"The Lord won't let the Prophet lead the church astray."

[The Folk Prophet]

...crying during testimony meeting...

I'm not sure this qualifies as a mormonism. More of a humanism. I cried when testifying a lot more when I was a teenager too. I was more emotional when younger. Conviction is emotional. Emotion leads to crying. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think others crying when testifying influenced me to do the same. Could be wrong though. the human mind is a fickle piece of putty in a lot of ways. I do know this -- there are times when the spirit came down and whomped me pretty good and the tears came.

Hmm. So in that regard, the church is true + the spirit testifies of the truth + the spirit often brings great emotion including a tendency to cry = crying during testimonies is a mormonism. I guess I could buy it on those terms.

[Crash]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a mormonism. More of a humanism...Hmm the church is true + the spirit testifies of the truth + the spirit often brings great emotion including a tendency to cry = crying during testimonies is a mormonism. I guess I could buy it on those terms.

Okay, maybe not a Mormonism but it certainly seems to be a general practice.

Maybe that's why I cry so easily while watching a movie like The Odd Life of Timothy Green, because I refuse to cry during testimony meeting. It's built-up emotion.

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, maybe not a Mormonism but it certainly seems to be a general practice.

Maybe that's why I cry so easily while watching a movie like The Odd Life of Timothy Green, because I refuse to cry during testimony meeting. It's built-up emotion.

I cry at Disneyland commercials.

[Crash]

Is that because they make you so happy or because you aren't at Disneyland?

[The Folk Prophet]

Is that because they make you so happy or because you aren't at Disneyland?

Both.

[Vort]

Is that because they make you so happy or because you aren't at Disneyland?

Perhaps because you're so happy you're not at Disneyland.

[Crash]

Perhaps because you're so happy you're not at Disneyland.

No way. I've always been a fan of Disneyland and Disney World, and now my son loves them, too.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps because you're so happy you're not at Disneyland.

Well, happy to note be paying those goshawful entrance fees . . .

[Suzie]

When it comes to heading the counsel of church leaders, particularly the president, first presidency, and quorum of the twelve, each of us raises our hands to sustain them as prophets, seers, and revelators. If anyone feels the need to question their counsel, admonishments, commandments, etc, they are not sustaining them.

What are your personal definitions of" sustaining" and "questioning"?

The idea of having to pray about everything the prophet says reveals a lack of testimony and a "just kidding" remark when we sustain them. Either you do or you don't. It's pretty black and white, especially in God's eyes. There is no part of the law of heaven that says, "It's a really good idea but I guess it's okay to not always follow." That follows the Eat, Drink, and be Merry idea.

I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning but I'm confused. How exactly if someone prays to ask for confirmation to the Lord means you lack a testimony and do not sustain your leaders?

[Crash]

What are your personal definitions of" sustaining" and "questioning"?

It is not my definition of sustaining that matters, it is the doctrine behind the sustaining that matters. We raise our right hands to the square to give our approval of and support for the prophets and all other leaders of the church, all of them. We sustain that they are being inspired by Heavenly Father in their position. For the prophet(s) it means that we accept that they receive revelation and inspiration on behalf of the church and its members.

If you question their leadership you are not sustaining them, period. If you ask a question like, "We used to do it this way but now there is a different way, why is that?" That is not the same as saying, "I don't think this is right. I'm not going to follow." That is the kind of questioning that I'm referring to, picking and choosing what to follow. The Lord promised that he will not allow the prophet(s) to lead us astray. It's not a suggestion but a promise. So, if the prophet counsels, admonishes, and commands church members, it is the same as if Christ Himself were doing it.

Asking me what my personal definitions are is irrelevant. As I said before, it is black and white and is the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ, and the prophets throughout all dispensations. If I were to come up with my own definitions then that would be relying upon the limitations of my understanding. So, in order to remain consistent with the teachings of the prophets and Christ, I'll go by what they say and not what I think they are saying.

I'm trying to follow your line of reasoning but I'm confused. How exactly if someone prays to ask for confirmation to the Lord means you lack a testimony and do not sustain your leaders?

