Help from our leaders...


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

The point of this is that we are entering (and have been for a while) in a BIG PICTURE territory, i.e. decisions are being made that do dramatically affect things.  And I'd like to hear from God on it.

Is that not exactly the place for personal revelation? I wonder if our model of having the prophet proclaim "Thus Saith the Lord!" is not the thing that's out of step. Perhaps a more perfect way is for the prophet to lead, guide, teach principles, and make decisions, and the rest of us go before our Father to gain revelatory testimony of his divine will being fulfilled through those actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But, if we are to agree with you, that would mean that the individuals are NOT lacking faith, but that the leaders are somehow lacking faith for not having received revelation.

I and a few others have spoken about individuals having personal revelation in both voice and vision as well as other miracles.  Do you deny these?  If you don't, then the remaining leg is to believe our leaders don't receive revelation. 

So, what exactly are you saying here?  Just who is treating sacred things lightly?

It's a good question.  I have received visions and personal revelation in voice and I've also just had regular impressions where things feel good.

Again, that's why I differentiate between impressions, inspiration (eueraka!), revelation, Revelation (i.e. Voice). The leaders don't claim to receive Revelation or Hear the VOTL anymore.  WW blatanly said so STE we have no more "thus saith the Lord"-i.e. we don't hear VOTL anymore.

As one goes up the graduated scale there is less room for doubt and more of "this is just the way it is", either I'm a true prophet or I'm not.  The problem being that the leaders want to claim a "this is just the way it is" without Visions or Revelations.  They want it both ways (and have done a great job of in general convincing people of it).  

Which is, they want everyone in the Church to conform to and believe that every impression they have, every word they say is like the VOTL and it's not.  It's why we can have such head-snapping reversals.  No way the Church was going to drop BSA when Monson was President. No way the Church was going to drop "I'm a Mormon" campaign with him President.

I truly believe that the way the Church actually operates is much, much different than the way lay members believe the Church operates.

The reason why I say this is that the process of understanding which impressions do and don't come from God is and can be challenging. A voice either is or isn't. Either it's from God or it ain't. A Voice you can write it down directly, come back to it 5 months from now and say, yeap that was God talking there!  Or in the case of WW, look back 130 years later.  I can read his journal in 1889 and 130 years later and the Spirit can bear witness to me, yes that is God talking to him.  In the case of the Manifesto, I can look and say . . .I don't know maybe he just got an impression, maybe he thought something else was going to happen.  I have no VOTL to look at with the Manifesto and say 130 later, God was moving through him.

An impression-well those can be wrong and you think it was from God only to find out, well maybe not so much, you re-interpret your impressions as time goes on, etc.

Impressions and inspirations are like a tuning fork and it takes a lot of practice and work to get finely tuned to it. It is the work of the Holy Ghost.

Do I believe the leaders are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, yes absolutely, but they also get it wrong.  Except their mistakes at that level are amplified and worse they give the impression that they can never be wrong currently . . .only in the past.  It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with dead leaders programs, words, acts, etc.  But don't you do that to the current leader.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Is that not exactly the place for personal revelation? I wonder if our model of having the prophet proclaim "Thus Saith the Lord!" is not the thing that's out of step. Perhaps a more perfect way is for the prophet to lead, guide, teach principles, and make decisions, and the rest of us go before our Father to gain revelatory testimony of his divine will being fulfilled through those actions.

That's a great point, I really appreciate your comment, and I'm fully on-board with your comment.

The challenge with this comes in BIG ITEMS.

How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes the other group is racist?

How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes homosexual activity is (or should be okay) and the other doesn't?

There (in my mind) are only two real solutions for items that are so big they drive deep wedges.  Either get a Revelation from God or split.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

That's a great point, I really appreciate your comment, and I'm fully on-board with your comment.

The challenge with this comes in BIG ITEMS.

How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes the other group is racist?

How can you be a united community of Saints when one group believes homosexual activity is (or should be okay) and the other doesn't?

There (in my mind) are only two real solutions for items that are so big they drive deep wedges.  Either get a Revelation from God or split.

