Who is............

[bytor2112]

Who is Ogden Kraut? I have recently stumbled upon some short videos by his son, Kevin Kraut relating stories form his dad and expounding on bits of controversy etc.

Anybody familiar with them and are they members or something else?

[selek]

Who is Ogden Kraut? I have recently stumbled upon some short videos by his son, Kevin Kraut relating stories form his dad and expounding on bits of controversy etc.

Anybody familiar with them and are they members or something else?

Ogden Kraut was a self-proclaimed "Mormon Fundamentalist" who felt that the Church was in apostacy over the practice of polygamy- and went so far as to publicly call the Church to repentance.

He ran a couple of cottage printing presses in Salt Lake City mostly devoted to other apostate endeavors. He was big on conspiracy theories, the Adam-God nonsense, and quite a few other cultural fragments from the fringes of Mormon society

His son is a crackpot in the same vein working to keep his father's books on sale (and the money coming in) whose primary claim to fame is the unevidenced (and improbable) notion that President Bruce R. McConkie had apostatized, admitted to deliberately misleading the Mormon faithful, and confessed "on his deathbed" that he knew the Church was false.

Both father and son- and the works associated with them- should be treated with the same respect given to Elvis sightings, UFO abduction stories, and Bigfoot documentaries.

Edited June 2, 2013 by selek
Political comments unnecessary

[pam]

Ogden Kraut is a Mormon Fundamentalist. He was excommunited in the 70's for promoting polygamy.

[bytebear]

So, I guess you could say he's a sour Kraut?

[pam]

So, I guess you could say he's a sour Kraut?

Booooo

[bytor2112]

Both father and son- and the works associated with them- should be treated with the same respect given to Elvis sightings, UFO abduction stories, and Bigfoot documentaries.

Great comparison..........and like those documentaries it is fascinating stuff.

[Suzie]

Bytor2112, he also worked for a guy called John Koyle who claimed to have a vision of a gold mine in the Wasatch Mountains, he was a firm believer of the relief mine.

Also I would like to say that attempting to call this man ( who is now dead or his son) "sour" and find it amusing is kind of disrespectful IMO.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Suzie

[Roseslipper]

So, I guess you could say he's a sour Kraut?

weres the laugh button??

i thought it was funny!

[bytor2112]

Is the son...Kevin a member of the church? I read through a few of Ogden's writing and find them very interesting. The Adam-God doctrine writings made my head swim a bit. Church history and the varying perspectives can either leave you bemused or enlightened. His 98 Thesis is thought provoking......but, in the end it the Spirit that leads us to light and truth and the variety of opinions about the progression of the church guided by the Lord using imperfect people.

[selek]

Is the son...Kevin a member of the church?

To the best of my knowledge (and a search of the internet) he is not- just a small-time apostate trying to milk his father's "fame" by peddling third-hand conspiracy theories and implausible "scandals" involving Church leaders.

I read through a few of Ogden's writing and find them very interesting. The Adam-God doctrine writings made my head swim a bit. Church history and the varying perspectives can either leave you bemused or enlightened. His 98 Thesis is thought provoking......but, in the end it the Spirit that leads us to light and truth and the variety of opinions about the progression of the church guided by the Lord using imperfect people.

You are wasting your time.

The only thing Ogden Kraut's writings brought were a life-time persecution complex, a whole-hearted investment in the biggest swindle in Utah's history, and a personal crusade against the Church of Christ.

However "fascinating" you may find his drivel (the Expositor is also an entertaining read, BTW), there is nothing of use, nothing uplifting to be found in his personal Gospel.

[Suzie]

Is the son...Kevin a member of the church?

No, he isn't a member. I read quite a few things authored by his father, I found lots of his writings to be informative however I tend to disagree with some of his conclusions but good reading nonetheless. He presented quite a few papers for the Mormon History Association and he has done extensive research on Plural Marriage.

[Martain]

If the things of God can only truly be known by the Spirit of God, then of what use would even the most extensive research into such be when presented by a man heeding a different spirit?

Knowing what I know regarding the truth of this work, is it wise to intentionally read apostate writings when the words of so many Latter-day prophets still remain unread?

When choosing which well to draw water from, isn't it a good question to determine whether or not the source from which we seek is even worth the effort of filtering?

A few thoughts~

Brother M.

[Letrell]

So, I guess you could say he's a sour Kraut?

BOL. I don't know how I missed this response. Hilarious....

[ElectofGod]

I feel sorry for those who lose their testimonies over these issues (like the man in this thread)

Edited June 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[selek]

EoG, I believe that I can state with a fair amount of confidence that President McConkie would be appalled at your effort to invoke his name in support of your argument.

While no faithful Latter-day Saint would deny that (if we are worthy) we are all entitled to personal revelation, such revelation has never trumped the teachings and doctrines of the Church.

In point of fact, we are warned explicitly and repeatedly in Scripture that such teachings are the measure by which we must judge our private revelation.

We are entitled to revelation within the limits of our calling and stewardship: not to new doctrine for the Church as a whole.

President Boyd K. Packer counseled:

“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently.

And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.”

(Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53). Emphasis Mine.

Scripture is replete with warnings that if your personal revelation is at odds with that of the Church leadership (particularly at a doctrinal level), it is you who is in danger.

I just read a story of someone being threatened by a bishop for going apostate because they were believing things that were NOT traditional mainstream understanding. Seriously?

Darn straight, "seriously".

While I question the characterization of the Bishop as "threatening", his conduct appears to be perfectly in line with that espoused by President Joseph F. Smith:

https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/false-teachings?lang=eng

Beware of the lazy and the proud; their infection in each case is contagious; better for them and for all when they are compelled to display the yellow flag of warning, that the clean and uninfected may be protected.

Name any apostate group you like- including the "True and Living Church" apostates noted at the outset of this thread- and you will find a group of people who got started under exactly those circumstances- believing that they alone held the truth (invariably through personal revelation) while those whom the Lord had called and annointed were languishing in sin, ignorance, or disobedience.

In truth, I cannot think of an apostate group whose origins does NOT fit this description.

There is no monopoly on truth.

No, there is not: but there is a single reliable yardstick by which eternal truths can be measured.

The keys to Doctrine and wisdom pertaining to all the Saints resides exclusively with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

To quote President Joseph Fielding Smith:

An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.

