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

[estradling75]

I'm not sure of your point here. I suspect there would be plenty who went one way or the other. Doesn't change the fact that it's the Presiding Bishop's purview.

The fact that you think many would be divided on it kinda make my point.. How many of those that side with the Prophet in such a hypothetical case would do so simply because they were taught mantra "The prophet can't lead the church astray."

I agree. Though it sort of amounts to the same thing until the President of the Church is brought up on charges of apostasy by the Presiding Bishop and all. Otherwise, we can pretty safely assume that we're not being led astray.

You do realize there is gap between when a hypothetical Prophet falls and when the Presiding Bishop becomes aware, gathers evidence, holds a court and renders a verdict? And if the fall is gradual and takes time.... Well I can't imagine a Presiding Bishop wanting to take that kind of action until he is truly convinced he has no other choice.

[Finrock]

Joseph Smith taught by the Spirit. He relied on it. When he listened to the wisdom of man or feared man more than God, he was lead astray and chastised. When Joseph taught doctrine he didn't look to any man to determine what was truth and error. Joseph Smith taught by the example of his life to trust in the Spirit, no matter the consequences.

Jesus Christ did not defer to any man and He counseled us to look to Him and to the Spirit to know and understand truth.

God is no respecter of persons and He doesn't excuse Himself. He doesn't counsel the Prophet to rely on Him and His spirit but then tell His other disciples to rely on fallible man to discern truth from error. We support our leaders, of course, but we must become prophets ourselves. We must get the spirit in our life just like we trust that the prophets and the apostles have the spirit in their life and are teaching us by the power of the spirit. We can't rely on them forever to be the final arbiters of our faith and knowledge.

-Finrock

[The Folk Prophet]

The fact that you think many would be divided on it kinda make my point.. How many of those that side with the Prophet in such a hypothetical case would do so simply because they were taught mantra "The prophet can't lead the church astray."

Sure. But would it be any different without the mantra? Seems you're implying the mantra is a problem. Not sure I see it that way, in spite of the fact that I agree on your interpretation of what the mantra actually means.

You do realize there is gap between when a hypothetical Prophet falls and when the Presiding Bishop becomes aware, gathers evidence, holds a court and renders a verdict? And if the fall is gradual and takes time.... Well I can't imagine a Presiding Bishop wanting to take that kind of action until he is truly convinced he has no other choice.

I'm not still not sure of the overall point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting we should not trust the words and teaching of the prophet?

[estradling75]

Sure. But would it be any different without the mantra? Seems you're implying the mantra is a problem. Not sure I see it that way, in spite of the fact that I agree on your interpretation of what the mantra actually means.

I'm not still not sure of the overall point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting we should not trust the words and teaching of the prophet?

Simple really... Generally speaking people don't like to work. If they can get someone else to do the heavy lifting for them and then swing in at the end and get the reward most people will do exactly that. Learning how to gain spiritual witnesses and confirmation takes work. But it is work that is required each of us which Finrock's recent posts show.

Many will say hey I "trust the prophet" as a short hand of saying I am not going to do the work because he already did it for me all I have to do is stand in his shadow. Thinking that they don't need to learn to rely on the Lords arm because the prophet's arm is there and will protect them

[The Folk Prophet]

Simple really... Generally speaking people don't like to work. If they can get someone else to do the heavy lifting for them and then swing in at the end and get the reward most people will do exactly that. Learning how to gain spiritual witnesses and confirmation takes work. But it is work that is required each of us which Finrock's recent posts show.

Many will say hey I "trust the prophet" as a short hand of saying I am not going to do the work because he already did it for me all I have to do is stand in his shadow. Thinking that they don't need to learn to rely on the Lords arm because the prophet's arm is there and will protect them

Thanks. That clears up your point.

So just to take the thought a bit further...and part of this stems from a debate I had with a guy in my ward...

His argument: We need a spiritual witness of every truth of the gospel.

My argument: We need a spiritual witness of the gospel and that automatically teaches us that what the gospel teaches is true.

I include in my argument a spiritual witness that the gospel is led by a living prophet.

