I simply do not see the line between a President of the Church speaking for the Lord or speaking for himself as being all that clear. Hinckley in some media interviews implied this ambiguity when he talked about revelation as being subtle and being that still small voice.

President Hinckley said women should not have more than one pair of earrings and that men should have none. I think that this was the opinion of an old man with certain views of what someone should dress like. Others feel that he was voicing the words of God. The same goes with the church’s views of homosexuality and support of the FMA. The line isn’t so clear.

As far as the letter concerning the FMA goes, a quick (or detailed) look at posts concerning the letter quickly shows that most LDS took it as a plea to write their senators in support of the FMA (though it was carefully written to grant plausible deniability to the claim). Almost every LDS I know saw the letter as an urge to write support letters, to say the opposite seems to require a bit of intellectual dishonesty.

Also of note is the fact that regarding the recent same-sex marriage (FMA) issue, we were not told to contact our Senators and tell them to vote yes on the amendment. We were asked to contact them and express ourselves. Never was it commanded or suggested that we do so in the affirmative. Yes, the First Presidency stated their stance on it, but that is not to say you wouldn’t be able to “express yourself” against it.

Nobody is (at least I am certainly not) advocating to go against the Spirit. The question is whether one should follow the President of the Church (who is not always acting as a prophet) or follow what they feel is the Spirit speaking to them.

Example: President Hinckley says ‘fight gay-marriage’; Spirit says: ‘don’t fight gay-marriage’. Which do you follow?

Another example: President Hinckley says ‘War in Iraq is justified.’ Spirit says: ‘War in Iraq is not justified.’ Which do you follow?

Connor:

Do you deny the prophetic calling of President Hinckley? Do you disbelieve everything he says? Do you credit these fine man with anything positive? Or do you just like to tear down, destroy, and criticize?

Nice slippery slope. I think bringing the temple to the poor and small (through mini temples) was a fabulous and inspired action by Pres. Hinckley. The Perpetual Education Fund is one of many. You seem to hold to some odd idea that a prophet is either perfect or a complete waste. I see that you are reading Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. I hope you can learn something from it.

I’ll be interested to see where you stand when things get dicey in the last days and we all have to choose sides. For some reason, I think you and I will be on different sides of the fence.

I think and hope we’ll be on different sides.

I mean, if we base all our decisions on scripture only, that gets pretty shaky, especially because the Bible is translated, and the Book of Mormon is transliterated. If we rely only on modern prophets, they’ll occasionally do things their own way. If we rely solely on (what we think to be) the Spirit, we’ll get decieved by our own imaginations and emotions from time to time.

I think you probably won’t get in trouble for following the prophet, and our prophet is the best man on earth to take divine advice from, but leaning only on one source is probably not the best idea.

In a sense, you’re both right… right?

:)

Therefore, what?

What are you trying to imply? What are you trying to say? What is the end goal of your citing these quotes and statements?

Do you deny the prophetic calling of President Hinckley? Do you disbelieve everything he says? Do you credit these fine man with anything positive? Or do you just like to tear down, destroy, and criticize?

I’ll be interested to see where you stand when things get dicey in the last days and we all have to choose sides. For some reason, I think you and I will be on different sides of the fence.

In response to questions about a failed revelation (about selling the BofM copyright in Canada), Joseph Smith said “Some revelations come from God, some from man, and some from the devil.” Joseph Smith, himself, claimed that prophets of God can be mistaken about what is revealed from God.

Moroni (or Mormon) in the title page of the BofM says of the divine texts, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.” Moroni, himself, is claiming that prophetic words and texts can be mistaken. This is reiterated in the text of the BofM as well.

Brigham warned about the potential for the highest leaders of the church to lead members to destruction “What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually”

He also said, “How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves”

George Q. Cannon warned that your kind of mythical view of prophetic infallibility would lead to a loss of faith: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;”

Brigham Young taught that it was revealed to him by God that God the Father was Adam. Joseph F. Smith said that the Adam-God Doctrine was false. Either one president of the church is leading the saints astray in belief, or the ontological nature and past history of God changed.

I could give you lists and lists of Apostles (sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators) who have taught things that were blatantly false. Apostles and Presidents have openly fought over what they believed were revealed doctrines and practices.

These all contradict the notion that prophets cannot lead members astray. In fact, they prove that prophets are fallible and able to lead members astray.

However, the prophet has never been led astray, nor will the Lord suffer him so to do. He would sooner be removed from office (by God playing the “death card“).

Does God pull out his supposed death card before or after the prophet leads others astray? If it is after, then how by what standard do you determine the prophet was wrong? Of course, if you hold to your rigid belief, then the prophet would be killed off by God before he has the opportunity to lead another astray. But this leads to a plethora of problems concerning free-will and the problem of evil (why would God kill off Hitler?)

Of course all this discussion also hinges on the question of whether or not an Apostle or President of the Church (or any person for that matter) is speaking as a Prophet of God. What criteria is there for seperating divine words from human opinion and speculation? “Thus saith the Lord” is practically absent in talks, discussions, and pronouncements from LDS leaders. A long history of censorships and problems make it difficult to appeal to a ‘pulpit standard’ (just look at the Journal of Discourses). Official pronouncements, while authoritative, hold similar difficulties. In the end, it comes down to one’s own reflection and intution by the spirit – exactly what Young and others taught should be the standard.