Those keys will not found in the hands of some "hobbyist" who fancies himself the next Jonah. Nor will they be found in the company of those who agitate for the Church to adopt their conventional "wisdom" under threat of public derision or censure.

They will not be found among the would-be "independent" thinker who flatters himself as wiser than all of those whom the Lord has called and annointed, nor in the rameumptom of the vain and boastful academic.

To quote Doctrine and Covenants 43:5-7

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Emphasis Mine.

We are not bound to only what the church teaches...

On the contrary, we are.

To quote President Joseph F. Smith:

“We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world.

… And the moment that individuals look to any other source, that moment they throw themselves open to the seductive influences of Satan, and render themselves liable to become servants of the devil; they lose sight of the true order through which the blessings of the Priesthood are to be enjoyed; they step outside of the pale of the kingdom of God, and are on dangerous ground.

Whenever you see a man rise up claiming to have received direct revelation from the Lord to the Church, independent of the order and channel of the Priesthood, you may set him down as an imposter.”

(Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 41–42).

While we are entitled to personal revelation, true revelation will come through the channels and authority of the Church and the Priesthood. That which we truly receive from Christ and his Holy Spirit will be in harmony with the teachings and doctrines of the Church.

If it is not, the "revelation" comes from another source entirely.

If I tell members I believe in a certain doctrine taught VERY HEAVILY in early years they call me apostate because one man under opinion stated it was incorrect in the 1900's.

Call For References, please.

"One man under opinion" does not sway the full weight and might of the Church.

For your particular idee fixe to have been "purged" from the doctrines of the Church, all fifteen of these men (and their successors) must have gone along with it.

Moreover, this notion of "returning to original teachings because the more modern leaders have lost their way" is exactly the sort of heresy and idolatry that brought us the LeBaron murders, the YFZ atrocities and such laudable and creditable figures as John and Lorin Woolley, Charles W. Kingston, Leroy Johnston, Joel LeBaron, and Warren Jeffs.

So answer this: why is YOUR understanding of "the truth" correct, while that of all those whom the Lord has called and annointed wrong? What separates your understanding from the legions of godly men who disagree with you and agree with the Church?

What makes your personal grasp of truth any more credible than those of Woolley, Kingston, Johnston, and Jeffs?

They made exactly the same claims about personal revelation that you have. So why should we accept your interpretation those of these other men, let alone instead of those who are actually called and commissioned by Christ?

We are warned repeatedly in Scripture about those who would arrogate to themselves the prophetic mantle- and those warnings have been fulfilled time and time again.

So why should we believe that your personal beliefs are any different?

Yet they eat up Mormon Doctrine as doctrine which was denounced and McConkie was threatened to not publish it. But now? Its "quoted" in conference as doctrine. Best talk I have read in a long time...

Your characterization of the history of the book "Mormon Doctrine" and of President McConkie's relations with the Quorum of the Twelve is one of two things: either willfully dishonest or staggeringly ignorant.

Pick one.

I feel sorry for those who lose their testimonies over these issues (like the man in this thread) but they are real issues and that is affecting millions of peoples salvation. Zion is closing in. Those found worthy to dwell in Zion will be those who have become converted to the Lord.

Those found worthy to dwell in Zion will not be among those who deliberately turned their backs on the Church because of the deceits and conceits of men, or who fancied themselves more "enlightened" than the Lord's servants.

The greatest trials will be persecuted from our own (members of the church)... Those who confess to know and believe in Christ yet deny him. Book of mormon warns of wolves in sheep clothing.

Yes- and it was talking explicitly about men like Joel LeBaron, James Harmston, John Koyle, and Ogden Kraut when it did so. Edited June 4, 2013 by selek
Editted to Fix formatting issues.

[ElectofGod]

Wow where to start lol... Thanks for the post. I am only going to address parts of it than quote from Joseph Smith. I don't wish to talk past you here as I do in many instances.

Make this clear before I begin...

I hope I didn't come off as apostate. I sustain the 15 as prophet seers and revelators. Nor do I even try to claim I have their keys. That is absolutely apostate. Anyone can receive keys in their sphere but that is the end thereof for those keys.

While no faithful Latter-day Saint would deny that (if we are worthy) we are all entitled to personal revelation, such revelation has never trumped the teachings and doctrines of the Church.

In point of fact, we are warned explicitly and repeatedly in Scripture that such teachings are the measure by which we must judge our private revelation.

We are entitled to revelation within the limits of our calling and stewardship: not to new doctrine for the Church as a whole.

Yes we are within our calling and stewardship. I did not say revelation for the church but only for ourself. But we can receive more than there has ever been revealed to the church and should seek after it. Moses people sought to bring the saints INTO the presence of God yet they rejected it. Joseph did to by building Zion, they rejected it. Thus its up to us individually to do so because the church can't live the laws of Zion. We have had ~200 years to start living the laws. The prophets can't tell us to gather to Zion if the Members NEVER become worthy of a Zion life.

Joseph Sith taught over and over again along with D&C that what is made available to HIM would be available to the least of the saints. Thus they would have greater knowledge than the church itself

How many scriptures state, "I was constrained by the spirit to write more" Why is that? Because of the ignorance, unbelief of the people they were going to share it. They set hte path to receive it AND ONLY THAN will you receive it. 2 Nephi 32: 6-7 is one example of this statement.

Name any apostate group you like- including the "True and Living Church" apostates noted at the outset of this thread- and you will find a group of people who got started under exactly those circumstances- believing that they alone held the truth (invariably through personal revelation) while those whom the Lord had called and annointed were languishing in sin, ignorance, or disobedience.

I don't care for any.

In truth, I cannot think of an apostate group whose origins does NOT fit this description.

No, there is not: but there is a single reliable yardstick by which eternal truths can be measured.

The keys to Doctrine and wisdom pertaining to all the Saints resides exclusively with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Now here is the issue. If you just mean to ALL the saints than yes. But each saint is commanded to receive it for themself even if ALL don't. Its in the book of mormon countless times.

The apostates fell it is true. But for different reasons. People are afraid of learning trutha nd casting it aside because they think it makes them apostate. There are some who are deceived but many are not if they are in-tune with the spirit

To quote President Joseph Fielding Smith:

Those keys will not found in the hands of some "hobbyist" who fancies himself the next Jonah. Nor will they be found in the company of those who agitate for the Church to adopt their conventional "wisdom" under threat of public derision or censure.