Or...to put it more directly to this thread/discussion: If I have gained a spiritual witness that President Monson is God's prophet, then do I really need to pray about the specific things he teaches me or can I trust the original witness to include what he teaches/says/directs/councils?

What say ye?

[Anddenex]

What say ye?

As to my understanding of the importance of witnesses, I would say both are equally important within their sphere of truth.

When Lehi delivered his words to his sons mentioned we are able to see three different types of personalities -- at least from the record we have -- within Lehi's sons.

Laman & Lemuel are unwilling to believe the words of their father, even though they received a great witness -- an angel declaring unto them that what they were doing was being done in the name of God.

Sam, we don't get to hear much about Sam, except that he listened to his younger brother Nephi, but we see nothing of him seeking his own witness -- he was an obedient son though.

Nephi, 1 Nephi 10: 17-19, not only believed the words of his father (as he told the angel, "Thou knowest I believe"), he also desired to see, know, and hear the words himself.

In light of this, I believe our attitude/desire for the knowledge is where our heart is truly shown. Nephi already believed, but desired a further witness from God...he increased his relationship with God through these additional witnesses...although he already believed what was spoken.

Laman & Lemuel, were constantly asked, "Have you inquired of the Lord"?

IMHO, if my desire stems from a lack of belief, "I don't believe what the prophet says, until God tells me himself," then I would say "Oh ye of little faith."

If my desire for a further witness, like Nephi, stems from my acceptance of the words of the prophet...then this is a good thing.

[The Folk Prophet]

As to my understanding of the importance of witnesses, I would say both are equally important within their sphere of truth.

When Lehi delivered his words to his sons mentioned we are able to see three different types of personalities -- at least from the record we have -- within Lehi's sons.

Laman & Lemuel are unwilling to believe the words of their father, even though they received a great witness -- an angel declaring unto them that what they were doing was being done in the name of God.

Sam, we don't get to hear much about Sam, except that he listened to his younger brother Nephi, but we see nothing of him seeking his own witness -- he was an obedient son though.

Nephi, 1 Nephi 10: 17-19, not only believed the words of his father (as he told the angel, "Thou knowest I believe"), he also desired to see, know, and hear the words himself.

In light of this, I believe our attitude/desire for the knowledge is where our heart is truly shown. Nephi already believed, but desired a further witness from God...he increased his relationship with God through these additional witnesses...although he already believed what was spoken.

Laman & Lemuel, were constantly asked, "Have you inquired of the Lord"?

IMHO, if my desire stems from a lack of belief, "I don't believe what the prophet says, until God tells me himself," then I would say "Oh ye of little faith."

If my desire for a further witness, like Nephi, stems from my acceptance of the words of the prophet...then this is a good thing.

Nice. I like this idea.

If a young man, for example, has a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, then upon turning 18 the question should never be, "Should I go on a mission?" But the question could, appropriately be, "Help me to have a greater desire to go on a mission and truly understand in my heart how and why it's important." Or something along those lines.

[Anddenex]

Nice. I like this idea.

If a young man, for example, has a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, then upon turning 18 the question should never be, "Should I go on a mission?" But the question could, appropriately be, "Help me to have a greater desire to go on a mission and truly understand in my heart how and why it's important." Or something along those lines.

Yes, exactly, that sums up the thought nicely. If a witness of the gospel has already been received, then I shouldn't need to ask "Should I go on a mission"? Nephi, already receiving a witness about his Father being directed by the Lord, desired to know more from the Lord himself and to receive a personal witness and further his relationship with God -- one on one. His desire for more knowledge stemmed from his belief, not his unbelief and a demand to know it before he accepted it.

[Finrock]

The Lectures on Faith teaches the correct attitude and approach we should take. Every person's faith begins by hearing testimony. Scriptures are at the core the testimony of men and women about their experiences with God or the divine. Prophets testify of Christ and invite all to come to Him. That is their primary purpose.

The prophets effectively tell us, "Hey, God lives because I have heard/seen Him! Believe me and do as I do and you can find out for yourself! You can have the same experiences I have had with God!"

