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

[Crash]

Attacking my testimony by suggesting I need to provide quotes is unwarranted and not appreciated. All along I have quoted the scriptures about The Lord using the prophets to lead this church and we have a promise that He will not allow them to lead us astray. Why you have not been able to accept that direct promise of The Lord is hard to understand.

Of course no one expects you to follow the prophet's counsel if it contradicts the will of God but we have the promise that He won't let that happen. We aren't talking about bishops and such, we are talking about those we sustain as prophets. I'll stand by the scriptures I have cited that The Lord leads and directs this church through His prophets and that he will not allow them to lead us astray. Accept it or don't it. It doesn't affect my testimony either way.

Incidentally, I'm not as spiritual as you might think but I will never deny what I know to be true.

[The Folk Prophet]

Incidentally, I'm not as spiritual as you might think...

I bear witness to this.

[Suzie]

I'm not as spiritual as you might think

I did not think that at all because I do not know you.

Attacking my testimony by suggesting I need to provide quotes is unwarranted and not appreciated.

Asking you to provide quotes to prove your point in a discussion forum is an attack to your testimony? That's surely a first, that's a common thing in an internet forum but I will take that you read the quotes I provided from Church leaders and you do not have (at the moment) quotes to support your statements 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. I have no problem with accepting your personal opinion on the matter and don't worry, no need for quotes for that.

Edit: I enjoy intelligent debates but if such exchange of ideas lack sources, then it's useless. I have no problem if someone wants to share their opinion on the matter and they clearly state it's just their opinion and there is no need for quotes on those occasions but when the information provided is trying to be passed indirectly as the Church position or doctrine, then the person must be ready to back it up. Apparently isn't going to happen in this case so I'm moving on.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Suzie

[Crash]

I did not think that at all because I do not know you.

Asking you to provide quotes to prove your point in a discussion forum is an attack to your testimony? That's surely a first, that's a common thing in an internet forum but I will take that you read the quotes I provided from Church leaders and you do not have (at the moment) quotes to support your statements 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. I have no problem with accepting your personal opinion on the matter and don't worry, no need for quotes for that.

A testimony does not require citations to support it. It is my personal witness, not an opinion, and it is being belittled by suggesting I back it up with quotes. It doesn't work like that.

When missionaries testify of truth they do not pull out a list of quotes. When Bruce R McConkie testified at the end of his life that Jesus is the Christ, no one asked if he had proof or quotes to back it up.

My testimony is my own and I do not need to justify it or support it with citations to substantiate it. To do so is to argue for argument's sake. So, sorry, I won't play along.

You're also asking me to rebutt your quotes with new quotes beyond what I have already provided, which come directly from the mouth of The Lord. I'll take His word for it over the need to justify why I should question His servants the prophets.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Crash

[Suzie]

A testimony does not require citations to support it. It is my personal witness, not an opinion, and it is being belittled by suggesting I back it up with quotes. It doesn't work like that.

When missionaries testify of truth they do not pull out a list of quotes. When Bruce R McConkie testified at the end of his life that Jesus is the Christ, no one asked if he had proof or quotes to back it up.

My testimony is my own and I do not need to justify it or support it with citations to substantiate it. To do so is to argue for argument's sake. So, sorry, I won't play along.

Nobody is asking you to justify your testimony but you made a whole set of statements and talked about this not being about your opinion or definitions but Church doctrine when in fact it is just your personal revelation on the issue and if you claim doctrine then I am asking you to prove it with the points I mentioned, it is only fair.

But you are clearly stating that you are not going to do that, I suspect because you will not find any quotes or sources that indicate that when you pray to God for confirmation it is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders. So I will be moving on.

I have no problem at all with your personal witness. But let's be clear. It is your personal witness, not mine, not my next door neighbor, not the whole Church. We are entitled to personal revelation but starts and ends with us.

[Crash]

Nobody is asking you to justify your testimony but you made a whole set of statements and talked about this not being about your opinion or definitions but Church doctrine when in fact it is just your personal revelation on the issue and if you claim doctrine then I am asking you to prove it with the points I mentioned, it is only fair.

But you are clearly stating that you are not going to do that, I suspect because you will not find any quotes or sources that indicate that when you pray to God for confirmation it is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders. So I will be moving on.

