Make not gods of your prophets

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 8:48 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:23 am
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 4:15 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 9:08 pm

How does believing that God won't let a true prophet lead his people astray violate the 1st commandment? How is that Anti-Christian and the epitome of pride?

The fact that you don't believe that there's even the slightest chance that you could be deceived speaks volumes. Beware of pride friend.

He believes the answer he’s received is knowledge, experiential first hand knowledge. It’s the same type of knowledge people seem to express each Sunday when they say they “know the church is true”.

Are all those makes such statements of knowledge guilty of pride? I would imagine most of them would say they are sure they aren’t deceived in that thing they have expressed knowledge of….

A very paradoxical situation indeed.
All of this goes to show that someone is clearly deceived. Which is why I think it's very prideful for RW to lecture us on how we can't trust true prophets because they can be deceived, while he insists that he can't be.

I would never make such a declaration. There are many things that I believe I know or strongly believe in, but I would never rule out the possibility that I could be deceived.

But you seem to be stating that the LDS prophets are true prophets as a matter of fact. Is it possible you could be deceived in this belief?
I didn't state this is a matter of fact.

But yes it is possible that I could be wrong and even deceived about all sorts of things I firmly believe to be true. I don't claim to be infallible and unable to be deceived.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

JLHPROF wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:05 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:28 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 7:01 pm

It's a fact that YOU believe that authorized plural marriages were not suspended. That's it.

There's absolutely no reason why God could not have temporarily suspended plural marriage when the people were no longer worthy of it. See Jacob 2.

In any event, this has nothing to do with your original claim that if someone believes what Joseph Smith plainly taught that they would be called deceived by the church. This is clearly not true.
"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Does this mean what it plainly says, or does it not?
I think you better read the entire 1886 revelation again. It doesn't even mention polygamy specifically. It refers to Celestial marriage, of which living polygamy is only one part. There's nothing preventing God from temporarily suspended the authorized practice of plural marriage if the people became unworthy of it, while continuing the main aspect of Celestial marriage, which is the sealing between a man and a woman.
You might want to review the marriage sealing ceremony and the covenant you are placed under as part of it.
If the temporary suspension were permanent we'd all remain covenant breakers.
I don't follow. Please explain what you mean?

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by JLHPROF »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:55 am
JLHPROF wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:05 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:28 am

"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Does this mean what it plainly says, or does it not?
I think you better read the entire 1886 revelation again. It doesn't even mention polygamy specifically. It refers to Celestial marriage, of which living polygamy is only one part. There's nothing preventing God from temporarily suspended the authorized practice of plural marriage if the people became unworthy of it, while continuing the main aspect of Celestial marriage, which is the sealing between a man and a woman.
You might want to review the marriage sealing ceremony and the covenant you are placed under as part of it.
If the temporary suspension were permanent we'd all remain covenant breakers.
I don't follow. Please explain what you mean?
"you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this holy order of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant"

Which rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage in the new and everlasting covenant did you promise God you would keep? What marriage rites and ordinances exist that come after the sealing ceremony?
And is that currently possible to do under the "temporary suspension" as you phrased it?

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 11:02 pmYeah, I don't think you know what it means to experiment on the word in Alma 32.

How would you even experiment on this? It's not like there's anything you can test. Basically all you could have done is just keep telling yourself that you are right over and over again until you convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong.

There's no faith and then action involved. There's no seed to plant.

But I'm sure this belief does feel good to you. Now you just believe and do whatever you want irregardless of what any prophet may have said or written. I'm sure that's a great feeling, but that doesn't mean that you're belief is true and that this feeling is from God.
Why do you have to be so contrary and condescending against others? It's fine if you want to express disagreement and share your own views on a topic but what you're doing here is simply attacking the beliefs of others.

From Alma 30:7: "..there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds..."

Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

We understand from D&C 121 that "Influence can or ought to be maintained by... persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..."

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Articles of Faith 1:11)

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:28 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 7:01 pm
Luke wrote: October 24th, 2022, 4:47 pm

God's current command:

"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Plural Marriage was never revoked and never will be.

It's just a fact.
It's a fact that YOU believe that authorized plural marriages were not suspended. That's it.