It has never been, "Hey, God lives because I have heard/seen Him! Believe me but don't try to have the same experiences as I have had with God! Just trust that I know what I am talking about and you don't need to connect with heaven as I have!"

In my opinion any such notion is ridiculous.

I can gain a testimony that a man is a true prophet of God but that does not release me from my responsibility to get the spirit of prophecy and to connect with God in the same way as I believe any prophet or apostle has. In fact, my salvation depends upon me emulating the spirituality that I believe exists with the prophets and apostles. The spirit has witnessed to me that Pres. Monson is a true prophet of God and the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but the spirit has not witnessed to me that everything Pres. Monson says is doctrine or that I should rely on his words and witness alone.

I want to commune with God directly just like any other prophet has and just as God has promised that I can. I follow the prophets because I believe and have faith that they can teach me how to do this because I believe and have faith that they are speaking from experience and not just academically or theoretically.

-Finrock

Edited January 22, 2014 by Finrock

[estradling75]

Or...to put it more directly to this thread/discussion: If I have gained a spiritual witness that President Monson is God's prophet, then do I really need to pray about the specific things he teaches me or can I trust the original witness to include what he teaches/says/directs/councils?

What say ye?

Yes... and No... Lets say you get to spend the day with President Monson (which would be awesome). You would not expect that everything he said during when he was discussing things even (church things) to be the Mind and Will of the Lord. Most of the time you are going to get the mind and will of a very experienced and wise man. And we should consider it as such. (which to me is still really good)

As the scripture I quoted earlier states its only when moved upon by the Holy Ghost that his words become scripture... So lets move to a clear teaching moment. General Conference President Monson is speaking on the power and importance of Prayer.

I would say that most of the people there will not need to pray and ask God to verify President Monson's teaching on prayer... Because they will have already learned it and verified it from prior experience. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or to reconfirm what you already confirmed. So for most of us it is a reminder and/or a call to live true to what we already know. Some of us might be lucky enough to have his words trigger in us a greater understanding of the subject then we had before.

However in that very same audience there could be someone that doesn't not understand or know about the power of prayer. (For whatever reason) During this talk that person feels the spirit (although they might not know what it is). That person very much needs to verify President Monson's words.

Now lets move back to a question you asked earlier about trusting prophets... It seems to me that the scriptures are teaching us to do what we now call trust-but-verify on the words of a Prophet. But not on the prophet himself... Because according to Doctrine and Covenants 3

4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes... and No... Lets say you get to spend the day with President Monson (which would be awesome). You would not expect that everything he said during when he was discussing things even (church things) to be the Mind and Will of the Lord. Most of the time you are going to get the mind and will of a very experienced and wise man. And we should consider it as such. (which to me is still really good)

As the scripture I quoted earlier states its only when moved upon by the Holy Ghost that his words become scripture... So lets move to a clear teaching moment. General Conference President Monson is speaking on the power and importance of Prayer.

I would say that most of the people there will not need to pray and ask God to verify President Monson's teaching on prayer... Because they will have already learned it and verified it from prior experience. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or to reconfirm what you already confirmed. So for most of us it is a reminder and/or a call to live true to what we already know. Some of us might be lucky enough to have his words trigger in us a greater understanding of the subject then we had before.

However in that very same audience there could be someone that doesn't not understand or know about the power of prayer. (For whatever reason) During this talk that person feels the spirit (although they might not know what it is). That person very much needs to verify President Monson's words.

Now lets move back to a question you asked earlier about trusting prophets... It seems to me that the scriptures are teaching us to do what we now call trust-but-verify on the words of a Prophet. But not on the prophet himself... Because according to Doctrine and Covenants 3

We agree in principle, but not 100% in practice.

Faith and conviction come from action. The prayer example isn't ideal because praying to get a testimony of prayer is...well, obvious... But take something like tithing. If one knows the church is true and has a testimony that Pres. Monson is a living prophet. Then the prophet gives a talk on paying tithing. If you don't have strong testimony of this, then pay your tithing to get one. Praying to get a testimony of tithing first is unnecessary and as likely as not to yield no response. You've already been told. Now go and do.