I have no problem at all with your personal witness. But let's be clear. It is your personal witness, not mine, not my next door neighbor, not the whole Church. We are entitled to personal revelation but starts and ends with us.

Wow. Again I quote The Lord, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." -D&C 1:38

If you sustain the prophet(s) as His servants then the Lord's own words should be enough. The only witness you might have to pray about is if the prophet is indeed called of God to act in His name. If you receive confirmation of that then why question the prophet after that?

Have you heard anything from any prophet that is contrary to the will of The Lord? If you need further quotes or proof see the church's Official Declaration I.

[Suzie]

Wow. Again I quote The Lord, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." -D&C 1:38

If you sustain the prophet(s) as His servants then the Lord's own words should be enough. The only witness you might have to pray about is if the prophet is indeed called of God to act in His name. If you receive confirmation of that then why question the prophet after that?

Have you heard anything from any prophet that is contrary to the will of The Lord? If you need further quotes or proof see the church's Official Declaration I.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that the Prophet is somewhat infallible while in office?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm doing some research on quotes, but as you know it can be fairly laborious and intensive.

I'm fairly sure no one is going to be able to find a quote that says specifically, "Praying about every single little thing after you already have a testimony that the prophet is the prophet is not sustaining him." But neither will you find a quote saying, "You should pray about every single little thing the prophet says after you already have a testimony that he is the prophet." Some sense of reasoning has to apply in this matter.

Will get back with some quotes.

[Crash]

Nope, you're putting words into my mouth. All men fall short of perfection but in the Lord's church we are lead by inspiration, which is perfect because it comes from God. The Official Declaration I addresses the issue that faced the church over polygamy. In it the promise is that The Lord will never allow the prophet(s), who speak on behalf of The Lord, will never lead church members astray. This solemn promise is affirmed by The Lord.

It seems to me that you may be struggling with this doctrine, that you believe that because men are imperfect they can never lead the church the way The Lord wants. You are arguing that God cannot perfectly lead this church despite the promise in the scriptures. I would admonish you to study, ponder, and pray about it to gain a testimony of this truth. At the end of the day nobody here can convince you of that except the Spirit of God. I personally have faith and testimony that it is so.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wow. Again I quote The Lord, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." -D&C 1:38

I think I substantially agree with your larger point, but we should be careful how we use this quote. The full verse states:

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.

The verse is not saying "anything my servants say automatically bears My imprimatur". The verse says "If I speak it, then it doesn't matter whether you heard it directly from My own voice or indirectly via my servants".

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's some stuff I've come up with so far. Clearly some is applicable directly to the question Suzie posted, some is more generally applicable to the topic of the thread. All quite interesting I think.

I promise you in the name of the Lord that if you will listen not just with your ears but also with your heart, the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth unto you of the messages delivered by President Hinckley, his counselors, the Apostles, and other leaders of the Church. The Spirit will prompt you to know what you should do as individuals and as families in order to follow our counsel, that your testimonies might be strengthened and that you might have peace and joy.

As you think of the word sustaining, ask yourself this question: Is sustaining the living prophets different from having a testimony that we have prophets? When we sustain, it means we do something about our belief. Our testimony of the prophet turns into action when we sustain him.

“When we sustain the President of the Church by our uplifted hand, it not only signifies that we acknowledge before God that he is the rightful possessor of all the priesthood keys; it means that we covenant with God that we will abide by the direction and the counsel that comes through His prophet. It is a solemn covenant”

“The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected”

"There is only one pathway of safety for me in this day and that is to follow those whom the Lord has appointed to lead. I may have my own ideas and opinions, I may set up my own judgment with reference to things, but I know that when my judgment conflicts with the teachings of those that the Lord has given to us to point the way, I should change my course. If I desire salvation I will follow the leaders that our Heavenly Father has given to us, as long as he sustains them."

"I have known thousands of the rank and file of this great Church, men and women of many nations who in humility and faithfulness have accepted the gospel to become identified with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. … [They] have prayed for and sustained their leaders … , and during my experience in the Church I have yet to know of one person who has been observing the commandments of the Lord who has raised his or her voice against those who were called to preside over this Church."

