What are you doing to follow the Prophet?

[Finrock]

Answer this question honestly finrock. Would you go stand in line early to shake the hand and express gratitude to Joseph Smith? Nephi? Moses? Noah? Alma? Or Enoch?

Sure. The real question though for you, drtanner, and you answer me honestly: Do you treat or have the same disposition towards all of your fellow man in the same way that you treat or would treat an apostle?

We should be willing to go stand in line early to shake the hand of anyone because we recognize their worth, their value, their contributions, their love for God, or because we love and value them.

Its about the pendulum swinging too far to one side. Its unbalanced. Its the hypocrisy. Its the inconsistency. This is the issue. Showing honor, love, and respect towards others is not bad. But, don't esteem one flesh above another flesh, and yet, we do it all of the time and call it good!

-Finrock

[shadow]

But, King Benjamin didn't want any "followers", didn't want to be "followed"

-Finrock

He wanted everyone to come to him and listen to him and those that couldn't he wanted to have them read what he said. I don't know how you can define that as not wanting to be followed.

Look at just a few examples where we're asked, in essence, to follow a prophet-

From Nephi-
2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

How about this-

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

Do you not want to be like Moroni? Why was he praised like that? Do you think less of the Book of Mormon now? I hope not.

Even Christ points us to Isaiah. So follow Christ by following a prophet. Interesting.

[Finrock]

But, King Benjamin didn't want any "followers", didn't want to be "followed"

-Finrock

He wanted everyone to come to him and listen to him and those that couldn't he wanted to have them read what he said. I don't know how you can define that as not wanting to be followed.

Look at just a few examples where we're asked, in essence, to follow a prophet-

From Nephi-
2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

How about this-

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

Do you not want to be like Moroni? Why was he praised like that? Do you think less of the Book of Mormon now? I hope not.

Even Christ points us to Isaiah. So follow Christ by following a prophet. Interesting.

Prophets are sent to call people to repentance and point them to Jesus. Prophets don't want to have a following, or people who are going around hanging on their every word. Prophets may get that type of attention because its natural for people to want a "strongman" to follow, but, that doesn't mean that is what they want or what they are all about. We don't need to follow any prophet in order to follow Jesus. This isn't some universal, eternal truth that you are identifying. Its just a nifty little word play that you are using in trying to make your point. Prophets testify with the sole intent and the sole purpose to invite people to believe in Jesus Christ and to follow Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the person we should/ought to be following and we can do that without ever, ever, ever, following a prophet (using "follow" in the scriptural/biblical sense and not the "shadow" sense).

Prophets are sent to a people who don't know God and they are sent to a people who don't know how to follow God. The prophet or prophets who get sent are sent because they are actually following God and they actually know God and so they can testify of Him. True prophets want you to be like them in the sense that they want you to know God like they do and to follow God like they do. Most importantly true prophets want you to be guided, directed, and taught by God/Spirit just like they are so that you no longer need to lean on their testimony or on their power. True prophets recognize how weak they are and would never want anyone to follow them (using follow in the scriptural/biblical sense, not "shadow" sense) as they should/ought to follow Jesus and put their faith/trust in Him.

-Finrock

[drtanner]

Answer this question honestly finrock. Would you go stand in line early to shake the hand and express gratitude to Joseph Smith? Nephi? Moses? Noah? Alma? Or Enoch?

Sure. The real question though for you, drtanner, and you answer me honestly: Do you treat or have the same disposition towards all of your fellow man in the same way that you treat or would treat an apostle?

We should be willing to go stand in line early to shake the hand of anyone because we recognize their worth, their value, their contributions, their love for God, or because we love and value them.

Its about the pendulum swinging too far to one side. Its unbalanced. Its the hypocrisy. Its the inconsistency. This is the issue. Showing honor, love, and respect towards others is not bad. But, don't esteem one flesh above another flesh, and yet, we do it all of the time and call it good!

-Finrock

Genuinely trying to treat all with equal love but I recognize I have work to do. I will pm my favorite story that illustrates what I think about daily that relates to this. Boarding a flight so may be a min.

[eddie]

I found this statement - a member made, that
shows the modern Mormon mentality these days.
"You cannot follow Jesus Christ unless you follow the prophet."

