LDS Freedom Forum

Original_Intent wrote: If legislation was passed that everyone needed to turn in their handguns, and the prophet repeated teh counsel to follow the law of the land, would you then turn in your guns? This, by the way is not some way out example, this is in the works and is even being done within some cities such as Washington D.C. - So, be honest and jsut answer the question - would you comply with that "legislation".

If you would turn in your guns then I state that it is you, and not I, who is not following the prophet. And if you don't understand that, then I state with no window dressing - YOU have some studying, praying and pondering to do on this matter. Please don't let pride get in the way of your growth in this matter.

Mark I think this is what OI is saying...I could be completely off base. But I think OI is saying that if the Prophet said "follow the law of the land" he means that if you do not turn over your guns you are in compliance with the law of the land and if you do turn over your guns you are not in compliance with the law of the land. For the law of the land says we have the right to bear arms.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

Rosabella wrote:

Original_Intent wrote: If legislation was passed that everyone needed to turn in their handguns, and the prophet repeated teh counsel to follow the law of the land, would you then turn in your guns? This, by the way is not some way out example, this is in the works and is even being done within some cities such as Washington D.C. - So, be honest and jsut answer the question - would you comply with that "legislation".

If you would turn in your guns then I state that it is you, and not I, who is not following the prophet. And if you don't understand that, then I state with no window dressing - YOU have some studying, praying and pondering to do on this matter. Please don't let pride get in the way of your growth in this matter.

Mark I think this is what OI is saying...I could be completely off base. But I think OI is saying that if the Prophet said "follow the law of the land" he means that if you do not turn over your guns you are in compliance with the law of the land and if you do turn over your guns you are not in compliance with the law of the land. For the law of the land says we have the right to bear arms.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

Okay thanks Sister. I see that point but still question its validity. Many areas both inside and outside this country have restrictive gun laws. Those who refuse to obey those laws and are prosecuted by the state would be disciplined by the church as well. The church does not condone or authorize refusal to obey said laws. One does not get a pass from the church just because they do not agree with the law.

Mark wrote:
Okay thanks Sister. I see that point but still question its validity. Many areas both inside and outside this country have restrictive gun laws. Those who refuse to obey those laws and are prosecuted by the state would be disciplined by the church as well. The church does not condone or authorize refusal to obey said laws. One does not get a pass from the church just because they do not agree with the law.

I concur with what you are saying. It is the same thing I have been saying all along on this thread. (if this indeed is what OI means by his posts) this is the very issue that I have been disagreeing with being presented as the Church's position on what they mean by following laws of countries or laws of the land as they tell us to do so. "The church does not condone or authorize refusal to obey said laws." We are told to live within the laws the country as all their citizens are ordered to live. Just because we are LDS we do not get a free pass to break secular laws and be justified in doing so, because they are inherently flawed and are not in-line with God's laws. We are subjected to these secular laws and told to abide them regardless if they are in error.

I lived in a city that had had a no gun law. We were counseled not to break the law and to abide the law of not having guns in the city. So for me I was already told the answer to this question by Church leaders. I would love to hear from others that have lived in such cities to see what they were told.

I would move to a town where the rights vouchsafed in the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment) were honored. Like my town, where there is a practice range for shooting on the east edge of town, open for all the public to practice shooting and firearm safety.

Question regarding the Extermination Order signed by the Governor of Missouri circa 1835 -- should the Saints have obeyed this law, turning themselves in for extermination? If not, where does one draw the line?

Rosabella wrote:

Original_Intent wrote: If legislation was passed that everyone needed to turn in their handguns, and the prophet repeated teh counsel to follow the law of the land, would you then turn in your guns? This, by the way is not some way out example, this is in the works and is even being done within some cities such as Washington D.C. - So, be honest and jsut answer the question - would you comply with that "legislation".

If you would turn in your guns then I state that it is you, and not I, who is not following the prophet. And if you don't understand that, then I state with no window dressing - YOU have some studying, praying and pondering to do on this matter. Please don't let pride get in the way of your growth in this matter.

