LDS Freedom Forum

that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong;

Read carefully friend- "even if they knew it was wrong" - that changes everything.

I ask you: have you ever been asked or been taught to accept the will of the leadership without question? Furthermore:

Actually yes- in the temple. If you are famaliar with the covenants, you will know what I'm talking about here.

And I ask you have you ever been taught to question the Prophet?

Think - are you challenging my comment about being a fool because of rejecting the words of a prophet after gaining a testimony of him being a prophet? I'm not sure I follow you here.

Mosby wrote:Read carefully friend- "even if they knew it was wrong" - that changes everything.

Who says what is right and what is wrong?

Mosby wrote:Actually yes- in the temple. If you are famaliar with the covenants, you will know what I'm talking about here.

I'm very familiar, but I don't recall what you are referring to.

Mosby wrote:And I ask you have you ever been taught to question the Prophet? y

Is that not what Joseph is asking us to do? If not, it is suggested you "should not claim a rank among intelligent beings". In addition, it should be clear that we are being asked to honour our leaders in righteousness. As soon as they become unrighteous, or exercise any level of coercion or even cover up, the situation changes.

Mosby wrote:Think - are you challenging my comment about being a fool because of rejecting the words of a prophet after gaining a testimony of him being a prophet? I'm not sure I follow you here.

What prophetic words have I rejected Mosby?

Here is something to chew on:

"THE SCRIPTURES say that we shall receive line upon line and precept upon precept; and therefore IT IS NECESSARY SOMETIMES, to carry out these idea in order that, where a people HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED or have not judged CORRECTLY or heard correctly, they may (by the scriptures) be put right in relation to all the general leading principles. A feeling has more or less prevailed among the people that Tithing IS A MATTER TO BE DECIDED ON EXCLUSIVELY BY THE INDIVIDUAL PAYING IT, and that if he pays it is all right; if he does not pay his Tithing it is not SO right, but it makes not much difference... Now it is proper that we should be CORRECTLY informed in relation to these matters, and as I stated yesterday, There is a GREAT DIVERSITY OF OPINION EXISTING among men, and even MEN IN AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH, say, Bishops and Presidents and others in relation to the principle of tithing. Now, it is proper that we should have a correct view and proper understanding of this principle. We are here to carry out the purposes and designs OF GOD, and as I understand it we have been gathered together according to certain revelations which have been given for the establishment of HIS CHURCH upon the earth, and that we as a people, profess to be the Lord's people, and under HIS GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION." That would be John Taylor speaking, January 9, 1881 (JD).

He goes on to say: "Some of the Bishops do not understand these things, and yet we have had this doctrine GIVEN unto us for forty-two years. HAS A MAN A RIGHT TO TURN AND CHANGE THINGS AS HE PLEASES? I (President John Taylor) have not AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY MAN HAS. And if any Bishop or President of a Stake or anybody else tell you that... I tell you he teaches false doctrine." So we have the second president of the church speaking clearly that some misinformed individuals are teaching false docrtine -- bishops none he less!

Is there a precedent for disobeying the prophet? Yes. Remember teh Rechabites, who refused alcohol. Here is what Lorenzo Snow said regarding them: "...I will refer again to the Rechabites, and the strong TEMPTATION that they were under when invited to the Temple of God, and there, in one of the apartments, ASKED by Jeremiah, one of THE GREATEST PROPHETS, to drink wine; or, in other words, TO DO SOMETHING THEY HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED by their father not to do. BUT THEY COULD NOT BE MOVED, the teaching of their father had found an abiding place in their hearts, and the consequence was that THEY UTTERLY REFUSED TO DO WHAT THE PROPHET OF GOD TOLD THEM TO DO. THE LORD HIMSELF ADMIRED THE COURSE THAT THEY TOOK IN THIS MATTER and was led as I before said, to make such a glorious promise to the house of Rechab;..." Of course the man is speaking of drinking, which is forbidden. Modern day, we could look at tithing, where we are told that "interest" means "income". But anyone with a dictionary knows these words are not the same. We could look at debt, where we are told a little debt is good for a home, a car, and education. A little bondage isn't bad! Or is it? I have learned it is all bad, and despite the counsel, I make every effort I can not to incur any debt at all. "...If a bishop counsels the people of his ward to swear shall they swear? No. If he counsels them to steal shall they steal? No. If he counsels them to lie and bear false witness shall they do these wrongs? No. If a bishop OR ANY OTHER OFFICER IN THIS CHURCH shall counsel the people TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE LAWS OF GOD, and to sustain and build up the kingdoms of this world, I WILL JUSTIFY THEM AND THE LORD WILL JUSTIFY them in REFUSING TO OBEY THAT COUNSEL. .." Brigham Young JD 12:164

