Historians have usurped the prophets

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

That is probably more what Waters has said than I have but I essentially agree. I think the only additional point I was trying to make was that I don't think anyone ought to be threatened by that. I think that there are some who consciously or unconsciously read the phrase "and therefore the church isn't true" at the end of a lot of posts and it causes them to get their hackles up for no good reason. It is part and parcel of our collective psyche being that of embattlement and persecution, I understand where it comes from.

I agree. I've stayed out of the fray this time, but then my views on this subject are more or less known.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Tex, Indy, TooBlue are on the other side, with this position: The parties involved in the revelation process are inspired by God all along the way, and that the alleged disagreements between the church leaders are necessarily disagreements, but are methods of exploring the various sides of the issue, so that the leaders are equipped to address outside questions and arguments. That the prophet receives the revelation at the outset of the process, and is thereby led intimately by God in the leadership of the church.

Congrats, SoCal, I would say that's pretty fair.

I would make one minor adjustment: I don't think alleged disagreements are just for the sake of outside questions and arguments. I think the Twelve really does have legitimate disagreements among themselves. The background each of them have, the life God has led each of them to lead, brings a unique perspective to the table. To this specific example (blacks/ban), I have no doubt Spencer Kimball was raised up by God in part to be the prophet of rescinding the ban.

I guess I just don't see why two people who think very differently about a topic can't both be God-inspired, even when they are debating one another. I had two mission presidents on my mission, and as many missionaries will tell you, two more different men you could not find. The 2nd had several disagreements over how the 1st ran the mission, and made swift changes in some respects. I saw both as inspired leaders.

I've also had the chance to serve with several different bishops, in close working relationships, if you don't mind me doing a little "position dropping." Each has a distinct way of leading, and they are not at all alike. Mike's never seen a spirited debate? Try going to a Bishopric training meeting with all the bishops in the stake, and the Stake Presidency.

I see the hand of God in all of this. In the spirited discussions. In the efforts of men to serve those whom they have been called to serve. In the desires of men to please God.

I cannot ... simply cannot ... abide the thought that God sits in the bleachers the entire time, and then comes down at the end of the game and declares a winner. If so, why do we ever bother praying at all during the decision-making process?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Congrats, SoCal, I would say that's pretty fair.

I would make one minor adjustment: I don't think alleged disagreements are just for the sake of outside questions and arguments. I think the Twelve really does have legitimate disagreements among themselves. The background each of them have, the life God has led each of them to lead, brings a unique perspective to the table. To this specific example (blacks/ban), I have no doubt Spencer Kimball was raised up by God in part to be the prophet of rescinding the ban.

I guess I just don't see why two people who think very differently about a topic can't both be God-inspired, even when they are debating one another. I had two mission presidents on my mission, and as many missionaries will tell you, two more different men you could not find. The 2nd had several disagreements over how the 1st ran the mission, and made swift changes in some respects. I saw both as inspired leaders.

I've also had the chance to serve with several different bishops, in close working relationships, if you don't mind me doing a little "position dropping." Each has a distinct way of leading, and they are not at all alike. Mike's never seen a spirited debate? Try going to a Bishopric training meeting with all the bishops in the stake, and the Stake Presidency.

I see the hand of God in all of this. In the spirited discussions. In the efforts of men to serve those whom they have been called to serve. In the desires of men to please God.

I cannot ... simply cannot ... abide the thought that God sits in the bleachers the entire time, and then comes down at the end of the game and declares a winner. If so, why do we ever bother praying at all during the decision-making process?

A very good question. One I myself should ponder. I usually work out the decision and then ask for confirmation. The high percentage of yes's I get to my decision leads some to say I answer my own prayers.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

A very good question. One I myself should ponder. I usually work out the decision and then ask for confirmation. The high percentage of yes's I get to my decision leads some to say I answer my own prayers.

If you really ponder a question long enough, you usually should be able to answer the question for yourself, especially given your past experiences and acquired knowledge over the years.

So when your answer from God to a given question usually ends up being "yes", maybe it's more of a sign that you are relatively in line with God's will rather than prayer representing some self-serving, rubber stamp charade.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you really ponder a question long enough, you usually should be able to answer the question for yourself, especially given your past experiences and acquired knowledge over the years.

So when your answer from God to a given question usually ends up being "yes", maybe it's more of a sign that you are relatively in line with God's will rather than prayer representing some self-serving, rubber stamp charade.

