What are you doing to follow the Prophet?

[Mark]

Mark - thanks for that. Its helpful on a couple fronts. The Lord certainly must have anticipated a situation in which the Prophet could fall.

Who is the council of the Church? This group can vote to remove the Prophet over doctrinal issues? If President Nielson taught that Women were to be ordained to the Priesthood, this council could be organized to throw him out? Who would initiate such a thing? Has it ever happened?

So I think I should say something right now to you fellow brothers talking about procedures of replacing the prophet. This is a fallen false doctrine for you to bring up. I would encourage you to steer clear far away from such ideas. Some of the comments on this post talking about rejecting a prophet are outright dangerous. I can hardly believe what I read here.

I think people are forgetting that president and prophet have different meanings. President of a quorum in a branch, ward, or area is what the scripture above is talking about. It is not about common lay members removing the top prophet under the head of Christ. For starters we have the words of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Smith stating that the Lord won't let the church be led astray. Prophets are different from presidents. A president of a quorum is called through revelation by other men above him. Prophets are different in that they have a personal connection with God that transcends relationships of men. So how can a man that is a common layman interfere with who God himself has called? <b

It can't happen. Suggesting that a prophet can be overthrown by a bunch of popular votes is incorrect doctrine. It has always been taught also that the doing what's right will not be popular. President Benson has mentioned this on a few occasions regarding inpopularity (inpopular = majority vote would always be against that person. He even used such words as a prophet will never be popular by the majority of the population. Now you see the problem don't you? If someone is unpopular and if there is a procedure to remove them by majority vote that isn't God removing them then EVERY prophet would always be voted out of office.)

Also Wilford Woodruff and others have quoted many times that if they were to try to lead people astray the Lord would remove them from office. It doesn't say the church members would remove them; it says the Lord would remove them. The Lord appoints his apostles. Also I felt the Spirit tell me very strongly one day that he knew exactly who would be in his batting lineup all the way until his return.

It is really backwards for people to be trying to teach on this forum that a common lay man member is going to receive a revelation to remove the prophet. That's Satan at work gentleman, not God teaching that. And this is the type of thing I'd try and spread to members if I were Satan and trying to overthrow the leadership with a coup someday. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Called of God, not man. If you believe someone is called of God, then you would not try to impeach them.) We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. (several articles of faith have to do with prophecy and the prophets.)

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (IF we believe in enduring many things and hope to endure all things that means hoping to endure people wanting to overthrow the prophet. It also means patiently enduring when we don't always agree with the prophet. We've had leaders in the past also cite that people can disagree with the views of the prophet but that doesn't mean they can reject the prophet.)

Now I would show you another pattern, to warn the rest of you to be careful and you will see the pattern in this chain of scriptures. Notice how step by step each verse or phrase of wording shows what's happening in the world and in those surrounding the church.

3 Nephi 16:10
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

4 Nephi Chapter 1:13 And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land; but there were mighty miracles wrought among the disciples of Jesus.
Verse 23....they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ. (They had so much wealth that it became a distraction.)
Verse 24,25, 26....began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. 25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, (They began to chase wealth and lose sight of their true goals. They began to have a great inequality among them and seek mostly for wealth.)
26...and began to deny the true church of Christ. (Because of pride and wealth seeking they began to deny the true church and the poor.)
27...they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28 And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts. (At this point Satan is gaining hold of their hearts. They begin to find FAULT with the church and church leaders.
29 And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them.
30 Therefore they did exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus who did tarry with them, and they did cast them into prison
(Because of pride and wealth seeking and following Satan and being tricked...many began to persecute the church. Some of the comments on this thread could cause such things to happen. I only tell you this to warn you. And look at the pattern I have shown which goes step by step from 3 Nephi 16:10 explaining how the events in that same verse will come to pass. 4 Nephi Chapter 1 shows both the ultimate good but also how they spiraled to ultimate bad.
34 Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year
38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle. (At this point the cycle of pride has reached it's zenith. They are openly and willfully rebelling against God. I worry for those that talk about thinking they can talk about a procedure for a coup against the prophet so willingly. It's very close to this verse 38.)
39....And they were taught to hate the children of God (The goal of some people in this forum is plainly manifested with this wording...they hate the children of God. Why else would they try to come up with wording about how to overthrow a prophet? Don't you know this is from Satan? Those are the same arguments people used to stone and cast out the prophets. First they had to label them as false or fallen first. Joseph Smith and others were labeled as fallen by mobs before the mobs could attack them.)
42 ...the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton. (Notice this cycle of rejecting the Gospel is also when secret combinations manifest among the population. From this order going from step A to step Z you can see where our own society lies.

It culminates with a game over and fulfillment of 3 Nephi 16:10 with the following two verses before the destruction begins;
Mormon Chapter 1:13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.
16...and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

I don't wish to offend but go through the verses and wording above from 3 Nephi 16:10 until Mormon 1:13,16. This is a step by step process of how we could easily reach a point of no return.