I have read that the church has modified tithing five times since it was instituted. The scripture hasn't changed, but what it "means" apparently has, and this to a "standing law unto the church forever". One of these was ended when John Taylor got up and commented on Brigham Young and other priesthood leaders who had or were willing to make "modification (of the Law of Tithing)... the priesthood was not called to pervert the ways of the Lord". John Taylor did this in a large Saturday conference in January of1881 in Salt Lake Stake. He was followed by President Young, who stood and said in essence: "Good point, it is as the scriptures say, not as we have been doing". Nice check and balance here, one that appears to be lost. I know of no modern examples like that. Do you?

So historically, there is plenty of precedent for policy changes, mistakes, errors, and so on. I could care less one way or another, because the work goes on, but what does bother me is those who teach that there is no error, or that "they" are perfect when they are not, and if I want to point out that income is not interest (or whatever other common sense item) I should be able to without fear of excommunication, as John Taylor did. In case you're wondering, I have brought these points up with my local leaders, and they have no answers for me.

["Childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty" John Taylor Gatto, Weapons of Mass Instruction 2009

Is there a precedent for disobeying the prophet? Yes

Good luck with that belief.

ithink-
the whole issue on this thread (that has gone on way to long) is I believe that following the Prophet with exact obedience, is measure of your testimony- is it not the main difference in our vs. all other religions that we have a living prophet?

I choose to follow the Prophet without "questioning" his decisions.

You seem to reserve the right to question the decision(s) of a living Prophet - is this not your argument?
If so that's your right - I just don't see that doctrine taught anywhere in our church.

The last category of criticism I will address comes from within the Church itself. This criticism is more lethal than that coming from nonmembers and former members. The danger lies not in what may come from a member critic, but in the chance that we might become one.

One activity which often leads a member to be critical is engaging in inappropriate intellectualism. While it would seem the search for and discovery of truth should be the goal of all Latter-day Saints, it appears some get more satisfaction from trying to discover new uncertainties. I have friends who have literally spent their lives, thus far, trying to nail down every single intellectual loose end rather than accepting the witness of the Spirit and getting on with it. In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.

Elder Faust describes this type of intellectual as “a person who continues to chase after a bus even after he has caught it.” We invite everyone to get on the bus before it’s out of sight and you are left forever trying to figure out the infinite with a finite mind. In the words of Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him.” (1 Kgs. 18:21.)

Inappropriate intellectualism sometimes leads one to testify that he knows the gospel is true but believes the Brethren are just a little out of touch. Out of touch with what? Don’t confuse a decision to abstain from participating in a trend with a lack of awareness about its existence. These Brethren “prove all things” and “hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21.) To accomplish this, they are in constant touch with Him who created this earth and knows the world from beginning to end.

There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the menu. A prophet doesn’t take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is blowing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us. The world is full of deteriorating churches who have succumbed to public opinion and have become more dedicated to tickling the ears of their members than obeying the laws of God.

Bishop Glenn L.Pace, Ensign May, 1989

No matter what, we follow the prophets. Submission is the key. If we don’t like it or not, we follow as a disciple of Christ. Submissive like a child. Children always question what they don’t fully understand, and when they still can’t make sense of it………they submit to thier fathers. NOW, I am a child of god who has questioned his existence, his church, his leaders, and teachings. How else would I gain a testimony!?