There's absolutely no reason why God could not have temporarily suspended plural marriage when the people were no longer worthy of it. See Jacob 2.

In any event, this has nothing to do with your original claim that if someone believes what Joseph Smith plainly taught that they would be called deceived by the church. This is clearly not true.
"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Does this mean what it plainly says, or does it not?
I think you better read the entire 1886 revelation again. It doesn't even mention polygamy specifically. It refers to Celestial marriage, of which living polygamy is only one part. There's nothing preventing God from temporarily suspended the authorized practice of plural marriage if the people became unworthy of it, while continuing the main aspect of Celestial marriage, which is the sealing between a man and a woman.
No it doesn’t. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Celestial Marriage means Plural Marriage

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means Plural Marriage.

Everyone involved with the 1886 Revelation, including John Taylor, the one who received it, understood it to mean Plural Marriage. And fortunately, the Lord clearly uses the term “works of Abraham” to tell us exactly what it is He’s talking about.

No wiggle room whatsoever.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 amCelestial Marriage means Plural Marriage
The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means Plural Marriage.
I personally believe that is false to conflate the two. Celestial marriage and the New & Everlasting Covenant don't imply or require plural marriage. It's something those in favor of plural marriage seemed to have conflated over the years.

However, by saying this I am not arguing for or against plural marriage. If you want to believe in that, or practice that, so be it.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 amEveryone involved with the 1886 Revelation, including John Taylor, the one who received it, understood it to mean Plural Marriage. And fortunately, the Lord clearly uses the term “works of Abraham” to tell us exactly what it is He’s talking about.
I realize that the context surrounding this revelation seems to imply plural marriage but I find it interesting that the revelation itself does not specifically say anything about plural marriage.

And D&C 132 which seems to be the only scriptural reference to "works of Abraham" doesn't specifically say that the definition of "works of Abraham" has to include plural marriage.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:27 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 amEveryone involved with the 1886 Revelation, including John Taylor, the one who received it, understood it to mean Plural Marriage. And fortunately, the Lord clearly uses the term “works of Abraham” to tell us exactly what it is He’s talking about.
I realize that the context surrounding this revelation seems to imply plural marriage but I find it interesting that the revelation itself does not specifically say anything about plural marriage.

And D&C 132 which seems to be the only scriptural reference to "works of Abraham" doesn't specifically say that the definition of "works of Abraham" has to include plural marriage.
As Joseph Smith said: “find the question that was asked which drew out the answer”. The question being asked was that of whether to stay the course on plural marriage or not.

And D&C 132, in that context, very clearly says that the works of Abraham is Plural Marriage.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:21 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 amCelestial Marriage means Plural Marriage
The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means Plural Marriage.
I personally believe that is false to conflate the two. Celestial marriage and the New & Everlasting Covenant don't imply or require plural marriage. It's something those in favor of plural marriage seemed to have conflated over the years.

However, by saying this I am not arguing for or against plural marriage. If you want to believe in that, or practice that, so be it.
It’s how all the early leaders of the Church understood it. It wasn’t understood any other way until the turn of the 20th century.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:33 am It’s how all the early leaders of the Church understood it.
It doesn't seem to be how Joseph Smith understood it.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by David13 »

JLHPROF wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:34 am
JandD6572 wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:24 am Well this entire thread went all over the board, not to mention bored the heck out of me. I'll just stick with Christ, and trying to live his way as best as possible. good luck to you all in this discussion of... well, I don't even remember this far along now what the discussion was even about. something about false scripture? lol. who knows.
It's the disagreement over what constitutes Christ's way that leads to the debates.
As far as the discussion topic - the usual anti authority approach so popular in these parts, with the added bonus of false scripture.

I can't agree that it's "anti -authority" at all.

I think it's anti-false-authority, or anti-self appointed authority, or anti-corporate appointed authority.
dc

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 10:31 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 11:02 pmYeah, I don't think you know what it means to experiment on the word in Alma 32.

How would you even experiment on this? It's not like there's anything you can test. Basically all you could have done is just keep telling yourself that you are right over and over again until you convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong.

There's no faith and then action involved. There's no seed to plant.

