Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_malkie]

Granted thought I will give to you that an interview by Larry King is not binding on the Church.

But that's the problem, Jason. A prophet can say anything he wants and claim it's revelation and even teach it at conference and in the temple, and then later someone says, "Oh, it was just personal opinion. It's not 'official.'" It's a cop-out that allows people to avoid the troubling crap that prophets have taught. Either they are prophets, or they aren't. It says a lot that we can't know whether a prophet's words are inspired or revealed until a committee of paid church employees gives the OK.

And, apparently, we can't know because he can't or won't tell us.

What would it be like, I wonder, if church conferences began with a statement to the effect that everything you hear from the pulpit is speculation and personal opinion unless followed immediately by the words "This is a revelation, and binding on members of the church.".

[_Drifting]

It's not a cop out by any stretch. It's simply following what's long been established. Beginning with D&C 107, we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are equal in authority and therefore, all 15 must agree of doctrine. Even WW had to get approval for the Manifesto (and it took two months If I recall correctly).

So now that you have been reminded and keep being reminded of the clear rule for identifying doctrine, you can't accept it because it invalidates many of your cherished criticism.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures are only a tiny tiny portion of all the words ever spoken by the prophets gleaned over long periods of time. And so here is yet another example of why you must accept the Church standard for doctrine besides common sense.

bcspace, putting 'doctrine or not doctrine' to one side.
How do you identify when the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet and when the Prophet is speaking only as a man?

[_SteelHead]

When he is alive he is speaking as a prophet. When dead it is ok to throw him under the bus.

[_Buffalo]

It's not a cop out by any stretch. It's simply following what's long been established. Beginning with D&C 107, we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are equal in authority and therefore, all 15 must agree of doctrine. Even WW had to get approval for the Manifesto (and it took two months If I recall correctly).

So now that you have been reminded and keep being reminded of the clear rule for identifying doctrine, you can't accept it because it invalidates many of your cherished criticism.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures are only a tiny tiny portion of all the words ever spoken by the prophets gleaned over long periods of time. And so here is yet another example of why you must accept the Church standard for doctrine besides common sense.

bcspace, putting 'doctrine or not doctrine' to one side.
How do you identify when the Prophet is speaking as the Prophet and when the Prophet is speaking only as a man?

The prophets themselves can't tell the difference between inspiration and their own opinions.

[_Runtu]

It's not a cop out by any stretch. It's simply following what's long been established. Beginning with D&C 107, we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are equal in authority and therefore, all 15 must agree of doctrine. Even WW had to get approval for the Manifesto (and it took two months If I recall correctly).

So now that you have been reminded and keep being reminded of the clear rule for identifying doctrine, you can't accept it because it invalidates many of your cherished criticism.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures are only a tiny tiny portion of all the words ever spoken by the prophets gleaned over long periods of time. And so here is yet another example of why you must accept the Church standard for doctrine besides common sense.

It's not a matter of accepting it or not. I understand the reasons why the church insists on its own definition of "official doctrine." But you are incorrect in saying it is a long-established process. Correlation began in 1971, and since that time it is the correlation committee that determines the doctrinal validity of what goes into church publications. The big 15 don't have much to do with it at all.

I am fine letting the church define its own doctrine, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what that doctrine is. That said, if absolutely nothing pre-1971 is considered doctrine unless it's been through the post-1971 correlation process (which is exactly the church's policy), then there's something else going on besides the brethren establishing and declaring doctrine.

Is something published in December 1970 in the Improvement Era--at the time the official church magazine--doctrine? Not according to the church, which is why the church's web site includes only publications after 1971.

[_Runtu]

When he is alive he is speaking as a prophet. When dead it is ok to throw him under the bus.

True that.

[_subgenius]

What restrictions would you put on a prophet if he says something and claims it was revealed to him?

quite honestly - none. I don't think one can set forth parameters that would "qualify" a revelation.
Its like the US Constitution - some truths are self-evident.
Each person who hears the prophet ultimately decides for themselves.
A prophet may earnestly consider a revelation to have been received and it may have been or may not have been - there is an obvious process that occurs which clarifies the matter. The title of "prophet" does not imply infallibility but when a revelation has been put forth it is undeniable.
One should not confuse prophecy with prophet.

[_subgenius]

The prophets themselves can't tell the difference between inspiration and their own opinions.

hardly an absolute truth.
sure there can be confusion between inspiration and opinion at times, but we all can't be like you - without either.
....and that confusion can even be from the position of he who is listening to the prophet....but diligent studying and discussion on the subject will often remove such alleged confusion.

[_Buffalo]

The prophets themselves can't tell the difference between inspiration and their own opinions.

hardly an absolute truth.
sure there can be confusion between inspiration and opinion at times, but we all can't be like you - without either.
....and that confusion can even be from the position of he who is listening to the prophet....but diligent studying and discussion on the subject will often remove such alleged confusion.

Really? How many of Brigham Young's unique revelations are still accepted by the church today?

[_Runtu]

quite honestly - none. I don't think one can set forth parameters that would "qualify" a revelation.
Its like the US Constitution - some truths are self-evident.
Each person who hears the prophet ultimately decides for themselves.
A prophet may earnestly consider a revelation to have been received and it may have been or may not have been - there is an obvious process that occurs which clarifies the matter. The title of "prophet" does not imply infallibility but when a revelation has been put forth it is undeniable.
One should not confuse prophecy with prophet.

Then why did you say that the prophet does not have the right to tell us he's had a revelation and we should accept it?