BobMaster

No, it's a circular argument, which is the Church exists, by virtue of it existing means it is led by prophecy. I can say that about any other religion which has existed for a period of time. Time has not already told because we are not done with the story of what WW did, which is by his Manifesto he enshrined in Church lore that whatever a Prophet does is right. And that teaching will in the future cause serious problems. It will happen with homosexuality, which is when the general membership of the Church as a whole, desires for homosexuality in it's Temples, the President/Prophet will do so with a Manifesto and then the general wicked, idolatrous membership of the Church can go on in wicked hubris about being led by a "prophet". In fact, the current Prophet of the Church, at some level I believe, understands this. He has done several things which have broken deep patterns in the Scripture. Whether God is inspiring Him to do so or not is irrelevant. The patterns are broken and as such, modern Israel is and will become a whore. A whore after other gods, gods of flesh, gods of stone, gods of idolatry. Yet it is only after she has gone awhoring after other gods that she will return to her true Husband. While she has rejected submitting to Christ, He will always be there with outstreched arms, waiting for her to return and repent of her whoredoms.

What do we sustain them as? Do you really think a prophet of God needs a people to "sustain" him? Was Nephi "sustained"? Was Joseph Smith "sustained"? Was Samuel the Lamanite "sustained"? No, they just were. They didn't need a people's approval of them to make them called of God. A significant amount of prophets were not sustained by the people. Some were yes, Moses and others, but being a prophet is not something one is "sustained" for, they may be one in the same, but they do not need be.

I agree with you about murmuring and about not sustaining over one item. There are times which it is important to absolutely not sustain. That is when the doctrine or teachings of the leader are so corrupted that it cannot be redeemed. I'm in the show-me state. To be perfectly blunt (and I say with calmly); I've been a member for 30+ years and quite frankly I'm just tired of carrying water for the leadership. Put up or shut-up. Leadership wants give the aura of being special witnesses, when in general it just boils down to we are special witnesses because of our Office. This has been going on for too long. I listened to an old talk by Packer (one of his first) where he rationalizes to the body of Saints why they don't proclaim they have seen Christ and then suggests that he has, but that he can't directly say he has because he doesn't want to offend any of his other brothern in the quorum in case they haven't. I don't know what it is about our leadership, they think the members can't handle it, think the world can't handle it or whatever. I like Packer, but the self-justification about why we don't let our light shine is just tiring. In these last days when the world is as Sodom and Gomorrah, I have no patience for weak-kneed leadership. Either be bold and proclaim it or don't and let someone else who will be bold do it. Put up or shut up. If as a leader Nelson has seen Christ, then boldly declare it, if he hasn't that's fine too then just say so. If you have a Revelation and hear the Voice of God, then declare it, if not, fine but don't intone, give hints or act like a "notepad" by your bed stand is a marker of clear direction. As he said, (and I do believe this is prophetic), Time is running out. So either start boldly declaring it like Joseph Smith or shut up.

I think without Come Follow Me, it might be better. I have genuinely been stunned by how little members read their scriptures. Come Follow Me is used as a substitute for scripture many times. Other times, people just read it and say, "welp, this is what our leaders say this verse means so done deal". Other times, members think "oh this is the Church's program so it must come directly from the Prophet, i.e. from God". If it were me, I'd do away with almost all "aides" and helps I think in most cases it makes it worse. Why? Well because members don't know how to read and study the scriptures. In the age of youtube, and google, everyone wants quick answers. But the best answers are those that take time to study and really ponder. I'll spend days pondering a few verses. Sure, I'll look at what other people right, but God gave me a brain, he gave me the Holy Ghost, what someone else writes is of no more worth than what he inspires me while in deep meditation. It's so strange, our people are a walking contradiction. We claim visions but have none today; we claim Revelations but none today, when someone mentions we should have them, they are an apostate or told "we aren't commanded in all things", God gives us more freedom now, yet at the same time they will hold up Come Follow Me as this divine oracle to save us. It's quite interesting. Oddly enough, I have had the same premonitions and have been prepping for it.