But I'm sure this belief does feel good to you. Now you just believe and do whatever you want irregardless of what any prophet may have said or written. I'm sure that's a great feeling, but that doesn't mean that you're belief is true and that this feeling is from God.
Why do you have to be so contrary and condescending against others? It's fine if you want to express disagreement and share your own views on a topic but what you're doing here is simply attacking the beliefs of others.

From Alma 30:7: "..there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds..."

Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

We understand from D&C 121 that "Influence can or ought to be maintained by... persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..."

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Articles of Faith 1:11)
He can believe whatever he wants to. Nothing I said stops that. I don't believe that Alma 32 is talking about what he's saying. Do I not have a right to express that belief?

All of us should acknowledge that we could be wrong. Insisting that it's impossible to be wrong about something is prideful and arrogant in my opinion. There's zero point in having any discussion when someone claims that they can't possibly be wrong. Especially when this person has no problem making all kinds of attacks and insults on the beliefs of others.

It's a two way street. At least it should be.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:28 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 7:01 pm

It's a fact that YOU believe that authorized plural marriages were not suspended. That's it.

There's absolutely no reason why God could not have temporarily suspended plural marriage when the people were no longer worthy of it. See Jacob 2.

In any event, this has nothing to do with your original claim that if someone believes what Joseph Smith plainly taught that they would be called deceived by the church. This is clearly not true.
"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Does this mean what it plainly says, or does it not?
I think you better read the entire 1886 revelation again. It doesn't even mention polygamy specifically. It refers to Celestial marriage, of which living polygamy is only one part. There's nothing preventing God from temporarily suspended the authorized practice of plural marriage if the people became unworthy of it, while continuing the main aspect of Celestial marriage, which is the sealing between a man and a woman.
No it doesn’t. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Celestial Marriage means Plural Marriage

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means Plural Marriage.

Everyone involved with the 1886 Revelation, including John Taylor, the one who received it, understood it to mean Plural Marriage. And fortunately, the Lord clearly uses the term “works of Abraham” to tell us exactly what it is He’s talking about.

No wiggle room whatsoever.
As the Creator pointed out, there's no indication that Joseph Smith understood Celestial marriage to exclusively mean plural marriage. D&C 132, the actual revelation on the subject doesn't say this either. The bulk of it is about a sealing of one man to one woman.

User avatar
JandD6572
captain of 100
Posts: 292

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by JandD6572 »

AND....just another reason why I left the church, all this doctrine, meant to separate the Mormon church from all the rest of the worlds religion with the absolute truth, yet, no one can seem to agree on its doctrine, and yet you stay. Here, for instance, the book of Mormon comes forth, through out the book of Mormon, you are taught about the the wickedness of multiple wives, and concubines, and then almost immediately, after the publication of the book, and setting up the church, the church issues the plural marriage doctrine. seems kind of contradicting to me, but this is merely my opinion.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 12:39 pm
creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 10:31 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 11:02 pmYeah, I don't think you know what it means to experiment on the word in Alma 32.

How would you even experiment on this? It's not like there's anything you can test. Basically all you could have done is just keep telling yourself that you are right over and over again until you convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong.

There's no faith and then action involved. There's no seed to plant.

But I'm sure this belief does feel good to you. Now you just believe and do whatever you want irregardless of what any prophet may have said or written. I'm sure that's a great feeling, but that doesn't mean that you're belief is true and that this feeling is from God.
Why do you have to be so contrary and condescending against others? It's fine if you want to express disagreement and share your own views on a topic but what you're doing here is simply attacking the beliefs of others.

From Alma 30:7: "..there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds..."

Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

We understand from D&C 121 that "Influence can or ought to be maintained by... persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..."

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Articles of Faith 1:11)
He can believe whatever he wants to. Nothing I said stops that. I don't believe that Alma 32 is talking about what he's saying. Do I not have a right to express that belief?

All of us should acknowledge that we could be wrong. Insisting that it's impossible to be wrong about something is prideful and arrogant in my opinion. There's zero point in having any discussion when someone claims that they can't possibly be wrong. Especially when this person has no problem making all kinds of attacks and insults on the beliefs of others.

It's a two way street. At least it should be.
But you're not even having a proper discussion. You're not addressing the topic, you're simply being condescending and telling someone their spiritual experience is not valid because it doesn't fit your world view.