Don’t be so quick to judge a questioning soul.

Don’t be so quick to judge a questioning soul.

Look this circular debate is getting old- I'm not "judging" anyone, not condeming anyone- I'm just saying that if you feel that the Prophet's decisions bother you- or you question them- then it may be wise to evalute why it is you feel that way.

It's painfully easy for me: the living Prohet IS the mouthpiece for the Lord! Period - end of story. If he signs off on the building of an amusement park next to temple square - then it IS the will of the Lord; why? because he is a Prophet of God.

It's not my job to question his decision(s)- because then I would be questioning the Lord. IMHO questioning the Lord or the Prophet is never a good thing.

Note here this is MY OPINION, You and ithink are free to question the decisions of the Brethren all you wish - that's between you and the Lord.

I'm done with this debate, it's really not going anywhere.

We have two camps: 1. Obeying without question the decisions of a living Prophet 2. Questioning the decisions of the living Prophet.

All flesh is free to choose to do either.

Mosby wrote:We have two camps: 1. Obeying without question the decisions of a living Prophet 2. Questioning the decisions of the living Prophet.

I'll set up another camp, if you don't mind. 3. Obey the counsel and decisions of the living Prophet, and continue to learn truth by asking questions. I'll inquire, but I'll never object to, dispute, nor interrogate intensively the counsel and decisions of the Prophet.

How's that sound?

It's painfully easy for me: the living Prohet IS the mouthpiece for the Lord! Period - end of story. If he signs off on the building of an amusement park next to temple square - then it IS the will of the Lord; why? because he is a Prophet of God.

What a Blessing!!!

Note here this is MY OPINION, You and ithink are free to question the decisions of the Brethren all you wish - that's between you and the Lord.

Precisely!

No matter what, we follow the prophets. Submission is the key. If we don’t like it or not, we follow as a disciple of Christ. Submissive like a child. Children always question what they don’t fully understand, and when they still can’t make sense of it………they submit to thier fathers. NOW, I am a child of god who has questioned his existence, his church, his leaders, and teachings. How else would I gain a testimony!?

No answer?

I'll set up another camp, if you don't mind. 3. Obey the counsel and decisions of the living Prophet, and continue to learn truth by asking questions. I'll inquire, but I'll never object to, dispute, nor interrogate intensively the counsel and decisions of the Prophet.

How's that sound?

PERFECT!! I’ll pitch my tent!!!

BTW Teeth,

I love that avatar!

BTW Teeth,

I love that avatar!

Thank you Sir! I was going to do the lamp leg, but tought this one was better!

Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the prophet Joseph Smith get mixed up in some bad business deals (e.g. the Kirtland Safety Society bank failure) that resulted in many members of the church questioning his efficacy as the Lord's prophet and ultimately apostasizing?

Can a person appointed as the Lord's prophet make perfectly human mistakes (business or otherwise) and still be perfectly able to guide the spiritual affairs of the church in the Lord's appointed manner?

Does the Lord allow his chosen prophet to be fallible as a human being while still holding true to His promise that He will never allow His prophet to lead the church astray?

Is there, perhaps, a third camp here where I can pitch my tent?

Is there, perhaps, a third camp here where I can pitch my tent?

Its a free country in the sense you can pitch your tent wherever you want. Boys in blue or black or red or green may stomp it down though!

Mosby wrote:

ithink wrote:Is there a precedent for disobeying the prophet? Yes

Good luck with that belief.

Thanks, as I have shown, it is the same belief shared by Joseph, Brigham, and John, the first three presidents of the church. I think I am in good company. If not, please come visit us in hell.

Mosby wrote:I choose to follow the Prophet without "questioning" his decisions. ... You seem to reserve the right to question the decision(s) of a living Prophet - is this not your argument? If so that's your right - I just don't see that doctrine taught anywhere in our church.

