If the Standard Works are the Standard, Why is Our Curriculum Focused on the Words of the Modern Prophets?

[Seed Starter]

if scripture is all u have to claim allegiance to god and jesus i commend u but also pray that u eventually develop a personal relationship that trump the words of others (aka scriptures)

The scriptures cannot be "trumped". God's word in them says that he does not vary from that which he says, neither to the left or the right. Why give an Iron Rod and command all to hold fast to it, just to trump it with something else?

Moses: "God said, thou shalt not kill!...look I wrote it down for you!"

God: "Nephi, Kill Laban!...but, ah, everyone else follow what I told Moses"

Looks like a trump card to me.

Scriptures are great and exactly what is needed for a race of humans that are trying to follow God, but scriptures alone is why we have thousands of churchs that cant agree with one another. Living Prophets and the Holy Ghost are additional guides to help us develop a personal relationship with Jesus and God. Nephi had scriptures but he wouldnt have made it to the promised land without a living prophet, his father Lehi.

We have a living prophet today and Im here to testify that with what the scriptures have done to preserve Gods word along with the restoration of the fulness of his gospel by living prophets...you and I have a quarantee path to the celestial kingdom if we simply check off the boxes and allow Jesus to do his thing. He promises us, its covenant.

What is your opinion on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Mormon

I could see someone making reasonable explanations for halting polygamy or allowing blacks to hold the priesthood but this Mormon campaign is a real headscratcher to me unless I chalk it up to the prophet can lead us astray. I've seen prophets modify or remove things from the last prophet and even the same prophet reverse course on their own programs but how often do we see one prophet push something as good and when that prophet dies the new prophet stops the program AND calls that same thing the old prophet was pushing "a win for satan."

From the link:
"The campaign included cooperation from lay members of the church who were encouraged to create a profile on the church website to tell about their Mormon faith and answer common questions."

Encouraging members to check this box and then saying checking that same box is a win for satan makes it appear as if one prophet had it wrong in my opinion. RMN didn't just stop the campaign he publicly condemned the practice of using the term Mormon. This is significant to me. We can listen to men and read but I submit that we should pray and listen for confirmation by the Spirit before we check any boxes.

[fractal_light_harvest]

And why do we not have any more words of Jesus Christ to be added to canon of Scripture? Do our PSRs all have carpal tunnel or arthritis? Can they not dictate His words to a scribe?


I remember being a missionary and having investigators ask me this question. Our response was always "we have ensign magazines!"

I understand your frustration.

I guess my logical brain doesn't understand:

IF the standard works are the standard
And IF the prophets aren't adding to the canon, but are just repeating what's already in there
Then WHY do I need to listen to the words of the prophets? Wouldn't I be better served just going straight to the source, and making sure there was no room for error?

I'm hoping people can help me work through this one - I don't have any answers, but the question was forcibly impressed upon my mind awhile back, and I haven't been able to answer it for myself satisfactorily.

Maybe it's just my engineering brain and the idea that you don't reference anything but the standards when you're working inside a certain discipline. That's why they're the standard.

They want their commentary on holy writ to be what members cling to. They can't produce their own.

It is rule by *association* instead of revelation. They want to “associate” themselves with the words and legacy of *dead* prophets who are no longer here to defend their own words and associate with who they please.

It is like the Old Testament Jews. They were the descendants of Abraham so they assumed they were righteous by association or lineage. No need to bother with any revelation, they had Abraham as a forefather. They could simply point to thhis fact and create endless commentary and interpretations based on the Torah. That was good enough to prove their mantle of “authority” in their minds.

[InfoWarrior82]

I understand your frustration.

I guess my logical brain doesn't understand:

IF the standard works are the standard
And IF the prophets aren't adding to the canon, but are just repeating what's already in there
Then WHY do I need to listen to the words of the prophets? Wouldn't I be better served just going straight to the source, and making sure there was no room for error?

I'm hoping people can help me work through this one - I don't have any answers, but the question was forcibly impressed upon my mind awhile back, and I haven't been able to answer it for myself satisfactorily.

Maybe it's just my engineering brain and the idea that you don't reference anything but the standards when you're working inside a certain discipline. That's why they're the standard.

They want their commentary on holy writ to be what members cling to. They can't produce their own.

