A question for the Orthodox:

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then he finds examples of apostles who haven't followed the precepts in D&C and decides that he is in full compliance if he does exactly what the apostle did.

LOL. Is this some sort of weird indirect reference to the J Golden/lazy-ass comments from earlier?

Let's get nice and comfortable with calling prophets insular racists, but God forbid we use any PG-rated profanity. I'm glad your hierarchy of righteousness is sorted descending.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Feeling a false affront?

I'm just glad he didn't use tacos, gumbo, and crackers.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't disagree with these two statements, but I don't see why that precludes God from putting his (future) prophets in settings, places, and with people who he intends on having them call as leaders.

You appear to have adopted the Archaean viewpoint that the only intervention God has in our lives is of the spectacular, ephiphanic brand, and that all other interactions are just rubber stamps of previously-decided, human made decisions.

I happen to believe God's involvement in our lives is far more granular.

Granular? It is granular intervention on God's part to ensure that the prophet becomes best friends with a future apostle so when God tells the prophet later the name to be called, the prophet can be giddy that he already built a relationship with that person? Granular? Not the word I would have used. No, Glen, I think I am the one advocating the "granular" approach where God's communication is generally far more subtle and where His "intervention" in our daily affairs is much more limited.

That is an absurdly illogical deduction. That's like saying the reason Burger King doesn't serve Kung Pao chicken is because the president of the company hates eating it.

Wow- you never have mastered the analogy. This one isn't even close.

You.

You also haven't mastered reading, apparently, either.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

LOL. Is this some sort of weird indirect reference to the J Golden/lazy-ass comments from earlier?

Let's get nice and comfortable with calling prophets insular racists, but God forbid we use any PG-rated profanity. I'm glad your hierarchy of righteousness is sorted descending.

Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?

Dust off your temple recommend and go on a field trip this weekend.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?

Post. Of. The. Day.

Congrats.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Granular? It is granular intervention on God's part to ensure that the prophet becomes best friends with a future apostle so when God tells the prophet later the name to be called, the prophet can be giddy that he already built a relationship with that person? Granular? Not the word I would have used. No, Glen, I think I am the one advocating the "granular" approach where God's communication is generally far more subtle and where His "intervention" in our daily affairs is much more limited.

It's God's responsibility to ensure that the men who lead the church are the one's he wants there, however he does it.

You've absolved Him of all responsibility in that regard so that you can transfer your racism angst onto the prophet-du-jour in good conscience.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Post. Of. The. Day.

Congrats.

Your flippant response masks a truly important question for LDS members today. Is it de facto inappropriate to believe that the prophet has personal flaws? Is it ever appropriate to question the prophet?

These issues get to the sentiment that many Mormons, including yourself, believe the prophet to be infallible, and any criticism or question of the prophet or his motives must be a sin.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's God's responsibility to ensure that the men who lead the church are the one's he wants there, however he does it.

You've absolved Him of all responsibility in that regard so that you can transfer your racism angst onto the prophet-du-jour in good conscience.

And again you bounce back to the sentiment that there are only 12 individuals that the Lord would find acceptable to serve in the 12 right now. You are starting to argue with yourself, Glen.

The 12 men who have been called are, I am sure, acceptable to God. That says nothing about whether or not they are the only ones who are acceptable, nor does it suggest that God will actively require the prophet to call a minority to the ranks of apostleship. It is odd that you accept all of the following:

1. God follows a granular, non-interventionist policy most of the time;
2. God prefers that his children work through issues and then ask Him for confirmation rather than giving them information up front;
3. There are many names that could be presented to God for apostleship which He would confirm, if they were presented, and some of them are minorities;

but that you cannot accept:

4. The issue with the lack of minorities being called to apostleship may have absolutely nothing to do with God, but may more reflect prejudices, intentional or otherwise, of the prophet in selecting those for apostleship.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your flippant response masks a truly important question for LDS members today. Is it de facto inappropriate to believe that the prophet has personal flaws? Is it ever appropriate to question the prophet?

These issues get to the sentiment that many Mormons, including yourself, believe the prophet to be infallible, and any criticism or question of the prophet or his motives must be a sin.

Like flippantly calling a prophet an insular racist, without actually having a clear, detailed understanding of the process behind how an Apostle is actually called? Guilty until proven innocent?

You can with a straight face sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer and revelator, while at the same time firmly believing he is deliberately bypassing God to put in whom he will because God would tell him to de-whiten the Quorum? "Prophet, seer and revelator": what do those words really mean? Do they have no more meaning or value than a degree from the Sally Struthers Correspondence School of Macrame and Urban Anthropology?