Posted by: Jay | September 26, 2008

Misconceptions of what a prophet is

I’ve been told by several people and apologists that members of the LDS Church should not consider every word a prophet says as being from God. They insist that prophets are not perfect and will speak their opinion on occasion. I could not agree more. However, members do get the perception that a prophet always speaks for God when listening to leaders of the Mormon faith. I was reminded of why so many LDS members think the prophet is as close to perfection as a mortal can be when I read the following post (you can comment on the authors blog here.) I’ve added the bold to show emphasis.

I came across a beautiful talk last night written by President Ezra T. Benson. Its title is “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” and it was delivered in February of 1980 at BYU. I would highly recommend reading the full talk. It is not very long, and is concise and easy to read. Here’s a teaser to what he spoke about:

  1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
  2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
  3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
  4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
  5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
  6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
  7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
  8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
  9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
  10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
  11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
  12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
  13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency – the highest quorum in the church.
  14. The prophet and the presidency – the living prophet and the First Presidency – follow them and be blessed – reject them and suffer.

After reading that I would be very hesitant to ever disagree with anything the prophet has said. The problem is that the prophet is not perfect and does say things that are false on occasion because he is influenced by his own biases. It would be wise for every member of the LDS faith to decide for themselves if what has been said is from God, just good advise or not true. I don’t think the talk cited in the above post is an isolated one. It would not be hard to find several talks that would support what President Benson said. It is dangerous for members to have such a high standard for what a prophet is because when faced with the history of the LDS faith that view becomes severely challenged. This causes many to not only leave the Church, but also to engage in what most consider as anti-Mormon tactics to expose what they believe is untruth.

About these ads

Responses

  1. I think you are on to something here.

    I have browsed through your blog a little bit. Seem you have a good thing going here.

  2. “They insist that prophets are not perfect and will speak their opinion on occasion. I could not agree more.”

    Well they have little choice as the so called LDS Prophets spoken a load of utter nonsense and with such authority and arrogance.

    As far as opinion goes , I think everything they spoke was their opinion and I don’t believe anything they ever said was revelation.

    The Book Of Mormon, D&C, POGP is full of Joseph Smith’s opinion :)

    From Ezra Taft Benson ” reject them and suffer.”

    This is laughable. Those who rejected Joseph Smith likely had a much better chance of not having their wives and daughters taken from them in wierd arranged marriages , their money taken from them or even their sanity.

    Anyway Jay, thanks for posting the blog topic. I do admire your openess as a LDS member.

  3. Eric,
    Thank you. Mormons Talk has been a great place to discuss these difficult issues with many people from many perspectives.

    EJ,
    I am more inclined to say that some of what the LDS Prophets have said is inspired, a lot is opinion, and some of it is just plain not true, but I think it is up to everyone to figure that out for themselves. Saying it is all good or all bad is not the right approach. Most things (and people) are a mix of good and bad, sinful and wicked, that’s just life.

    I’m sure that a believing member would soften the “reject them and suffer” statement by saying we would loose blessings by not following the prophet. However, I am also not a fan of such rhetoric.

  4. Jay
    “I am more inclined to say that some of what the LDS Prophets have said is inspired”

    Well its no more inspired that I can come up with and at least I don’t claim I’m in any privilaged position up the scale to God and drawing payment and privilages for it.

    ” but I think it is up to everyone to figure that out for themselves.”

    Thats easy to say from your new enlightened perspective. But what about those who hang on to the words of these so called inspired men? They are being misled bigtime, put in unnecessary fear and deserve better than that.

    “I’m sure that a believing member would soften the “reject them and suffer” statement by saying we would loose blessings by not following the prophet. However, I am also not a fan of such rhetoric.”

    Of course a believing member will soften it, they will ignore anything which sends alarm bells about the authenticity of these men.

    A more appropriate response to Ezra Taft Benson would be to tell him he was talking cr*p.And I would have done it!

    As far as loosing blessings? thats another nonsense as well. Anyone ignoring Ezra Taft Benson would have likely been blessed not to follow his advice condemning contraceptives.

  5. elderjoseph

    Contraceptives have been linked with cervical cancer.

    To All

    Harold B. Lee stated that not all words spoken by general authorities are to be considered as inspired. And that any leader who’s words oppose scripture are wrong “regardless of the position of the person who says it.”

    So we have Brother Benson and Brother Lee in confliction on that one.