I need to respond to this so there is no misunderstanding as to what I have said. We do not believe in or teach the papal infallibility doctrine supported and taught by our Catholic friends. The Lord grants every one of His children the gift of moral agency. No one is exempt from or deprived of that gift, even Prophets. To think that the Lord would do so is misguided and goes against the very foundations of the gospel. Were a Prophet to transgress or attempt to lead the church astray as a result of that God given agency he is given he would be dealt with much the same as I would as a lay member. He would be brought before proper church councils set up to be judges in Israel and he would be removed from his office and disciplined if found guilty of doing so. This is how the Lord operates His church. We have had instances in the past where members of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 who had been sustained as Prophets/Seers/Revelators were removed from their offices and disciplined in this manner. The Lord did not just strike them dead or have a lightning bolt zap them. They were brought before proper church councils and removed from their office. That is the way it works. Now with a Prophet I'm sure the Quorum of the 12 would have much more involvement in that case than they would with me.

[gardener4life]

Mark - thanks for that. Its helpful on a couple fronts. The Lord certainly must have anticipated a situation in which the Prophet could fall.

Who is the council of the Church? This group can vote to remove the Prophet over doctrinal issues? If President Nielson taught that Women were to be ordained to the Priesthood, this council could be organized to throw him out? Who would initiate such a thing? Has it ever happened?

So I think I should say something right now to you fellow brothers talking about procedures of replacing the prophet. This is a fallen false doctrine for you to bring up. I would encourage you to steer clear far away from such ideas. Some of the comments on this post talking about rejecting a prophet are outright dangerous. I can hardly believe what I read here.

I think people are forgetting that president and prophet have different meanings. President of a quorum in a branch, ward, or area is what the scripture above is talking about. It is not about common lay members removing the top prophet under the head of Christ. For starters we have the words of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Smith stating that the Lord won't let the church be led astray. Prophets are different from presidents. A president of a quorum is called through revelation by other men above him. Prophets are different in that they have a personal connection with God that transcends relationships of men. So how can a man that is a common layman interfere with who God himself has called? <b

It can't happen. Suggesting that a prophet can be overthrown by a bunch of popular votes is incorrect doctrine. It has always been taught also that the doing what's right will not be popular. President Benson has mentioned this on a few occasions regarding inpopularity (inpopular = majority vote would always be against that person. He even used such words as a prophet will never be popular by the majority of the population. Now you see the problem don't you? If someone is unpopular and if there is a procedure to remove them by majority vote that isn't God removing them then EVERY prophet would always be voted out of office.)

Also Wilford Woodruff and others have quoted many times that if they were to try to lead people astray the Lord would remove them from office. It doesn't say the church members would remove them; it says the Lord would remove them. The Lord appoints his apostles. Also I felt the Spirit tell me very strongly one day that he knew exactly who would be in his batting lineup all the way until his return.

It is really backwards for people to be trying to teach on this forum that a common lay man member is going to receive a revelation to remove the prophet. That's Satan at work gentleman, not God teaching that. And this is the type of thing I'd try and spread to members if I were Satan and trying to overthrow the leadership with a coup someday. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Called of God, not man. If you believe someone is called of God, then you would not try to impeach them.) We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. (several articles of faith have to do with prophecy and the prophets.)

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (IF we believe in enduring many things and hope to endure all things that means hoping to endure people wanting to overthrow the prophet. It also means patiently enduring when we don't always agree with the prophet. We've had leaders in the past also cite that people can disagree with the views of the prophet but that doesn't mean they can reject the prophet.)

Now I would show you another pattern, to warn the rest of you to be careful and you will see the pattern in this chain of scriptures. Notice how step by step each verse or phrase of wording shows what's happening in the world and in those surrounding the church.

3 Nephi 16:10
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

4 Nephi Chapter 1:13 And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land; but there were mighty miracles wrought among the disciples of Jesus.
Verse 23....they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ. (They had so much wealth that it became a distraction.)
Verse 24,25, 26....began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. 25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, (They began to chase wealth and lose sight of their true goals. They began to have a great inequality among them and seek mostly for wealth.)
26...and began to deny the true church of Christ. (Because of pride and wealth seeking they began to deny the true church and the poor.)
27...they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28 And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts. (At this point Satan is gaining hold of their hearts. They begin to find FAULT with the church and church leaders.
29 And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them.
30 Therefore they did exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus who did tarry with them, and they did cast them into prison
(Because of pride and wealth seeking and following Satan and being tricked...many began to persecute the church. Some of the comments on this thread could cause such things to happen. I only tell you this to warn you. And look at the pattern I have shown which goes step by step from 3 Nephi 16:10 explaining how the events in that same verse will come to pass. 4 Nephi Chapter 1 shows both the ultimate good but also how they spiraled to ultimate bad.
34 Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year
38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle. (At this point the cycle of pride has reached it's zenith. They are openly and willfully rebelling against God. I worry for those that talk about thinking they can talk about a procedure for a coup against the prophet so willingly. It's very close to this verse 38.)
39....And they were taught to hate the children of God (The goal of some people in this forum is plainly manifested with this wording...they hate the children of God. Why else would they try to come up with wording about how to overthrow a prophet? Don't you know this is from Satan? Those are the same arguments people used to stone and cast out the prophets. First they had to label them as false or fallen first. Joseph Smith and others were labeled as fallen by mobs before the mobs could attack them.)
42 ...the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton. (Notice this cycle of rejecting the Gospel is also when secret combinations manifest among the population. From this order going from step A to step Z you can see where our own society lies.

