How did we get here?

[log]

You have a perfect right to your opinion, of course.

My point is that unless you have it from God you do not know whether or not CCM is of God. That is not opinion.

And, in the absence of knowledge on the subject, is it not better to hold one's peace until such time as God makes it known unto one? That way, one cannot be guilty of evil-speaking, or of opposing the servants of the Lord.

[Epistemology]

I believe President Monson is the Lords prophet on Earth and does indeed receive revelation from Christ and is leading the Church. I believe the 15 are prophets seers and revelators for Christ and are special witnesses of Christ in the truest sense.

Why? Among other reasons, so “that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”

Thus the apostolic and prophetic foundation of the Church was to bless in all times, but especially in times of adversity or danger, times when we might feel like children, confused or disoriented, perhaps a little fearful, times in which the devious hand of men or the maliciousness of the devil would attempt to unsettle or mislead. Against such times as come in our modern day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church. In New Testament times, in Book of Mormon times, and in modern times these officers form the foundation stones of the true Church, positioned around and gaining their strength from the chief cornerstone, “the rock of our Redeemer, who is [Jesus] Christ, the Son of God,” 5 He who is the great “Apostle and High Priest of our profession,” to use Paul’s phrase. 6 Such a foundation in Christ was and is always to be a protection in days “when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you.” In such days as we are now in—and will more or less always be in—the storms of life “shall have no power over you … because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... revelators

[hyloglyph]

In such days as we are now in—and will more or less always be in—the storms of life “shall have no power over you … because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... revelators

Hold on.

Is this trying to say that the rock we are supposed to be built on is the revelators aka the prophets??

Please tell me I am reading that wrong.

[log]

I think you read it right. As I said, I really don't know how we got from Brigham's explicit, lucid teaching, to that. I'm not even sure if it registers as a contradiction.

[hyloglyph]

This makes me feel ill

[TZONE]

Even lds.org does not say its the revelators.

ROCK
See also Gospel; Jesus Christ; Revelation
Figuratively, Jesus Christ and his gospel, which are a strong foundation and support (D&C 11:24; 33:12–13). Rock can also refer to revelation, by which God makes his gospel known to man (Matt. 16:15–18).

He is the rock, his work is perfect:Deut. 32:4;
The Lord is my rock; in him will I trust:2 Sam. 22:2–3;
A stone was cut out without hands:Dan. 2:34–35;
It was founded upon a rock:Matt. 7:25; ( 3 Ne. 14:25; )
Jesus Christ is the stone that was set at nought:Acts 4:10–11;
That rock was Christ:1 Cor. 10:1–4; ( Ex. 17:6; )
He that is built upon the rock receiveth the truth:2 Ne. 28:28;
The Jews will reject the stone [Christ] upon which they might build:Jacob 4:15–17;

It is upon the rock of our Redeemer that we must build our foundation:Hel. 5:12;
Whoso builds on Christ’s doctrines builds upon his rock and will not fall when the floods come:3 Ne. 11:39–40; ( Matt. 7:24–27; 3 Ne. 18:12–13; )
A wise man built his house upon a rock:3 Ne. 14:24;
If ye are built upon my rock, earth and hell cannot prevail:D&C 6:34;
He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall:D&C 50:44;
I am Messiah, the King of Zion, the Rock of Heaven:Moses 7:53;

NOT a person or office.

[keep the faith]

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.

Perhaps you can tell the whole story behind this "disgusting" phrase as you state so as to be intellectually honest here hyloglyph. Let me give you a start. It came from a ward teaching message published in 1945. I will quote "the rest of the story";

"When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society:
The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.
I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow."

So you see the President of the Church George Albert Smith rejected this non thinking catch phrase outright and clarified the position of the church on this issue. Wouldn't it be fair to include this part in talking about this issue? Of course it would unless one was just trying to attack the church with half truths and deception which has become quit common on Internet forums these days.

Here is another statement from Dallin Oaks in 2008 General Conference regarding this issue which might help clarify things further. Lets not accuse the church and he Brethren of teaching things that just aren't so. It is unfair and frankly dishonest to do so.

"Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.
Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).[8]"

[Amonhi]

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.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

I agree completely. Excellent post!
Amonhi

Edit: Ok, So I typed up a normal long response about the "middle way" which was a revelation Buddah received while he was living on the streets as a beggar eating one grain of rice a day which was the far extreme as compared with his VERY wealthy upbringing. after I sent it, It got lost in cyberspace and rather than retyping it, I just sent the response above. Then reading log's excellent post and referenced sites, I felt that I just couldn't leave my simple response. I agree with log that follow the prophet or the brethren is not taught correctly. We should never follow man/men regardless of position. The Holy Ghost gives the witness and we follow it, so we might be doing what a man or men or church asks us to do, but not because they asked but because the spirit ratified/asked. So, we are always following the spirit.

I completely agree with "laronius" that the people tend to swing back and forth like a pendulum from one extreme to the other. When they are on one extreme they need to be taught to go the other way and then they swing back, past center and toward the other extreme and so need to be taught to go back toward the original way. Back and forth we are taught, continually correcting ourselves making shorter and shorter swings until we are centered on the right spot.

As I pointed out in my previous, lost post, in many cases a person on the extreme only hears what they want to hear which is that what they believe is already right. (The more humble they are, the more able to see and accept the center or balanced truth which takes into account both extremes.) So, if you teach the center/balanced truth, they will only hear those parts they already believe in and feel validated and stay where they are or worse, move further toward the extreme/away from the balanced/center truth. So, you have to point out the false parts of their beliefs directly in a way that they can see their false ideas are being challenged. Then they have reason to believe and might adjust toward the center. Depending on their pride and how much the belief is a core belief of the person, that can be very painful and they will fight it but at the same time slowly adjust their view and move slowly toward the center balance.

Anyway, I am agreeing with the concept that "laronius" taught. The application, maybe not so much. For example, "following the brethren" doesn't have a place when applied in most circumstances and by most people = obey without question. Is there a time to follow the brethern? Yes, of course when the spirit directs. And I can think of a few instances when the spirit won't specifically say that we should or should not. Or it you are saying that the brethern who are in their callings have the authority to make the decisions related to that calling and you are either sustaining them in that calling or not. For example they decide to change Rick's college to BYU Idaho and you are on the faculty staff of Rick's college and don't like the idea. So what, it isn't your call. Stop fighting it. Quit and get a new job or fall in line. This goes with all the protocols and procedures of the church. It's not your call. Regarding truth, you can learn and accept any truth even if it contradicts the doctrines of the church. But you can't teach the truths you have found and claim they are the doctrines of the church as if by default it was. That's not your call. You can try to convince the leaders of the truth you found and hope they start teaching it. But if you intend to teach the doctrines of the church, you have to follow the brethern's lead and teach what they approve. If you are teaching truth, then go with the spirit, and don't claim it is part of the doctrines of the church.

Amonhi

[Amonhi]

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.

Excellent post! I enjoyed the links too! I remember Elder Claudio R.M. Costa's talk given during the Saturday session of the Oct. 2010 conference. It is a painful reminder of the false ideas that are hailed as current church doctrine. When he made the claim that baptism was a decision to follow the prophets, I called my friend immediately and said, "Did you hear that? Baptism is now about following the prophet and not following Christ!!!" In the prescreened conference talk, Elder Claudio R.M. Costa said:

It made me feel good that I had made the decision to follow the prophets for the rest of my life when I accepted baptism in the Lord’s true Church.

There have been no recalls, apologies or efforts to correct that statement. How nice of the church to support the leaders, even when they are wrong. But, then, I had never heard that Kimball took issue with Benson's talk, or that Benson had to explain himself to the Q12 or any other group. I remember reading that talk on my mission where it was taught as doctrine. Even after reading this, I still see no hard evidence that the church has taken issue with that talk. No public statements of any kind. But I do see it being the main focus of conference talks which are prescreened by the church scholars which leads me to believe that this IS current church doctrine.

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.

