Roland Murphy on Proverbs 30:4

4 Five rhetorical questions follow which seem to underline the point that has been made about the great divide between the divine and the human. The speaker is not identified; it could be Agur himself who exalts God by these questions, or an imagined interlocutor. A. Barucq claims that v 4 is spoken by God. In any case, it seems obvious that the answer to the first four queries is: God. The questions are reminiscent of those that God directs to Job in Job 38–41. The only suggestion of sarcasm occurs at the end of the fifth question, “if you know”; cf. Job 38:18. This final question of v 4 is really a double question, and the obvious answer (God) to the first seems to be canceled by the nature of the second question: What is the name of the son? Are the questions as simple as they seem, or is some sort of riddle involved? The first four questions are straightforward: (1) God moves between heaven and earth. The idea of a human making such a move to flee from God is entertained by the psalmist in Ps 139:8, only to be recognized as impossible. What is odd is the question itself, since God is already in heaven by definition. But perhaps the question, even unconsciously, recalls the question about the torah in Deut 30:12, “who of us can go up to the heavens and get it?” Another even more pointed biblical echo is found in Bar 3:29, “who has gone up to heaven and taken her (wisdom!).” For a thorough investigation of the topos of heavenly ascent and descent in the ancient Near East, see the study by R. C. Van Leeuwen, who concludes (“Background,” 121): “The main purpose of the topos is to reaffirm the great gulf that separates humans from the divine realm and the prerogatives of deity, such as immortality, superhuman knowledge, wisdom, and power.” (2) This question is picturesque—holding the wind in the hollow of the hand. According to Amos 4:13, God created the wind, which he contains in vaults; cf. Ps 135:7. (3) The third query deals with the rainwater that is described as in Job 26:8; the “cloak” is the clouds that contain the rain. (4) Finally, it is God who has established the ends of the earth, i.e., the furthest confines; cf. Ps 22:28; see also Prov 8:27–29. (5) But the fifth question is totally different from the previous ones. It concerns identity, and it begins with “what” and not “who.” It is not easy to answer. Many commentators see it as sarcastic and ironic, as the last two words may suggest. But it is not clear why the name of the son is included with the question. Whybray remarks in his commentary that “this is not an enquiry after the nature of the identity of the creator-god; rather, Agur is asked ironically to name a human being able to do these things.” But why should a third party, “a human being,” be introduced here? Whybray is correct in pointing out that the reference cannot be to the “sons” in the heavenly court, since they are never identified by name in the Old Testament.Irony, then, does not really explain the mention of the son or the query about the son’s name. This final question has the characteristics of a riddle. If so, the most challenging explanation has been offered by P. Skehan, who finds an answer in the data of the heading (v 1, Agur, son of Jakeh [יקה]). Translated, Agur means “I am a sojourner,” and this correlates with Gen 47:9, where Jacob describes himself to Pharaoh, “the number of the years of my sojournings (מגורי) is 130 years.” And the psalmist, Ps 39:13, describes himself as a גר, a תושׁב, “a transient.” By his very name then, Agur suggests that he is a mere mortal inhabiting this earth. In addition, his denial of having knowledge of the Holy One (v 3) is reminiscent of the γνῶσιν ἁγίων, “knowledge of holy ones,” attributed to Jacob in Wis 10:10. The allusions in this passage become more striking. The initial question about going up to heaven and coming down can be associated with Gen 28:12–13 where Jacob’s dream is described: he sees “angels of God” going up and down a ladder that reaches to the “heavens,” and the Lord is standing beside Jacob. Agur is a Doppelgänger for Jacob, and Jacob/Israel is the Lord’s son according to Exod 4:22, “Israel is my son, my firstborn.” Agur/Jacob, then, is the son of יקה (spelled in English as Jakeh in v 1). But who is יקה? He is the Lord. The name יקה is “an abbreviation of Yhwh qādōš hūʾ, an antecedent to the well-known haqqādōš, bārûk hūʾ of later times” (Skehan, Studies, 43). According to this explanation, the answer to the riddle in the fifth question is: Agur (= Jacob/Israel), the son of the Lord. One should recall the mention of riddles in the prologue to the book of Proverbs, 1:6. The final question of v 4 has created a riddle out of vv 1–4. Van Leeuwen (NIB., 5:251) disagrees with the riddle interpretation because everyone knew the name YHWH. But the point of the riddle is to lead the reader to the acknowledgment of the Lord’s creative power and (covenant) relationship to Agur-Israel, not to reveal the sacred name. It may be objected that the answer to the first four questions is too obvious to form a riddle, but the riddle is not really there; it is in the final double question. The very obviousness of the first four questions sets the reader up, as it were, for the last mysterious question. (Murphy, R. E. [1998]. Proverbs [Wallas: Word Bible Commentary, Vol. 22, pp. 228–229])

Eating and drinking Christ's body and blood: Proof of Transubstantiation in John 6?