"I know that these men [the General Authorities] are servants of the Lord, and I know they are seeking to bless mankind. I hope that not any of you … will fail to sustain them, not only by your faith and prayers but if they are misrepresented and their attitude misrepresented, that you may be willing and anxious to defend them, if need be, because there is a time coming when they will need your defense. The Adversary has not forgotten them, and one of the evidences to me of the divinity of the calling of these men is that evil men speak evil of them, and good men and good women speak well of them"

"I stand here to plead with you, my brethren and sisters, not to permit words of criticism or of unkindness to pass your lips about those whom the Lord has called to lead us. Do not be found in the companionship of those who would belittle them or weaken their influence among the children of men. If you do, I can say to you that you will find yourselves in the power of the adversary. You will be influenced by him to go as far as possible from the pathway of truth, and if you do not repent you may find when it is too late that you have lost the “pearl of great price.” Because of your selfishness and your blindness you will have been led away, and your loved ones … will be sorrowing on the other side of the veil because of your weakness and your folly."

"If the members of this Church who find fault with the leaders of the Church and criticise those who are giving their very lives to bless and benefit us would only pause long enough to ask prayerfully, “Which of these teachers is it safe to follow?” they would have no difficulty in finding their right course and would sustain those whom the Lord sustains."

"The obligation that we make when we raise our hands under such circumstances, is a most sacred one. It does not mean that we will go quietly on our way and be willing that the prophet of the Lord shall direct this work, but it means,—if I understand the obligation I assumed when I raised my hand—that we will stand behind him; we will pray for him; we will defend his good name, and we will strive to carry out his instructions as the Lord shall direct him to offer them to us while he remains in that position."

[The Folk Prophet]

I think I substantially agree with your larger point, but we should be careful how we use this quote. The full verse states:

The verse is not saying "anything my servants say automatically bears My imprimatur". The verse says "If I speak it, then it doesn't matter whether you heard it directly from My own voice or indirectly via my servants".

D&C 21:4-5 is related.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

But I don't think anyone (including crash) thinks that when the prophet says, "I think I'll have oatmeal for breakfast" that it's the Lord speaking.

[The Folk Prophet]

This isn't directly related, per se, but I think it applicable. I think it shows the wisdom of following council without requiring proof of confirmation and the value of using our own brains to "bring to pass much righteousness".

D&C 58

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

[Suzie]

In it the promise is that The Lord will never allow the prophet(s), who speak on behalf of The Lord, will never lead church members astray. This solemn promise is affirmed by The Lord.

You are new here but we have countless threads about what exactly means "to lead the Church astray", often times we miss the second part of the statement which reads:

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

President Woodruff is not saying that the Prophet will never ever say anything that is wrong. He is saying that we are ensured that the Prophet won't do anything that lead us away from "the oracles of God", meaning the revelations and doctrines necessary for Salvation.

If indeed there is no chance at all that the Prophet or his counselors can lead the Church astray (in any issue) then the Lord wouldn't have established a procedure (First Presidency on trial, read D&C) yet the fact that the Lord included the provision in his plan indicates that it is not an impossibility as it has been suggested.

Now, let me be very clear and state that I do not think the Prophet is leading the Church astray, I love President Monson and I do not think he will purposely do so or any other future prophet for that matter, however, I am very aware that they are also menhence, the issue with prayer as previously indicated it is vital, IMO.

I would admonish you to study, ponder, and pray about it to gain a testimony of this truth. At the end of the day nobody here can convince you of that except the Spirit of God. I personally have faith and testimony that it is so.

Admonish me? No offense but I am not here to be admonished or to be convinced, I am just here to exchange views.

[The Folk Prophet]

Some further quotes I came up with as applicable to the thread and the discussion.

“I make you a promise. It is a simple one, but it is true. If you will listen to the living prophet and the apostles and heed our counsel, you will not go astray.”

"It is no small thing to have a prophet of God in our midst. Great and wonderful are the blessings that come into our lives as we listen to the word of the Lord given to us through him. At the same time, knowing that President [Thomas S. Monson] is God’s prophet also endows us with responsibility. When we hear the counsel of the Lord expressed through the words of the President of the Church, our response should be positive and prompt.”

Here is a story by him that I think illustrates the point without explicitly saying it.

I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”

Wearing two pairs of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.