It culminates with a game over and fulfillment of 3 Nephi 16:10 with the following two verses before the destruction begins;
Mormon Chapter 1:13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.
16...and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

I don't wish to offend but go through the verses and wording above from 3 Nephi 16:10 until Mormon 1:13,16. This is a step by step process of how we could easily reach a point of no return.

I need to respond to this so there is no misunderstanding as to what I have said. We do not believe in or teach the papal infallibility doctrine supported and taught by our Catholic friends. The Lord grants every one of His children the gift of moral agency. No one is exempt from or deprived of that gift, even Prophets. To think that the Lord would do so is misguided and goes against the very foundations of the gospel. Were a Prophet to transgress or attempt to lead the church astray as a result of that God given agency he is given he would be dealt with much the same as I would as a lay member. He would be brought before proper church councils set up to be judges in Israel and he would be removed from his office and disciplined if found guilty of doing so. This is how the Lord operates His church. We have had instances in the past where members of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 who had been sustained as Prophets/Seers/Revelators were removed from their offices and disciplined in this manner. The Lord did not just strike them dead or have a lightning bolt zap them. They were brought before proper church councils and removed from their office. That is the way it works. Now with a Prophet I'm sure the Quorum of the 12 would have much more involvement in that case than they would with me.

Mark ...friend...we have a miscommunication here. We are in agreement for the most part but not verbalizing our view point well. And I think we're seeing much of the same view. That some apostles have strayed is obvious. A guy name Lyman got in trouble about a hundred years ago. Sydney Rigdon fell away. About half of the apostles serving under Joseph Smith in Kirtland fell away when the Kirtland bank fell. This isn't something anyone disagrees with.

But you do err very strongly if you say the Lord will allow the head leading prophet to go astray. My comment was confined to this. I thought you understood me when I was trying to convey this idea. And the Lord has confirmed and promised that through previous prophets.

We will see some...many leaders fall away when Babylon falls. I think the Kirtland Bank failure in the start of the Restoration is a parable of future times. If a similar event of a larger scale occurred a lot of people would be at odds ends because of lack of faith and self sufficiency. And even the number of leaders that abandoned Joseph Smith in this situation was similar to the parable of the ten virgins. We could and do see mission presidents fall away, and even some area seventies have gotten in trouble. So you do have some good points. I think we have a communication problem though in seeing we're seeing this the same way. Many and a lot of leaders will fall.

But not the head prophet. The Lord has said many times he will not allow him to lead the church astray.

And that's why I think people should not be learning and studying how to overthrow the head prophet.

[Mark]

Mark - thanks for that. Its helpful on a couple fronts. The Lord certainly must have anticipated a situation in which the Prophet could fall.

Who is the council of the Church? This group can vote to remove the Prophet over doctrinal issues? If President Nielson taught that Women were to be ordained to the Priesthood, this council could be organized to throw him out? Who would initiate such a thing? Has it ever happened?

So I think I should say something right now to you fellow brothers talking about procedures of replacing the prophet. This is a fallen false doctrine for you to bring up. I would encourage you to steer clear far away from such ideas. Some of the comments on this post talking about rejecting a prophet are outright dangerous. I can hardly believe what I read here.

I think people are forgetting that president and prophet have different meanings. President of a quorum in a branch, ward, or area is what the scripture above is talking about. It is not about common lay members removing the top prophet under the head of Christ. For starters we have the words of Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Smith stating that the Lord won't let the church be led astray. Prophets are different from presidents. A president of a quorum is called through revelation by other men above him. Prophets are different in that they have a personal connection with God that transcends relationships of men. So how can a man that is a common layman interfere with who God himself has called? <b

It can't happen. Suggesting that a prophet can be overthrown by a bunch of popular votes is incorrect doctrine. It has always been taught also that the doing what's right will not be popular. President Benson has mentioned this on a few occasions regarding inpopularity (inpopular = majority vote would always be against that person. He even used such words as a prophet will never be popular by the majority of the population. Now you see the problem don't you? If someone is unpopular and if there is a procedure to remove them by majority vote that isn't God removing them then EVERY prophet would always be voted out of office.)

Also Wilford Woodruff and others have quoted many times that if they were to try to lead people astray the Lord would remove them from office. It doesn't say the church members would remove them; it says the Lord would remove them. The Lord appoints his apostles. Also I felt the Spirit tell me very strongly one day that he knew exactly who would be in his batting lineup all the way until his return.

