I love this gospel, but it takes real Study

[MarginOfError]

Ya, if we only had one to rely on instead of an office as one.

Their are certain requirements to the job and just calling someone a profit is the same as calling Warren Jeffs a prophet. He Aint!

Now you're going to have to clarify some things. Which prophets are you saying are just an office and not really prophets? Which people have served as President of the Church that haven't met the qualifications to be the prophet?

By your earlier statements, I can only conclude the following:

You seem to accept that Joseph F. Smith was qualified and called to act as the prophet of God.

Joseph F. Smith was the prophet of God and president of the Church who established the policy that priesthood must be conferred up on an individual before he was to be ordained to an office in that priesthood. However, following his death, Heber J. Grant rescinded that policy, effectively stating that it did not matter if priesthood was conferred so long as an office was bestowed. You think that this is doctrinally incorrect.

My understanding is that you think this was the beginning of a sort of apostasy, and that all of the ordinations performed between 1921 and 1951 are now invalid, and all the work done subsequent to those ordinations are invalid as well.

Now, here is the point that you have failed to acknowledge. Joseph F. Smith--whom you appear to accept as a true prophet--stated himself that it did not matter which method was employed. They were both equally valid. So, if indeed you accept that Joseph F. Smith was a prophet of God, then your claim about the ordinations between 1921 and 1951 is false.

So now that you are holding to that, I have to ask, where exactly did the president of the Church cease to be the prophet of God? When was the succession broken? When did our claim to priesthood authority fail?

Are you going to address any of the documents I provided to counter everything you've said? Or are you going to ignore them because you know there is no case to be made for you claims?

Are you Kristoffer Umfrey by any chance?

[pam]

I don't believe this is Kristoffer Umfrey.

[john doe]

It's side-stepping the question with a veiled answer. Most people call it deception, but those who employ it think they are being clever.

[john doe]

This completely baffles me. I can't understand how you can claim to be an active LDS member in good standing, yet not believe in prophets, lines of authority, or continuing revelation.

It must be my tiny incapable brain.

He side-stepped my question and gave a veiled answer that could be interpreted a couple ways. Some people call it deception, those who use it think they are being clever. He never actually answered my questions, but made it seem like he did. He then played victim about being questioned.

[pam]

There were two parts to your question JD. Are you a member in good standing and do you believe in continuing revelation. The answer was yes. Yes to member in good standing or yes to continuing revelation? Just saying you are a high priest isn't answering the question.

[Hill-Billy]

Well, I don’t understand what being a prophet or not has to do with the post I made, maybe you don’t comprehend what you read or you just didn’t read the post, either way you have made some assumptions that one IS and one IS NOT a prophet. How do you know this, are you a prophet?

Being a prophet is called of God not man. Just because someone died and left the other in charge does not Qualify as a Prophet. There are a lot of churches out there that call the head guy a prophet, that does not make him one. He must qualify. Maybe you should find out how to qualify as a prophet before you make assumptions.

[john doe]

So, at what point do you consider the LDS Church became false?

[Vort]

Well, I don’t understand what being a prophet or not has to do with the post I made, maybe you don’t comprehend what you read or you just didn’t read the post, either way you have made some assumptions that one IS and one IS NOT a prophet. How do you know this, are you a prophet?

Being a prophet is called of God not man. Just because someone died and left the other in charge does not Qualify as a Prophet. There are a lot of churches out there that call the head guy a prophet, that does not make him one. He must qualify. Maybe you should find out how to qualify as a prophet before you make assumptions.

I'm pretty sure being called of God makes one a prophet.

I'm pretty sure that all the apostles are called of God.

So I'm pretty sure that the senior apostle is called of God to lead his Church, aka the kingdom of God on earth.

With which of my "pretty sure"s do you take issue?

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, I have 8 Federal Cases to get ready for trial...

This case is perma fascia as evidence to the fact that millions in the church don’t have Priesthood and that all the work by Priesthood since 1921 must me done over again.

I find it very hard to believe that someone of your age who was really working in the legal field would butcher the spelling of prima facie as you have.

