wade wrote: Actually, you, as a non-member, made a baseless asserton about my faith (I.e. that LDS view their prophets as infallible), and I, as an LDS, authoritatively corrected you (to the reasonably minded, that would be considered "evidence").
You are not an authority Wade, you are someone who is a member of an organization and hence more closely connected than I and theoretically should be more knowledgeable than myself, being an outsider.
That doesn’t make you an authority in which whatever you say is the definitive answer. You are not in charge of the church, not a formal spokesperson for them, nor an individual with unquestionable knowledge.
My sentence which you opposed was: “When Mormons are told God speaks through their prophets, nothing a current prophet says can possibly be wrong.”
I didn’t say LDS view their prophets as infallible (your words)
Don’t misrepresent what I say. I said “
nothing a current prophet says can possibly be wrong given that they claim to speak on behalf of God. I’m fully aware past prophets can be assumed fallible when its expedient. But how could an obedient member ever find a current prophet wrong, when they claim to speak for God?
This apparently didn't suffice (this I find amusing given that this thread is about "arrogance"), and so you asked how I evaluated the statements of the prophets.
It is pretty darn arrogant of you Wade to think you speak with unquestionable authority regarding Mormonism and that I have no right to question you. You are absolutely right Wade this thread is about arrogance and you are displaying it.
And, as the ultimate authority on how I evalute the statements of the prophets, I briefly descibed it to you (the reasonably minded would consider this "evidence").
You’ve described nothing to me, other than to say you use evidence and reasoning. I asked you to illustrate with an example. You failed to do so.
Again, that didn't suffice, and so you requested that I explicate my evaluative processes using a case that has been moot for more than 100 years, and on e that I haven't given much consideration to for several decades.
Well for a case which has been moot and which you’ve havn’t given much consideration , you offered your opinion, with no hesitation. And your opinion was J. Smith and B. Young’s instigation of polygamy and their practice was not wrong.
I don’t have any problem with that Wade, but you failed to give your reasoning and evidence to warrant that opinion.
I declined that specific request, but said I would be pleased to consider a more contemparary example. You have yet to respond to my counter-offer.
Wade if a current prophet is fallible when they speak for God, and members appreciate this, give one example in which the current prophet is wrong, when speaking for God. And use the main prophet Hinckley.
Nevertheless, in a subsequent post to another participant on this thread, I did describe my evaluative process in thinking that the position of the Bretheren (which includes the prophet) on reverence in the Chapel was to some degree wrong. (Reasonably minded people would consider my description of my evaluative process as "evidence and reasoning" for my "evidence and reasoning")
Ok I’ve looked and it’s obvious this lower prophet in giving his suggestion was not speaking on behalf of God. Frankly Wade I'm not impressed by your example, suggesting that members be more soft spoken and meditative, is a rather weak wishy washy example.
You wrote: “Not everything that a member may deem wrong in what a prophet says will affect one's church standing. For example, a while back I attended a stake leadership meeting with Elder Ballard. He brought up the subject of reverence in the chapel, and mentioned that the Brethren had decided
to encourage members and leaders to be more meditative and soft-spoken when entering and seating themselves in the chapel. And, while I could see the advantages of such a practice, I personally reasoned that the excited hugs and somewhat boistrous and joyful interactions among the members--particularly the children, even in the chapel, envoked a spirit of comradery, socialization, and love that I believed outwieghed the advantages of quite meditation. In other words, and to some extent, I felt the Brethren were wrong. As it was, I expressed that opposing view without feeling the least discomfort in doing so, and to this day my Church standing has been entirely unaffected by it.”
Counterfactually, though, you now claim that I haven't presented any evidence and reasoning, and then went on to concluded that your baseless assertion about my faith stands--thereby unwittingly, and ironically, committing the fallacies of slothful induction, Ad Lapidem, and arguing from silence. Bravo!!
Well Wade, you have not presented any evidence and reasoning to illustrate that you oppose any prophet past or present who spoke/speaks on behalf of God.