Mark I think this is what OI is saying...I could be completely off base. But I think OI is saying that if the Prophet said "follow the law of the land" he means that if you do not turn over your guns you are in compliance with the law of the land and if you do turn over your guns you are not in compliance with the law of the land. For the law of the land says we have the right to bear arms.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

Yes!
And I would further state that any LDS law enforcement officer that enforced said law is breaking the law of the land. And any legislator that voted for said law. And any judge that upheld said law, and any jury member that would convict a person for noncomplaince with said law.

I have a temple recommend interview next week. I will discuss my feelings regarding this issue with my bishop and see if I am not temple worthy due to my beliefs. If there is a problem, I will definitely make any changes in myself that are necessary.

Also, I would like your opinion on Helmuth Hubener. If you don;t know the story, he was an LDS young man who resisted and was executed by the Nazi's. Here is an extract from Wikipedia:

In 1937, LDS President Heber Grant had visited Germany and urged the members to remain, get along, and not cause trouble. Consequently, some LDS members saw Huebner as a troublemaker who made things tough for other Mormons.

Local LDS leader Arthur Zander was a fervent member of the Nazi Party, even to the extent of affixing notices to the church door stating "Jews not welcome" since 1938. He had attempted to protect others of his religious group and thus had excommunicated the young man, but in his haste and likely fear, had done so without proper authority, without first obtaining his district president's permission. That district president was Otto Berndt, who, in fact, was sympathetic to Hübener and was suspected of assisting and encouraging the boy. Berndt was soon after questioned by the Gestapo and released with an ominous warning: "After Jews, you Mormons will be next." [2]

Hübener was arrested by German authorities and two days later was excommunicated by local authorities of the LDS Church. Four years later and after the war, Hübener was posthumously reinstated in the LDS Church in 1946, with the note "excommunicated by mistake",[3] because the specific process required for excommunication from the LDS Church was not followed by Arthur Zander, Hübener's local church leader at the time.

The day of his execution, Hübener wrote to a fellow branch member, "I know that God lives and He will be the Just Judge in this matter... I look forward to seeing you in a better world!" — from a letter written by Hübener, the only one believed to still exist[

Hmmm this raises some serious questions. Hubener was excommunicated (posthumously reinstated as the correct process was not followed for his excommunication).

So although he was reinstated, it would appear that some here would believe Helmuth is in some trouble in the eternal perspective for not following the law of the land, and supposedly, any other transgressions aside, his local leader who was a "fervent member of the Nazi Party" is in fine standing regarding his actions towards his government because he supported the law of the land where and when he lived.

Now of vourse, Helmuth is considered a hero both inside and outside the church. He was antagonized by his immediate church leaders, apparently supported by the next level up in leadership, and of course at the time the General Authorities, based on the visit by President Heber J Grant would not have been supportive of his activities. So, he is lauded as a hero now, and I don;t think you would here any condemnation of his actions NOW, but at the time he would not have received a ringing endorsement from the General Authorities.

Hmmm, some things to think about there. Where do you people who think you know the law of the land stand on the issue? You can't have it both ways - either Helmuth was in the wrong for not following the counsel of the prophet, and if that is the case you have to therefore condemn his actions and actually the local leader was correct to excommunicate him and Helmuth was only reinstated due to a clerical error, a technicality - or what he did was heroic, he followed the spirit despite the "official" position of the church, and his local leader that excommunicated him was in the wrong. Or maybe there are other options that I am not thinking of?

Personally, I would like to think that in his position, I would have acted as Helmuth Hubener did, and NOT as his local leader that excommunicated him did. Which role would you see yourself in? (OK, a couple at least have made it clear which camp they are in, they would say that Helmuth acted improperly and at the very least should have had his priesthood blessings taken. I would say they even would have supported the excommunication.

And if it boils down to that, I guess that is where we have to agree to disagree. In my book, Hubener was a hero and DID THE RIGHT THING, notwithstanding the opposition he got from local leaders and notwithstanding acting against the counsel of the prophet at the time.

