Let me see if I have this straight. If a “prophet” makes a statement that is sufficiently vague that some interpretation of a future event could conceivably be in some sort of agreement with that statement, that’s proof that they were a prophet of God, but…..

If a “prophet” says something that in future years is revealed to be an unquestionable pile of horse excrement (like Brigham Young’s “death on the spot” for interracial marriage or when SWK said that Native American children were becoming “white and delightsome”) they were “speaking as men.” Do I have that right?

It would sure be helpful if they could indicate that during general conference broadcasts. On the bottom of the screen, it could say something like “Elder Craig C. Christenson, First Quorum of the Seventy, currently speaking as a man.”

Well said.

If I understand it correctly, our planet is about to go through a spate of earthquakes. They could capitalize on those scientific revelations, building up the "latter days" claim to those who reject science as the work of the adversary. A god's punishment for rejecting the "reformation" (as detailed by a convicted con man).

Then we have the current political climate. Not too difficult to predict "great unrest" or "rumors of war."

I enjoyed your post, and wanted to chime in.

I'm glad you chimed.

Exactly.

The sacred pink eraser is used to remove "Prophet" to replace with "His Opinion at the time- was speaking as a Man" whenever what they need to change or back off what was said.

I like your idea!

A crawling banner at the bottom of the page should say "This is no longer what the current times or prophet thinks. The speaker is now speaking as a man."

What's especially funny to me is that they have said conference talks are scripture.
How come they can't figure out that the Bible prophets are out of date and were "speaking as men" too?

It's all so stupid!

The Catholic Doctrine on Papal Infallibility states that the pope must clearly denote infallibility “ex cathedra.” In other words, he must clearly state it is an infallible doctrine “from the chair” (the throne of St. Peter).

Since 1870 (when this teaching was formalize) it’s happened twice—the Immaculate Conception which refers to Mary; and the assumption of Mary.

Mormons need to adopt a similar stance, “I’m the prophet speaking in General Conference as your prophet...”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2018 01:06PM by BYU Boner.

As far as the RC has this guidance, BYU Boner, you might find some gems in 'Papal Sins' by Garry Wills, it documents the extremes the church goes through to keeps a new decision/policy from stepping on some historical toes.

It's an eye opener.

In Profiles of a Prophet, the prophet is supposed to utter "Thus Saith The Lord",

but of course,

That hasn't been mentioned in the remembrance of anyone currently alive...

A few of the best examples of throwing prior prophets "under the bus" so to speak, is Brigham Young's "Adam God doctrine" as well as Brigham's and other leaders teachings on Blacks not being able to receive the Priesthood until all the other sons of Adam had first received it.

Also taught was the idea that Blacks,if they achieved the celestial kingdom, would only be admitted as servants to non-blacks.

The church can't deny that these things were taught as they are clearly stated in the recorded conference talks in the early church's "Journal of Discourses" as well as some conference talks given as recently as the 1970's, all of which is considered scripture.

The leaders can't deny these things were taught. They don't discuss them publicly but simply disavow them by saying " they were speaking as a man" or "all that matters is what the living prophet says". The church simply wants to ignore their inconsistencies, hope the members will not notice or question their inconsistencies and if they do, dismiss them as human foibles.

Very confusing to the observant believer. Does God really allow
his oracles to teach false doctrine?

I have an acid test for this sort of thing.

It's called the parent-teenager test. If you would have received flack from your TBM parents for "murmuring" about the "inspired counsel" when it was first given, then it's doctrine--at least it was and now God (or somebody) is flip floping.

One has to ask why you should have to put your reputation on the line and fight tooth and nail to defend teachings that will be cast aside like soiled gloves in a couple decades.

Super idea to have the words flash across the screen....and I suggest that it happen over and over during the talk and not at the bottom of the screen but right across the face of the speaker (don't want anyone to miss it).

one more thing, the burden of establishing which mode the holy oracle happpens to be speaking in is on the listener, not on the holy oracle !!!! In THE (MORmON) church, THE heavy lifting is always reserved for the rank and file, NOT for the most gifted !!!!

membership has its privileges, leadership is an absolute gravy train !!!

CrispingPin, are you speaking as a man in this post or as a prophet?

I was speaking as a prophet. Well, as much as any Mormon leader ever did.

I participate in an LDS site, and have been pointing this out for years.

If leaders say something that is right, they are inspired. If it turns out wrong, they are speaking as a man.

My dog points in the right direction half the time, so he must be a prophet.

They say you are to pray to receive a confirmation the prophet's words are inspired. If you need to get inspiration to determine their inspiration, I tell them to just cut out the middleman. Figure it out yourself.

There is no exciting revelation anymore. Just policy changes, or advice you can find in any self-help book.