Your right! The name "Brethrenite" fits well. I also was taught the same. And when I confront the membership of the church with the theoretical dilemma that their personal revelation contradicts the prophets teachings, and ask, "Which do you follow?" I am told by 98% of those I ask say they will follow the prophet.

:-ss :-O

You know, the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" is really simple! This gospel was lost, changed edited from the bible. Then it was restored through the Book of Mormon. But if you ask the average member what "the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ" is and more importantly why it is the "fulness" very few can give a reasonable answer. That isn't because they don't spend 3 hours a week learning the church approved lessons...

3 Nephi 11:40 - 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

[/quote]
The current church doctrine teaches both more and less than the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The major point of error is regarding the role of the Holy Ghost which supersedes the prophet in our lives. This topic is actually at the heart of the Gospel. It IS the good word!!

If the church stops teaching the gospel, then it has gone astray. Plain and simple. It is currently on the verge. Many members and leaders all the way up to and including prophets have taught contrary to the gospel adding to or taking away from it. But those who seek can still find the gospel, but to find it, they must accept that at least some of their local and top ranking leaders and church approved manuals and general conference talks are dead wrong.

Why do so many put the prophet above the Holy Ghost? Because of a lie that was canonized and added to scripture...

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

This lie, that the prophet cannot lead the Church astray, IS the foundation to the doctrine that we should follow the prophet because the prophet can't lead you astray. Also it provides the feeling of security that people seek in their search for salvation and eternal life. Learning to recognize, trust and follow the inspiration and revelations of the Holy Ghost is not a certain science at first. It can be subtle and unclear while we are learning. So, we say, "Well, personal revelation may not be accurate but the prophet is always accurate because he can't lead us astray, so let's make him our marker and guide." At first this may mean that we will check our personal revelations with the prophet, but then we realize that that is a waste of effort because the prophet is never wrong and if our personal revelation did contradict him, then it is wrong, so let's just cut to the chase and follow whatever he says, then we will never be led astray.

This concept was taught by some apostle under Brigham Young who said that it didn't make sense to him that the prophet could be led astray and therefore cause the people to be led astray, I couldn't find the quote. But somehow Brigham Young picked it up and started teaching it.

It is my duty to know the mind of the Lord concerning myself and also
concerning this people; and I think I know it just as well as I know the
road home. I do not know the path from that door to my own home any
better than I know how to dictate this people, if they will only hearken
to me. This is a great blessing and a great privilege, and if I were to
reject it and take a course to deprive myself of the spirit of revelation,
according to what the Lord has given to me, and to magnify the Priesthood
that I received through his servant Joseph, I would be taken forthwith
from this world, I would not remain here at all to darken the minds of, or
to lead astray, any of the members of the kingdom of God. According to
the revelations that I and others of my brethren and sisters have
received, through the Prophet Joseph and others who have lived upon the
earth, if I observe my duty, I shall have the privilege of living and
enjoying the society of my brethren and sisters, and of instructing them;
but let me neglect this and I shall be removed out of my place forthwith.

DISCOURSE BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG,
DELIVERED IN THE OLD TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, AUG. 31, 1875.

As long as we believe that the prophet cannot lead us astray, there is no point to having personal revelation or checking the prophet against God. We might as well just follow the prophet.

Wilford Woodruff used this doctrine to help give credit to his revelation to stop polygamy. Polygamy had been taught as required for exaltation by the previous prophets. It was an "Eternal truth", not optional. Now he was placed in a position to contradict everything that was said regarding polygamy prior to that point. And he couldn't say that it was wrong, or not an eternal exalting principle, only that is was wrong right now. He he knew that people would leave the church because he as the prophet was bending to the pressures of men. In essence God was bending to the will of men rather than showing forth His power like He did anciently with events like Daniel and the Lions den, where people lived God's law and commandments against the persecution of the world and the Lord put the world in its place...