I don't argue. Show me the statements made by Joseph, Brigham, and John are somehow not valid, and I will acquiesce to your point of view, even if it means giving up my place among intelligent beings.

The world is full of deteriorating churches who have succumbed to public opinion and have become more dedicated to tickling the ears of their members than obeying the laws of God.

Bishop Glenn L.Pace, Ensign May, 1989[/quote] Here is my point. You say "I don't see the doctrine you are teaching" being taught. I say, you are correct, it isn't anymore. But, I also know that Elder Eyring stated recently, that the words of the former prophets do need to be recycled to stay valid.

Well Mosby, and anyone else who thinks as he does, as one who has chosen to follow the prophet with exact obedience, let me ask you this: Do you expect to be justified in following the prophet because he is "the Prophet", or will you be justified in following the prophet when he is right? If the prophet wants to drink Mountain Dew: shall I be justified in doing it even though I know it is wrong?

"...I will refer again to the Rechabites, and the strong TEMPTATION that they were under when invited to the Temple of God, and there, in one of the apartments, ASKED by Jeremiah, one of THE GREATEST PROPHETS, to drink wine; or, in other words, TO DO SOMETHING THEY HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED by their father not to do. BUT THEY COULD NOT BE MOVED, the teaching of their father had found an abiding place in their hearts, and the consequence was that THEY UTTERLY REFUSED TO DO WHAT THE PROPHET OF GOD TOLD THEM TO DO. THE LORD HIMSELF ADMIRED THE COURSE THAT THEY TOOK IN THIS MATTER and was led as I before said, to make such a glorious promise to the house of Rechab;..."

Thank President Snow for that one.

The situation with Monson drinking Mountain Dew and Jeremiah drinking wine is exactly the same. The difference is in how the people received it.

You cannot be saved following the prophet in error.

Prophets and Apostles are give us for one reason, and one only: Until all come to a unity of the faith, and to the point that "all men might speak in the name of the Lord". These are no idle words. At that point, at the unity of the faith, where every man can prophesy in the Name of the Lord, there will be no need for prophets and Apostles. Until then, we are justifed, as President Snow said, to use our own brains and hearts and former teachings to which we have attached ourselves, and we will be justified by Christ himself in disobeying the prophet in principle so we do not contradict our former covenants and promises.

ithink rocks!!!

Well Mosby, and anyone else who thinks as he does, as one who has chosen to follow the prophet with exact obedience, let me ask you this: Do you expect to be justified in following the prophet because he is "the Prophet", or will you be justified in following the prophet when he is right? If the prophet wants to drink Mountain Dew: shall I be justified in doing it even though I know it is wrong?

Yeah- I think I'm good following a Prophet of God all the time, just because he "is the Prophet" - exact obedience IS a doctrine taught at the higest levels of our religion so I don't see a problem with it.

The straw man arguement of a Prophet "doing something" wrong- and thus my error in following him, is plain silly.

I can't remember one scriptural example in the history of the earth where a Prophet of God has "done something wrong" and led people astray - If they where so inclined, the Lord would remove them prior to that event. But If they choose to act contrary to God's wishes then they wouldn't be a Prophet - right?

This whole debate is goofy- Prophets are choosen to lead God's people BECAUSE they act in righteousness- to argue that following a Prophet in error is not any arguement at all- because it simply dosen't exist.

I choose to follow the living Prophet EXACTLY (not questioning his actions)- you can choose to argue for the sake of arguing and building straw-men.

I'm really don't have the time or energy to debate such a simple principle of the gospel.

I guess the church has a big conspiracy going on in primary that you should get to the bottom of ithink-

"Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet- don't go astray"
"Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet- he knows the way"

Sounds like church is brainwashing children to "obey the Prophet - just becasue he's a Prophet" ( Sarcasm off)

Well it looks like you've got some work to do this Sunday ithink- knock yourself out..............

Here are some quotes relevant :

I like armedtotheteeth's way of thinking, it is correct. Although today we still have the priesthood in monson etc, God has allowed apostasy many times. That is why we have an impeachment procedure in D&C.