It is really backwards for people to be trying to teach on this forum that a common lay man member is going to receive a revelation to remove the prophet. That's Satan at work gentleman, not God teaching that. And this is the type of thing I'd try and spread to members if I were Satan and trying to overthrow the leadership with a coup someday. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. (Called of God, not man. If you believe someone is called of God, then you would not try to impeach them.) We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. 7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. (several articles of faith have to do with prophecy and the prophets.)

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. (IF we believe in enduring many things and hope to endure all things that means hoping to endure people wanting to overthrow the prophet. It also means patiently enduring when we don't always agree with the prophet. We've had leaders in the past also cite that people can disagree with the views of the prophet but that doesn't mean they can reject the prophet.)

Now I would show you another pattern, to warn the rest of you to be careful and you will see the pattern in this chain of scriptures. Notice how step by step each verse or phrase of wording shows what's happening in the world and in those surrounding the church.

3 Nephi 16:10
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

4 Nephi Chapter 1:13 And it came to pass that there was no contention among all the people, in all the land; but there were mighty miracles wrought among the disciples of Jesus.
Verse 23....they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ. (They had so much wealth that it became a distraction.)
Verse 24,25, 26....began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. 25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, (They began to chase wealth and lose sight of their true goals. They began to have a great inequality among them and seek mostly for wealth.)
26...and began to deny the true church of Christ. (Because of pride and wealth seeking they began to deny the true church and the poor.)
27...they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28 And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts. (At this point Satan is gaining hold of their hearts. They begin to find FAULT with the church and church leaders.
29 And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them.
30 Therefore they did exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus who did tarry with them, and they did cast them into prison
(Because of pride and wealth seeking and following Satan and being tricked...many began to persecute the church. Some of the comments on this thread could cause such things to happen. I only tell you this to warn you. And look at the pattern I have shown which goes step by step from 3 Nephi 16:10 explaining how the events in that same verse will come to pass. 4 Nephi Chapter 1 shows both the ultimate good but also how they spiraled to ultimate bad.
34 Nevertheless, the people did harden their hearts, for they were led by many priests and false prophets to build up many churches, and to do all manner of iniquity. And they did smite upon the people of Jesus; but the people of Jesus did not smite again. And thus they did dwindle in unbelief and wickedness, from year to year
38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle. (At this point the cycle of pride has reached it's zenith. They are openly and willfully rebelling against God. I worry for those that talk about thinking they can talk about a procedure for a coup against the prophet so willingly. It's very close to this verse 38.)
39....And they were taught to hate the children of God (The goal of some people in this forum is plainly manifested with this wording...they hate the children of God. Why else would they try to come up with wording about how to overthrow a prophet? Don't you know this is from Satan? Those are the same arguments people used to stone and cast out the prophets. First they had to label them as false or fallen first. Joseph Smith and others were labeled as fallen by mobs before the mobs could attack them.)
42 ...the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton. (Notice this cycle of rejecting the Gospel is also when secret combinations manifest among the population. From this order going from step A to step Z you can see where our own society lies.

It culminates with a game over and fulfillment of 3 Nephi 16:10 with the following two verses before the destruction begins;
Mormon Chapter 1:13 But wickedness did prevail upon the face of the whole land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because of the iniquity of the people.
16...and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

I don't wish to offend but go through the verses and wording above from 3 Nephi 16:10 until Mormon 1:13,16. This is a step by step process of how we could easily reach a point of no return.

I need to respond to this so there is no misunderstanding as to what I have said. We do not believe in or teach the papal infallibility doctrine supported and taught by our Catholic friends. The Lord grants every one of His children the gift of moral agency. No one is exempt from or deprived of that gift, even Prophets. To think that the Lord would do so is misguided and goes against the very foundations of the gospel. Were a Prophet to transgress or attempt to lead the church astray as a result of that God given agency he is given he would be dealt with much the same as I would as a lay member. He would be brought before proper church councils set up to be judges in Israel and he would be removed from his office and disciplined if found guilty of doing so. This is how the Lord operates His church. We have had instances in the past where members of the 1st Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 who had been sustained as Prophets/Seers/Revelators were removed from their offices and disciplined in this manner. The Lord did not just strike them dead or have a lightning bolt zap them. They were brought before proper church councils and removed from their office. That is the way it works. Now with a Prophet I'm sure the Quorum of the 12 would have much more involvement in that case than they would with me.

Mark ...friend...we have a miscommunication here. We are in agreement for the most part but not verbalizing our view point well. And I think we're seeing much of the same view. That some apostles have strayed is obvious. A guy name Lyman got in trouble about a hundred years ago. Sydney Rigdon fell away. About half of the apostles serving under Joseph Smith in Kirtland fell away when the Kirtland bank fell. This isn't something anyone disagrees with.

But you do err very strongly if you say the Lord will allow the head leading prophet to go astray. My comment was confined to this. I thought you understood me when I was trying to convey this idea. And the Lord has confirmed and promised that through previous prophets.