That is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
YOU DON'T NEED THE PROPHET IF YOU HAVE CHRIST !
Yes , you can come to Christ WITHOUT the prophet !
There are people all over the world, probably better than you and me,
that believe in Christ and know him, and have never even heard of our prophet.

If you follow the prophet, you still need to come to Jesus Christ.
but if you come unto Christ, and know Him for yourself,
as we all need to, then you will see that He is the ONLY ONE
you need to follow and look to for your salvation.

The pendulum has swung too far to the side of veneration for too many members. It isn't that our leaders are bad people and we shouldn't listen to them, etc., its more of how members treat the leaders, how they are prioritized above other people or other ideas. Why don't Mormons get all giddy, excited, and line up and wait for hours to shake the hand of the "lost sheep"? Why aren't we celebrating the lives of the inactives, the lonely, downtrodden, or the depressed? Imagine what light we could introduce in to the world if we treated every member of the Church or every person as good as Mormons treat their prophets, their apostles?

What if you had the same love for your fellow man as you do for the "brethren"? What if you defended the least member among us as vigorously and as loyally as many members defend the leaders?

-Finrock

They are REVERED Finrock.

I have been on the Council of the Twelve now for nearly thirty-eight years. In that time I have labored under six Presidents of the Church. I have sat in their meetings as vital decisions were made. I have listened to their discussions and seen the flow of inspiration as it came to these six Presidents—these six prophets, six revelators, six seers whom I have known and whom I have loved and in whom I have felt an hallowed presence over the years.

I testify to you, by personal experience, that I have seen the power of God work upon them. I know that we live in a day of revelation. I know these brethren are divinely appointed servants of the Lord. I know that they speak for God.

If we follow them, do we not thereby follow Him who called them?

But conversely if we raise our hands or our voices against them, or if we ignore them, do we not in that manner resist the divine being who commissioned them as his servants? Can anyone afford to do that?

Is not our attitude toward these prophets an unerring reflection of our innermost feeling toward God? I mean our real, basic allegiance when it is divested of all outward show and stripped of all pretensions.

Can we truly love the Lord and at the same time reject his servants?

If we really do love God, then indeed we must and we will love and revere his anointed ones.

Mark E. Petersen
" Follow The Prophet"
Ensign, Oct. 1981

[drtanner]

Perhaps one of the bigger issues is that many do not consider our modern prophets on the same level as past prophets and especially those in the scriptures. They view their council as “watered down” they say they do not command the elements openly, they do not raise the dead, and the list goes on.

They look the council at general conference as Naaman did when he was given simple life changing council from a prophet:

11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

Every conference I am saddened by those who leave disappointed, who say “where is the great thing?” They miss the mark, they miss the opportunity, and they ultimately miss valuable blessings from the Lord.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Can we truly love the Lord and at the same time reject his servants?

If we really do love God, then indeed we must and we will love and revere his anointed ones.[/color]

[/quote]

Of course we can!

Should you reject a prophet if they seek to marry your wife? Should you reject church leaders if the direct you to murder a wagon train of men women and children? Should you reject a prophet if they tell you that Adam is God? Should you reject church leaders that use intimidation, manipulation to victimize you?

Obviously the answer is Yes! There are times in which rejecting Church leaders is not only possible but is required.

Again, I don't have any issues like those mentioned above with current leadership - who I regard as great men and leaders. That being said, I will disagree with them, in fact I wish more people close to them had done so we may have avoided tragic historical events!

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

[drtanner]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

Is there an issue your currently struggling to reconcile, or your concerned that it could happen and want to work through how you would approach it if it did? Or something else?

[Mark]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

I will address your first point for you. If you look in section 107 where the Lord outlines His Priesthood Govt., You will see that the Lord has already provided a remedy for your concerns. It is a very effective system and works very well. The Lords church is setup to take care of any false doctrine or transgression that could introduced into the body by a Prophet. The sustained quorums are well equipped to handle those potentialities. It is an inspired system.

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.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

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?

[Finrock]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

I will address your first point for you. If you look in section 107 where the Lord outlines His Priesthood Govt., You will see that the Lord has already provided a remedy for your concerns. It is a very effective system and works very well. The Lords church is setup to take care of any false doctrine or transgression that could introduced into the body by a Prophet. The sustained quorums are well equipped to handle those potentialities. It is an inspired system.

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.

The Constitution guarantees that I will be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Its an inspired document, the Constitution, and our form of government is an inspired system.

