wenglund wrote: This is a gross mischaracterization of LDS belief. We are not inerrantists. Not only do we accept the possibility that prophets can say things that are wrong, but our scriptures even suggest the possibility, point out not a few instance where that has occured, and suggest means for dealing with it.
By what means do you determine that a current prophet might be wrong, that a previous prophet might be wrong?
I'd also like to know if the prophets of the scriptures could be wrong as well? Could the scriptures then be wrong?
The scripture state as much--in some ways, and presumeably to a minor extent.
The way to determine whether a prophet or a scripture may, on rare occasion, be wrong, is much the same as with most any epistemology--through testing it against the bulk of one's epistemology using epistemological tools (other scriptures, personal enlightenment and revelation, instruction and guidance from teachers and leaders, but most importantly practical application--putting the prophets words and the words of the scripture into affect and seeing whether they work to one's good and betterment).
KimberlyAnn wrote:Thank you, Canuklehead, for sharing your EFY lesson with us. I had those same lessons and was told the same stories. I was told that I was a part of the greatest group of people who have ever existed - that I was valiant in the pre-existence and saved to come forth during the most important time in the history of the world. Also, like you, I was told of the awe in which I would be held in the hereafter. Those teachings do indeed instill a subconscious arrogance of which most members aren't aware, but of which many outsiders are.
I've really enjoyed your posts so far! Welcome to the board!
Kimberly Ann
Yeah, that's why I hate those lessons. It's pure emotional froth. When I was in a meeting before EFY I was told to avoid that kind of emotional stuff and stick to the doctrine.
The whole 'saved for the last generation thing' doesn't mean as much to me since my parents, grandparents, and my great-grandfather told me they'd been taught the very same thing. "You're special and unique.....just like everybody else".
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Uh-huh, Mormonism is a spiritual kindergarten, but it's still the One True spiritual kindergarten. :)
This would be about like saying that science is a spiritual wasteland because most do not associate spirituality with science. Its rather condescending. No matter the information you use, whether it be Mormonism, or science, or whatever, the level of education associated with it is dependent upon how much time and effort one wishes to sink into the data. For instance, there are people in this world who have earned a doctorate purely on the subject of studying letters. Does this mean that they have a kindergarten level doctorate? Not hardly.
Mormonism is what you make of it (or what your spiritual path) can make of it. Same goes for any thing else in this world.
IMHO, Nehor's post reflected a factor of Mormonism that is a very low point of spirituality. This is based purely on my personal belief that a God of judgments, threats, and comparisons is inferior to a God of Love. That's just how I am.
Wade Englund wrote: The way to determine whether a prophet or a scripture may, on rare occasion, be wrong, is much the same as with most any epistemology--through testing it against the bulk of one's epistemology using epistemological tools (other scriptures, personal enlightenment and revelation, instruction and guidance from teachers and leaders, but most importantly practical application--putting the prophets words and the words of the scripture into affect and seeing whether they work to one's good and betterment).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Well let's look at a concrete example, was polygamy wrong as practiced by J. Smith, as practice by B. Young?
Wade Englund wrote: The way to determine whether a prophet or a scripture may, on rare occasion, be wrong, is much the same as with most any epistemology--through testing it against the bulk of one's epistemology using epistemological tools (other scriptures, personal enlightenment and revelation, instruction and guidance from teachers and leaders, but most importantly practical application--putting the prophets words and the words of the scripture into affect and seeing whether they work to one's good and betterment).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Well let's look at a concrete example, was polygamy wrong as practiced by J. Smith, as practice by B. Young?
Not as I see it.
Please explain why or why not.
In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.
wenglund wrote:In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I'm really curious as to what evidence and reasoning led you to believe that wedding teenagers and married women without the consent of Joseph's wife was right. I'm not asking so as to mock you, but I am wondering what reasoning and evidence you used.
The Nehor wrote:Yeah, that's why I hate those lessons. It's pure emotional froth. When I was in a meeting before EFY I was told to avoid that kind of emotional stuff and stick to the doctrine.
I agree, Nehor!! I think it is VERY important to seperate the Faith-Promoting Rumor's of the church with the actual doctrine of the church.
There is so much out there that is assumed to be doctrine, just because the culture has somehow adopted it as such, when, in actuality, it is not. The example of taking every word that comes out of a prophets mouth as absolute truth is one of these. This is so deeply ingrained in the culture, that it has more or less become a part of Mormon doctrine in the minds of the members.
Same with watching rated R movies. ETB said this to the youth once, but it has become a deeply rooted part of the Mormon community. Well, the Utah County community at least. I'm not sure about the rest of the world.
wenglund wrote: In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.
Wade, what evidence and reasoning did you use (pro & con) ..just key deciding factors is all that I'm interested in.
wenglund wrote:In short, the reason I see it that way is because the evidence and reasoning I found in favor of it being right far outweighed the evidence and reasoning that it was wrong.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I'm really curious as to what evidence and reasoning led you to believe that wedding teenagers and married women without the consent of Joseph's wife was right. I'm not asking so as to mock you, but I am wondering what reasoning and evidence you used.
Really, it's irrelevant. Since, to remain a member in good standing, you have to follow what the church tells you anyways. The church doesn't allow this kind of reasoning.
For instance, if i come to the conclusion that the WoW was incorrect, it wouldn't matter. I still wouldn't be allowed to go to the temple.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:Really, it's irrelevant. Since, to remain a member in good standing, you have to follow what the church tells you anyways. The church doesn't allow this kind of reasoning.
For instance, if I come to the conclusion that the WoW was incorrect, it wouldn't matter. I still wouldn't be allowed to go to the temple.
Yes, of course you're right. I think for most people, the bottom line is that he was a prophet who said God told him to do what he did. That means the practice was right, because God said so.