In John 6, Christ informs the crowd at Capernaum that eternal life is predicated upon eating his flesh and drinking his blood. For instance, in John 6:51-54, we read the following:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews strove among themselves saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Numerous Catholic apologists, such as Karl Keating, Tim Staples, and Robert Sungenis have argued that the standard “response” by opponents of the historical Catholic interpretation of John 6 is an impossibility, as eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood were metaphors of reviling, cursing, and/or harming one’s opponent, so the “literalistic” interpretation (a la the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation) is to be preferred. Brant Pitre in his recent book on the Eucharist writes the following which is reflective of such views:

Although the imagery of eating human flesh and drinking human blood can be used metaphorically in the Old Testament, it is never used as a metaphor for accepting someone’s teaching or believing in that person. Consider the following parallels:

When evildoers assail me, to eat up my flesh, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall. (Ps 27:2)

The Lord of hosts will protect them [the sons of Zion], and they shall devour and treat down the slingers; and they shall drink their blood like win . . .(Zech 9:15)

So I [Zechariah] said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another. (Zech 11:9)

As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord God: Speak to the birds of every sort and to all beasts of the field, “Assemble and come, gather from all sides of the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast upon the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth—of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bulls all of them fatlings of Bashan. And you shall eat fat till you are filled and drink blood till you are drunk, at the sacrificial feat which I am preparing for you. And you shall be filled at my table with horses and riders, with mighty men and all kinds of warriors, says the Lord God. (Ezek 39:17-20)

. . .[The imagery of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood] is never used as a metaphor for “believing” in them. (Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper [Grand Rapids, Mich. Eerdmans, 2015], 206-07).

For Latter-day Saints, there is no "either-or" approach on this issue; historically and in modern times, LDS commentators have understood Christ's words to refer to both the Eucharist (simply the "sacrament" in LDS nomenclature) as well as trusting in, and believing in Christ.

For instance, in vol. 1 of his 3-volume Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Bruce McConkie wrote the following:

How Men Eat the Flesh and Drink the Blood of Jesus

How do men eat the Lord's flesh and drink his blood? Is this literal or figurative? Does it have reference to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper or to something else?

In these words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, Jesus reaches the climax of his great discourse on the Bread of Life. Since he is the Bread of Life (meaning the Son of God), which came down from the Father, and since men must eat this spiritual bread in order to gain salvation, it follows that eternal life is gained only by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God, or in other words, eternal life is gained only by accepting Jesus as the Christ and keeping his commandments.

To eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God is, first, to accept him in the most literal and full sense, with no reservation whatever, as the personal offspring in the flesh of the Eternal Father; and, secondly, it is to keep the commandments of the Son by accepting his gospel, joining his Church, and enduring in obedience and righteousness unto the end. Those who by this course eat his flesh and drink his blood shall have eternal life, meaning exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world. Speaking of ancient Israel, for instance, Paul says: They "did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:3-4.)

In the waters of baptism the saints take upon themselves the name of Christ (that is, they accept him fully and completely as the Son of God and the Savior of men), and they then covenant to keep his commandments and obey his laws. (Mosiah 18:7-10.) To keep his saints in constant remembrance of their obligation to accept and obey him—or in other words, to eat his flesh and drink his blood—the Lord has given them the sacramental ordinance. This ordinance, performed in remembrance of his broken flesh and spilled blood, is the means provided for men, formally and repeatedly, to assert their belief in the divinity of Christ, and to affirm their determination to serve him and keep his commandments; or, in other words, in this ordinance—in a spiritual, but not a literal sense—men eat his flesh and drink his blood. Hence, after instituting the sacramental ordinance among the Nephites, Jesus commanded: "Ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him." (3 Ne. 18:25-29.)

