Comparing Modern Prophets Words to Scriptures

[Zathura]

I find it continually disappointing that there are those out there like you who hold apostles and prophets up like television shows to be reviewed.

We are expected to review everything they say and compare it to what written scripture teaches.

No you're not. You're expected to listen to the Spirit and compare them to nothing. That's a fool's errand right there.

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.
.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

"If any man preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, set him down as an imposter... Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches."
Joseph Smith, Times & Seasons, 5:490-491, April, 1, 1844.



Any further explanation needed?

[ebenezerarise]

Any further explanation needed?

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38

Any further explanation needed?

[EdGoble]

I find it continually disappointing that there are those out there like you who hold apostles and prophets up like television shows to be reviewed.

We are expected to review everything they say and compare it to what written scripture teaches.

No you're not. You're expected to listen to the Spirit and compare them to nothing. That's a fool's errand right there.

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.
.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

"If any man preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, set him down as an imposter... Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches."
Joseph Smith, Times & Seasons, 5:490-491, April, 1, 1844.



Any further explanation needed?

Yeah. I am in agreement with your usage of the first quotation in the context of general authorities.

It is difficult to see what you are trying to do with the second quotation, because it doesn't apply to them. I'm trying to understand what your intent of the usage of this quote is. Because, if you are trying to apply it to them, the second part of the statement simply doesn't apply to them. You can SET ASIDE what they say and write that are contrary to the scriptures, but only if the spirit of what they say is truly contrary to the spirit of what is meant in the scriptures. You can't disfellowship an apostle or prophet merely because he preaches something wrong, because you are not in authority. They are. That type of thing is reserved for the lay members, to be disciplined by the local authorities. So, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I disagree with you if you mean to say that a prophet ought to be cut off. Sorry. It doesn't work that way, if you mean to use the quote that way. They determine current Church doctrine, right or wrong. And yes, that means that current Church doctrine CAN be wrong on points, and has been in the past. Not usually on central subjects. And only their successors can correct them. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean that. You can correct me if you did.

General Authorities are usually only disciplined if there is true wrongdoing such as with a Law of Chastity issue, etc.

[Zathura]

Yeah. I am in agreement with your usage of the first quotation in the context of general authorities.

It is difficult to see what you are trying to do with the second quotation, because it doesn't apply to them. I'm trying to understand what your intent of the usage of this quote is. Because, if you are trying to apply it to them, the second part of the statement simply doesn't apply to them. You can SET ASIDE what they say and write that are contrary to the scriptures, but only if the spirit of what they say is truly contrary to the spirit of what is meant in the scriptures. You can't disfellowship an apostle or prophet merely because he preaches something wrong, because you are not in authority. They are. That type of thing is reserved for the lay members, to be disciplined by the local authorities. So, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I disagree with you if you mean to say that a prophet ought to be cut off. Sorry. It doesn't work that way, if you mean to use the quote that way. They determine current Church doctrine, right or wrong. And yes, that means that current Church doctrine CAN be wrong on points, and has been in the past. Not usually on central subjects. And only their successors can correct them. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean that. You can correct me if you did.

General Authorities are usually only disciplined if there is true wrongdoing such as with a Law of Chastity issue, etc.

I'm not saying the prophet needs to be cut off. In no way am I saying our current leaders teach inccorect things today or that they need to be cut off

I'm only responding to something "Ebenezer" said that sounds very incorrect to me.. I only used these quotes to show "Ebenezer" that we do indeed need to review their words and that they need to match the scriptures, otherwise we lay them aside.

As far as cutting off the prophet goes..Many General Authorities have been "cut off"(Excommunicated). The second quote starts by saying "Any man" I don't believe that this excludes anybody. Again, they aren't exempt from these things just because they have a high calling. Pretend that Thomas Monson teaches exactly what Denver Snuffer does, word for word( HE WON"T DO THIS, THIS IS JUST A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE) then he would need to receive the same treatment that Denver Snuffer did, and be excommunicated. Why would he receive any other punishment? His high calling doesn't make him exempt. In fact, where more is given, more is required, and greater the condemnation.

Yes we Set aside what they say that are contrary to the spirit and the scriptures, agreed.