    But these guys are nice people who mean well. Even the president of the priesthood at the time of Christ (Caiaphas) made a serious error. Hey, they are human (D&C 121 tells us to expect that). But if a prophet states that God has commanded such and such for the church to follow, we should use the Holy Ghost to understand how that relates to us.

  6. Doug T

    “not all words spoken by general authorities are to be considered as inspired.”

    How do we know what they are saying is relevant then? And why are they speaking uninspired and yet giving us the impression they are inspired? They are supposed to have the Spirit of Discernment. If they can’t even discern themselves what it it is they are saying thats inspired or not , then its all a big farce.

    “And that any leader who’s words oppose scripture are wrong “regardless of the position of the person who says it.”

    So why are LDS leaders teaching things which oppose scriptures??

    They are supposed to be removed for leading the church astray according to Willy Woodruff in D&C, or wasn’t that inspired either ?

    “But if a prophet states that God has commanded such and such for the church to follow, we should use the Holy Ghost to understand how that relates to us.”

    Well it didn’t work for the women who were reluctant with polygamy.They were threatened with HELL if the Holy Ghost told them to resist aranged polygamous marriages with old Mormon Leaders.

  7. I have been running this over in my head, and basically it comes down to this criteria –

    All these Prophets and Apostles can say anything they want – Anything they say that is clearly false or just plain silly can be dismissed as “Just their flawed opinion as men” Anytime something they say appears to be a hit then it was inspired of God. Using this criteria it seems based on the accuracy rate just about anybody spewing any sort of nonsense as along as every once in awhile they actually say something of value would pass the “Prophet test” using the LDS standard.

  8. My statement did answer the question of how we are to know what is inspired – Using the Holy Ghost (as elderjoseph finally pointed out).

    As to people failing to listen to the Holy Ghost, that will happen, yes.

    As to your interpretation of history; I, long ago, realised the pointlessness of accepting one sided opinions of any side of an arguement where the accused isn’t available for comment.

    But I would pose the question in regard this perception of women being better off marrying old leaders, how old was Keturah when she married the 120-year-old Abraham. History would suggest the answer is 13-years-old.

    So why is that a good thing? Because we believe in eternity as the real issue, not now. If I were a woman and knew my guy was definately going to make eternal life, age would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. And as a man (being presently single) my opinion remains the same. Focus on this life distorts reality.

  9. Thanks, Doug T, now you can justify being a pedophile!

    Parents with teenage daughters watch out for Doug your 13 year old may be eternal wife material!

  10. Coventryrm,
    Don’t be too hard on DougT. I’m sure you and I both can remember when we felt the same way. Trying to make things fit so it all made sense. The thought process is: If someone disagrees with the Church it must be because they aren’t listening to the Spirit because the Church is the only true church and therefore everything it has done must be right, we just don’t understand God’s ways.

    However, I do believe it is hard to hold onto that way of thinking after you become aware of the many troubling statements made by many of our former prophets and apostles.

    I don’t think Doug is going to become a pedophile (I don’t think you do either). I have no reason to believe he is anything other than a moral and upright person and his attempt at justifying Joseph’s marriages to young women is understandable considering the need for continued belief.

  11. When you make comments about someone becoming a paedophile, I would have to ask you by who’s standard are we to judge?

    In some states that means having sex with someone under 18. In others it is someone under 16. In Canada it is someone under 14. In Holand it is someone under 12. Pygmies marry at 8. Australian Aboriginies used to also begin sex at 8.

    The reality is that there is absolutely NO evidence to prove what age a person is incapable of making an adequate decision about sex (other than the D&C setting down 8 as the age of accountability).

    Every other idea is purely mindwashing – which I’m accused of being for raising this reality.

    I’m sure, coventryrm, that you are thoroughly mindwashed and convinced that you KNOW what age a person must be to be old enough (which obviously is far above 14 in your case). But just remember that most Canadians, Dutch and multiple others throughout the world would completely disagree with your philosophy. Entire civilizations seemed to have survived in spite of generally getting married at 13 (Egyptians being one example).

    So it really isn’t all that much effort to accept that Joseph Smith found nothing inappropriate about not following our folly.

    Have you had a good look at us?

    We have extremely high divorce rates. We have countless teenage pregnancies out of wedlock. Sex occurs everywhere. Most females have had sex hundreds of times before getting married (if they ever do). Is this your more moral solution?

