How did we get here?

[log]

I am at a genuine loss as to how we got to "follow the Brethren" from this.

"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own, say they, to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem....Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them, They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course." - (Brigham Young, presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 20, 1853, found in Journal of Discourses, 1:312)

I mean, I know Brigham made other pointedly sharp statements on this topic, but this... how did we get here?

[Amonhi]

You won't like the answer... This thread is bound to be just as difficult as or more difficult than the "Beware of False Prophets" thread...and it ties directly into a major false doctrine (lie) that was/is taught as "Current Church Doctrine" by a number of Prophets/Presidents including one who was trying to save the whole church and canonized the lie into scripture. :-s

I am at a genuine loss as to how we got to "follow the Brethren" from this.

"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own, say they, to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem....Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them, They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course." - (Brigham Young, presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 20, 1853, found in Journal of Discourses, 1:312)

I mean, I know Brigham made other pointedly sharp statements on this topic, but this... how did we get here?

[log]

Something like this, however, gives me hope: http://barerecord.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ard-g.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BroJones]

Something like this, however, gives me hope: http://barerecord.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ard-g.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Come Unto Ch______ . I love Elder Scott -- he's the one who did NOT applaud Ch____ when BYU administrators gave Cheney the honorary PhD, remember? and that's just one of the courageous things he's done. (note, cheney has the same number of letters as church)

Excellent! thank you.

[laronius]

I think this is similar to grace and works. For so many years there was such an emphasis on works that many began to discount the critical element of grace and so in recent years there has been a greater emphasis on grace. The doctrine hasn't changed but the emphasis has according to the need.

I think this can be said for "following the brethren." I have been outspoken on this forum on this topic, because I believe in its proper context it is true. Some have tried to make it out to putting our faith in the "arm of flesh" when it was never meant to be taken to that extent. Are there some in the Church who may believe that, sure, and to the extent that it exists it needs to be corrected. But this doesn't mean we discount the role of the leaders of our Church play. Unfortunately there are those who are so opposed to listening to the brethren to any degree that they refuse to see this middle ground and only argue in extremes.

[log]

I think this can be said for "following the brethren." I have been outspoken on this forum on this topic, because I believe in its proper context it is true. Some have tried to make it out to putting our faith in the "arm of flesh" when it was never meant to be taken to that extent.

I believe that in only one context can it be true - and that is if the Lord God tells you personally to follow the Brethren. And if he does tell you to do that, who are you really following? And is your personal revelation, given to guide and direct your footsteps, applicable to anyone but you?

If "follow the Brethren" or "follow the prophet" were universally true principles, why has the president of the Church, to my knowledge, never said either? Why have the presidents of the Church generally reacted against such teachings when they come forth? Elder Benson's "14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" landed him in council with the rest of the 15, and eventually all the GAs, to apologize for it. The famous "when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done" got specifically and publicly disclaimed by George Albert Smith.

What slays me is that Brigham has, in the description in the OP, there gotten every element of what I might call "the Brethrenite" faith nailed, and declares those of that faith shall not be exalted. What he has described is modern Mormonism as it is generally taught and practiced, as I have observed from my youth.

What are we to make of this development?

[laronius]

If you define the "Brethenites" as those who look to the Prophet instead of God, then you are correct. No salvation for them. And that is the context in which Brigham is speaking.

What I and others on this forum have been saying is look to the Prophet as the Prophet, in the role in which God intended him to play. Not as the savior of anything, but as a man called of God to perform an important role in leading the Church. Nothing more than that.

My beef has mainly been with those who say not to "follow the prophet" because they are in essence fallen prophets. Not so much because of how they defined "following" the prophet as the accusation that they had somehow fallen away.

[TZONE]

If you define the "Brethenites" as those who look to the Prophet instead of God, then you are correct. No salvation for them. And that is the context in which Brigham is speaking.

What I and others on this forum have been saying is look to the Prophet as the Prophet, in the role in which God intended him to play. Not as the savior of anything, but as a man called of God to perform an important role in leading the Church. Nothing more than that.