Mark wrote:

Rosabella wrote:

Original_Intent wrote: If legislation was passed that everyone needed to turn in their handguns, and the prophet repeated teh counsel to follow the law of the land, would you then turn in your guns? This, by the way is not some way out example, this is in the works and is even being done within some cities such as Washington D.C. - So, be honest and jsut answer the question - would you comply with that "legislation".

If you would turn in your guns then I state that it is you, and not I, who is not following the prophet. And if you don't understand that, then I state with no window dressing - YOU have some studying, praying and pondering to do on this matter. Please don't let pride get in the way of your growth in this matter.

Mark I think this is what OI is saying...I could be completely off base. But I think OI is saying that if the Prophet said "follow the law of the land" he means that if you do not turn over your guns you are in compliance with the law of the land and if you do turn over your guns you are not in compliance with the law of the land. For the law of the land says we have the right to bear arms.

Am I correct in this interpretation?

Okay thanks Sister. I see that point but still question its validity. Many areas both inside and outside this country have restrictive gun laws. Those who refuse to obey those laws and are prosecuted by the state would be disciplined by the church as well. The church does not condone or authorize refusal to obey said laws. One does not get a pass from the church just because they do not agree with the law.

Oi has a difficult time accepting all of the constitution of the U.S. The part he disregards is the Supreme Court which was established by the Constitution. He disregards the fact that they have the Constitutional right to interpret law. He believes if his interpretation differs from the Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court, that he has the right to disregard the law and become a law unto himself.
That is the just of what he is saying in his example.
We can not say we support the Constitution unless we support the entire Constitution. That includes the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land with appellate jurisdiction. The decision of that court is the final decision as to the constitutionality of a law. We have to live by it's decision if we are going to support the Constitution. We can not become a law unto ourselves. That creates anarchy. We may not like the decision, it may not be fair, it may in fact be absolutely wrong, but the court was established by the constitution and we must abide by the constitution.

DrJones wrote:I would move to a town where the rights vouchsafed in the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment) were honored. Like my town, where there is a practice range for shooting on the east edge of town, open for all the public to practice shooting and firearm safety.

Question regarding the Extermination Order signed by the Governor of Missouri circa 1835 -- should the Saints have obeyed this law, turning themselves in for extermination? If not, where does one draw the line?

They should follow the prophet, which is exactly what many of them did.

RosaBella, Mark and I are not saying we will always have to obey the laws of the land. What we are saying is that at this time the prophet is saying we are to obey the laws of he land and that is exactly what we should do. That could change. And if it does, I will follow the prophet.
Could laws become so corrupt that the prophet gives us different counsel? It could happen. If and when it happens, I am on board. That is why we are to follow a living prophet instead of a dead one. All of these what if's and what used to be type scenarios are irrelevant. We have a living prophet, we live in the here and now and we are to follow him.

How can our faith be tried if we are not asked to sacrifice? What is sacrifice? Are all things fair? Faith precedes the miracle. A test, a test, a test is coming. How can it be a test, unless it is hard? Come on guys, lets not fail this one. More is coming and it will be a lot harder.

[quote="NoGreaterLove
Okay thanks Sister. I see that point but still question its validity. Many areas both inside and outside this country have restrictive gun laws. Those who refuse to obey those laws and are prosecuted by the state would be disciplined by the church as well. The church does not condone or authorize refusal to obey said laws. One does not get a pass from the church just because they do not agree with the law.[/quote]
Oi has a difficult time accepting all of the constitution of the U.S. He readily accepts the parts he likes such as freedom of religion, speech and the right to bear arms. The part he disregards is the Supreme Court which was established by the Constitution. He disregards the fact that they have the Constitutional right to interpret law. He believes if his interpretation differs from the Constitutionally mandated Supreme Court, that he has the right to disregard the law and become a law unto himself.
That is the just of what he is saying in his example.[/quote]

You are right the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law. If you had read the writings of the founders you would understand what that does and does not imply. They said that there might be future circumstances that they could not foresee, in which the law might need to be interpreted to those circumstances. It did not give them the power to declare that a woman had a right to abort her child, and it did not give them the right to say that a person did not really have the right to keep and bear arms. That's not interpreting, that is redefining. It does not mean that you can alter the definition of words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

All you and Rosa are doing is taking an authoritarian view of government that frankly would have the founders spinning in their graves. I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, but it shows a lack of understanding. You are just using the same arguments that the Gadianton's have used to completely subvert the government, and to claim that they were acting within their just powers. If you want to take that position, that is fine. If you think you can support that position and have nothing to answer for before the judgement bar - good luck with that.