    I firmly do believe we have a very messed up society. And not teaching people to be responsible and to be getting married at 13 (rather than “experiment”) is very much a part of the problem. We tell 13 year old adults that they are just children and wonder why they act strange.

    Open your mind to reality.

  12. Actually there is some rather compelling scientific data regarding the development of the brain age emotions maturity etc… but I really don’t need to say more I think your words speak for themself. Pretty scary stuff.

  13. DougT,
    That last post was just creepy and scary. The fact that a few small countries think its OK to have sex with children is hardly justification for Joseph Smith’s marriages to young women. I think the best and only answer is “God said so”.

    There is no use in trying to justify something that to Mormon critics appears unjustifiable. You could also argue that it was common for young women to marry back then but that also is not completely true. Yes, some young women did marry when in their early teens in the 19th century, but it was not what most would consider common.

  14. DougT

    You Said

    “If I were a woman and knew my guy was definately going to make eternal life, age would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. And as a man (being presently single) my opinion remains the same. Focus on this life distorts reality.”

    Assuming you are 30 or younger

    Have you dated any of the 65 year old plus single women in church with a view to marrying them?

    Or if you were a member at that age or less, did you date them? I’m sure the women would have been very accomodating.

  15. Jay

    The point I was making in regard age is that we really can’t judge someone for marrying a person of an age where billions of people have married at that age (or there about) and had successful marriages.

    You seem to want to suggest that what century and part of the world we live in makes us wiser. One of the main messages of the Book of Mormon is that that conception is false.

    If we truly were as wise as our historians like to propose then it certainly isn’t demonstrated in our living. The list of things that oppose the “inevitable progress” theory is almost endless.

    In my opinion we are doomed to repeat the past unless we learn from it. And we aren’t. We think (as a people) that we have succeeded where all others failed. And so we will fail too.

    ElderJoseph

    I have had romantic reactions from females ranging from 18 upward. Initially I did considered all ages. I did find, however, that it often happens that women over 70 tend to become a bit senile. So the oldest woman I have considered dating was in her early 60′s. I then came to realise that she was already married in the temple to her deceased husband. This brought that idea to a close.
    At present the ages of the women that are showing interest in me and I’ve considered dating, range between 18 and about 45. But this is purely circumstance.

  16. “I then came to realise that she was already married in the temple to her deceased husband. This brought that idea to a close.”

    But yet if it was the other way around that wouldn’t be a problem – hmmmm so why does the LDS church down play the concept of Polygamy to investigators and outsiders when it obviously is still a central tenent to the core religion?

  17. coventryrm

    Serious persecution was the reason monogamy was taken on.

    The church teaches investigators those things that it currently practices. It doesn’t teach them the law of consecration either. Nor does it teach the united order. This doesn’t mean that these things aren’t good anymore. Nor does it mean that the church is trying to keep secrets. But what is the point of teaching unpracticed doctrines?

    Before joining the church I became aware of this doctrine from within the church. As I did of many of the other doctrines that some people propose are kept secret. It’s not much of a secret.

  18. Did I say secret?

  19. Bottom Line:

    That list of 14 items can be applied to anyone, not just a church president (I don’t believe in prophets).

    The BofM is not history, its conjecture.

    There is absolutely nothing good that ever came from or will come from polygamy…I challenge you to name something.

  20. coventryrm

    I raised the point of secrecy as it is an often used claim. I wasn’t suggesting that you were implying it yourself.

    Bishop Rick

    To answer your question challenge I would mention that Jesus Christ was decended from polygamists.

    If it hadn’t been for polygamy there would have been few tribes in Israel – thus removing certain books of the Bible.

    I would further state that you have absolutely no evidence to prove that monogamy is a more successful or spiritual concept than polygamy.

    I could go through the advantages of polygamy from a social, spiritual, personal and economical viewpoint. But your speach doesn’t propose that you have such an interest as open-hearted investigation.

    Not only that but I’m not out to promote polygamy at this time, as God has put that idea on hold for now (other than that discussed above).

  21. DougT

    “Jesus Christ was decended from polygamists.”

    The point here for you religious fanatics is that we are all descended from incest amongst Adam and Eve and their children( including Jesus Christ).

    So you would use this as a valid reason to have incestual relationships yourself..

    Think of how many of us are descended from Fornication and even RAPE . Does that make those practices holy as well??

    Why would God send his so called ‘Spirit’ children through Rape anyway ??