Not every man who occupies an office is what that office states he is. I think we do a disservice in many ways by having the office of Prophet and a prophet. Just because one is ordained to the office of an Elder does not make one an elder. An elder denotes wisdom, knowledge, patience, etc. But an Elder is simply a title. A title and acting in the capacity which the title denotes are different things. For lack of better words, each Prophet must prove himself, he must have his bona fidas. Just because another man or men claim they gave you the office of a Bishop or the office of Prophet does not a bishop or prophet make. It only confers the right to be one. Nephi had a record of being a prophet, other instances record his conversations for the world with God. Joseph Smith had a record of being a prophet, his works demonstrated he was a prophet. WW, maybe-time will tell. That he received personal Revelation is undeniable (it is written in his journal), that he received Church-wide Revelation, he claims he did but the record does not show that he actually did. I think he tried to be a prophet, I think he both succeeded and failed. He succeeded in that he did what he thought he had to do so the Church would grow, it grew. He failed because in his push to be a prophet for the body of the Church he introduced a very pernicious doctrine-which is that the President of the Church can never led the Church astray. A prophet of God it is true would never led the Church astray, but a Prophet or a President of the Church, yes absolutely. The simple stress test of this is common consent and voting. If the body of the Saints become so wicked that they cannot tell right from wrong (which is occurring), then they will allow themselves to be led by a man at the helm who will led them astray, why? Because in the Church, Prophets come from the general body of the Church. If the body is corrupted, then the Prophet will be corrupted. I know this is long, but another way of saying it, is that what WW was really saying is that the body of the Saints will never become so wicked, so corrupt, so evil as to be led astray by their President. So if you believe that the Saints as a body will never become wicked, then yes WW's saying holds true; if however you believe that it is possible, even likely that the general body of Saints becomes wicked and desires wickedness, then no his saying is false.

I understand why you might think so. I will clarify. If those items listed did come directly from God, as in dictated Revelation vs. "well we feel good about it". Then yes I would absolutely want them canonized regardless of how small they seem. For me, those are generally items which do not change much of anything, they add no new doctine, they do not clarify anything, so meh do I really care if it's a "well we feel good about it", not really. If it's a direct Revelation, that would be cool, let's canonize it. Changing Temple rites on the other hand. Yes, that fundamentally changes core doctrine (and is not backed up by Scripture), so for something like that, yes it is extremely important to have a Revelation vs. "well we feel good about it".

Lol . . .okay touche my friend, touche!

That is a great answer man. It really is. As I have studied the Scriptures to find the patterns and understand current reality there is this balance that is needed. Too much order and restriction (i.e. policing everyone) and life becomes a straightjacket and people will rebel because it's too confining. Too much chaos (liberation) and life becomes chaotic with people not having any idea which way to turn. So many voices, proclaiming so many different things, which way to go? The scriptures have patterns about purity and defilement. Which at a much higher level (hopefully you can go with me there) is really what we are talking about. Too much purity and no one can qualify because we are human. Too much defilement and we end up destroying ourselves because of our filth. I believe we are entering a time of division, where many things (not just Church) will split, splinter and fragment. I believe we need to recognize that it's okay. It's okay if things split and break-off. The parable of the Olive Trees comes to mind. Christ many, many times has used division to create something greater and grander than before. A split or a division is actually a repeating pattern in scriptures. It is in fact the pattern of life. When we create new life, new babies, they are a split of us individually. They are a division and a recombination. It is a micro death and a resurrection. That is one of the absolute beauties of Christ! It is so glorious that it makes you want to jump for joy. ALL THINGS, ALL THINGS, typify Him. A split is just a death and from death comes life or a resurrection. It is inevitable. Sometimes things have to die in order to be reborn. You see this same pattern over and over throughout time and especially with Christianity itself. Christianity has gone through many death/resurrection cycles, each on at a different level and scale. And so it will be at His 2nd Coming; a death must occur so that He can be reborn again. ----- No, I don't particularly care about the modern ideologies because they don't affect me, I have my answers as I have pondered and studied over many years. I worry for my posterity, leading and guiding them to the point where they can see through the false, vain, wicked ideologies of the world.

