Does a person have to be perfect to be a prophet?

[miss taken]

I have been musing on this one lately, particularly as it applies to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but also back to the OT.

Mormon apologists would quote the OT and the imperfections of most of the biblical characters, whilst still honouring their prophetic callings.

Perhaps a difficulty is in the definition of a 'prophet'. Prophet in OT times did not necessarily mean president of the corporation of the Church of Jesus CHrist of Latter Day Saints.. and the NT certainly mentions female prophetesses.

So maybe a comparison between OT prophets and personalities and Joseph Smith is not possible.

But... does the fact that JS was imperfect, totally invalidate him from his position. Did he make it all up? Or did he actually experience some of it???

Mary

[silverfox]

I have been musing on this one lately, particularly as it applies to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but also back to the OT.

Mormon apologists would quote the OT and the imperfections of most of the biblical characters, whilst still honouring their prophetic callings.

Perhaps a difficulty is in the definition of a 'prophet'. Prophet in OT times did not necessarily mean president of the corporation of the Church of Jesus CHrist of Latter Day Saints.. and the NT certainly mentions female prophetesses.

So maybe a comparison between OT prophets and personalities and Joseph Smith is not possible.

But... does the fact that JS was imperfect, totally invalidate him from his position. Did he make it all up? Or did he actually experience some of it???

Mary

First, it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be perfect. Won't ever happen.

I guess you would have to believe in prophets to be able to answer your question. I, myself, do not believe in prophets. I don't believe there is a prophet, I don't believe really that there ever was a prophet.

I believe there are MANY people who feel they are prophets. I believe that they have followings. I believe they are not all religious leaders either. Ever talk to someone who is schizophrenic? Sometimes they feel they are chosen, can talk to God, etc, etc, etc.

So I would like to ask...how do you know if someone who claims to be a prophet is mentally ill (or full of themselves) or truly a prophet?

And what makes us, people, follow them?

(I hope I am not derailing or hijacking this thread)

[miss taken]

First, it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to be perfect. Won't ever happen.

I guess you would have to believe in prophets to be able to answer your question. I, myself, do not believe in prophets. I don't believe there is a prophet, I don't believe really that there ever was a prophet.

I believe there are MANY people who feel they are prophets. I believe that they have followings. I believe they are not all religious leaders either. Ever talk to someone who is schizophrenic? Sometimes they feel they are chosen, can talk to God, etc, etc, etc.

So I would like to ask...how do you know if someone who claims to be a prophet is mentally ill (or full of themselves) or truly a prophet?

And what makes us, people, follow them?

(I hope I am not derailing this thread)

Hi Silverfox!
No! You are not derailing the thread! Some of the 'anti' ! books I used to read, stated that JS was schizophrenic. I never believed that he was mentally ill.
Megalamaniac, but not schizo, in my opinion..

When I see Gordon B Hinkley, I believe that he believes in what he is saying and teaching. I think JS believed it too.

I suppose what I am asking is can we invalidate the church on the basis of JS's imperfections???

Is there anything authentic that we can take from his life?

Mary

[silverfox]

Hi Silverfox!
No! You are not derailing the thread! Some of the 'anti' ! books I used to read, stated that JS was schizophrenic. I never believed that he was mentally ill.
Megalamaniac, but not schizo, in my opinion..

When I see Gordon B Hinkley, I believe that he believes in what he is saying and teaching. I think JS believed it too.

I suppose what I am asking is can we invalidate the church on the basis of JS's imperfections???

Is there anything authentic that we can take from his life?

Mary

His imperfections include being a LIAR. He started the LDS church based on discrepancies and LIES. So yes I would say the church can be invalidated because it was based on lies.

[free thinker]

You know, I think if someone wants to be an active mormon it's great. Especially if it fills a need in their lives. Perhaps that may seem a strange response to the above inquiry, but I wanted to add it as a preface to my agreeing with Silverfox. Joseph Smith was a liar. Plain and simple. The book of mormon, and the book of abraham, are both his own literary creations, mixed with extant material from his day. In my mind that invalidates everything else he did!!

What if he would have said. " I have some ideas and I want to share them with the world. I have written a semi-novel based on some characters that I placed in ancient america. I think you will find it an interesting read. You may even find it inspirational." Etc. Etc. !!