    Is God condoning RAPE by sending Righteous White skinned children of his to this world that way ? I would have thought by your reckoning that Rape should result in Black Skinned unrighteous Kids as punishment.

    See your own church teachings for over 140 years.The next 140 years will rid us of many other nonsenses of Mormonism.

  22. ElderJoseph

    To the side, incest only became a problem when the fall of Adam had taken full effect (ie. at the time of Moses when people were only living about 70 years from then on). Prior to that there was no demonstrated problem in such.

    You may note that Abraham mentioned that he and Sarah had the same father.

    To the main subject, it was CLAIMED that no good ever came from polygamy. I wasn’t claiming that because Christ came from polygamists that this proved polygamy was good. I was merely replying to the claim that no good could come from polygamy.

    To make such a claim of itself is a statement, obviously made from negative emmotions rather than logic. How can anyone know that nothing good ever came from polygamy?

    As I stated, parts of the Bible wouldn’t exist if it weren ‘t for polygamy. So the claim is a wild one.

    And, yes, you are right; good people can be born as a result of rape.

    I stated that I wasn’t out to prove the good points in polygamy, as it is an inappropriate time to be teaching such doctrine.

  23. DougT

    Ah, the proverbial play on words. You knew exactly what I meant but chose to twist the meaning because the words allowed it. Very clever of you.

    Polygamy was started (in this “dispensation”) to cover up Joseph Smith’s adulterous affairs. You can make up false reasons to justify this illegal practice, but it doesn’t change the facts. SEX my friend, was the motivation behind polygamy. It has always been that way.

    I don’t think the lack of polygamy would have had any effect on the books of the Bible. Most of it is made up anyway. Why would polygamy change that?

  24. hmmm Polygamy was not about sex – Let see what was said what was said about that at the time:

    George Q Cannon, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 203-204

    “They have prevented the dreadful crime of prostitution by allowing men to have more wives than one.”

    Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 183

    “We are going to make them either old maids or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, then we men would have no need to marry.”

  25. DougT

    “I stated that I wasn’t out to prove the good points in polygamy, as it is an inappropriate time to be teaching such doctrine.”

    There is never a time appropriate for polygamy. I couldn’t care less if Abraham was one. He was a sinner. The bible is full of mens misdeeds, they are not be picked up upon and introduced as commands of some mighty righteous God.

    BishipRick is right……….

    Joseph Smith was simply preying on gullible people and using the fear of God for his own Authority over them as the supposed Prophet. There are lots of criminals like him around today deceiving lots of people unfortunately.

    coventryRM

    Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 183

    “We are going to make them either old maids or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, then we men would have no need to marry.”

    Its actually page 196…… I do check everything !

    That why I’m out of Mormonism.

    Once again I commend Jay for his blog and many of his responses to LDS members which reflect my thoughts exactly.

  26. Bishop Rick

    “Polygamy was started (in this “dispensation”) to cover up Joseph Smith’s adulterous affairs.”

    The first thing I learnt in considering the claims against the church was the futility of looking at church history. Why? Because so many claimed this and so many claimed that. The reality is that we can all easily make claims about the dead, as they aren’t here to defend themselves. Such claims as this are just noise to make you feel happy (of which it doesn’t anyway). Stick to PROVEABLE facts. All you are stating is that if you practised plural marriage it would be for the sex.

    coventrym

    Cannon and Pratt’s opinions are probably based on the idea that many men don’t understand how to actually make LOVE rather than making LUST in the sex process. Do you? If not then you know why they said it.

    ElderJoseph

    I appreciate that you feel strongly on this subject. But I would pose to you that you have never lived in a country where both plural marriage and monogamy are being practiced, to really be as sure as you feel you are.

    I would recommend to you that you look up some of the comments given by women who are living this life style. Have a good think about what they are saying. It may cause you to re-think the matter.

  27. EJ thanks for the correction not sure how I missed that.

  28. Doug T-

    I have been following this and must say I am impressed with your stamina. I stop by this blog occasionally and comment here and there but do not engage in debates, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said:

    But your speech doesn’t propose that you have such an interest as open-hearted investigation.

    Jay seems like a really good guy but I have yet to really try and back up any statement I have made on this blog because the three guys you are talking to seem to jump on anyone that is “pro-mormon” with no interest in intelligent debate, only sensationalism and getting into pi**ing matches. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I am impressed you have stuck around this long and, in my opinion, you have held your own quite well.