52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?] This querulous, unbelieving attitude on the part of the Jews was, not only wholly unwarranted, but from Jewish lips it bordered on absurdity. Probably no people in all history understood better or had made more extensive use of symbolical and figurative language than they had. Further, Jesus had just taught them the doctrine of the Bread of Life. For them to pretend not to know that eating the flesh of Jesus meant accepting him as the Son of God and obeying his words could only mean that they were wilfully closing their eyes to the truth. Their lack of spiritual understanding was comparable to that of modern sectarians who profess to find in our Lord's statements, about eating and drinking his own flesh and blood, justification for the false doctrine of transubstantiation.

In substance and effect Jesus then said to the Jews:

53. 'Solemnly and soberly I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, by accepting me and my mission and obeying my gospel, ye have no spiritual life in you, but rather are spiritually dead and are not born again.'

54. 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood—by accepting me, keeping my commandments, and enduring unto the end—shall have eternal life; and I will raise him up in the resurrection of the just to an inheritance of exaltation in my Father's kingdom.'

55. 'For my flesh is spiritual meat indeed, and my blood is spiritual drink indeed.'

56. 'He that spiritually eateth my flesh by accepting me as the Son of God, and spiritually drinketh my blood by keeping all my commandments, by the power of the Holy Spirit, he shall dwell in me and I in him; yea, we shall then be one, in that we are perfectly united in character, perfections, and attributes; we shall then have the same mind and the same judgment in all things.' (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:16.)

57. 'As the living Father, who himself hath spiritual and eternal life, hath sent me; and as I have spiritual life and shall have eternal life because I keep my Father's commandments; so he that spiritually eateth me by keeping my commandments, even he shall gain spiritual life and eternal life because of me and my atoning sacrifice.'

58. 'These things which I have told you are the true doctrine of the Bread of Life, that bread which came down from heaven. This true bread from heaven is not, as you falsely supposed, that manna which your fathers (who are dead) ate to sustain themselves temporally, for he that eateth of this true bread from heaven shall have spiritual and eternal life forever.'

LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes, ties the words of Christ in John 6:54 to the Lord's Supper:

There is real symbolism in the bread and wine used at the last supper to represent Christ’s body and blood. The heb word for bread is לֶחֶם lechem, which originally denoted animal flesh, as it still does in heb’s cousin language, Arabic. So when Jesus offered the bread and said it symbolized his flesh, etymologically that was true. Significantly, Christ, the “true bread” (John 6:32), was born in a town named Beth-Lehem, meaning “house of bread. (Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints vol 1: The Gospels, ed. Kevin L. Barney, p. 526 footnote d.)

For Latter-day Saint interpreters, there is no issue if Christ was indeed speaking of the Eucharist/Sacrament which would later be instituted after the discourse at Capernaum.

Pitre is wrong, however, in stating that the Jews of the time would have only understood such terms to be about reviling an opponent, and it comes from the Jews' own reaction to Christ's words in John 6 itself, where they believe he is stating, not to revile him or cause harm to him, but to engage in an act of cannibalism, as seen in John 6:52.

Another attempt to foist, not just the Eucharist, but Transubstantiation, into the words of Christ in John 6 revolves around the shift from the verb εσθιω to τρωγω in John 6:54, 56, 57-58. This has been addressed in a previous post, so I will not rehash the faulty linguistic issues about this popular Catholic argument.

Finally, Michael Taylor, in responding to the arguments of Karl Keating et al. which mirror Pitre's arguments, wrote the following which is a propos for our discussion:

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus’ hearers would have understood both eating flesh and drinking blood as negative metaphors, and that no other metaphorical use is possible.  If so, then such a metaphorical reading of John 6:53-57 would lead to several absurd propositions.  For example, Jesus would be saying, “Unless you revile me, you have no life in you” (John 6:53);  “He who reviles me has eternal life” (verse 54); “He who reviles me abides in me” (verse 56); “He who reviles me will also live because of me” (verse 57).   Admittedly, such propositions are absurd when viewed prospectively.  But when viewedretrospectively, each one of those propositions contains an ironic ring of truth.  In the Old Testament, eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically connoted both physical harm and psychological harm (i.e., slandering or mocking someone).   In the passion according to John, Jesus is both physically reviled (John 18:23, 19:1, 18) and psychologically reviled (John 18:40; 19:2-3, 14, 19, 24). It is therefore possible thateating flesh and drinking blood allude to the cross. 