So, here the people are living according to the prophets and the world is about to overcome them and God is not going to protect or prevent the wicked from overcoming the righteous. The prophet/President Wilford Woodruff knew the impact this change would have on the church and used this doctrine as a way to encourage the members to go along with it, rather than seeking their own revelation. "Just trust me", he said, "I can't lead you astray, the Lord won't allow it." Then it was canonized into scripture and has ever since been taught as current church doctrine.

As any leader knows, it is so much easier to have your people think this "cult doctrine" because you as the leader can relax and put forth less effort. You don't have to persuade the people anymore. You don't have to deal with challenges or other ideas, or any of the "problems" that come when you followers think you are fallible. The members also feel comfortable and are lulled into blind following knowing that whatever you ask is right and God's will.

The problem is that even the prophet can lead us astray. He can be damned. He can and does teach us damning doctrine as I have shown on various threads in the last two months. This doctrine is the current church doctrine, it is a lie, it is damning doctrine, it is canonized in scripture and it is likely the most evil doctrine taught in the church because it is in direct conflict with the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even Christ himself who was more able to claim such a doctrine applied to him said, Don't trust me, follow the Holy Ghost. One way he did this is by saying that if we speak a word against him, (the Son of Man), it is forgivable but is we speak against the Holy Ghost it is not forgivable.

Matthew 12:32 - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

In the church today, we act as if it is unforgivable or a great sin. And we say it is better to speak against the Holy Ghost than it is to speak against the prophet. And if the holy Ghost contradicts the prophet, go with the prophet who is the higher authority... Christ wouldn't even go there, why should our prophets be greater than Christ?


Amonhi

[Amonhi]

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.

You have a good point, but we need to define the role of a prophet/president and find the bounds of the calling. When is he stepping out of his bounds and role as president of the church. Also, we need to define the role of prophets/non-presidents and be able to see the difference between teh prophets/non-presidents (You and me), and the prophets/presidents (Monson). then we will see that the Prophet/President is a corporate position that prophets/non-presidents have no authority over, but that revelation to the world and new truths and authority to do God's work outside of the Church system is all available to prophets/non-presidents. And God does and will support us prophets/non-presidents in doing things that many members want to reserve for the prophet/president alone.

What are the bounds of the prophet/president?

What are the bounds of the prophet/non-presidents?

[Amonhi]

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.

/:) What do you do when your personal revelation contradicts the revealed truths of the church and or prophet? Do you put your highest trust in God through your own connection with God or in the prophet and rely on his connection with God?

Also, how often do you disagree with the P/S/R of the church, say in General conference? Do you ever see the errors they teach for doctrine or are you blind to them?

Just wondering,
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

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.

Off topic, but did they ever say that God told them to do that? I thought that they said that they have always "invested" in things that further the work and that they are "investing" in SLC in the hopes that their investment will further the work. I don't recall ever hearing them say, "The lord told us to us the tithing money, donations and income from our other investments to buy ipads for the missionaries and bishops and to build a huge mall." Can anyone point me to a reference where they claim the Lord told them to do this?

[Amonhi]

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?

THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING!!!! As far as I can tell, this IS the current church doctrine. Not the truth, but the current church doctrine. Thanks Stella!

[Amonhi]

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.

But they, the manuals, are current church doctrine. I remember being taught in the Teachings of the Living Prophets class at BYU that if you were stranded on an island and could only take one book, rather than taking your quad combination scripture set you should take the most recent conference edition Ensign because the living prophet supersedes all the past prophets combined, and all the scriptures. I thought what a load of crock! I was actually upset at the time because the current church doctrine did not match up with what the spirit was SCREAMING to me was true. It literally said, "DO NOT BELIEVE THIS LIE. Take the scriptures to the island because you can learn through the scriptures and with the guide of the Holy Ghost everything you will need personally. And the prophets learned from the scriptures and the Holy Ghost and did well. If you are going to follow them, follow their example and learn from the scriptures and personal revelation and witness and you likewise will do well." But, that is the doctrine the church currently teaches as truth.

And you could argue that the correlation committee is declaring current church doctrine and not the prophet because the prophet doesn't bother to review all the manuals and approve them to ensure the church is teaching his current beliefs, but what would be the point?