Moreover, just personally speaking, if I were spending the day with Pres. Monson I would hang on every word and example as surely as I would when listening to conference. Calling him just a wise man is underrating what a prophet is, imo. I do not claim he, or any prophet, is infallible. But I will maintain that he's a better man than me, closer to the Lord, more in tune, etc. I maintain that he walks with the spirit. He is not just some wise man with a lot of experience. The idea that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet does not mean that when that man is not speaking as a prophet that he becomes just the same as all the rest of us. These men have insight and experiences that sets them apart, even when they aren't officially speaking as prophets. Accordingly, I will follow their council even when they are only speaking as men.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon church! I hope you're have a good day! :)

The idea that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet does not mean that when that man is not speaking as a prophet that he becomes just the same as all the rest of us.

I don't know what you mean by this, exactly, but if you are suggesting that prophets are some special class of humans then this is, in my view, idolatry.

These men have insight and experiences that sets them apart, even when they aren't officially speaking as prophets. Accordingly, I will follow their council even when they are only speaking as men.

I am sure that the Apostles have insights and experiences but I don't know how these experiences (whatever they may be) set them apart while equivalent experiences by other disciples of Christ do not set these other disciples apart as your post seems to suggest?

-Finrock

[Guest]

I will maintain that he's a better man than me, closer to the Lord, more in tune, etc. I maintain that he walks with the spirit. He is not just some wise man with a lot of experience. The idea that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet does not mean that when that man is not speaking as a prophet that he becomes just the same as all the rest of us. These men have insight and experiences that sets them apart, even when they aren't officially speaking as prophets. Accordingly, I will follow their council even when they are only speaking as men.

The big elephant in the room is that anything a Prophet says when he is not speaking as a prophet is not binding to the Church. So sure, you may follow their council when speaking as men. But, nobody is bound by covenant to do so.

[The Folk Prophet]

Good Afternoon church! I hope you're have a good day! :)

Wish it was better. Some health issues. But thank you for asking! I appreciate the civility.

I don't know what you mean by this, exactly, but if you are suggesting that prophets are some special class of humans then this is, in my view, idolatry.

Respectfully... Give me a break! To revere someone and trust them implicitly does not mean you worship them. I don't know what you mean by "special class of humans", but if you mean I think they're some sort of Maiar sent to earth by the Valar as Wizards? No. If you mean that I believe they have a mantle, a special spirit, a priesthood right to guide and lead, authority to receive revelation for all mankind...well...yes.

I am sure that the Apostles have insights and experiences but I don't know how these experiences (whatever they may be) set them apart while equivalent experiences by other disciples of Christ do not set these other disciples apart as your post seems to suggest?

To be fair, it's not the experience that sets them apart entirely. There is a possibility that someone else has equivalent experience, though I would contend this*, but that person has no authority or right to guide the church, and THAT sets the prophet and apostles apart. It is not me presuming things about their experience, it is the Lord's method. He established the way he would guide His church, and it is through prophets and apostles.

*My thought: why would someone with no authority or keys to have equivalent experience be given it. You're implying that anyone with a strong spiritual witness, seeing angels, having spoken with God even, becomes equivalent to the ordained leaders of the church. This is not the case. It's significantly more than just being in tune with God. There are rights and keys involved here. Point being, no one except the prophet will every have the experience of receiving revelation on behalf of the church. There is no equivalent experience.

The big elephant in the room is that anything a Prophet says when he is not speaking as a prophet is not binding to the Church. So sure, you may follow their council when speaking as men. But, nobody is bound by covenant to do so.

"binding to the Church" is a big distractor of a statement that has no real meaning. It's used by people to justify thinking and behavior contrary to council. (Note: I'm not accusing you of this...I'm more accusing you of using the term because it's a common thing to say nowadays.) I can agree with you, sure. Not binding on the church unless said at the pulpit with "thus saith..." attending, ratified by vote, etc., blah, blah... I don't buy it in practice. When the prophet speaks, you listen. Are there exceptions to this? Sure. But they are exceptions.

[Durzan]

...yes you listen... BUT... you are not covenantally bound to follow their advice, or agree with what they say.

If you heed what they say, then good for you, if not, well thats your problem to deal with, not mine... unless it affects me.

