I was chatting again today with the ladies in the All Enlisted FB group (pants at church movement). We were discussing the flawed doctrines of the church, and of course one of them brought up the argument that they are men, and not perfect. The perfect counter argument popped into my head that I hadn't thought of before. If they are speaking as men, and imperfect, and therefore are not telling the church members correct doctrine in General Conference, would that not be "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture"?

Hmm, who do we know that teaches the philosophies of men mingled with scripture? Hmmm....could it be SATAN? Isn't that one of the ways we know he is Satan? I do believe it is. Therefore, the prophets must be Satan, or at least lead by Satan.

Wow! Perfect!

I agree that this is a good point. Anything that God "beams" down to a human would have to be communicated by means of human language. So it would become the words of men. That argument proves the fallacy of prophecy. When a human mouth speaks, it is a human mind selecting the words.

Especially if you are trying to justify the flaws in the doctrine (see racism!) by saying they were men, and influenced by the time they lived in. How is that the word of God?

Bingo!

One of the few times I absolutely stopped DH dead in his tracks defending Mormonism was when I said "If you can't tell when a man is speaking as a prophet and when he's speaking as a man, what good is it to have a prophet?"

I think your answer is better!

When I've used that argument, about not know when it's from God and when it's from man, TBMs always respond by saying "That's what personal inspiration is for." There's not much of a response to this one. At least not that I've thought of yet.

"So if I feel something a prophet tells us is wrong, I shouldn't do it?" "If I feel like the prophet was probably just speaking as a man when he revealed the WoW, then its fine for me to go grab a beer?"

Or have two earrings in each ear.

So when the *prophet* speaks, the thinking has been done, but when the prophet-speaks-as-a-man, the thinking hasn't been done and we use personal inspiration and think about it ourselves.

But if the personal inspiration we interpret for ourselves leads us to have an opinion that is "critical" of TheBrethren, will Mormons be excommunicated for apostasy? If yes, personal inspiration leads to apostacy.

Sweet Baby Geeeeeezus, why does Morg thinking make me think of one of those taffy pulling machines?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 02:05AM by Surrender Dorothy.

WHY would a prophet leave ANY Ambiguity in her/his words, the use thereof is supposed to accurately represent a thought, a concept, a principle, or a 'commandment'?

why?

twojedis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I've used that argument, about not know when
> it's from God and when it's from man, TBMs always
> respond by saying "That's what personal
> inspiration is for." There's not much of a
> response to this one. At least not that I've
> thought of yet.

So they're saying that personal revelation is more accurate than the prophet? What's the point of even having a prophet, then? How about if we all just rely on personal inspiration in the first place? That's faster, easier, and apparently more accurate. If we filter it through the prophet-who-speaks-as-a-man, then we have to fact check everything he says with personal inspiration anyway. So why not just cut out the middle man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Qfbrc1jdo


I've even seen some of the Mopologists try to explain problems in the BoM by claiming that much of the book's text is editorial opinion--and your reaction is exactly the same as I've had: Hmmm ... they're admitting that the BoM is "scripture mingled with the philosophies of men!" "Well, isn't that speshul!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 12:57AM by Fetal Deity.

That's exactly who I was thinking of. Oddly enough, The Church Lady was introduced to me by my roommate at BYU my freshman year. She's a lesbian now. I wish I knew how to get ahold of her. She was fabulous fun!

That's funny! I was introduced to the Church Lady by my roommates at BYU, too (but I was a sophomore).

I engaged in such LOUD LAUGHTER the first time I say "her," that my roommates basically thought I was insane--but it WAS their fault, afterall.

I was never allowed to watch much of anything at home, so it was my first taste of freedom. I also found Monty Python's The Holy Grail at the Academy Theater in downtown Provo that year. Of course, I also had my appendix out. It mus have been all of the sinning.

I was also raised with highly restrictive TV rules, too. That's probably what made my reaction to the Church Lady so over the top. (By the way, my appendicitis happened in my junior year [DEFINITELY due to sinning, LOL] and my gay roommate was in my sophomore year.)