It is rule by *association* instead of revelation. They want to “associate” themselves with the words and legacy of *dead* prophets who are no longer here to defend their own words and associate with who they please.

It is like the Old Testament Jews. They were the descendants of Abraham so they assumed they were righteous by association or lineage. No need to bother with any revelation, they had Abraham as a forefather. They could simply point to thhis fact and create endless commentary and interpretations based on the Torah. That was good enough to prove their mantle of “authority” in their minds.

You nailed it.


I don't know why this isn't apparent to the general membership.

It's like that 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

[fractal_light_harvest]

They want their commentary on holy writ to be what members cling to. They can't produce their own.

It is rule by *association* instead of revelation. They want to “associate” themselves with the words and legacy of *dead* prophets who are no longer here to defend their own words and associate with who they please.

It is like the Old Testament Jews. They were the descendants of Abraham so they assumed they were righteous by association or lineage. No need to bother with any revelation, they had Abraham as a forefather. They could simply point to thhis fact and create endless commentary and interpretations based on the Torah. That was good enough to prove their mantle of “authority” in their minds.

You nailed it.


I don't know why this isn't apparent to the general membership.

It's like that 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

Ya it is a bit strange. My current theory is that when you tie your whole spiritual identity and value to an institution rather than Jesus Christ you then cannot question or denigrate that institution because it would be like denigrating yourself. That is why it’s so painful to them. It is *how* they gain self worth and *why* they have superiority and victim complexes— due to their membership in the org and worshiping the org above all else and idolizing it.

So to de-value the org is to de-value themselves and their self worth since they define themselves by it. Satan loves this crap. He gets off on it.

[randyps]

The scriptures cannot be "trumped". God's word in them says that he does not vary from that which he says, neither to the left or the right. Why give an Iron Rod and command all to hold fast to it, just to trump it with something else?

Moses: "God said, thou shalt not kill!...look I wrote it down for you!"

God: "Nephi, Kill Laban!...but, ah, everyone else follow what I told Moses"

Looks like a trump card to me.

Scriptures are great and exactly what is needed for a race of humans that are trying to follow God, but scriptures alone is why we have thousands of churchs that cant agree with one another. Living Prophets and the Holy Ghost are additional guides to help us develop a personal relationship with Jesus and God. Nephi had scriptures but he wouldnt have made it to the promised land without a living prophet, his father Lehi.

We have a living prophet today and Im here to testify that with what the scriptures have done to preserve Gods word along with the restoration of the fulness of his gospel by living prophets...you and I have a quarantee path to the celestial kingdom if we simply check off the boxes and allow Jesus to do his thing. He promises us, its covenant.

What is your opinion on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Mormon

I could see someone making reasonable explanations for halting polygamy or allowing blacks to hold the priesthood but this Mormon campaign is a real headscratcher to me unless I chalk it up to the prophet can lead us astray. I've seen prophets modify or remove things from the last prophet and even the same prophet reverse course on their own programs but how often do we see one prophet push something as good and when that prophet dies the new prophet stops the program AND calls that same thing the old prophet was pushing "a win for satan."

From the link:
"The campaign included cooperation from lay members of the church who were encouraged to create a profile on the church website to tell about their Mormon faith and answer common questions."

Encouraging members to check this box and then saying checking that same box is a win for satan makes it appear as if one prophet had it wrong in my opinion. RMN didn't just stop the campaign he publicly condemned the practice of using the term Mormon. This is significant to me. We can listen to men and read but I submit that we should pray and listen for confirmation by the Spirit before we check any boxes.

I dont consider that a box on the check list, im referring to the major boxes like baptism, repentance, partaking the sacrament, serving others and making/keeping temple covenants..

our living apostles teach and testify of those things all the time, thats how I know they are legit. All the other fluff like lifestyle advice is, like you say, a personal matter you should pray and think before doing, it may not b right for you, but it may be right for others.

[JohnnyL]

Wondering what people's thoughts are regarding this.

I have five children. They get very little scriptural instruction while at Church.

Why is this? The standard works are still the standard, right?

If these men wanted to, they could add their works to the standard works - so why don't they try?

For the past four years (other than the Covid shutdown), at least, the scriptures have been taught in Primary weekly. (Adults have been doing it for decades.)

Something must be going on with where you live if your children aren't getting taught the scriptures.

