LDS Freedom Forum

Squally wrote:Brian, the talk "Be not Decieved" is wonderful and fully addresses from what I can see, every issue brought up on this particuliarly exciting thread. Wonderful, wonderful talk. Thanks for sharing it!



Folks, tune in tomorrow for another exciting page of posts to find out who actually read the talk.........

This is a really good read, and relevant to this discussion: Be Not Deceived

Mark wrote:
I think you really need to think long and hard about what you are saying here Bro. Do you really think that the Lord would back you up if you decided to do that which was contrary to the specific directive given you by his Prophet? If you now lived in a country where {referring a 39wk gestated woman to a person you KNOW will perform an abortion}would the church back you up if you chose to openly rebel against those laws and were imprisoned because of that disobedience?

I can assure you that the Brethren would not justify unlawful behavior in any way and you would lose Priesthood blessings because of your actions. Where would you draw the line between obedience and disobedience of the Lords annointed. It is a slippery slope to pick and choose when you will obey a prophet and when you decide to disobey.

Original_Intent wrote:

BrianM wrote:This is a really good read, and relevant to this discussion: Be Not Deceived

Thanks so much for posting this Brian. Very inspiring words.

Mummy wrote:

NoGreaterLove wrote:

Absolutely I understand the seriousness of an error of judgement. But this idea that I need to get something signed off from my bishop? No, no, each person would have to make up their own mind, but that would not be the path I would take.

Back to square one again. Do you deny that the bishop has stewardship over you? Are you saying you are not fallible? So, as RosaBella says. Why do we need a bishop? You are infallible, have all the revelation you need, no need for a bishop or prophet. They are just wise men that we listen to only when our own conscience is in line with theirs. This will be the spiritual death of you OI. If you have not already died spiritually. A continuation on the course you are on is a road to apostasy. That is what apostasy means, look it up. Joseph Smith spoke on it and as sure as he prophesied it as surely will it happen.
Now you can come back at me with your anger and let me have it. I am listening. Just as you told Rosa, you need some hard words to wake you up.

You might take a good long hard look in the mirror.....

3. The third and final test is the Holy Ghost-the test of the Spirit. By that Spirit we “. . . may know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5.) This test can only be fully effective if one’s channels of communication with God are clean and virtuous and uncluttered with sin. Said Brigham Young:

“You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, . . .

“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire of themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path that the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9, 149-150.)

Elder Heber C. Kimball stated: “The time will come when no man or woman will be able to endure on borrowed light.” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 1888 edition 461.)

How then can we know if a man is speaking by the spirit? The Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants give us the key. (See D&C 50:17–23; 100:5-8; 2 Nephi 33:1; 1 Cor. 2:10–11.) President Clark summarized them well when he said:

“We can tell when the speakers are moved upon by the Holy Ghost only when we, ourselves, are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak . . . the Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” (Church News, July 31, 1954.)

Will this Spirit be needed to check actions in other situations? Yes, and it could be used as a guide and a protector for the faithful in a situation described by Elder Lee at the last general priesthood session of the Church when he said:

“In the history of the Church there have been times or instances where Counselors in the First Presidency and others in high station have sought to overturn the decision or to persuade the President contrary to his inspired judgment, and always, if you will read carefully the history of the Church, such oppositions brought not only disastrous results to those who resisted the decision of the President, but almost always such temporary persuasions were called back for reconsideration, or a reversal of hasty action not in accordance with the feelings, the inspired feelings, of the President of the Church. And that, I submit, is one of the fundamental things that we must never lose sight of in the building up of the kingdom of God.” (Conference Report, April, 1963, p. 81.)

These then, are the three tests: The standard works; the inspired words of the Presidents of the Church, particularly the living Presidents; and the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Now, brothers and sisters, in this great struggle for free agency just think what a power for good we could be in this world if we were united. Remember how President Clark used to reiterate in the general priesthood meeting of the Church that there was not a righteous thing in this world that we couldn’t accomplish if we were just united.