That's a great point, I really appreciate your comment, and I'm fully on-board with your comment. The challenge with this comes in BIG ITEMS. How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes the other group is racist? How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes homosexual activity is (or should be okay) and the other doesn't? There (in my mind) are only two real solutions for items that are so big they drive deep wedges. Either get a Revelation from God or split.

It's a good question. I have received visions and personal revelation in voice and I've also just had regular impressions where things feel good. Again, that's why I differentiate between impressions, inspiration (eueraka!), revelation, Revelation (i.e. Voice). The leaders don't claim to receive Revelation or Hear the VOTL anymore. WW blatanly said so STE we have no more "thus saith the Lord"-i.e. we don't hear VOTL anymore. As one goes up the graduated scale there is less room for doubt and more of "this is just the way it is", either I'm a true prophet or I'm not. The problem being that the leaders want to claim a "this is just the way it is" without Visions or Revelations. They want it both ways (and have done a great job of in general convincing people of it). Which is, they want everyone in the Church to conform to and believe that every impression they have, every word they say is like the VOTL and it's not. It's why we can have such head-snapping reversals. No way the Church was going to drop BSA when Monson was President. No way the Church was going to drop "I'm a Mormon" campaign with him President. I truly believe that the way the Church actually operates is much, much different than the way lay members believe the Church operates. The reason why I say this is that the process of understanding which impressions do and don't come from God is and can be challenging. A voice either is or isn't. Either it's from God or it ain't. A Voice you can write it down directly, come back to it 5 months from now and say, yeap that was God talking there! Or in the case of WW, look back 130 years later. I can read his journal in 1889 and 130 years later and the Spirit can bear witness to me, yes that is God talking to him. In the case of the Manifesto, I can look and say . . .I don't know maybe he just got an impression, maybe he thought something else was going to happen. I have no VOTL to look at with the Manifesto and say 130 later, God was moving through him. An impression-well those can be wrong and you think it was from God only to find out, well maybe not so much, you re-interpret your impressions as time goes on, etc. Impressions and inspirations are like a tuning fork and it takes a lot of practice and work to get finely tuned to it. It is the work of the Holy Ghost. Do I believe the leaders are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, yes absolutely, but they also get it wrong. Except their mistakes at that level are amplified and worse they give the impression that they can never be wrong currently . . .only in the past. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with dead leaders programs, words, acts, etc. But don't you do that to the current leader.

You just undercut yourself. The liahona had God's Word written on it from time to time. I am have not said that one must ONLY obey VOTL, and that God must ONLY communicate through VOTL. Many, many things the Church leaders do are absolutely done through inspiration. I only state that in the big items (such as polygamy, homosexuality, etc.) I want to hear from God. In general, the rest of the stuff doesn't matter. Does it really matter if we do "Come Follow Me"? No. Does it really matter if we have 2 hours vs. 3 hours? No. Does it really matter if we combine HP with Elder's Quorum? No. Those things are so minuscule that whether or not it actually came from God or from man is pretty immaterial. If it's inspiration great, if it's this seems like a good idea, let's do it, great. I'll follow because to not follow in those issues is pretty stupid. The point of this is that we are entering (and have been for a while) in a BIG PICTURE territory, i.e. decisions are being made that do dramatically affect things. And I'd like to hear from God on it.

Sir, I would ask you to reflect on this conversation. I have at no point insulted you. Yet you have insulted me many times.

You bring up a great point. On and individual level, yes if individually we have not heard His Voice before then yes that is an individual lack of faith or lack of desire. Just like the baptism of fire (which is a real, tangible event not to be confused with a confirmation). There is an individual lack of faith that results in individually not hearing the VoTL. On your point about condemnation of the whole Church, I absolutely agree with you-no issues there.

I'm very much at peace with myself. I never said I was "more enlightened". I don't claim to have visions or revelations. I just study the Scriptures. But I guess in your mind, studying the scriptures now means one is "unhappy and lost". Okey dokey!

Lol, okay "against" leadership. Okay. Show me the visions, show me the Words of God-otherwise it is you who is against God for not wanting more visions, more of His Word.

