Questioning the prophet

[Hemidakota]

I think TeancumsSword's point is that a person is 50% their father, and 50% their mother.

Hemi, you speak of an inheritance that has cultural standards, but that is not something that this generation readily accepts, because of women's and racial equality movements, and the increase of our understandings in biology.

And to this point:

I have to say...

If you believe in the Restoration of the Church as brought by Joseph Smith, then you believe in the Apostasy, in which case you believe that the Lord did allow false doctrine to exist in his church for nearly 2000 years. (That's about ten times the amount of time that the LDS church as been Restored!)

If you believe that Joseph Smith restored the church, you must also accept these possibilities. I'm not saying that's necessarily how it transpired, but you can't write off the possibility either.

It doesn't matter what this generation accepts but what is given from the Savior to the church that matters.

[Hemidakota]

What path? I clearly stated my case. Ephraim and Manasseh and their descendants could not have held the priesthood under Brigham's standards, which would have disqualified most of the leading men of the early church. He was wrong and the best thing the LDS church could do would be to issue any apology and clearly state the priesthood ban was from mans reasoning.

Based on your reading comprehension here...again, Teancum, it is your assumption on what you are interrupting and not conducive of others.

I for one do not apologize for any given truths, where you feel insulted or the world feels it is wrong. However, spend sometime in reading on what transpired in 1978 to see the manifestation of the Spirit within the body of 15 men.

However, if you feel that you are greater than President Young or Prophet Joseph Smith, please, go for it and make a apology plea before the Savior and those who are of the telestial state.

[Hemidakota]

Brigham was very specific about saying Adam-God was a revelation, and he declared his doctrine about blacks as being from God also. If he was opinionating (yes, I know it's not a word) he made it seem it was God's opinion.

Inaccurate statement....instead voicing your own opinions here, paste the whole article and highlight the objective.

[Hemidakota]

To try and put a value on being valant enough or not valant enough in the preexistance seems kind of silly. Is their a treasury on how much a person is worth in being valant? Can it be measured? Of course not. Some might be more valant than others, but that's a man made measurement. It's kind of hard to put a factor on how worthy or valant a person is. In the pre-existance all were valant to some extent, at least those who agreed to the Lord's plan and are on Earth now. It's a true test to say we are all valant because we are here. We chose to come to this Earth, go through trials, and have all sorts of problems. We rejoiced in Heaven over coming to this Earth and rejojoiced over the trials, pains, and afflictions we were going to suffer.

I want to think at times, Gee, I rejoiced over these things. I really must have been crazy.

It becomes a personal desire to know the past or 'what was'. Interesting point for those who have that portion of testimony will receive there own standing before the Godhead during that period, what was accomplished, and why then it is far greater of importance for this world to not fail.

Good point though...what matters for now, is our standing in mortal life before the Godhead.

You can't measured something based on attendance of temple, attendance of at church, or what is given through a calling. It goes back to reading the spirit itself within to know the devotional factor and true desire to be like GOD or His Son. I have learned this principle a few years ago that measurement of man is not the same as GOD measures us.

[TeancumsSword]

Inaccurate statement....instead voicing your own opinions here, paste the whole article and highlight the objective.

I will be more then happy to, let me get back to it this afternoon.

"The whole article"? Are you one of those folks that has convinced yourself Brigham only mentioned Adam-God once?

[Hemidakota]

No, I just know that many people like you try the same VAIN attempt in proving otherwise. :)

[TeancumsSword]

No, I just know that many people like you try the same VAIN attempt in proving otherwise. :)

"otherwise"?? Are you saying then that you DO believe Brigham only mentioned it once?

Do you mean people like Drew Briney who compiled everything single reference he could find to Adam God in the early church and ended up turning out a 658 page book?

Drew Briney.; Understanding Adam God Teachings

Or Rodney Turner, who in his BYU thesis exploring Adam God finally had to conclude that Brigham it taught just as the fundamentalists say?

If you want to say you don't believe it, that is fine, but trying to say it wasn't taught is simply silly.

[Hemidakota]

I have the same capability to collect and analze the same amount of data...and your point is what again?