And President McKay has reiterated it again and again when he’s stated: “Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!

“May the appeal of our Lord in His intercessory prayer for unity be realized in our homes, our wards, our stakes, and in our support of the basic principles of our Republic,” said President McKay. (The Instructor, February 1956. p. 34.)

To that I say Amen and Amen.

It has been either outright stated or implied in this thread that I am mean spirited, an apostate, listening to lying spirits, or makinga personal attack that was orchestrated by the devil, and yet somehow when I call on the person to use reason, logic and the spirit to persuade and convince rather than making ad hominem and straw man arguments - I am making personal attacks.

During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.

China's strict family planning laws permit urban married couples to have only one child each, but in some of the recent cases — in Guangxi Province — women say they were forced to abort what would have been their first child because they were unmarried. The forced abortions are all the more shocking because family planning laws have generally been relaxed in China, with many families having two children.

Liang Yage and his wife Wei Linrong had one child and believed that — like many other couples — they could pay a fine and keep their second baby. Wei was 7 months pregnant when 10 family planning officials visited her at home on April 16.

Liang describes how they told her that she would have to have an abortion, "You don't have any more room for maneuver," he says they told her. "If you don't go [to the hospital], we'll carry you." The couple was then driven to Youjiang district maternity hospital in Baise city.

"I was scared," Wei told NPR. "The hospital was full of women who'd been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions and forced sterilizations were both being carried out. We saw women being pulled in one by one."

The couple was given a consent agreement to sign. When Liang refused, family planning officials signed it for him. He and his wife are devout Christians — he is a pastor — and they don't agree with abortion.

The officials gave Wei three injections in the lower abdomen. Contractions started the next afternoon, and continued for almost 16 hours. Her child was stillborn.

"I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl," Wei said. "The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate, so I didn't look up to see the baby."

Medical sources say fetuses aborted in this manner would have been dead for some time, so the tissue is necrotic and thus dark in color.

"The nurses dealt with the body like it was rubbish," Wei said. "They wrapped it up in a black plastic bag and threw it in the trash."

This was also the treatment given to the stillborn baby of He Caigan. Family planning officials turned up at her house, in the countryside several hours outside Baise, before dawn on April 17 to force her to go to the hospital. This would have been her first baby — but she hadn't married the father, in contravention of family planning laws. She was already 9 months pregnant, just days away from delivery.

"They told me I'm too young, I couldn't keep the child and I should have an abortion," she said. "I'm too young to get a marriage certificate — I'm only 19 and my boyfriend's only 21."

After the forced abortion, her boyfriend left her. She said that she's still in great physical pain and that her life had been ruined.

An eyewitness, who requested anonymity for fear of the consequences, said that he counted 41 occupied beds on just one floor of the maternity hospital in Baise and that he believed none of the women he saw had come to the hospital of their own free will.

Coerced abortions such as these were not unusual after China's one-child policy was first introduced in 1980. But a law passed five years ago guarantees China's citizens a degree of choice in family planning matters. When contacted for comment, an official at China's State Commission for Population and Family Planning said she'd heard nothing about forced abortions in Guangxi and asked for more details. But in Baise, a family planning official surnamed Nong acknowledged that such behavior would violate regulations. Despite the fact that these allegations refer to events that happened just within the last week, he said an investigation had already been held.

"We were very surprised to hear of these accusations," Nong said, "but our investigation concluded some individuals who were dissatisfied with our family planning policies were fabricating stories. These facts simply don't exist. We really love and care for women here."

Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5 percent. This is significant because the career prospects of local officials depend upon meeting these goals.

Wei Linrong and her husband Liang Yage, were incensed by their treatment, seeing it as little short of murder.

"I think their methods are too cruel," said Wei, "my heart really hurts. Such a tiny baby, it was innocent. And they killed it."