I love Monson and take heed to his councils, but I am not a fool, and he is not perfect. If you think I am dumb, read what these men had to say, case closed. I will never follow blindly.


President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel -- said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 237).



"If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by commandment, or thus saith the Lord, we do not consider it binding." (Joseph Smith, D.H.C., 3:295)


. "Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (Brigham Young, J.D. 9:150)

. "Search the scriptures--search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation. No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them." (T.P.J.S., p. 11-12)


George Cannon (millennial star 53:658-659) “Do not, brethren put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support gone.”

Brigham Young (jbid 4:368) “How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.”


. Apostle Charles w. Penrose (millennial star 54:191-----“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God: and when thus saith the lord comes from him, the saints investigate it : They do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.

In another address Brigham said that the prophet Joseph “ was doing the work of the Lord, and if he should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be lead astray” (Journal of discourses 18:248)


. "How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment, and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to
enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?" (Brigham Young, J.D. 8:59)


Brigham said “ The first presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and leave this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray. (Journal of discourses 6:100)






Joseph F. Smith said on September 3, 1892,
Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil.



etc etc etc etc

firend wrote:Here are some quotes relevant :

I like armedtotheteeth's way of thinking, it is correct. Although today we still have the priesthood in monson etc, God has allowed apostasy many times. That is why we have an impeachment procedure in D&C.

I love Monson and take heed to his councils, but I am not a fool, and he is not perfect. If you think I am dumb, read what these men had to say, case closed. I will never follow blindly.


President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel -- said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 237).



"If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by commandment, or thus saith the Lord, we do not consider it binding." (Joseph Smith, D.H.C., 3:295)


. "Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (Brigham Young, J.D. 9:150)

. "Search the scriptures--search the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation. No; for when men receive their instruction from Him that made them, they know how He will save them." (T.P.J.S., p. 11-12)


George Cannon (millennial star 53:658-659) “Do not, brethren put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support gone.”

Brigham Young (jbid 4:368) “How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.”


. Apostle Charles w. Penrose (millennial star 54:191-----“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God: and when thus saith the lord comes from him, the saints investigate it : They do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.

In another address Brigham said that the prophet Joseph “ was doing the work of the Lord, and if he should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be lead astray” (Journal of discourses 18:248)


. "How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment, and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to
enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?" (Brigham Young, J.D. 8:59)


Brigham said “ The first presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and leave this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray. (Journal of discourses 6:100)






Joseph F. Smith said on September 3, 1892,
Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil.



etc etc etc etc

Amen amen and amen. But when was the last time you heard any of this in conference? That is my point. You don't hear it anymore, and I feel it is a shame.

Here is my opinion. The appropriateness of whether or not to question our leaders depends on to whom one is posing the question. If you are posing the question to other people, you are relying on the intellect of those individuals and may lead others astray by giving the wavering soul another thing to question. If you are posing the question to the Lord and listening for his answer and obeying his commands, then yes, it is appropriate. We should always be aware that we are not likely to receive revelation for that which is not in our personal stewardship. My child doesn't need to know the precise reconciliation of our account balance to accept that we aren't going to McDonald's today. I have enough to worry about without questioning the church business decisions.

Another thing to remember is that the church is run by individuals with human failings, all the way up to the prophet himself. That which comes by revelation to the prophet should not be questioned as it is the same as the Father had spoken it. Whether or not my husband (who works for church welfare) needed a new work truck this year is something the church accountants can worry about. Will they make a mistake sometimes? Sure they will. Are those who run the affairs of the church spared by revelation from making mistakes? Maybe sometimes, but certainly not always! The Lord trusts those whom he has called, so we probably ought to follow His lead.

ready2prepare wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the prophet Joseph Smith get mixed up in some bad business deals (e.g. the Kirtland Safety Society bank failure) that resulted in many members of the church questioning his efficacy as the Lord's prophet and ultimately apostasizing?