[Amonhi]

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.

I agree. It is now current church doctrine... I wish it wasn't, but I can't see any way around it. It is taught and accepted by the mass membership, the leadership, the manuals. Nobody is denouncing it, except the higher authority of the spirit which is not recognized as being superior to the prophet in regards to Current Church doctrine. It must be current church doctrine. To say otherwise is to declare that YOU know what the church should teach as current church doctrine. That isn't our role. We can declare what the truths revealed to us personally and even that those truths contradict the current church doctrine, (Like Abinadi and other have.) But we can't declare a truth and assume that because it is true it must therefore be current church doctrine or even because it is current church doctrine it must therefore be truth.

When the church makes an official statement, then I know what it believes. That has no bearing on my own beliefs, because my beliefs are tied to truth as far as I am capable of discerning it and not current church doctrine.

Log, I think you want very much this truth to be current church doctrine, but it isn't. And to say it is, is to say that you know better than the leaders of the church regarding their calling. Dangerous ground... You can't win that one. But you can show that regardless of what the church accepts as doctrine, truth stands on its own be it for or against current church doctrine.

Just my thoughts.
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

I believe President Monson is the Lords prophet on Earth and does indeed receive revelation from Christ and is leading the Church. I believe the 15 are prophets seers and revelators for Christ and are special witnesses of Christ in the truest sense.

I recommend reading the thread, "How the Lord Leads His Church Today..." which discusses how these 15 men at the top are led by Christ. It is EXACTLY the same way the average bishop is led by the still small voice. Very, very few of our leaders from the time of Joseph Smith to the present claim to have seen Christ themselves, most claim to have never seen him. All major revelations come via the still small voice, no angels, visions, or appearances of Christ, etc. This I think is well documented in that thread.

Why? Among other reasons, so “that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.”

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting to make this point, thanks for reminding me...

When we show that the Prophets, Apostles and even the president of the church is wrong and does and can lead others astray, we have essentially removed the foundation that so many people build on. And the first thing they think when they lose their foundation is, "Everything I have built my life on is wrong." That is because people build their lives on the church or the prophet which is a sandy foundation. Then they assume that if the prophet is wrong or has taught incorrectly or led them astray in some thing, that they whole gospel is wrong. But building on the wrong foundation and realizing that it is sand doesn't mean that all foundations are sand. There is a rock on which if you build you cannot fall. That rock is your own personal experience, your own revelation, your own connection with God and Christ. If you have a vision and someone says that the prophet is wrong or the church is wrong or whatever, you can say, so what. I know certain things for myself. And if they say you are wrong, you say, well, God told me by myself this thing. And if someone wants to contradict God, then go ahead and try, but you know for yourself separate from any man or organization. That is the rock. Build on your own experience, not the craftiness of men or of churches and you will never fall.

Thus the apostolic and prophetic foundation of the Church was to bless in all times, but especially in times of adversity or danger, times when we might feel like children, confused or disoriented, perhaps a little fearful, times in which the devious hand of men or the maliciousness of the devil would attempt to unsettle or mislead.

The church is a sandy foundation to build on and has been wrong too many times to think it is a safe foundation. It is NOT the rock. It is far from the rock.

Against such times as come in our modern day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church.

I agree with this statement.

In such days as we are now in—and will more or less always be in—the storms of life “shall have no power over you … because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... revelators

WOW, again, the church is NOT the foundation on which if you build you cannot fall. You could apply your statements to any of the ancient churches with equal authority and power and yet they all fell. You could apply the same reasoning regarding why the church setup by Moses under the hand of God would never lead the people astray and yet it killed the Christ. The church is not and has never been the rock on which if we build we cannot fall. If you don't believe so. Start a new thread called, "The church is the rock of God" and list all the criteria that make the church the rock on which if you build you cannot fall and I will show you with evidence why it and its leaders are not the rock.

Do not tell people to build on false rocks!! Please!!! It is too painful!! I am speaking from personal experience!!
Amonhi

[log]

Log, I think you want very much this truth to be current church doctrine, but it isn't. And to say it is, is to say that you know better than the leaders of the church regarding their calling.