My purpose in putting this post isn't to condemn any leaders or say they teach things incorrectly. The purpose of this OP is ONLY to show that we do need to review and compare their teachings with the books of scripture that we have. No man is exempt from this. Even Thomas Monson's words can be laid aside if they don't match up with what the scriptures teach.

Does that make sense?

[Zathura]

Any further explanation needed?

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38

Any further explanation needed?

"This is an old question. It was asked of the Prophet Joseph Smith and answered by him. He writes in his journal, "This morning . . . I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet is a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Joseph Smith, _History of the Church_, 5:265).

Keep them coming friend. Let the Spirit teach you instead of your traditions. It helped me greatly.

[iWriteStuff]

Devil here: what about the following from a different Joseph?

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
...
12... for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

I'm pretty sure we're all reading the same four books of scripture, but as often happens (and has happened historically), we don't always understand them in quite the same universal and unmistakable way that the guy sitting next to us in Sunday School might understand them. What then of an appeal to the scriptures?

Is the role of modern day prophets to also help us gain an understanding of the scriptures through clarifying remarks, continuing revelations, etc, or are we always to refer back to our own imperfect yardstick understanding of the scriptures?

[Zathura]

Devil here: what about the following from a different Joseph?

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
...
12... for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

I'm pretty sure we're all reading the same four books of scripture, but as often happens (and has happened historically), we don't always understand them in quite the same universal and unmistakable way that the guy sitting next to us in Sunday School might understand them. What then of an appeal to the scriptures?

Is the role of modern day prophets to also help us gain an understanding of the scriptures through clarifying remarks, continuing revelations, etc, or are we always to refer back to our own imperfect yardstick understanding of the scriptures?

You devil

It's tough to think about....
Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

[Zathura]

we don't always understand them in quite the same universal and unmistakable way that the guy sitting next to us in Sunday School might understand them. What then of an appeal to the scriptures?

The same thing happens with modern day prophets. There are things that Joseph Fielding SMith, Brigham Young, Bruce R McKonkie have said that maybe you believe, but the guy sitting next to you doesn't believe, even though you both heard the same prophet expound on a scripture and tell you what it means.

[iWriteStuff]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

[Zathura]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

No I'm saying that I used the Bible to measure Josephs words with what I understand the Bible is teaching, and I did the same thing with Elder Anderson's words.
I found that Elder Anderson's interpretation didn't match the bible, and Joseph's interpretation did.

[Zathura]

Can they both be right?

If 2 individuals contradict each other, they cannot both be right. That's not possible.
Either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong.

[Zathura]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

Give me an example of something 2 different prophets said that can't be easily compared with a scripture. That makes it more difficult.. sometimes it's hard to know what to do.

[iWriteStuff]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

No I'm saying that I used the Bible to measure Josephs words with what I understand the Bible is teaching, and I did the same thing with Elder Anderson's words.
I found that Elder Anderson's interpretation didn't match the bible, and Joseph's interpretation did.

Yeah that's basically what I was trying to ask. May I ask which verse you're referring to? Is it the following talk:

Neil L. Anderson:
Honest Questions
Addressing honest questions is an important part of building faith, and we use both our intellect and our feelings. The Lord said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.” Not all answers will come immediately, but most questions can be resolved through sincere study and seeking answers from God. Using our mind without our heart will not bring spiritual answers. “The things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.” And to help us, Jesus promised us “another Comforter” and called Him “even the Spirit of truth.”

The scripture referenced, according to the talk, is John 14:16-17

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I'm not sure I see the same discrepancy that you do. Even the footnotes say "Holy Ghost, Comforter" and then point you to D&C 20:77, which is the blessing of the sacrament.

[shadow]

My purpose in putting this post isn't to condemn any leaders or say they teach things incorrectly. The purpose of this OP is ONLY to show that we do need to review and compare their teachings with the books of scripture that we have. No man is exempt from this. Even Thomas Monson's words can be laid aside if they don't match up with what the scriptures teach.

Does that make sense?

Scriptures are only the words of Prophets and even the scriptures can seem to contradict each other at times. Heck, even God said "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" . So here The Lord is admitting that what He tells one Prophet can be different AND contrary to what He tells another Prophet.