Can a person appointed as the Lord's prophet make perfectly human mistakes (business or otherwise) and still be perfectly able to guide the spiritual affairs of the church in the Lord's appointed manner?

Does the Lord allow his chosen prophet to be fallible as a human being while still holding true to His promise that He will never allow His prophet to lead the church astray?

I have never been convinced that Joseph made any errors. The collapse of the National Bank caused much of the financial stress that was apparent throughout the nation, including Kirkland. The newly formed bank did not stand a chance. I do not believe that the bank was mismanaged. Many on this site have made good arguments as to whether the bank should have been formed in the first place, but that is another issue.

I agree with Col Mosby, it is hard to argue with a man made of straw.

Many questioned the Prophet Joseph Smith and apostatized because the church bank failed under his leadership. What most people don't know is that the people themselves were being too haughty and proud which was the actual cause of the problem. (see below)

Because of that knowledge, I don't question what that prophet nor our prophet today is doing. We have been told on more than one occasion that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray.

Possibly this financial investment just isn't all that important in the eternal perspective of things.

The bank Joseph Smith started
After returning from Salem, Joseph met with some of the other elders and drew up articles of agreement in preparation for organizing a banking institution.

Joseph and others felt this was necessary due to the difficulty of dealing with other banks. He felt that the membership of the Church would be best served by having an institution of their own.

- This institution was organized in January 1837 under the name, Kirtland Safety Society Anti-banking Company.
- It could not be organized as a bank since their petition for incorporation to the state of Ohio was rejected.
- It was organized to make capital out of idle land through the process of housing subdivision.
- It was backed by Mormon land and the sale of stock to members.
- Notes could then be issued to land purchasers secured with mortgages on the land.
- Notes sold for significantly less than face value in hopes that investors would eventually purchase the entire face value.
-1837 was not a good time to start a banking institution.

Disaster struck the nation in May and by June over 800 banks had collapsed. The Kirtland bank was caught in storm of the depression of 1837.

When the bank opened, many of the members got caught up in the spirit of speculation.
"Many who had been humble and faithful in the performance of duty in the Church had become haughty in spirit and lifted up in pride." (Ivan J. Barrett, Joseph Smith and the Restoration, p341)

The Prophet said of this time, "As the fruits of this spirit, evil surmisings, fault-finding, disunion, dissension, and apostasy followed in quick succession, and it seemed as though all the powers of earth and hell were combining their influence in an especial manner to overthrow the Church at once, and make a final end." (HC, 2:487)

* When the Saints generally ignored his counsel and failed to meet their obligation, the Prophet resigned as treasurer in the Society.
* Due to the spirit of speculation and the depression of 1837, the Kirtland bank also collapsed.
* Many placed the blame on the Prophet.

I agree with Col Mosby, it is hard to argue with a man made of straw.

Thanks brother Reb- I really am amazed at the direction this debate has taken.

"Blind Obedience" to a Prophet of God - it doesn't exist.

I never said that the Prophet is "perfect" - but he is alot closer than any of us are.......

Relying on the "arm of the flesh" as in the form of a Prophet - it doesn't exist.
If a Prophet were the "arm of the flesh" - he wouldn't be a Prophet.

When the Prophet speaks or acts (including conducting business for the church) - he is doing it on behalf of God.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Last time here- Everyone can drag out quote after quote, use them out of context and justify their position in regards to their right to question the living Prophet, that's fine questioning Prophets is and alway will be great sport inside and outside the church.

I'll take my chances with "Blind Obedience" to the Prophet of God.

BTW- on my mission I learned that the phrase "blind obedience" was one of the favorite tools used by enemies of the church to discredit it.

I think we can reference Brigham Young's warnings against following what the leaders of the church say or do without question. However, he did ask that we pray and ponder what they say. I remember back when Ezra Taft Benson gave the talk about women staying at home with their kids unless they absolutely had to work. The talk was printed and distributed throughout the country in priesthood and it was pretty common for guys to throw the talk into the garbage and not take it home (so much for prayer and pondering). I think that is bad. Also, he warned against using birth control to create small families and again people got all upset (mostly men I think). So now the church doesn't talk about birth control and issues a statement in the handbook that would require someone with both a knowledge of the Gospel and training in law to be able to interpret. Oh well...