“From time to time, as individuals and as a church, we go through periods of crisis and danger. Some arise quickly like a fire. Others are subtle and go almost undetected before they are upon us. Some require heroic action, but most are less spectacular. The way we respond is crucial. [i reemphasize] the importance of heeding the words of the prophets. This is one sure way to respond to physical and spiritual dangers of all kinds.”

“We … sustain him with our hearts and our actions as we pay careful attention to what he teaches and what we feel."

And here's a story by Cook that also illustrates the point. Not that the decision to go on a mission is based on gaining a testimony (prayer) of Jesus, the church, and Joseph Smith, not via directly asking for a testimony of missions.

My brother, Joe, was 20 years old. It was during the Korean conflict, and only one young man in each ward could go on a mission. The others had to be available to be drafted into the military. A young man in our ward had gone on a mission early in the year; my brother’s birthday was in September, so he didn’t think he would get the opportunity to serve a mission.

Our stake president called my brother in and told him that one of the wards had not used its allotment and he might be able to go. Missionaries were called at 20 years of age in those days, and my brother had just filled out his application to medical school. He was a good student. My father, who was not active in the Church, had made financial preparations to help him with medical school and was disappointed when he learned of the conversation with the stake president. My father counseled Joe not to go and suggested that he could do more good by going to medical school.

This was a big issue in our family. That night my brother and I talked about the choice. He was five years older, so it was mainly his thinking. As we reasoned it out, we concluded: If Jesus Christ was a great man but not divine, if Joseph Smith was a wonderful teacher but not a prophet, or if the Book of Mormon had wonderful counsel but was not the word of God, then Dad was right—it would be better to go to medical school. But if Jesus Christ is divine, if Joseph Smith is a prophet, and if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, then it would be more important to accept the call and proclaim the gospel.

That night, more than ever before, I wanted to know the answers to these questions. I had always believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I believed in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but I wanted confirmation from the Lord. That night, as I prayed, the Spirit bore witness to my soul of the Savior and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. My brother received the same witness and made the choice to serve a mission. Incidentally, when my brother returned from his mission, he went to medical school. When I reached my 20th birthday, my father was happy to see me serve a mission.

To be fair to Suzie, I also found this quote that very distinctly includes prayer. However, this could be read to mean praying about his prophetic calling, rather than specific issues. Once again, no one is saying or meaning to imply in any regard that we should not pray for our testimony and continue to pray throughout our lives. What we are contending is what the nature of our prayers should be concerning the council of the prophet.

When we raised our hands, we not only just did it in motion because it looks like everybody’s doing it, but because we accept and we’re bearing witness about the knowledge we have and the testimony we have that President Hinckley is our prophet and our leader. We not only raise our hands in saying we sustain but that we follow his direction, that we listen, that we counsel, that we pray about it, that we’re mindful of what comes from the lips of the prophet.

[The Folk Prophet]

Admonish me? No offense but I am not here to be admonished or to be convinced, I am just here to exchange views.

Since when does admonishment require invitation? :)

[The Folk Prophet]

You are new here but we have countless threads about what exactly means "to lead the Church astray", often times we miss the second part of the statement which reads:

President Woodruff is not saying that the Prophet will never ever say anything that is wrong. He is saying that we are ensured that the Prophet won't do anything that lead us away from "the oracles of God", meaning the revelations and doctrines necessary for Salvation.

If indeed there is no chance at all that the Prophet or his counselors can lead the Church astray (in any issue) then the Lord wouldn't have established a procedure (First Presidency on trial, read D&C) yet the fact that the Lord included the provision in his plan indicates that it is not an impossibility as it has been suggested.

In the mouth of two or more...

Joseph Smith

“I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

Brigham Young

"The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth."

Harold B Lee

"I have a consciousness as I have thought through this responsibility [as prophet] and have been close enough to the Brethren over the years, that one in this position is under the constant surveillance of Him in whose service we are. Never would He permit one in this position to lead this church astray. You can be sure of that."

Marion G. Romney

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’”

Shall I go on? I can find more.

[Just_A_Guy]

D&C 21:4-5 is related.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

But I don't think anyone (including crash) thinks that when the prophet says, "I think I'll have oatmeal for breakfast" that it's the Lord speaking.

Sure; but that phrase "as he receiveth them" could be seen as a qualifier, as well.

