It seems to me there are 3 possibilities:

1) The previous ages of 19 & 21 were wrong. Therefore the prophet was in error and thus not a prophet.

2) The current ages of 18 & 19 are wrong. Therefore the prophet is wrong and is not a prophet.

3) God the unchangeable and omniscient suddenly changed his mind and decided that he was wrong before and that the new ages should be 18 & 19.

Which one is it?

One really can't argue that God would not have revealed the correct answer to this. If God's greatest work is bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man and his restored church is the vehicle for doing so, especially missionary work, surely God would bother revealing the correct course to the prophet.


Of course this isn't a new problem, it simply illustrates an old problem that clearly the "prophets" who lead the LDS church are just men.

The "spirit of revelation" is clearly fallible.

Thus:
A) "Prophets" are just normal men making decisions just like other people.

B) We cannot trust feelings of the spirit as a reliable method of making decisions and ascertaining truth.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 01:27PM by bc.

There are so many issues in the history of the TSCC, that you could ask the same question about. Blacks, plural marriage, temple ceremonies... The answer to all of those questions is this is all bullshit!!!

Yes, this is clearly minor considering other much more significant reversals. It's just more current.

None of the above. It's just about policy, not right and wrong. Policies and rules change all the time. The main tenants of the church's claims are more stable.
Huge difference.


This policy of younger missionaries, according to their articles is all ready used in 48 areas of the world. No biggie. Just making it more uniform.

So the prophet doesn't receive revelation on something as major as how the missionary program should be conducted?

What does he receive revelation on then?

I think your answer falls into both #1 & #2. The prophet now and before did not receive revelation on this.

If the prophet does not receive revelation on something so critical what does he receive revelation on?

The clear answer is nothing. The prophet is a manager not a seer - a Steward of Gondor if you will. There is no revelation only policy!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 01:40PM by bc.

That's it.

There is no doctrine. No core values. No truth. Just policies.

Core values:
Obedience to the leadership
Pay

Q: Why do you pay tithing to the church?
A: Because I'm obeying a commandment.

There's no reason for any other doctrine but OBEDIENCE. It does a pretty good job covering all the bases.So your point about "pay" is redundant and it misses so many of the blessings from the other sub-doctrines like chapel cleaning, temple cleaning, home teaching, doing stupid things, callings, etc. that people do because they fear that they won't get Exaltation if they don't exactly comply with the whims of the field reps for a bunch of old irresponsible men in SLC.

Clarification: OBEDIENCE to the Brethren.

When someone discovers that "OBEDIENCE to the truth" and "OBEDIENCE to the Brethren" are two separate things then they end up apostasizing. The reason why people are TBM is because in their mind truth=Brethren. So when we say Obedience its important to clarify that they mean "Obedience to the Brethren". Of course they'll give lip service to Gawd and Jebus as you they really obey. But we all know that inside the LDS church that obedience to Gawd/Jebus and the Brethren is one and the same in their minds.

There was a thread a few weeks ago where the question was asked if there was anything more fundamental than paying tithing and I made the same argument you make that obedience is the only foundation. So, yes, I agree with you.

The interesting thing about obedience is that it is amoral - neither moral not immoral. So really the LDS church is not based on any morals. Nephi chopping of Laban's head is a perfect example - no morality only obedience.

In heaven, there is a "GOB" (God office building). It is full of quantum computers. God has millions of worker bees, (what do you think all those unborn spirits do?), feeding data in and analyzing the results. Then they write a memo to god with recommendations on what god should do.

When god decides, he sends a brain fart down to Monson. Monson discusses it with the rest of the seniles. They make an announcement and a church wide 'morgasm' ensues...

God is unchangeable, God's computer is not...

If this was presented to them (about this, or any policy they've reversed), they could just simply say "god had a new vision. the old one wasn't wrong, the new one isn't a correction, it's just what god wants from his missionaries now. Modern revelation includes not just new ideas, but new ways of doing things, changed ways of doing things. If god did not desire to guide us, he would not have given us a living prophet through which he is able to speak and improve or lives" or some similar mumbo-jumbo that is equal parts deflection and faith promotion.