They will not be found among the would-be "independent" thinker who flatters himself as wiser than all of those whom the Lord has called and annointed, nor in the rameumptom of the vain and boastful academic.

To quote Doctrine and Covenants 43:5-7

Emphasis Mine.

Like I said nothing about saying I am more wise or called or anointed than any of the others or most of those who receive personal revelation. I will further comment on this later.

While we are entitled to personal revelation, true revelation will come through the channels and authority of the Church and the Priesthood.

This is exactly how the early saints blinded themselves in the early days of Joseph Smith... Ill quote Joseph Smith later.

"One man under opinion" does not sway the full weight and might of the Church.

When was the last time anything in General Conference was voted into Doctrine? Its all opinion until done so. Besides the manifestos, 138, and I think hinckleys proclamations? (Inspired yes, but opinion) Maybe a few others I missed.

Moreover, this notion of "returning to original teachings because the more modern leaders have lost their way" is exactly the sort of heresy and idolatry that brought us the LeBaron murders, the YFZ atrocities and such laudable and creditable figures as John and Lorin Woolley, Charles W. Kingston, Leroy Johnston, Joel LeBaron, and Warren Jeffs.

I did not say they lost their way. Every man is in entitle to their own acceptance of truth. But there has never been a revealed doctrine denying many of the teachings in the early days. So it absurds me to have members call other members apostate for believing such things because some prophets and apostles do disagree with, while others also do agree with the early teachings .

So answer this: why is YOUR understanding of "the truth" correct, while that of all those whom the Lord has called and annointed wrong? What separates your understanding from the legions of godly men who disagree with you and agree with the Church?

Apostles and prophets disagree in doctrine all the time. Thus its opinion. Its only when revealed AS doctrine one should start to wonder.

What makes your personal grasp of truth any more credible than those of Woolley, Kingston, Johnston, and Jeffs?

None. I am a wicked man doing all I can to not be deceived and fall away from the truth.

They made exactly the same claims about personal revelation that you have. So why should we accept your interpretation those of these other men, let alone instead of those who are actually called and commissioned by Christ?

Not sure what claims you think I have made. Didn't think I did.

This is my point. Should not accept anyones "presentation" of truth because they could be deceived or led to error (believe false teachings) thus the importance of Personal Revelation.

We are warned repeatedly in Scripture about those who would arrogate to themselves the prophetic mantle- and those warnings have been fulfilled time and time again.

I agree.

So why should we believe that your personal beliefs are any different?

I haven't really stated any personal beliefs besides personal revelation.

Your characterization of the history of the book "Mormon Doctrine" and of President McConkie's relations with the Quorum of the Twelve is one of two things: either willfully dishonest or staggeringly ignorant.

Pick one.

Its not dishonest. I will quote the first presidency on the issue below

Those found worthy to dwell in Zion will not be among those who deliberately turned their backs on the Church because of the deceits and conceits of men, or who fancied themselves more "enlightened" than the Lord's servants.

I said nothing about turning our backs. The church is the means to bring the gospel to all the world. If we don't accept the gospel we will never become zion. But many apostates do, do this so yes.

Ok here is a list of quotes: You asked for references on something. I won't post them as it would take a page. If you still want me to I will start a page on Adam-God theory. Prefer not to in this public setting. Though I could send you quotes privately.

Mormon Doctrine: (Taken from wikipedia, see real sources if you dont trust it)

January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect that:

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[2]

McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960 at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the decision to not allow further publication of the book:

[McKay] then said: "Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors...are corrected." Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."[1]

Don't get me wrong, I used this as an example not to condemn anyone. To think anyone is perfect is insanity. McConkie is one of my favorite writers who understood the importance of Personal Revelation. He was a VERY inspired man.

An Independent People is what Zion is. One that does not require a head over them. (Besides Christ but he is there to lead us to God)

TPJS Section Five 1842-43, p.237

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

Doesn't it really take a prophet to declare these things? Ironic? Prophet wanted the people to STOP relying on him for Doctrine, for answers, for dependence. His job was to restore the church. Consequently prepare us to receive personal revelation and get answers ourself.

Their dependence, darkened their minds (lack of knowledge and experience of their duties).

Joseph further stated the importance of personal revelation. The comments are McConkies in his talk I referenced in my prior post, How To Get Personal Revelation.

“Reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God. Knowledge of these things can only be obtained by experience through the ordinances of God set forth for that purpose. Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 324.)

Now note this statement: “Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.” I think our concern is to get personal revelation, to know for ourselves, independent of any other individual or set of individuals, what the mind and the will of the Lord is as pertaining to us in our individual concerns and to receive confirmation of his mind and will as pertaining to his church.

The book of mormon is the path we must walk ourselves. They have set the path of seeing and doing like we should do ourselves.

My main point here:

every member of the Church has the opportunity to do this because, in connection with baptism, every member of the Church has the hands of a legal administrator placed on his head, and he is given the promise, “Receive the Holy Ghost.” He thus obtains “the gift of the Holy Ghost” which, by definition, means that he then has the right to the constant companionship of this member of the Godhead, based upon his personal righteousness and faithfulness.

Now I say that we are entitled to revelation. I say that every member of the Church, independent and irrespective of any position that he may hold, is entitled to get revelation from the Holy Ghost; he is entitled to entertain angels; he is entitled to view the visions of eternity; and if we would like to go the full measure, he is entitled to see God the same way that any prophet in literal and actual reality has seen the face of Deity.

We are to be like the prophets in the book of mormon. Know as they know. The Israelites wanted moses to go up to the mountain to talk to God and they would just hear what God wanted them to hear through moses. They rejected God because they would not go up themselves. They depended on the prophets...

wants an independent people. (D&C 84 relates moses experience)

We talk about latter-day prophets; we think in terms of prophets who tell the future destiny of the Church and the world. But, in addition to that, the fact is that every person should be a prophet for himself and in his own concerns and in his own affairs. It was Moses who said, “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them” (Num. 11:29).

It was Paul who said, “Covet to prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:39).

Telestial Requirements:

D&C 76:100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

People who accepted "a prophet" but never accepted anything greater than them. Thus they were of moses. They were of Esaias. They were of Joseph Smith etc... Many religions are like this today. They reject Revelation.