Indeed. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Unity is absolutely vital. But it appears that unity is not supposed to be achieved by creating a list of necessary beliefs, a list of acceptable beliefs, and a list of unacceptable beliefs, and then policing our fellow Saints such that everyone accepts all items in List A and no items in List C, with List B being optional. My intuition suggests that this unity must be based around pure charity and real caring for each other, rather than around making sure we all have the correct beliefs about everything. It seems to be more of a family thing.

I share your concerns about racial divisiveness. I share your concerns about homosexuality becoming acceptable and sometimes popular, even within the very kingdom of God. I do not have the answers to such questions, nor do I pretend to. I agree with Paul's heartfelt words: "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" I long for the certainty of hearing a prophet tell us exactly what to do in this and that situation.

But I think that version of reality never actually existed, not like we sometimes think it did. And I think if it became our present reality, we would find it objectionable, not merely restrictive and confining, but almost a religious Goodthink.

Perhaps the time will come when our leaders will speak in bold terms and primary colors, when our courage must not flag lest our hearts fail us. Perhaps at that time we will have the privilege of standing up to the bullying and hatred of the world and of demonstrating our contempt for the good opinions of evil men. For the present time, that appears not to be what is required of us. We are to seek the establishment of Zion by becoming one, not through standardized opinions, but through Christlike love. I'm a blind man groping against the wall to find my way, so I don't preach from an elevated perspective. But whatever my weakness, I want to do what is required of me. I want to live in Zion. I want to do my part. I need to spend more time improving my ability to do my own part and less time worrying about how badly others seem to be doing theirs.

I do not look forward to a time when the Church divides. I hope that time never comes. Many will fall away; that's the way of the world. But I hope there is not some grand division in our future, similar to or even worse than what happened after 1844.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BobMaster said:

Lol . . .great point.

On the other hand, it was Christ who said "Ask and ye shall receive".

We are His People, if as a people we were begging and pleading to God for Him to do so, would He not do so? Or would he give us a stone?

At the risk of breaking that commandment...  I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't give you a yacht just because you begged and pleaded for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

You just undercut yourself.  The liahona had God's Word written on it from time to time.

You missed my point.  I am well aware that the words were from God.  Where are those words found in scripture?  We don't have them.  We have Nephi's "report" on what was written on the Liahona.

So, how is that different than OD1?  WW received the vebatim revelation.  And he gave the report on that revelation.  But Nephi's words are considered scripture, but OD1 is not?

Quote

I am have not said that one must ONLY obey VOTL, and that God must ONLY communicate through VOTL.

At least we have some common ground.  So, that is a small something we can share.

Quote

Many, many things the Church leaders do are absolutely done through inspiration. I only state that in the big items (such as polygamy, homosexuality, etc.) I want to hear from God.  In general, the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.

Now, this is an interesting point that I want to save until later.

Quote

Does it really matter if we do "Come Follow Me"? No. Does it really matter if we have 2 hours vs. 3 hours? No. Does it really matter if we combine HP with Elder's Quorum? No.

I'd disagree.  But no use trying to convince you of that.  Needless to say, if it weren't for that how do you think we'd be faring during the COVID quarantine?

Quote

The point of this is that we are entering (and have been for a while) in a BIG PICTURE territory, i.e. decisions are being made that do dramatically affect things.  And I'd like to hear from God on it.

Believe it or not, I am 100% in agreement with you on this last bit.  Yes it would.

My theory:  I think that in the coming days, we're going to be completely cut off in communications from our prophet.  Stakes will mostly be autonomous, possibly wards.  So, all our pleas to hear from the prophet will go unanswered.

We've had 102 years to see how much we pay attention to the prophet and we will soon be deprived of that blessing.

34 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

As one goes up the graduated scale there is less room for doubt and more of "this is just the way it is", either I'm a true prophet or I'm not.  

...

The reason why I say this is that the process of understanding which impressions do and don't come from God is and can be challenging. A voice either is or isn't. Either it's from God or it ain't. A Voice you can write it down directly, come back to it 5 months from now and say, yeap that was God talking there!  An impression-well those can be wrong and you think it was from God only to find out, well maybe not so much, you re-interpret your impressions as time goes on, etc.

I partially agree with you.  I think that is so MOST of the time -- at least for me.

I've had "impressions" that were just as clear as a glorious vision.  Absolutely no doubt.  I've heard verbal repetitions of scriptures in my mind.  But it could have just been my own memories. But I could swear that I heard a voice.

