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

[Dravin]

I think the whole site needs a serious redesign.

Don't say that, look what happened the last time!

[skippy740]

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

But to this list, I add this quote from J. Golden Kimball:

"There are not enough general authorities to do all the thinking for the membership of the Church."

Look at the list of 14 fundamentals. Doesn't the 3rd and 4th kinda contradict each other? The living prophet is MORE important than a dead prophet... but the prophet won't lead the church astray, right? So, was Brigham Young leading the church astray? No. He didn't teach doctrines that would lead us to stray from the core tennants of the gospel. However, we need LIVING prophets to help guide the Lord's Church the way the Lord wants it governed.

[livy111us]

Brigham Young was not consistent in this teaching (which should speak volumes) and taught on several occasions of Adam and God being separate people.

Inn a discourse in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on April 17, 1870, President Young said this: "The world may in vain ask the question:

`Who are we?' But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve.

Some say, `We are the children of Adam and Eve.' So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father." (Journal of Discourses [JD], 13:311.)

In remarks also in Salt Lake City on July 8, 1863, President Young said: "We believe in God the Father

and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an

infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he

made Adam after his own image and likeness, as Moses testified. . . ." (JD, 10:230-31.)

"Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon the earth as we are conversant with our

earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him. . . ." (JD, 9:148.)

On April 9, 1852, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct

characters, namely Elohim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum. . . ." (JD, 1:50.)

On November 6, 1864, President Young said: "Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called

Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all High Priests, with the

residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed

upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Archangel." (JD, 10:355.)See also Journal of

Discourses, vol. 2: p.7; 3, 94; 4:216-217, 271, 280; 6:317-318; 8:174,179, 283; 9:104, 149-150, 321; 10:235, 300, 312; 11:41,122-23; 13:308-309; 16:167)

BY also said Brigham Young himself said “In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid,

it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith, and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three

First Presidents must be one in their voice the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to

obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the

Doctrine and Covenants. . . . Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true” (Journal of Discourses 9:91-92) Yet, nowhere was this "doctrine" voted upon, and cannot be considered as such. The best that proponents of this theory can do is claim it was a confused opinion of Brigham Young's. He wasn't infallible and he acknowledges that in 1854 when he stated “I have known many times I have preached wrong.” (Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock minutes, May 8 1854, Church Historical Department)

In 1897 in a private letter outlined by President Wilford Woodruff and written by Apostle Joseph

F. Smith:

“President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was

not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the

councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or

otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth. Only the

scripture, the accepted word of God," is the Church's standard” (Letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897,

LDS Archives).

“President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.” JD 4:217 Joseph F Smith)

Here is what FAIR has to say about it:

Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory - FAIRMormon

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

Personally, I think the "Two Adam" theory makes sense in context of all of his comments. Which is that some scholars believe that he was referring to the title Adam, not the person. He believed that Adam was named after his Father (God), while Eve was named after our Mother in Heaven (see Eldon Watsons works on this subject). In 1 Cor. 15:45 it speaks about the man Adam, then of another Adam, which is Christ. So if Paul can refer to Christ as Adam, why not God as Adam? Irenaeus also mentions Adam is a title (Against Heresies 23, Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:456) Also, Christ is referred to as the “son of man” many times in the scriptures (Mat. 16:13). This is interesting because in the Aramaic that He was speaking, as well as most of the Jews at that time, it literally means “son of Adam”.

[Suzie]

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981

May I plead the fifth with regards to that talk?

[rameumptom]

The Church has provided an explanation of what denotes doctrine, and what does not:

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

[Carl62]

He called 19th century men racist. Shocking. He must be teetering on the brink of outer darkness. Brigham Young was racist. So was Albert Schweizer. This is a statement of fact. Men of the 19th century (and much of the 20th also) were racist. They thought in terms of race. This does not make them wicked, or bad, or unfit to serve as the Lord's anointed.

But yet there does seem to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to former vs. latter day prophets on what is said and accepted. It seems like anything Brigham Young said in regards to race not only seems to get poo-pooed off, but then to call him a racist is O.K., yet if President Monson where to say something in the press that would be deemed as quasi-racist, and members would then start making comments about him being a racist, I can guarantee temple recommends will be getting recinded left and right. In some ways I can see where the O.P. is coming from. I never quite understood the whole "living prophet overrides a dead prophet" outlook that the church seems to have in regards to our leaders. To me, what a prophet says is what a prophet says, whether it was 150 days ago or 150 years ago.