[logonbump]

Because the church literally teaches that their words, the words of a “living prophet”, are more important than the scriptures.

This is so true, and it is what will lead the members to hell. They will learn the hard way.

Do you really think our brothers and sisters that have been deceived by “religious” men are going to hell? I don’t. I know wonderful people with hearts of gold that are being deceived right now by various religions and I don’t believe they are doomed.

They might still be doomed to a physical destruction but have been redeemed from hell by the atonement.

[JohnnyL]

They want their commentary on holy writ to be what members cling to. They can't produce their own.

Okay, but that's illogical, right?

It's the same problem the Jews had, if I understand things correctly. God had given them the Pentateuch, and then along came all these men who wanted to add their commentary, and then over time, the commentary became as or more important than the word of God.

I don't know why I don't feel settled on this one. The argument seems tight, but it's like I'm missing something that makes me reticent to form a final conclusion.

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate the conversation.

"The son of Zacharias [John the Baptist] wrested the keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory from the Jews, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven" - Joseph Smith, TPJS Chp 6

Did the Jews notice?

Yes, they did, and he was killed.

[JohnnyL]

Can you imagine the discontent (even malcontent) if a man gave a lesson in combined priesthood/womens using the New Testament as a basis of laying out a woman’s role toward her husband? Or a GC talk?

Seeing as we just covered it this month, no need to imagine.

[Seed Starter]

Moses: "God said, thou shalt not kill!...look I wrote it down for you!"

God: "Nephi, Kill Laban!...but, ah, everyone else follow what I told Moses"

Looks like a trump card to me.

Scriptures are great and exactly what is needed for a race of humans that are trying to follow God, but scriptures alone is why we have thousands of churchs that cant agree with one another. Living Prophets and the Holy Ghost are additional guides to help us develop a personal relationship with Jesus and God. Nephi had scriptures but he wouldnt have made it to the promised land without a living prophet, his father Lehi.

We have a living prophet today and Im here to testify that with what the scriptures have done to preserve Gods word along with the restoration of the fulness of his gospel by living prophets...you and I have a quarantee path to the celestial kingdom if we simply check off the boxes and allow Jesus to do his thing. He promises us, its covenant.

What is your opinion on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Mormon

I could see someone making reasonable explanations for halting polygamy or allowing blacks to hold the priesthood but this Mormon campaign is a real headscratcher to me unless I chalk it up to the prophet can lead us astray. I've seen prophets modify or remove things from the last prophet and even the same prophet reverse course on their own programs but how often do we see one prophet push something as good and when that prophet dies the new prophet stops the program AND calls that same thing the old prophet was pushing "a win for satan."

From the link:
"The campaign included cooperation from lay members of the church who were encouraged to create a profile on the church website to tell about their Mormon faith and answer common questions."

Encouraging members to check this box and then saying checking that same box is a win for satan makes it appear as if one prophet had it wrong in my opinion. RMN didn't just stop the campaign he publicly condemned the practice of using the term Mormon. This is significant to me. We can listen to men and read but I submit that we should pray and listen for confirmation by the Spirit before we check any boxes.

I dont consider that a box on the check list, im referring to the major boxes like baptism, repentance, partaking the sacrament, serving others and making/keeping temple covenants..

our living apostles teach and testify of those things all the time, thats how I know they are legit. All the other fluff like lifestyle advice is, like you say, a personal matter you should pray and think before doing, it may not b right for you, but it may be right for others.

I think I understand what you're saying. All of the things in your first sentence are lifestyle things but I see a distinction between fluff lifestyle and meaningful lifestyle. Partaking in all of the church's programs is not necessary to enter God's kingdom. I think the "I'm a Mormon campaign" was implemented to break down negative or false stereotypes of Mormons. I think it was meant to be a sort of pre-missionary tool, an opening act at a concert if you will. I think that we would agree that helping people come unto Christ is far from fluff. It is the reason the church exists in my opinion.

Anyone who paid tithing participated in this campaign because sacred funds were used to run it for nearly a decade. I don't think filling out an online profile or not matters much so I don't blame you for not checking that box. I didn't check that box. If this whole thing is fluff and not important then why is a living prophet spending sacred funds on it and more importantly taking time to speak on the matter in conference?