We have the principle (a triangle) and what really happens (squiggly, distorted triangle).

Look, what has been the result on this forum of just me making historically factual/accurate statements. Brigham Young taught false doctrine and very negatively influenced thousands (millions?) of Mormons for generations to come to believe that black African people are cursed and made to be servants to white people because they, the dark skinned Africans, were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence. This evil doctrine has perpetuated and resulted in Mormons justifying and accepting racism and elitism, thus this doctrine has actively lead to separation as opposed to the "oneness" of Zion. This damnable and false doctrine (which is still influencing and affecting Mormons negatively to this day) was NOT corrected by the means you outlined. A statement was made in 2014 or so by the Church's PR department denouncing this and other racist doctrines that were taught by Presidents and apostles of the Church in the past.

-Finrock

[I AM]

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

-------------

"When discussing prophets, we Latter-day Saints are quick to cite Amos 3:7, wherein we read, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” But who was Amos, and what kind of prophet was he? He himself explains, to the king of Judah at the time: “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.” His message was likewise an excoriating, divine rebuke against church culture, criticizing tradition and ritual and calling for judgment and righteousness instead."

A prophet is coming - the marred servant.
Prophets can and do and will come from outside the church

Can Prophets Come from Outside Church Leadership?
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/can-pr ... the-church

(some quotes from this article below and above)

But how would we fare if a prophet came to us today outside of the hierarchy of the Church? Would we learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them? Or would we side with the structure to which we have accustomed ourselves, thus removing the need for tackling hard questions such as determining if a person claiming a divine mandate, and chastising us for our wickedness, is in fact a prophet?

It’s instructive to note that these prophets are sent to God’s people because of general wickedness, and not necessarily corruption within church leadership. While in many cases the religious establishment had become rotten, this was not the experience of Samuel the Lamanite, whose mission came despite Nephi, and presumably others, righteously trying to do the very thing that Samuel was sent to do.

It’s irrelevant, then, whether leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are doing exactly what God wants them to or not. God can send—and perhaps has sent?—prophets outside of this organization. He would do so because of a general deviation from the path he wants us to follow. It has happened previously, so why not today? Are we so confident of our supposed righteousness, despite God himself noting that we are condemned, and our minds darkened?



*** Remember - "Jesus Christ who himself was sent of God, outside of church hierarchy, from humble and unlikely circumstances, to call people to repentance. The existing establishment of religious authority, most notably the Pharisees, claimed to be the conduit to God. Thus, when the Conduit himself appeared before them, rebuking them with simplicity and boldness, they, following the pattern, desired to exile him."

end of article

[Craig Johnson]

The problem is with how leaders are prioritized by many members (a whole lot of members) above other people and other things when this prioritization is not justified and when in fact this prioritization is spiritually harmful. Although we are not a cult, many members of the Church treat our leaders as if they were a part of a cult. Unquestioning loyalty, you can't fault the leaders, almost unquestioning obedience to anything they say (whether spiritual or secular) because one received a witness that they are a prophet of God, treating the leaders like celebrities, and in some cases behavior that is akin to worshiping the leaders.

Why don't Mormons get all giddy, excited, and line up and wait for hours to shake the hand of the "lost sheep" or brother/sister so-and-so? Why aren't we celebrating the lives of the inactives, the lonely, downtrodden, or the depressed? Imagine what light we could introduce in to the world if we treated every member of the Church or every person as good as Mormons treat their prophets, their apostles?

What if you had the same love for your fellow man as you do for the "brethren"? What if you defended the least member among us as vigorously and as loyally as many members defend the leaders? What if every person was treated and viewed through the same prism/glass/light as the apostles are?