I follow the same publishing methodology as Drew had accomplished with Adam-God, in a collection of articles pertaining to Armageddon [500 pages plus] and another one on Intelligence.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Hemidakota

[MormonMama]

This would mean that Mormons within that time frame were somehow not prepared to hear the truth. I suppose if the 1978 announcement had been given in 1948, that it would have put Mormons out of step with the majority of White America, but would it not have raised us to a more admirable moral position?

Or it could have led to the destruction of the church if the nation would have turned on them as one for it.

I doubt we will ever know the Lord's purposes fully until we are with him. I choose to accept on faith that he knows what he is doing, whether or not I understand it at this point. That goes for a few doctrines within the church.

[HiJolly]

Or Rodney Turner, who in his BYU thesis exploring Adam God finally had to conclude that Brigham it taught just as the fundamentalists say?

(sigh). Sorry, but I must break my self-imposed silence. TeancumsSword, that was not Brother Turner's conclusion, since what the fundamentalists say was not any part nor portion of his excellent Master's thesis.

If you want to say you don't believe it, that is fine, but trying to say it wasn't taught is simply silly.

I agree with that.

HiJolly

[MormonMama]

...according to Brigham, a single drop of Negro blood disqualifies a man from the priesthood.

Was he speaking as a man or as a prophet on this?

I am aware that many people feel Brigham was our most confusing prophet, and that many of his words seem to contradict the teachings of other prophets. I don't honestly know how I feel about him myself, as I have not fully studied many of his teachings yet.

If you believe in the Restoration of the Church as brought by Joseph Smith, then you believe in the Apostasy, in which case you believe that the Lord did allow false doctrine to exist in his church for nearly 2000 years. (That's about ten times the amount of time that the LDS church as been Restored!)

Which prophet said, "The Lord will never allow me to lead this church astray." (paraphrased)? I was referring to our modern-day church, which I seem to remember reading somewhere would never again be taken from the earth. If this is indeed the last dispensation (which I think we all believe it is) and the church is to remain standing this time, then the Lord would have to protect it from false prophets and doctrines, would he not? If he lets a doctrine stand, he must not feel it is too terribly damaging to the church.

If Brigham Young is right, then the church has stepped out of order by giving the priesthood to the descendants of Ham. He clearly stated they would not receive it until after the millennium and not until the remainder of Adam's posterity had the opportunity to receive it.

Once upon a time blood sacrifice was required for sin. That was fulfilled through Christ. Just because Brigham made a statement (and again, was he speaking his own opinion or was he stating revelation from the Lord?) does not mean the Lord would not alter policy in the church at a future point. It's been done more than once.

Prophets are also human and they DO make mistakes.

I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

The question is, how do we know when they are speaking as the mouthpiece of the Lord and when they are speaking from their own personal feelings? There seems to be an awful lot of confusion on more than one issue in the church in which people cannot agree if it was revelation from the Lord or opinion by the prophet.

[Hemidakota]

We research....we study.....we ponder for our own conclusion.....then we confide with the GOD for the correctness. :)

[Hemidakota]

Was he speaking as a man or as a prophet on this?

I am aware that many people feel Brigham was our most confusing prophet, and that many of his words seem to contradict the teachings of other prophets. I don't honestly know how I feel about him myself, as I have not fully studied many of his teachings yet.

Which prophet said, "The Lord will never allow me to lead this church astray." (paraphrased)? I was referring to our modern-day church, which I seem to remember reading somewhere would never again be taken from the earth. If this is indeed the last dispensation (which I think we all believe it is) and the church is to remain standing this time, then the Lord would have to protect it from false prophets and doctrines, would he not? If he lets a doctrine stand, he must not feel it is too terribly damaging to the church.

Once upon a time blood sacrifice was required for sin. That was fulfilled through Christ. Just because Brigham made a statement (and again, was he speaking his own opinion or was he stating revelation from the Lord?) does not mean the Lord would not alter policy in the church at a future point. It's been done more than once.

I don't think anyone here has said otherwise.