Prophets have precious little time in conference to address the worldwide membership so every minute counts. My contention is they don't spend time on fluff. Even when they share a funny anecdote it is usually to teach something with a purpose. My confusion is caused by the new guy is telling us the old guy was involved in helping satan win when he says using the term Mormon is a win for satan. Logically, if the old guy thought it was worth spending sacred funds on a marketing campaign used to turn the lay term for LDS into a positive (missionary tool) he helped satan with millions of little wins for satan. The new guy thinks what we call ourselves is big enough deal to spend time counseling members in conference about it and essentially tell members to sop doing it. This contradictory message from two prophets back to back shows me that prophets can lead us astray. Yes they testify of all the important things you mentioned which is good but I was under the impression that we should listen to prophets and follow their counsel whenever they offer it. The new guy said the old guy was doing wrong.

I have to assume RMN knew this condemnation of what the old prophet was doing would cause members to question but he did it anyway. If what RMN says is true so be it. If I believe him the inescapable truth is the old guy was leading members astray. If the old guy leads us astray in any way why couldn't the new guy? This type of behavior undermines RMS's statement about the Q15's inability to lead us astray. I had an interesting conversation with John Tavner on this forum and I'm trying to avoid condemning anyone for their motivations. I know you are on your way back so to speak so I'm curious to know how you logically deal with a contradiction such as this. I think it is what it is but I think it may be uncomfortable for some to accept either prophet had a problem.

[randyps]

What is your opinion on this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Mormon

I could see someone making reasonable explanations for halting polygamy or allowing blacks to hold the priesthood but this Mormon campaign is a real headscratcher to me unless I chalk it up to the prophet can lead us astray. I've seen prophets modify or remove things from the last prophet and even the same prophet reverse course on their own programs but how often do we see one prophet push something as good and when that prophet dies the new prophet stops the program AND calls that same thing the old prophet was pushing "a win for satan."

From the link:
"The campaign included cooperation from lay members of the church who were encouraged to create a profile on the church website to tell about their Mormon faith and answer common questions."

Encouraging members to check this box and then saying checking that same box is a win for satan makes it appear as if one prophet had it wrong in my opinion. RMN didn't just stop the campaign he publicly condemned the practice of using the term Mormon. This is significant to me. We can listen to men and read but I submit that we should pray and listen for confirmation by the Spirit before we check any boxes.

I dont consider that a box on the check list, im referring to the major boxes like baptism, repentance, partaking the sacrament, serving others and making/keeping temple covenants..

our living apostles teach and testify of those things all the time, thats how I know they are legit. All the other fluff like lifestyle advice is, like you say, a personal matter you should pray and think before doing, it may not b right for you, but it may be right for others.

I think I understand what you're saying. All of the things in your first sentence are lifestyle things but I see a distinction between fluff lifestyle and meaningful lifestyle. Partaking in all of the church's programs is not necessary to enter God's kingdom. I think the "I'm a Mormon campaign" was implemented to break down negative or false stereotypes of Mormons. I think it was meant to be a sort of pre-missionary tool, an opening act at a concert if you will. I think that we would agree that helping people come unto Christ is far from fluff. It is the reason the church exists in my opinion.

Anyone who paid tithing participated in this campaign because sacred funds were used to run it for nearly a decade. I don't think filling out an online profile or not matters much so I don't blame you for not checking that box. I didn't check that box. If this whole thing is fluff and not important then why is a living prophet spending sacred funds on it and more importantly taking time to speak on the matter in conference?

Prophets have precious little time in conference to address the worldwide membership so every minute counts. My contention is they don't spend time on fluff. Even when they share a funny anecdote it is usually to teach something with a purpose. My confusion is caused by the new guy is telling us the old guy was involved in helping satan win when he says using the term Mormon is a win for satan. Logically, if the old guy thought it was worth spending sacred funds on a marketing campaign used to turn the lay term for LDS into a positive (missionary tool) he helped satan with millions of little wins for satan. The new guy thinks what we call ourselves is big enough deal to spend time counseling members in conference about it and essentially tell members to sop doing it. This contradictory message from two prophets back to back shows me that prophets can lead us astray. Yes they testify of all the important things you mentioned which is good but I was under the impression that we should listen to prophets and follow their counsel whenever they offer it. The new guy said the old guy was doing wrong.