Then you're just going through the motions when you sustain them. Perhaps you have to have confirmation that every church leader is called of God for their position. I do not. I have faith and a testimony that this is the Lord's church and that no other church or religion holds the keys of the Kingdom and the authority to act in God's name. Because I have that testimony I do not need to ask for confirmation because I have faith and knowledge that they are acting in the Lord's name and on His behalf.

If you need to always ask for a confirmation you're testimony on these facts is not as strong and/or you are not sustaining the church leaders in their positions because you are questioning the validity of what they are saying. Again, black and white. The need to break every little thing down and to explain every little thing leads to coming up with your (I mean this in general, not you specifically) own reasoning for this or that, and because of the limitation of human understanding, not accepting the words of the prophets on faith and testimony, will lead to someone else putting thoughts into your head that can lead you astray.

Now, that may seem like blind faith but it is far from it. Faith is the hope for things that are not seen but are true. I haven't seen God but I have faith that He exists. I believe He is real and that is true. If I see God I will no longer have faith because I will know. My faith will cease and I will know of a surety that He is real. Testimony is the affirmation that your faith is real and also that you have a knowledge of things.

I have a firm testimony and knowledge that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to translate the ancient plates into our language. I do not have faith but I know it to be so. I received undeniable confirmation that it is so and I will never deny it. Because I have that knowledge I also know that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, and that He used Joseph Smith to re-establish His church and authority upon the earth through this church. I know (not believe or hope) that the leaders of the church today are led by the same spirit of revelation as was given to Joseph Smith.

That is why I do not need to pray to receive confirmation on anything. I know that the Lord will not allow a church leader to lead the church members away from Him and I know that He works through them as if He were here leading this church Himself. That is why it is not blind faith.

[Magen_Avot]

Wow! Why even "come unto Christ"? Just 'sustain' and 'follow' the prophet.

[The Folk Prophet]

Wow! Why even "come unto Christ"? Just 'sustain' and 'follow' the prophet.

The clear point being made is: Same diff.

Again, D&C 1:38

...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (emphasis added)

[estradling75]

That is why I do not need to pray to receive confirmation on anything. I know that the Lord will not allow a church leader to lead the church members away from Him and I know that He works through them as if He were here leading this church Himself. That is why it is not blind faith.

When I hear stories like this I am reminded of 1 Kings 13 1 Kings 13 ... For those unfamiliar with the story here is a summary.

God calls a prophet and tell the prophet go prophesy before the King. The Lord explicitly tells the prophet he is to get in deliver the message and get out. Not to turn back, not to eat, not to drink.

The prophet does as instructed... As he does so an Older Prophet... and goes to catch him before he leaves. The older prophet catches him and invites him go to his house and join him for a meal. The 1st prophet declines and tells the Older one the commandments he was given. The Older Prophet replies that an Angel of god has commanded him to bring back the first prophet and feed him.

The first prophet accepts this and goes and eats... While eating the the Lord reveals to the older prophet that the first prophet is going to be killed because he disobeyed the Lord's command to him to not turn back and to not eat.

It seems pretty clear that the first prophet willingness to accept a contrary word from the Older prophet without trying to confirm it lead to his destruction

[Crash]

That is a lesson about following the Lord's direct commandments. Again, we have been promised by the Lord Himself that He will not allow a church leader to lead its members away. I have faith and a testimony that it is true. To use a scripture in the Old Testament to justify not following the prophet in contrary to both modern day scripture and the promise of the Lord given to us. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

[The Folk Prophet]

When I hear stories like this I am reminded of 1 Kings 13 1 Kings 13Â*... For those unfamiliar with the story here is a summary.

God calls a prophet and tell the prophet go prophesy before the King. The Lord explicitly tells the prophet he is to get in deliver the message and get out. Not to turn back, not to eat, not to drink.