  29. Pallas Athena
    You said
    “Doug T Doug T-I have been following this and must say I am impressed with your stamina.”

    So did you read his comment on Old mormon Leaders marrying teen girls ? Here it is again
    DougT said quote :
    “If I were a woman and knew my guy was definately going to make eternal life, age would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. And as a man (being presently single) my opinion remains the same. Focus on this life distorts reality.”

    So there you go,age makes no difference. If you really are impressed with DougT then would you give your 16 year old daughter in marriage to him ( assuming he is over 50 years old that is )

    Those were the ages the early LDS Apostles included in their polygamously arranged/coerced marriages in their 50′s and over.

    You said of DougT ” I am impressed you have stuck around this long and, in my opinion, you have held your own quite well.”

    Guess you would then! :)

  30. Thanks Elder Joesph-

    Exactly what I am talking about

  31. I am not sure what about Doug T’s arguments that Athena feels have been attacked and where exactly he has done well to make his case to justify pedophilic type thinking that I and/or others questioned or called him out on. Doug T has mainly used the argument that it was done in the Bible, but so was stoning your neighbor or the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath, so what, so based on what he has brought to the table so far using the same criteria you could make case for the latter two as well.

    I mentioned that scientific research supported the fact that we do not fully mature until we are in our 20’s but yet Doug T still holds to such outdated thinking as

    “We tell 13 year old adults that they are just children and wonder why they act strange.”

    But yet sceintific data tells us otherwise http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206105011.htm

    Doug T has thrown out inaccurate assumptions or excuses in regards to cultures and societies as if old men marrying young children is the norm rather the exception, there is no evidence to support this in fact the opposite is true. I would certainly like to see how he derived at that “Billions” number he threw out as well.

    “but I have yet to really try and back up any statement I have made on this blog because the three guys you are talking to seem to jump on anyone that is “pro-mormon” with no interest in intelligent debate”

    Pallas I especially like this comment, I am not sure that many Mormons would agree with Doug T or would really want a comment like

    “I firmly do believe we have a very messed up society. And not teaching people to be responsible and to be getting married at 13 (rather than “experiment”) is very much a part of the problem. We tell 13 year old adults that they are just children and wonder why they act strange.”
    To be considered “pro mormon” or what you might consider “intellegent” if quoting a 2000 year old myth about how some 120 year old man married a 13 year old child is an intellegent argument I would be very flattered to be called an ignoramous by you.
    As far as closed minded goes I think that is one of those look in the mirror type deals, I am always open to exploring and checking out actual data and information. I Have changed and altered my beliefs throughout my entire life as I come across and learn new things. However continued recycled old and disproven apologetic arguments don’t generally compell me since I was making the same 15 years ago when I was arguing your postion or 25 years ago when I was walking the streets of England explaining away polygamy myself.

  32. PallasAthena

    Thanks for your support and compliments. And I must confess to being new to the site, as you present. There may be wisdom in your point but I do like to give people every opportunity before declaring them spiritually deceased.

    Elder Joseph

    Your arguement against age differences in marriage is based on your concept that marriages finish at death. If we are to believe this opinion then you are right. But as I don’t I regard your logic is completely false. Therefore that arguement is meaningless as we have no common ground for debate on the subject of age while the moral aspect is your subject.

    Add to that the fact that I’m refusing to explain to anyone here all the benefits of polygamy and that ends there.

    Yet you proposing things about dead people is still a problem of its own. I can claim your great-great-grandmother is a drunk and your great-great-grandfather a bank robber. That is all you are doing about Joseph Smith. Go and find something wrong that you can PROVE.

    coventrym

    “I mentioned that scientific research supported the fact that we do not fully mature until we are in our 20’s”

    “Scientific research” is a curious name for all this nonsense about thinking blobs in our heads. How much scientific research have you actually done on the subject?

    When you wanted to know if the church was true did you go and ask your bishop?

    When you wanted to know if blobs of matter could really think did you go and ask your “science” teacher? I bet you did. And you may have gone and read what other “science experts” said. You probably did.

    But did you actually go and find out all the reasons why it is nonsense, from those opposing the idea? Or did you go and just search about the subject where those involved in the research had other objectives than promoting this nonsense? The answer is clearly, “no.” Or you wouldn’t be quoting it at me.

    One girl was born with absolutely NO brain whatsoever. She had liquid where the brain would be and the intelligence was using that to communicate to the body. She lived the time in the womb and 27 days out of it and was NORMAL. No one knew anything until an autopsy was done. So when did her brain mature?