: )

Go cougs!!

Zoobies rule!

Wow!!!! That's amazing! I have always thought about stuff like that but I never quite connected it in that way! What a fantastic argument for anyone that tries to pull that little piece of mental gymnastics!

Also, did you actually say that to them? Because that would have been great :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 01:44AM by nickson.

very nice

/borat voice

Note to former TBM self: watch Borat.

Every time someone dismisses a previous prophet as having spoken without the light and knowledge (McConkie on 1978 policy shift) or having spoken only as a man, you can rest assured that your parents raised you on false doctrine. Likewise, because this will almost certainly happen again in the future, no matter how faithfully you follow the prophet, you could very well be leading your children astray.

Take for instance, the letters and answers to letters that can be found from prophets to members of the church who felt the Priesthood ban was wrong clearly indicate that these members were in spiritual danger for placing their ideas above those from God. The thing that is so funny about this, were it not so sad, is that those who did not believe those teachings on Race were said to be under condemnation from God, when in fact it was they who apparently held the further light and knowledge that their prophets lacked.

There is simply no way to know whether the prophet is right or wrong. The only true requirement is that you obey, and let God judge you according to your obedience to the church leadership.

I love the way you put this!

I am not a Christian, but I know that Christianity teaches that the "first and great commandment" is to love God, and that the second is to "love your neighbor as yourself."

Mormonism says that "obedience is the first law of heaven" and, as you articulated well, it really is the ONLY TRUE REQUIREMENT.

(It's good to see you've posted again after a long hiatus, JoD3:360.)

: )

Does that mean I should be as full of loathing for my neighbor as I am with the self-loathing the church taught me?

I'm so confused.

I think we need to realize that these men ALWAYS speak as men - right from the beginning with J. Smith Jr. (and some 5000 year before).

Why is it a free pass if they are "speaking as men"? Somehow it becomes ok that they lie or speak authoritatively about a subject they shouldn't? I've heard this excuse given by apologists about the Kinderhook plates, the Book of Abraham and the Greek Psalter. Joseph was speaking "as a man". Even speaking as a man shouldn't he have been truthful about what he knew and didn't know?

You nailed that one on the head. My parents often argue that the prophets are not perfect and are not infallible. Same basic argument as the apologists. However, you're right, this goes right against the teachings of the endowment ceremony.

Thanks twojedis for bringing that up.
You know sometimes when the thoughts that creeps up now and then once you've been out after a lifetime as tbm. The one that says "what if I'm wrong".
And when I read things like what you've just shared, it helps me bringing things back to normal and give a nice kick in the butt to that little annoying thought.

I've long thought the same thing. It was a major factor in my admitting I did not believe the church was true.

I was taught that relying on personal revelation was a sin. It was leaning on the "arm of flesh" instead of listening and obeying the prophets.

The circular reasoning concerning prophecy is hilarious considering it no longer takes place. When was the last time one of these professional wafflers actually stuck his neck out and prophesied ANYTHING? Shoot- when was the last time they even gave a non-evasive answer to a doctrinal question?

So we aren't really talking about discernment of predictions, rather the dependability of their every day statements. They aren't consistent with those and that's why the whole "speaking as a man" argument was lifted from the successful Catholics.

They have to explain the obvious lack of divine inspiration because, as with the pope, time marches on and proves him wrong.

Why would the church, for example have hired people they weren't going to need if the church is lead by Jesus through inspiration?

I guess Jesus was inspiring as a man.


Anagrammy

Thanks for sharing your epiphany. It makes sense, in fact so much sense, let's follow up.

1. Current church leaders mix their philosophies with scripture.

2. Prior church leaders mix their philosophies with scripture.

3. Church leaders during the times that the scriptures were written mixed their philosophies with the scriptures they recorded.

4. Therefore all scripture is nothing more than the philosophies of men.

5. Thomas Monson's new and corrected title shall heretofore be known as "Philosopher, Seancer and Regurgitater of the Church.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 05:47PM by cricket.