I like that. I will use that when people give me grief.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I cannot ... simply cannot ... abide the thought that God sits in the bleachers the entire time, and then comes down at the end of the game and declares a winner. If so, why do we ever bother praying at all during the decision-making process?

I followed you up until this point. If He is not in the bleachers at some point why pray at all? Isn't the point of the prayer to learn His will? If he just sends it via Fed-ex first thing, then someone can just announce it there won't be any need for prayer or discussion. Isn't the idea that they struggle together until that will is revealed? That doesn't mean He is disinterested the whole time, it just means that it takes some effort for his will to be learned.

I do think your conception that different leaders can be inspired to different conclusions so that a particular result is reached is interesting. Sort of the idea that God wants green so he inspires half to want blue and half to want yellow knowing that they will compromise or settle on green. I'll have to think through the implications of that. Since the only other alternative is that some of them have it wrong some of the time, I can see why this approach appeals to you. I am comfortable with the idea that some of them are wrong some of the time notwithstanding good intentions.

Anyway, interesting thoughts.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I followed you up until this point. If He is not in the bleachers at some point why pray at all? Isn't the point of the prayer to learn His will? If he just sends it via Fed-ex first thing, then someone can just announce it there won't be any need for prayer or discussion. Isn't the idea that they struggle together until that will is revealed? That doesn't mean He is disinterested the whole time, it just means that it takes some effort for his will to be learned.

I guess I don't see answers to prayers as being one-stop shop packages, whether they arrive at the beginning, the middle, or the end. I believe the struggle is part of the process, certainly.

I suppose what I'm really getting at is, I think the conception that "were God involved, all would be in agreement" is false. The diversity of opinion among smart and well-intentioned brethren is an intended consequence of our creation, perhaps given to us by God to remind us that he can be reached in many different ways, and that not all problems have only one solution.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you really ponder a question long enough, you usually should be able to answer the question for yourself, especially given your past experiences and acquired knowledge over the years.

So when your answer from God to a given question usually ends up being "yes", maybe it's more of a sign that you are relatively in line with God's will rather than prayer representing some self-serving, rubber stamp charade.

I think you are right. On the other hand I've seen a lot of people make really dumb, selfish decisions after sincerely thinking they should. I think it is not always easy to tell and it is something that I try to be constantly conscious of. Hopefully I get it right most of the time.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think this is one of the toughest subjects for people to synthesize for all the reasons described in this thread. I think that the reality takes the clothes off the emperor for many people and this leads them to abandon their common sense, both in the pursuit of keeping the clothes on and in overreacting to what it means that the emperor forgot to get dressed today.

I may be the odd person out, but to me learning that our leaders are inspired but imperfect men who disagree, argue, wrestle with the right answer and find it together through inspiration is, well, inspiring. This is the same reason that all I have learned about Joseph Smith inspires. He didn't levitate from epiphany to epiphany but was a mortal man with mortal passions and mortal foibles. And yet, through such a man God was able to bring able this good church that teaches so much good and provides so much opportunity to do good. If he can do it through him, perhaps he can work good through me even though I am imperfect, vexed by my passions, and somewhat contentious in my heart as I believe he was.

The message I take away is that I can do it to in spite of what I am, not that I have to be some fictional unattainable someone else. The apple cannot be stuck back on the Tree of Knowledge; once we begin to see, we are doomed and challenged to seek the strength to see more, not less.

I've actually written this very post above many times only to delete it because of a lack of eloquence ... Very well said Dan.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I get the sense that some people in this debate are disagreeing simply on the principle that they don't want to agree. I also can't really get my head around what the opposing sides are really saying.

Can I try to reframe the disagreement here to make sure I understand?

Mike, Utah Dan, etc. are on one side, saying this: The DOM and SWK biographies reveal that the revelation process, using the revelation on blacks and the priesthood as an example, is often a process of disagreement and consensus-building, that can be lengthy, and that the "revelation" - actually confirmation of the decision reached - often comes at the end of what can be an arduous process. God, through revelation, is involved at the end of the process, but not necessarily at all points along the way.

Tex, Indy, TooBlue are on the other side, with this position: The parties involved in the revelation process are inspired by God all along the way, and that the alleged disagreements between the church leaders are necessarily disagreements, but are methods of exploring the various sides of the issue, so that the leaders are equipped to address outside questions and arguments. That the prophet receives the revelation at the outset of the process, and is thereby led intimately by God in the leadership of the church.

Have I restated the two sides fairly? It's hard to join the discussion without really understanding what the positions are.

The only problem is I am a member of both sides and I believe in the viability of both positions.