly considered as a prophecy.

Wilford Woodruff said (of BY), "He is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy" (Journal of Discourses 13:165)

subgenius, do you consider the Journal of Discourses an official Church reference?

[_subgenius]

subgenius, do you consider the Journal of Discourses an official Church reference?

reference in what vein?
it certainly could be viewed as a "standard work" but it is definitely not canonical scripture.

i certainly "consider" it as follows:

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

http://LDS.org/study/topics/journal-of- ... s?lang=eng

[_Drifting]

subgenius, do you consider the Journal of Discourses an official Church reference?

reference in what vein?
it certainly could be viewed as a "standard work" but it is definitely not canonical scripture.

i certainly "consider" it as follows:

The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

http://LDS.org/study/topics/journal-of- ... s?lang=eng

subgenius, please consider continuing with this on the separate thread on the Journal Of Discourses. Thanks.

[_Drifting]

If Prophets are demonstrably and expectedly fallible how can we know wether the Priesthood ban was an example of God's discriminatory nature or of a Prophet leading the Church astray?

[_subgenius]

...demonstrably and expectedly...

No evidence has been provided that would support your assumption here, more so towards your implication. Therefore to engage in your highly speculative premise would simply be absurd. The "what if" discussion has little influence on this thread's topic.
"Demonstrably" i can almost concede in the sense of its actual definition, however the addition of "expectedly" creates a false premise and is demonstrably not true.

[_Drifting]

...demonstrably and expectedly...

No evidence has been provided that would support your assumption here, more so towards your implication. Therefore to engage in your highly speculative premise would simply be absurd. The "what if" discussion has little influence on this thread's topic.
"Demonstrably" i can almost concede in the sense of its actual definition, however the addition of "expectedly" creates a false premise and is demonstrably not true.

So is it a surprise and a disappointment to you when Prophets demonstrate their fallibility?

[_subgenius]

So is it a surprise and a disappointment to you when Prophets demonstrate their fallibility?

not sure that such a generalization can be applied. I mean to say that broad and sweeping proclamations are often why prophets are criticized, would it not be hypocritical to apply that same technique towards their criticism?

prophets, being human, are by default fallible. You seem to not want to distinguish prophecy from prophet.

[Guest]

So is it a surprise and a disappointment to you when Prophets demonstrate their fallibility?

prophets, being human, are by default fallible. You seem to not want to distinguish prophecy from prophet.

So, because Prophets are human they are expectedly fallible.
You agree that ther fallibility is demonstrable.

So when I said "demonstrably and expectedly fallible" you were actually in agreement with me.

Now on to Prophecy.
How do you identify when a Prophet is prophesying as a Prophet and not speaking as a fallible human being?

[_Buffalo]

Mopologists are quick to admit that their prophets are fallible, but are quick to anger when specific instances of fallibility are pointed out.