[Vanhin]

Duh, he's a hill billy lawyer... Hello?

[pam]

Well, I don’t understand what being a prophet or not has to do with the post I made, maybe you don’t comprehend what you read or you just didn’t read the post, either way you have made some assumptions that one IS and one IS NOT a prophet. How do you know this, are you a prophet?

Being a prophet is called of God not man. Just because someone died and left the other in charge does not Qualify as a Prophet. There are a lot of churches out there that call the head guy a prophet, that does not make him one. He must qualify. Maybe you should find out how to qualify as a prophet before you make assumptions.

Oh my heck. I'm sitting here just astounded that I am reading this. Actually just now in your comments you make assumptions that some are and some are not. Are you a Prophet?

Edited December 4, 2009 by pam

[ozzy]

I hope what I have to say here hasn't been said yet. I did read most of what has been written but as I have 5 classes and the included tests to prepare for I can't say I read all of it. What I say about prophets comes from the CES class textbook "teachings of the living prophets." I recommend this to anyone who wants to consider deep, shallow, midline, or landlogged doctrine.

Remember this as well. This book (as well as the other CES texts) is published by the church and may therefore be taken as doctrine.

If we read chapter 4 section 4, it says this: "What the Lord said to the Jews and the Nephites, two thousand years ago, or what he said to the Latter-day Saints fifty or sixty years ago, has no force whatever at this time, unless it agrees with present day revelation, with the Lord's most recent instructions to his people through his chosen or appointed servants or servant; and they who ignore this fact are liable to get into trouble."

Now I know that some individuals may get miffed at what I have brought up here or how direct it is, but I am afraid you will just have to tough it out. Regardless of what President Grant said, or any Prophet before or since, if a more recent revelation changes that doctrine, it is changed. Period. End of discussion. I would also draw special attention to the fact that those who ignore this get into trouble. This is the church of living revelation. There should be no debate concerning changes made by the most recent prophet to address the issue.

Another thing I want to mention is this. The following quote is from the same book, chapter 4 section 6: "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." Prophets have the right to personal opinions. Not every word they speak shoudl be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However their discourses to the Saints and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded."

In other words, just cause he is the prophet and he wrote or said it, doesn't make it doctrine. If he is not specifically acting as the prophet at that time then it isn't necessarily more than a good idea. Proof of this can be found in ANY book written by any authority but not endorsed by the church. The introductions state that the book is not doctrine but is purely the opinion of the author. Do not preach such things as doctrine to everyone else.

Hope this helps, and again, sorry if this is somehow too direct.

[ozzy]

Sorry, short p.s. note. The book I referenced can be found on line through lds.org. Also, a lot of the expressed and implied questions concerning prophets are answered in it. Enjoy :)

[Guest]

To Hill Billy... shame on you!

To claim priesthood as you have, making yourself sound high and mighty, yet despicably spit on the same office you profess to hold... I have no words for it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's the on-line version of the book Ozzy cites.

I also recommend this one, if you can find it (I believe it's out-of-print at present).

[ozzy]

So I was having a thought to answer another question present here. The way that I see this question is as follows: 'Does a change in the gospel negate previous ordinances?' I get this from the questions posted regarding whether certain individuals have to be reordained. To me this is akin to the question: 'Do I have to have an ordinance done over because the individual performing the ordinance wasn't worthy to do so?' Lets face it. There are those out there within the church who baptize, ordain, and participate in callings which they aren't worthy to do for some reason or another. Speaking pragmatically, and not accusationally, an example may be a father who baptizes his children while guilty of cheating on his marriage. Does this negate that child's baptism? I do not believe so. The Lord is understanding and merciful to the innocent, and while maybe unworthy to exercise it, that father does still hold the true authority. I would say that reversals in church practice are even less likely, and in fact give absolutely no reason to reperform ordinances such as the giving of priesthood.