[Zathura]

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" . So here The Lord is admitting that what He tells one Prophet can be different AND contrary to what He tells another Prophet.

I don't think that this applies to interpretation of scriptures though. The meaning of the word of God doesn't change. If one prophet gives a different interpretation of a scripture than a previous prophet, God didn't revoke anything. One, or both of the prophets gave their own interpretation.

It applies to commands.. like "take more wives" and then later " don't take more wives"
"This race cannot have the priesthood" and then later " This race can now have priesthood"
"You shall take the church to China" " Thou shalt not go to China but stay where you are"

I'll keep my mouth shut on my opinion about those particular examples

Does it make sense? No? yes??

[ebenezerarise]

Keep them coming friend. Let the Spirit teach you instead of your traditions. It helped me greatly.

I have no interest in a pissing contest with someone so clearly anti-Mormon.

[Zathura]

Keep them coming friend. Let the Spirit teach you instead of your traditions. It helped me greatly.

I have no interest in a pissing contest with someone so clearly anti-Mormon.

LOL! What a joke


I'm anti mormon because I suggest that you compare a General Authorities word to the scriptures to verify them? And I use the words of General Authorities to prove this?

My goodness. How sad this man is.

I don't have anything to prove. I know my state before God. I have stated many times that I sustain the current leaders of the church.

[marc]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

No I'm saying that I used the Bible to measure Josephs words with what I understand the Bible is teaching, and I did the same thing with Elder Anderson's words.
I found that Elder Anderson's interpretation didn't match the bible, and Joseph's interpretation did.

Yeah that's basically what I was trying to ask. May I ask which verse you're referring to? Is it the following talk:

Neil L. Anderson:
Honest Questions
Addressing honest questions is an important part of building faith, and we use both our intellect and our feelings. The Lord said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.” Not all answers will come immediately, but most questions can be resolved through sincere study and seeking answers from God. Using our mind without our heart will not bring spiritual answers. “The things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.” And to help us, Jesus promised us “another Comforter” and called Him “even the Spirit of truth.”

The scripture referenced, according to the talk, is John 14:16-17

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I'm not sure I see the same discrepancy that you do. Even the footnotes say "Holy Ghost, Comforter" and then point you to D&C 20:77, which is the blessing of the sacrament.

I addressed this here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40213#p651297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Incidentally, older scriptures have Jesus Christ in the footnotes. The newer (post 2013 edition scriptures) Bibles have Holy Ghost as you cited. My old missionary standard works have Jesus Christ in the footnotes. You probably have a newer edition.

[Zathura]

Example:In General Conference Elder Anderson gave an interpretation of a scripture in John in which he says refers to the Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith very clearly taught that this same scripture refers to the Second Comforter.

What do we do here? When I read the Bible, I believe that Joseph's description matches up with what I understand when I read that verse. I don't think Elder Anderson's use of that scripture matches up with what the Bible says. So I lay aside his use of that scripture.

I'm not saying that modern prophets are useless. They do help us, they explain scriptures and expound on them. But I don't see a situation in which we shouldn't take their words and compare it with the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and the Revelations given to Joseph Smith.

Hold up there a sec: are you saying you used one prophet's interpretation to disprove another prophet's interpretation?

I think my head is going to explode over here. X(

Can they both be right? Or does it require squinting with one eye and closing the other eye while reading it the way you think Joseph Smith would read it?

No I'm saying that I used the Bible to measure Josephs words with what I understand the Bible is teaching, and I did the same thing with Elder Anderson's words.
I found that Elder Anderson's interpretation didn't match the bible, and Joseph's interpretation did.

Yeah that's basically what I was trying to ask. May I ask which verse you're referring to? Is it the following talk:

Neil L. Anderson:
Honest Questions
Addressing honest questions is an important part of building faith, and we use both our intellect and our feelings. The Lord said, “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart.” Not all answers will come immediately, but most questions can be resolved through sincere study and seeking answers from God. Using our mind without our heart will not bring spiritual answers. “The things of God knoweth no man, but [through] the Spirit of God.” And to help us, Jesus promised us “another Comforter” and called Him “even the Spirit of truth.”

The scripture referenced, according to the talk, is John 14:16-17

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I'm not sure I see the same discrepancy that you do. Even the footnotes say "Holy Ghost, Comforter" and then point you to D&C 20:77, which is the blessing of the sacrament.