The prophet does as instructed... As he does so an Older Prophet... and goes to catch him before he leaves. The older prophet catches him and invites him go to his house and join him for a meal. The 1st prophet declines and tells the Older one the commandments he was given. The Older Prophet replies that an Angel of god has commanded him to bring back the first prophet and feed him.

The first prophet accepts this and goes and eats... While eating the the Lord reveals to the older prophet that the first prophet is going to be killed because he disobeyed the Lord's command to him to not turn back and to not eat.

It seems pretty clear that the first prophet willingness to accept a contrary word from the Older prophet without trying to confirm it lead to his destruction

It's a nice story. I don't see it logically rebutting what's been said. If the Lord tells you to do something, you do it, in spite of what anyone else tells you. That doesn't mean you should question everything the called and sustained leader of God's church on this earth tells you (particularly when you've sustained him).

If God appears to a young man and tells him not go on a mission, he shouldn't go, regardless of the prophet's council in this matter. But otherwise, if he has a testimony of the church and the prophet, he should go on a mission. Pray for strength to follow the prophet's council. Sure. But a young man asking if he should go on a mission is a lack of testimony and faith, just as Crash has said. It is absolutely unnecessary. The answer has already been given. (Just so we don't fall into useless side debates, obviously if there are good reasons to question going on a mission, like health or something, this doesn't apply).

To be clear, lack of testimony and faith isn't a problem. We all lack faith in some ways. Pray for a testimony and faith if you need it. There's nothing wrong with praying about something you don't have faith in. That's exactly what you should do. But we should work to get our testimonies of the living prophet to a point where we honestly don't need to. That's the point. Maybe praying about every little thing the prophet says is a means to do that. Okay. Go for it. I don't think anyone is against someone else doing that if they feel so compelled. But to claim that everyone should or they're blindly following their "fallible" leaders is a mistreatment of truth.

Additionally, where I really take issue in this sort of debate is in the implication that we have to receive a spiritual witness of everything ever said or we don't have the correct personal relationship with Jesus that we should.

[Durzan]

...to be honest, for the most part I was just trying to make a point.

[estradling75]

Crash... Church... Please don't presume to put words in my mouth...

And re-read that last sentence that I wrote. I am not making the claims you are accusing me of

[The Folk Prophet]

Crash... Church... Please don't presume to put words in my mouth...

And re-read that last sentence that I wrote. I am not making the claims you are accusing me of

Sorry. I was addressing claims in the thread and general claims I've heard, not presuming you were making these claims. I actually considered saying something to that end, but didn't. I apologize for not being clear on that.

[Crash]

It seems pretty clear that the first prophet willingness to accept a contrary word from the Older prophet without trying to confirm it lead to his destruction

I can't help but look at this and think of Luke Skywalker facing the Emperor.

Emperor: "If you do not join us, you will be destroyed!" Then he zaps him with Force Lightning.

[Durzan]

...I think that there was a bit more to that story...

...Just my opinion.

[estradling75]

...I think that there was a bit more to that story...

...Just my opinion.

Oh I am sure there is.... If you really want a brain bender read verse 18 in the KJV ponder the implication of that on the story... and then read verse 18 in the Joseph Translation (aka inspired version) and watch everything change with the addition of one word

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh I am sure there is.... If you really want a brain bender read verse 18 in the KJV ponder the implication of that on the story... and then read verse 18 in the Joseph Translation (aka inspired version) and watch everything change with the addition of one word

Love the JST!

[Durzan]

...definitely changes the whole thing.

[Suzie]

If you question their leadership you are not sustaining them

If my Bishop or any other leader for that matter asks me to do something that is contrary to Church doctrine, you bet I am going to question it and if you think that's wrong, that's your prerogative, I can live with that.

We are not bound to follow and support false doctrine or evil no matter where it comes from. Hence, it is indeed important and very relevant what is your definition of sustaining. I have no problem in sustaining my leaders as long as I am asked to do things that are in harmony with the Gospel. Granted, we have great Church leaders who do a lot of good for their wards and stakes yet they still men, and if in any occasion (rare or not) they ask of me to do something that is contrary to doctrine, I will question it immediately.