We will see some...many leaders fall away when Babylon falls. I think the Kirtland Bank failure in the start of the Restoration is a parable of future times. If a similar event of a larger scale occurred a lot of people would be at odds ends because of lack of faith and self sufficiency. And even the number of leaders that abandoned Joseph Smith in this situation was similar to the parable of the ten virgins. We could and do see mission presidents fall away, and even some area seventies have gotten in trouble. So you do have some good points. I think we have a communication problem though in seeing we're seeing this the same way. Many and a lot of leaders will fall.

But not the head prophet. The Lord has said many times he will not allow him to lead the church astray.

And that's why I think people should not be learning and studying how to overthrow the head prophet.

I am going to quote section 107 again here:

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

Now think this through my friend. Why would the Lord reveal this directive if it was impossible for the President of the High Priesthood to transgress or attempt to lead the people astray? Verse 84 is so important. The Lords kingdom is administered in order according to truth and righteousness. No man is exempt from the laws of God. I am not talking about overthrowing the Lords Prophet here. This principle I am discussing is at the heart of Priesthood Govt. Every man is accountable for their actions. No man is exempt. That is why church councils have been set up to administer the affairs of that Kingdom. Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same. Were a Prophet to ever attempt to lead the church astray the Lord has a remedy established in His kingdom to take care of that situation. I don't see that happening either but the Lord felt it important enough to address that possibility if it ever did occur. I have great faith in the Quorum of the 12 as a presiding Priesthood council body and if they decided that a Prophet needed to be brought up for disciplinary action because of something they determined as being harmful to the body of Saints I would never presume or poop pooh that, thinking instead that a Prophet was infallible and can never transgress Gods law. That concept of infallibility is not found in the restored gospel. It is apostate doctrine. Any removal from office would be done properly through these councils as designated by the Lord. He set them up for a reason. It's all about order.

[Craig Johnson]

Pretty intense discussion, let's hope and pray it never comes to that.

[Finrock]

But not the head prophet. The Lord has said many times he will not allow him to lead the church astray.

First of all, the Church has already been lead astray by Presidents of the Church. Anytime any doctrine or idea needs to be "denounced" it is because the doctrine that was being taught, was false. If you are teaching doctrine or ideas that later needs to be denounced because they are false, you are in fact leading people astray. If people believe doctrine or the ideas that later need to be denounced because they are false, then these people were lead astray. So, the Lord didn't say what you think He said, if He said such a thing at all.

In any case, what we do have concerning this subject reads that if the President of the Church were to attempt to lead the Church astray, he would be removed. So, the "head" can lead people astray. It is possible for the "president" to be wrong and to teach wrong things.

-Finrock

[Mark]

But not the head prophet. The Lord has said many times he will not allow him to lead the church astray.

First of all, the Church has already been lead astray by Presidents of the Church. Anytime any doctrine or idea needs to be "denounced" it is because the doctrine that was being taught, was false. If you are teaching doctrine or ideas that later needs to be denounced because they are false, you are in fact leading people astray. If people believe doctrine or the ideas that later need to be denounced because they are false, then these people were lead astray. So, the Lord didn't say what you think He said, if He said such a thing at all.

In any case, what we do have concerning this subject reads that if the President of the Church were to attempt to lead the Church astray, he would be removed. So, the "head" can lead people astray. It is possible for the "president" to be wrong and to teach wrong things.

-Finrock

I take exception to your thought here that the church has already been led astray by its Prophet having taught false doctrine in the past. That is your opinion only. Had the Prophet taught as doctrine false and deceptive things to the Saints in that period He would have been brought before the councils of the church and dealt with accordingly. Section 107 applies to every church administration from Joseph on down to Pres. Nelson. Just because YOU think that false doctrine was taught at that time does not make it so. For example you can reject plural Celestial marriage or limiting extending Priesthood authority outright and think it was false doctrine being taught but at the time it was taught it was accepted by the councils of the church and there was no call to remove the Prophets teaching it by those Priesthood councils. You may presume that you know more than what those councils knew at that time but that is pretty presumptuous if you ask me. The Lord has every right to command and revoke as He sees fit. What was totally acceptable for one generation of Saints may not be for another.

[Finrock]

But not the head prophet. The Lord has said many times he will not allow him to lead the church astray.

First of all, the Church has already been lead astray by Presidents of the Church. Anytime any doctrine or idea needs to be "denounced" it is because the doctrine that was being taught, was false. If you are teaching doctrine or ideas that later needs to be denounced because they are false, you are in fact leading people astray. If people believe doctrine or the ideas that later need to be denounced because they are false, then these people were lead astray. So, the Lord didn't say what you think He said, if He said such a thing at all.

In any case, what we do have concerning this subject reads that if the President of the Church were to attempt to lead the Church astray, he would be removed. So, the "head" can lead people astray. It is possible for the "president" to be wrong and to teach wrong things.