I have to assume RMN knew this condemnation of what the old prophet was doing would cause members to question but he did it anyway. If what RMN says is true so be it. If I believe him the inescapable truth is the old guy was leading members astray. If the old guy leads us astray in any way why couldn't the new guy? This type of behavior undermines RMS's statement about the Q15's inability to lead us astray. I had an interesting conversation with John Tavner on this forum and I'm trying to avoid condemning anyone for their motivations. I know you are on your way back so to speak so I'm curious to know how you logically deal with a contradiction such as this. I think it is what it is but I think it may be uncomfortable for some to accept either prophet had a problem.

I have a way with not explaining myself that well, i think i shouldve paid more attention in grade school.

I dont have a problem with one prophet changing course on a previous prophets direction, both are inspired for what is needed in their times of service.

-baptism, repentance, partaking of the sacrament, serving others and making/keeping temple covenants

...are the main check boxes we all need to strive for.

[JohnnyL]

And why do we not have any more words of Jesus Christ to be added to canon of Scripture? Do our PSRs all have carpal tunnel or arthritis? Can they not dictate His words to a scribe?

I remember being a missionary and having investigators ask me this question. Our response was always "we have ensign magazines!"

I understand your frustration.

I guess my logical brain doesn't understand:

IF the standard works are the standard
And IF the prophets aren't adding to the canon, but are just repeating what's already in there
Then WHY do I need to listen to the words of the prophets? Wouldn't I be better served just going straight to the source, and making sure there was no room for error?

I'm hoping people can help me work through this one - I don't have any answers, but the question was forcibly impressed upon my mind awhile back, and I haven't been able to answer it for myself satisfactorily.

Maybe it's just my engineering brain and the idea that you don't reference anything but the standards when you're working inside a certain discipline. That's why they're the standard.

Which came first: the prophets, or the scriptures?

Prophets write, interpret, and expound scripture (though non-prophets have written scripture, too).

But the prophets' words aren't scripture! Well, the way in which some hold Joseph Smith as the standard (a main argument for MMP being a quote from Joseph Smith), and allow "friendly" apostles the same privilege, is pretty queasy... There's are double standards and cherry-picking.

///
But we haven't had new scriptures for a long time! We have, but they're just not a part of the "standard works". https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=eng:

"Doctrine and Covenants 68:3–4 and 2 Peter 1:21. Note the following doctrinal clarification by President Harold B. Lee:
“In another great revelation he [the Lord] explained something else that we would have the Saints remember today. Where are you going to go to hear and find out what the Lord wants you to do today? The Lord declared again:
“‘And this is the ensample unto them [he is talking now to those who are leaders of the Church], that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
“‘And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.’ (D&C 68:3–4.)” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 167; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, 126).

and

"Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught: “From the days of the first dispensation it has been the practice of the Lord’s people to make selections from the scriptural utterances of those who are appointed to lead the Church and to publish these selections as formal and official scripture. All should be accepted and believed by all who call themselves Saints. But the revelations, visions, prophecies, and narrations selected and published for official use are thereby made binding upon the people in a particular and special sense. They become part of the standard works of the Church. They become the standards, the measuring rods, by which doctrine and procedure are determined” (“A New Commandment: Save Thyself and Thy Kindred,” Ensign, Aug. 1976, 7)."

///
Alma taught the words of Abinadi.

The priests and teachers he ordained taught his words, and the scriptures:
18 And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests... and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

Doctrine and Covenants 6:9, 11:9, 14:8, and 19:21: "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation". So why are we discussing anything more than that--in church, in our lives, in our families, on this board?

Interesting that we have a lot more revelation in those same scriptures, from the same God that said that. Maybe that's the thrust, but there's more?

///
Now the main question: IF President Nelson canonized most of his conference talks (with minor corrections/ clarifications) and said, "Thus saith the Lord" in front of it, would we personally vote to accept it? Most here likely would not. Luckily, he hasn't, so it's not as binding on us and won't condemn us even more, and God leaves those that have ears to hear, and those that have eyes to see.

Myself... well, I'm much happier having a ton of new informal scripture instead of having a little of new canonized scripture.

[logicalheart]

Moses: "God said, thou shalt not kill!...look I wrote it down for you!"