Seriously, are you here for discussion or just to tear people down because you think they are apostate?

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 1:40 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 12:39 pm
creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 10:31 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 11:02 pmYeah, I don't think you know what it means to experiment on the word in Alma 32.

How would you even experiment on this? It's not like there's anything you can test. Basically all you could have done is just keep telling yourself that you are right over and over again until you convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong.

There's no faith and then action involved. There's no seed to plant.

But I'm sure this belief does feel good to you. Now you just believe and do whatever you want irregardless of what any prophet may have said or written. I'm sure that's a great feeling, but that doesn't mean that you're belief is true and that this feeling is from God.
Why do you have to be so contrary and condescending against others? It's fine if you want to express disagreement and share your own views on a topic but what you're doing here is simply attacking the beliefs of others.

From Alma 30:7: "..there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds..."

Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

We understand from D&C 121 that "Influence can or ought to be maintained by... persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..."

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (Articles of Faith 1:11)
He can believe whatever he wants to. Nothing I said stops that. I don't believe that Alma 32 is talking about what he's saying. Do I not have a right to express that belief?

All of us should acknowledge that we could be wrong. Insisting that it's impossible to be wrong about something is prideful and arrogant in my opinion. There's zero point in having any discussion when someone claims that they can't possibly be wrong. Especially when this person has no problem making all kinds of attacks and insults on the beliefs of others.

It's a two way street. At least it should be.
But you're not even having a proper discussion. You're not addressing the topic, you're simply being condescending and telling someone their spiritual experience is not valid because it doesn't fit your world view.

Seriously, are you here for discussion or just to tear people down because you think they are apostate?
I'm here for discussion.

As for where the discussion turned all I did was respond to comments RW made. If the discussion veered off topic slightly he's just as responsible for that as I am. He's the one who brought up not leaving the church yet, but likely soon. He's the one who brought up Alma 32. He's the one who first started accusing people of being prideful for claiming that they can't lead people astray (be deceived) while insisting that in this one area at least he is immune to deception.

Claiming that the spirit told me such and such, really isn't a legitimate argument to try and prove anything to anyone. The counter argument is as simple as "well the spirit tells me you're wrong and I'm right."

That's a pointless discussion.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by creator »

The battle of the Watchmen! :)

"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber."

/s

No offense intended to any watchmen on this thread. Just thought I'd toss a grenade into the arena, for fun.

ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ

innocentoldguy
captain of 100
Posts: 265

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by innocentoldguy »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 24th, 2022, 1:44 pm
innocentoldguy wrote: October 24th, 2022, 1:32 pm If my goal is to follow Christ and keep his commandments, then why would I read and place a greater value on things that, by your own admission, lead people away from the very priesthood keys that are required to keep those commandments and perform those covenants required for salvation?
You've asked the best questions. What does it mean to "follow Christ and keep His commandments"? These men who you hold up as PSRs teach things contrary to the Lord's doctrine.
Such as?
The D&C is clear what happens to that priesthood when used for ill intent and gain.

And, I would add, those same PSRs you sustain have changed the laws and ordinances of the gospel. They teach a gospel that has some good, but some really bad things as well.
Again, such as?
I've asked this question to others before, but what does it mean when the temple worker invites you to keep the law of the gospel "as contained in the scriptures"? And, did you know exactly what that meant when you went through the temple for the first time?
Yes. It is the higher gospel Christ taught during his ministry. For example, instead of loving our neighbors and hating our enemies, Christ taught us to love our enemies and pray for them.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by JLHPROF »

David13 wrote: October 25th, 2022, 12:04 pm
JLHPROF wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:34 am
JandD6572 wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:24 am Well this entire thread went all over the board, not to mention bored the heck out of me. I'll just stick with Christ, and trying to live his way as best as possible. good luck to you all in this discussion of... well, I don't even remember this far along now what the discussion was even about. something about false scripture? lol. who knows.
It's the disagreement over what constitutes Christ's way that leads to the debates.
As far as the discussion topic - the usual anti authority approach so popular in these parts, with the added bonus of false scripture.

I can't agree that it's "anti -authority" at all.