-Finrock

I take exception to your thought here that the church has already been led astray by its Prophet having taught false doctrine in the past. That is your opinion only. Had the Prophet taught as doctrine false and deceptive things to the Saints in that period He would have been brought before the councils of the church and dealt with accordingly. Section 107 applies to every church administration from Joseph on down to Pres. Nelson. Just because YOU think that false doctrine was taught at that time does not make it so. For example you can reject plural Celestial marriage or limiting extending Priesthood authority outright and think it was false doctrine being taught but at the time it was taught it was accepted by the councils of the church and there was no call to remove the Prophets teaching it by those Priesthood councils. You may presume that you know more than what those councils knew at that time but that is pretty presumptuous if you ask me. The Lord has every right to command and revoke as He sees fit. What was totally acceptable for one generation of Saints may not be for another.

It isn't just my opinion. The Church has denounced teachings of past Presidents. Denounce = to publicly declare to be wrong or evil. The Church publicly declared that the doctrine taught by Brigham Young and other leaders that black Africans were not valiant in the spirit world is evil.

Your post is circular silliness. The idea that black Africans were not valiant in the spirit world is not evil today because the Church denounced it and it was not good during Brigham Young's time because the Church accepted it. That isn't how truth works. Mormonism rejects moral relativism and that is what you are teaching. That too, is a false idea.

What I've posted isn't just my opinion, even if it is just an opinion. It is the opinion of the Church today.

Again, the idea that black Africans were less valiant in the spirit world is wrong/evil. It didn't become wrong/evil in the last 200 years or so. It has ALWAYS been wrong, even when the Church taught it and believed it. The leaders who were teaching this evil doctrine about black Africans were leading people astray with this doctrine.

-Finrock

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Below is the Church's official position on doctrine taught by BY and others with respect to this issue:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

[Mark]

Below is the Church's official position on doctrine taught by BY and others with respect to this issue:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The key here is TODAY. Let me further explain with a scripture in the book of Moses.


7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;
8 For behold, the Lord shall acurse the land with much heat, and the bbarrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Now was Enoch being a racist here? Did Joseph contribute to rascist attitudes when he said:

"I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.... the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude."

This was just a product of that time. It is unfair to measure the cultural differences back then with what we now accept or reject. A few Thousand years ago black skin was a sign of disfavor or cursing from the Lord. That was what the Prophets like Enoch taught. Today it no longer is. It is unfair and just wrong to compare the different eras and label one perverse and wrong because things have changed. The Lord commands and He also revokes. Times change. So do revelations. That is the purpose of having living Prophets for that particular period. What was right for one era may not be right for another.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Wow. Mark its hard to follow you on this. Are you saying that the official Church statement IS NOT condemning the past teachings of prophets on this issue? That instead they are stating that from 1850s-1970s these specific teachings were perfectly acceptable, but applied today are worthy of condemnation? I cant get on board with that level of mental contortion.

[Finrock]

Below is the Church's official position on doctrine taught by BY and others with respect to this issue:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The key here is TODAY. Let me further explain with a scripture in the book of Moses.


7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;
8 For behold, the Lord shall acurse the land with much heat, and the bbarrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Now was Enoch being a racist here? Did Joseph contribute to rascist attitudes when he said:

"I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.... the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it [slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude."

This was just a product of that time. It is unfair to measure the cultural differences back then with what we now accept or reject. A few Thousand years ago black skin was a sign of disfavor or cursing from the Lord. That was what the Prophets like Enoch taught. Today it no longer is. It is unfair and just wrong to compare the different eras and label one perverse and wrong because things have changed. The Lord commands and He also revokes. Times change. So do revelations. That is the purpose of having living Prophets for that particular period. What was right for one era may not be right for another.

This is straight up moral relativism. Its false and you don't apply this principle consistently. I've interacted with your posts enough to know that you are also special pleading. You won't allow me or anyone else to argue from a relativistic point of view without challenging it, yet, here you are in your post unabashedly proclaiming moral relativism is real. Mental contortion is a good word for it. I understand, even if you don't or you won't admit it, that this line of reasoning that you are presenting is being presented with the sole intent of trying to preserve a paradigm that just can't stand on its own. It is literally nonsensical.

Principles do not change, Mark. You can't use the excuse of revelation that changes how we implement principles or what principles we understand as a way to say that truth changes over time. I'm gonna try to make this really simple:

Black Africans were not cowards in the pre-mortal existence. Black Africans are not cursed with a dark skin because they were less valiant in the spirit world. That is a false doctrine. It is a false idea. It is a falsehood. It isn't true. It was NEVER true. It will NEVER be true. It CAN'T be true, no matter what time period, no matter who is teaching it, no matter why, where, or what. Its not like it was true for Brigham Young and then, because truth is relative, it changed to being false several decades later. It has ALWAYS been false. Anyone who ever taught that idea, ever, in any time period, was/is teaching false doctrine, false ideas, false religion, untruth.

-Finrock

[Craig Johnson]

First of all, the Church has already been lead astray by Presidents of the Church.

-Finrock

Erp, wrong. Sidney Rigdon was a counselor, not the President; etcetera. John Bennett was an Assistant President, not the President.

None of the Presidents have led the church astray. This is not a correct statement.