See. where I have my first problem with Joseph Smith, is in the area of integrity! Do you know anyone personally that you would respect, if they had done what Joseph Smith had. I dont think I know anyone who could live with themselves, had they begun, and perpetuated such a contrivance. At some point they would just have to have said, "hey this aint worth dying for. I really just made it as I went along"" My two cents!!

Free Thinker

[tjohnson]

See. where I have my first problem with Joseph Smith, is in the area of integrity! Do you know anyone personally that you would respect, if they had done what Joseph Smith had. I dont think I know anyone who could live with themselves, had they begun, and perpetuated such a contrivance. At some point they would just have to have said, "hey this aint worth dying for. I really just made it as I went along"" My two cents!!

Free Thinker

Yes, but you must realize that Joseph did not think he was going to die. When he heard all the people and horses coming to the jail he thought it was "his" army that he had summoned. He actually wrote a letter that was delivered asking his army to come break them out of jail. :duh

Maybe if they all hadn't taken their garments off before going into the jail, they would have survived. :Puking

I remember being told in Seminary how the garments on one of the people is what "stopped the bullet" from killing the man. I can't remember who it was, but that's funny now considering NONE of them had their garments on. :Puking

[free thinker]

Yes, but you must realize that Joseph did not think he was going to die. When he heard all the people and horses coming to the jail he thought it was "his" army that he had summoned. He actually wrote a letter that was delivered asking his army to come break them out of jail.

In fact they went down in a hail of gunfire! Joseph Smith had a box pistol that had been smuggled in to him. I think he killed one man and seriously wounded another. It was not a martyrdom in the classic sense. They fought like hell to stay alive.

Many died before this day. Many died in the belief that Joseph was a prophet! They gave their life for the cause. They also killed for the cause. This is where I would think Joseph would have reconsidered what he was doing. Frankly though, I think he was in so deep he just couldn't stop the process.

Free Thinker

[miss taken]

I think one of the things I heard over and again in the church, was that people would either love JS or they would hate him, no middle way.

He does seem to have inspired (if that's the right word) utter devotion as well as complete condemnation.


The pioneers were willing to put their lives at risk and that of their children, in order to get to SLC. I honestly don't know if I could have done it, had I not been 100% convinced. It's not as if they were heading for California gold or anything??

[silverfox]

I think one of the things I heard over and again in the church, was that people would either love JS or they would hate him, no middle way.

He does seem to have inspired (if that's the right word) utter devotion as well as complete condemnation.


The pioneers were willing to put their lives at risk and that of their children, in order to get to SLC. I honestly don't know if I could have done it, had I not been 100% convinced. It's not as if they were heading for California gold or anything??

I have often wondered how many pioneers voluntarily made the trek. Back then a member couldn't just become an apostate or question the beliefs without consequence. Their land was taken, their assets taken, their wives and children taken. They were completely ostracized.

Of course there were some very devoted members but I believe fear played a huge part in that.

I will see if I can find the links to some of the stories taken from journals of members who apostacized. They were ruined, ran out of town.

Really not much different from today, is it?

[miss taken]

I have often wondered how many pioneers voluntarily made the trek. Back then a member couldn't just become an apostate or question the beliefs without consequence. Their land was taken, their assets taken, their wives and children taken. They were completely ostracized.

Of course there were some very devoted members but I believe fear played a huge part in that.

I will see if I can find the links to some of the stories taken from journals of members who apostacized. They were ruined, ran out of town.

Really not much different from today, is it?

I had no idea that those who apostacized were ruined or ran out of town. That does limit choice somewhat.
I know the missionary program under BYoung in England was extremely successful.

We had tales when I was up north from the older folk, of the missionaries carting women off to SLC to become polygamous wives. I served back in the 80's, and the older folk were referring to the early 20's, so the legends stuck around for a long time!!!!!

[peter_mary]

I have been musing on this one lately, particularly as it applies to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but also back to the OT.

Mormon apologists would quote the OT and the imperfections of most of the biblical characters, whilst still honouring their prophetic callings.

Perhaps a difficulty is in the definition of a 'prophet'. Prophet in OT times did not necessarily mean president of the corporation of the Church of Jesus CHrist of Latter Day Saints.. and the NT certainly mentions female prophetesses.

