"When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."

Moodshadow said:

Once again, ideas are being twisted, changed, contorted, call it what you want. That is not what was said in the OP AT ALL.

Click to expand...

OK. If I've misunderstood what you intended to convey here, I'll modify my posts accordingly. But since you believe it is a distortion, please explain what it means when a counselor in the first presidency stands before the general membership of the Church and tells them that when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done.

Moodshadow said:

It's gotten pretty confusing, all right. In your post #30, you copied something I had said to one person (you) and then commented on something I'd said to another (Katya), raising another issue and pretty much ignoring what you were quoting. I wasn't sure how to respond to that and requested clarification. If you'll go back and look at it, maybe you'll see what I mean and we can proceed from here. Does that help?

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll take a look. No misquoting was intended, if that is what I have done.

skylark1 said:

I don't mind at all. That is why I included the link - except to the last one, which since it is included with your scriptures didn't seem necessary.




I don't know if you and Moodshadow are looking for statements that include the part about the thinking having already been done, or just the idea of following the prophet because he will not or cannot lead the church astray. I'm not trying to prove anything by finding these. As much as non-LDS Christians are accused on this board of saying that LDS blindly follow the prophet, or that they are brainwashed, I haven't claimed either. I also haven't ever been LDS. Moodshadow had commented how she had a hard time finding statements, so I offered them in case they helped.

I get the feeling that you think that I was trying to take these statements out of context. I was not, which was why I provided the links so that anyone could read the entire talk if they wished to do so. There are other similar statments that have been made, but I had thought that these were sufficient. Here are several more if that helps.

President Harold B. Lee, referring to President David O. McKay, said:

“We believe in a living prophet, seer, and revelator, and I bear you my solemn witness that we have a living prophet, seer, and revelator. We are not dependent only upon the revelations given in the past as contained in our standard works—as wonderful as they are—but … we have a mouthpiece to whom God does and is revealing his mind and will. God will never permit him to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us out of our place if we should attempt to do it. You have no concern. Let the management and government of God, then, be with the Lord. Do not try to find fault with the management and affairs that pertain to him alone and by revelation through his prophet—his living prophet, his seer, and his revelator” (The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator [address delivered to seminary and institute faculty, Brigham Young University, 8 July 1968], p. 13).


President Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

“I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1972, p. 99; or Ensign, July 1972, p. 88).


Lesson 24: Follow the Prophet,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, 90
​

Click to expand...

I know you were not trying to prove anything in your posts. Of course, I am trying to prove something, which is why I took the time to read what you provided and respond in its full context. I'm going to hold off responding here, though, as I need to look at some things Moodshadow has pointed out, and I need to get some clarification on the OP from her.

Moodshadow said:

It's gotten pretty confusing, all right. In your post #30, you copied something I had said to one person (you) and then commented on something I'd said to another (Katya), raising another issue and pretty much ignoring what you were quoting. I wasn't sure how to respond to that and requested clarification. If you'll go back and look at it, maybe you'll see what I mean and we can proceed from here. Does that help?

Click to expand...

I have read post #30, which was a direct response to your post #26. My comments in post #30 were confined to responding to either the exact content of post #26, or about the OP itself. I do not make any reference to Katya's post(s). Not sure where you got that idea. Perhaps, though, it will be clear once you've had a chance to clarify what the statement in the OP is saying to you.

Moodshadow, I think that I have identified what claim I have pointed out that was not part of your OP, and I will remove it, and references to it, from all my posts in this thread. However, it can be very difficult for all of us to manage the claims made in threads when we are each not careful to respond to only to the OP, which I myself have obviously not done perfectly in this thread. Take a look at the claims or observations made about the Church in this one thread... I stopped counting at page 3, although I don't know that there are many more after it (I have changed the grammar or syntax of a few, to make them intelligible outside of the complete paragraphs in which they were found):

• LDS do their own thinking on issues that they can get away with.
• The prophet is put on a pedestal in the minds of all the little children.
• They [the children] are taught repeatedly, "Follow the Prophet."
• Little kids are also encouraged to share their "testimonies."
• LDS even conform with Sunday apparel. And they are certainly chided when they don't conform.
• Where there is little church teaching on matters of doctrine, and members are unsure those doctrines, they are taught to not take a definite stance.
• Members use the response "That's not doctrine" to excuse issues like Adam-God, blacks, or Joseph Smith's stamp on your passport to be with God and Jesus in eternity.
• In an crowd of LDS the words of a prophet are embraced unquestioningly.
• In a discussion with questioning "Gentiles," the "That isn't doctrine" card is played when an incovenient doctrine is displayed.
• The LDS church is slowly evolving, morphing into a kinder-gentler, more politically correct church that at least on the surface wants to be accepted as mainstream.
• For that reason some of the old, more controversial teachings (Adam/God, polygamy, the DNA/Native American origin thing, and the as-man-is-God-once-was thing, among others) are relegated to burners so far back that even church presidents are saying, "I don't know that we teach it," when they know full well that it is LDS doctrine.
• It has apparently been directed that it (a specific doctrine) no longer be emphasized in the church, and my guess is that they want it to fade into oblivion eventually
• And even the definition of "doctrine" seems to change from time to time.
• Posters here have said that during the 60s through the 90s members were told that every word the prophet spoke was doctrine.
• Now members are told that they are not accountable for anything said by a church leader, past or present, that does not appear in one of the four standard works.