[Obolus]

Prophets won't lead us astray when it comes to the core principles & ordinances of the gospel. But they can be deceived into misinterpretations of scripture and incorrect courses of action and policies. If Brigham Young was wrong on this issue, he was still correct on a dozen other issues that still preserved the Priesthood & ordinances on the earth and helped the saints survive their exile from Illinois and establish themselves in Utah. If you're God, you probably don't knock off your prophet in this critical time just because he holds a racist view on the Priesthood. The Lord did the best he could with fallible people.

The issue with all the prophets that followed BY is the issue of inheritance. They inherited the policy, and that absolves them of part of the responsibility. It is difficult to change policies that are inherited because it usually requires a unanimous vote by the Twelve and the FP.

My opinion is that Brigham Young got it mostly right, but not on this issue. The prophets after him inherited the policy. McKay was the first to claim that it was a "policy" and not a "doctrine", and he even suggested that the Nigerians be given the Aaronic Priesthood so they could baptize their own and preside over their own meetings. Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee opposed him on it, so it didn't happen then. It took forward thinkers (Kimball) in a different time (a decade later) to provide the opportunity for the revelation to come that would correct our course. Was the Church waiting on the Lord, or was it the other way around? Neither Smith nor Lee, the prophets between McKay and Kimball, served for very long. Read into those short stints what you will.

Access to revelation does not mean that all of the Lord's messages always make it through. Does he allow prophets to fail in some things? Well, why wouldn't he? Are prophets not here to learn also? The Lord isn't running a puppet show. It is carnal security to assume that he is.

Thus, faith should not be placed in people (prophets, spouses, parents, Etc.). Faith should be placed in Christ & in his correct principles so that when people fail you... which they inevitably will... it doesn't shatter your faith.

[rameumptom]

The key is the 1978 revelation. Since then, we know that at least some of Brigham Young's beliefs regarding blacks were wrong. For instance, he believed they would not receive the priesthood until the Millennium.

Looking back, we seek to understand why prophets may have taught certain things, right or wrong. Why does the WoW say no to tea, when modern science shows it is good for you? We don't know, but some have ideas regarding it.

As we study the history behind the ban, and the reasons given by Pres Young and others, we can see that they were misinterpreting the scriptures. The issue then comes to what led them to misinterpret them? Well, the rest of America was racist in that time frame. Brigham Young and others, all being converts, were raised in that racist environment. While they were against slavery, some Mormons did own slaves, even in Utah. And there was a huge concern over blacks marrying whites, especially in the temple. Why? Well, such a concern can only come down to racism. Why? Because anciently when the Lamanites were cursed, they still could repent and hold the priesthood and intermarry. Joseph Smith ordained several blacks and gave them full citizenship in the Church.

Suddenly, when the saints got out to Utah, this attitude changed. No longer were blacks ordained. When the temple was completed, none were allowed to be endowed or sealed. If there were a curse of Cain, why didn't the Lord tell Joseph Smith before he ordained Elijah Abel - or even afterward? He didn't. To the day of Joseph's death, Elijah Abel was considered an elder in full fellowship.

So something changed. There's no evidence of a revelation. There is evidence that huge concerns occurred at Winter Quarters, when a black elder tried marrying several white women. Some elders began finding reasons in the scriptures for keeping blacks from inter-marrying, and one of the reasons found went back to Protestantism's belief in the curse.

It continued for over a century, because there was no interest to change it in the Church. Inter-racial marriages did not become somewhat acceptable until the 1970s. The Jim Crow laws had just ended. The KKK was slowly ending lynch mobs in the South. School and other integration was well on its way. The Church would not have others attack us over integrating blacks. Remember, the Church was almost destroyed over polygamy and other issues. It wasn't strong enough until the 1970s to deal with such an issue. The world and Church were finally ready, and so the revelation came.

Was Brigham Young a racist? From today's standards, yes. From a 19th century perspective, he was just a white man with normal views towards blacks. He would not have considered himself a racist, because most did not entertain such ideas back then. A racist was someone who hated, killed and/or tortured blacks. BY wasn't someone like that.

But we use today's language to describe things. From our perspective, he and the rest of 19th century America was racist.