[Durzan]

Wish it was better. Some health issues. But thank you for asking! I appreciate the civility.

Respectfully... Give me a break! To revere someone and trust them implicitly does not mean you worship them. I don't know what you mean by "special class of humans", but if you mean I think they're some sort of Maiar sent to earth by the Valar as Wizards? No. If you mean that I believe they have a mantle, a special spirit, a priesthood right to guide and lead, authority to receive revelation for all mankind...well...yes.

To be fair, it's not the experience that sets them apart entirely. There is a possibility that someone else has equivalent experience, though I would contend this*, but that person has no authority or right to guide the church, and THAT sets the prophet and apostles apart. It is not me presuming things about their experience, it is the Lord's method. He established the way he would guide His church, and it is through prophets and apostles.

*My thought: why would someone with no authority or keys to have equivalent experience be given it. You're implying that anyone with a strong spiritual witness, seeing angels, having spoken with God even, becomes equivalent to the ordained leaders of the church. This is not the case. It's significantly more than just being in tune with God. There are rights and keys involved here. Point being, no one except the prophet will every have the experience of receiving revelation on behalf of the church. There is no equivalent experience.

"binding to the Church" is a big distractor of a statement that has no real meaning. It's used by people to justify thinking and behavior contrary to council. (Note: I'm not accusing you of this...I'm more accusing you of using the term because it's a common thing to say nowadays.) I can agree with you, sure. Not binding on the church unless said at the pulpit with "thus saith..." attending, ratified by vote, etc., blah, blah... I don't buy it in practice. When the prophet speaks, you listen. Are there exceptions to this? Sure. But they are exceptions.

...yes you always should LISTEN to the prophet... But you should also PONDER what they say and pray about it for confirmation that what they are saying was inspired by God. If what they say is inspired, you should probably heed what they say. Unless it is verified as scripture or its equivalent, you are not bound by a covenant to follow simple and practical ADVICE or agree with what their personal ideas or opinions.

We have agency and our own brains and consciences for a reason. No matter how wise, righteous, or spiritual he may be, the prophet is still an imperfect man, and as such has his own ideas and opinions which may or may not influence his judgement...

Bottom line, heeding the advice of the prophets is usually a good idea, provided you do not follow blindly. What you do is none of my business: If you heed what the apostles and prophets say, then good for you. if not, well thats your problem to deal with, not mine...

...unless it affects me.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hi Durzan. Thanks for your thoughts. I have some counter thoughts.

...yes you always should LISTEN to the prophet... But you should also PONDER what they say and pray about it for confirmation that what they are saying was inspired by God. If what they say is inspired, you should probably heed what they say. Unless it is verified as scripture or its equivalent, you are not bound by a covenant to follow simple and practical ADVICE or agree with what their personal ideas or opinions.

Ponder, yes. Pray for confirmation on every single little point? I'm not that unintelligent.

I'll throw another example out. When President Hinkley advised that women have only one pair of earrings, neither my wife nor I prayed about it. She took her extra earrings out. Worried about being led astray? No. Increased spiritual strength in our lives? Yes. Trust that the advice was the Lord's will? Yes.

But, fine. Feel free to get a confirmation on every thing he ever says. Can't hurt, I suppose. But here's the thing. We've been taught to follow the prophet. We've been taught to heed his council. We've been taught he will not lead us astray. We've been taught to trust the leaders of our church. Why not simply pray to get a testimony of that?

Moreover, the Lord expects us to use our minds and not rely upon him for every, single, little point.

We have agency and our own brains and consciences for a reason. No matter how wise, righteous, or spiritual he may be, the prophet is still an imperfect man, and as such has his own ideas and opinions which may or may not influence his judgement...

How is heeding the the prophet related to why we have agency? Are you implying that listening to and following the prophet's voice might take away our agency somehow?

I use my agency, brain, and conscience to listen to, and follow, the prophet's council and advice, as well as his "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements.

Bottom line, heeding the advice of the prophets is usually a good idea,

Usually, huh? Just wondering if you can come up with a single instance where ignoring the prophet's advice turned out good for someone.

provided you do not follow blindly.