Not all of these I disagree with, but some of them with which I do agree, I would only agree if the proper context were presented with the statements. How on earth is anyone, who cares that the Church's teachings and reputation be truthfully represented, supposed to answer all of these? I know you're not responsible for most of them, so I'm not just posing the question to you. But none of them were accompanied by evidences or contextual supporting material of any significant kind. And so they all do the same thing—misrepresent the position or teachings of the Church. I have (and we all should have) an interest in the Church's teachings and positions being presented with fairness, context, and accuracy. I apologize when, within my efforts to do promote that, I get caught up in the whirlwind of counter- and counter-counter- claims that just fly out of the proverbial woodwork in the discussions.

I know that we LDS do the same thing as has been noted here, including myself. And for all of us, these tangents are mostly inadvertent distractions, not intentional ones. Regardless, it is going to be very difficult to stay on track here because of all these claims being made so carelessly. One comes, and more follow to the nth degree.

You'll notice that I have not included your comments from the OP here in my list. Technically there was no claim in your OP, although there was definitely an inferred one. That is why Laterhosen asked for clarification. And now I have as well (after obviously making too many assumptions myself). I know you'll give that clarification when you have time. I'll wait until then to make any further comment, at which time I suggest that all other tangential claims (including mine) made in this thread be dismissed (as in erased), or that their respective owners start new threads to discuss them. Of course, it's your thread, so we can go wherever you think we ought to. I just want you to know I didn't intentionally go off-track. It's just so hard not to when what you see above is what happens.

Moodshadow said:

THIS was your statement to which I was objecting...

I don't believe the Church has ever taught such a concept as that of relinquishing agency.

Click to expand...

I know. I re-read everything and found it. And now I have asked for you to clarify for what purpose you posted your OP in the first place, beyond just fishing for discussion. Or, to quote my specific request:
And I encourage you to extrapolate that out as far as you believe is necessary to convey precisely what it means and why it's important enough to post in this LDS sub-forum.

Once I have a sure understanding of what that phrase means to you, and why you posted it, then I can take my foot out of my mouth and respond better. I obviously should have been obstinate and done this at the outset.

Observation: You're the only one upset.

Comment: I'll talk to you about it in PM, because I am interested.

God bless.
SoftSpoken

Moodshadow said:

It doesn't have to be a general conference, Katya. It could be a stake conference or even a garden-variety sacrament meeting. You might not be noticed if you fail to sustain a calling or announcement, but if you are noticed, chances are you'd be asked to the office of the presiding priesthood authority to explain why. At least that's the way it worked in our ward and stake. Since we're not privy to what the Official Church Handbook of Instructions says on the subject, maybe one of our priesthood brethren here could fill us in on that (but likely not).

Click to expand...

I know here in my ward, they won't call you into the Bishop's office if you don't sustain someone, only if you oppose. Which I have never done. Well not yet anyway.

Moodshadow said:

Since the thread hasn't been closed yet, I'll take the opportunity to submit this to the For Whatever It's Worth Department. I'm not the teensiest bit upset. There have some signs of it from some posters, however, and I just don't want the thread to turn into one of those angry free-for-alls we've all seen here. And I believe we can have an interesting, and hopefully productive, discussion, SS, by PM, and thanks for your interest.

Click to expand...

Glad you're not upset... sorry I assumed you were.

Katya said:

I know here in my ward, they won't call you into the Bishop's office if you don't sustain someone, only if you oppose. Which I have never done. Well not yet anyway.

Click to expand...

Well, they could call you in just so you can explain your reason for it in private, but I have never heard of anyone being called in as part of a disciplinary action associated with not sustaining a person. I believe that would only happen if a person acted in a way that would be appropriate for a Bishop to have a talk with them. Meaning, you can disagree with a choice that the leadership has made, but if you went around talking negatively about another person and attacking their character, you're going to get called in eventually and it wouldn't matter if you were doing that because you object to their being called or for any other reason.

Moodshadow said:

WHEN THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN, THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE.

Click to expand...

Has anyone discussed that the meaning of this can simply be: By the time the prophet announces a thing the discussion and deliberation phase is past. All that remains is for the individual members to study it out and choose for themselves if they will accept it.


? How does that sound ?

Ran77 said:

Has anyone discussed that the meaning of this can simply be: By the time the prophet announces a thing the discussion and deliberation phase is past. All that remains is for the individual members to study it out and choose for themselves if they will accept it.


? How does that sound ?

Click to expand...

Study involves thinking. I don't think your suggestion fits.

drstevej said:

Study involves thinking. I don't think your suggestion fits.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that I don't think? Or that LDS in general don't think?

Ran77 said:

Has anyone discussed that the meaning of this can simply be: By the time the prophet announces a thing the discussion and deliberation phase is past. All that remains is for the individual members to study it out and choose for themselves if they will accept it.


? How does that sound ?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I thought, but since it is ambiguous and there was no clarification by the person who brought it up, I don't see that we have an issue to discuss.

"The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and
he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and
sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray,
for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289

Ran77 said:

Are you saying that I don't think?
Or that LDS in general don't think?

Click to expand...

uh, ummm, All meaning is context-dependent. And

in at least 2 awfully serious contexts, No!
those dangerous have not yet been "by God swept from the earth", &
continue so involved, however tragic that is.
.