I think it's anti-false-authority, or anti-self appointed authority, or anti-corporate appointed authority.
dc
Almost every thread on this board takes the anti-authority approach.
Whether criticizing religious or political leaders. Whether attacking Brigham and the Apostles in Nauvoo or President Nelson and the Apostles today. Whether promoting a personal spirituality over any organization or denying the need for a priesthood hierarchy. Whether claiming tithing is sinful, polygamy is adultery, a new apostasy, a new dispensation, or simply crying unrighteous dominion.
Nothing has changed from Joseph's day when even the most faithful bristled when Joseph told them how to live.
This board is where people who don't like being told what they can and can't do hang out.
Me too to some extent I suppose, but I'm not as into the go-it-alone religion.

endlessQuestions
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6429

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by endlessQuestions »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 21st, 2022, 9:07 am
simpleton wrote: October 21st, 2022, 8:27 am
Reluctant Watchman wrote: October 21st, 2022, 8:04 am To add a bit of context, this dialogue about following the Holy Ghost is the culmination of a longer historical account of what happened between Alma and his son Corianton. Corianton assumed that his father would know that he never slept with a harlot. He assumed that since his father was a “prophet” that the Holy Ghost would obviously convey the truth to him. Alma believed the lie that was told about his son. Alma openly and publicly chastised his son, and upon learning, through the Spirit that his son did not do those things, he called him back out into the mission field, yet the rumors of the lie spread among the people. Alma did not take back this falsehood, possibly because he didn’t want the people to loose faith in his calling as prophet. They were both prideful.
That book, in my opinion, is just a poor attempt at immitation. I met the guy or one of the fellows, (if it was the work of more than one) that wrote it. Visited with him for hours, was not impressed not one little iota. I think people just get sidetracked into strange paths. Which is what I think of the book.
I am not against bringing new things to light. But that nemenhah-ha-ha record is just so much garbage..... IMO.
I've always found it interesting, people almost universally point to the translators of the record and try to discount the validity of it, but rarely, if ever, the actual doctrine presented in the record. You are a perfect specimen. Show me any error in what I quoted in the OP. Show me the "garbage." Show me anywhere in almost the entire history of the LDS church where this principle is taught with more clarity, even in the Book of Mormon.

This thread is not about the historicity of the record, but the doctrine and principles presented in the OP. I can't tell you how many times in the record itself where it states to trust no man, but verify all things through the Holy Ghost.
Your point is good, but remember, a book that contains some true principles is not necessarily scripture. Your overall point that we should take it to the Lord is as solid as it gets.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by cab »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:54 am
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 8:48 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:23 am
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 4:15 am


He believes the answer he’s received is knowledge, experiential first hand knowledge. It’s the same type of knowledge people seem to express each Sunday when they say they “know the church is true”.

Are all those makes such statements of knowledge guilty of pride? I would imagine most of them would say they are sure they aren’t deceived in that thing they have expressed knowledge of….

A very paradoxical situation indeed.
All of this goes to show that someone is clearly deceived. Which is why I think it's very prideful for RW to lecture us on how we can't trust true prophets because they can be deceived, while he insists that he can't be.

I would never make such a declaration. There are many things that I believe I know or strongly believe in, but I would never rule out the possibility that I could be deceived.

But you seem to be stating that the LDS prophets are true prophets as a matter of fact. Is it possible you could be deceived in this belief?
I didn't state this is a matter of fact.

But yes it is possible that I could be wrong and even deceived about all sorts of things I firmly believe to be true. I don't claim to be infallible and unable to be deceived.

That’s good. Sorry that that’s how I read some of the past posts. I’ve come to acknowledge that everything I think I know is either incomplete or incorrect.

But I will say that our tradition in the church of getting up each Sunday and declaring everything “we know” is problematic. We essentially place stakes in the ground and halt any hope of dialogue and learning when we declare we know a bunch of things we don’t actually know. To me, this is a prideful tradition of ours. We often sound like Zoramites.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by LDS Watchman »

cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 4:53 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:54 am
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 8:48 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:23 am

All of this goes to show that someone is clearly deceived. Which is why I think it's very prideful for RW to lecture us on how we can't trust true prophets because they can be deceived, while he insists that he can't be.