Because the Supreme Court is set up by the Constitution does not give them carte blanke, they have rules that they are supposed to stay within just like every other branch of government. I'm glad you feel comfortable shilling for the authority of government to do pretty much whatever it wants and that we are supposed ot submit to whatever they want to do. Actually, scratch that, I am not glad I think it's tragic. But keep on with supporting unrighteous dominion and tyranny, that's within your agency, I'll use mine to fight it, within the law for as long as possible, outside of the law if necessary.

Agency is the greatest gift of God, protecting that is the reason that the Atonement was necessary. I'll defend liberty for myself and my family, I'll be glad to die rather than to allow certain of my God-given rights to be curtailed. Life as a slave of the state is not worth living. If you feel otherwise, may the chains of your bondage rest lightly upon you.

but it shows a lack of understanding

Be careful where you tread on that one. You have no idea.

You are right the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law. If you had read the writings of the founders you would understand what that does and does not imply. They said that there might be future circumstances that they could not foresee, in which the law might need to be interpreted to those circumstances. It did not give them the power to declare that a woman had a right to abort her child, and it did not give them the right to say that a person did not really have the right to keep and bear arms. That's not interpreting, that is redefining. It does not mean that you can alter the definition of words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

All you and Rosa are doing is taking an authoritarian view of government that frankly would have the founders spinning in their graves. I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, but it shows a lack of understanding. You are just using the same arguments that the Gadianton's have used to completely subvert the government, and to claim that they were acting within their just powers. If you want to take that position, that is fine. If you think you can support that position and have nothing to answer for before the judgement bar - good luck with that.

Because the Supreme Court is set up by the Constitution does not give them carte blanke, they have rules that they are supposed to stay within just like every other branch of government. I'm glad you feel comfortable shilling for the authority of government to do pretty much whatever it wants and that we are supposed ot submit to whatever they want to do. Actually, scratch that, I am not glad I think it's tragic. But keep on with supporting unrighteous dominion and tyranny, that's within your agency, I'll use mine to fight it, within the law for as long as possible, outside of the law if necessary.

Agency is the greatest gift of God, protecting that is the reason that the Atonement was necessary. I'll defend liberty for myself and my family, I'll be glad to die rather than to allow certain of my God-given rights to be curtailed. Life as a slave of the state is not worth living. If you feel otherwise, may the chains of your bondage rest lightly upon you.

[/quote]
Oi
What if God does not want you to die? What if he wants you to accompany many others to the New Jerusalem to apply your knowledge to setting up his kingdom there? What if the prophet's counsel need to be followed so you can live for Christ, rather than dying for Him? You have things we need. Things your descendants need. Maybe your living is much more important to God than your dying. Maybe you being free to help him is more important than you being a prisoner who can't. Submit to His will.

I'm not really anxious to die either.

I am submitting to His will. I have no intention of dying for the cause, and I believe that the lines that I will not allow to be crossed, will NOT be crossed with me personally. I do not have violent fantasies of me going down in a blaze of glory. I just don't see that scenario unfolding.

However, I have considered the possibility, and concluded what I feel my duty would be and what God would want me to do. This isn't me fantasizing, it is more like the counsel we were given about dating as teens - you don't wait until you are being tempted to make a decision, you determine in advance how you are going to react to a certain situation. That is how I feel - I am not planning on being in that bad situation in the first place - BUT, I also do not want to be making decisions on the fly should that situation ever arise.