The question is, how do we know when they are speaking as the mouthpiece of the Lord and when they are speaking from their own personal feelings? There seems to be an awful lot of confusion on more than one issue in the church in which people cannot agree if it was revelation from the Lord or opinion by the prophet.

Something that most fail to realize, President Young had a set of seer stones. They are now located in the church archives.

[Guest ceeboo]

The question is, how do we know when they are speaking as the mouthpiece of the Lord and when they are speaking from their own personal feelings? There seems to be an awful lot of confusion on more than one issue in the church in which people cannot agree if it was revelation from the Lord or opinion by the prophet.

Yes indeed,

On this forum as well.

One of the biggest confusions I ( Catholic bias ceeboo :)) has with all my LDS friends.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Misshalfway]

The question is, how do we know when they are speaking as the mouthpiece of the Lord and when they are speaking from their own personal feelings? There seems to be an awful lot of confusion on more than one issue in the church in which people cannot agree if it was revelation from the Lord or opinion by the prophet.

I think that there are a few guide posts on this that can help us know what to believe.

First, when a prophet is speaking at General Conference to the world, we can trust that is official.

When we hear them speak to smaller groups, we can know there words are true for those in attendance.

When we read their private conversations and journal entries and historically documented statements, then we can know that human-ness plays a role and we can search the spirit for perspectives and truth if we need to settle some question.

I think that is the major point of this whole church! The holy spirit of God!!!! The spirit is what answers the questions and teaches the truth and shows the individual how things really are and how things really will be. And there is much in the way of weakness in the whole earthy effort. God knows it and allows it and amazingly accomplishes His designs even as he works with flawed servants. We don't need perfect to learn and follow truth. We need worthiness and righteous leadership and Father has promised that we can trust in our leaders and their worthiness..... not their perfection. Not every action of this church will be flawless. Sometimes direction doesn't come on the day or in the moment we think it ought to be there. God clearly lets us work and study things out and practice and even stumble with leading this church and this work. There is wisdom in allowing such process. And it is clear that he requires work from every last one of us in this regard. We each have to walk thru the fire of gaining a testimony and the sometimes cloudy/merky path as we hold firmly to iron rod. Worrying about the minor descrepancies along the way, in my mind seems either a waste of energy or a misdirection of energy because God will teach, in His time and wisdom, the truth of all things IF we apply ourselves to that understanding. And that applies to all of us, even the prophets, who have to learn line upon line. The core of the gospel is strong and firm and no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing even if Brigham or Wilford didn't always say it perfectly correct every time they opened their mouths.

And just as a side note Ceeboo, I find it interesting that you say you struggle with these confusions when even in the vast and varied history of the Catholic church there is much in the way on imperfection and doctrinal discrepancy. I understand that you don't get it completely because it is logical to sometimes assume that prophets will only speak the truth and that what they do speak will be understood by all. The truth is that they do speak the truth, but it is the Spirit that is the real teacher behind all words spoken.

[AngelLynn]

I think it all boils down to the members faith. What about Brigham Young? Heard in today's light, It's easy to say that what he was saying can be considered racist. The factor that he said No Blacks would be given the priesthood till the millenial era. Well considering that Blacks can hold the priesthood now and it isn't the millenial era. What happened? Was Brigham Young wrong? Did he truely believe this was doctrinal teaching?

Are members suppose to follow the teaching Brigham Young gave that No Blacks are to be given the priesthood, in light of new revelation given to the contary?

Of course members follow the new revelation, at least the ones in the main fold of the church. So I suppose....and on the leap of faith that members have to go on, that what was for the saints to follow then isn't what members have to follow now. That which the Lord gives us is because it's what we can handle as much as Brigham Young's teachings were for the members of the church then.

Church members are encouraged to study past prophets, but we're suppose to focus on the current teachings of the current prophet as they are teachings of today not of the past.

But again all of this is based on testimony and faith.

Edited December 3, 2008 by AngelLynn

[Guest ceeboo]

And just as a side note Ceeboo, I find it interesting that you say you struggle with these confusions when even in the vast and varied history of the Catholic church there is much in the way on imperfection and doctrinal discrepancy. I understand that you don't get it completely because it is logical to sometimes assume that prophets will only speak the truth and that what they do speak will be understood by all. The truth is that they do speak the truth, but it is the Spirit that is the real teacher behind all words spoken.