God: "Nephi, Kill Laban!...but, ah, everyone else follow what I told Moses"

Nephi explains that he was both prompted by The Spirit and also justified in God’s law. Laban accepted their payment for the Brass plates, but kept the plates. He also gave the orders for Nephi and his brothers to be murdered. So Nephi was in the right to collect the plates and also protect himself and his brothers from Laban seeking them out to kill them.

[Ebenezer]

Nelson gave a GC talk in April 1990 called "Thus Shall My Church Be Called" where he basically made the same case as he did in 2018. I think he just didn't like the Mormon nickname, tried to make that point in 1990, but was ignored by the members and the leadership. Hinckley went on to make "Mormon" into a household name with appearances on major talk shows, articles in Newsweek and Time, and the famous ad campaign. That must have really jerked Nelson around. He called using the term "Mormon" a win for Satan not because it's a win for Satan but because he'd held a grudge for decades.

[InfoWarrior82]

Oh, the Pettiness

[Reluctant Watchman]

Nelson gave a GC talk in April 1990 called "Thus Shall My Church Be Called" where he basically made the same case as he did in 2018. I think he just didn't like the Mormon nickname, tried to make that point in 1990, but was ignored by the members and the leadership. Hinckley went on to make "Mormon" into a household name with appearances on major talk shows, articles in Newsweek and Time, and the famous ad campaign. That must have really jerked Nelson around. He called using the term "Mormon" a win for Satan not because it's a win for Satan but because he'd held a grudge for decades.

Right after Nelson gave his 1990 talk, Hinckley gave a talk six months later on how he liked the word Mormon and thought it meant “more good.” Pretty sure Nelson wanted revenge.

[David13]

Nelson gave a GC talk in April 1990 called "Thus Shall My Church Be Called" where he basically made the same case as he did in 2018. I think he just didn't like the Mormon nickname, tried to make that point in 1990, but was ignored by the members and the leadership. Hinckley went on to make "Mormon" into a household name with appearances on major talk shows, articles in Newsweek and Time, and the famous ad campaign. That must have really jerked Nelson around. He called using the term "Mormon" a win for Satan not because it's a win for Satan but because he'd held a grudge for decades.

Right after Nelson gave his 1990 talk, Hinckley gave a talk six months later on how he liked the word Mormon and thought it meant “more good.” Pretty sure Nelson wanted revenge.

Interesting. And quite probably true.

I had theorized that it was some slight from childhood, some bully perhaps who beat him a bit and called him a ... MORMON!

But your theory sounds a like more like and apt to his situation.

Why the focus on ... the modern profits?

Indeed. It's man worship. A cult type man worship. Worship the corporate executives in Salt Lake.
dc

[Reluctant Watchman]

The whole Hinckley/Nelson/Mormon fiasco was s sh*t show. Members were beaten over the head to "follow the prophet." Here's how it went down:

———
PSRs: Follow the prophet, don't go astray

Members: Ok, we follow the prophet

PSRs: We are Mormons

Members: We follow the profit

Nelson: No, we're not Mormons, we are LDS.

Hinckley: I like the name Mormon

Members: Hey, everybody, I'm a Mormon!! ($$$)

Nelson: (stews for a decade, is now "unleashed" -Wendy)

Nelson: How dare all of you peons call the church by the wrong name. You were serving Satan.

Hinckley: (laughing in his grave)

Members: We are so sorry for not following the living idol *cough*, I mean prophet. Our bad, thank you for calling us to repentance for something we did simply because we were following the dead prophet and not the living prophet. We know we must repent of our behavior, even though we had nothing to do with the decision ourselves and this was simply a fewd between two false prophets.

[randyps]

Moses: "God said, thou shalt not kill!...look I wrote it down for you!"

God: "Nephi, Kill Laban!...but, ah, everyone else follow what I told Moses"

Nephi explains that he was both prompted by The Spirit and also justified in God’s law. Laban accepted their payment for the Brass plates, but kept the plates. He also gave the orders for Nephi and his brothers to be murdered. So Nephi was in the right to collect the plates and also protect himself and his brothers from Laban seeking them out to kill them.

Nephi was chased outside the city from Labans guards, He couldve just called it the day and return without the plates, his life was not in danger. He was told to go back and God will deliver Laban into his hands. The whole point is that God can change the laws, where someone in this thread said the scriptures' are Gods law and cannot be changed.