I have very carefully considered what God would have me do in numerous scenarios. I appreciate where you are coming from and hope that I am around to help with building Zion. I am much more focussed on what I can do to build Zion now - even if it is just to get people thinking along how a Zion society would operate in a REAL Day TO DAY basis (as opposed to fantasizing about it) - I spend much much more time thinking about that than how I am going to deal with the problems in the current system.

p.s. I appreciate the loving tone of your post. I don't mind at all people disagreeing with me and trying to convince me I am wrong. I often am.

I see our goal as establishing Zion. Living with Christ as he reigns. Having the ability to sit in a solemn assembly with him present. Partaking of His sacrament with him.
The Lord wants us to live for him, not die. That requires us to be safely led through some tough times by a prophet of God. There is going to be counsel come our way that is hard to swallow, hard to follow, but it will lead us to safety. Safety is Zion.
Obeying these unjust laws is currently the mandate. It is the current path to Zion. It requires sacrifice, just like Christ obeyed unjust laws that led to His sacrifice. Could this be in similitude of his great sacrifice? Is he going to require many sacrifices from us before he allows us to live in His city, Zion? Is he going to require us to be stripped of all Pride? Is He going to require us to submit to His will instead of our own? He has commanded us to follow the prophet with exactness. He says the prophets word is His word. So if we are going to submit to the word of God, we are going to submit to the counsel of the prophet.

Carefully read this.

(Doctrine and Covenants 1:13-17.)

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

I would ask all to give STRICT head to the counsel of the prophets. This is exactly where Satan is attacking the saints. It has been prophesied it would happen by the Lord himself as seen in the above section of the D&C.

Does the name Parker Jensen ring a bell?? I believe his parents acted correctly when they disobeyed the state. Bella? NGL? Care to comment?

shadow wrote:Does the name Parker Jensen ring a bell?? I believe his parents acted correctly when they disobeyed the state. Bella? NGL? Care to comment?

Not familiar with it, I will google it.

shadow wrote:Does the name Parker Jensen ring a bell?? I believe his parents acted correctly when they disobeyed the state. Bella? NGL? Care to comment?

Okay, I remember that case. I think two things apply here. One is the right the prophet has discussed with us about defending our lives. He says if redress is not immediately available we can take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves. The second is the law of redress.
It appears to me they had to use both of these law to do what they thought was necessary to preserve the life of their child.
Not knowing all of the facts, it appears they were within what we have been counseled to do. An exception has been given to us by the prophets about obeying the law. If we do not have a chance for redress we can defend our lives. If we have a chance we seek for redress. They appeared to have done both.

Maybe we should address the exceptions that have been given in the scriptures and modern day revelation.
And I do not mean if it is not Constitutional it is an exception. I already know some believe that.
I am talking about the one that talks about not having a chance at redress.

NoGreaterLove wrote:

shadow wrote:Does the name Parker Jensen ring a bell?? I believe his parents acted correctly when they disobeyed the state. Bella? NGL? Care to comment?

Okay, I remember that case. I think two things apply here. One is the right the prophet has discussed with us about defending our lives. He says if redress is not immediately available we can take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves. The second is the law of redress.

They had their "redress" and lost. The state said their son had to be medicated. They fought it and lost. They ended up "kidnapping" their own child to protect him from the state. What they did was illegal. The prophet teaches to obey the law of the land but there are exceptions when the spirit tells you to do something contrary. That is my point.

(Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-77.)

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you— (something unconstitutional had happened to the saints, they were counseled by the prophet to flee and the Lord tells them to seek redress, knowing all along that they were not going to get it. The Lord knew he would have to seek revenge later and right the wrongs himself)

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

(Doctrine and Covenants 105:24-26.)

24 Talk not of judgments, neither boast of faith nor of mighty works, but carefully gather together, as much in one region as can be, consistently with the feelings of the people;

25 And behold, I will give unto you favor and grace in their eyes, that you may rest in peace and safety, while you are saying unto the people: Execute judgment and justice for us according to law, and redress us of our wrongs.

26 Now, behold, I say unto you, my friends, in this way you may find favor in the eyes of the people, until the army of Israel becomes very great.(Carefully gather consistent with the feelings of the people, gain their favor so you can be safe and have peace. Continue to seek for justice the legal way until the army becomes great)

(Doctrine and Covenants 134:11.)