BTW- on my mission I learned that the phrase "blind obedience" was one of the favorite tools used by enemies of the church to discredit it.[/quote]

I like that Mosby. Thanks for bringing that fact to light.

Mosby wrote:

I agree with Col Mosby, it is hard to argue with a man made of straw.

Thanks brother Reb- I really am amazed at the direction this debate has taken.

"Blind Obedience" to a Prophet of God - it doesn't exist.

I never said that the Prophet is "perfect" - but he is alot closer than any of us are.......

Relying on the "arm of the flesh" as in the form of a Prophet - it doesn't exist.
If a Prophet were the "arm of the flesh" - he wouldn't be a Prophet.

When the Prophet speaks or acts (including conducting business for the church) - he is doing it on behalf of God.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Last time here- Everyone can drag out quote after quote, use them out of context and justify their position in regards to their right to question the living Prophet, that's fine questioning Prophets is and alway will be great sport inside and outside the church.

I'll take my chances with "Blind Obedience" to the Prophet of God.

BTW- on my mission I learned that the phrase "blind obedience" was one of the favorite tools used by enemies of the church to discredit it.

Mosby, what has become of your agency at the moment you decide to follow the prophet with "blind obedience"?

Satan, the great counterfeiter, used his status and priesthood to deceive 1/3 of the hosts of heaven, and this while we were still in heaven. I am not saying the prophet is leading the church astray, but he may be, and if he is, it is because the people deserve it (paraphrasing as Brigham said). The point I am making is that if you take the position of blind obedience, you won't know the difference until it is too late.

Where oh where is the doctrine of turning the responsibility of our salvation into the hands of another? I know it was stated in conference, but is there a precedent in the standard works?

All that is really happening is simple, if you want to become as God, you must answer for yourselves to God. If you choose to follow a man who is not perfect, and is not always speaking for God than your reward will be something less than Godhood.

People need to be responsible for their own test, not rely on another. Our leaders need our help. We do what were asked in righteousness to help, not because they are our boss.

Maybe this will help.

We all knew Hinckley was the prophet right? He held the Keys right?
Ok then, now some on here believe in following whatever he said right?

Do you know what God said about debt and bondage? I do.

Do you all remember what Hinckley said about debt? . “Reasonable debt for the purchase of an affordable home and perhaps a few other necessary things is acceptable”-

First of all it is not affordable if you have to go in debt. Second God said not to go in debt period. Joseph Smith did in the early church, God rebuked him over and over, and the church suffered.

Today we are economically suffering. How many of you are in debt cuz the prophet said so? I am not in debt. I worked hard to follow God. Today I am not suffering like some because I do not have that house and car payment. Those who followed Hinckley's error should not wonder why then you are in economic pain.

Does debt mean Joseph Smith or Hinckley is not God's prophet...ofcoursenot. Does it mean they were wrong in that instance.....yes.
Does that mean I have lost respect fro them....ofcoursenot
Does that mean that because they got something wrong they must be a false prophet .....ofcoursenot THEY HAVE THE KEYS, and only speak for God when they do.


TO SUM IT UP HERE IS WHAT JOSEPH SMITH JR HAD TO SAY:



“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were to do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”(millennial Star, volume 14, number 38, pgs 593-595)

and is not always speaking for God

I'll tell you how we can end this great debate friend, the next time you sit down with your bishop for a temple recommend interview tell him that you don't believe that the Prophet "always speaks for God" when they ask you if your sustain him as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. If you make it to the next interview with the Stake President - tell him the same thing.

Please report back with your findings I would love to know what they think about your theory.

Oh yeah don't forget to tell him about your thoughts on G.B. Hinckley's teaching on debt that you have deemed to be contrary to direction from God.