Make not gods of your prophets

[Reluctant Watchman]

No, I just get banned from the forum when I use those words.

[hyloglyph]

No, I just get banned from the forum when I use those words.

Haha suit yourself lil fella but again— doesn’t matter anyhow since whatever words you are thinking of have ZERO to do with me. I can guarantee that.

I’m positive that those words actually have more to do with you and your own strange demons!

Sort thatshit out and don’t pass it to your kids bud

[Reluctant Watchman]

Are you done? Move on. I'm trying to be somewhat civil here.

[hyloglyph]

Are you done? Move on. I'm trying to be somewhat civil here.

You insinuating that your words for me are so vile that you can’t say them publicly is civil? Lol

Now you’re just trying to sell cowshit to a rancher. You’re not trying to be civil at all haha

If you want folks to move on then:

1. Try and acknowledge your misunderstanding

or

2. Don’t acknowledge anything. Just move on yourself and be done. Don’t even post again towards me lil fella. Let this be it

[Reluctant Watchman]

You...

Done?

[hyloglyph]

You...

Done?

Haha wow.

Another swing and a miss!

[Reluctant Watchman]

Anyway, back to the OP. Can anyone show where this principle is taught, of how we should or shouldn't follow man, particularly church leaders, in greater clarity than what I shared?

[Robin Hood]

Seriously... you believe this nonsense?

Show me where this errs in doctrine. This will rival any preaching taught in the BoM that touches on this subject.

In all of the other threads we've had on this topic you've never once touched on doctrine. You just keep beating the drum of disparaging the translators.

No wonder we are called out for our pride and arrogance in the last days.

I was referring to the false "scriptures" generally. But there was an interesting mistake in the portion you quoted. A Seer isn't a translator.

[creator]

You...

Done?

Haha wow.

Another swing and a miss!

Yet another conversation in which two people should have stopped responding to each other several posts ago, but each one must have the last word.

someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet.jpg (25.3 KiB) Viewed 465 times

#KeyboardWarriors

[Reluctant Watchman]

Seriously... you believe this nonsense?

Show me where this errs in doctrine. This will rival any preaching taught in the BoM that touches on this subject.

In all of the other threads we've had on this topic you've never once touched on doctrine. You just keep beating the drum of disparaging the translators.

No wonder we are called out for our pride and arrogance in the last days.

I was referring to the false "scriptures" generally. But there was an interesting mistake in the portion you quoted. A Seer isn't a translator.

Read the BoM, he is. Was that just a memory slip there…?

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

Also, I’ll reiterate my question yet again. Show me in all of your other “scriptures” where it even comes close to depicting the clarity of doctrine in the OP on this topic of how we interact with the Lord’s anointed.

[Reluctant Watchman]

#KeyboardWarriors

You are correct. I wasn’t sure how big of a @#!!$#!% I wanted to be. Go big or go home.

Hey… now you’ve censored that word as well…

[abijah]

nah, fake scripture

[Reluctant Watchman]

nah, fake scripture

So… you aren’t going to answer my question either?

[Reluctant Watchman]

For a group of people who tend to be more “awake” to various aspects of religiosity, I’m honestly a little taken back at how many of you are so close minded. Do you only get your “religion” from the four core canon of scripture? Do any of you read the apocrypha, the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, the Ascension of Isaiah, or dozens of other religious texts that don’t have the LDS stamp of approval?

Not only that, but your only argument is “what nonsense”, “that’s false”, “fake scripture” or that’s “garbage”… yet you can’t even take the initiative to read the record with an open mind. And when you try to pick it apart, you don’t even understand the scripture you have.

There is so much more out there. So much more doctrinal clarity and additional witnesses to truth. I’ve never read a record that presents the doctrinal principle of verifying all thing through the Holy Ghost like this record does. I’ve never read a record that goes so far in depth about the Law of Consecration. Extreme detail about the way their societal structures were governed by this higher law. I’ve read few records that are so clear about the condemnation of errant later-day servants and precisely how they’ve distorted the word of the Lord, and what the Lord prophesies He’ll do in the days ahead.

I don’t know. Maybe I should just drop the subject. But I have felt so much goodness and God’s love for each of us as I’ve gone down this path. We can be a Zion people, but we need to open our minds to higher laws and truths. And we must be willing to let go of false traditions and beliefs.

My invitation still stands, show me where this concept of how we should interact with the Lord’s anointed is presented in greater clarity, anywhere in scripture.