I have said enough I will end with this final quote:

The Prophet [Joseph Smith] said that the veil might as well be rent today as any day, provided we come together as the elders of the kingdom in faith and in righteousness and qualify to have the visions of eternity. Here is a statement from Joseph Smith:

“Salvation cannot come without revelation [and I am not now speaking about the revelation that gave the dispensation in which we live—I am speaking of personal revelation to individuals]; it is vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has a testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this.” (Teachings, p. 160.) (New Era, McConkie, How to get personal revelation)

Do people not get this? That if you are not worthy to receive it YOURSELF how do you expect to get it from church? Do people think they can just wait for the sealed portion of the ether places to be revealed when it strictly says IT WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU if you are WORTHY of it. Ether 4:1-4.

What is in the sealed portion?

4 Behold, I have written upon these plates the very things which the brother of Jared saw; and there never were greater things made manifest than those which were made manifest unto the brother of Jared.

5 Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.

6 For the Lord said unto me: They shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord.

[Matthew0059]

Is the son...Kevin a member of the church? I read through a few of Ogden's writing and find them very interesting. The Adam-God doctrine writings made my head swim a bit. Church history and the varying perspectives can either leave you bemused or enlightened. His 98 Thesis is thought provoking......but, in the end it the Spirit that leads us to light and truth and the variety of opinions about the progression of the church guided by the Lord using imperfect people.

If you want a truly thought-provoking read, may I suggest "Passing the Heavenly Gift". Just finished reading it myself a few weeks ago, and it goes through most of the major changes to doctrine and practice the LDS Church has experienced since its inception. It makes the case for Joseph Smith's authentic call to be a prophet, the LDS church's valid claim to authority, and the divine destiny of the LDS Church. With that in mind, it doesn't shy away from the more serious issues.

A good springboard if you're truly ready to look at the history of the Church and are willing to be led by God. If the issues Kevin Kraut brings up interest you, then "Passing the Heavenly Gift" might as well.

As for Kevin Kraut, I don't like his youtube videos or his father's writings. His videos depend heavily on unverifiable anecdotal evidence and a misapplication/misunderstanding of scripture. Most importantly, the few videos I watched didn't contain any "light or truth" but instead confusion and uninspired questions.

[ElectofGod]

Thanks Matthew.

Some may recognize such a statement as below as coming from satan.

Satan: Why callest upon Father, doest thou not believeth that God hath appointed me and given me power and authority to receive all the Revelations thou needest, for thee?

22 January 1843 (Sunday). At Temple.

Wilford Woodruff Journal: Joseph Smith lecture

22d Sunday President Joseph Smith deliverd an interesting

discourse at the Temple to |an inter| large Congregation among

other [page 156] things he treated upon the kingdom of God & the

baptism of John, He remarked some say the kingdom of God was not

set up on earth untill the day of pentecost & that John did not

preach the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins But

I say in the name of the Lord that the kingdom of God was set up

on earth from the days of Adam to the present time. Whenever

there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed

his word & gave power & authority to administer in his name. And

whare their is a Priest of God, A minister who has power &

Authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel

& officiate in the Priesthood of God, theire is the kingdom of

God & in Consequence of rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ &

the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God hath

rested upon people Cities & nations in various ages of the

world, which was the Case with the Cities of Sodom & gomoroah

who were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets. Now I will give

my testimony I care not for man I speak boldly & faithfully &

with authority. How is it with the kingdom of God, whare did the

Kingdom of God begin, whare their is no kingdom of God their is

no salvation. What Constitutes the Kingdom of God Whare there is

a Prophet a priest or a righteous man unto whom God giveshis

oracles there is the Kingdom of God, & whare the oracles of God

are not there the Kingdom of God is not,

(shortened)

The plea of many in this day is that we have no right to receive

revelations, But if we do not get revelations we do not have the

oracles of God & if they have not the oracles of God they are

not the people of God But say you what will become of the world

or the various professors of religion who do not believe in

revelation & the oracles of God as Continued to the Church in

all ages of the world when he has a people on earth I Tell you

in the name of Jesus Christ they will be damned & when you get

into the eternal world you will find it to be so they cannot

escape the damnation of hell

We ARE to receive the oracles of God for ourself.

[bytor2112]

January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect that:

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[2]

McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960 at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the decision to not allow further publication of the book:

[McKay] then said: "Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors...are corrected." Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."[1]

A short while later, Elder McConkie was asked by the First Presidency to "soften the tone" of Mormon Doctrine. The issue wasn't doctrinal error per se, but it did wade into issues that made the church uncomfortable, like members playing with face cards and reading written talks and several references to the Catholic church as the Great and Abominable church etc. Elder McConkie worked with Elder Spencer Kimball to soften the tone and removed some of the areas that were considered offensive to some. All done at the request of the First Presidency.

You may recall, that "Brother Smith" was also the future Prophet and Elder McConkie's father in law and it is very likely that much of Mormon Doctrine was taken from Joseph Fielding Smith's own research and works. Now, we of course read much of Mormon Doctrine and Doctrinal New Testament commentary in the Standard works and in all CES manuals. Some of the newer Institute manuals are now beginning to use quotes from more recent general authorities.

Elder McConkie's work was not meant to speak for the church and he did not intend for it to, though it had a very official tone. It was meant to be a quick reference guide for members and elder McConkie felt it was his mission to drive secularism from the church. He was a Seventy at the time of publishing and re-publishing and called to the Apostleship in 1972 and was often called upon by the First Presidency to address difficult doctrinal issues and as with talks like, "Our relationship with the Lord" or the "7 Deadly Heresies" he often ruffled feathers , but did so at the behest of the First Presidency....Elder McConkie was not a rogue authority and was an absolutely obedient servant. One of my favorite McConkie quotes is when he called his son at BYU and said, " tell them to warm up the tar, I am coming to speak."

Edited June 4, 2013 by bytor2112

[selek]

Elect of God,

In the last two posts, you've demonstrated a near-miraculous ability to shift the goal posts and a merciless, almost vicious tendency to savage defenseless strawmen.

No one here has denied (nor is any likely to) that we are entitled to revelation (as predicated upon our righteousness).

So you can lay that particular hobby horse (and attendant persecution complex) to bed.

Your wiki citation vis-a-vis President McConkie does not support the claim you made earlier.

You alleged that the book was denounced (partially correct) and McConkie threatened (a blatant falsehood).

You deliberately obscure the fact that McConkie was not only allowed to publish the corrected version of Mormon Doctrine after its review by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but was REQUESTED to do so.