"Every time we talk about this child, we both cry," Liang added. "We can't bear talking about this child."

Liang and his wife risked further official disapproval by contacting a Christian group overseas to publicize their plight. China may once have depended on its state apparatus of control and fear to silence those who suffer human rights abuses at the hands of its officials. But China's victims are angry, and they want their voices to be heard.

Many have found a rather lengthy list of discrepancies between the teachings of the early LDS prophets and those of more recent years. How do we explain these discrepancies? Who is right and who is wrong? Or is it somehow possible that both groups are right or both are wrong? It seems unfair that many of those who are honestly asking such questions with sincere hearts are judged rather harshly and are often cast out as obvious apostates. Although some may be a little too hasty in their judgements of such issues, these are legitimate questions for which there are few good answers. One possible conclusion is that the leaders of the LDS church are, indeed, fallible and may not possess all the answers or revelation that we would like them to. We may not like that answer, but if we are honest with ourselves, it must be listed among our possible conclusions to this dilemma. If we accept the fact that they are fallible, then we must ask which are right, the early prophets or the modern ones.

It is interesting to note that the doctrine of infallibility itself seems to be one of the apparent discrepancies between the early brethren and the modern leaders. Although it is taught with great frequency and force in the LDS church today, most of the early brethren seemed to stay away from the doctrine of infallibility. For example, the Prophet Joseph Smith boldly taught,

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num. 38, pp.593-595)

President Brigham Young was also very concerned about the saints blindly following their leaders.-

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (JD 9:151)

The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness, each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray. (JD 6:100)

I do not want men to come to me or my brethren for testimony as to the truth of this work; but let them take the Scriptures of divine truth, and there the path is pointed out to them as plainly as ever a guideboard indicated the right path to the weary traveller. There they are directed to go, not to Brothers Brigham, Heber, or Daniel, to any apostle or elder in Israel, but to the Father in the name of Jesus, and ask for the information they need. Can they who take this course in honesty and sincerity receive information? Will the Lord turn away from the honest heart seeking for truth? No, He will not; He will prove to them, by the revelations of His Spirit, the facts in the case. And when the mind is open to the revelations of the Lord it comprehends them quicker and keener than anything that is seen by the natural eye. It is not what we see with our eyes they may be deceived but what is revealed by the Lord from Heaven is sure and steadfast, and abides for ever. We do not want the people to rely on human testimony, although that cannot be confuted and destroyed; still, there is a more sure word of prophecy that all may gain if they will seek it earnestly before the Lord. (JD 12:96)

These remarks seem to be quite a different story from the “follow the brethren” rhetoric so often taught in the LDS church today. This teaching continued through President Joseph F. Smith’s day.

I know of but One in all the world who can be taken as the first and only perfect standard for us to follow, and he is the Only Begotten Son of God. I would feel sorry indeed, if I had a friend or an associate in this life who would turn away from the plan of life and salvation because I might stumble or make a failure of my life. I want no man to lean upon me nor to follow me, only so far as I am a consistent follower in the footsteps of the Master. (Gospel Doctrine, Pg.4, underline added. See also the Juvenile Instructor, 1915, Vol. 50, pp. 738, 739.)

One modern “standout” in an otherwise standard approach to following the brethren can be found in President Ezra Taft Benson. He warned us against “trusting in the arm of flesh” instead of trusting in God, even if that “arm of flesh” is a high-ranking church leader.

The Lord strengthened the faith of the early Apostles by pointing out Judas as a traitor, even before this Apostle had completed his iniquitous work (see Matthew 26:23 25; Luke 13:21 26). So also in our day the Lord has told us of the tares within the wheat that will eventually be hewn down when they are fully ripe. But until they are hewn down, they will be with us, amongst us. (See D&C 86:6 7.) (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg.89)

Notice how President Benson is not referring to the general membership of the church as “tares within the wheat.” He seems to be referring to the General Authorities of the LDS church, perhaps even the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These are the ones he refers to as “tares within the wheat.” Notice in the following remarks that President Benson not only opens the door for continued problems within the leadership of the church, but even goes as far as to equate the General Authorities with “the arm of flesh.”

