searching_questioner

Thanks for sharing this Rosa. Stories like this are always upliftng to hear. It sounds as if you are progressing rapidly in the right direction.

Who of us would dare to say that compilations of modern day prophetic and apostolic revelations and teachings such as: *Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, *Doctrines of Salvation *Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings to Joseph F Smith *Teachings of Spencer W Kimball *Teachings of Lorenzo Snow *Teachings of Gordon B Hinckley *Discourses of Wilford Woodruff are in any way less correct than the Book of Mormon? If they are in no way less correct, then they are at least as equally correct as the Book of Mormon, which suggests that the Book of Mormon might no longer be the most correct book on Earth.. I note that none of these books existed at the time Joseph Smith made his remark about the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Additionally, Joseph Smith also said that “there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” As they contain no errors, perhaps his teachings are also at least as correct as the Book of Mormon. I'm not suggesting that modernization has made the Book of Mormon any less inspirational, any less powerful or any less useful. I'm suggesting that modern day prophetic and apostolic teachings might be equally, or more inspirational and powerful. If this were the case, it would not immediately lead to the conclusion that we should dump and replace the Book of Mormon with latter-day revelations, or an "either-or" scenario. However, it could lead to a re-prioritising of current gospel study priorities along the lines recommended by Elder Benson - "therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines."

Yes, we have had, are having, and will have, all of these things. And who better to guide, teach and prepare us for all of this, than God's living oracles today? It is taught that the Book of Mormon is for us, here, today, and that those who compiled it saw our day and that what they saw guided their selection of material. I have no disagreement with that. But I also believe that those prophets and apostles who live in and experience for themselves, our day, are in a much better position to teach us about it than those who simply saw our day from afar. Living in a particular period gives a much greater ability to understand and teach about that period than simply having seen that period without experiencing it. I'm not suggesting that the Book of Mormon has no value - I'm suggesting, as did President Benson, that modern-day, current revelation and apostolic teaching, or any compilation of such teachings, is of greater value to us than the complied revelations and prophetic teachings of prophets long dead.

Here is what President Benson said about the relative importance of living prophets vis-a-vis ancient and modern scriptures, taken from Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981 - liahona Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works. President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’ “When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.) Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

Quite a story! Good luck on your new and hopefully eternal direction. :)

I'm too lazy to do this, but it would be really interesting to go back through a whole bunch of general conferences to see if there has been any change in the ratio between (1) the number of talks that quote from, or refer to, Book of Mormon scriptures, and (2) the number talks that quote from, or refer to, talks by other General Authorities. I suspect that speakers at General Conference are likely to use whatever source they feel is most useful and best illustrates the concept they are teaching.

The words of Christ to Joseph Smith as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants - intended directly for us, here and now and far more relevant to the here and now than something intended for a completely different culture 2000 years ago. And the words of modern day apostles and prophets, as given from Christ through the Holy Ghost. And yes, the 17 chapters that record Christs' visit and teachings are good, but six of those chapters are a repeat of what we have elsewhere, some verses are a little outdated, (compare D&C 115:4 with 3rd Nephi 27:8 - the name of the church today only approximately, and not strictly follows the naming convention referred to in 3rd Nephi.), some of it - chapter 15 - relates only to the Nephites of the time, and half of chapters 19 and 23 are historical narrative rather than Christ's teachings. So I'm suggesting that, as good as the chapters on Christ's visit are, there aren't many of them and they might not be enough to lift the overall power and instruction of the Book of Mormon to something that could be compiled from modern day teachings, all of which, just like 3rd Nephi, comes from Christ. Think of the King Follet discourses. Bruce R McConkie on Christ and the atonement. Ezra Taft Benson on pride, Gordon B Hinckley on the family. Spencer W Kimball missionary work and the Priesthood. Joseph F Smith on the Origins of Man. Brigham Young or Neal A Maxwell on just about anything. Do mostly historical narratives, interspersed with occasional teachings really compare? What do you get more guidance and inspiration from - conference talks or the Book of Mormon?

If the church were to compile a book 531 pages long, of the most inspirational, powerful, instructional sermons, selected from all the prophets and apostles since the restoration, would we end up with a set of more powerful, inspirational, instructional sermons than what we have in the compilation of history and sermons that we call the Book of Mormon?

I have't read all of the previous posts, so possibly someone may have already made this small, pedantic, but possibly important point - is a person with the prominent scars of major wounds still in their hands and feet physically perfect? I would think not. I understand that this is not the point that the original poster was making, but it might be worth pondering.

Hi Roso, welcome. Its been my experience that lots of interesting, informative, educational discussions take place on this forum. So how did a Hindu become a Christian? I'm sure your conversion story would be very interesting to hear.

Perhaps they would, perhaps not, although its worth keeping in mind Doctrine and Covenants 123:12 - (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 123:12) For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— An interesting idea - one I shall think about over the coming days.

If its in any organisation other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you can progress to the end of the line, or to the top of the ladder, and believe that you have "made it", but still be a very long way away from salvation. The problem is, that those who believe they have found an organisation that helps them to be a better person are often content with what they have found and have no desire to leave it, even though that organisation does not contain all that is needed in order for its members to gain salvation.The problem is made worse when that organisation actively preaches that all other organisations are wrong and encourages its members to avoid all other such organisations.