    I wish I was making the money these clowns who call themselves “scientists” are on.

    I’m sorry I can’t help you by explaining polygamy (it isn’t the time). But then would you really be so open minded as you claim, to receive it anyway.

  33. And the earth is flat! Dumb conniving scientists. Just think without them we could still be curing epilepsy by casting out those evil spirits!

    “One girl was born with absolutely NO brain whatsoever. She had liquid where the brain would be and the intelligence was using that to communicate to the body. She lived the time in the womb and 27 days out of it and was NORMAL. No one knew anything until an autopsy was done. So when did her brain mature?”

    Well apparently it didn’t nor did she live much of a brainless existence for 27days, not sure what your point is, even if your story is true you don’t show any reference, but if she had a brain stem and nothing else that could certainly explain her body being able to do basic respiratory functions for a time.

    Searched the net for awhile couldn’t find any information on your 27 day story but did find a few about partial brain births that survived for several days, all very explainable with a basic understanding of the brain Stem, Cerebrum and Cerebellum and the specific roles each one plays in the CNS.

  34. This debate I have been having with Doug T came as a result of DT making the following statement:

    “But I would pose the question in regard this perception of women being better off marrying old leaders, how old was Keturah when she married the 120-year-old Abraham. History would suggest the answer is 13-years-old.

    So why is that a good thing? Because we believe in eternity as the real issue, not now. If I were a woman and knew my guy was definitely going to make eternal life, age would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.”

    I took issue with this logic and feel rightfully so, my youngest daughter is 12 my Oldest is 23 and temple married, people that think the way Doug T do are reprehensible to me. Anyone that would think my 12 year old is even close to making life long adult decisions or that it would somehow be justified that she be married off in the next year should be committed or at least kept away from ANY interaction with children.

    Throughout this discussion as I said earlier Doug T has argued his case purely from the standpoint of it has been done in the past or the Bible and God say it is okay. Any research or empirical data has been thrown out as these research scientists are just as Doug put it

    “I wish I was making the money these clowns who call themselves “scientists” are on.”

    What has surprised me the most is the silence, other than Jay, of LDS to take a position opposed to what Doug is spewing. I would hope that Doug’s opinion is not held by the LDS faithful in mass. However the silence makes me ponder is it some how okay with the LDS that read this blog that Doug is a product of their history and teachings?

    Finally all one has to do his study how we as humans evolved and developed and what gave us advantage or disadvantage of survival and study the primitive cultures from which we came as well as the more developed mammals such as primates and one can certainly understand the internal struggle man has had as we have evolved into a monogamous culture. I would suggest reading Carl Sagans “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” or Jared Diamonds “Guns, Germs and Steal”

  35. DougT
    ” Your arguement against age differences in marriage is based on your concept that marriages finish at death. ”

    Its nothing of the sort.There is no reason why marriages/relationships might not continue after death if we do indeed exist in some way.

    But you are using that to justify Pedophile style coerced mariages and its a great concern. Your mentality is what drives the FLDS cult leaders.

    Try a simple test DougT. Go around your ward and ask all the 13- 16year old girls if they will marry you and better still ask their parents and explain to them ‘eternal marriage’ if they give you a frowned concerned look.

    Ps And don’t be supsrised if you get thumped by a Priesthood Holder.

  36. ElderJoseph and coventrym

    I have had several females between the ages of 13 to 16 demonstrate very strong romantic interest in me. Their parents have been very concerned by this (as you mention). I in no way promoted this action. 2 sets of parents have come to live with it without getting too paranoid. One of those females has now turned 18 and feels stronger about it than ever. She is an extremely attractive girl with several guys expressing great interest. So she isn’t desperate. Yet she feels in love with me.

    So your understanding of females of that age seems limited (in spite of your daughters coventrym – of which I have some beyond that age myself). When some showed interest in older males I realised that was normal and didn’t freak out. When young I was interested in a film star. My mother didn’t freak out either.

    As to producing no evidence other than Biblical ,what of all the places and people’s who claim that people of this age are quite capable of deciding about sex and don’t regard actions with them as paedophilic?

    In Canada the age of concent is 14. So are all Canadians having sex with 14 year olds paedophiles? According to you, apparently, yes. So who are you?

    In Holland the age of concent is 12. So are all Dutch people having sex with 12 year olds paedofiles? According to you, apparently, yes. Now I could go on and on and on. But the point gets down to how do these entire peoples come up with these ages while you claim it to be some other age.