Six of the original Twelve Apostles selected by Joseph Smith were excommunicated. The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon left the Church. Three of Joseph Smith's counselors fell one even helped plot his death. A natural question that might arise would be that if the Lord knew in advance that these men would fall, as He undoubtedly did, why did He have His prophet call them to such high office? The answer is: to fill the Lord's purposes. For even the Master followed the will of the Father by selecting Judas. President George Q. Cannon suggested an explanation, too, when he stated, “Perhaps it is his own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that his saints may learn to trust in him and not in any man or men.” (Millennial Star 53:658, 1891) And this would parallel Nephi's warning, put not your “trust in the arm of flesh.” (2 Nephi 4:34) (An Enemy Hath Done This, Pg. 290, underline added. See also Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg.89)

The entire verse in 2 Nephi quoted by President Benson reads as follows:

O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Nephi 4:34)

With almost a prophetic voice, President Benson tells us that there will always be problems among the leadership of the church. And, along with most of the early LDS leaders, he also tells us in whom we should place our trust instead of any man on earth, including the leaders of the church - even Jesus Christ, the Savior.

Certain individuals within the Church may go astray and even fall away. This may happen even to a person in the Church who is in a position of some influence and authority. It has happened in the past. It will happen in the future. If our faith is in Jesus Christ and not in the arm of flesh, then we will know that we are members of the Church of Jesus Christ and not the church of men. (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg. 90)

In summary, for those who are informed about the teachings of the early church leaders, there is an unmistakable difference in both the doctrine as well as the manner in which LDS leaders teach us today. Some of this may be contributed to a simple lack of gospel scholarship among today’s General Authorities. Some of it may also be due to a lack of revelatory experiences such as those found in early Mormonism. Perhaps there are other reasons as well. However, we should not overlook the possibility that there are “tares among the wheat” within the LDS church leadership. We must be open to the idea of apostasy existing even in “high offices” of the church “to fill the Lord's purposes...in order that his saints may learn to trust in him and not in any man or men.” As Joseph Smith prophesied,

...you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. ...you will live to see men rise in power in the church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the true followers of our Lord and Savior will be cast down because of their poverty. (Mosiah Hancock Journal, p.19)

For those who believe in Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, these words give cause for great concern in our day. If Joseph Smith was right, then we should have a legitimate fear of trusting too much in the arm of flesh known as the General Authorities of the LDS church. This is especially true given the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies between the teachings of the early leaders vs. those of the modern church. As Brigham Young warned, to overlook such possibilities is to “settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting [our] eternal destiny in the hands of [our] leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in [our] salvation, and weaken that influence [we] could give to [our] leaders, did [we] know for [our]selves, by the revelations of Jesus, that [we] are led in the right way.” Is it any wonder that President George Q. Cannon once taught,

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. (DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).

The claim was made that the current prophet had "trumped" the statements of earlier prophets regarding obeying the law of the land. When MULTIPLE posters asked for a specific example, the request was ignored, the subject was changed.

Original_Intent wrote:I can clearly demonstrate the superiority of personal revelation in importance to the prophet.

Read the link that Brian supplied.

We are clearly commanded to test the words of the prophet by the spirit. It is personal revelation in the first place that confirms to us that the church is true, that we need to follow the prophet, that Jesus is the son of God, etc. Knowing eternal truth without the spirit iss IMPOSSIBLE, with a prophet and many false prophets we would be UNABLE to know who to listen to.

