Why don't we listen to the prophets!!!


Recommended Posts

President Kimball (from the same thread "Issues with Brigham Young"):

The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. ...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation....The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure.

That statement is powerful!

There is plenty more in that thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are clearly established incidences were the Lord gives the people a higher law and then the church at the time failing to live up to it so the law gets pulled back and a lesser one put in its place.

After reading the various history and comments, I give it as my opinion that something like that happened with the ban. The prophet and the church were simply not ready (aka racist), so God pulled it back. To me this fits perfectly with god has done before and the weakness of the Saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was anything wrong with the ban, or with the statements made by the PROPHETS, then why didnt the Lord give them the revelation to end the ban?

You misunderstand revelation if you ask such a question. Rarely is there a revelation if a question is not asked.

If anything can be changed then is there any such thing as doctrine? If a century of direct revelation and a clear policy can just be thrown out the window, then what cant??? The Lord had his reasons to take away the ban, but he had reasons to put it in place AND WE CANT IGNORE THOSE REASONS! Explain to me how you can question such clear doctine without questioning the preisthood athority from which it comes? I chose to stand with the God's anointed servents!!!!

Eewww. This is starting to sound more and more like someone that wants to hang onto a dead prophet's voice over the current prophets. Are you saying that because President Young had ‘valid’ reasons for denying black priesthood before, that we should continue such today? Sure is starting to sound like that from what I read.

Sunday_Warrior: you started the thread with the rhetorical question of why don't we listed to the prophets. I would ask you why you don't listen to the Savior's admonition to not worry about the mote in another's eye while there is a beam in your own? Give up already judging others as apostates, future apostates, or people that don't stand with God's anointed. Worry about yourself more, and others less. I and your EQ buddy can take care of our own salvation better without being judged unrighteously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand revelation if you ask such a question. Rarely is there a revelation if a question is not asked.

Eewww. This is starting to sound more and more like someone that wants to hang onto a dead prophet's voice over the current prophets. Are you saying that because President Young had ‘valid’ reasons for denying black priesthood before, that we should continue such today? Sure is starting to sound like that from what I read.

Sunday_Warrior: you started the thread with the rhetorical question of why don't we listed to the prophets. I would ask you why you don't listen to the Savior's admonition to not worry about the mote in another's eye while there is a beam in your own? Give up already judging others as apostates, future apostates, or people that don't stand with God's anointed. Worry about yourself more, and others less. I and your EQ buddy can take care of our own salvation better without being judged unrighteously.

I have a question - in Declaration 1 it says:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place."

But, what does this really mean? This revelation seems so clear, but I think its really vague.

Like, what does it mean to "remove [the prophet] out of [his] place"? I used to think that it meant that God would make the prophet die and not let a person become prophet through divine coincidence, but what if God just takes his Priesthood away and doesn't do anything spectacular? That's possible isn't it, because that's what happened so often in the past with all of the apostasies? Or, what if it means that the apostles or seventies are supposed to vote him out of office, because they have as much authority together as the prophet, and there's those sections in DC that talk about what to do when the prophet goes astray.

And then, what does it even mean to let "lead you astray". Obviously the prophet isn't perfect. And different prophets sometimes disagree with past prophets. Is there like some type of "led astray" threshold? For example, if you go out to lunch with the prophet and he suggests that you would really like a certain type of sandwich, you order it, and you don't like it - did the prophet lead you astray? How do you tell the difference between when the prophet is being a prophet, because he totally could know what sandwich you like, versus when he's not? Does he have to say, "Thus saith the Lord"?

Any thoughts would be nice since this is a big question for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I can make this any more clear: I UNDERSTAND THAT PROPHETS ARE IMPERFECT MEN. I know they make mistakes. But how is it possible that the preisthood ban was one of these mistakes? it lasted for well over 100 years!!! If there was anything wrong with the ban, or with the statements made by the PROPHETS, then why didnt the Lord give them the revelation to end the ban? Just like your story about Brigham Young correcting himself when he recieved more revalation. If anything can be changed then is there any such thing as doctrine? If a century of direct revelation and a clear policy can just be thrown out the window, then what cant??? The Lord had his reasons to take away the ban, but he had reasons to put it in place AND WE CANT IGNORE THOSE REASONS! Explain to me how you can question such clear doctine without questioning the preisthood athority from which it comes? I chose to stand with the God's anointed servents!!!!

nobody said it was a mistake. as I read the thread people have said "We don't know why God allowed this, but he did. Then he ended it by revelation." God has 'reversed' himself repeatedly.

Polygamy was allowed in OT times, then disallowed in the NT, then allowed through Joseph Smith, then disallowed again.

The law of Moses was supplanted by the law of the Gospel Christ revealed

Tithing was a commandment in the bible, then it wasn't under Joseph Smith, now it is again...

The Word of Wisdom was not mandatory, now it is.

Now, as for the priesthood, Prior to the Law of Moses, only the Prophets ever held it.

Then under the Law of Moses, only the Levites could hold it.

Then under Christ, the priesthood was extended only to those men called to leadership roles in the early church.