[volgadon]

But yet there does seem to be a bit of a double standard when it comes to former vs. latter day prophets on what is said and accepted. It seems like anything Brigham Young said in regards to race not only seems to get poo-pooed off, but then to call him a racist is O.K., yet if President Monson where to say something in the press that would be deemed as quasi-racist, and members would then start making comments about him being a racist, I can guarantee temple recommends will be getting recinded left and right. In some ways I can see where the O.P. is coming from. I never quite understood the whole "living prophet overrides a dead prophet" outlook that the church seems to have in regards to our leaders. To me, what a prophet says is what a prophet says, whether it was 150 days ago or 150 years ago.

Not at all. I am not making a value judgement, I am stating a neutral historical fact.

I don't know of a single individual (LDS or not) from the 19th century who would not qualify as a racist by modern standards. If you do, please name them, I would love to read about them. I am a Kipling fan, and have been since childhood. That was my introduction to the topic of 19th century racism. I love 19th century history in all its aspects. Examples of such fairly benign racism can be found in the infamous White Man's Burden, as well as in H. G. Well's History of the World. The latter is probably a superb introduction to this. John Masters (in the mid 20th c.) did a very good job of exploring the dynamics of 19th century racism, but even he falls prey to it in his book, the Venus of Konpara, which takes its plot from the Aryan Invasion theory of Indian history. That theory holds that the native, indolent, and sensuous dark-skinned Dravidians were overrun by the warlike, energetic, authoritaritan and ruthless fair-skinned Aryans. While Masters is very sympathetic in his portrayal of the Dravidians, and critical of the Arayns, that model of history is inherently racist.

Brigham Young was a product of his times.

Edited April 8, 2011 by volgadon

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think Suzie clinched this one for me earlier when she gave this quote from Spencer W Kimball:

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.

Possible error!!!! That sums it up for me. I personally think we have lots errors in Church policy and possibly doctrine. I don't have the quote in front of me, but is it possible that the statement "the lord would remove me from my place" was a prophet speaking about himself personally, and not ALL prophets? Could it be Heavenly Father allows certain prophets to make mistakes and lead the church astray within certain tolerable parameters, depending on the overall net benefit to his children as a whole of having that prophet in place at that time?

Could it be that He allows policy that is consistent with prevailing, eternally erroneous cultural attitudes, until such time society as a whole helps the Prophet recognize there is a need for change? Can it be that inspiration comes from many sources, and one source, is the occasional right-thinking of society as a whole which ultimately benefits the Church?

Can we have a testimony and commitment to the Church while embracing the fact that as an organization, it may well be wrong on certain points of doctrine, having not yet achieved full enlightenment? I am totally comfortable with the fact that the Church has mistaken policies and even doctrines, recently, and even today. It doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, it makes it a whole lot easier to believe in, because almost nothing is ever perfect.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mormonmusic

[skippy740]

I don't have the quote in front of me, but is it possible that the statement "the lord would remove me from my place" was a prophet speaking about himself personally, and not ALL prophets?

Official Declaration 1 

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 programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

[RipplecutBuddha]

it's frustrating to hold a discussion with someone when they aren't listening to you. Nobody is listening to each other in this thread anymore. Pity.

[Suzie]

it's frustrating to hold a discussion with someone when they aren't listening to you. Nobody is listening to each other in this thread anymore. Pity.

Really?

It seems like a pretty good debate to me.

[Suzie]

Can we have a testimony and commitment to the Church while embracing the fact that as an organization, it may well be wrong on certain points of doctrine, having not yet achieved full enlightenment? I am totally comfortable with the fact that the Church has mistaken policies and even doctrines, recently, and even today. It doesn't bother me one bit. In fact, it makes it a whole lot easier to believe in, because almost nothing is ever perfect.

Well, doesn't the Church teaches that as organization/body IS indeed perfect and we have the Truth? (With capital T) then how can be there mistakes in doctrine? (key word here is doctrine and no merely policies) How can we feel comfortable about it if that's case? The Church is either True or it's not...If the Church as an organization is not perfect then what makes us different from any other Church who have some of the Truth?

I agree with what you are saying, I am just trying to link that into what we are taught and how the whole thing mix into the equation.

Interesting points mormomusic.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Suzie
Added more content

[mnn727]

If you want to help then tell me what you would tell this elder.

Tell him your very sorry.

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles.

Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug. 1978

Edited April 8, 2011 by mnn727

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't have the quote in front of me, but is it possible that the statement "the lord would remove me from my place" was a prophet speaking about himself personally, and not ALL prophets? Could it be Heavenly Father allows certain prophets to make mistakes and lead the church astray within certain tolerable parameters, depending on the overall net benefit to his children as a whole of having that prophet in place at that time?

As to the latter: I can visualize that happening; though I'm not convinced it was the case with the priesthood ban.

As to the former: I think not; Woodruff is clear about extending that phrase to "any other man" as well as himself.

Below is the entire text of Woodruff's sermon, given in the October 1890 General Conference. George Q. Cannon had just preceded Woodruff with a sermon about the decisions and events leading to the Manifesto.

I want to say to all Israel that the step which I have taken in issuing this manifesto has not been done without earnest prayer before the Lord. I am about to go into the spirit world, like other men of my age. I expect to meet the face of my Heavenly Father—the Father of my spirit; I expect to meet the face of Joseph Smith, of Brigham Young, of John Taylor, and of the Apostles, and for me to have taken a stand in anything which is not pleasing in the sight of God, or before the heavens, I would rather have gone out and been shot. My life is no better than other men's. I am not ignorant of the feelings that have been engendered through the course I have pursued. But I have done my duty, and the nation of which we form a part must be responsible for that which has been done in relation to this principle.

The Lord has required at our hands many things that we have not done, many things that we were prevented from doing. The Lord required us to build a Temple in Jackson County. We were prevented by violence from doing it. He required us to build a Temple in Far West, which we have not been able to do. A great many things have been required of us, and we have not been able to do them, because of those that surrounded us in the world. This people are in the hands of God. This work is in the hands of God, and He will take care of it. Brother George Q. Cannon told us about the lies that are abroad. It is a time when there have been more lies told about Mormonism than almost any other subject ever presented to the human family. I often think of what Lorenzo Dow said with regard to the doctrine of election. Says he: "It is like this: You can, and you can't; you will, and you won't; you shall, and you shan't; you'll be damned if you do, and you'll be damned if you don't." That is about the condition we as Latter-day Saints are in. If we were to undertake to please the world, and that was our object, we might as well give up the ship; we might have given it up in the beginning. But the Lord has called us to labor in the vineyard; and when our nation passes laws, as they have done, in regard to this principle which we have presented to the Conference, it is not wisdom for us to make war upon sixty-five millions of people. It is not wisdom for us to go forth and carry out this principle against the laws of the nation and receive the consequences. That is in the hands of God, and He will govern and control it. The Church of Christ is here; the Zion of God is here, in fulfilment of these revelations of God that are contained in these holy records in which the whole Christian world profess to believe. The Bible could never have been fulfilled had it not been for the raising up of a prophet in the last days. The revelations of St. John could never have been fulfilled if the angel of God had not flown through the midst of heaven, "having the everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come." Was that angel going to visit New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the world, and call the people together and preach to them? Not at all. But the Lord raised up a Prophet. The angel of God delivered that Gospel to that Prophet. That Prophet organized a Church; and all that He has promised in this code of revelations (the Book of Doctrine and Covenants) has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit. That which is not yet fulfilled will be.

Brethren and sisters, it is our duty to be true to God and to be faithful. Make your prayers known unto the Lord. The Lord has told us what He will do concerning many things. He will fulfill His word. Let us be careful and wise, and let us be satisfied with the dealings of God with us. If we do our duty to one another, to our country and to the Church of Christ, we will be justified when we go into the spirit world. It is not the first time that the world has sought to hinder the fulfillment of revelation and prophesy. The Jewish nation and other nations rose up and slew the Son of God and every Apostle but one that bore the Priesthood in that day and generation. They could not establish the kingdom; the world was against them. When the Apostles asked Jesus whether He would at that time restore again the kingdom to Israel, He replied: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." He did not say it would be established then; but He taught them to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." It is a long time since that prayer was offered, and it has not been fulfilled until the present generation. The Lord is preparing a people to receive His kingdom and His Church, and to build up His work. That, brethren and sisters, is our labor.

I want the prayers of the Latter-day Saints. I thank God that I have seen with my eyes this day that this people have been ready to vote to sustain me in an action that I know, in one sense, has pained their hearts. Brother George Q. Cannon has laid before you our position. The Lord has given us commandments concerning many things, and we have carried them out as far as we could; but when we cannot do it, we are justified. The Lord does not require at our hands things that we cannot do.