[Craig Johnson]

Below is the Church's official position on doctrine taught by BY and others with respect to this issue:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

Also, note that the church is not stating that claims of statements by church presidents saying racist things ever happened. They do not say that Brigham Young said this or taught it.

[Mindfields]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

[Mark]

Wow. Mark its hard to follow you on this. Are you saying that the official Church statement IS NOT condemning the past teachings of prophets on this issue? That instead they are stating that from 1850s-1970s these specific teachings were perfectly acceptable, but applied today are worthy of condemnation? I cant get on board with that level of mental contortion.

No mental contortion needed. Go to your BOM. Was Mormon a racist? How about Nephi? Heck let's go clear to the top. Was the Lord racist in causing a Mark to be placed upon the seed of Cain and Laman? What was the purpose of Him doing that? Was that fair? Do you know the mind and will of God in all things? (Don't answer that Finrock) Here is a good article that might shed further understanding on this. Until you have received personal revelation on why the Lord did what he did in all these cases I think it is much better to reserve judgment and condemnation on the Lords Prophets who just may have known some things that you don't. Hard as that is for some Monday morning armchair quarterbacks here to believe..

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormo ... anite-mark

[drtanner]

I apologize for not following through with this thread. Things have been really busy of late for me, and even now I don't have time to add much. I would, however, like to make a small course correction for this thread. I did not start this thread to debate the validity of following a Prophet of God. Nor did I start it to argue doctrine about putting one's trust in the arm of flesh and if following the Prophet is good or bad. My point and the purpose of this thread was to ask and have you answer (whether publicly, or privately) the simple question:

"What are you doing to follow the Prophet?"

And I would thank everyone to please keep this thread focused on answering that question and sharing your own personal experiences and testimony of following the Prophets of God.

Maybe we should start another thread so we can keep this one as onsdag intended.

[Craig Johnson]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

[Finrock]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

Brigham Young was a racist. He believed that black people deserved to be servants to white people. He believe that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal existance. He believed that white people were superior to black people by virtue of their skin color. This is, by definition, racism.

Yes, I understand it was a different time. I understand that BY didn't start racism and that he was going along with the common belief of the time. I understand that before Mormons, other Christians had adopted the whole Cain, dark skin, curse, and blacks are less than whites philosophy for a long time. I understand that they were doing the best that they could with the knowledge they had. I don't think BY was an evil, wicked person because of this. I love him, I love so many of his other teachings and counsel, I think he did a lot of good. I don't condemn him or any other past leader.

Having said all of that, it still remains true that BY was a racist, he believed in racist ideas, he taught racist ideas, and he made policy and practice based on those racist ideas.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

Let me comment on something else. I can't speak for anyone else, but my objective is not to discredit anyone. My objective is to deal with reality as it really is. My objective is to persuade Mormons to stop making excuses for past evils and past wrongs and to just acknowledge them. My objective is to be against denial, special pleading, and rationalization. We can't move forward as a people and we can't be "one" if we are unwilling to take an honest, no holds barred, look at our past beliefs, conduct, behaviors, policies, and practices. Especially beliefs, conduct, behaviors, policies, and practices which have harmed either the Church, its members, or other people outside of the Church. It is important as a means of repenting, progressing, and becoming better for us to be absolutely honest and absolutely fearless in these things.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

And let me just say something else, why do you think that "the relationship between black people and Mormonism has been tumultuous"?

Are all these African Americans who take issue with our past doctrines and teachings just idiots, dumb, ignorant, not well versed, don't have context, etc.?

Why does this matter? Its because most African Americans, when they read the teachings of BY on his views of black people, they think, man, this guy was a racist. Racist believe that dark skinned people deserve to be slaves. Racist believe that white skinned people are superior, in some way, to black skinned people. Racist believe that it is morally reprehensible for the dark and the white race to marry or to mix.

"Brigham Young taught that equality efforts were misguided, claiming that those who fought for equality among blacks were trying to elevate them 'to an equality with those whom Nature and Nature's God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors'."

Any African American with a lick of sense will read that and be like, that guy thinks that white people are superior to black people...racist.

It can't be any more plain. Some Mormons just need to get over it. Stop the mental contortions, stop the special pleading, stop the rationaliezations, stop the excuses, and stop the denials. Its silly and if it wasn't harmful to other people, it would be funny because of how outrageous it is to sit here with full context and with full understanding of his words and teachings and assert that Brigham Young wasn't a racist.

-Finrock

[Craig Johnson]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

Brigham Young was a racist. He believed that black people deserved to be servants to white people. He believe that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal existance. He believed that white people were superior to black people by virtue of their skin color. This is, by definition, racism.

Yes, I understand it was a different time. I understand that BY didn't start racism and that he was going along with the common belief of the time. I understand that before Mormons, other Christians had adopted the whole Cain, dark skin, curse, and blacks are less than whites philosophy for a long time. I understand that they were doing the best that they could with the knowledge they had. I don't think BY was an evil, wicked person because of this. I love him, I love so many of his other teachings and counsel, I think he did a lot of good. I don't condemn him or any other past leader.