Then the ban began agianst blacks.

Now, all men in the church are commanded to be worthy of holding the priesthood.

Do you see a pattern in any of this?

First of all, holding the priesthood is not an inherited right for any of us. We need to stop acting like it's just as much our right to have as our agency. God is the one who decides who can act in his name. If he did command that blacks could not hold the priesthood, then he had his reasons.

If he merely allowed a racist policy to continue in a young church that was found in a young racist nation in order that the young church would be preserved and allowed to move past racism at the right time, so be it. God has no need to explain himself to us if we aren't prepared to follow him in all that we do understand, much less all that he has revealed to us.

Priesthood authority does not automatically bring with it a full understanding of why God does what he does. Priesthood holders have to operate on faith just like anyone else (see the story of Jonah for example).

Finally, this really comes down to either of two options.

A. Picking and choosing which of God's prophets we will accept; for example the ones today that state we don't know why God allowed the ban in the first place as well as the ones that state we don't know why it continued for as long as it did. Then there are the ones that supported the ban, as well as those that ended it. From your perspective, all these chosen men of God are at odds with each other. Or....they were completely right in all they did regarding the ban because they followed the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Remember that President McKay prayed repeatedly to end the ban only to have God tell him no.

B. Accept that God is in charge, and that we cannot (nor should we) see everything as he does. He has his reasons for all his actions, and the day will come that we will see why this happened the way it did.

We walk by faith, and we must use that faith when knowlege is short. This is as God intended and I think we need to be more accepting of that. As we strive to grow from faith to knowlege, there will be moments like this, but we cannot become critical of our brothers and sisters because of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the OPs response seems fairly typical for someone finding out how non-monolithic Latter-day Saints are about just what we do and don't believe and what we take from what they do happen to believe in common. I know my initial reaction when I came face to face with that fact was similar in it's franticness and zeal to convert all dissenters to the one true approach (aka my approach).

Indeed. I expressed some very strong and negative opinions about a particular talk from this last General Conference, and did so on a friend's Facebook status. My initial comment was a kneejerk and perhaps inappropriate reaction, and within five minutes, I apologized and dialed it back, while still expressing my frustration and even -- a little -- disagreement with the talk. Another friend strongly called me out -- in public -- and effectively yelled at me and called me an apostate for making such comments. Later she emailed me privately and we talked a bit (the issue actually has yet to be fully resolved between us), but I shared with her that I don't believe it's inappropriate to disagree with an apostle, as not every word out of their mouth -- even in General Conference -- is doctrinal. It's to this that she hasn't yet responded. I'm not sure she can really wrap her head around that concept, as she and her family are kind-of Shiny Happy Mormons.

*I swear I've heard some claim that blacks not of African descent (such as Australian Aborigines) has been given the priesthood prior to the removal of the ban. I can't remember what thread it was in nor what sources were used as support for the claim though. At any rate I've always heard it was their lineage not their skin color which prohibited them from receiving the priesthood.

I said that recently in this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/38104-racism-scriptures.html. I don't have a source, but that is what I've read about it.

heres what you do.. walk up and tell him his salvation is his problem and your salvation is your problem.

Or better yet, the OP should walk up to the mirror and say that.

He was wrong on Adam-God theory, polygamy being required for exaltation, God progressing eternally in knowledge, and a few other things.

Indeed -- my sister-in-law shared with me this week that there is a member in her ward who holds firmly that man never landed on the moon because Brigham Young said they never would (or that there would be little green men, or something like that). He said it, ergo, it never happened.

The Lord had his reasons to take away the ban, but he had reasons to put it in place AND WE CANT IGNORE THOSE REASONS!

Apparently you missed the repeated statements that the Lord didn't put it in place -- Brigham Young did that on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently you missed the repeated statements that the Lord didn't put it in place -- Brigham Young did that on his own.

This is were I think alot of people get really Iffy about it. Sure Brigham Young could have done that on his own. But we are taught that everyone is entitled and should take the prophets instructions and commands to the Lord for confirmation. The moment the Lord confirmed it becomes his even if Brigham Young was flying solo at the time the words left his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently you missed the repeated statements that the Lord didn't put it in place -- Brigham Young did that on his own.

Well, technically . . . the statements provide a plausible alternate historical explanation. They do not rule out the possibility that Young did indeed receive a revelation/inspiration corroborating whatever he may already have been culturally inclined to do.

Moreover--while we can't prove the Lord originated the ban (via Young), we do have pretty solid evidence that He perpetuated it through McKay. To what degree does that count for anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently you missed the repeated statements that the Lord didn't put it in place -- Brigham Young did that on his own.

Brigham Young once said "that I have never given counsel that is wrong" (Journal of Discourses, 16:161). If he takes such a strong stance on all of his counsel, then how can you tell whether any of his counsel is worthwhile? If you throw out part of what he says, then where do you end? That seems like a slippery slope. You can't throw out what he says! He was a prophet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brigham Young once said "that I have never given counsel that is wrong" (Journal of Discourses, 16:161). If he takes such a strong stance on all of his counsel, then how can you tell whether any of his counsel is worthwhile? If you throw out part of what he says, then where do you end? That seems like a slippery slope. You can't throw out what he says! He was a prophet!