You deliberately obscured the fact that President McConkie remained in good fellowship and standing in the Church during the entire "kerfuffle" and that his calling as an apostle came AFTER the republishing of the book.

Despite your denial, I cannot help but feel that you are being deliberately deceitful in your characterization of McConkie and his membership and service in the Church.

Moreover, you were explicit in your criticism of your fellow Saints for accepting the words of an Apostle of God whilst simultaneously rejecting your personal insights.

Your exact words were:

If I tell members I believe in a certain doctrine taught VERY HEAVILY in early years they call me apostate because one man under opinion stated it was incorrect in the 1900's. Yet they eat up Mormon Doctrine as doctrine which was denounced and McConkie was threatened to not publish it. But now? Its "quoted" in conference as doctrine.

The hubris, wounded pride, and sheer vanity drip like oil from that statement, and the dishonesty might just as readily be proclaimed in letters ten feet high.

It is a matter of historical fact that the initial publication of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was rejected by the Church leadership.

It is equally a matter of historical fact that the revised edition was published (and is now quoted) with the explicit approval and endorsement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

What that particular rant boils down to is the fact that Bruce McConkie is accepted and recognized as a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Apostle of Christ- and you are not.

With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

The petulant aside about "perfection" is a red-herring as noone here has claimed that any Latter-day Saint IS perfect. It was simply snark disguised as a concession.

In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God.

For all that you cite Ether 4 in support of your claims, you might consider the explicit warning contained in verse 8.

There are two central themes being argued in this thread:

The first is whether the words of apostates are a valid source of eternal wisdom. In my opinion, that question has been pretty thoroughly buried.

The Church and its leaders are the sole source of authoritative doctrine. All other sources (including personal revelation) must be measured against this pure source.

Any true revelation that we receive must and will be in harmony with the teachings of the Church- or it is false doctrine.

The second issue is your notion that living one's life within the doctrines and teachings of the Church is tantamount to stunting one's spiritual growth.

You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat").

You have ladled scorn and derision upon faithful Latter-day Saints- both within and without the leadership- and pronounced them damned (as Joseph Smith used the term, meaning unable to progress or grow in the eternal sense).

Your argument boils down to the notion that despite all the efforts of God and his annointed, "the Church" will never be perfected (an idea found nowhere in Scripture) and that we only become worthy of Zion by "outgrowing" it.

You are arguing that as "perfected" Latter-day Saints, we will exist as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators independent of the Church of Christ and of the Priesthood organization.

That's rubbish, and heresy. God's House is a House of Order- and we will never be "independent" of it. There is not a single authoritative statement to be found supporting your claims.

We will be sons and daughters, priests and priestesses, kings and queens of the Most High God forever.

We will never be independent of God- we become his heirs, not his peers (or rivals).

The scriptures and quotes you cited above do not claim what you pretend they do, and so you must twist them to fit your personal interpretation.

Given that you have:

1) encouraged us to embrace non-authoritative sources of doctrine in direct contravention of Scripture,

2) insisted that accepting and adjudging revelation against authoritative sources is tantamount to stunting spiritual growth,

3) have deceitfully and deliberately misrepresented the words and ideas of an Apostle of Christ,

4) have elevated (if only by implication) your own opinions as equally authoritative (or more so) than those of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve,

4) have taught and proclaimed a new standard not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and

5) have attacked the Saints for embracing the words of a Prophet of God,

... how then can we take your words as anything other than a counterfeit and false doctrine?

Edited June 4, 2013 by selek

[ElectofGod]

It looks like my intent, and my written statements came off completely opposite than I understood them to mean. That is entirely my fault. I apologize. I knew I should of kept my mouth shut but I really needed to rant on frustrations of a few.

I never referred to what my argument was I just wrote about the incident without ever explaining WHAT IT WAS. Again entirely my fault

Elect of God,

In the last two posts, you've demonstrated a near-miraculous ability to shift the goal posts and a merciless, almost vicious tendency to savage defenseless strawmen.

No one here has denied (nor is any likely to) that we are entitled to revelation (as predicated upon our righteousness).

So you can lay that particular hobby horse (and attendant persecution complex) to bed.

Your wiki citation vis-a-vis President McConkie does not support the claim you made earlier.

You alleged that the book was denounced (partially correct) and McConkie threatened (a blatant falsehood).

You deliberately obscure the fact that McConkie was not only allowed to publish the corrected version of Mormon Doctrine after its review by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but was REQUESTED to do so.

You can't deliverately obscure something I never knew until byot above stated it. Lets just accept I was very wrong on this situation. Before I pick something to "show" what I meant I should understand it completely.

You deliberately obscured the fact that President McConkie remained in good fellowship and standing in the Church during the entire "kerfuffle" and that his calling as an apostle came AFTER the republishing of the book.

Despite your denial, I cannot help but feel that you are being deliberately deceitful in your characterization of McConkie and his membership and service in the Church.

I did not mean any such thing. Half my quotes showing whta I meant were direct quotes of McConkie. Why would I do that if I thought he was being deceitful.He has said many things like that has stirred up debate but you hae already mentioned the main ones.

Moreover, you were explicit in your criticism of your fellow Saints for accepting the words of an Apostle of God whilst simultaneously rejecting your personal insights.

I did no such thing, not purposely anyways. People cry treason anytime an error of an apostle or prophet is shown? Nephi states "I am a fool", "a wicked man", yet today if we say such things of them people jump on the band wagon to attack it. Something is really right there?

Your exact words were:

The hubris, wounded pride, and sheer vanity drip like oil from that statement, and the dishonesty might just as readily be proclaimed in letters ten feet high.

It is a matter of historical fact that the initial publication of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was rejected by the Church leadership.

It is equally a matter of historical fact that the revised edition was published (and is now quoted) with the explicit approval and endorsement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

What that particular rant boils down to is the fact that Bruce McConkie is accepted and recognized as a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Apostle of Christ- and you are not.

First off you have no idea WHO IAM. Do you not know what it means to be a prophet seer and revelator? Let me tell you there are FAR MORE THAN 15. If you think you have to be sustained to become you are very wrong.

With that said I am not. Nor would I ever claim to be one if I was experiencing the blessings of such.

With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

I have said nothing wrong with accepting the words of these men. That would be like rejecting the book of mormon.

The petulant aside about "perfection" is a red-herring as noone here has claimed that any Latter-day Saint IS perfect. It was simply snark disguised as a concession.