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
(Seek redress for wrongs, but you are justified in defending yourself, property and government if you are unlawfully assaulted or encroached upon and you can not make an immediate appeal to the law for redress) (note that if a cop comes by and illeglly arrests you, you can immediately appeal to the law for redress for the wrong committed to you. Same goes for unfair taxation, unconstitutional laws, etc.)

So we can break unconstitutional laws?

NoGreaterLove wrote:I see our goal as establishing Zion. Living with Christ as he reigns. Having the ability to sit in a solemn assembly with him present. Partaking of His sacrament with him.
The Lord wants us to live for him, not die. That requires us to be safely led through some tough times by a prophet of God. There is going to be counsel come our way that is hard to swallow, hard to follow, but it will lead us to safety. Safety is Zion.
Obeying these unjust laws is currently the mandate. It is the current path to Zion. It requires sacrifice, just like Christ obeyed unjust laws that led to His sacrifice. Could this be in similitude of his great sacrifice? Is he going to require many sacrifices from us before he allows us to live in His city, Zion? Is he going to require us to be stripped of all Pride? Is He going to require us to submit to His will instead of our own? He has commanded us to follow the prophet with exactness. He says the prophets word is His word. So if we are going to submit to the word of God, we are going to submit to the counsel of the prophet.

Carefully read this.

(Doctrine and Covenants 1:13-17.)

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

17 Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

I would ask all to give STRICT head to the counsel of the prophets. This is exactly where Satan is attacking the saints. It has been prophesied it would happen by the Lord himself as seen in the above section of the D&C.

Nothing to disagree with here. And I really like the way you are thinking - but of some martyrdom may be required. I don;t think it will be of me, I hope it isn't. My entire life I have thought that nothing int he history of the earth could be more amazing than to be present for the 2nd Coming.

But as much as I have these dreams of what I would like to live to see, I am with you and Rosa on one thing - submit everything to the will of the Lord. That's all I am trying to do. But let me go OFF TOPIC and again show why I feel personal revelation, IF YOU RECEIVE IT, must be followed even if it is not what the prophet has directed the church. And actually, your example demonstrates this very well.

What if some have to stand firm against authority, in order to awaken others (LDS and others) to the awfulness of our situation. Not a role I necessarily want to fill, but if directed to by the spirit, I'd do it EVEN IF the prophet's counsel to the church was to do otherwise. We each have a unique and individual place in God's plan. Can you not see that He could direct the church as a whole to submit, and direct individuals not to submit because their place in His plan requires a different sacrifice. I would never turn against the prophet, and I am not trying to encourage anyone NOT to follow the prophet. And I will be following the prophet unless and until the spirit clearly directs me otherwise. And even then it would not to be contrary to the prophet - NO WAY! - or to imply that the prophet is not directing the church correctly - again NO WAY! I would ever do that! And I think that the chances that the Lord would call on me to do anything outside of that boundary is extremely remote - but if it happens, trust me - I'll be doing that.

Now Rosa raises the valid concern that most people who "receive revelations" are often jsut doing what they want to do and claiming that the spirit is exempting them from following the prophet. This is not the case, I am following the prophet and claim no exemption and consider the odds of ever doing otherwise as extremely remote. I think there is major miscommunication or assigning of motives that has gone on in this thread. Trust me, if I were ever called on. it would not be according to my own will, it most likely would be something I of myself absolutely did not want to do - but I would do it.

Do you understand my position on personal revelation now? If - and it is a HUGE if - the Lord or a true messenger appeared to me and commanded, I am NOT going to say "...but the prophet said..." I am going to do as commanded. Period. And many have a problem with that. That's OK.

shadow wrote:

NoGreaterLove wrote:

shadow wrote:Does the name Parker Jensen ring a bell?? I believe his parents acted correctly when they disobeyed the state. Bella? NGL? Care to comment?

Okay, I remember that case. I think two things apply here. One is the right the prophet has discussed with us about defending our lives. He says if redress is not immediately available we can take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves. The second is the law of redress.