This is all I want to say to the Latter-day Saints upon this subject. But go before the Lord and ask Him for light and truth, and to give us such blessings as we stand in need of. Let your prayers ascend into the ears of the God of Sabaoth, and they will be heard and answered upon your heads, and upon the heads of the world. Our nation is in the hands of God. He holds their destiny. He holds the destinies of all men. I will say to the Latter-day Saints, as an Elder in Israel and as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are approaching some of the most tremendous judgments God ever poured out upon the world. You watch the signs of the times, the signs of the coming of the Son of Man. They are beginning to be made manifest both in heaven and on earth. As has been told you by the Apostles, Christ will not come until these things come to pass. Jerusalem has got to be rebuilt. The Temple has got to be built. Judah has got to be gathered, and the House of Israel. And the gentiles will go forth to battle against Judah and Jerusalem before the coming of the Son of Man. These things have been revealed by the prophets; they will have their fulfilment. We are approaching these things. All that the Latter-day Saints have to do is to be quiet, careful and wise before the Lord, watch the signs of the times, and be true and faithful; and when you get through you will understand many things that you do not today. This work has been raised up by the power of Almighty God. These Elders of Israel were called from the various occupations of life to preach as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. They were not learned men; they were the weak things of this world, whom God chose to confound the wise, "and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are." We are here on that principle. Others will be gathered on that principle. Zion will be redeemed, Zion will arise, and the glory of God will rest upon her, and all that Isaiah and the other prophets have spoken concerning her will come to pass. We are in the last dispensation and fulness of time. It is a great day, and the eyes of all the heavens are over us, and the eyes of God Himself and all the patriarchs and prophets. They are watching over you with feelings of deep interest, for your welfare; and our prophets who were slain and sealed their testimony with their blood, are mingling with the Gods, pleading for their brethren. Therefore, let us be faithful, and leave events in the hands of God, and He will take care of us if we do our duty.

I pray God that He will bless these Apostles, Prophets and Patriarchs, these Seventies, High Priests and Elders of Israel, and these Latter-day Saints, who have entered into covenant with our God. You have a great future before you. You have kept the commandments of God, so far as you have had the opportunity, and by receiving the Gospel of Christ and being faithful your reward is before you. Your history is written and is before you. I will say that this nation, and all nations, together with presidents, kings, emporers, judges, and all men, righteous and wicked, have got to go into the spirit world and stand before the bar of God. They have got to give an account of the deeds done in the body. Therefore, we are safe as long as we do our duty. No matter what trials or tribulations we may be called to pass through, the hand of God will be with us and will sustain us. I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out His Spirit upon me, as His servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to spend here in the flesh, I may be led by the inspiration of the Almighty. I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as the President of this Church, to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you. Amen.

[Suzie]

I don't have the quote in front of me, but is it possible that the statement "the lord would remove me from my place" was a prophet speaking about himself personally, and not ALL prophets?

This quote of Joseph F. Smith (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 203-204) comes to my mind:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they don't square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as the standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

"Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."

So in my opinion, we should measure that particular statement (and any other) with the Scriptures and of course prayer (to receive confirmation). It worries me when people don't do that and they just follow without confirmation.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

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

That statement is powerful!

There is plenty more in that thread.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I was following up with this statement and note that it was made in 1963. Thus it was not made by "President" Kimball, but by "Elder" Kimball and per se holds the same doctrinal weight as the pontifications on the subject provided by Elders McConkie, Peterson, Benson, or any other of the other (in)famous doctrinal conservatives among the Quorum of the Twelve.

[Suzie]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I was following up with this statement and note that it was made in 1963. Thus it was not made by "President" Kimball, but by "Elder" Kimball and per se holds the same doctrinal weight as the pontifications on the subject provided by Elders McConkie, Peterson, Benson, or any other of the other (in)famous doctrinal conservatives among the Quorum of the Twelve.

Fair enough about the date. That's true. :)

I hope this issue (like any other LDS controversial one) can one day be discussed openly and we can once and for all stop picking and choosing like we do with the Journal of Discourses (you know, we quote when it supports strongly present LDS doctrine but we say it is opinion when the statements given are very controversial ). I am not saying you are doing that eh. I am speaking in general terms. Thank you so much for pointing that out (date).

:)

[mightynancy]

Suzie, I share your hope. If the church as an organization would just clear things up (to the extent they can) bluntly without beating around the bush, these things could be put to rest.