My beef has mainly been with those who say not to "follow the prophet" because they are in essence fallen prophets. Not so much because of how they defined "following" the prophet as the accusation that they had somehow fallen away.

With respect to what I have read about others, I think it would be appropriate to say, you cannot be a fallen prophet, if one has never become a prophet yet. I think that is the issue not "because they are in essence fallen prophets".

It goes along with Oliver's charge to the twelve, that they also had not become true apostles to the Lord. Don't wish to start taht whole argument, just how I see it. I also agree with you entirely, we should receive the prophets. Not follow them. For we are all to be prophets as moses said. Again difference between President and Prophet. They are Presidents, but whether they have become prophets is between them and the Lord.

[log]

My beef has mainly been with those who say not to "follow the prophet" because they are in essence fallen prophets. Not so much because of how they defined "following" the prophet as the accusation that they had somehow fallen away.

Do what I do - point out that the individuals accusing the GAs of being fallen don't actually know what they're talking about - and they don't, as evidenced by their contentious spirit on the point.

City Creek Mall? Unless you have it from God, you don't know they aren't doing as they have been told.

[log]

With respect to what I have read about others, I think it would be appropriate to say, you cannot be a fallen prophet, if one has never become a prophet yet. I think that is the issue not "because they are in essence fallen prophets".

There is no calling or position in the Church which guarantees the man qualifies for the office - the Lord calls whom he will for his own purposes.

And we can find scriptural examples to illustrate this principle.

But it is also not my business to say who has, or has not, become a prophet - however we are choosing to define that word today. My personal course is to trust none, as the Lord has said.

JST, Mark 9:44
44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.

That is the universal principle.

[keep the faith]

The Brethren are not asking anyone to follow them anywhere except back into the presence of God our Father and His beloved Son our Savior. They are simply teaching the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and testifying of the reality of a Personal Savior and a loving Heavenly Father and are asking the members to follow THEM. I could give a thousand examples of this. This whole "follow the Brethren" catch phrase is misrepresented and misinterpreted by any who think the Brethren are asking members of the church to blindly follow everything they do and say in their personal lives. It is just laughable to make that argument. Everything those 15 P/S/R have preached from the pulpit helps bring me closer to my Savior and more able to connect personally with Him and my Father. Trying to turn this into some kind of blind robotic non thinking lock step Jonestown obedience-like thing connected to the Brethren is an insult and lacks any credibility whatsoever. That is the LAST thing the Brethren are trying to encourage. That is why they plead with membership to take the Spirit as their guide in their personal lives.

[log]

Everything those 15 P/S/R have preached from the pulpit helps bring me closer to my Savior and more able to connect personally with Him and my Father.

Have you been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost? Have you been sanctified and are you without spot before God?

If so, blessed are you - you ought to be teaching men how to receive likewise.

If not, what is missing from your spiritual education?

[keep the faith]

Everything those 15 P/S/R have preached from the pulpit helps bring me closer to my Savior and more able to connect personally with Him and my Father.

Have you been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost? Have you been sanctified and are you without spot before God?

If so, blessed are you - you ought to be teaching men how to receive likewise.

If not, what is missing from your spiritual education?

All the Prophets from Adam to Thomas S Monson have been teaching folks how to be baptised by fire and sanctified before God. Is there something that they have missed that you or I are going to come up with other than that which has already been taught dozens of times before for anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear?

[Franktalk]

City Creek Mall? Unless you have it from God, you don't know they aren't doing as they have been told.

I suspect that the character of God does not change. I also suspect that what the prophets are told has pretty much remained the same for thousands of years. So please show me in the scriptures where men of God were tied into shopping malls and businesses.

[natasha]

If you define the "Brethenites" as those who look to the Prophet instead of God, then you are correct. No salvation for them. And that is the context in which Brigham is speaking.

What I and others on this forum have been saying is look to the Prophet as the Prophet, in the role in which God intended him to play. Not as the savior of anything, but as a man called of God to perform an important role in leading the Church. Nothing more than that.