In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God.

No my issue is when bishops, GA's, or any other men cast out members when they choose to believe doctrines taught by other men such as Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or take a different interpretation of such.

This is my point. IT REQUIRES THE 15 MEN to authorize doctrine? Seriously? A person cannot receive personal revelation for doctrine that has never been revealed? But nope it not truth because its not been given to the current prophet seer and revelator?

There are two central themes being argued in this thread:

The first is whether the words of apostates are a valid source of eternal wisdom. In my opinion, that question has been pretty thoroughly buried.

Agreed. They are not valid sources.

The Church and its leaders are the sole source of authoritative doctrine. All other sources (including personal revelation) must be measured against this pure source.

The second issue is your notion that living one's life within the doctrines and teachings of the Church is tantamount to stunting one's spiritual growth.

I did not state this. The teachings in the church LEADS to ones spiritual growth.

You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat").

I think you may be overlooking what I meant.

Pauls own words: 1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Without the meat we cannot be saved. The church teaches milk which if followed leads to meat. Personal Revelation is the meat. The iron rod to get to the tree of life is personal revelation.

You have ladled scorn and derision upon faithful Latter-day Saints- both within and without the leadership- and pronounced them damned (as Joseph Smith used the term, meaning unable to progress or grow in the eternal sense).

Hmmm, scorn? derision? Right. Because why? I am a poor writer so I will accept it if came off as such.

Your argument boils down to the notion that despite all the efforts of God and his annointed, "the Church" will never be perfected (an idea found nowhere in Scripture) and that we only become worthy of Zion by "outgrowing" it.

No, I said Zion will only come when there is a people worthy of it. Zion is the pure in heart. Well than where are the pure in heart? For they shall see God (be attitude). They will be receiving the same blessings any prophet seer and revelator receives for their own families (not the church)

You are arguing that as "perfected" Latter-day Saints, we will exist as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators independent of the Church of Christ and of the Priesthood organization.

As an independent people. Not an independent church. I quoted McConkie here not sure how you got half the stuff you did from what I was quoting.

That's rubbish, and heresy. God's House is a House of Order- and we will never be "independent" of it. There is not a single authoritative statement to be found supporting your claims.

We will be sons and daughters, priests and priestesses, kings and queens of the Most High God forever.

I did STATE THIS. I said we would be under Christ.

We will never be independent of God- we become his heirs, not his peers (or rivals).

Agreed.

The scriptures and quotes you cited above do not claim what you pretend they do, and so you must twist them to fit your personal interpretation.

Maybe the problem is you think I am trying to claim something I wasn't (intend to).

Given that you:

1) encourage us to embrace non-authoritative sources of doctrine,

Like what? Did no such thing

2) insist that accepting revelation from the authoritative source is tantamount to stunting spiritual growth,

Nope. Though, accepting all the revelation will do nothing for us if we don't get our own. THAT is McConkies words. Religion is EXPERIENCE

3) are preaching a false doctrine, and

Wouldn't be the first time. Nor would it be the first time an apostle or prophet has done so.

4) are attacking the Saints for embracing the words of a Prophet of God,

Nope. and I quote Joseph Smith AGAIN "your dependence on the prophet has caused you minds to be darkened"... Why did he say that? He Called the church corrupt. If I do so you condemn me?

Now go read Section 84 about why Moses's people were rejected. They depended on Moses! They did not go straight to God for revelation. (talk face to face with him)

That just means what I quoted by McConkie. "accepting all the revelation will do nothing for us if we don't get our own." (paraphrased)

... how then can we take you as anything other than a counterfeit and false prophet?

Say what you want. I look to Christ. That is my whole point here. We don't wait for a prophet to reveal things to us. 6/12 of Joseph Smith's apostles fell away. We go experience it ourselves and receive our own revelations through Christ himself.

If we just wait for them to reveal things than what will we get? Nothing, because nobody would ever come unto Christ because they are being commanded in all things.

Though you did prove my point again. IF two people have different interpretations on a quote one is called apostate. Christ's own disciples had disputations about doctrine. They went to each other for the answer NOT CHRIST. Yet he was RIGHT THERE!

I am going to delete my posts now that my frustratio is settled. It seems it came off wrong. I do not wish to lead anyone astray for teaching things that are true, but written incorrectly. I ask for forgiveness for all ill.

This statement sums up my thoughts...

I have a feeling that our problem is not lack of belief but instead just plain old unbelief. If we haven't read it in the scriptures or a GA hasn't said it, it doesn't exist to many of us. Why?

Edited June 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[selek]

It looks like my intent, and my written statements came off completely opposite than I understood them to mean. That is entirely my fault. I apologize. I knew I should of kept my mouth shut but I really needed to rant on frustrations of a few.

If I have misunderstood you, I am more than happy to be corrected.

If you have misspoken, I am more than happy to listen to your clarification.

I never referred to what my argument was I just wrote about the incident without ever explaining WHAT IT WAS. Again entirely my fault.

For the record, I am interested to know what views you hold that were so "heavily" emphasized in the early Church, but are now considered "apostate". I suspect that the revelation will be enlightening.

You can't deliverately obscure something I never knew until byot above stated it.

I find that somewhat problematic since it was referred to three separate times in the very article you cited in condemning President McConkie.

Lets just accept I was very wrong on this situation.

Very well.

I did not mean any such thing. Half my quotes showing whta I meant were direct quotes of McConkie. Why would I do that if I thought he was being deceitful.

It is not President McConkie's veracity or iteration of events that I was questioning.

Moreover, you were explicit in your criticism of your fellow Saints for accepting the words of an Apostle of God whilst simultaneously rejecting your personal insights.

I did no such thing, not purposely anyways. People cry treason anytime an error of an apostle or prophet is shown? Nephi states "I am a fool", "a wicked man", yet today if we say such things of them people jump on the band wagon to attack it. Something is really right there?

Not only did you do so then, you are doing so now.

No one here has argued that President McConkie or any other General Authority is perfect.

You are attacking positions we do not hold.

Your exact words were:

If I tell members I believe in a certain doctrine taught VERY HEAVILY in early years they call me apostate because one man under opinion stated it was incorrect in the 1900's. Yet they eat up Mormon Doctrine as doctrine which was denounced and McConkie was threatened to not publish it. But now? Its "quoted" in conference as doctrine.

There are a great many implications in this statement.