So maybe a comparison between OT prophets and personalities and Joseph Smith is not possible.

But... does the fact that JS was imperfect, totally invalidate him from his position. Did he make it all up? Or did he actually experience some of it???

Mary

This is a good question, and makes me think long and hard about what a "prophet" really is. I know that in my own mind, a prophet is supposedly someone who speaks for and on behalf of God, and subsequently, it "seems" as though his leadership abilities and his prophetic "insights" should be flawless.

However, would a prophet still be a prophet he was mostly just a guy with occasional bursts of blazingly divine insight?

Maybe a prophet is anyone with a message that people just resonate with, regardless of whether or not that message is aligned with truth? In that sense, JS was a great prophet, because he could really rally people to a cause, and like it or not, he laid the foundation for a pretty successful church, organization, and entire culture.

Thinking this way, though, I can safely say JS is no longer a "prophet" for ME, nor are any of his successors. However, they may all be, by defenition, prophets to those who follow him. In the same vein, I can say Jesus is not MY Savior, but he IS the Savior for well over a billion Christians. Muhammed, likewise, is not a prophet for ME, but he IS for a billion Muslims.

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

Thanks Peter Mary, I know this is off the point a little, but having been emersed in the recent death of the pope, I couldn't help comparing him with Gordon B Hinkley. One of the things that stuck out in my mind was the influence that the pope has in the world stage, whether we agree with Catholic teachings or not, as I watched Gordon with Larry King, I couldn't help feel how insular he was, he seemed to be more the president of the LDS church than a prophet for the whole world. I don't know if I am making myself clear, but it seems to me that if he is the prophet of the whole world and not just the LDS church then he should take on that mantle, it seemed to me that it was not a mantle that he would be particularly comfortable with.

One of the things I didn't like was the insular nature of the LDS church.

Mary

[free thinker]

Thanks Peter Mary, I know this is off the point a little, but having been emersed in the recent death of the pope, I couldn't help comparing him with Gordon B Hinkley. One of the things that stuck out in my mind was the influence that the pope has in the world stage, whether we agree with Catholic teachings or not, as I watched Gordon with Larry King, I couldn't help feel how insular he was, he seemed to be more the president of the LDS church than a prophet for the whole world. I don't know if I am making myself clear, but it seems to me that if he is the prophet of the whole world and not just the LDS church then he should take on that mantle, it seemed to me that it was not a mantle that he would be particularly comfortable with.

One of the things I didn't like was the insular nature of the LDS church


I noticed this also. The mormon church really is still almost utterly obscure. I dont think it will ever reach the proportions that catholicism and buddism has. I just dont think it has the mass appeal.No pun intended! Also it is maturing in a post modern world where hocus pocus, and mumbo jumbo, are seen for what they are!!

As I began to have serious doubts about the church, I started thinking this way. Here I was sacrificing plenty for a faith that is only adhered to by a fractional minority of the worlds population. I just had to wonder if just us few had it right, or if the many had it right. I guess you can figure out what my conclusion was!! ;)

The flags flew at half mast for the pope. They will not when Gordon B. Hinckley passes. In the western United States it will be a major story, but nowhere else. Please know that I wish the man no ill will. Just making a point. I am sure he is revered and loved by many. Far more than me obviously. And to be frank, he has reached a pinnacle that I most likely never will. That being the head of a major organization. May he be happy all his days!!

Picture two guys sitting in a bar in say Chicago, watching the news the day Godon B. Hinckley passes.
They will see the news on the TV. One will mention to the other something to the effect that they still have extra wives dont they? They will both chuckle, and never think another thing about it!! Utter obscurity!!!


Free Thinker

[elder_nomo]

Thanks Peter Mary, I know this is off the point a little, but having been emersed in the recent death of the pope, I couldn't help comparing him with Gordon B Hinkley. One of the things that stuck out in my mind was the influence that the pope has in the world stage, whether we agree with Catholic teachings or not, as I watched Gordon with Larry King, I couldn't help feel how insular he was, he seemed to be more the president of the LDS church than a prophet for the whole world. I don't know if I am making myself clear, but it seems to me that if he is the prophet of the whole world and not just the LDS church then he should take on that mantle, it seemed to me that it was not a mantle that he would be particularly comfortable with.