I am telling you a hard truth that you don't want to hear, so you push me back to the corner. That's okay, no worries If a prophet is speaking for Christ, then why do we not canonize his words? I for one believe every single word spoken of by Christ through his prophets should be canonized-let's canonize every time a prophet speaks then?

Lol . . .great point. On the other hand, it was Christ who said "Ask and ye shall receive". We are His People, if as a people we were begging and pleading to God for Him to do so, would He not do so? Or would he give us a stone?

It it is false; then why do so many Saints fight when it is pointed out that we haven't had a vision in 102 years and the Manifestos are poor imitations. Why is there so much push-back to state the obvious when it comes to the Manifestos? I appreciate the conversation; I await your reply.

That's a great point! I fully recognize that He did not and I don't expect Him to do so today (speak every week, etc.). Personally, I would like to at least hear His Voice as dictated by a Prophet to an entire people once in my lifetime. A once a generation thing would be nice-keep the fires of Faith burning for another generation. As it is right now, it's been 102 years.

You are correct, Joseph Smith would never have been killed had the Saints truly wanted to hear God's Voice. "fared far worse", it depends on what metric you are using. In terms of "growth" maybe, in terms of a people who are ready to receive Christ-probably not. I don't worry about the Church, in fact that's the point that I'm making. Too many people are wrapped up in following the leaders rather than following Christ. They think that by adoring, idolizing and waiting with baited breadth for every word that the leaders make will get them closer to Christ. When what they should be doing is ready their scriptures, studying God's Word, praying etc. Typical conversation "Follow the leaders!!!", "well they aren't revealing God's word so . ..?", "doesn't matter follow the leaders!", "well if they aren't revealing God's word, then why should I follow lock-step"? "doesn't matter, God will take care of the Church"?. "I'm not talking about the Church, I'm talking about me, why should I treat their words as manna from Heaven when I have God's Word in scripture, why should I value their word above Scripture, when their word doesn't conform to God's Word and they haven't revealed any more of God's Word"? "Doesn't matter, follow the leaders"?, "okay, why?" "because they are the prophets!?", "okay, but if they don't give God's Word, then why should I value their words greater than scripture"? "doesn't matter, God leads the Church, they know best". etc. etc. etc. It becomes circular argument where the actual proof of them acting in the capacity of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators is very, very slim. In other words, just obtaining the title doesn't make you one, it gives you the right and ability, but doesn't make you one. When I do a deep dive in studying scriptures and then compare that to the skim milk I get from General Conference-I find our current leaders wanting in their capacity. And more to the point, there has been almost nothing which any modern leader has said in General Conference which has helped me resolve any doctrinal issues or concerns with the current items of the day. Whether that be "racism", whether it be homosexuality, transgender, polygamy, etc. There has only been one thing which was said which helped but not in the way it was intended. Otherwise, not a single word they have said in the last 15 years on those subjects has done one iota bit of good. But what has helped me out tremendously has been deep scripture study, understanding patterns, understanding God's Word. At this point, it doesn't matter what they say on the subject-they could allow homosexuals in the Temple sealings, I wouldn't care. Because I know the truth as revealed in God's Word. Now, if they will claim a Revelation and Reveal more of God's Word which claims to amend or add to Scripture, then I will have a decision to make; until then I feel very comfortable sustaining them but at the same time not really caring what they are saying-because in general they aren't acting in their capacity in which they are sustained.