Having said all of that, it still remains true that BY was a racist, he believed in racist ideas, he taught racist ideas, and he made policy and practice based on those racist ideas.

-Finrock

You don't know what racism is. Racism is believing your race is superior to another race. He never said his race is superior to any other race no matter how you twist his words.

[jadd]

Imagine for a moment,that our perception is incorrect. Perhaps Brigham was merely following the inspiration of the Lord. It was a question he asked and the Lord made some sort of response similar to Joseph asking about the second coming. Brigham interpreted it as never and taught as such and figured the reason was something similar to how he was taught from his protestant roots and didn't ask more questions. Was Nephi a murderer because he followed the Spirit when he chopped off Laban's head? Is God a murderer? No - though they did kill someone (homicide), and I bet we would define them as such in today's terms and he would have been prosecuted as such. Therefore, perhaps things Brigham said and did could be interpreted as racist, but whether or not he was a racist is another question.

[Finrock]

Take the time to read what past Presidents of the Church said about Blacks and the Priesthood from Brigham Young on to the "revelation" that overturned it. Any reasonable person black, white or any color would be greatly offended by the truly racist things they said. Just accept the current Church's statement regarding Blacks and the Priesthood and stop trying to justify why it was practiced in the past.

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

Brigham Young was a racist. He believed that black people deserved to be servants to white people. He believe that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal existance. He believed that white people were superior to black people by virtue of their skin color. This is, by definition, racism.

Yes, I understand it was a different time. I understand that BY didn't start racism and that he was going along with the common belief of the time. I understand that before Mormons, other Christians had adopted the whole Cain, dark skin, curse, and blacks are less than whites philosophy for a long time. I understand that they were doing the best that they could with the knowledge they had. I don't think BY was an evil, wicked person because of this. I love him, I love so many of his other teachings and counsel, I think he did a lot of good. I don't condemn him or any other past leader.

Having said all of that, it still remains true that BY was a racist, he believed in racist ideas, he taught racist ideas, and he made policy and practice based on those racist ideas.

-Finrock

You don't know what racism is. Racism is believing your race is superior to another race. He never said his race is superior to any other race no matter how you twist his words.

I got a quote from him in this thread where he says just that. BY said and taught, on multiple occasions, that blacks are inferior by nature and whites are superior by nature. There is no need to twist his words because he plainly has said that whites are superior...just like that...Whites are superior.

I can provide quotes and references, but, from your post I was assuming that you had a thorough knowledge of these. I think I was mistaken because you don't know that BY specifically has said that whites are superior and blacks are inferior.

-Finrock

[Craig Johnson]

If you think Brigham Young was racist I am certain you have not read all he said or wrote, he was not racist. Also, your understanding of what was actually going on in his time is severely limited as well. Yes, if you look at a few of his comments and do not look at the whole context as well as the circumstances in Utah and in the world at the time he said them you will think, coming from a modern perspective, that he was racist, but you would be wrong. He was not racist and what he did do was quite inspired. This has been said before and it is still true and will always be true. It is a great disservice to throw his taken out of context comments into the faces of people who do not understand the complete context and to disaffect them from the actual truth of the matter and then to teach this as the truth, when ii is really an attempt to discredit him.

Brigham Young was a racist. He believed that black people deserved to be servants to white people. He believe that black people were less valiant in the pre-mortal existance. He believed that white people were superior to black people by virtue of their skin color. This is, by definition, racism.

Yes, I understand it was a different time. I understand that BY didn't start racism and that he was going along with the common belief of the time. I understand that before Mormons, other Christians had adopted the whole Cain, dark skin, curse, and blacks are less than whites philosophy for a long time. I understand that they were doing the best that they could with the knowledge they had. I don't think BY was an evil, wicked person because of this. I love him, I love so many of his other teachings and counsel, I think he did a lot of good. I don't condemn him or any other past leader.

Having said all of that, it still remains true that BY was a racist, he believed in racist ideas, he taught racist ideas, and he made policy and practice based on those racist ideas.

-Finrock

You don't know what racism is. Racism is believing your race is superior to another race. He never said his race is superior to any other race no matter how you twist his words.

I got a quote from him in this thread where he says just that. BY said and taught, on multiple occasions, that blacks are inferior by nature and whites are superior by nature. There is no need to twist his words because he plainly has said that whites are superior...just like that...Whites are superior.

I can provide quotes and references, but, from your post I was assuming that you had a thorough knowledge of these. I think I was mistaken because you don't know that BY specifically has said that whites are superior and blacks are inferior.

-Finrock

Here is a real quote from Brigham Young, "there is no such things as white folkes"
Put that in your pipe.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Hi guys I get the sense that you are actually unaware of some of these teachings from BY and others. I hesitate to share them with you, but I can assure you that there are clearly very troubling proclamations, doctrines, etc. taught on this subject. No word twisting necessary. They are found in Church sources and are pretty extreme. In fact they are the exact thing the Church condemns in the strongest possible terms.