-Finrock

You seem to always take a valid point and turn into an opportunity to deride others who are failing your fault-finding, in your mind. Rather than find fault give us examples of what you are doing and find a way to say it that does not indict everyone and teaches something we can accept.
Though it is off topic, since you brought it up I will tell you what I do and in this what I am doing is following the teachings of the prophets and the Lord, which is the topic. I invite those who are "lost sheep" (and those who are not) to my home, I spend time talking to them and trying to be their friend, I go out of my way to shake their hand and welcome them, smile at them and try to show them that someone at church (or wherever I am) cares. If I get an opportunity to serve them, emergency or not, I jump on it. I see them in my heart, mind and opinion as just as important as anyone else. Even people who really (rhymes with this) me off, I try to find a way to have a relationship with them that is positive and in fact this forum website has helped me with that in ways I would never have expected. But, in glaring honesty, about all I get from many of your posts is that you are here to tell people how messed up they are, that they don't get it and the posts they start need criticism. If someone says something positive about church leadership you try to find a way to make it a negative attribute for all church members. It's pretty tiring and cynical. I admit freely that I correct posts on here that are wrong and non-doctrinal and I can sound pretty negative sometimes, but my purpose is to make a statement that gets the truth out for those who may not know the poster is teaching false doctrine and to let that poster know facts and logic are at the heart of the Lord's gospel and we are not fools because we follow His Spirit.

[Craig Johnson]

Answer this question honestly finrock. Would you go stand in line early to shake the hand and express gratitude to Joseph Smith? Nephi? Moses? Noah? Alma? Or Enoch?

I would and not because they are more important than anyone else but because they have taught me about the Lord and I very deeply appreciate that and I would be honored to meet them.

[Craig Johnson]

just make sure you make it clear that when you are using follow you are saying, listen to.
-Finrock

No, FOLLOW, listening to is only a part of following. If you follow the Prophet you can follow the Lord, if you don't follow the Prophet you will fail to follow the Lord.

[Craig Johnson]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

You can't mix "church leaders" and "Prophets" into a shake and bake bag. Sure some church leaders have made phenomenal mistakes, and Prophets have done minor mistakes, big difference. When Prophets err and have to repent we receive important instructions, but when anti's malign the prophets and call them all kinds of perverted nonsense we learn that anti's are just creepy evil people who are disaffected and doing their best to tear down the church and subsequently have a negative impact on what the Lord is trying to achieve.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

You can't mix "church leaders" and "Prophets" into a shake and bake bag. Sure some church leaders have made phenomenal mistakes, and Prophets have done minor mistakes, big difference. When Prophets err and have to repent we receive important instructions, but when anti's malign the prophets and call them all kinds of perverted nonsense we learn that anti's are just creepy evil people who are disaffected and doing their best to tear down the church and subsequently have a negative impact on what the Lord is trying to achieve.

Sure you can! But for sake of argument lets just assume this applies to The Prophet. I only threw Church leaders in because there is still doubt a BY direct role in The MM Massacre, and I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

Are you saying I'm an anti-mormon Chris? We have a very controversial history brother. Many facts you may call "anti" are well established. The problem in avoiding them and building false stories to obscure them (im not acusing you of this), is that "the cover-up is always worse than the crime." Don't fear the truth as "having a negative impact on what the Lord is trying to achieve." The truth will set us free, but there is going to be some pain along the way. I believe the Church will be stronger owning it - progress being made.

[sushi_chef]

yeah, probably true that bigham and his cohorts had parleys terminating plan and executed...
1st called him as a mission president in sanfrancisico area, then brought ms eleanor near him as a new member to help/be helped, and gave some medicine to his 1st wife for weakening her....(church history 100a)

"So I'm going through Wilford Woodruff's journal. First of August, he says, "I took Eleanor Pratt's statement on the murder of Parley P. Pratt." She WAS in Salt Lake. So that extended "Argus's" credibility that much further.

But I still had the mystery of how did Eleanor get from St. Louis to Salt Lake that quickly. I knew it had to be by express. It had to be by some sort of special operation....
"
https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... lit=parley

[drtanner]

Answer this question honestly finrock. Would you go stand in line early to shake the hand and express gratitude to Joseph Smith? Nephi? Moses? Noah? Alma? Or Enoch?

I would and not because they are more important than anyone else but because they have taught me about the Lord and I very deeply appreciate that and I would be honored to meet them.

I’d probably give them a hug for the same reason.

[Craig Johnson]

Church leaders have historically made mistakes - something the Church now admits FYI. These aren't minor things like paint color, but pretty big deal caliber mistskes. To me the pertinent questions are:

1) Can a Prophet make serious mistakes and inject false doctrine into the Church and the Church still be "true"? - I would argue yes, but defenders of Prophet near-infallibility run into a difficult dilemna with this concept.

2) If we accept that Prophets are capable of erring in doctrine, and its therefore possible to be asked by them to believe in something or do something against the will of God. Are you better off to follow a Prophet into sin and error to maintain your obediance, or are you better off to reject the message? If you pray about it (e.g., Polygamy) and you feel that God is not behind it, how do you reconcile that your message from God is different from that of his Prophet?

This is seriously a concept I have really been struggling with. Im not trying to provoke debate for debate sake, but looking for help in reconciling this.

You can't mix "church leaders" and "Prophets" into a shake and bake bag. Sure some church leaders have made phenomenal mistakes, and Prophets have done minor mistakes, big difference. When Prophets err and have to repent we receive important instructions, but when anti's malign the prophets and call them all kinds of perverted nonsense we learn that anti's are just creepy evil people who are disaffected and doing their best to tear down the church and subsequently have a negative impact on what the Lord is trying to achieve.

Sure you can! But for sake of argument lets just assume this applies to The Prophet. I only threw Church leaders in because there is still doubt a BY direct role in The MM Massacre, and I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

Are you saying I'm an anti-mormon Chris? We have a very controversial history brother. Many facts you may call "anti" are well established. The problem in avoiding them and building false stories to obscure them (im not acusing you of this), is that "the cover-up is always worse than the crime." Don't fear the truth as "having a negative impact on what the Lord is trying to achieve." The truth will set us free, but there is going to be some pain along the way. I believe the Church will be stronger owning it - progress being made.

I thought you would say something like that.

[Mark]

The problem is with how leaders are prioritized by many members (a whole lot of members) above other people and other things when this prioritization is not justified and when in fact this prioritization is spiritually harmful. Although we are not a cult, many members of the Church treat our leaders as if they were a part of a cult. Unquestioning loyalty, you can't fault the leaders, almost unquestioning obedience to anything they say (whether spiritual or secular) because one received a witness that they are a prophet of God, treating the leaders like celebrities, and in some cases behavior that is akin to worshiping the leaders.

Why don't Mormons get all giddy, excited, and line up and wait for hours to shake the hand of the "lost sheep" or brother/sister so-and-so? Why aren't we celebrating the lives of the inactives, the lonely, downtrodden, or the depressed? Imagine what light we could introduce in to the world if we treated every member of the Church or every person as good as Mormons treat their prophets, their apostles?

What if you had the same love for your fellow man as you do for the "brethren"? What if you defended the least member among us as vigorously and as loyally as many members defend the leaders? What if every person was treated and viewed through the same prism/glass/light as the apostles are?

-Finrock

You seem to always take a valid point and turn into an opportunity to deride others who are failing your fault-finding, in your mind. Rather than find fault give us examples of what you are doing and find a way to say it that does not indict everyone and teaches something we can accept.
Though it is off topic, since you brought it up I will tell you what I do and in this what I am doing is following the teachings of the prophets and the Lord, which is the topic. I invite those who are "lost sheep" (and those who are not) to my home, I spend time talking to them and trying to be their friend, I go out of my way to shake their hand and welcome them, smile at them and try to show them that someone at church (or wherever I am) cares. If I get an opportunity to serve them, emergency or not, I jump on it. I see them in my heart, mind and opinion as just as important as anyone else. Even people who really (rhymes with this) me off, I try to find a way to have a relationship with them that is positive and in fact this forum website has helped me with that in ways I would never have expected. But, in glaring honesty, about all I get from many of your posts is that you are here to tell people how messed up they are, that they don't get it and the posts they start need criticism. If someone says something positive about church leadership you try to find a way to make it a negative attribute for all church members. It's pretty tiring and cynical. I admit freely that I correct posts on here that are wrong and non-doctrinal and I can sound pretty negative sometimes, but my purpose is to make a statement that gets the truth out for those who may not know the poster is teaching false doctrine and to let that poster know facts and logic are at the heart of the Lord's gospel and we are not fools because we follow His Spirit.

The brother is your typical contrarian. If a complement is given about a church leader he feels the need to find something wrong or out of line with the nature of the compliment. It's a type of one-upmanship. Don't know if he is envious of the attention they receive that he doesn't get or if he has some kind of a superiority type complex. Short mans syndrome? We all have our idiosyncrasies. I guess that's what makes the world go round..