Pres Nelson is famous for his "notepad".  And it is full of "impressions". But he specifically knows the difference between the milder impressions and the CLEAR DIRECTION of the Lord -- in a manner that cannot be described in any other way than a "strong impression."

Quote

Many, many things the Church leaders do are absolutely done through inspiration. I only state that in the big items (such as polygamy, homosexuality, etc.) I want to hear from God.  In general, the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.

Quote

The problem being that the leaders want to claim a "this is just the way it is" without Visions or Revelations.  They want it both ways (and have done a great job of in general convincing people of it).  

I'm not sure if I've heard that coming from the GAs.  I've heard them say that the VOTL is less common.  And we usually get by in the day-to-day with the impressions and inspirations.

Quote

Which is, they want everyone in the Church to conform to and believe that every impression they have, every word they say is like the VOTL and it's not. 

I really don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

It's why we can have such head-snapping reversals.  No way the Church was going to drop BSA when Monson was President. No way the Church was going to drop "I'm a Mormon" campaign with him President.

I don't see it that way.  I see that things in society are moving so fast that we will also move very fast.

In a game of chess, we can take a very long time moving things into place.  But when things are going as far as they will go, all the moves go very fast.  And each move back and forth is made for a reason.

Quote

I truly believe that the way the Church actually operates is much, much different than the way lay members believe the Church operates.

I agree.  But I think we're talking about different things.

Quote

Impressions and inspirations are like a tuning fork and it takes a lot of practice and work to get finely tuned to it. It is the work of the Holy Ghost.

100% agree.

Quote

Do I believe the leaders are moved upon by the Holy Ghost, yes absolutely, but they also get it wrong.  Except their mistakes at that level are amplified and worse they give the impression that they can never be wrong currently . . .only in the past.  It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with dead leaders programs, words, acts, etc.  But don't you do that to the current leader.

No, I think it is perfectly ok to disagree with Church leaders.  But we're asked not to murmur about it.  IOW, don't start a campaign to remove someone from their calling simply because you disagree with a single decision.

I had this bishop that was a hard-working man.  And he tried to do right by his wife and kids.  But he was certainly a very flawed man.  He didn't have what I felt was proper compassion for people.  He was very lacking in understanding gospel doctrine and scripture knowledge.  He had a temper.  blah -blah -blah.

I was doing my best not to complain about him to anyone.  But I felt I had to pray about it.

I told the Lord all my concerns about this bishop.  You wanna know what the Lord's response was?

Quote

Do you think you could do a better job?

As i thought on this question (actually in a split second -- but for an android 0.68 seconds is an eternity) I realized that, no, I really couldn't do any better.  I'd probably do worse.  And even if I could, I didn't think I wanted that kind of responsibility.  So, instead, I was to pray for him to learn to be a better man and a better bishop.  and I was also to give him whatever support I could so that he could do the best he could.

Something for you to think about.

So, regarding the big things: I don't think we as a people are ready to do what is necessary regarding those things.  We as a people are already taking things too lightly.  We'll receive it when we are ready.

But the first thing would be 

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Indeed. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine." Unity is absolutely vital. But it appears that unity is not supposed to be achieved by creating a list of necessary beliefs, a list of acceptable beliefs, and a list of unacceptable beliefs, and then policing our fellow Saints such that everyone accepts all items in List A and no items in List C, with List B being optional. My intuition suggests that this unity must be based around pure charity and real caring for each other, rather than around making sure we all have the correct beliefs about everything. It seems to be more of a family thing.

I share your concerns about racial divisiveness. I share your concerns about homosexuality becoming acceptable and sometimes popular, even within the very kingdom of God. I do not have the answers to such questions, nor do I pretend to. I agree with Paul's heartfelt words: "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" I long for the certainty of hearing a prophet tell us exactly what to do in this and that situation.

But I think that version of reality never actually existed, not like we sometimes think it did. And I think if it became our present reality, we would find it objectionable, not merely restrictive and confining, but almost a religious Goodthink.