    Your distorted view of history and supposed pre-historic people’s to present that people of the past were less intelligent than us may have flattered you, but it is nonsense to me, and anybody else who has a real look at history. People of the past showed more intelligence than our civilization is at times.

    Your quotes about brains means nothing. My mention of that girl living 27 days was only because she was an extreme. There are countless numbers of people who are born with less than normal brain and live as long as anyone else. The fact that no one may record this on the internet is meaningless. The girl was recorded in a Guiness book of strange facts (or some title of that nature) and I also read it in a periodical. I watched a TV special from Europe of extensive testing that was done over more than a decade of people who were discovered to have less than normal brain, and no differences were found from other people. There were house wives, carpenters, lawyers, university professors etc.

    However I do agree that people do settle at around 20 because at that point society (and therefore themselves) begin to accept them as an adult, and expect mature decisions. You have the concept back the front.

    The debate is on whether someone of 14 was capable of carrying on a marriage or whether she was too ignorant. As entire peoples have come and gone doing so that seems a nonsense arguement.

    Give me some PROOF that people of 14, in a society that has accepted them as adults, have demonstrated an incapability to act as such.

  37. I think you have said it all. Product of LDS thinking Amen!

  38. Example of how Doug T spins facts –

    We are talking about old men having sex with young girls –

    Doug wants us to think this okay in many countries Canada being one of them

    Current canadian law –

    “The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant.”

  39. For a complete information of Canada’s law past and present this topic check out

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm#CURRENT%20LAW(txt)

  40. 11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

    So I’m too smart for my own good? I thought we were supposed to be educated, remember? The only two reasons to go into debt, according to the prophet, is for a home and education. Explain that one to me.

    • I’d like an explanation to that, too. What about a business? And operation? The Church should not seek to counsel and make rules for every home. Financial situations should be determined by the families that live the lives. It is fine for the church to have guides; and I’m not saying that staying out of debt is a bad idea. But I honestly think that sooo many things are really just circumstantial. One rule can’t possibly apply to every person.

  41. Well I guess you could be rich too:)

  42. i was just scanning through your blogs when i saw this one about prophets and what they say being opinion or revelation. Mormon prophets are not perfect, none have them have ever claimed to be nor will you ever hear any of them pretend to be perfect, Jesus was the only perfect man to live. Anyways, when the prophet or any general authority says “in the name of Jesus Christ, amen” they are literally saying it in the name of Christ and should be taken as if it was coming directly from Christ and is considered scripture, aka all general conference talks are revelations but not everything they ever say is scripture or inspired, they still are human, just when they say it in that manner, thats when we take it seriously.

  43. Angelyn,
    Thank you for your comment. It demonstrates a common misconception among members. Just because something is said in general conference does not make it scripture. I don’t blame members for having that view because the Church encourages it. They still can speak as men even during talks, which makes it even more important to understand they are only human.

    Two years ago I listened in shock to an apostle say the earth was 6,000 years old in general conference. His exact words were printed in the Ensign the following month. While I’m not saying that there is nothing of worth for members in general conference, they do need to listen with a discerning ear.

    President Benson’s talk quoted in the original post makes no exceptions for where a prophet is when he speaks or how he phrases it. I simply disagree with how strong his language is.

  44. I really like how you’ve talked about it. Honestly, it really bothers me that people seem to think that if you don’t agree with every idea the prophets say, you aren’t Mormon anymore, you don’t love God, and that you’re going to hell. I’ve received such and seen such hatred for my own ideals because I believe God wants a powerful people—and to have a powerful people, we must stand on our own testimonies, on our own thoughts and ideas that we’ve put forth to use. We cannot simply walk by and expect everything to simply fall into place and obtain Celestial glory. It must be a path that we take so that when the winds blow, we are able to stand firm and strong on the rocks of our faith and our knowledge.

    • excellent, well put…

  45. The guidance is given to the faithful. To those that understand that what ANY of the General Authorities say from behind the pulpit should be listened to very closely and adopted/adapted to thieer needs. No one ever became morally unclean or unworthy to enter the Temple by following the guidance given. And that is the whole point of mortalitiy is to return to Heavenly Father. You can pick and choose if you want, and rant about thier remarks, me and my family will “stay between” the lines here on earth and let God be the judge of President Monson and his stewardship…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: