LDS Freedom Forum

topcat wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:20 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:53 pm People love President Benson because of his commentary on the gadianton robbers in our government, his conspiracy facts in the Book of Mormon, his talk on pride, and his calling out the church for still being under condemnation for treating the Book of Mormon lightly.

I’m wondering if you also believe President Benson when he said the following:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain--how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed--the living Prophet--President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

There have been so many blog posts over the years commenting on this uncharacteristic talk by Elder Benson that I'm not going to take the time to parse what has already been written so eloquently before. One example is: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/searc ... he+Prophet.

Truth is exposed so fully and conclusively by these posts that it really astonishes to hear people try to defend the heresies taught in the 14 fundamentals talk after the fact.

As I've pointed out over and over to the DrTanner's of the world is that they are forced to argue against the Scriptures, and to take the unenviable position to argue that Christ employs other servants at the gate of salvation (2 Nephi 9:41) and to call for trusting in the arm of flesh.


The one thing I will say, as far as the sincerity of Pres Kimball's rebuke in 1980, more or less immediately after Elder Benson gave his talk, is that in the very next year, Pres Kimball's administration ADDED the same key heresy to our canon by digging up the most anti Christ quotes from Wilford Woodruff, and then secretly (without an announcement or vote) added the devilish, apostasy-causing, idolatry-inducing, priestcraft-inviting quotes to OD1. That's right, the excerpts of OD1 were added in 1981.

Is it really a coincidence that this occurred precisely at the time of Benson's talk and Kimball's rebuke?!?!?!?!

This compels one to contemplate what was going on behind the scenes.

On the one hand, you had an innocent man (Elder Benson give the atrocious talk to BYU students and faculty -- indicating he was deceived on the matter), and on the other hand you had apparently SOMEBODY (supposedly Spencer W. Kimball, according to his son) who was upset about Elder Benson's talk.

There were two, maybe three schools of thought: 1) the authoritarian, arm of flesh, follow-the-prophet cult mindset, and 2) those who realized that was bad optics for the Church, and 3) those in the Church leadership who actually discerned the anti Christ nature of the teaching.

Based on the essence of Elder Benson's talk being canonized THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I'm guessing that those protesting were mainly in Group 2 (and worrying mainly about bad PR -- which the Church DID get), and that Group 1 clearly won the debate.

Group 1 winning the internal squabble was clear because they decided to go ALL IN as the internal "squabble" was occurring.

One possible inference is that the real PTB (Powers That Be) felt the need to make a power statement to any dissidents in the organization. And that "power play" was to canonize, what I believe was, the single-greatest cause of the apostasy of the Church. Nothing else compares to the damage that the modified OD1 (published secretly in 1981) unleashed on the minds of the members and secondary leadership.

Think about it. I think this addition was the second coup d'etat, the first one occurring when Brigham Young and his conspiring apostolic cohorts wrested control from competing individuals in the years following the Prophet's murder.

The OD1 modification in 1981 laid the foundation for the complete destruction of the mainstream LDS Church. Its modern demise started then, picked up steam with Benson's death (because he was an outsider and truly believed in the divine destiny of the Church, provided the Church would repent and get God to remove His condemnation), and judging by the total free fall occurring now with tithing ostensibly plummeting, mass exodus from the Church, and resorting to gimmicks to slow down the exodus, the end is near. The rise of the Internet has turbo charged the spread of truth, and the effort to insulate members from the truth by excommunicating whistle-blowers has backfired, resulting in the most righteous, intelligent (filled with light and truth) to leave the Church or stay and try to save some few not under the spell of the mind control apparatus. Millennials aren't being deceived anymore. They see through the hypocrisy and overt corruption and that's why most are not sticking around.

Truly tragic, because it didn't have to be this way.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:25 am

topcat wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:20 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:53 pm People love President Benson because of his commentary on the gadianton robbers in our government, his conspiracy facts in the Book of Mormon, his talk on pride, and his calling out the church for still being under condemnation for treating the Book of Mormon lightly.

I’m wondering if you also believe President Benson when he said the following:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain--how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed--the living Prophet--President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

There have been so many blog posts over the years commenting on this uncharacteristic talk by Elder Benson that I'm not going to take the time to parse what has already been written so eloquently before. One example is: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/searc ... he+Prophet.

Truth is exposed so fully and conclusively by these posts that it really astonishes to hear people try to defend the heresies taught in the 14 fundamentals talk after the fact.

As I've pointed out over and over to the DrTanner's of the world is that they are forced to argue against the Scriptures, and to take the unenviable position to argue that Christ employs other servants at the gate of salvation (2 Nephi 9:41) and to call for trusting in the arm of flesh.


The one thing I will say, as far as the sincerity of Pres Kimball's rebuke in 1980, more or less immediately after Elder Benson gave his talk, is that in the very next year, Pres Kimball's administration ADDED the same key heresy to our canon by digging up the most anti Christ quotes from Wilford Woodruff, and then secretly (without an announcement or vote) added the devilish, apostasy-causing, idolatry-inducing, priestcraft-inviting quotes to OD1. That's right, the excerpts of OD1 were added in 1981.

Is it really a coincidence that this occurred precisely at the time of Benson's talk and Kimball's rebuke?!?!?!?!

This compels one to contemplate what was going on behind the scenes.

On the one hand, you had an innocent man (Elder Benson give the atrocious talk to BYU students and faculty -- indicating he was deceived on the matter), and on the other hand you had apparently SOMEBODY (supposedly Spencer W. Kimball, according to his son) who was upset about Elder Benson's talk.

There were two, maybe three schools of thought: 1) the authoritarian, arm of flesh, follow-the-prophet cult mindset, and 2) those who realized that was bad optics for the Church, and 3) those in the Church leadership who actually discerned the anti Christ nature of the teaching.

Based on the essence of Elder Benson's talk being canonized THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I'm guessing that those protesting were mainly in Group 2 (and worrying mainly about bad PR -- which the Church DID get), and that Group 1 clearly won the debate.

Group 1 winning the internal squabble was clear because they decided to go ALL IN as the internal "squabble" was occurring.

One possible inference is that the real PTB (Powers That Be) felt the need to make a power statement to any dissidents in the organization. And that "power play" was to canonize, what I believe was, the single-greatest cause of the apostasy of the Church. Nothing else compares to the damage that the modified OD1 (published secretly in 1981) unleashed on the minds of the members and secondary leadership.

Think about it. I think this addition was the second coup d'etat, the first one occurring when Brigham Young and his conspiring apostolic cohorts wrested control from competing individuals in the years following the Prophet's murder.

The OD1 modification in 1981 laid the foundation for the complete destruction of the mainstream LDS Church. Its modern demise started then, picked up steam with Benson's death (because he was an outsider and truly believed in the divine destiny of the Church, provided the Church would repent and get God to remove His condemnation), and judging by the total free fall occurring now with tithing ostensibly plummeting, mass exodus from the Church, and resorting to gimmicks to slow down the exodus, the end is near. The rise of the Internet has turbo charged the spread of truth, and the effort to insulate members from the truth by excommunicating whistle-blowers has backfired, resulting in the most righteous, intelligent (filled with light and truth) to leave the Church or stay and try to save some few not under the spell of the mind control apparatus. Millennials aren't being deceived anymore. They see through the hypocrisy and overt corruption and that's why most are not sticking around.

Truly tragic, because it didn't have to be this way.

And yet 8 more temples announced, conversion deepening in the home (I have witnessed first hand in my ward alone) and youth doing family history flooding the temple like never never before. Your eyes have to be wide shut not to see what is taking place in the church right now as individuals and families are following the counsel of President Nelson.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 7:52 pm

I don't think you really understand what you're saying. You think you're saying something, when you're really broadcasting an entirely different message.

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 7:52 pm

I don't think you really understand what you're saying. You think you're saying something, when you're really broadcasting an entirely different message.

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 12:21 pm

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 10:47 am

caburnha wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 8:27 am

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 7:42 am

Maybe not a discourse per se, but if the Israelites hadn't followed Moses they would have remained in bondage - he was a prophet. If Lehi's family hasn't followed him, they would have been destroyed or taken captive - he was a prophet. Christ, the greatest prophet of all, said "Come, follow me". I'm sure there are multiple other examples - these just popped into my head when I read your comment.

Just tell me this - did you even attempt to consider the truth of anything I said, or did you jump straight to seeking for a rebuttal?

No, you tell me this: does my argument nullify your assertion, or not?

No it does not. If you would just read the rest of the thread you would know where we stand on this issue. Obviously God calls prophets and they have been, and always will be, a crucial ingredient in his plans for the salvation of souls. That is not the argument here. How many times does this need to be repeated? Please consider the whole message instead of taking phrases out of context.

topcat wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:44 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Quick response, as I don't have time at the moment.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

JST Mark 9 explains, "let every man stand or fall by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another." That is pretty self-explanatory. Of course this scripture is essentially blacked out in the Church.

Nephi says cursed is he that puts his trust in man or the arm of flesh.

The purpose of the Church is to put the member in contact with God, so that the member is dependent on God and receives salvation/ redemption from God.

The more dependent a man becomes on God, the LESS DEPENDENT he is dependent on the Church institution, until the perfect day when he is at "one" with God. There's a spectrum. DEPENDENT (on the Church) on the left, moving to lesser and lesser dependence as you move to the right until you can stand on your own, united with God, having the Holy Ghost all the time.

The proof the Church is in a state of apostasy is that it CONSTANTLY and I mean CONSTANTLY preaches nothing but a DEPENDENCE on the Church, so much that it OPPOSES in broad daylight a dependency on the Lord. In fact, those who are dependent on the Lord are excommunicated and seen as apostate because they don't have a need to obey priesthood leaders who are "at one" with the Lord. The Church, essentially has set itself up as an idol, as an object of worship, and Dan 2 prophesies what will happen to it.

We must worship God and God alone. Only HE is our Savior, and not an institution.

Glory be to God in the Highest.

topcat wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:20 am

drtanner wrote: ↑April 10th, 2019, 11:53 pm People love President Benson because of his commentary on the gadianton robbers in our government, his conspiracy facts in the Book of Mormon, his talk on pride, and his calling out the church for still being under condemnation for treating the Book of Mormon lightly.

I’m wondering if you also believe President Benson when he said the following:

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed--reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain--how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed--the living Prophet--President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.

There have been so many blog posts over the years commenting on this uncharacteristic talk by Elder Benson that I'm not going to take the time to parse what has already been written so eloquently before. One example is: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/searc ... he+Prophet.

Truth is exposed so fully and conclusively by these posts that it really astonishes to hear people try to defend the heresies taught in the 14 fundamentals talk after the fact.

As I've pointed out over and over to the DrTanner's of the world is that they are forced to argue against the Scriptures, and to take the unenviable position to argue that Christ employs other servants at the gate of salvation (2 Nephi 9:41) and to call for trusting in the arm of flesh.


The one thing I will say, as far as the sincerity of Pres Kimball's rebuke in 1980, more or less immediately after Elder Benson gave his talk, is that in the very next year, Pres Kimball's administration ADDED the same key heresy to our canon by digging up the most anti Christ quotes from Wilford Woodruff, and then secretly (without an announcement or vote) added the devilish, apostasy-causing, idolatry-inducing, priestcraft-inviting quotes to OD1. That's right, the excerpts of OD1 were added in 1981.

Is it really a coincidence that this occurred precisely at the time of Benson's talk and Kimball's rebuke?!?!?!?!

This compels one to contemplate what was going on behind the scenes.

On the one hand, you had an innocent man (Elder Benson give the atrocious talk to BYU students and faculty -- indicating he was deceived on the matter), and on the other hand you had apparently SOMEBODY (supposedly Spencer W. Kimball, according to his son) who was upset about Elder Benson's talk.

There were two, maybe three schools of thought: 1) the authoritarian, arm of flesh, follow-the-prophet cult mindset, and 2) those who realized that was bad optics for the Church in that the public may see the Mormons as a cult following a man instead of Christ, and 3) those in the Church leadership who actually discerned the anti Christ nature of the teaching and opposed it.

Based on the essence of Elder Benson's talk being canonized THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I'm guessing that those protesting were mainly in Group 2 (and, as I said, were worried mainly about bad PR -- which the Church DID in fact get), and that Group 1 clearly won the debate.

Group 1 winning the internal squabble was clear because the PTB (Powers That Be) in the Church decided to go ALL IN as the internal "squabble" was occurring.

One possible inference is that the real PTB felt the need to make a power statement to any dissidents in the organization. And that "power play" was to canonize, what I believe was, the single-greatest cause of the apostasy of the Church. Nothing else compares to the damage that the modified OD1 (published secretly in 1981) unleashed on the minds of the members and secondary leadership. Leaders (including up and coming ones, who were being considered for positions in the 70) from this point on would be vetted based on how they "proved" over the years to have loyalty to the Church president above all else, including the Lord Jesus Christ. The litmus test would be, "Are you loyal to the president and do you believe that he cannot lead the Church astray?).

Think about it. I think this addition was the second coup d'etat, the first one occurring when Brigham Young and his conspiring apostolic cohorts wrested control from competing individuals in the years following the Prophet's murder.

The OD1 modification in 1981 laid the foundation for the complete destruction of the mainstream LDS Church. Its modern demise started then, picked up steam with Benson's death (because he was an outsider and truly believed in the divine destiny of the Church, provided the Church would repent and get God to remove His condemnation), and judging by the total free fall occurring now with tithing ostensibly plummeting, mass exodus from the Church, and resorting to gimmicks to slow down the exodus, the end is near. The rise of the Internet has turbo charged the spread of truth, and the effort to insulate members from the truth by excommunicating whistle-blowers has backfired, resulting in the most righteous, intelligent (filled with light and truth) members to leave the Church or stay and try to save some few not under the spell of the mind control apparatus. Millennials aren't being deceived anymore. They see through the hypocrisy and overt corruption and that's why most are not sticking around. The ones staying are doing it for cultural reasons, or have the inability to critically think.

Truly tragic, because it didn't have to be this way.

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 11:52 am

Hosh4710 wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 12:21 pm

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 10:47 am

caburnha wrote: ↑April 14th, 2019, 8:27 am


Just tell me this - did you even attempt to consider the truth of anything I said, or did you jump straight to seeking for a rebuttal?

No, you tell me this: does my argument nullify your assertion, or not?

No it does not. If you would just read the rest of the thread you would know where we stand on this issue. Obviously God calls prophets and they have been, and always will be, a crucial ingredient in his plans for the salvation of souls. That is not the argument here. How many times does this need to be repeated? Please consider the whole message instead of taking phrases out of context.

Thanks, caburnha.

I think he/ she can answer for him or herself.

And it's not out of context. He/ she made a truth claim. I showed that the claim is not true. No big deal. It doesn't nullify the argument, it nullifies the point.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 7:52 pm

I don't think you really understand what you're saying. You think you're saying something, when you're really broadcasting an entirely different message.

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:02 pm Two points that are run into the ground are: trusting in the arm of flesh...and, follow the prophet. Those who claim that we are not to trust in the arm of flesh have more information to consider. It is clear from these two scriptures that, yes, we are not to trust in the arm of flesh because man is corrupt, or in other words, the natural man is an enemy to God. See Mosiah 3:19

A very important inference is that upon man becoming righteous before God, having cast off the natural man, and is accompanied by, and teaches by the Holy Ghost...we then can pay heed to their words. A truly righteous man is not considered to be the arm of flesh.

Jer. 17:5
5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.


2 Ne. 28:31 (30–31)
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Save = except


Now for following the prophet. A truly righteous and upright man that is called to be a prophet is not the arm of flesh, rather, he is an instrument used by God to teach the doctrine of Christ, to expound specific points of the gospel and deliver any new doctrine the Holy Ghost reveals to him.

Here are a few instances where a man of God has influenced others to rely upon God.

First, consider Christ himself. He was a man of flesh and bone no less than any other soul. He had followers and haters no less than a prophet today. Had others considered him to be the arm of flesh would they have followed him? Would they have believed his words?

Then we have here Hezekiah

2 Chronicles 32:8
8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people (b)rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

(b) relied upon

Here we have a case where prophets of God were mocked. How many people in our own ranks mock our prophets and say they are not to be followed?

2 Chr. 36:15 (15–16)
15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:
16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

What about Samual, the Lamanite?
What about all the writers of the four standard works, do we now consider the content within them to be false because they were written by those in the flesh, thus, throwing all scriptures into the trash?

Here we have an account of Lehi and his family

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

How many people heeded the words of Lehi? Nephi surely did.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 1:55 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

If the entire church was born again all would be prophets (have the gift of prophecy) or even greater gifts. The word of God, given through the spirit would align us with the Prophet (any prophet) and with the Lord's will given directly to us. The is the great promise of the Lord and should be sought after with all our hearts.

Mosiah 5
2 ... the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.
3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.
2 Nephi 32
5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:41 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:02 pm Two points that are run into the ground are: trusting in the arm of flesh...and, follow the prophet. Those who claim that we are not to trust in the arm of flesh have more information to consider. It is clear from these two scriptures that, yes, we are not to trust in the arm of flesh because man is corrupt, or in other words, the natural man is an enemy to God. See Mosiah 3:19

A very important inference is that upon man becoming righteous before God, having cast off the natural man, and is accompanied by, and teaches by the Holy Ghost...we then can pay heed to their words. A truly righteous man is not considered to be the arm of flesh.

Jer. 17:5
5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.


2 Ne. 28:31 (30–31)
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Save = except


Now for following the prophet. A truly righteous and upright man that is called to be a prophet is not the arm of flesh, rather, he is an instrument used by God to teach the doctrine of Christ, to expound specific points of the gospel and deliver any new doctrine the Holy Ghost reveals to him.

Here are a few instances where a man of God has influenced others to rely upon God.

First, consider Christ himself. He was a man of flesh and bone no less than any other soul. He had followers and haters no less than a prophet today. Had others considered him to be the arm of flesh would they have followed him? Would they have believed his words?

Then we have here Hezekiah

2 Chronicles 32:8
8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people (b)rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

(b) relied upon

Here we have a case where prophets of God were mocked. How many people in our own ranks mock our prophets and say they are not to be followed?

2 Chr. 36:15 (15–16)
15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:
16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

What about Samual, the Lamanite?
What about all the writers of the four standard works, do we now consider the content within them to be false because they were written by those in the flesh, thus, throwing all scriptures into the trash?

Here we have an account of Lehi and his family

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

How many people heeded the words of Lehi? Nephi surely did.

I agree with everything said here... And following the prophet (who is righteous and led by the power of the holy ghost) is a NECESSARY and VITAL step. As you said, Nephi followed Lehi. However, this has always been intended to be an initial step in building one's faith which then should lead.to each person receiving a similar witness and seeing eye to eye with them once born again... Did Nephi always rely on Lehi? Not for very long... Was he content on having his brothers follow Lehi (or himself) for very long? No. Remember Nephi's response to Laman and Lemuel in 1 Nephi 15.... If they were truly following their father (the prophet) they would have been seeking after and inquiring of the Lord themselves and received the same witness and information that Nephi had. Yes, we should follow the prophet. But that step is necessarily for the spiritually immature... We.follow with the intent on becoming born again, finding the Lord, and receiving all things personally... If we are content to follow the prophet our whole lives, we become like the children of Israel whose idolization of Moses (placing him between themselves and the Lord) is what caused the Lord's provocation.... This is the point we are trying to make here, the spiritually unhealthy focus on "following the prophet".

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:50 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:41 pm

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 2:02 pm Two points that are run into the ground are: trusting in the arm of flesh...and, follow the prophet. Those who claim that we are not to trust in the arm of flesh have more information to consider. It is clear from these two scriptures that, yes, we are not to trust in the arm of flesh because man is corrupt, or in other words, the natural man is an enemy to God. See Mosiah 3:19

A very important inference is that upon man becoming righteous before God, having cast off the natural man, and is accompanied by, and teaches by the Holy Ghost...we then can pay heed to their words. A truly righteous man is not considered to be the arm of flesh.

Jer. 17:5
5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.


2 Ne. 28:31 (30–31)
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. Save = except


Now for following the prophet. A truly righteous and upright man that is called to be a prophet is not the arm of flesh, rather, he is an instrument used by God to teach the doctrine of Christ, to expound specific points of the gospel and deliver any new doctrine the Holy Ghost reveals to him.

Here are a few instances where a man of God has influenced others to rely upon God.

First, consider Christ himself. He was a man of flesh and bone no less than any other soul. He had followers and haters no less than a prophet today. Had others considered him to be the arm of flesh would they have followed him? Would they have believed his words?

Then we have here Hezekiah

2 Chronicles 32:8
8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people (b)rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

(b) relied upon

Here we have a case where prophets of God were mocked. How many people in our own ranks mock our prophets and say they are not to be followed?

2 Chr. 36:15 (15–16)
15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place:
16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

What about Samual, the Lamanite?
What about all the writers of the four standard works, do we now consider the content within them to be false because they were written by those in the flesh, thus, throwing all scriptures into the trash?

Here we have an account of Lehi and his family

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

How many people heeded the words of Lehi? Nephi surely did.

I agree with everything said here... And following the prophet (who is righteous and led by the power of the holy ghost) is a NECESSARY and VITAL step. As you said, Nephi followed Lehi. However, this has always been intended to be an initial step in building one's faith which then should lead.to each person receiving a similar witness and seeing eye to eye with them once born again... Did Nephi always rely on Lehi? Not for very long... Was he content on having his brothers follow Lehi (or himself) for very long? No. Remember Nephi's response to Laman and Lemuel in 1 Nephi 15.... If they were truly following their father (the prophet) they would have been seeking after and inquiring of the Lord themselves and received the same witness and information that Nephi had. Yes, we should follow the prophet. But that step is necessarily for the spiritually immature... We.follow with the intent on becoming born again, finding the Lord, and receiving all things personally... If we are content to follow the prophet our whole lives, we become like the children of Israel whose idolization of Moses (placing him between themselves and the Lord) is what caused the Lord's provocation.... This is the point we are trying to make here, the spiritually unhealthy focus on "following the prophet".

And if you become spiritually mature and God tells you to do what your leader invites you to do? Or as in Moses case God says listen to him when he tells you to ascend the mount yourself? Is it ok to follow him? Or are you saying that God will only use his servants if he wants to talk to the spiritually immature?

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 4:52 pm Cabhurna says:

"Did Nephi always rely on Lehi? Not for very long."

What evidence do you have for that? What I see when I read the account is a faithful son who always relied on his father (the prophet) to lead him and his family.

An example (and I may botch this a bit, but you'll know what I'm talking about) can be seen when Nephi needs to go out and hunt for some food to save his family's lives. I'm sure Nephi could have just headed out and gone wherever he pleased. But what did he do? He went to the prophet, asked him where he should go, and then followed his counsel.

From where I stand, Nephi relied on the prophet until the prophet died. I really don't see any other way of interpreting it.

caburnha wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 5:13 pm

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 4:52 pm Cabhurna says:

"Did Nephi always rely on Lehi? Not for very long."

What evidence do you have for that? What I see when I read the account is a faithful son who always relied on his father (the prophet) to lead him and his family.

An example (and I may botch this a bit, but you'll know what I'm talking about) can be seen when Nephi needs to go out and hunt for some food to save his family's lives. I'm sure Nephi could have just headed out and gone wherever he pleased. But what did he do? He went to the prophet, asked him where he should go, and then followed his counsel.

From where I stand, Nephi relied on the prophet until the prophet died. I really don't see any other way of interpreting it.

He believed on his father's words, then sought the Lord and received the same word for himself. Just like he encouraged his brothers to do.

As for which way they were to go in the wilderness (or which way they should go for food) the Liahona was the means provided for that. Which, when Nephi broke his bow, it didn't work until Lehi repented of his murmuring. After he repented, the Liahona showed him where they should to go for food... In fact, in this case, Lehi repented in part because of Nephi's preaching. So I guess you could say Lehi followed Nephi... I guess we could then debate what the Liahona is meant to represent... I'd argue that it's the Holy Ghost/Word of Christ/iron rod and maybe you'd argue it's the Prophet...

righteousrepublic wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 6:47 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 5:13 pm

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 4:52 pm Cabhurna says:

"Did Nephi always rely on Lehi? Not for very long."

What evidence do you have for that? What I see when I read the account is a faithful son who always relied on his father (the prophet) to lead him and his family.

An example (and I may botch this a bit, but you'll know what I'm talking about) can be seen when Nephi needs to go out and hunt for some food to save his family's lives. I'm sure Nephi could have just headed out and gone wherever he pleased. But what did he do? He went to the prophet, asked him where he should go, and then followed his counsel.

From where I stand, Nephi relied on the prophet until the prophet died. I really don't see any other way of interpreting it.

He believed on his father's words, then sought the Lord and received the same word for himself. Just like he encouraged his brothers to do.

As for which way they were to go in the wilderness (or which way they should go for food) the Liahona was the means provided for that. Which, when Nephi broke his bow, it didn't work until Lehi repented of his murmuring. After he repented, the Liahona showed him where they should to go for food... In fact, in this case, Lehi repented in part because of Nephi's preaching. So I guess you could say Lehi followed Nephi... I guess we could then debate what the Liahona is meant to represent... I'd argue that it's the Holy Ghost/Word of Christ/iron rod and maybe you'd argue it's the Prophet...

It is the spiritually mature that do follow the prophet. Let me explain. While it is true that we must learn to stand on our own spiritually, we must also be humble enough to heed a prophet. It is our prophets that reveal new revelations from God, it is a prophet that may stand before the masses and tell them to pack up and head out to wherever God directed. A prophet can and will gain revelation for he whole church, whereas, you or I can only receive revelation effecting ourselves, and not for the whole church. Those not willing to heed a prophet are the immature. Take Nephi, did he pray to find out if it was true that he and his brothers were to go back to Jerusalem to retrieve plates that were in the possession of Laban? No. Nephi was mature enough to follow the counsel of his father, a prophet.

Also take thee vetrses into account:

Alma 5:24
24 Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?

3 Nephi 5:1
1 And now behold, there was not a living soul among all the people of the Nephites who did doubt in the least the words of all the holy prophets who had spoken; for they knew that it must needs be that they must be fulfilled.

Are we to assume all the people of the Nephites were immature? No, but the argument for not following prophets is a great strawman.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 7:52 pm

I don't think you really understand what you're saying. You think you're saying something, when you're really broadcasting an entirely different message.

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 7:38 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Okay, so my first thought is pretty much identical to what Caburnha said.

Here's my line of reasoning:

If the entire church was born of God, we would have Zion.
When we have Zion, all will KNOW GOD (Jeremiah 31:34).
As a result of this, all will be prophets.
The Lord wants all of us to ascend the mount and behold him, he does not want to speak only to "Moses" and have him broadcast the message.

From what I've studied about Zion over the years, it's clear there will still be some sort of organization and stewards and "callings" and priesthood responsibilies. What that entails is really anyone's guess (anyone who says they know precisely how it will be really doesn't know, unless they received such knowledge by the power of the Holy Ghost).

However this "organization" is organized really doesn't matter to me. Anyone and anything that happens in Zion will be by the Power of the Holy Ghost and won't be the result of 15 men reasoning amongst themselves and debating about the correct course of action (Which is precisely what happened with the succession crisis with Brigham Young and what again happened after his death for the next few successions and is precisely what happens with policy decisions.)

In contrast to Zion, our current situation lacks the power of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit. I've personally attended only one confirmation where the power of the Holy Ghost came upon someone and they were born of God. I've never witnessed a church meeting where the meeting was entirely directed by the Holy Ghost like what is supposed to occur.
On a few occasions I have truly spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and witnessed someone speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. What I previously thought was "The Power of the Holy Ghost" pales in comparison to what I've witnessed and what i now know is truly the Power of the Holy Ghost.
The "Follow the Prophet" will not be endlessly thrown at members of the church, the "church" will not be looking towards Russell M Nelson's successors successors successor(However long it takes) for direction and for knowledge on what to believe, what to study, because they will all be truly guided by the Holy Ghost on what to do and study and will obtain knowledge for themselves.

In summary
Will there be a need for a prophet?
Kind of? I don't pretend to know how everything will work. On one hand it seems God will direct his work through a Great Servant and through "priesthood organizations", on the other, the body of the Church will not need a prophet to guide them in spiritual things because the Holy Ghost will do that. Whatever "The Prophet's" role will be, it will probably fall in between in the middle what you and I think it will be.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 7:38 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:16 pm

Do you think president bensons intention in giving this talk was to have people follow him over the lord? Or in place of the lord, or have a testimony of him and a relationship with him and not the lord?


If not what was his in intention of giving the talk in terms of individuals relationship with the Lord? How does the 14 points relate to the lord? How does it relate to the gathering? How doesn’t it relate to zion?

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Okay, so my first thought is pretty much identical to what Caburnha said.

Here's my line of reasoning:

If the entire church was born of God, we would have Zion.
When we have Zion, all will KNOW GOD (Jeremiah 31:34).
As a result of this, all will be prophets.
The Lord wants all of us to ascend the mount and behold him, he does not want to speak only to "Moses" and have him broadcast the message.

From what I've studied about Zion over the years, it's clear there will still be some sort of organization and stewards and "callings" and priesthood responsibilies. What that entails is really anyone's guess (anyone who says they know precisely how it will be really doesn't know, unless they received such knowledge by the power of the Holy Ghost).

However this "organization" is organized really doesn't matter to me. Anyone and anything that happens in Zion will be by the Power of the Holy Ghost and won't be the result of 15 men reasoning amongst themselves and debating about the correct course of action (Which is precisely what happened with the succession crisis with Brigham Young and what again happened after his death for the next few successions and is precisely what happens with policy decisions.)

In contrast to Zion, our current situation lacks the power of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit. I've personally attended only one confirmation where the power of the Holy Ghost came upon someone and they were born of God. I've never witnessed a church meeting where the meeting was entirely directed by the Holy Ghost like what is supposed to occur.
On a few occasions I have truly spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and witnessed someone speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. What I previously thought was "The Power of the Holy Ghost" pales in comparison to what I've witnessed and what i now know is truly the Power of the Holy Ghost.
The "Follow the Prophet" will not be endlessly thrown at members of the church, the "church" will not be looking towards Russell M Nelson's successors successors successor(However long it takes) for direction and for knowledge on what to believe, what to study, because they will all be truly guided by the Holy Ghost on what to do and study and will obtain knowledge for themselves.

In summary
Will there be a need for a prophet?
Kind of? I don't pretend to know how everything will work. On one hand it seems God will direct his work through a Great Servant and through "priesthood organizations", on the other, the body of the Church will not need a prophet to guide them in spiritual things because the Holy Ghost will do that. Whatever "The Prophet's" role will be, it will probably fall in between in the middle what you and I think it will be.

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 7:38 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Okay, so my first thought is pretty much identical to what Caburnha said.

Here's my line of reasoning:

If the entire church was born of God, we would have Zion.
When we have Zion, all will KNOW GOD (Jeremiah 31:34).
As a result of this, all will be prophets.
The Lord wants all of us to ascend the mount and behold him, he does not want to speak only to "Moses" and have him broadcast the message.

From what I've studied about Zion over the years, it's clear there will still be some sort of organization and stewards and "callings" and priesthood responsibilies. What that entails is really anyone's guess (anyone who says they know precisely how it will be really doesn't know, unless they received such knowledge by the power of the Holy Ghost).

However this "organization" is organized really doesn't matter to me. Anyone and anything that happens in Zion will be by the Power of the Holy Ghost and won't be the result of 15 men reasoning amongst themselves and debating about the correct course of action (Which is precisely what happened with the succession crisis with Brigham Young and what again happened after his death for the next few successions and is precisely what happens with policy decisions.)

In contrast to Zion, our current situation lacks the power of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit. I've personally attended only one confirmation where the power of the Holy Ghost came upon someone and they were born of God. I've never witnessed a church meeting where the meeting was entirely directed by the Holy Ghost like what is supposed to occur.
On a few occasions I have truly spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and witnessed someone speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. What I previously thought was "The Power of the Holy Ghost" pales in comparison to what I've witnessed and what i now know is truly the Power of the Holy Ghost.
The "Follow the Prophet" will not be endlessly thrown at members of the church, the "church" will not be looking towards Russell M Nelson's successors successors successor(However long it takes) for direction and for knowledge on what to believe, what to study, because they will all be truly guided by the Holy Ghost on what to do and study and will obtain knowledge for themselves.

In summary
Will there be a need for a prophet?
Kind of? I don't pretend to know how everything will work. On one hand it seems God will direct his work through a Great Servant and through "priesthood organizations", on the other, the body of the Church will not need a prophet to guide them in spiritual things because the Holy Ghost will do that. Whatever "The Prophet's" role will be, it will probably fall in between in the middle what you and I think it will be.

