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

[Crash]

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.

I can't help but think you completely ignored all of the quotes Church provided because they directly addressed nearly everything you have been talking about.

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

You're putting words into my mouth again. Please quote me directly where I said you do not have a testimony or do not sustain the church leaders if you pray about something the prophet says. Here is what I said:

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.

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.

Notice that I said that if you have to always pray for confirmation, you do not have a strong testimony. Never said that if you do it even just once that is the case. I have repeated myself throughout this thread that nobody expects you to never pray about it, and neither has anyone else. Next time, quote me accurately before making a claim.

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.

And yet I went on to provide you with scripture and the Official Declaration I from the church regarding the very things we have been discussing. C'mon, Suzie, you can't be selective with your position if you ignore the facts.

[Crash]

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.

You didn't invite me to read anything. You pointed out that I am new and there are topics covering things here, as if I should do my homework first, that I don't know how things are done on the forum. Where did you ask me to read anything? It was condescending. If you do not like me suggesting that you gain a testimony then that is your prerogative, just as I said in response.

Again, please read all of my responses instead of picking and choosing what to quote me on because you're not putting things in full context. This is what you wrote, word for word:

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

As for gaining a testimony, this is exactly what I said in response to you not wanting to:

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.

[Suzie]

I can't help but think you completely ignored all of the quotes Church provided because they directly addressed nearly everything you have been talking about.

You're putting words into my mouth again. Please quote me directly where I said you do not have a testimony or do not sustain the church leaders if you pray about something the prophet says. Here is what I said:

Notice that I said that if you have to always pray for confirmation, you do not have a strong testimony. Never said that if you do it even just once that is the case. I have repeated myself throughout this thread that nobody expects you to never pray about it, and neither has anyone else. Next time, quote me accurately before making a claim.

And yet I went on to provide you with scripture and the Official Declaration I from the church regarding the very things we have been discussing. C'mon, Suzie, you can't be selective with your position if you ignore the facts.

We can spin it anywhere you want it to go, you can claim it fact, I claim it is your opinion and the quotes provided do NOT support the idea that someone who prays more often than you do (is there such a thing as a prayermeter to know exactly how much is too much?) to request confirmation from God has a weaker testimony than someone who doesn't.

If I have to reply to this post of yours again, I will be repeating myself for the millionth time but one last time, again.. (and this will probably be my last post to you on this issue) is that you have not, I repeat have not prove that the Church believes that someone who prays more often than others to receive confirmation from the Lord does not have a strong testimony and they are not supporting their leaders as you clearly claimed.

If you wish to think that way, it is perfectly fine with me because you have the right to think in whatever way you want but let's not claim it beyond your own personal opinion on the matter and try to imply it is Church doctrine or the Church position on the issue because clearly it isn't.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

Of course I read it. You're free to see it how you see it. Other's are free to draw their conclusions from the discussion and the quotes. Seems pretty clear to me, however, that your "meaning" behind "the Lord won't let the Prophet lead the Church astray" and the conclusions supposedly drawn (by some) in other threads is unsupportable interpretation. Frankly, everyone on the board could come to the conclusion that something should be interpreted a certain way and it has no bearing. This board does not dictate interpretation of scripture or doctrine. The church's teachings on this have been clear throughout the years. -- We need not worry. We may follow the prophet without fear. Twisting the meaning because the most famous version of the doctrine has something about oracles is, IMO, entirely invalid.

As to being sorry about my gospel study time...I value that, so no apology needed. I also clearly indicated that many of the quotes were generic to the thread topic rather than addressing what you said.

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,

Speaking of feeling like threads aren't being read. This was not said. Crash (and I full well know this because he is a friend) fully supports and believes in the idea of praying for confirmation. Our shared point-of-view has been clearly explained in multiple posts. He did not say what you're saying he did.

I feel like I am repeating myself

A lot of that going around. :)

. 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.

Actually he did throw a few scriptures back at you. His contention is that you simply don't accept that they mean what they say. He never said he is not going to provide such quotes, he said he has been quoting scripture all along.

Moreover, in your latest stuff to JAG you basically agree with the points we're trying to make. So why the debate here?

It strike me that you may be overly sensitive to the concept of a weaker testimony. It makes you defensive in that regard. I've said it before, but what's the problem? Why is it so problematic to essentially imply that if you need your testimony strengthened on an issue then go to the Lord for confirmation, but if your testimony is secure then you don't need to go to the Lord for confirmation. This is all that's being said.

I have a testimony of tithing, for example. I have never once in my life prayed for confirmation about tithing being a true principle. I already know. Is my knowledge based on other things I have prayed about (like the truthfulness of the gospel)? Yes. But my testimony of tithing is solid and sure. So I don't need to pray about it. If I felt the need to pray about it for confirmation of the principle, it would be a clear indicator that my testimony was not quite so sure. That's not a problem. Just basic good logic. No quotes needed. What, exactly are you arguing? You don't see it that way? Fine. No problem. But why get defensive about it? Moreover, along the same lines, the prophet may say something in conference and immediately, the spirit confirms to you it's true. Are we to go ask for confirmation then? Of course not. It's already been confirmed. There is a clear and obvious case for not needing to kneel down and pray about everything said.

Edited January 25, 2014 by church
added the words: for confirmation of the principle

[The Folk Prophet]

you have not, I repeat have not prove that

Emphatically stressing of the word "not" does not make a very strong argument either, and IMO is probably a large reason why crash is coming across as a bit annoyed.

Regardless, the church says and teaches what it says and teaches.

[Crash]

If I have to reply to this post of yours again, I will be repeating myself for the millionth time but one last time, again.. (and this will probably be my last post to you on this issue) is that you have not, I repeat have not prove that the Church believes that someone who prays more often than others to receive confirmation from the Lord does not have a strong testimony and they are not supporting their leaders as you clearly claimed.

Nope, the church doesn't say it, and neither did I. What I did say, and I guess I have to repeat myself again, too, is that if you feel the need to always pray about what the prophet says then your testimony is not as strong. I also said that if you always question what the prophet says then you don't sustain him. There is a big difference between always having to pray about everything he says, which is what I actually said, and praying once to know if he is ordained of God.

Suzie, I think I'm done. It seems I have offended you and for that I apologize and I ask for your forgiveness.

[Suzie]

Church ans Crash, I would like to end my part of this discussion on a good note. :)

I know you just "met" me online but please do not confuse my style of speech and debate (being straightforward, asking for sources, rebuttal,etc) as being overly-sensitive. I can assure you that when I debate topics specially LDS doctrine and Church history, I only focus on the content of the messages. I never take any of these threads personal.

As a matter of fact, JAG and I disagree in a lot of issues but we always remain civil while debating because none of us get sensitive about it or get offended because we both know we only focus on the content and because of that, it is a pleasure to debate with him.

So guys, I will just say we see things differently on this issue :) No need to apologize or ask for my forgiveness because there is absolutely nothing to forgive.

All the best to both of you. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

...please do not confuse my style of speech and debate (being straightforward, asking for sources, rebuttal,etc) as being overly-sensitive...

By "overly-sensitive" I do not necessarily only mean emotionally biased. One can be intellectually biased, and that is what I mean. I know, personally, I am intellectually biased concerning certain issues. (And certainly emotionally so on some issues as well, though I try to keep that out of it). I cannot entirely judge your emotional response to the issue, true. But I would still maintain that the responses you are giving are filled with a fairly clear bias against anyone implying that anyone else has less of a testimony or that faith is weak. I refer to that as overly-sensitive. But perhaps overly-sensitive is a bad way to put it because "sensitive" does imply emotion. Nonetheless, your responses have looked well past what has actually been said. That indicates a bias that is causing you to interpret what has been said to mean more than what has been said.

FYI, I am not upset with you in any regard. I would say the same thing. Don't confuse my straightforward replies as emotionally charged, unless, of course the straightforward reply is something akin to, "You're really ticking me off!" Heheh.