My position is that official Church doctrine consists solely of the canonized scriptures - the united voice of the Church - and I do not recognize the accompanying historical material to OD1 as part of the canon. Neither do I recognize chapter headings as part of the scriptures, neither do I recognize the footnotes as part of the scriptures, and so forth.

[log]

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.

Off topic, but did they ever say that God told them to do that? I thought that they said that they have always "invested" in things that further the work and that they are "investing" in SLC in the hopes that their investment will further the work. I don't recall ever hearing them say, "The lord told us to us the tithing money, donations and income from our other investments to buy ipads for the missionaries and bishops and to build a huge mall." Can anyone point me to a reference where they claim the Lord told them to do this?

It doesn't matter.

[log]

And you could argue that the correlation committee is declaring current church doctrine and not the prophet because the prophet doesn't bother to review all the manuals and approve them to ensure the church is teaching his current beliefs, but what would be the point?

I would say that that which is put out by Correlation is falsely styled the official teachings of the Church.

[Amonhi]

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? ...

Perhaps you can tell the whole story behind this "disgusting" phrase as you state so as to be intellectually honest here hyloglyph. Let me give you a start. It came from a ward teaching message published in 1945. I will quote "the rest of the story";

"When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society:
The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.
I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow."

So you see the President of the Church George Albert Smith rejected this non thinking catch phrase outright and clarified the position of the church on this issue. Wouldn't it be fair to include this part in talking about this issue? Of course it would unless one was just trying to attack the church with half truths and deception which has become quit common on Internet forums these days.

You are right. This one almost caught me. I had to look it up myself and found that President George Albert Smith had corrected this. But, there remains a question as to how this was taught in the Churches official channels of communication. Surely someone who wrote it and edited it believed it. This does not make it church doctrine, at least it wasn't under President George Albert Smith. I still have yet to see the church or any leader in the church denounce publicly on behalf of the church "the 14 fundamentals in following the prophet". Or other official church manuals like that "Follow the Living Prophets" manuals of even the Priesthood/Relief Society manuals.

Here is another statement from Dallin Oaks in 2008 General Conference regarding this issue which might help clarify things further. Lets not accuse the church and he Brethren of teaching things that just aren't so. It is unfair and frankly dishonest to do so.

"Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospel—our personal testimonies—we each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.[/quote]
Well, maybe, and I agree with the ideas that Elder Oaks presents here. But when the rubber hits the asphalt, we see that people get excommunicated for having their own thoughts which disagree with the leaders of the church. So, they are enforcing blind obedience by punishing individual freedom of thought. Elder Oaks is also not taking into account what is being taught in church meetings around the world as Current church doctrine. Consider how the following statements taken from the priesthood/Relief Society manual "The Teachings of the Living prophets - Wilford Woodruff" Chapter 19: Following the Living Prophet, square up with Elder Oaks statement...

The Lord will lead [the President of the Church] where he wants him to go. We know God is with him, and has led him all the time. … It requires [the prophet] to tell us what is right and what is wrong in many things, because that is his place and calling. … A perfect channel exists between the Lord and him, through which he obtains wisdom, which is diffused through other channels to the people. That we know. We have got to learn to bring this knowledge into practice.

Uh, there is no perfect channel from the prophet to the lord... That would be a face to face conversation with the prophet and according to the vast majority of the living prophets, revelation no longer comes that way, only by the still small voice. Most claim not to have even seen Christ but hope to see him someday.

...it has ever been a key with me that when the prophet who leads presents a doctrine or principle or says “thus saith the Lord” I make it a point to receive it even if it comes in contact with my tradition or views, being well satisfied that the Lord would reveal the truth unto His prophet whom He has called to lead His Church before He would unto me. And the word of the Lord through the prophet is the end of the Law unto me.

I want to say to my brethren and sisters that [the President of the Church] is our leader, he is our law-giver in the Church and Kingdom of God. He is called to this office; it is his prerogative to tell this people what to do, and it is our duty to obey the counsel that he has given to-day to the sisters and the brethren.