Perhaps the time will come when our leaders will speak in bold terms and primary colors, when our courage must not flag lest our hearts fail us. Perhaps at that time we will have the privilege of standing up to the bullying and hatred of the world and of demonstrating our contempt for the good opinions of evil men. For the present time, that appears not to be what is required of us. We are to seek the establishment of Zion by becoming one, not through standardized opinions, but through Christlike love. I'm a blind man groping against the wall to find my way, so I don't preach from an elevated perspective. But whatever my weakness, I want to do what is required of me. I want to live in Zion. I want to do my part. I need to spend more time improving my ability to do my own part and less time worrying about how badly others seem to be doing theirs.

I do not look forward to a time when the Church divides. I hope that time never comes. Many will fall away; that's the way of the world. But I hope there is not some grand division in our future, similar to or even worse than what happened after 1844.

That is a great answer man.  It really is.

As I have studied the Scriptures to find the patterns and understand current reality there is this balance that is needed.  Too much order and restriction (i.e. policing everyone) and life becomes a straightjacket and people will rebel because it's too confining. Too much chaos (liberation) and life becomes chaotic with people not having any idea which way to turn.  So many voices, proclaiming so many different things, which way to go?

The scriptures have patterns about purity and defilement. Which at a much higher level (hopefully you can go with me there) is really what we are talking about. Too much purity and no one can qualify because we are human. Too much defilement and we end up destroying ourselves because of our filth.

I believe we are entering a time of division, where many things (not just Church) will split, splinter and fragment. I believe we need to recognize that it's okay. It's okay if things split and break-off.  The parable of the Olive Trees comes to mind. Christ many, many times has used division to create something greater and grander than before.  A split or a division is actually a repeating pattern in scriptures. 

It is in fact the pattern of life. When we create new life, new babies, they are a split of us individually. They are a division and a recombination.  It is a micro death and a resurrection.  That is one of the absolute beauties of Christ!  It is so glorious that it makes you want to jump for joy.

ALL THINGS, ALL THINGS, typify Him.  A split is just a death and from death comes life or a resurrection.  It is inevitable.  Sometimes things have to die in order to be reborn.

You see this same pattern over and over throughout time and especially with Christianity itself.  Christianity has gone through many death/resurrection cycles, each on at a different level and scale.  And so it will be at His 2nd Coming; a death must occur so that He can be reborn again.

-----

No, I don't particularly care about the modern ideologies because they don't affect me, I have my answers as I have pondered and studied over many years.  I worry for my posterity, leading and guiding them to the point where they can see through the false, vain, wicked ideologies of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

If a prophet is speaking for Christ, then why do we not canonize his words?  I for one believe every single word spoken of by Christ through his prophets should be canonized-let's canonize every time a prophet speaks then?

 

40 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Does it really matter if we do "Come Follow Me"? No. Does it really matter if we have 2 hours vs. 3 hours? No. Does it really matter if we combine HP with Elder's Quorum? No.

Those things are so minuscule that whether or not it actually came from God or from man is pretty immaterial.

 

These two statements seem contradictory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Colirio said:

These two statements seem contradictory. 

I understand why you might think so. I will clarify.

If those items listed did come directly from God, as in dictated Revelation vs. "well we feel good about it". Then yes I would absolutely want them canonized regardless of how small they seem. For me, those are generally items which do not change much of anything, they add no new doctine, they do not clarify anything, so meh do I really care if it's a "well we feel good about it", not really. If it's a direct Revelation, that would be cool, let's canonize it.

Changing Temple rites on the other hand. Yes, that fundamentally changes core doctrine (and is not backed up by Scripture), so for something like that, yes it is extremely important to have a Revelation vs. "well we feel good about it".

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You missed my point.  I am well aware that the words were from God.  Where are those words found in scripture?  We don't have them.  We have Nephi's "report" on what was written on the Liahona.

So, how is that different than OD1?  WW received the vebatim revelation.  And he gave the report on that revelation.  But Nephi's words are considered scripture, but OD1 is not?

Not every man who occupies an office is what that office states he is. I think we do a disservice in many ways by having the office of Prophet and a prophet.  Just because one is ordained to the office of an Elder does not make one an elder. An elder denotes wisdom, knowledge, patience, etc. But an Elder is simply a title.  A title and acting in the capacity which the title denotes are different things.