Look, it's okay, I'm not angry or mad. All I know is that many members are deluding themselves, just like the people who fought against Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed a vision, he wrote it down, people told him a variation on the theme above. God spoke like that to leaders in the past, but today it's not really needed. It's the same song and dance, just a different tune. We don't need our leaders to boldly proclaim the actual Words of God because . . .they'd be made fun of, we'd be made fun of, we don't need it that way today, etc. etc. etc. It's just a bunch of excuses and rationalizations for why things are the way they are today. When the bottom line is God's Word actually tells us why it is the way it is today-it's called a lack of faith. I'm told both simultaneously that a) that's not how it's down today b) people don't lack faith for it to happen or c) it's done that way today just differently. We sustain our leaders as Prophets, yet what do they prophesy? They make very vague claims-they are good words, but there is nothing that they can really hang their hat on and say, this is a yes or no prophecy. Nothing like prophets in the BoM declaring that a particular city would be destroyed. We sustain them as Revelators, yet what do they actually Reveal? They give great sermons, but to the speak God's Voice to us? We sustain them as Seers, yet what do they see? The amazing thing is that as a people we are so incredibly malnourished compared to the early days and starved for it that anyone who stands up and says, hey guys we are pretty starved as a people is immediately told to shut-up, you just need to accept being starved, you apostate, don't you know it's good for you to be starved, or even worse a bunch of gaslighting and saying , you only think you are starved but you really aren't. It's okay, I absolutely sustain them in their abilities to do as they are called to do so, they just aren't doing so (at least not in any meaningful fashion). There will come a time when a good portion of the membership will wake up and recognize how starved they really are for real meat. I've said my peace. I'll go back to lurking.

I get it. Better be on the "right" side rather than fight tooth and nail for what is right. Ultimately, all that means is that what you believe is right, really isn't part of your core beliefs. What I understand from reading plenty of history on the Church and journals is that there is a core belief above other beliefs, and that core belief is to ensure the Church grows-it is the "temporal salvation". The Church will jettison "core" beliefs when those "core" beliefs become such a massive dead-weight (or will shortly do so) that it will impact the Church's growth. When you understand that the Church will dump "core" beliefs, then the only question you can ask yourself is, what is the major core belief of the Church. As far as I can see, the major thing, in fact the only thing that sets us apart from other Christian denominations is the additional canon of Scriptures, and when push comes to shove (as the culture shifts and it's coming rapidly now), the Church will dump everything that is seen as dead-weight except for that and concept of Temples. Nelson already proved that Temple rites can change dramatically it's not a big deal, that the Church can reverse course almost 180 in a short span of time and it's no big deal. I have no problem with the claim of Prophets, I yearn for it; but telling me you received a revelation about xyz is not the same thing as producing the Revelation.

See the other thread that this one came from. I pointed out very clearly and very plainly that WW never presented God's Voice or His Word on the matter to the body of the Saints. The same thing happened in '78 and the same thing will happen in the future when the Church issues Manifesto 3/4 either allowing women to the Priesthood or homosexual sealing in the Temple. The claim of a revelation is not the same thing as the Revelation itself; like I said I for one long to hear God's Voice as spoken like in Joseph Smith's days-but that won't happen because very, very few in the Church want it to happen. They seem to believe that what is happening now is the same thing as what happened then and it's clearly not. The facts are plain, no open visions, nor Voice of God has been communicated and accepted to the Saints as a whole for over 100 years (1918 to be exact). In today's world we have Manifestos and Proclamations-those are just mere public assertions and declarations but not the Voice of God.

Not seeking out "contention". The scripture states "with anger". If you believe in something and believe that your way is the way that God wants, you will have to contend. If you don't contend, then you don't have the conviction strong enough for your beliefs. You can't just be someone who says "leave me alone"-as much as I'd like to do that. You pick a side to fight on and then you fight, but not with anger.

Then whatever doesn't make sense isn't true. The scriptures form a harmony, it's one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon is true, there are too many deep, deep items that map from the Book of Mormon to the OT and NT. Things that Joseph Smith had no clue of, because he couldn't have forced it. To have forced the symbols in the Book of Mormon that map to the OT it would have appeared to contrived-i.e. literally trying to hard. But there are gems that there is no way he could have mapped back to OT, he just would not have had the depth of knowledge at 20 to even begin to understand the deep mysteries that he was writing. It's actually one of the reasons why I know many of the current Church teachings are absolute trash-because that's what they do. Several new teachings trash the harmony that is found as links occur in the OT, NT, Book of Mormon and PoGP. They break the scriptures and I do mean that. Several new teachings make it impossible for the scriptures to be scripture. So you can throw out the new "revelations" because they do not add to scriptural harmony they create scriptural chaos.