NGL said that if I got a personal revelation, that despite any testing I did to verify the messenger that I am obligated due to stewardship to discuss it with my bishop or other priesthood authority beofre taking any action. While I agree that there is wisdom in doing this IF POSSIBLE, I do not in any way shape or form agree that it is a requirement and ask for any prophetic utterance to back up this claim. It sounds like an ideea that was developed due to that individual's bad experience with heeding spiritual influences that they should not have. yes we should learn from NGL's mistakes, but it does nto qualify NGL to make up requirements for others and state it as doctrine. So back up this statement with prophetic utterance or retract it as you yourself trying to create doctrine from whole cloth.

There are those that have said that the position that I take makes the prophet, apostles and our local leaders irrelevant, if we accept that logic then their argument makes the holy ghost irrelevant! After all, we have a prophet to tell us everything that we need to know or do, I guess the Holy Ghost can get his body, we don't need him any more!

Of course I do not believe that, I merely illustrate how ludicrous it is to say that I am in any way saying ANYTHING that makes the prophet irrelevant. No one ever made such a ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that people are just making excuses so that they can pick and chose the instruction of the prophet that they want to follow and make it so they can ignore the rest. No one ever made this ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that because one had witnessed many claiming to know more or receive revelation that was superior to the prophet, that those supporting the crucial importance of personal revelation were on a similar path leading towards apostasy and excommunication. Even though it was clearly demonstrated that no such attempt was being made and that no one had done any such thing in this thread - the assertion was repeated and the points made to demonstrate this is not the case were ignored.

The claim was made that the current prophet had "trumped" the statements of earlier prophets regarding obeying the law of the land. When MULTIPLE posters asked for a specific example, the request was ignored, the subject was changed.

All of this tells me that there are those who are more concerned about winning the argument (or at least be able to tell themselves that they won the argument) than any serious attempt to seek the truth of the matter. You have your reward.

It has been either outright stated or implied in this thread that I am mean spirited, an apostate, listening to lying spirits, or makinga personal attack that was orchestrated by the devil, and yet somehow when I call on the person to use reason, logic and the spirit to persuade and convince rather than making ad hominem and straw man arguments - I am making personal attacks.

None of these points will be addressed, because as this thread clearly demonstrates, there are those who, when shown clearly and irrefutably to be wrong, do the online equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!".

This has turned into a hamster wheel discussion. I myself have quit the discussion I think three times and keep getting drawn back in. I'm pretty sure that will open me up to "a dog returning to it's vomit" comparisons,and somehow that will equate to a mark in the "win" column - so much like our broken political system it makes me ill, same with the court system, it has nothing to do with truth and justice, it is about saying what you need to get a "win". We've got to be better than this or we are toast, people.

That is MY testimony, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

NoGreaterLove wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:I can clearly demonstrate the superiority of personal revelation in importance to the prophet.

Read the link that Brian supplied.

We are clearly commanded to test the words of the prophet by the spirit. It is personal revelation in the first place that confirms to us that the church is true, that we need to follow the prophet, that Jesus is the son of God, etc. Knowing eternal truth without the spirit iss IMPOSSIBLE, with a prophet and many false prophets we would be UNABLE to know who to listen to.

NGL said that if I got a personal revelation, that despite any testing I did to verify the messenger that I am obligated due to stewardship to discuss it with my bishop or other priesthood authority beofre taking any action. While I agree that there is wisdom in doing this IF POSSIBLE, I do not in any way shape or form agree that it is a requirement and ask for any prophetic utterance to back up this claim. It sounds like an ideea that was developed due to that individual's bad experience with heeding spiritual influences that they should not have. yes we should learn from NGL's mistakes, but it does nto qualify NGL to make up requirements for others and state it as doctrine. So back up this statement with prophetic utterance or retract it as you yourself trying to create doctrine from whole cloth.

There are those that have said that the position that I take makes the prophet, apostles and our local leaders irrelevant, if we accept that logic then their argument makes the holy ghost irrelevant! After all, we have a prophet to tell us everything that we need to know or do, I guess the Holy Ghost can get his body, we don't need him any more!