[madvin]

At this point, I think the book of Nemenhah is quite intriguing and thank Kit-OTW for my introduction to it a few months ago. I see no reason not to believe it.

Not to take this too far off the rails, but I have always found it interesting to consider the locations of the civilizations of the Nephites and Lamanites. Since I think they were here (the Hopewell mound builders area and the surrounds), the Nemenhah people would have been in around Canada.

[LDS Watchman]

Here’s an excerpt from our morning study with the kids. This is found in the second book of Samuel (the Lamanite) in the Nemenhah Record. This principle of seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost is taught all throughout scripture, but the clarity here is unmistakable. ALL men are fallible. Take all things to God for a witness of the Holy Ghost.

————
39) And in this thing did the Peacemaker teach us all a great lesson. It is true that the Peacemaker does call out Prophets from among the people. But, let not any people begin in the belief that the calling out makes a man not a man.

40) The Prophet of the Peacemaker is given great gifts of the Holy Ghost. Yea, he may speak with the tongues of Angels and with them, and, if he has the gift of the seer, he may translate strange languages.

41) And behold, the Prophet leads and guides the people in the will and work of the Peacemaker also. But, know this all you who read these things and ponder them in your hearts, the Prophet is fallible.

42) He is not perfect, and his counsels are not perfect. And, though we count ourselves blessed because the Peacemaker does see fit to call and raise up unto us His Prophets, it is because He does this that we feel constrained to subject all things unto the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, howbeit even the words of a Prophet.

43) Behold, the Peacemaker has spoken it: Thou shalt make no other gods before me. Wherefore, make not gods of your Prophets! For they will be false gods and idols.

44) For, even if they be called of the Peacemaker and appointed, yea, even if they be anointed by the very finger of the Peacemaker, they are yet simple men and you will have made unto yourselves gods that shall fall.
————

One quick note. The word “appointed” is significant. It is a second witness of what Christ taught in JST Mark 9:

46 And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

I'm sure I'm not the one you want to hear from, but since no one else is speaking up, I'll give you my two cents.

This snippet from this alleged record goes too far in my opinion. Instead of teaching the proper role of a prophet and the fact that prophets aren't infallible in greater clarity than the scriptures, it actually does the opposite. It diminishes the role of true prophets and the messages God calls them to deliver.

If people are actually in tune with the Holy Ghost, then sure they should get confirmation from God that the revelations and teachings of true prophets are true. But most people are much more likely to be deceived by false spirits than a true prophet who is intimately acquainted with God's voice and the voice of the Spirit.

I believe that the teaching that we are to pick and choose which teachings and revelations from true prophets we will accept based on what we "feel" the "spirit" is telling us is false doctrine.

[abijah]

So… you aren’t going to answer my question either?

when real scripture criticises false prophets and the people who follow them it never frames it this way. because this reeks of something written by someone specifically with a modern mormon paradigm in mind, with all the feminist post-enlightenment pseudo-egalitarian tenets taken as pre-supposed.

I have a little "ring true" bell in my mind if something seems true or not w/ this stuff, and smell test = not passed, personally.

[hyloglyph]

You...

Done?

Haha wow.

Another swing and a miss!

Yet another conversation in which two people should have stopped responding to each other several posts ago, but each one must have the last word.

someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet.jpg

#KeyboardWarriors

Haha actually it was over until you apparently wanted the last word Brian.

#ultimatekeyboardwarrior

#level33bowser

[Robin Hood]

Seriously... you believe this nonsense?

Show me where this errs in doctrine. This will rival any preaching taught in the BoM that touches on this subject.

In all of the other threads we've had on this topic you've never once touched on doctrine. You just keep beating the drum of disparaging the translators.

No wonder we are called out for our pride and arrogance in the last days.

I was referring to the false "scriptures" generally. But there was an interesting mistake in the portion you quoted. A Seer isn't a translator.

Read the BoM, he is. Was that just a memory slip there…?

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

Also, I’ll reiterate my question yet again. Show me in all of your other “scriptures” where it even comes close to depicting the clarity of doctrine in the OP on this topic of how we interact with the Lord’s anointed.

So we've got it wrong then
Joseph was titled a "prophet, seer, revelator, and translator", when in fact he was a "prophet, translator, revelator and translator".

The scripture you have quoted does not say a seer is a translator. It says a seer can look into the Urim and Thummim and interpret what he sees as revelation from God. This could be anything. However, it isn't translation it's revelation. Big difference.