Again, not disagreeing with your larger point; just that we shouldn't read either this scripture or D&C 1 as saying we're bound to think like the prophet does in every particular (not saying that that's your position, by the way!).

If indeed there is no chance at all that the Prophet or his counselors can lead the Church astray (in any issue) then the Lord wouldn't have established a procedure (First Presidency on trial, read D&C) yet the fact that the Lord included the provision in his plan indicates that it is not an impossibility as it has been suggested.

I'm not convinced that the existence of the procedure means that it will ever need to be used against the President of the Church. It could easily be read as either a) a sop to political culture that was uniquely democratically-minded, even perhaps by modern standards, that might even bolster the Church President's position if/when he were to survive such a procedure (as I recall, Bushman argues that Joseph Smith's trial on the charges Sylvester Smith brought in the wake of Zion's Camp showed that not even Joseph was above the law and therefore--counter-intuitively--bolstered his authority and influence among the Kirtland Saints); and/or b) a procedure that was very necessary to rein in errant counselors in the First Presidency (e.g., Sidney Rigdon).

As to the larger question of whether we should pray for confirmation about each and every little doctrine/teaching, or just be content with that first witness of the Church's status and/or the current prophet's calling? I don't hold myself up as an example of "the right way" to do things; but it strikes me that I wind up taking most doctrines/teachings/requests from Church leadership on faith and just embrace them unless I find them to be particularly troublesome or difficult, in which case I end up seeking confirmation from the Lord. And almost always--it comes. When it doesn't, I've found that the best course is often to shut up and wait.

Heck, even Paul says that to some it is given to know while to others it is given to believe on the words of those who do know. As long as someone's not promulgating gross heresy and claiming it comes from the Lord, I'm not inclined to nit-pick about the way they approach revelation and spiritual learning. Maybe it's a little different for each of us--and maybe that's OK.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure; but that phrase "as he receiveth them" could be seen as a qualifier, as well.

Again, not disagreeing with your larger point; just that we shouldn't read either this scripture or D&C 1 as saying we're bound to think like the prophet does in every particular (not saying that that's your position, by the way!).

Agreed.

However, I spent, what, a few hours at best, reading over a couple of conference talks where I wasn't even looking for support of this idea (I was looking for sustaining principles) and still came up with all sorts of supporting comments. And, I will say as I've said in other places, it is not our place to interpret these scriptures. That is the prerogative of the prophets and apostle. Uh...I'm sure I could source that if I needed to... But not tonight...so tired of researching. Man, I'm glad I'm no longer a student. Anyhow, the point is, as taught by our leaders very clearly, when the prophet says "jump" you say "how high?" on the way up.

Okay...that's flippant. The point is, when the prophet gives council, you promptly follow it as if the Lord gave you that council.

[Crash]

You are new here but we have countless threads about what exactly means "to lead the Church astray"...

Condescending.

Admonish me? No offense but I am not here to be admonished or to be convinced, I am just here to exchange views.

That is your prerogative. You are arguing that there is the possibility that the prophet could lead us astray, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, including the Lord's own promise, but you are not accepting the probability or likelihood that it will never happen. A church leader who does so is promptly removed, which has happened. The Lord will simply not let it happen. If you choose to believe it could or will then nobody will change your mind but God.

[The Folk Prophet]

And, I will say as I've said in other places, it is not our place to interpret these scriptures. That is the prerogative of the prophets and apostle. Uh...I'm sure I could source that if I needed to... But not tonight...

Tacky self quote!

Turns out it wasn't that hard to back up.

Prophets Interpret Scripture

I haven't read through it yet, but I was thinking about it. I think the spirit can, will, and does help us to interpret scriptures for our own lives and as God would lead us when we faithfully study them. However -- not in contrast to the prophets. Their's is the prerogative to interpret scriptures for the church.

[Suzie]

Church, did you read what I said about the meaning of "The Lord won't let the Prophet lead the Church astray"? Because I feel you did not (because of the quotes you provided). I have no issues with your quotes. I'm sorry you spent so much time looking for them but I am afraid you missed my point entirely. Having said that, I appreciate you took the time to do so.