My beef has mainly been with those who say not to "follow the prophet" because they are in essence fallen prophets. Not so much because of how they defined "following" the prophet as the accusation that they had somehow fallen away.

Exactly my beef also...well stated!

[natasha]

The Brethren are not asking anyone to follow them anywhere except back into the presence of God our Father and His beloved Son our Savior. They are simply teaching the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and testifying of the reality of a Personal Savior and a loving Heavenly Father and are asking the members to follow THEM. I could give a thousand examples of this. This whole "follow the Brethren" catch phrase is misrepresented and misinterpreted by any who think the Brethren are asking members of the church to blindly follow everything they do and say in their personal lives. It is just laughable to make that argument. Everything those 15 P/S/R have preached from the pulpit helps bring me closer to my Savior and more able to connect personally with Him and my Father. Trying to turn this into some kind of blind robotic non thinking lock step Jonestown obedience-like thing connected to the Brethren is an insult and lacks any credibility whatsoever. That is the LAST thing the Brethren are trying to encourage. That is why they plead with membership to take the Spirit as their guide in their personal lives.

Another perfect response! Wish my thoughts were as easy to pen! Thanks, Keep the Faith.

[log]

City Creek Mall? Unless you have it from God, you don't know they aren't doing as they have been told.

I suspect that the character of God does not change. I also suspect that what the prophets are told has pretty much remained the same for thousands of years. So please show me in the scriptures where men of God were tied into shopping malls and businesses.

Pleading "no precedence" doesn't answer the issue.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509

The sole issue with CCM is "are they doing as directed." Unless you have it from God, you don't know - either way.

[log]

Everything those 15 P/S/R have preached from the pulpit helps bring me closer to my Savior and more able to connect personally with Him and my Father.

Have you been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost? Have you been sanctified and are you without spot before God?

If so, blessed are you - you ought to be teaching men how to receive likewise.

If not, what is missing from your spiritual education?

All the Prophets from Adam to Thomas S Monson have been teaching folks how to be baptised by fire and sanctified before God. Is there something that they have missed that you or I are going to come up with other than that which has already been taught dozens of times before for anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear?

The question isn't "is there something that they have missed," but "is there something that you have missed". If we are ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth, what does that say about the instructions we've been getting? Or is the fault in ourselves?

[Simon]

Something like this, however, gives me hope: http://barerecord.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ard-g.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Come Unto Ch______ . I love Elder Scott -- he's the one who did NOT applaud Ch____ when BYU administrators gave Cheney the honorary PhD, remember? and that's just one of the courageous things he's done. (note, cheney has the same number of letters as church)

Excellent! thank you.

I deeply love Elder Scott. For some reason he has always been my favourite speaker. I had the great privilege of meeting him on my mission, and I heard him bear testimony of Christ... The holy ghost testified to me that he truely knows the saviour. Have you ever noticed that he is one of very few who publicly spoke about visions and dreams he had? I think he is truely an apostel of the Lord.

This talk of Elder Scott is wonderful too.. Thanks for sharing. This should be our next sunday school lesson

[Jeremy]

Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[EmmaLee]

If "follow the Brethren" or "follow the prophet" were universally true principles, why has the president of the Church, to my knowledge, never said either? Why have the presidents of the Church generally reacted against such teachings when they come forth? Elder Benson's "14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" landed him in council with the rest of the 15, and eventually all the GAs, to apologize for it.

The (in)famous "14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" was positively spoken of in two different talks given during the October 2010 General Conference, and to my knowledge, Pres. Monson, et al, did not do or say anything to stop, censor, or refute them or the points made. The next month, The Ensign also printed their talks in full with the promotion of the "14 Fundamentals" included. The talks were given by Elder Claudio R M Costa and Elder Kevin R. Duncan and they both gave point-by-point, down the list of all 14. Aren't all GC talks vetted? If so, the current First Presidency approved of this beforehand in both talks. If not, they still did nothing about it after the fact. Also, six pages are dedicated to Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk in the 2010 edition of Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual: Religion 333. So it's probably safe to say our current First Presidency approves of the messages given in Benson's talk. What other conclusion is there?