The footnotes in my edition of the scriptures still say Second Comforter.

[marc]

Stahura, it's because you have an older edition.

[iWriteStuff]

Stahura, it's because you have an older edition.

...and I'm using the LDS Gospel app. So, why the change? Either way, even though the verse he used was "wrong", the context and content of the message was still correct. Whether he chose the wrong verse to quote or not, there are many others that back up the notion that the Holy Ghost will comfort us and teach us truth.

Not sure what the big deal is.

[marc]

Well, the big deal as Franco was fond of saying is, in a nutshell, declaring false doctrine. It has tremendous implications. I don't disagree with what you said regarding what the Holy Ghost does. I do disagree with using the wrong scripture to teach a correct principle because if you do it long enough, then you might never understand the importance of the Other Comforter unless you proactively study the scriptures diligently rather than waiting to be spoonfed whatever gospel doctrine teachers present every Sunday using correlated manuals and gospel apps.

[Zathura]

Stahura, it's because you have an older edition.

...and I'm using the LDS Gospel app. So, why the change? Either way, even though the verse he used was "wrong", the context and content of the message was still correct. Whether he chose the wrong verse to quote or not, there are many others that back up the notion that the Holy Ghost will comfort us and teach us truth.

Not sure what the big deal is.

I'm not making a big deal out of it bro! I was still able to learn from what he taught there, you are right about the context and that the Holy Ghost comforts us and teaches truth, and we can still learn from his message. I don't disagree with what you said here.

On a side note, what about future generations? If the 2013 interpretation of that scripture are incorrect, that means that future generations will not know about this promise that we can receive this second Comforter. Or they'll at least have one less scripture to teach us that, making it harder to come to understand this doctrine.

It does seem like the church is distancing itself from the doctrine of calling and election and that we may receive the Second Comforter.
The church made a list on LDS.org of most of the footnote changes in the 2013 edition. Interestingly, they left off the change on the verse that we are talking about. That change is probably the most important change made in this edition, so why was it quietly left off the list? Just food for thought.
Anyways, that's for another discussion.

[Zathura]

Stahura, it's because you have an older edition.

...and I'm using the LDS Gospel app. So, why the change? Either way, even though the verse he used was "wrong", the context and content of the message was still correct. Whether he chose the wrong verse to quote or not, there are many others that back up the notion that the Holy Ghost will comfort us and teach us truth.

Not sure what the big deal is.

Here's an example of why this can be a big deal.

In Brazil the Church uses a version of the bible called Joao Ferreira Almeida. Most of the Christian Churches use the Joao Ferreira Almeida revista e corrigida edição( revised and corrected edition). While comparing that edition with the edition that the Church uses in Brazil, I found 4 parts that were removed.

2 of them in the New Testaments are parts that teach very clearly that Jesus Christ created the world. Ephesians 3:9 at the end says God created all things through Jesus Christ. In the revised edition, it says God created all things. Period.
What's the consequence of this being taken out? That just gives Christians one less scripture to read that helps them understand that Jesus Christ is the Creator of the world, and did much more than simply die for us. This was a big red flag to me. Now I'm seeing something similar with the Church. The church isn't changing scriptures, but is changing the footnotes that tell every member what that scripture is supposed to mean. It's just something I think we should look at, and pray about.

[shadow]

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" . So here The Lord is admitting that what He tells one Prophet can be different AND contrary to what He tells another Prophet.

I don't think that this applies to interpretation of scriptures though. The meaning of the word of God doesn't change. If one prophet gives a different interpretation of a scripture than a previous prophet, God didn't revoke anything. One, or both of the prophets gave their own interpretation.

It applies to commands.. like "take more wives" and then later " don't take more wives"
"This race cannot have the priesthood" and then later " This race can now have priesthood"
"You shall take the church to China" " Thou shalt not go to China but stay where you are"

I'll keep my mouth shut on my opinion about those particular examples

Does it make sense? No? yes??

So if the scriptures say "Thou shalt not go to China" and then later another Prophet says "China has opened and we'll take the church there", do you suppose some would say "This Prophets words are contrary to the scriptures"? I say yes.