Hello Misshalfway, ( long time to talk :))

Vast and varied ( and I will add rather sad moments " I can because I am Catholic :lol:" in the vast Catholic history. Not sure of your point

I was simply ( not trying to be contentious nor compare who has a more appetizing history) trying to illustarte what makes ceeboo ( a non LDS ) very confused about his LDS friends belief or non belief in the same Prophets teachings.

It makes no difference, or adds anything to the members of this forum, what ceeboo believes about the prophets teachings. After all I am Catholic. What does matter ( IMHO ) is why the LDS have different beliefs regarding the same prophetic lesson??

That has,does, and continues to puzzle me?? ( In a warm, respectful, and open minded kind of way :))

Peace,

Ceeeeeeebooooo

[MormonMama]

First, when a prophet is speaking at General Conference to the world, we can trust that is official.

But does that mean that EVERY word that comes out of his mouth in GC is official and should be taken as revelation? I've already seen some members on this very board say no.

I think that is the major point of this whole church! The holy spirit of God!!!! The spirit is what answers the questions and teaches the truth and shows the individual how things really are and how things really will be.

I totally agree with you, but even in that I see confusion. I know many members who have received completely opposite answers through prayer on the same issue, sometimes to the point of divisiveness and contention. How do we explain and deal with that?

[pam]

I think it also important to remember is that we, as members, are also at varied levels of knowledge and understanding. There are some that have been members of the Church their entire lives and there are some that have been members for one day. Each has their own level of knowledge and understanding.

It's as we progress in the Church (yes even life long Members) we can learn to use the Spirit to discern truth over untruths. You can put out a paragraph of what one of the Prophets have said..have 10 people read it and tell you what the Prophet meant and you could possibly have 5 different answers.

Are they all wrong? Possibly, possibly not. But here is where prayer and study and fasting all come into play. To be able to understand and discern the message that Prophet gave and understand the true meaning behind it.

Not everyone's faith is the same.

[Misshalfway]

Hello Misshalfway, ( long time to talk :))

Vast and varied ( and I will add rather sad moments " I can because I am Catholic :lol:" in the vast Catholic history. Not sure of your point

I was simply ( not trying to be contentious nor compare who has a more appetizing history) trying to illustarte what makes ceeboo ( a non LDS ) very confused about his LDS friends belief or non belief in the same Prophets teachings.

It makes no difference, or adds anything to the members of this forum, what ceeboo believes about the prophets teachings. After all I am Catholic. What does matter ( IMHO ) is why the LDS have different beliefs regarding the same prophetic lesson??

That has,does, and continues to puzzle me?? ( In a warm, respectful, and open minded kind of way :))

Peace,

Ceeeeeeebooooo

Well, Yes. I can't say it isn't a confusing dynamic for an outside observer. My only answer is that truth doesn't come to any of us, even the prophets, in completeness all the time. And maybe this is an answer to Mormon Mamas post too. All of us are in process and have such individual lives to lead. And all of us must learn truth line upon line, precept upon precept. No one gets spiritual knowledge in a lump sum..... not even if you are Noah or Peter or Isaiah or Joseph Smith. It is clear that the Lord gave truth - peices and parts in layers as each revelation of truth was a foundation or preparation for the next layer. It is clear that culture plays a role hear too as our Father in Heaven works with us according to our understandings and our individual circumstance. I think the variety of his answers, that sometimes with our limited view, seem contradictory but if we could see from Father's perspective we would see the harmony.

Our answers may not come in the same order or frequency. One person or group may understand a concept better than another. Some groups or persons may follow a path but have weakness and pride and ignorance woven into the process.