I would never make such a declaration. There are many things that I believe I know or strongly believe in, but I would never rule out the possibility that I could be deceived.

But you seem to be stating that the LDS prophets are true prophets as a matter of fact. Is it possible you could be deceived in this belief?
I didn't state this is a matter of fact.

But yes it is possible that I could be wrong and even deceived about all sorts of things I firmly believe to be true. I don't claim to be infallible and unable to be deceived.

That’s good. Sorry that that’s how I read some of the past posts. I’ve come to acknowledge that everything I think I know is either incomplete or incorrect.

But I will say that our tradition in the church of getting up each Sunday and declaring everything “we know” is problematic. We essentially place stakes in the ground and halt any hope of dialogue and learning when we declare we know a bunch of things we don’t actually know. To me, this is a prideful tradition of ours. We often sound like Zoramites.
I agree that the standard LDS testimony of "I know" such and such is often problematic. Some people really do know certain things, but for most it's really a statement of belief. Unfortunately this problematic testimony is often taught in primary and in Young men and Young women.

Shutting down discussion with "I know I'm right and can't possibly be wrong because I feel the spirit telling me such and such" is really pointless. We should all be open to learning new information and reevaluating our positions in light of new information if necessary.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

creator wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:39 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:33 am It’s how all the early leaders of the Church understood it.
It doesn't seem to be how Joseph Smith understood it.
I believe it was. It was him who expounded on those principles to others. Plenty of testimonies on that subject. Besides, he was the one who received D&C 132.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by Luke »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 12:42 pm
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 11:09 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 7:02 am
Luke wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:28 am

"I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof"

Does this mean what it plainly says, or does it not?
I think you better read the entire 1886 revelation again. It doesn't even mention polygamy specifically. It refers to Celestial marriage, of which living polygamy is only one part. There's nothing preventing God from temporarily suspended the authorized practice of plural marriage if the people became unworthy of it, while continuing the main aspect of Celestial marriage, which is the sealing between a man and a woman.
No it doesn’t. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Celestial Marriage means Plural Marriage

The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage means Plural Marriage.

Everyone involved with the 1886 Revelation, including John Taylor, the one who received it, understood it to mean Plural Marriage. And fortunately, the Lord clearly uses the term “works of Abraham” to tell us exactly what it is He’s talking about.

No wiggle room whatsoever.
As the Creator pointed out, there's no indication that Joseph Smith understood Celestial marriage to exclusively mean plural marriage. D&C 132, the actual revelation on the subject doesn't say this either. The bulk of it is about a sealing of one man to one woman.
No indication? There’s every indication. In fact, there’s no indication that he meant it any other way.

Did you even read the Joseph F. Smith quote I posted?

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Make not gods of your prophets

Post by cab »

LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 5:16 pm
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 4:53 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: October 25th, 2022, 9:54 am
cab wrote: October 25th, 2022, 8:48 am


But you seem to be stating that the LDS prophets are true prophets as a matter of fact. Is it possible you could be deceived in this belief?
I didn't state this is a matter of fact.

But yes it is possible that I could be wrong and even deceived about all sorts of things I firmly believe to be true. I don't claim to be infallible and unable to be deceived.

That’s good. Sorry that that’s how I read some of the past posts. I’ve come to acknowledge that everything I think I know is either incomplete or incorrect.

But I will say that our tradition in the church of getting up each Sunday and declaring everything “we know” is problematic. We essentially place stakes in the ground and halt any hope of dialogue and learning when we declare we know a bunch of things we don’t actually know. To me, this is a prideful tradition of ours. We often sound like Zoramites.
I agree that the standard LDS testimony of "I know" such and such is often problematic. Some people really do know certain things, but for most it's really a statement of belief. Unfortunately this problematic testimony is often taught in primary and in Young men and Young women.

Shutting down discussion with "I know I'm right and can't possibly be wrong because I feel the spirit telling me such and such" is really pointless. We should all be open to learning new information and reevaluating our positions in light of new information if necessary.

Yeah, it’s sad to see so many throw out the baby with the bath water when certain things they thought they knew come under question and lead to a full shelf breaking and rejection of everything. The “it’s all true or it’s a fraud” approach doesn’t serve us well - but I think it’s the road most find themselves on.

Post Reply