Yeah, yeah. Following blindly. Typical shame-worded argument for this point of view. Problem is, I don't feel shamed. Either it isn't actually blind, because of the aforementioned testimony that he is God's voice on this earth, or it isn't actually a bad thing to follow blindly, because of the aforementioned testimony that he is Gods' voice on this earth. Either way, I'm not much bothered by the mormons-are-brainwashed, mormons-are-sheep type points.

What you do is none of my business: If you heed what the apostles and prophets say, then good for you. if not, well thats your problem to deal with, not mine...

I'm not so convinced that, "Am I my brother's keeper?" goes over so well as an argument for righteous living.

[talisyn]

I don't know what you mean by "special class of humans", but if you mean I think they're some sort of Maiar sent to earth by the Valar as Wizards?

LOTR reference in a gospel discussion: awesome

[Suzie]

Just_A_Guy, dude where are you? All this time I thought you was probably one of the most ultra-conservative Mormons on this board but you have been dethroned by church.

[Just_A_Guy]

*Shrug* I can see both sides of it. Like Church, my experience/testimony is that I have never regretted following the prophet's counsel (or, in other words, taking a specific action that the prophet asked me to take). Like Durzan, I don't consider myself bound to privately agree with every teaching that anyone in authority offers merely because a person in authority is the one offering it. Like Church, I believe that neither an authoritative figure's counsel or teaching should be disregarded lightly--but I think Durzan agrees with that, as well.

I suspect that, at least in theory, we're all a lot closer on this than we think we are. I think I tend to get more cantankerous people seem to openly treat the LDS leadership with suspicion, skepticism, and/or contempt; but I'm not sure I'm really seeing much of that right now.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

*Shrug* I can see both sides of it. Like Church, my experience/testimony is that I have never regretted following the prophet's counsel (or, in other words, taking a specific action that the prophet asked me to take). Like Durzan, I don't consider myself bound to privately agree with every teaching that anyone in authority offers merely because a person in authority is the one offering it. Like Church, I believe that neither an authoritative figure's counsel or teaching should be disregarded lightly--but I think Durzan agrees with that, as well.

I suspect that, at least in theory, we're all a lot closer on this than we think we are.

Now on a serious note, that's very true. I actually agree with everything you wrote on this post, I suppose because I believe in balance in all things. One thing for sure: We are all trying very hard to do what is right, we are perhaps just using a different approach, taking a different reasoning or using a different method to achieve it but I want to believe there are more things that unite us than separate us.

[The Folk Prophet]

*Shrug* I can see both sides of it. Like Church, my experience/testimony is that I have never regretted following the prophet's counsel (or, in other words, taking a specific action that the prophet asked me to take). Like Durzan, I don't consider myself bound to privately agree with every teaching that anyone in authority offers merely because a person in authority is the one offering it. Like Church, I believe that neither an authoritative figure's counsel or teaching should be disregarded lightly--but I think Durzan agrees with that, as well.

I suspect that, at least in theory, we're all a lot closer on this than we think we are. I think I tend to get more cantankerous people seem to openly treat the LDS leadership with suspicion, skepticism, and/or contempt; but I'm not sure I'm really seeing much of that right now.

I don't think I'm seeing suspicion, skepticism and/or contempt either. So, hopefully I'm not coming across as too cantankerous.

To me, it often feels like the new preaching one hears is more about criticism, pointing out fallibility in our leaders, justifications for personal points-of-view, and catering to imperfection, than it is about loyalty, dedication, commitment, and sacrifice, and obedience. Loyalty, dedication, and obedience are labeled blind following and/or not having your own testimony. Like we're so sensitive on behalf of those who struggle with faith that we have to cut down those who don't. So I do defend against what I see as attacks on "conservative" views.

If I'm misjudging post intents, I apologize. But I'm fairly firm on the follow-the-prophet position, and find it somewhat sad if that really makes me the most ultra-conservative person here. Seems to me that we should all (and by 'we' I mean members, of course) be just as defensive of these ideas.