Brigham Young may, it does appear to me, to have had some racist attitudes. Maybe it was just ok at the time. Who knows? Maybe Brigham was privately centured for them by the Lord during his life or after. I can't possible know. What I do know is that God doesn't require me to be perfect before he gives me assignments and stewardships. Brigham for all of his flaws made possible the migration of the saints and the establishment of the Western part of the US. Without his grit and vision, such couldn't have happened. Perhaps Brigham was given truth that just isn't popular or that even he didn't understand because of the limits of his mortal station. And when he tried to communicate it, those deficits were obvious. I just don't think that we can judge every word perfectly. Nor can we judge each other and assume that because one is led one way, that God isn't the author of it. All we can do is our best to apply to the divine nature and follow the commandments of God. And you know, maybe some of in these latter days are just confused or misled or falling trap to Satan and his flattering words. I can't know all the time. I can only know what the Spirit teaches me. The rest I hand to God.

[pam]

Let me add one thing here. I've been a member my entire life. Yet I can admit I learn much from new members. They have a new perspective on things that I need to be reminded of at times. Their learning of things that I've taken for granted for years is amazing. Their perspective on things that I've been taught for years is eye opening at times.

[MormonMama]

My only answer is that truth doesn't come to any of us, even the prophets, in completeness all the time....all of us must learn truth line upon line, precept upon precept. No one gets spiritual knowledge in a lump sum..... not even if you are Noah or Peter or Isaiah or Joseph Smith. It is clear that the Lord gave truth - peices and parts in layers as each revelation of truth was a foundation or preparation for the next layer. It is clear that culture plays a role hear too as our Father in Heaven works with us according to our understandings and our individual circumstance. I think the variety of his answers, that sometimes with our limited view, seem contradictory but if we could see from Father's perspective we would see the harmony.

Thank you. I believe this as well, and that's actually what I was trying to say earlier but I did a terrible job of it.

[Heavenguard]

Which prophet said, "The Lord will never allow me to lead this church astray." (paraphrased)? I was referring to our modern-day church, which I seem to remember reading somewhere would never again be taken from the earth.

The question is, how do we know when they are speaking as the mouthpiece of the Lord and when they are speaking from their own personal feelings?

I apply the latter half of the quote to the former half: was that Prophet's quote doctrinal, or simply his own belief?

I'm not trying to say that the (lds) church has necessarily been led astray, past or present, but infallibility is a very dangerous concept to me. But even Popes have apologized for acts of the Church in the past (that is, admitting wrong), despite the idea of Papal Infallibility.

[MormonMama]

I apply the latter half of the quote to the former half: was that Prophet's quote doctrinal, or simply his own belief?

That is a good question, and one which I share. However, I do believe that in this final dispensation the Lord will not allow a prophet to lead us so astray as to jeopardize the church. But, of course, that is strictly my opinion, based on what I've gleaned from the scriptures and other church materials.

...but infallibility is a very dangerous concept to me.

And, as I've already stated, I've never said that I think church leaders are infallible. I have specifically stated that I know they are not, so I'm not sure why that keeps coming up.

[Misshalfway]

And just one more thought.....(couldn't finish before because I had to run out for an errand) But, in the midst of this process we are all in are sinful behaviors and false beliefs. I would love for all LDS people to believe the same things in every single corner of the kingdom. It won't ever be that way because Satan is waging a war against truth and will take down any he can thru whatever means is effective. He will plant doubt and contention and twisted truth all to confuse the mind and none of us are immune from the effects.

I think though that the core of the Church is made up of like minded individuals who may not always agree in politics or in evaluations of history but who do believe Jesus is the savior and that the Restoration is real and who follow the admonitions of the prophets in righteous and effectively Christian ways. I think that places like message boards, even this one, are a rather ineffective and distorted view of the reality. I must say, I have not ever in my life as a mormon dealt with the rather difficult and controversial conversations I have here on this board. I think that may be for many reasons. Perhaps this is the place people feel safe to air their dirty laundry or to further some selfish agenda because they like to stir controversy. It is impossible to guarantee that everyone who posts has equality in their spiritual knowledge and testimony. And so, what to do? We stand for right. We uphold and invite and give the best example we can. And sometimes we discuss at length someone's genuine concerns. And hopefully the Spirit can shine thru all efforts and those who what to feel truth will feel it along with all of its layered perspectives.