Liars and scam artists can explain away anything in an eloquent way, and leave believers with stronger devotion after masking a troubling issue.

Ugh, the sleaze.

Right so this is a rationalization for #3. (I get that you are playing devil's advocate.)

So what changed?

Why was this the right decision for God today but the wrong decision for God 10 years ago?

If God cares so much that the church is growing and advancing why would he wait until now to reveal this instead of say, 5 years ago?

Yeah, just playing devil's advocate. Actually, no so much devil's advocate as agreeing with you completely, but my take on what they would say if they were ever questioned about god's flip-flopping on age.

They don't provide any reasoning behind their made up revelations, and if questioned about the lack of insight, it's sort of a "there's not reason why, there's but do or die" situation. God didn't tell Abraham beforehand WHY he wanted him to sacrifice his son. So while Abraham was prepping his son for sacrifice, he didn't know why or question god's logic behind the request, he just did it. BUT, at the last minute god said "ok, stop, you've proven your loyalty, here's a ram to offer up instead." So the concept of god ordering prophets to do things and only revealing his plan afterwards or while it unfolds isn't a foreign concept to believers. In LDS terms, "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" so I guess when god speaks to the prophet, the thinking has already been done, it's just an order for the prophet to execute.

The lack of explanation for the changes revealed to the prophet provides a bit of mystery, an implied sign of some unknown event that will occur in the near future (like the end of the world, because we're always in the VERY last days, right? and stirring up fear of the looming unknown results in submission and blind faith), and everything will be revealed in due course... all on god's time. Just the standard "it will all make sense eventually...." and eventually people will forget that that they are still waiting for something to make sense, to connect the changes and make it all reasonable as some sort of master plan. The church has no answers by design. If god has a history of seemingly random directions, it would seem suspicious if he started revealing the method behind the madness, that seems like it would be a clear signal to anyone with critical thinking skills but somehow still remains TBM. that the prophet is speaking as a man, not as a prophet.

Bottom line: it's all BS, they hide behind religious mystery and mythology to remain unaccountable for backtracking on decisions, making changes, etc. The sheep follow, or they open their eyes and end up posting these questions here :-D

Who sends God a vision? Colonel Sanders?

God's god sends him the vision. Isn't that how it works, god has a god, and his god has a god? Geez, even the god situation is like a business. God is just rung on the corporate ladder.

SusieQ is right. The mormons claim latter-day revelation, so changes in policy (not doctrine) can be made according to the needs of the church today. What is needed now is not the same as what was needed back when the ages were fixed at 19 and 21. They would call it a policy change prompted both by the need and revelation.

This is how I understand church doctrine VS policy as explained to me when I worked for the LDS Church some years ago.
I think it's important to understand the difference and not confuse the two.
I also don't think there is any real "revelation" re: doctrine as most of it is now long standing and made clear in their manuals. Some minor points in how their policies to living or executing those doctrines may change from time to time, but that does not change the essence of the doctrine.

That's how I have always understood it and I am fine with it! I don't live the doctrines or the policies so I don't care what they do about either, personally!

The whole doctrine vs policy thing is a huge apologetic cop out.

What they call doctrine and policy is extremely fluid. If something is a currently belief it is an eternal doctrine. If it changes it was a policy.

For example the blacks not having the priesthood was clearly stated to be a doctrine before 1978 by prophets and in official first presidency documentation. Now it is called a policy.

All the prophet does is establish policies. If he does not do so by revelation then he is not a prophet.

(Note - I fully recognize that I am preaching to the choir and that ya'll are simply responding as to why this logic would reach deaf ears on a TBM. Clearly you are right because they are very successful in avoiding the cog dis of prophets being wrong and changing course all over the place - the entire D&C even with the many edits is replete with bad decisions that were claimed to be revelations and course corrections.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 02:03PM by bc.