One of the things I didn't like was the insular nature of the LDS church.

Mary

I agree with your assessment as well, miss taken. GBH seems very reluctant to discuss anything of substance with outsiders. When asked about "Mother in heaven" or "God was once a man" doctrines, he was evasive. On the topic of continuing revelation, he said "It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot."
i'm kind of at a loss as to the purpose of having a prophet who is not comfortable talking about revelation. :confused:

Anyway, I can't imagine the pope having to be badgered into expressing Catholic doctrine. I mean, I was no fan of the pope, but at least I know what he stood for.

Picture two guys sitting in a bar in say Chicago, watching the news the day Godon B. Hinckley passes.
They will see the news on the TV. One will mention to the other something to the effect that they still have extra wives dont they? They will both chuckle, and never think another thing about it!! Utter obscurity!!!
Free Thinker
free thinker - You may actually be too generous with this! If I had only local news coverage to go by, I would suppose that SW Kimball was still the mo-prez. ;)
I live in the Los Angeles area which I would guess has more mo's than Chicago (?) I follow the news fairlyl regularly. Yep - utter obscurity!

[miss taken]

[QUOTE=elder_nomo]I agree with your assessment as well, miss taken. GBH seems very reluctant to discuss anything of substance with outsiders. When asked about "Mother in heaven" or "God was once a man" doctrines, he was evasive. On the topic of continuing revelation, he said "It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot."
i'm kind of at a loss as to the purpose of having a prophet who is not comfortable talking about revelation. :confused:

Anyway, I can't imagine the pope having to be badgered into expressing Catholic doctrine. I mean, I was no fan of the pope, but at least I know what he stood for. [QUOTE]


I don't know why Gordon is so evasive on these issues.
It's not that deep really. I was taught that 'as man is, god once was, and as God is, man may become'
For me that was fundamental doctrine of the LDS church. So there is no point in denying it or scouting round the issue. It's also a bit mind numbing, because its like when a child asks you where the end of the universe is, or understanding where it all started, ie before the first big bang of all the big bangs. I don't think the human mind is programmed to understand the infinite. My mum always used to say to the missionaries, okay, who was God's father then. You still get to the same point of where did it all begin in the first place.

I don't think the church should be embarrassed to teach that Jesus may have been married. I personally see no problem there, and many non-mormon scholars are arguing the same things, and have been doing for some time now.

It shouldn't be ashamed of its polygamous heritage, or that its members were imperfect, including Joseph SMith and Brigham Young. It should say, well we are sorry, we got it wrong on Mountain Meadows, and the early leaders also often got it wrong, sometimes very wrong, and we are sorry about that too.

I think the leaders should not be embarrassed to say, well, we got it wrong, and we get it wrong now. It's a human organisation led by imperfect men. Mistakes can and will always happen, we just do our best to rectify them, and not hide them. If we are all subject to trying to progress and become enlightened, then surely it is not unreasonable for the church as an organisation to progress and become enlightened. I think there is a lot of pride there with the GA's, and also a lot of defensiveness based on their historical relationship with non-members, who lets be honest, have always poo--pood them to a great extent. Their defensiveness is understandable, and they do have good reason to be secretive and embarrassed about the past and present.

Mary

[peter_mary]

Originally posted by miss taken
I don't know why Gordon is so evasive on these issues.
It's not that deep really. I was taught that 'as man is, god once was, and as God is, man may become'
For me that was fundamental doctrine of the LDS church. So there is no point in denying it or scouting round the issue.
The evasiveness is simple, really--Gordon is trying, more than any prophet before him, to move the Church to a more "palatable" position in mainstream Christianity. And you can't be both acceptable to Christianity AND teach the doctrine of "God is an exhalted man." Christianity really balks at that one...