But if such metaphors can allude to the passion, then why not the eucharist as well?   The answer is that they can.  We should not exclude the possibility that the eucharist may also be in view.  In fact, there very well may be secondary sacramental allusions throughout John’s gospel.  But the case for such allusions has to be argued, not presumed.  What we can safely say is that there are no direct references to the eucharist in John 6 or anywhere else in John’s gospel.  John has taken pains to leave out the institution of the eucharist.   While there are ample allusions to the cross, there is nothing that is unambiguously allusive to eucharist.   

Protestants sometimes object that the eucharist cannot be in view in John 6, because it had not yet been instituted.  Catholic apologists reply that by that logic, the cross could not be in view either, since Jesus had not yet died.  But there is one crucial piece of evidence that Catholics apologists should keep in mind:  Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus has been alluding to his impending death:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24).  Jesus has even alluded to the cross itself:  “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (John 3:14, see also 8:28; 12:32).  The same cannot be said of the eucharist.   After all, John’s gospel actually has a crucifixion in it—but it takes pains to leave out the eucharist! Therefore, with all of the clear allusions to his death on the cross—and no unambiguous allusions to the eucharist—it would be most natural to understand the “flesh and blood” of John 6 as primarily an allusion to Jesus’ death on the cross. (Michael Taylor, "Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood: Metaphors of Reviling or Metaphors of Belief?")

In another article, The Sniper Who Couldn’t Aim:  Taylor Replies to Pacheco, Taylor also noted:

 

Why Jesus Probably Would Not Correct the Misunderstanding of Unbelievers

 

Instead of correcting unbelievers, it is far more likely that Jesus would not have corrected them.  After all, unbelievers are “already condemned” (John 3:18), whereas believers already possess eternal life (John 5:24).  Why, then, would Jesus need to explain himself to those who are already condemned?  Catholic apologists sometimes argue as if Jesus had a moral obligation to speak plainly.  But Jesus did not come to explain himself to unbelievers:  “For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39).  And again, “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40). Unbelievers in John’s gospel do not understand because they cannot understand.  They have been blinded by the very revelation they reject, which is why they frequently take his metaphors literally, missing the spiritual meaning of his words.

 

Furthermore, we know it was Jesus’ preference to use “figurative language.”  And we know that the meaning behind Jesus’ figurative language was never intended to be obvious.  “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25).  If we consider the fact that both the events and discourse of John 6 take place chronologically before Jesus’ “hour,” then we should expect Jesus to be speaking more often in “figurative language” than “plainly.” 

 

Consider the ultimatum in John 6:53:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”   Catholic apologists sometimes argue that “truly, truly,” precludes figurative language.  Yet the parable of the Good Shepherd also begins with the words “Truly, truly” (John 10:1), and is clearly not to be taken liteally:  “This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which he had been saying to them” (John 10:6).   John 6:53, which likewise begins with “truly, truly,” is in all probability, a “figure of speech” as well.

 

To read, not the Eucharist per se, but the much later concepts of Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass and Transubstantiation into John 6 and the words of Jesus is to engage in, not meaningful exegesis, but eisegesis.

For more, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Early LDS on the importance of critical thinking

“We have heard men that hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent human beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong.themselves.”
—[unsigned editorial [perhaps Samuel W. Richards]., Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num.38, pp.594

Jesus as an Apostle: Evidence for Subordinationism

In Heb 3:1, we read the following description of Jesus:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

Suggested works on Homosexuality and the Bible

This topic is a rather contentious issue, and it doesn’t appear that it will cease to be the case anytime soon. The following are the best works in recent years addressing the topic of the Bible’s attitudes towards homosexuality, using careful exegetical and scholarly research. They are also void of any ill-will towards those with same-sex attraction. However, they come firmly down on the side that yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour in spite of revisionist attempts.

Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics

Michael L. Brown, Can you be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality

Idem. A Queer Thing Happened to America

The best “revisionist” attempt, of course, would be John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.

Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity

The following link is to John Tvedtnes' paper, "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity" from the book, The Temple in Time and Antiquity. It shows the ancient Christian evidence for the doctrine of baptism for the dead. It is a fascinating read. Tvedtnes' summary is rather apt:

Though most Christians stopped baptizing for the dead in the early centuries after Christ, documentary evidence makes it clear that the practice was known in various parts of the Mediterranean world and that it found ready acceptance in such areas as Egypt. The ordinance is especially attested in pseudepigraphic texts whose authorship is open to question; nevertheless, from their geographical distribution it seems that these documents were widely circulated among early Christian groups and therefore contain doctrines with which those Christians were familiar.