Of course I do not believe that, I merely illustrate how ludicrous it is to say that I am in any way saying ANYTHING that makes the prophet irrelevant. No one ever made such a ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that people are just making excuses so that they can pick and chose the instruction of the prophet that they want to follow and make it so they can ignore the rest. No one ever made this ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that because one had witnessed many claiming to know more or receive revelation that was superior to the prophet, that those supporting the crucial importance of personal revelation were on a similar path leading towards apostasy and excommunication. Even though it was clearly demonstrated that no such attempt was being made and that no one had done any such thing in this thread - the assertion was repeated and the points made to demonstrate this is not the case were ignored.

The claim was made that the current prophet had "trumped" the statements of earlier prophets regarding obeying the law of the land. When MULTIPLE posters asked for a specific example, the request was ignored, the subject was changed.

All of this tells me that there are those who are more concerned about winning the argument (or at least be able to tell themselves that they won the argument) than any serious attempt to seek the truth of the matter. You have your reward.

It has been either outright stated or implied in this thread that I am mean spirited, an apostate, listening to lying spirits, or makinga personal attack that was orchestrated by the devil, and yet somehow when I call on the person to use reason, logic and the spirit to persuade and convince rather than making ad hominem and straw man arguments - I am making personal attacks.

None of these points will be addressed, because as this thread clearly demonstrates, there are those who, when shown clearly and irrefutably to be wrong, do the online equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!".

This has turned into a hamster wheel discussion. I myself have quit the discussion I think three times and keep getting drawn back in. I'm pretty sure that will open me up to "a dog returning to it's vomit" comparisons,and somehow that will equate to a mark in the "win" column - so much like our broken political system it makes me ill, same with the court system, it has nothing to do with truth and justice, it is about saying what you need to get a "win". We've got to be better than this or we are toast, people.

That is MY testimony, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

This is hilarious. WE have used quotes to back up our statements and you , sir have not so much as found one to back yours up. Give me one that says that if you receive revelation contrary to our prophets, you should follow it. Come on, just one. Can not do it can you.

Rosabella wrote:

NoGreaterLove wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:I can clearly demonstrate the superiority of personal revelation in importance to the prophet.

Read the link that Brian supplied.

We are clearly commanded to test the words of the prophet by the spirit. It is personal revelation in the first place that confirms to us that the church is true, that we need to follow the prophet, that Jesus is the son of God, etc. Knowing eternal truth without the spirit iss IMPOSSIBLE, with a prophet and many false prophets we would be UNABLE to know who to listen to.

NGL said that if I got a personal revelation, that despite any testing I did to verify the messenger that I am obligated due to stewardship to discuss it with my bishop or other priesthood authority beofre taking any action. While I agree that there is wisdom in doing this IF POSSIBLE, I do not in any way shape or form agree that it is a requirement and ask for any prophetic utterance to back up this claim. It sounds like an ideea that was developed due to that individual's bad experience with heeding spiritual influences that they should not have. yes we should learn from NGL's mistakes, but it does nto qualify NGL to make up requirements for others and state it as doctrine. So back up this statement with prophetic utterance or retract it as you yourself trying to create doctrine from whole cloth.

There are those that have said that the position that I take makes the prophet, apostles and our local leaders irrelevant, if we accept that logic then their argument makes the holy ghost irrelevant! After all, we have a prophet to tell us everything that we need to know or do, I guess the Holy Ghost can get his body, we don't need him any more!

Of course I do not believe that, I merely illustrate how ludicrous it is to say that I am in any way saying ANYTHING that makes the prophet irrelevant. No one ever made such a ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that people are just making excuses so that they can pick and chose the instruction of the prophet that they want to follow and make it so they can ignore the rest. No one ever made this ridiculous claim.

The argument was made that because one had witnessed many claiming to know more or receive revelation that was superior to the prophet, that those supporting the crucial importance of personal revelation were on a similar path leading towards apostasy and excommunication. Even though it was clearly demonstrated that no such attempt was being made and that no one had done any such thing in this thread - the assertion was repeated and the points made to demonstrate this is not the case were ignored.