First, you are arguing that you are correct for believing this "certain doctrine" and that the Church is wrong for not believing with you.

You claim that this "error" on the part of the Church is the result of "one man under opinion"- and continue to ignore the fact that this characterization of how the Church works is simply false.

You imply (falsely) that the faithful are wrong to embrace "Mormon Doctrine", despite the fact that the Church and its leaders have explicitly done so for nearly fifty years.

Not only did the Church embrace the revised edition of "Mormon Doctrine", but they borrowed heavily from it in creating the chapter headings and summaries in the current editions of the Book of Mormon.

You state that the book was denounced and imply both that it is false doctrine and that the Church is wrong to cite it in General Conference, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that you have no authority to make such declarations.

Not only are you failing to sustain the generations of leaders who endorsed and commissioned the revised work, arrogating their authority unto yourself, and condemning the rest of us for failing to put a happy face on your dissidence- you are attacking the authority and understanding of the Book of Mormon in the process.

If "Mormon Doctrine" is false doctrine (as you have implied), then so are the materials derived from it.

If "Mormon Doctrine" is false doctrine, then the men who embraced it, endorsed it, and cite it are false prophets.

THAT is the implication of your attack on President McConkie and his work.

Your claim is an explicit accusation that McConkie was a fallen prophet in need of correction, and a willful distortion of the facts cited in the very article you linked.

First off you have no idea WHO IAM.

No, I don't. Nor do I particularly care who you are. You have come here making unfair and unjust judgements and accusations. You have come here smearing our leaders and misrepresenting our beliefs. You have abused your sources and cast aspersions on the Saints as a whole.

Those facts will not be altered by knowing your name, or who your great-grandfather was, or how many of your ancestors crossed the plains in the Martin Handcart company.

I do not care who you are.

I do care that you are honest, accurate, and fair in your representations of the Saints and of our teachings and history.

Do you not know what it means to be a prophet seer and revelator?

In point of fact, I do. But I also know what a false prophet is, and how they operate in their efforts to spread false doctrine and error.

Let me tell you there are FAR MORE THAN 15. If you think you have to be sustained to become you are very wrong.

This is, of course, yet another strawman.

You are attempting to undermine yet another position that no one here holds, and attacking an argument no one here has made.

With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

I have said nothing wrong with accepting the words of these men. That would be like rejecting the book of mormon.

On the contrary, that is precisely what you did with your attack on McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine".

For the last forty-seven years, the revised "Mormon Doctrine" and its author have been embraced and celebrated by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. As you yourself pointed out, it is quoted in General Conference.

And you deliberately sneered at the Saints and their leaders for doing so.

In short, your actions contradict your words.

In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God.

No my issue is when bishops, GA's, or any other men cast out members when they choose to believe doctrines taught by other men such as Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or take a different interpretation of such.

This is the same excuse used by Rulon and Warren Jeffs and every other apostate group up to and including William Law.

You (and they) prefer your personal interpretation of what was said to the living teachings of the men you claim to sustain.

Again, your actions contradict your words.

This is my point. IT REQUIRES THE 15 MEN to authorize doctrine? Seriously?

Yes. Have you ignored this entire thread and the last two centuries of Church history?

Unless and until it is revealed through the Lord's appointed servants, no revelation (no matter how true) is considered "doctrine".

As stated, the Lord's House is one of order- not chaos.

Revelations for the Kingdom of God as a whole are revealed through the Lord's annointed and ratified by common consent.

Anything less is not "doctrine" no matter how fervently you might wish otherwise.

As I have said repeatedly, any true revelation will be in harmony with the revealed teachings of the Church.

A person cannot receive personal revelation for doctrine that has never been revealed? But nope it not truth because its not been given to the current prophet seer and revelator?

You are a master of the red-herring and strawman argument, but that's not what I have said or argued.

To begin with, you are conflating "doctrine" and "truth", with the presumption (despite all evidence to the contrary) that your personal revelation and truth are one and the same.

To (again) quote President Joseph F. Smith:

"[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.”

Personal revelation about something that has not yet been revealed to the Saints as a whole may be true- but it is not doctrine until it has been revealed to the Church as a whole.

And that revelation will come only through the proper channels.

I did not state this. The teachings in the church LEADS to ones spiritual growth.

The latter statement (while true) is not consistent with your earlier arguments.

You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat").

I think you may be overlooking what I meant.

Pauls own words: 1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with both the reference and the metaphor.

The problem is that you consistently argued that your personal version of "meat" trumps the teachings of the Church.

That is not so.

If what you are receiving is not consistent with the teachings of the Church, then it is not of God.

Without the meat we cannot be saved. The church teaches milk which if followed leads to meat. Personal Revelation is the meat. The iron rod to get to the tree of life is personal revelation.

False. The iron rod is a life lived in harmony with the revealed truths, commandments, and ordinances of the Gospel.

If your personal "revelation" is not in harmony with those, than it is not an iron rod, but a lead anchor.

Moreover, how many times has God's explicit warning to mankind resulted in damnation?

Revelation must be accompanied by repentance and walking uprightly before God.

Words without deeds are dead.

"Revelation" that is at odds with the revealed truths of the Gospel is poison, not medicine.

No, I said Zion will only come when there is a people worthy of it. Zion is the pure in heart. Well than where are the pure in heart? For they shall see God (be attitude). They will be receiving the same blessings any prophet seer and revelator receives for their own families (not the church)

Yet another strawman. Yet another sally forth against an argument no one here has made.

Yes- the Lord expects us to become a holy people, where every man is a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Yet even in that perfect vision, all men will be in harmony with the revealed truths of the Gospel, not walking in their own paths.

I agree with you (and with President McConkie) that personal revelation is essential to our exaltation and eternal growth as sons and daughters of God.

Personal revelation, however, cannot and will not obviate the Priesthood Order (which Christ himself has proclaimed is eternal) nor can it eclipse the revealed truths and authority of those whom the Lord has annointed and appointed as shepherds over this people.

[ElectofGod]

Well, after that response I am just going to laugh at myself. I actually understand how you are understanding me and how I am sounding. (I think)

My terms were used incorrectly also (doctrine / truth).

If I have misunderstood you, I am more than happy to be corrected.

If you have misspoken, I am more than happy to listen to your clarification.

For the record, I am interested to know what views you hold that were so "heavily" emphasized in the early Church, but are now considered "apostate". I suspect that the revelation will be enlightening.