To me it is kind of like the whole WoW thing - first it was a policy, then it became a doctrine. As a doctrine, it is subject to a lot of policy. Hence the recent historical confusion about what is "policy" and what is "doctrine" - caffienated coffee only and decaf OK? What about caffienated soda - bad unless somebody wants their Dr. Pepper? How about eating meat sparingly and in times of famine (does one vegetarian meal a month constitute sparing eating of meat?) What herbs exactly are those healing herbs - sounds like the WoW is a proponent of medical marijuana!...

The corporation utilizes the fluidity between policy and doctrine to cover their own ass. Back in the day of Know Your Religion, it appeared that somehow the speakers were allowed to travel on the sabbath after their Saturday night performance. For some reaon I thought that was against the doctrine of the Sabbath, but obviously there is some sabbath policy for paid speakers of God's word that made it OK. Just like it was OK for Steve Young to play football on Sunday but not OK for your kid or your family to play football on Sunday.

Doctrine is the corporation's farce that it communicates with God. Policy is the corporation's vise grip on the balls of its membership to bend them to the will of the corporation.

Right.

So is God directing these policy changes or not?

If not, QED.

If yes, then if this is a good decision now why did He not direct them to make this good decision sooner.

Ultimately this is the FUNDAMENTAL problem with the Mormon claim that they are led by prophets. Their track record shows exactly the opposite.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 01:56PM by bc.

My observation is that anyone with a "calling" in the LDS Church is taught that they are entitled to inspiration for their stewardship. Same, of course for the top leaders.
They all take the position that they are being directed by Christ and Heavenly Father on some level.

If they need a revelation to realize they have to lower the missionary age to retain more members, they are dumber than I thought...

In the new tech age we are now in, kids develop and mature faster, and they are more ready to take on more responsiblity now then they were a generation ago.

Young children learn more at kindergarten now then they did in the first grade 30 years ago. Kids grow up faster and learn more about sex, drugs, and life then they did prior to the tech age.

The former generation wasn't mature enough to go on a mission at 18, now they are.

In reality though, the reason the age is now 18 is because a lot of kids have sex after high school and can't go on a mission. Or the kids learn the church is b.s., so they don't go on a mission. The church is planning on getting them out on missions before they can't or won't go.

Yep this is logically where you have to try to go.

Circumstances changed therefore God's laws and policies changed.

The other place to go is the God's ways are higher than man's ways mumbo-jumbo.

However both of the rationalizations quickly fall flat when you look at the context at the church's long history of reversal of policy/doctrine.

I agree with your reasoning and conclusions.

bc is right on! There is no revelation or even inspiration.

The first counselor in the presiding bishopric of the whole church recently described to me personally the FOCUS GROUPS the church used in deciding how to present the missionary discussions and what to teach to investigators!

A focus group for crap-sakes...corporations use focus groups!!

Doesn't sound like the Lard has a huge hand in that work!

To quote the campaign of a famous Mormon:

You just shake the Etch-a-sketch and start over!

Bingo - there is no accountability for when prophets were previously wrong:
1 1/2 year missions for men
United Order
Attempt to sell the copyright of the BoM in Canada
Adam God Theory
Kinderhook plates
No priesthood for blacks
etc
etc
etc

How about this for an answer: missionary ages 19 and 21 were right for world/society conditions prior to about 2008. Then the CoJCoLDS started using 18 year old men (boys) for missionaries in some locations in the world, due to changing world conditions.

That has worked well for them. And now, given the status of world conditions in 2012, the Brethren have decided that missionary ages 18 and 19 are the best ages.

...to only unmarried young people (well, and retired couples). Was that an error? was the previous way an error?

Their comeback is and always will be..."that's why it's so wonderful having a living (and I use the term loosely) prophet...so we are blessed with ongoing revelation."

parathesis added by me.