And this sounds like he is advocating blind obedience to me. When he are expected to receive what is given from the Prophet even when it comes in contact with our own views, and it is his prerogative to tell us what to do and our duty to obey... Blind obedience taught by the church is in direct contradiction to Elder Oaks above.

According to the ancient practice we learn that [shepherds] always went forward and prepared the way, so that there could be no danger in advance but what the shepherd would learn of in time to save the sheep. If [the sheep] are allowed to run by the shepherd, the wolves are apt to catch them and destroy them, and the very moment that men in this kingdom attempt to run ahead or cross the path of their leaders, no matter in what respect, the moment they do this they are in danger of being injured by the wolves.

As discussed in other threads, this way of using fear to solicit obedience or followers is a cult tactic and not of God. God's way is to empower people by teaching them how to handle the wolfs for themselves. Empower them to light their own way using their own oil lamps. Teach us how to guide ourselves and we will be free. Teach us that guiding ourselves will lead to destruction and we will be slaves.

Now whatever I might have obtained in the shape of learning, by searching and study respecting the arts and sciences of men, whatever principles I may have imbibed during my scientific researches, yet if the prophet of God should tell me that a certain principle, or theory which I might have learned was not true, I do not care what my ideas might have been, I should consider it my duty, at the suggestion of my file leader to abandon that principle or theory.

So, not only are we to be blindly obedient to the leaders /prophet in relation to matters of Church protocol and procedure, but also in science and other academics. You see, when they are called to be a prophet, God makes them mathematical geniuses too, and instructs them in physics and biology and astronomy and psychology all sorts of other things so that we don't even have to prove what they say, just go with it. And if your own learning, study and even revelation contradicts them, well then without debate, discussion, evidence or otherwise, it is your duty to abandon your own thoughts, thinking and intelligence and your duty to accept what you are told. Now, can anyone tell me a way to imagine this is not telling us to be blindly obedient? Or maybe that it was not taught by the church as doctrine or perhaps discredit it in some way as to show that the church does not condone or teach and encourage blind obedience? I haven't seen a statement recalling this book or this chapter yet, have you or anyone you know seen such a statement?

I have seen men in the days of Joseph bring up principles, and read and teach, and advocate theories when the prophet would say “it is not right to do so, they are not true.” Those men would still argue, maintain their position, and they would write in defence of their theories when the prophet condemned them, and they would say “we have no faith in your theory, nor in the system you present.”

The very moment a man does that he crosses the path of the servant of God who is set to lead the way to life and salvation. This is one thing that the Elders should carefully avoid.

Avoid crossing paths with the servants of God, ie the leaders of the church. In other words, "DON'T disagree with them." Give up your own beliefs and agree with the leadership of the church...Uh, Blindly follow your leaders...

With regard to crossing the path of any man who may be appointed to lead us, I will say we never should do it, and I do not care what our feelings and views may be upon the subject as far as our traditions and education are concerned.

If God has anything to reveal, he will reveal it to that man who stands at the head. … There is no other plan, no other system by which to guide and govern men in this kingdom, only that which has been established by the revelations of God in the order of His church and kingdom, and that is for the head to lead, counsel and govern in all dispensations in which the will of God is revealed to man.

That is just flat wrong. The Lord didn't reveal E=mc2 to the prophet, but to Albert Einstein who revealed it to the world. The prophet is not the source of truth for the world. He is the source of Current Church doctrine and Church protocols and proceedures and the administration of the Corporation we call the church, but he does not hold the patient on truth. And to think that we have to give up our own ideas and thoughts and theories and even revelations because the prophet or the church or anyone else said otherwise is slavery of the mind and the man of God would despise the notion.

You are right that in a few instances the church or President of the church has corrected such statements or even taught the truth as doctrine, these cannot be discounted. And in a great many other instances the church has taught blind obedience for doctrine, these cannot be discounted either. We cannot accept anything that is said for or against a topic just because the church or a prophet said it. We must come to understand and know the truth independent of the church, manuals, leaders and even the prophet.

