(I’m going to operate inside of a “believing” context for this entry. This is a comment I made on a Facebook post and I’m rather proud of it so I’m putting it here for posterity.)

A True Prophet is one who speaks what he has been told to by God, without making any timid concessions to the popular opinion. I see no such thing happening from any LDS church leaders. On the other hand, the bit about them saying flattering things, and we give them our substance, gold, silver, fine clothing, and find no fault with them–that sounds a lot like present-day church leaders.

When’s the last time there was a real Revelation in the Church? Something worth adding to the D&C? I reckon it’s been a long time. Spencer W. Kimball explicitly stated that Declaration #2 wasn’t revelation; Wilford Woodruff explicitly stated that Declaration #1 wasn’t revelation. The Proclamation on the Family explicitly claims to be the opinions of the men who wrote it, and not divine in nature (hence “We […] proclaim,” “we declare,” etc.) Section 138, while nice, is an account of a personal vision given to Joseph F. Smith, which we canonized because it happened to the president of the Church. But it doesn’t contain instructions or words which he was commanded to say to the world.

How do you deal with Section 132, in which God himself (“Alpha and Omega,” v. 66) says that there is more He wishes to tell us on the subject of eternal marriage–a prophecy which has never been fulfilled or even acted upon? (v. 66 again) How do you deal with the fact that God, who knew we’d be having this debate 170 years hence, saw fit to leave the sealing promise gender-neutral? (v. 46-48) How do you explain that the Church’s position on homosexuality, which didn’t come to exist until the 1960’s, almost perfectly matches the most popular opinions of that day? Remember, Section 89 said that smoking was bad for you back when doctors thought it was good for you–that’s a character of genuine revelation. How do you explain that the best guidance of church leaders until very recently was that we gay folks should try to change, something which has, as far as I can tell, never worked? How do you account for the discrepancy between this promise, which never turned out, and other promises God has made, which did turn out?

If you’re not supposed to question the Prophet, then why does God bother giving us the Holy Ghost, or the gifts of Discernment dispensed liberally in the Temple? How will you explain yourself before God if he tells you that what you did wasn’t the right thing? Will you say you were “just following the Prophet”? Do you think God will reward you for that? If so, why? What sense does it make for God to reward you for following someone who’s been led astray?