[Finrock]

The problem is with how leaders are prioritized by many members (a whole lot of members) above other people and other things when this prioritization is not justified and when in fact this prioritization is spiritually harmful. Although we are not a cult, many members of the Church treat our leaders as if they were a part of a cult. Unquestioning loyalty, you can't fault the leaders, almost unquestioning obedience to anything they say (whether spiritual or secular) because one received a witness that they are a prophet of God, treating the leaders like celebrities, and in some cases behavior that is akin to worshiping the leaders.

Why don't Mormons get all giddy, excited, and line up and wait for hours to shake the hand of the "lost sheep" or brother/sister so-and-so? Why aren't we celebrating the lives of the inactives, the lonely, downtrodden, or the depressed? Imagine what light we could introduce in to the world if we treated every member of the Church or every person as good as Mormons treat their prophets, their apostles?

What if you had the same love for your fellow man as you do for the "brethren"? What if you defended the least member among us as vigorously and as loyally as many members defend the leaders? What if every person was treated and viewed through the same prism/glass/light as the apostles are?

-Finrock

You seem to always take a valid point and turn into an opportunity to deride others who are failing your fault-finding, in your mind. Rather than find fault give us examples of what you are doing and find a way to say it that does not indict everyone and teaches something we can accept.
Though it is off topic, since you brought it up I will tell you what I do and in this what I am doing is following the teachings of the prophets and the Lord, which is the topic. I invite those who are "lost sheep" (and those who are not) to my home, I spend time talking to them and trying to be their friend, I go out of my way to shake their hand and welcome them, smile at them and try to show them that someone at church (or wherever I am) cares. If I get an opportunity to serve them, emergency or not, I jump on it. I see them in my heart, mind and opinion as just as important as anyone else. Even people who really (rhymes with this) me off, I try to find a way to have a relationship with them that is positive and in fact this forum website has helped me with that in ways I would never have expected. But, in glaring honesty, about all I get from many of your posts is that you are here to tell people how messed up they are, that they don't get it and the posts they start need criticism. If someone says something positive about church leadership you try to find a way to make it a negative attribute for all church members. It's pretty tiring and cynical. I admit freely that I correct posts on here that are wrong and non-doctrinal and I can sound pretty negative sometimes, but my purpose is to make a statement that gets the truth out for those who may not know the poster is teaching false doctrine and to let that poster know facts and logic are at the heart of the Lord's gospel and we are not fools because we follow His Spirit.

Craig,

Whatever good that you are doing is wonderful. Please keep it up because doing good to others is very important.

Please don't waste my time by posting about me and what you think of me and how you think I do this or I do that or whatever you personally think about me. FYI: I don't care what you personally think of me. I am interested in your addressing the content of my post, the ideas that I expressed, etc. I'm open to sincere questions for clarification. I'm open to you disagreeing with me and if applicable, demonstrating my error (I don't mean just asserting that I'm wrong, I mean demonstrating my error via logic, reason, persuasion...things like that).

-Finrock

[Craig Johnson]

The brother is your typical contrarian. If a complement is given about a church leader he feels the need to find something wrong or out of line with the nature of the compliment. It's a type of one-upmanship. Don't know if he is envious of the attention they receive that he doesn't get or if he has some kind of a superiority type complex. Short mans syndrome? We all have our idiosyncrasies. I guess that's what makes the world go round..

Guess I'm seeing the pattern you noted a while back.
If it is jealousy, that makes it really hard for a person to see the value.
Whatever it is I don't see spiritual maturity in doing it nor that it heightens spirituality or awareness of anything important.
A lot of people don't understand that probably the most derided and persecuted are Mormon church leaders, all we tend to hear are the accolades, but they get a lot of abuse from inside and outside the church, we should not be giving them any and no one who is close to the Lord would ever do that and cowardly and childishly use the guise of "don't worship them" which is a veil over their real opinion.

[Craig Johnson]

Craig,

Whatever good that you are doing is wonderful. Please keep it up because doing good to others is very important.

Please don't waste my time by posting about me and what you think of me and how you think I do this or I do that or whatever you personally think about me. FYI: I don't care what you personally think of me. I am interested in your addressing the content of my post, the ideas that I expressed, etc. I'm open to sincere questions for clarification. I'm open to you disagreeing with me and if applicable, demonstrating my error (I don't mean just asserting that I'm wrong, I mean demonstrating my error via logic, reason, persuasion...things like that).

-Finrock

I stand by what I said whether it meets your approval standards or not.