Wouldn't it be fair to include this part in talking about this issue? Of course it would unless one was just trying to protect the church with half truths and deception which has become quite common on Internet forums these days.

Elder Oaks continued to say:

Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience.

Is the resulting "Obedience to doctrine and commandments" that he mentions here part of that blind obedience that he is talking about. How about we are taught correct principles and obey our own conscience as we apply those things we are taught. This means that the leaders have to rise to the occasion and actually teach, persuade and allow others to live according to their own testimony and not obedience to doctrines and commandments of the church/church leaders.

Elder Oaks continues,

We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).[8]"

[/quote]
The real question here is what happens when your knowledge does not lead to obedience like in real world situations. And the church responds with church courts, dis-fellowship and excommunication. Well, that settles that...

/:)
Amonhi

[Amonhi]

Log, I think you want very much this truth to be current church doctrine, but it isn't. And to say it is, is to say that you know better than the leaders of the church regarding their calling.

My position is that official Church doctrine consists solely of the canonized scriptures - the united voice of the Church - and I do not recognize the accompanying historical material to OD1 as part of the canon. Neither do I recognize chapter headings as part of the scriptures, neither do I recognize the footnotes as part of the scriptures, and so forth.

Not your call to make. Neither you nor I get to declare what "official Church doctrine consists solely of". That is the Prophet/presidents calling/job. We can say that what he declares is official Church doctrine squares with our own individual revelation or not. In this case you are saying it does not.

[log]

Log, I think you want very much this truth to be current church doctrine, but it isn't. And to say it is, is to say that you know better than the leaders of the church regarding their calling.

My position is that official Church doctrine consists solely of the canonized scriptures - the united voice of the Church - and I do not recognize the accompanying historical material to OD1 as part of the canon. Neither do I recognize chapter headings as part of the scriptures, neither do I recognize the footnotes as part of the scriptures, and so forth.

Not your call to make.

The call has already been made. Reality is what it is, whatever men may say.

Doctrine and Covenants 26:2
2 And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.

Doctrine and Covenants 28:13
13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

"All things" means just that.

[Amonhi]

And you could argue that the correlation committee is declaring current church doctrine and not the prophet because the prophet doesn't bother to review all the manuals and approve them to ensure the church is teaching his current beliefs, but what would be the point?

I would say that that which is put out by Correlation is falsely styled the official teachings of the Church.

What then is official church doctrine and who decides it? How do we know when the manuals are teaching official church doctrine or not, or the prophets and even the president of the church?

[Amonhi]

My position is that official Church doctrine consists solely of the canonized scriptures - the united voice of the Church - and I do not recognize the accompanying historical material to OD1 as part of the canon. Neither do I recognize chapter headings as part of the scriptures, neither do I recognize the footnotes as part of the scriptures, and so forth.

Not your call to make.

The call has already been made. Reality is what it is, whatever men may say...

"All things" means just that.

Can current church doctrine override the scriptures? It has before?

I tell you that unless the church repents, then not far from now, I expect in my own life time, the church will attempt to change the scriptures again in a way that leads to more reliance on the prophets/leaders in an attempt to squelch those like myself who point to God above the leaders of the church. They will make official declarations and when those don't hold water against the scriptures, they will have to change the scriptures themselves. This change will be so dramatic that it will further flame the separation in church between those who follow the prophet blindly and those who follow the spirit. The separation will go all the way to the top. And unless you have the spirit of revelation you will not know which side to fall on. The wheat will be separated from the tares.

Under that circumstance, what would you feel is "Current Church Doctrine" the new scriptures or the old?

[log]

Can current church doctrine override the scriptures?

No. But what you are calling "current church doctrine" will certainly be obeyed by many, if not most, over the scriptures. So far, it is possible to keep the commandments of God and the commandments of men simultaneously.

Under that circumstance, what would you feel is "Current Church Doctrine" the new scriptures or the old?

It all depends on what the Spirit says to me at that time.