[cab]

The main thing about the OP that will get folks to flinch a little whether they know it or post it or not is—

It could be viewed as being in very poor judgement to use apocryphal books claiming to be written by actual Book of Mormon type/era people as a source text for a morning study with KIDS.

In doing so you are framing the books as equal to the Book of Mormon or New Testament.

That might be fine for adults because there could be good concepts in the books.

But to do it with kids while you are supposed to be laying a solid foundation for them with texts that you can take to the bank like the Book of Mormon and Sermon on the Mount— could be seen as idiotic, negligent, unwise, borderline abusive, and could be thought to likely lead to confusion down the road.

An outside observer might also say it’s misguided (abusive?) to teach children that once every 6 months Jesus tells 15 octogenarians exactly what to teach, and that their words are the same as Jesus’ words…. Or at least that such a people seem to be in a cult…

[innocentoldguy]

Seriously... you believe this nonsense?

Show me where this errs in doctrine. This will rival any preaching taught in the BoM that touches on this subject.

In all of the other threads we've had on this topic you've never once touched on doctrine. You just keep beating the drum of disparaging the translators.

No wonder we are called out for our pride and arrogance in the last days.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm the most sin-ridden person here and it isn't my place to judge anybody, so I'm certainly not trying to judge you.

With that in mind, some of your comments do come across as being antagonistic towards the church and its leaders. Take your comment about Alma as an example of tearing down the Book of Mormon in favor of this book.

Instead of judging this book by its contents, I think a better way to judge it is whether it is leading you away from Christ and the keys of the priesthood or towards them? Is it drawing you closer to those who Christ has entrusted to hold the keys to salvation, or further away? If the net result of studying this book is apostasy, regardless of its contents, it is still going to be devastating to your soul, isn't it?

[Luke]

There seems to be a lot of "17) He prays to the Mother" in this book......

This is one of the interesting things about new Mormon movements. They pander to the women so as to be more palatable to Gentiles.

For instance Snuffer saying that a man can only exercise his Priesthood if seven women vote on it.

[Luke]

So… you aren’t going to answer my question either?

when real scripture criticises false prophets and the people who follow them it never frames it this way. because this reeks of something written by someone specifically with a modern mormon paradigm in mind, with all the feminist post-enlightenment pseudo-egalitarian tenets taken as pre-supposed.

I have a little "ring true" bell in my mind if something seems true or not w/ this stuff, and smell test = not passed, personally.

Absolutely nailed it. It’s clearly written with Modern Mormonism in mind (along with a smattering of feminist elements). Exactly what I was thinking but couldn’t quite phrase so eloquently.

It’s almost like there’s too much clarity. Scriptures are never written in the manner this is written in.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Show me where this errs in doctrine. This will rival any preaching taught in the BoM that touches on this subject.

In all of the other threads we've had on this topic you've never once touched on doctrine. You just keep beating the drum of disparaging the translators.

No wonder we are called out for our pride and arrogance in the last days.

I was referring to the false "scriptures" generally. But there was an interesting mistake in the portion you quoted. A Seer isn't a translator.

Read the BoM, he is. Was that just a memory slip there…?

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

Also, I’ll reiterate my question yet again. Show me in all of your other “scriptures” where it even comes close to depicting the clarity of doctrine in the OP on this topic of how we interact with the Lord’s anointed.

So we've got it wrong then
Joseph was titled a "prophet, seer, revelator, and translator", when in fact he was a "prophet, translator, revelator and translator".

The scripture you have quoted does not say a seer is a translator. It says a seer can look into the Urim and Thummim and interpret what he sees as revelation from God. This could be anything. However, it isn't translation it's revelation. Big difference.

I"m a bit astounded you can't read what I quoted in the BoM and understand that under the purview of a seer is the ability to translate ancient records.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So… you aren’t going to answer my question either?

when real scripture criticises false prophets and the people who follow them it never frames it this way. because this reeks of something written by someone specifically with a modern mormon paradigm in mind, with all the feminist post-enlightenment pseudo-egalitarian tenets taken as pre-supposed.

I have a little "ring true" bell in my mind if something seems true or not w/ this stuff, and smell test = not passed, personally.

"real" scriptures... haha. You guys kill me.

Why don't the "real" scriptures frame it this way, with such clarity?

Seriously, I'll ask the question another way, can you find any error in the OP? Any. You even had to divert your answer to bring in some silly feminist comment that had nothing to do with the OP to try and reinforce some ax you have to grind against women.