In 3rd Nephi one of the first thing Jesus does is calls 12 apostles. These individuals were all born of god and more. Why and what was the function and purpose of these apostles?

If the people could have just followed the spirit why were these men called?

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:20 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 7:38 pm

drtanner wrote: ↑April 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 13th, 2019, 8:52 pm

These questions show perfectly what you and many others are incorrectly assuming.

I personally, and many others, do not and have not ever thought that these leaders had any intentions other than good intentions. Their intent is precisely why we still love them and sustain them. There are people like DS followers who think otherwise, but they are a minority.

Regardless of their intent, the result of talks like this has been a culture and tradition that takes follow the prophet too far, thus justifying Spencer W Kimballs concern.

It doesn’t relate to Zion because the key to Zion is having an entire people with pure hearts , which comes from being sanctified from the Holy Ghost and pushing onward(The Doctrine of Christ) . I can promise you that in all my time in the church I have to hear some mention of following the prophet AT LEAST 10 times for everyone one time the Doctrine of Christ is mentioned. AT LEAST. This had negative consequences in my life and in the lives of countless individuals throughout my life that I love. Had they been properly taught the Doctrine of Christ 10 times more than follow the prophet instead of the reverse they would be in a much better place, AND SO WOULD THE CHURCH.

Again, this from Benson I wholeheartedly sustain 100%

Would not the progress of the Church increase dramatically today with an increasing number of those who are spiritually reborn? Can you imagine what would happen in our homes? Can you imagine what would happen with an increasing number of copies of the Book of Mormon in the hands of an increasing number of missionaries who know how to use it and who have been born of God? When this happens, we will get the harvest President Kimball envisions. It was the “born of God” Alma who as a missionary was so able to impart the word that many others were also born of God.

Oh and ironically(or coincidentally) In this talk he shares a dream David O Mckay had about Zion. What did his dream say? That those who enter are those who have been Born Again, what a perfect tie in to your question about Zion.


What’s the ratio between those two types of phrases in the Book of Mormon? There literally isn’t a ratio because Prophets teaching follow the prophet isn’t found anywhere in the Book. The Doctrine of Christ is all over the place. You can’t go through any book within without encountering references to the mighty change of heart, the spirit wrought upon so and so, the spirit fell upon so and so etc.

If the entire church was born of god, would there be a need for a prophet? If not why? If yes why?

??? The answer to this question is important and I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Okay, so my first thought is pretty much identical to what Caburnha said.

Here's my line of reasoning:

If the entire church was born of God, we would have Zion.
When we have Zion, all will KNOW GOD (Jeremiah 31:34).
As a result of this, all will be prophets.
The Lord wants all of us to ascend the mount and behold him, he does not want to speak only to "Moses" and have him broadcast the message.

From what I've studied about Zion over the years, it's clear there will still be some sort of organization and stewards and "callings" and priesthood responsibilies. What that entails is really anyone's guess (anyone who says they know precisely how it will be really doesn't know, unless they received such knowledge by the power of the Holy Ghost).

However this "organization" is organized really doesn't matter to me. Anyone and anything that happens in Zion will be by the Power of the Holy Ghost and won't be the result of 15 men reasoning amongst themselves and debating about the correct course of action (Which is precisely what happened with the succession crisis with Brigham Young and what again happened after his death for the next few successions and is precisely what happens with policy decisions.)

In contrast to Zion, our current situation lacks the power of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit. I've personally attended only one confirmation where the power of the Holy Ghost came upon someone and they were born of God. I've never witnessed a church meeting where the meeting was entirely directed by the Holy Ghost like what is supposed to occur.
On a few occasions I have truly spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost and witnessed someone speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. What I previously thought was "The Power of the Holy Ghost" pales in comparison to what I've witnessed and what i now know is truly the Power of the Holy Ghost.
The "Follow the Prophet" will not be endlessly thrown at members of the church, the "church" will not be looking towards Russell M Nelson's successors successors successor(However long it takes) for direction and for knowledge on what to believe, what to study, because they will all be truly guided by the Holy Ghost on what to do and study and will obtain knowledge for themselves.

In summary
Will there be a need for a prophet?
Kind of? I don't pretend to know how everything will work. On one hand it seems God will direct his work through a Great Servant and through "priesthood organizations", on the other, the body of the Church will not need a prophet to guide them in spiritual things because the Holy Ghost will do that. Whatever "The Prophet's" role will be, it will probably fall in between in the middle what you and I think it will be.

In 3rd Nephi one of the first thing Jesus does is calls 12 apostles. These individuals were all born of god and more. Why and what was the function and purpose of these apostles?

If the people could have just followed the spirit why were these men called?

And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.