I don't agree with everything coming from the church by the way (though I do admit, to Suzie's point, that usually when I disagree it's because I find a something too liberal :)) That being said, I keep those items to myself. It's not my purview to lead the church. It's not my place to speak against the brethren. And I would never be so arrogant as to presume that I know better than they do.

[Traveler]

It is my personal opinion that all confusion over this matter comes from not understanding the oath and covenant of the priesthood as we are given to understand in D&C 84.

The concept of being led astray is in reference to our eternal salvation and does not pertain to such things as who will win the supper bowl or what banks will fail during a recession. We may think of other things but in such understanding we live in this short mortality without access to a great many details specific to the big picture.

In short if for some reason mortal beings chosen by G-d error in mortality, as all mortals do, we need not be concerned because G-d will compensate for those with whom he has established his covenant - according to the covenant.

If we choose to operate outside of our covenant - we have no such promise that G-d will take any error in so doing into account considering the intent of our hearts. Thus we must answer for our error and cannot claim clemency because we thought our judgment is better. In essence it is all about faith in the covenant and G-d's promise as we navigate the landscape of mortality and if we do so according to covenant.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

The concept of being led astray is in reference to our eternal salvation and does not pertain to such things as who will win the supper bowl or what banks will fail during a recession. We may think of other things but in such understanding we live in this short mortality without access to a great many details specific to the big picture.

This is a good point and I think important to reiterate as pertaining to the discussion because it did cause some problems and a great amount of apostasy in the early church (less so in the modern church because most of us never actually get the chance to directly interact with the prophet).

If I was hanging out for a day with the prophet and he said "I think that's a solid investment" concerning something or and so I put all my money into it and then went bust... I see that as significantly different to the prophet saying something like, "always volunteer when service opportunities present themselves". The second I would jump on as prophet inspired advice, the first I would consider random advice from an older and wiser man. Most likely I wouldn't pray for confirmation about either of them.

[Crash]

I am somewhat of a cynic when it comes to Mormonisms. President Hinckley said in an interview that he does not drink caffeinated sodas. He did not say, however, that members of the church should not drink caffeinated sodas, and he had never done so from any pulpit. Missionaries in the UK had L Tom Perry in their car while driving to or from a zone meeting, and he asked them to pull into a market. He went inside and came back out with a bottle of Coke. He popped the lid open and drank it. The missionaries looked at him puzzled but he said that he had not had much sleep and needed to "wake up." I had a discussion with someone who was quite convinced that we are to not drink caffeinated drinks but he found it okay to drink hot chocolate, which does have some caffeine in it. So, Mormonisms.

according to an excerpt from "David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism," President David O. McKay once requested a soda; he was told that all they had were Coca-Cola glasses, but that another soda would be served in it, to which he responded he didn't care what was on the cup, as long as there was Coke IN the cup.

Other Mormonisms can include the types of food we eat, crying during testimony meeting, and what types of movies to watch (no R rated films, though, because we have been counseled). In Utah, there are a LOT more Mormonisms than anywhere else and these have been misconstrued as being counsel from church leaders.

So, I am cynical about many Mormonisms that did not originate from church leaders but have become accepted as such. What I will not question, though, is admonition spoken to church members, which is different from counsel. Counsel is just that, suggestions for happy, spiritual living. It is advice given by arguably wiser people than I/we are. Admonishing church members is not counsel but it is also not commandment. Admonishment, I would argue, is a step above counsel. Counsel: good advice. Admonishment: Really good idea to follow. Commandment: MUST follow.

The scriptures often use the term "exhort," which means to strongly advise. The term isn't used much today but I think it is the same as admonish in today's terms.

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. 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.

Joseph Smith said that once you enter into the covenant of baptism there is no turning back, there is no middle ground. You have chosen to follow Christ to the letter. We have our agency, sure, but we must also understand that God's law is not voted on. It is what it is.

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. -- Doctrine & Covenants 1:38

Too many members of the church today feel that they can change things because they don't think they are fair and they use parts of scripture to support their argument while ignoring other scriptures, which contradicts their argument. That is the fallacy of human understanding. If the prophet says to do something, then do it because, according to Jesus Christ, it is just as if He was saying it. There is no in-between.