Then you're just going through the motions when you sustain them. Perhaps you have to have confirmation that every church leader is called of God for their position. I do not. I have faith and a testimony that this is the Lord's church and that no other church or religion holds the keys of the Kingdom and the authority to act in God's name. Because I have that testimony I do not need to ask for confirmation because I have faith and knowledge that they are acting in the Lord's name and on His behalf.

I am not going through motions and to be honest, I do not take the GA's list and ask God if each one of them has been called by Him. Your indirect implication that someone who does indeed pray for these things do not have a testimony like yours, is both naive and closed-minded. This has nothing to do with having a strong or weak testimony (opinions such as this are just one of the many things that drive people away from Church).

There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong in asking our Lord for confirmation in these things. Seriously, standing in our own rameuptoms and trying to elevate ourselves over our brethren and think we are somewhat more faithful, more obedient, more spiritual because we do not need to pray for confirmation, it's both sad and foolish. Sad because I want to believe we would always encourage our brethren to pray even if they need to have confirmation from the Lord, and foolish because we are not as spiritual or faithful as we might think we are.

If you need to always ask for a confirmation you're testimony on these facts is not as strong and/or you are not sustaining the church leaders in their positions because you are questioning the validity of what they are saying. Again, black and white.

Well, by now you know I do not agree with this point of yours. I have no problem whatsoever in following our Church leaders, but I also believe the Lord has given us a tool which is prayer that can help receive confirmation through the Spirit of the things we are taught.

Of course, we are probably not going to pray for every single counsel we receive however, if someone needs to do so as many times as they want, it is their right. Using this tool does not make anyone's testimony weaker, but quite the opposite. It is called wisdom. But let me just quote a couple of statements to finish my post that illustrate perfectly my thoughts:

"...What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually..." (Brigham Young)

"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." (Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 203-204)

“Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety. Along the path, I have found that the way had been prepared for me and the rough places made smooth. God led me to safety along a path which was prepared with loving care, sometimes prepared long before” ( Henry B. Eyring “Finding Safety in Counsel,” Ensign, May 1997, 25).

I think that's clear enough. I would be more than glad to read your quotes where it says that asking the Lord for confirmation is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders and a sign that you do not have a testimony and of course, also feel free to quote where we are discouraged not to pray to receive confirmation from the Spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hi Suzie,

Respectfully, you seem to have some sort of bias that is causing you to read things into what we are saying that we are not saying, and so your response is filled with a bunch of straw man arguments. I don't 100% see it in the same light as Crash, but here are my thoughts on your post.

If my Bishop or any other leader for that matter asks me to do something that is contrary to Church doctrine, you bet I am going to question it and if you think that's wrong, that's your prerogative, I can live with that.

I'm not talking about bishops here. I'm talking about the prophet. I'll let crash speak for himself.

We are not bound to follow and support false doctrine or evil no matter where it comes from. Hence, it is indeed important and very relevant what is your definition of sustaining. I have no problem in sustaining my leaders as long as I am asked to do things that are in harmony with the Gospel. Granted, we have great Church leaders who do a lot of good for their wards and stakes yet they still men, and if in any occasion (rare or not) they ask of me to do something that is contrary to doctrine, I will question it immediately.

No one said we should follow evil.

I am not going through motions and to be honest, I do not take the GA's list and ask God if each one of them has been called by Him. Your indirect implication that someone who does indeed pray for these things do not have a testimony like yours, is both naive and closed-minded. This has nothing to do with having a strong or weak testimony (opinions such as this are just one of the many things that drive people away from Church).

People are not driven from the church by opinions like these. People leave the church because of weak testimonies and sin. It's pretty unfair to blame those who believe in obedience for people leaving the church.

There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong in asking our Lord for confirmation in these things.

No one said there is anything wrong with it. We said it isn't needful.