The claim was made that the current prophet had "trumped" the statements of earlier prophets regarding obeying the law of the land. When MULTIPLE posters asked for a specific example, the request was ignored, the subject was changed.

All of this tells me that there are those who are more concerned about winning the argument (or at least be able to tell themselves that they won the argument) than any serious attempt to seek the truth of the matter. You have your reward.

It has been either outright stated or implied in this thread that I am mean spirited, an apostate, listening to lying spirits, or makinga personal attack that was orchestrated by the devil, and yet somehow when I call on the person to use reason, logic and the spirit to persuade and convince rather than making ad hominem and straw man arguments - I am making personal attacks.

None of these points will be addressed, because as this thread clearly demonstrates, there are those who, when shown clearly and irrefutably to be wrong, do the online equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!".

This has turned into a hamster wheel discussion. I myself have quit the discussion I think three times and keep getting drawn back in. I'm pretty sure that will open me up to "a dog returning to it's vomit" comparisons,and somehow that will equate to a mark in the "win" column - so much like our broken political system it makes me ill, same with the court system, it has nothing to do with truth and justice, it is about saying what you need to get a "win". We've got to be better than this or we are toast, people.

That is MY testimony, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

This is hilarious. WE have used quotes to back up our statements and you , sir have not so much as found one to back yours up. Give me one that says that if you receive revelation contrary to our prophets, you should follow it. Come on, just one. Can not do it can you.

I second that request.

NoGreaterLove wrote:
This is hilarious. WE have used quotes to back up our statements and you , sir have not so much as found one to back yours up. Give me one that says that if you receive revelation contrary to our prophets, you should follow it. Come on, just one. Can not do it can you.

Rosabella wrote:I second that request.

It is interesting to note that the doctrine of infallibility itself seems to be one of the apparent discrepancies between the early brethren and the modern leaders. Although it is taught with great frequency and force in the LDS church today, most of the early brethren seemed to stay away from the doctrine of infallibility. For example, the Prophet Joseph Smith boldly taught,

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them (even) if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When the Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Millennial Star, Vol. 14, Num. 38, pp.593-595)...

...These remarks seem to be quite a different story from the “follow the brethren” rhetoric so often taught in the LDS church today. This teaching continued through President Joseph F. Smith’s day.

I know of but One in all the world who can be taken as the first and only perfect standard for us to follow, and he is the Only Begotten Son of God. I would feel sorry indeed, if I had a friend or an associate in this life who would turn away from the plan of life and salvation because I might stumble or make a failure of my life. I want no man to lean upon me nor to follow me, only so far as I am a consistent follower in the footsteps of the Master. (Gospel Doctrine, Pg.4, underline added. See also the Juvenile Instructor, 1915, Vol. 50, pp. 738, 739.)...

...The Lord strengthened the faith of the early Apostles by pointing out Judas as a traitor, even before this Apostle had completed his iniquitous work (see Matthew 26:23 25; Luke 13:21 26). So also in our day the Lord has told us of the tares within the wheat that will eventually be hewn down when they are fully ripe. But until they are hewn down, they will be with us, amongst us. (See D&C 86:6 7.) (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, Pg.89)

Notice how President Benson is not referring to the general membership of the church as “tares within the wheat.” He seems to be referring to the General Authorities of the LDS church, perhaps even the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These are the ones he refers to as “tares within the wheat.” Notice in the following remarks that President Benson not only opens the door for continued problems within the leadership of the church, but even goes as far as to equate the General Authorities with “the arm of flesh.”...

...Is it any wonder that President George Q. Cannon once taught,

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an apostle or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support will be gone; but if we lean on God, He will NEVER fail us. When men and women depend upon GOD ALONE and trust in HIM ALONE, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. (DW 43:322 [Mar 7, 1891]).