[log]

Aren't all GC talks vetted?

If they are, it's by the Correlation Dept., I believe. Although, President Packer has had at least two talks changed after delivery in GC, to my knowledge.

Also, six pages are dedicated to Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk in the 2010 edition of Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual: Religion 333. So it's probably safe to say our current First Presidency approves of the messages given in Benson's talk. What other conclusion is there?

That those who write the manuals approve of the message - nothing more, nothing less.

Luckily, the manuals aren't canonized.

[hyloglyph]

This whole "follow the Brethren" catch phrase is misrepresented and misinterpreted by any who think the Brethren are asking members of the church to blindly follow everything they do and say in their personal lives.

Actually no.

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

That is one of the most disgusting phrases I have heard. And it came from the church. Why would anyone who is teaching righteousness need to say that?

No one is misrepresenting misrepresenting KTF. Maybe you are not familiar with everything that the "leaders" have said? (The leaders have spoke on many aspects of personal life, and in the interest of good taste I won't bring them all up.)

Anything pointing towards non-thinking is evil. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report, the elect will seek after these things naturally on their own accord. To force goodness upon someone before they choose it for themselves works against the plan of salvation. I am not sure how the whole church does not stand up and reject this type of thinking.

[EmmaLee]

Aren't all GC talks vetted?

If they are, it's by the Correlation Dept., I believe. I believe differently; guess we'll never know who is right. Although, President Packer has had at least two talks changed after delivery in GC, to my knowledge.

Also, six pages are dedicated to Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk in the 2010 edition of Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual: Religion 333. So it's probably safe to say our current First Presidency approves of the messages given in Benson's talk. What other conclusion is there?

That those who write the manuals approve of the message - nothing more, nothing less.

Luckily, the manuals aren't canonized. Neither of these comments address the fact that in two 2010 GC talks, the "14 Points" references were made and were never refuted by anyone in authority.

If anything said in those two 2010 GC talks did not sit well with Pres. Monson, et al, something would have been done about it. Nothing was done about it. Therefore, as I said, it's probably safe to say our current First Presidency approves of the messages given in Benson's talk.

The (in)famous "14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" was positively spoken of in two different talks given during the October 2010 General Conference, and to my knowledge, Pres. Monson, et al, did not do or say anything to stop, censor, or refute them or the points made. The next month, The Ensign also printed their talks in full with the promotion of the "14 Fundamentals" included. The talks were given by Elder Claudio R M Costa and Elder Kevin R. Duncan and they both gave point-by-point, down the list of all 14. Aren't all GC talks vetted? If so, the current First Presidency approved of this beforehand in both talks. If not, they still did nothing about it after the fact. Also, six pages are dedicated to Benson's "14 Fundamentals" talk in the 2010 edition of Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual: Religion 333. So it's probably safe to say our current First Presidency approves of the messages given in Benson's talk. What other conclusion is there?

I still stand by this - if the current First Presidency doesn't provide a "buck stops here" in regards to talks given in General Conference by General Authorities, and materials such as the GC issues of The Ensign and Teachings of the Living Prophets, and if it is, as you say, the correlation dept. that has the final say on these things, then they need to put photos of the correlation dept. inside the conference Ensign issues and that's who we should be sustaining in GC. Pres. Monson, et al, has had over 3 years to clear up any misunderstandings or straighten things out in regards to the "14 Points" being preached to us in two different talks in the 2010 GC. He has not. Therefore, my conclusion is he approves of the "14 Points". You are welcome to conclude whatever you want.

[Franktalk]

Pleading "no precedence" doesn't answer the issue.

Thank you for your opinion. I feel that God is the same today as a million years ago. I think His methods are the same as well. So I can't see Him guiding a mall unless He was giving someone what was already in their heart. An idol of money is a very common thing in men. Not so common in God.