The importance of one's assumptions and presuppositions

The following is a portion of an email I sent to a member of the Church who, for over four decades, has held to inerrantist (read: fundamentalist) assumptions about the Church's leadership, scripture, and history, who is now struggling with elements thereof. I am reproducing it (with some editing to protect identity), as it does show the importance of having realistic and correct assumptions and the danger of a fundamentalist worldview.

Hi x,

As you did not go into any major detail into most of the issues you raised, I will just offer some comments, but if you wish to discuss any specific issue(s) in more depth, let me know.

The Importance of Presuppositions and World-view

I think that in many of these cases a lot of time it ultimately boils down to one's presuppositions--as you told me [in person], you held to (still hold to?) a rather fundamentalist conception of faith and the Church, such as prophetic infallibility and impeccability, which are both simply false, as are things such as scriptural inerrancy and other related concepts. A good analogy on the true nature of revelation and prophets can be seen in 1 Nephi 8 and 11 where we have different accounts of the same vision of the Tree of Life, with Nephi even commenting that Lehi, due to how he perceived things and his analysis of the revelation he received, did not notice things that Nephi would (see 1 Nephi 15:27)--what this shows that, even in the act of receiving a revelation, an oracle (whether a prophet, stake president, or someone like you or I) are still interpreters (and fallible ones at that) of the revelation they receive; it also shows that the act of receiving revelation is not simply the prophet being a secretary taking a word-for-word dictation from God, but instead, upon receiving a revelation, one has to put it into their own language, manner of expression, and so forth, and such will always be filtered by their personal background, education, biases, limits of language, and so forth--the same also applies for its interpretation by both the prophet and the audience of the revelation. That this is the view of revelation Joseph Smith took can be seen in a number of areas, not the least his own editing of revelations he received in the 1833 A Book of Commandments and the subsequent 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants; his editing of the Book of Mormon (not just the 1837 and 1840 editions during this lifetime, but even during the printing process), etc.

I am rather fond of what Brigham Young once said:

I do not believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church; that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, as far as they go, but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities. (Journal of Discourses, 2:314 [July 8, 1855]).

Such a sentiment is paralleled by similar texts in the Doctrine and Covenants (emphasis added)

Behold, I am God, and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (D&C 1:24)

Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sough in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know. (D&C 67:5)

Often, such (fundamentalist) assumptions lead to the idea that prophets are inspired prophets on a 24/7/365 basis, which, again, goes against the entire strand of LDS theology and teaching as well as well as the teachings of all the Scriptures themselves. Notice the following examples from LDS leaders of rejecting such (examples could be multiplied):

February 8, 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, "[I] visited with a brother and sister from Michigan who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (History of the Church 5.265).  Prophets are, after all, human beings. 

Joseph Smith occasionally used wording such as "this is my counsel" (History of the Church 1.455) or "I therefore warn" (Nauvoo Neighbor, June 19, 1844)

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.  My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.  Let us have this matter clear.  We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

President Harold B. Lee declared, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth" (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69).

Much more could be said, but I am a firm believer that a lot of issues (not all, nor am I trying to downplay the validity of your issues) can be answered by examining one's world-view and presuppositions. I have studied these issues for 14+ years and, perhaps it is just my personality and the fact I have engaged a lot of biblical scholarship where these issues are part-and-parcel of the field (such controversies are not unique within the realm of "Mormonism") but have never been troubled by such things. I say this not to gloat or what not, but instead, that there are reasonably intelligent people who have a firm witness of the Church and yet have a very nuanced (and I would say, rewarding) understanding of the nature of "faith" and the Church. Ultimately, one has to have a spiritual grounding (as Paul states in 1 Cor 2:9-14, spiritual things are to be spiritually discerned) which is serves as a solid foundation and serves to inform one's approach to the issues, though one also has a more nuanced (read: realistic) expectation of the Church and the leadership thereof. I am reminded of what a friend recently said, "the Church is paradoxically true and flawed." At least, that has been my experience.

A good blog post on this would be Kevin L. Barney, "Lowered Expectations."