I would also like to note that unlike my last posts, this is pure, 100% speculation based on rational and known experience. There is no doctrinal backing to my knowledge to support this little path of thought

[pam]

As yours, my answer is strictly my opinion and not doctrine as well. But in the case of a father baptizing his son in the instance you gave, I don't believe it will negate that baptism at all. But I do feel that the father, unless he at some point repents, will have a lot to answer for.

Edited December 4, 2009 by pam

[ozzy]

Definitely agreed Pam.

[Vort]

So I was having a thought to answer another question present here. The way that I see this question is as follows: 'Does a change in the gospel negate previous ordinances?' I get this from the questions posted regarding whether certain individuals have to be reordained. To me this is akin to the question: 'Do I have to have an ordinance done over because the individual performing the ordinance wasn't worthy to do so?' Lets face it. There are those out there within the church who baptize, ordain, and participate in callings which they aren't worthy to do for some reason or another. Speaking pragmatically, and not accusationally, an example may be a father who baptizes his children while guilty of cheating on his marriage. Does this negate that child's baptism? I do not believe so. The Lord is understanding and merciful to the innocent, and while maybe unworthy to exercise it, that father does still hold the true authority. I would say that reversals in church practice are even less likely, and in fact give absolutely no reason to reperform ordinances such as the giving of priesthood.

Isn't this obvious? After all, which of us is worthy by merit or by nature to exercise God's Priesthood? It is only through his grace that we can enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood at all. The Priesthood is given to imperfect men to use, and they use it to their own salvation or damnation.

Hill-Billly's idea that Priesthood authority was lost in the early to mid 20th century because of improper wording on conferral and ordinations is absurd on its face and, I am confident, will be immediately rejected by all those who don't have an ax to grind.

[MarginOfError]

Yes, it was J. Musser.

Truth is everywhere you find it. He had a lot of really good thought. I didn't think anyone here would know him or want to hear what he said.

I first went to the Rare Book collection at BYU and looked up the missionary hand book to find what I had heard. It was true. Yes, I understand how it was supposed to be.

This is a problem of massive complications.

What do we do now? Now that we know or suspect that millions of church members don't have priesthood

Trust that the prophet knows better than you?

Well, I don’t understand what being a prophet or not has to do with the post I made, maybe you don’t comprehend what you read or you just didn’t read the post, either way you have made some assumptions that one IS and one IS NOT a prophet. How do you know this, are you a prophet?

Being a prophet is called of God not man. Just because someone died and left the other in charge does not Qualify as a Prophet. There are a lot of churches out there that call the head guy a prophet, that does not make him one. He must qualify. Maybe you should find out how to qualify as a prophet before you make assumptions.

Of all the responses to you in this thread this is the one you feel you have to take issue with? Where are the responses to the First Presidency letters that contradict your claims? Where are the responses to the references that tell you in plain language that your conclusions are wrong? Where are the responses to the implications that you're heeding the words of apostates before heeding the words of the Church that you claim to be a part of?

Anything? Anything? Anything at all? Or are you just ignoring them, because if you pretend that they don't exist you don't have to accept the possibility that you don't understand things as well as you thought you did.

And all of this coming from someone half your age too! That must really drive you batty.

[john doe]

See, this is why we can't have intelligent conversations here, people spend too much time thinking for themselves.

[NeuroTypical]

For the love of Pete, don't ban Hill_billy! I need him to be around when my outlook reminder pops up in Jan 2011 to resurrect this thread.

All the other coming-collapse-prediction threads that peaked around March have been resurrected to death - this is the last 'live' one I know of.

LM

[Vort]

See, this is why we can't have intelligent conversations here, people spend too much time thinking for themselves.

The writings of Charles W. Penrose and George Q. Cannon both suggest the opposite of your conclusion, especially when coupled with Joseph F. Smith's comments. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go do your homework.

[pam]

For the love of Pete, don't ban Hill_billy! I need him to be around when my outlook reminder pops up in Jan 2011 to resurrect this thread.

All the other coming-collapse-prediction threads that peaked around March have been resurrected to death - this is the last 'live' one I know of.

LM

[pam]

I'm starting to think we are all back in school with all this talk of homework.