Seriously, standing in our own rameuptoms and trying to elevate ourselves over our brethren and think we are somewhat more faithful, more obedient, more spiritual because we do not need to pray for confirmation, it's both sad and foolish.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyone disagreeing with your view of things is standing on their rameupton. They must not be humble because they have faith. They must be prideful because they bore their testimony?

No one claimed to be more faithful or more obedient or more spiritual. We're talking principles here, not bragging.

Sad because I want to believe we would always encourage our brethren to pray...

No one discouraged anyone from praying.

...even if they need to have confirmation from the Lord,

If you or anyone need confirmation on something, go get it. No one's saying it's a sin.

and foolish because we are not as spiritual or faithful as we might think we are.

No one's claiming spirituality. What on earth is wrong with claiming faith though? That is hardly prideful. I have faith in the Savior, faith in the gospel, faith in the prophet. I claim this faith because of spiritual witness to me. You can ridicule me as sad and foolish for that, but, again, we're talking principle. You are making this personal about us, like we're bragging. That is simply not the case.

Well, by now you know I do not agree with this point of yours. I have no problem whatsoever in following our Church leaders, but I also believe the Lord has given us a tool which is prayer that can help receive confirmation through the Spirit of the things we are taught.

Agree.

Of course, we are probably not going to pray for every single counsel we receive however, if someone needs to do so as many times as they want, it is their right.

Agree.

Using this tool does not make anyone's testimony weaker,

Why are you so defensive about strength of testimony? Struggling with faith is not a bad thing. Needing improvement of testimony doesn't make someone worthless or sinful. My testimony is stronger than some and weaker than others. I don't consider myself better or worse because of this. I know where my weaknesses in faith lie and wherein I need to work. Why is that a problem?

but quite the opposite. It is called wisdom.

It is the beginning of wisdom. But a continued questioning of every little thing when the Lord has given someone an arsenal of testimony is not wisdom. For a newer member, praying about individual things may be more necessary. Big changes (like in the days of Joseph where HUGE new doctrines were introduced all the time) may cause a struggle of faith in some. They should go to the Lord for confirmation BECAUSE it is a struggle of faith. That is why we would go for confirmation.

But let me just quote a couple of statements to finish my post that illustrate perfectly my thoughts:

"...What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually..." (Brigham Young)

No one ever said or implied that we shouldn't seek spiritual confirmation of our leaders. Having a testimony in your leaders in paramount. That's been fairly clearly stated.

"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." (Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 203-204)

If President Monson says something that is clearly in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, I think one has a real case for going to the Lord with some serious confirmation-seeking prayer. That doesn't mean we need to pray about every little thing he says. No one ever said NEVER pray for confirmation.

“Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety. Along the path, I have found that the way had been prepared for me and the rough places made smooth. God led me to safety along a path which was prepared with loving care, sometimes prepared long before” ( Henry B. Eyring “Finding Safety in Counsel,” Ensign, May 1997, 25).

Feeling it confirmed in prayer does not imply, in any regard, that he was questioning the validity of the council. I have had many things confirmed to me in prayer because I went humbly to the Lord willing to serve and asking for greater faith to do so. That confirmaiton has been great strength, but it has not come from questioning things that I already know I need to do. It comes after I accept that I need to do what I need to do.

I think that's clear enough. I would be more than glad to read your quotes where it says that asking the Lord for confirmation is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders

I'm not as adamant on this point as Crash. I do see his point, and think it CAN be a sign of that. But there is, certainly, a time and place where one might have a crisis of faith and need to seek confirmation that can't rightly be interpreted as failing to sustain, particularly if one acts in obedience regardless of their feelings on the issue. However, as I said before, I'm not talking about following a bishop. That's a different thread.

But what issue in today's world do you feel a faithful, faith-claiming member ought to be praying for confirmation on that wouldn't fall under not sustaining the prophet? (Sorry for the double negative, couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it.)

and a sign that you do not have a testimony

Once more, what's the big deal about not having as strong a testimony on something?

and of course, also feel free to quote where we are discouraged not to pray to receive confirmation from the Spirit.

No one every even came close to saying this.

Edited January 24, 2014 by church