I don't think the church should be embarrassed to teach that Jesus may have been married. I personally see no problem there, and many non-mormon scholars are arguing the same things, and have been doing for some time now.
Again, many scholars (often controversial ones, to be sure) agree that it is possible that Jesus was married. But according to main stream Christian tradition, not only is that not "true" but the very notion that Jesus would a) have had SEX, and b) produced offspring is repugnant to Christians. Their doctrine is based on the belief that Jesus was the "ineffable God" made manifest in the form of Jesus. They do not believe that Jesus was a heavenly half-breed along the lines of Hercules, but that he was ONLY divine. Sex, being nasty and wicked, is nothing that Jesus would ever stoop to (remember the fiasco during the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ"?) And if he spawned children, then that means that there would have been a breed of half man/half God children out creating havoc on the planet, and they just can't buy that. No, Christian tradition has no room for a Married Jesus (let alone a polygamous Jesus!)

It shouldn't be ashamed of its polygamous heritage,
It is ashamed because it is now perceived as SO counter to all that Western civilization is and stands for, and again, because it is SO counter to main stream Christianity.

...or that its members were imperfect, including Joseph SMith and Brigham Young. It should say, well we are sorry, we got it wrong on Mountain Meadows, and the early leaders also often got it wrong, sometimes very wrong, and we are sorry about that too. I think the leaders should not be embarrassed to say, well, we got it wrong, and we get it wrong now. It's a human organisation led by imperfect men. Mistakes can and will always happen, we just do our best to rectify them, and not hide them.
As a Church, how can you claim to be guided by God in leading the institution, and yet admit that you make mistakes? That would imply that God makes mistakes, and oh, baby, you don't want to go there if you are trying to convince millions of people to give you 10% of their money and all their free time in building up what YOU say God wants built up! Uh, uh...can't go there...

If we are all subject to trying to progress and become enlightened, then surely it is not unreasonable for the church as an organisation to progress and become enlightened.

Mary
Right, except that the general attitude is that "The Church was enlightened back in the early 1800s when the boy Joseph beheld God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." The rest is not about enlightenment, it's about obedience. The task of your average Latter-day Saint is not to seek enlightenment, but to seek compliance with every jot and tittle that issues forth from the mouths of the prophets. If you seek enlightenment, you run the risk of coming to different conclusions for your own life than what has been taught by the prophets, and you don't want that! :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

[miss taken]

The evasiveness is simple, really--Gordon is trying, more than any prophet before him, to move the Church to a more "palatable" position in mainstream Christianity. And you can't be both acceptable to Christianity AND teach the doctrine of "God is an exhalted man." Christianity really balks at that one...


Again, many scholars (often controversial ones, to be sure) agree that it is possible that Jesus was married. But according to main stream Christian tradition, not only is that not "true" but the very notion that Jesus would a) have had SEX, and b) produced offspring is repugnant to Christians. Their doctrine is based on the belief that Jesus was the "ineffable God" made manifest in the form of Jesus. They do not believe that Jesus was a heavenly half-breed along the lines of Hercules, but that he was ONLY divine. Sex, being nasty and wicked, is nothing that Jesus would ever stoop to (remember the fiasco during the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ"?) And if he spawned children, then that means that there would have been a breed of half man/half God children out creating havoc on the planet, and they just can't buy that. No, Christian tradition has no room for a Married Jesus (let alone a polygamous Jesus!)


It is ashamed because it is now perceived as SO counter to all that Western civilization is and stands for, and again, because it is SO counter to main stream Christianity.


As a Church, how can you claim to be guided by God in leading the institution, and yet admit that you make mistakes? That would imply that God makes mistakes, and oh, baby, you don't want to go there if you are trying to convince millions of people to give you 10% of their money and all their free time in building up what YOU say God wants built up! Uh, uh...can't go there...


Right, except that the general attitude is that "The Church was enlightened back in the early 1800s when the boy Joseph beheld God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ." The rest is not about enlightenment, it's about obedience. The task of your average Latter-day Saint is not to seek enlightenment, but to seek compliance with every jot and tittle that issues forth from the mouths of the prophets. If you seek enlightenment, you run the risk of coming to different conclusions for your own life than what has been taught by the prophets, and you don't want that! :rolleyes:

Peter_Mary

Peter Mary, thanks your post made me laugh out loud in places! and I think your points are really valid. Maybe I dont realise just how liberal my 'christian' views are!!!!
(mind you - the bishop of durham over here did say that he felt that the virgin birth was just a story and not literal!!!) So maybe there are quite a few liberal minded people around!!!

About Gordon trying to play both sides of the field, some good advise that was given to me once, was

'You can't shoot two arrows in one bow'
;)

Mary