When I was writing about this. I had in the back of my head SOME members not the church. Blood atonement, Adam-God theory, or disagreeing with a statement of a GA.... Yet if its obvious its false or misunderstood like blood atonement or adam-god they are ok with it.

I do think occasionally people make incorrect statements. That is nothing new. I am not arguing with anyone positions on this forum or thread. I was just ranting. Like you said it must FIT with the teachings of the gospel else its poison.

I find that somewhat problematic since it was referred to three separate times in the very article you cited in condemning President McConkie.

Very well.

Yes I didn't even read it Ill be honest. I read about it years ago and just found a quote on it. I did not remember or know that eventually they allowed it years later.

It is not President McConkie's veracity or iteration of events that I was questioning.

Moreover, you were explicit in your criticism of your fellow Saints for accepting the words of an Apostle of God whilst simultaneously rejecting your personal insights.

Not only did you do so then, you are doing so now.

I can see how this could be true now.

No one here has argued that President McConkie or any other General Authority is perfect.

You are attacking positions we do not hold.

Your exact words were:

There are a great many implications in this statement.

First, you are arguing that you are correct for believing this "certain doctrine" and that the Church is wrong for not believing with you.

For taking an evil wand against another for believing DIFFERENTLY than that person. Not saying to agree with, but should not chastise another for it. I posted an entire talk on believing how and what we want by Joseph Smith awhile back in antoehr thread.

Not talking about issues like polygamy which are CLEARLY something that the Lord would not reveal someone to practice (poison) unless they are The Prophet . Talking about personal insights or beliefs.

You claim that this "error" on the part of the Church is the result of "one man under opinion"- and continue to ignore the fact that this characterization of how the Church works is simply false.

You imply (falsely) that the faithful are wrong to embrace "Mormon Doctrine", despite the fact that the Church and its leaders have explicitly done so for nearly fifty years.

No I love Mormon Doctrine. I meant to use it as an example that we should not call someone apostate because they error in doctrine. Yet McConkie WAS called apostate when he first wrote that book in error. They later accepted it, but that does not change hte fact he himself believed many false truths.

As you said it was no argument by anyone here... I was ranting.

.

Not only did the Church embrace the revised edition of "Mormon Doctrine", but they borrowed heavily from it in creating the chapter headings and summaries in the current editions of the Book of Mormon.

And I do so too.

If "Mormon Doctrine" is false doctrine, then the men who embraced it, endorsed it, and cite it are false prophets.

By this logic Brigham Young is a false prophet. He embraced Adam-God theory, taught it, and presented it in the temple endowment which paper was "part of it" until the 1960's? (have to reconfirm the exact info, it was only given to a select few). Kimball publicly stated it was false doctrine.

With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

endorsed = opinion until doctrine (no matter how true). But you probably agree with that.

In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God.

Endorsed sources? What sources?

Revelations for the Kingdom of God as a whole are revealed through the Lord's annointed and ratified by common consent.

I have stated this a few times now.

Anything less is not "doctrine" no matter how fervently you might wish otherwise.

and anything more. (2 Nephi 32:6-7).. Where does more come form? Verse 6, Until Christ manifests himself unto you. Than YOU receive more doctrine. (not the church)

To begin with, you are conflating "doctrine" and "truth", with the presumption (despite all evidence to the contrary) that your personal revelation and truth are one and the same.

Agreed.

To (again) quote President Joseph F. Smith:

"[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.”

I appreciate this quote. Thanks.

Personal revelation about something that has not yet been revealed to the Saints as a whole may be true- but it is not doctrine until it has been revealed to the Church as a whole.

Yup.

And that revelation will come only through the proper channels.

Hyrum page incident is evidence of this.

You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat").

The problem is that you consistently argued that your personal version of "meat" trumps the teachings of the Church.

Trumps? No. Appendage to perhaps is a better word. The meat is the knowledge to remove ones ignorance and unbelief. Until unbelief is removed one is under damnation. You cannot be saved in ignorance, ignorance comes from a lack of knowledge of the mysteries of godliness.

If what you are receiving is not consistent with the teachings of the Church, then it is not of God.

not consistent with the teachings of the Gospel

False. The iron rod is a life lived in harmony with the revealed truths, commandments, and ordinances of the Gospel.

This is not a false statement. Scriptures have multiple interpretations. This is a published interpretation by a few men. Personal revelation is received by obeying the commandments and ordinances of the gospel.

If your personal "revelation" is not in harmony with those, than it is not an iron rod, but a lead anchor.

Than that is NOT revelation. Revelation comes from the Holy Ghost. That is deception by the devil.

Revelation must be accompanied by repentance and walking uprightly before God.

Words without deeds are dead.

You won't get revelation without doing so.

"Revelation" that is at odds with the revealed truths of the Gospel is poison, not medicine.

Agreed. I am not talking about practicing polygamy as the guy on this thread apparently was?

Yes- the Lord expects us to become a holy people, where every man is a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Yet even in that perfect vision, all men will be in harmony with the revealed truths of the Gospel, not walking in their own paths.

I agree with you (and with President McConkie) that personal revelation is essential to our exaltation and eternal growth as sons and daughters of God.

I didn't think people would disagree. The members here for the most part care and live the gospel the way they should.

Edited June 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Magen_Avot]

So, I guess you could say he's a sour Kraut?

Sour Kraut:

Chopped or shredded cabbage salted and fermented in its own juice.

Hmmm...

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon selek. I hope you're having a good day! :)

You stated to ElectofGod,

"'Revelation' that is at odds with the revealed truths of the Gospel is poison, not medicine."

I can't think of any faithful Latter-day Saint that would disagree with this statement. But, you see, the way many of your posts come across to me, selek, is that you are misunderstanding people's posts or interpreting them with your own personal biases and because YOU BELIEVE the views are at odds with revealed truth (so often you come across as having set yourself up as the judge on these forums who gets to decide which posts adhere to revealed truth and which do not), then rather than decide to engage in a fruitful discussion and assume the best of people, you seemingly assume everyone who does not explain or believe the "revealed truths of the Gospel" like you do, well, then they are apostate, they are all of these horrible things and then you proceed to lay in to people with a vitriol that is simply incomprehensible to me.

I just don't get it, selek. You could do everything you do without the bombastic vitriol.

Respectfully,

Finrock

Edited June 5, 2013 by Finrock
Spelling