Ah, so I assume you are a firm believer in the Adam-God theory that he personally taught? (and later on, repudiated as false by the Church). I would love to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the church repudiate it?

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball said:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

After reading this, I am still interested in an answer to my question. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the church repudiate it?

LDS Newsroom provides a quote from President Kimball: Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven - LDS Newsroom

“We hope that you who teach in the various organizations ... will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” (CR, Oct. 1976, 115).

So that's 1976, though I don't know if that's the earliest.

Edit: I spent too much time in composition looking for other quotes on the matter presented from Church sources. Curse you Suzie! :)

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball said:

After reading this, I am still interested in an answer to my question. Thanks.

I don't have an answer for you. I've always thought that the Adam-God theory works really well symbolically. Occasionally a teacher will insinuate that it's a higher doctrine that not all might believe. There might be some literal elements of it. Without discussing the temple too much, I've always considered Adam as ourself and that we are part of God, a symbolic meaning to it.

Maybe Adam-God contradicts, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brigham Young once said "that I have never given counsel that is wrong" (Journal of Discourses, 16:161). If he takes such a strong stance on all of his counsel, then how can you tell whether any of his counsel is worthwhile? If you throw out part of what he says, then where do you end? That seems like a slippery slope. You can't throw out what he says! He was a prophet!

What is the definition of counsel?

Does counsel mean to theorize?

Does counsel mean to establish certain practices?

Or... does counsel mean to help others to improve their lives by following the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Prophets are NOT infallable. Please read the Doctrine and Covenants to show how even the Prophet Joseph was a great man, but was chastised many times.

So was Moses.

So was Peter.

So was David.

Even Lehi murmured against the Lord.

"But they're Prophets!" And they're the servants of the Lord... and they mess up too.

Our job is to follow the Lord through the correct teachings and doctrines taught by the Prophet. If you're still confused, go back through this thread and read my post about the differences between doctrines and practices. They are NOT the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: I spent too much time in composition looking for other quotes on the matter presented from Church sources. Curse you Suzie! :)

There are many, many quotes about it. Orson Pratt was very much against it and he would speak about it publicly which caused him to be constantly rebuked and almost excommunicated. Also in Conference in 1916, Joseph F. Smith (even though he doesn't mention the theory by its name) refers to it and pretty much rejects the idea.

In 1980, Bruce R. Mc Conkie said:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.

Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. 'We will follow those who went before,' they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have an answer for you. I've always thought that the Adam-God theory works really well symbolically. Occasionally a teacher will insinuate that it's a higher doctrine that not all might believe. There might be some literal elements of it. Without discussing the temple too much, I've always considered Adam as ourself and that we are part of God, a symbolic meaning to it.

Maybe Adam-God contradicts, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

Adam?God doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not the most well-versed in this theory, so I looked it up. It is VERY different from what we are taught today - including what is taught in the temple.

Does this theory take us further away from Christ? Not necessarily. It's just incorrect doctrine.

Would believeing it cost us our salvation and exaltation? No.

Remember that the core of the gospel is:

Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end.

Reading the scriptures and praying to our Heavenly Father to build our relationship to Him.

Keep this in mind too: there MUST be a reason why we are learning and teaching from the Gospel Principles manual in Priesthood & Relief Society. We need to get "back to basics" in the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many, many quotes about it. Orson Pratt was very much against it and he would speak about it publicly which caused him to be constantly rebuked and almost excommunicated. Also in Conference in 1916, Joseph F. Smith (even though he doesn't mention the theory by its name) refers to it and pretty much rejects the idea.

In 1980, Bruce R. Mc Conkie said:

Yes there are but a search of LDS.org (for Adam-God Theory) turns up surprisingly little. And I was hoping to stick with Church resources as they're relatively undebatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there are but a search of LDS.org (for Adam-God Theory) turns up surprisingly little. And I was hoping to stick with Church resources as they're relatively undebatable.

Surprisingly? I don't think so. :P

Ok. I will behave today. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprisingly? I don't think so. :P

Ok. I will behave today. :D

A search of lds.org doesn't turn up the 1976 President Kimball conference quotation (using the term "Adam-God theory"). I had to go to the newsroom for that (to turn up in a search). I didn't expect a plethra but the only thing that exact search turns up is a book recommendation in the Ensign even though that exact phrase is contained here Our Own Liahona , I had to look it up by the conference year, month, and talk.

I call not turning up a conference talk to qualify as surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A search of lds.org doesn't turn up the 1976 President Kimball conference quotation (using the term "Adam-God theory"). I had to go to the newsroom for that (to turn up in a search). I didn't expect a plethra but the only thing that exact search turns up is a book recommendation in the Ensign even though that exact phrase is contained here Our Own Liahona , I had to look it up by the conference year, month, and talk.

I call not turning up a conference talk to qualify as surprising.

I think the whole site needs a serious redesign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share