My main point is that Crash specifically stated that if someone prays for confirmation is because they do not have a testimony and they are not supporting their leaders, that's not Church doctrine and if it is, I would be very glad to see proof of it and recant. If he/she isn't able to provide that, then as I mentioned before I will take it as his personal opinion or personal revelation on that particular issue and nothing more.

I feel like I am repeating myself . Crash did state that he is not going to provide such quotes because it is his personal witness then there is nothing else to discuss because as he rightfully said, I cannot challenge his testimony (not like I was planning to). I have no problem with that and I respect it, my issue was only to ensure this is not expressed as Church doctrine.

[Suzie]

I'm not convinced that the existence of the procedure means that it will ever need to be used against the President of the Church.

I absolutely agree with you. Personally, I do not think it will ever be used and I do not think any Prophet will purposely lead this Church astray (I said that in one of my last comments).

It could easily be read as either a) a sop to political culture that was uniquely democratically-minded, even perhaps by modern standards, that might even bolster the Church President's position if/when he were to survive such a procedure (as I recall, Bushman argues that Joseph Smith's trial on the charges Sylvester Smith brought in the wake of Zion's Camp showed that not even Joseph was above the law and therefore--counter-intuitively--bolstered his authority and influence among the Kirtland Saints); and/or b) a procedure that was very necessary to rein in errant counselors in the First Presidency (e.g., Sidney Rigdon).

Yes, I agree. I am not sure if you understand my position (hope you do ). I am not advocating that we shouldn't follow our Prophet, I am not advocating that we should put in doubt every little thing our Prophet teach us, what I am saying is that I do not see anything wrong with someone praying to God for confirmation. To be honest, I do not pray for most of the things President Monson says but if he tells the Church we should all shave our heads and take a trip to the Aconcagua mountain, you bet I would seriously pray about that and seek confirmation.

Having said that, there are people who might feel the need to pray more often and about more things and I do not think they are supporting their leaders any "less" than I do just because they pray more often for confirmation and I do not. It is their prerogative to have that line of connection with the Lord as many times as they want it and as many times as they need it and I personally feel it is actually very responsible for someone to take that time and do that.

I don't hold myself up as an example of "the right way" to do things; but it strikes me that I wind up taking most doctrines/teachings/requests from Church leadership on faith and just embrace them unless I find them to be particularly troublesome or difficult, in which case I end up seeking confirmation from the Lord. And almost always--it comes. When it doesn't, I've found that the best course is often to shut up and wait.

And again, I absolutely agree with you. :) But I do not think it is wise or correct to say that those who do ask for confirmation more often than we do is because they are not supporting their leaders, that's quite a strong statement to make and is definitely not doctrinal.

I'm not inclined to nit-pick about the way they approach revelation and spiritual learning. Maybe it's a little different for each of us--and maybe that's OK.

That's exactly how I think. :) If a person do not need to pray about most of the things the Prophet says, it is just fine if they want to do so. If a person does need to pray about more things, it is just fine as me as well.

Again, the assumption that the first has a stronger testimony than the second is problematic and that the latter, do not support his/her leaders because he/she prays more often for confirmation isn't doctrinal. This is definitely not something this Church preaches. If a person wants to believe that, then it is their personal opinion and it is okay but I take issue if it is expressed as the Church position.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Suzie

[Suzie]

Condescending.

Says the guy that admonished me? Telling you that you are new and we have several threads about this and inviting you to search those threads is condescending? Seriously? I enjoy debates a lot but if the whole things turns a little too dramatic, I often leave the discussion, no offense.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Suzie

[Suzie]

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. ((Improvement Era, June 1945)"

The full quote is even worse: What nonsense. It's an embarrassment this thing ever saw print, even if it was only in a "Ward Teacher's Message".

When this came out, it caused much concern among many inside and outside of the Church. Dr. J. Raymond Cope of the First Unitarian Society in Salt Lake City, sent a letter to President George Albert Smith in November of that year. The letter was cordial, expressing concerns that the article was "doing inestimable harm to many who have no other reason to question the integrity of the Church leaders... this cannot be the position of the true leaders."

President Smith's letter back (bolding mine):

This part in the reply of President Smith is important, IMO "The Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.”

I'm grateful for leaders who are not afraid to state that this sort of thinking ("when a leader speaks, the thinking has been done") is not Church doctrine and acknowledge the harm that can be done by promoting such thinking.