They had their "redress" and lost. The state said their son had to be medicated. They fought it and lost. They ended up "kidnapping" their own child to protect him from the state. What they did was illegal. The prophet teaches to obey the law of the land but there are exceptions when the spirit tells you to do something contrary. That is my point.

It is called the appeal process. They fled the state to protect the life of their child due to an imminent threat to the child's life. This gave them time to appeal the process, otherwise the state was attempting to force the child to undergo the treatment, which in the view of the parent was going to kill the child. Did they handle everything exactly right, not sure. Too many things to consider for me to draw any type of conclusion. I would have to trust that they followed the prophets counsel on this. Not meaning directly, but according to the general counsel given to the saints.
I understand where you are going with this, but there are a lot of unknown variables. For instance, could they have remained in the state and appealed the process? A stay of judgment would have been in place until the appeal was heard and a decision made. The could have appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court. Did they need to flee? I do not know. Maybe they did because the threat was imminent and they had to. Not sure. However one thing is for sure. What to do has been address by our prophets, seers and revelators.

shadow wrote:So we can break unconstitutional laws?

We are to follow the prophet. He is the utmost authority. If he says break it, then we break it. If he says keep it, then we keep it.

NoGreaterLove wrote: An exception has been given to us by the prophets about obeying the law.

Sorry NGL, I missed this earlier post from you. About sums it up doesn't it? Exceptions are allowed! I guess we agree to agree This should end the debate 8)

Do you understand my position on personal revelation now? If - and it is a HUGE if - the Lord or a true messenger appeared to me and commanded, I am NOT going to say "...but the prophet said..." I am going to do as commanded. Period. And many have a problem with that. That's OK.

I will concede to this. However, after I received such a revelation, I would put it to a test. That test would be to seek the counsel and direction of my bishop to ensure that an angel of light had not appeared to me that was actually Satan. Checks and balances.
I have had a similiar experience to what you describe. Not going to go into it, but I went to the Bishop immediately and found out it was Satan's power. Boy, was I shocked! It scared me. How was I ever deceived in such a manner? I immediately knew that I had to trust the Bishop and I did. I asked him for counsel and he led me back to where I needed to be. It saved my marriage, it saved my family, it save my eternal future. I would have lost all of that if I would have followed the inspiration that I received which I was sure was from God, had two witnesses of it, counsel which was contrary to what the prophets had taught.
I did not even know that the revelation I received was contrary to the prophet's counsel until later. So that even made it harder.
Checks and balances. That is why we need to make sure our own personal revelation does not go contrary to the Lord's counsel as given by his prophets. If it does, we need to tap into the other side of the equation and seek counsel from our Bishop on the matter to insure we have not been led astray.
It is dangerous to step outside the counsel of the prophet. If someone is receiving such revelation, please, please go to your bishop, humble yourself, realizing you may have been deceived and get his direction on it. Trust his direction. That is what his stewardship is.

You can not trust yourself, that you are infallible when it comes to receiving revelation. Even the prophet has checks and balances. The quorum of the twelve. Our check and balance is our bishop. Use it before going against the prophet's counsel. Humility is the key. We can make mistakes and mistake revelation as coming from God when in all actuality we are being deceived. Checks and balances.
It is a mistake to think we have mastered the art of receiving and recognizing inspiration from God. That is why we need prophets, apostles, bishops etc.. Along with the need for keys to be handed down, but eventually we will have all of the keys ourselves, but until then.............

If I had a similar experience today I would still go to my bishop. Only this time, I would have to REALLY humble myself. My bishop is young, inexperienced, and a few other things. It would be all I could muster to follow his counsel if he told me I was deceived. BUT, I would. Because he is the Lord's representative and has stewardship over me and the Lord requires me to follow him. If I have a problem with that, I can go to the stake president and all the way up the line if the need be. Checks and balances. Not becoming a god unto myself. Being humble. Admitting I am fallible. And because I am fallible, I am willing to submit to the counsel of a bishop and a prophet.