For lack of better words, each Prophet must prove himself, he must have his bona fidas.  Just because another man or men claim they gave you the office of a Bishop or the office of Prophet does not a bishop or prophet make. It only confers the right to be one.

Nephi had a record of being a prophet, other instances record his conversations for the world with God. Joseph Smith had a record of being a prophet, his works demonstrated he was a prophet. WW, maybe-time will tell. That he received personal Revelation is undeniable (it is written in his journal), that he received Church-wide Revelation, he claims he did but the record does not show that he actually did. I think he tried to be a prophet, I think he both succeeded and failed.

He succeeded in that he did what he thought he had to do so the Church would grow, it grew. He failed because in his push to be a prophet for the body of the Church he introduced a very pernicious doctrine-which is that the President of the Church can never led the Church astray. A prophet of God it is true would never led the Church astray, but a Prophet or a President of the Church, yes absolutely.  The simple stress test of this is common consent and voting.

If the body of the Saints become so wicked that they cannot tell right from wrong (which is occurring), then they will allow themselves to be led by a man at the helm who will led them astray, why? Because in the Church, Prophets come from the general body of the Church.  If the body is corrupted, then the Prophet will be corrupted.

I know this is long, but another way of saying it, is that what WW was really saying is that the body of the Saints will never become so wicked, so corrupt, so evil as to be led astray by their President.

So if you believe that the Saints as a body will never become wicked, then yes WW's saying holds true; if however you believe that it is possible, even likely that the general body of Saints becomes wicked and desires wickedness, then no his saying is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'd disagree.  But no use trying to convince you of that.  Needless to say, if it weren't for that how do you think we'd be faring during the COVID quarantine?

I think without Come Follow Me, it might be better.  I have genuinely been stunned by how little members read their scriptures.  Come Follow Me is used as a substitute for scripture many times.  Other times, people just read it and say, "welp, this is what our leaders say this verse means so done deal".  Other times, members think "oh this is the Church's program so it must come directly from the Prophet, i.e. from God".

If it were me, I'd do away with almost all "aides" and helps I think in most cases it makes it worse. Why?  Well because members don't know how to read and study the scriptures. In the age of youtube, and google, everyone wants quick answers.  But the best answers are those that take time to study and really ponder.  I'll spend days pondering a few verses.  Sure, I'll look at what other people right, but God gave me a brain, he gave me the Holy Ghost, what someone else writes is of no more worth than what he inspires me while in deep meditation.

It's so strange, our people are a walking contradiction.  We claim visions but have none today; we claim Revelations but none today, when someone mentions we should have them, they are an apostate or told "we aren't commanded in all things", God gives us more freedom now, yet at the same time they will hold up Come Follow Me as this divine oracle to save us.  It's quite interesting.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My theory:  I think that in the coming days, we're going to be completely cut off in communications from our prophet.  Stakes will mostly be autonomous, possibly wards.  So, all our pleas to hear from the prophet will go unanswered.

Oddly enough, I have had the same premonitions and have been prepping for it. 

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

I think we do a disservice in many ways by having the office of Prophet and a prophet.  Just because one is ordained to the office of an Elder does not make one an elder. An elder denotes wisdom, knowledge, patience, etc. But an Elder is simply a title.  A title and acting in the capacity which the title denotes are different things.

I have never heard of the "office of Prophet". I do not believe there is any such office in the Church, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.

"Elder" is an office of the Melchizedek Priesthood as restored today, along with "high priest", "seventy", "patriarch", and "apostle". The title "Elder" is simply an acknowledgement that one holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and is thus authorized to act in the capacity in which he is acting. So your statement that "[being] ordained to the office of an Elder does not make one an elder" is clearly incorrect. Of course it does. it's a tautology. Yes, "elder" also carries connotations of wisdom, knowledge, patience, experience, and many other virtues. So does "bishop", or "brother", or "father". Yet an imperfect man can still be any or all of those things, so long as he fulfills the definitional requirements of being ordained a bishop, or of having a sibling or child.

8 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Nephi had a record of being a prophet, other instances record his conversations for the world with God. Joseph Smith had a record of being a prophet, his works demonstrated he was a prophet. WW, maybe-time will tell.

Time has already told, BobMaster. Wilford Woodruff was the president of the Restored Church. In that capacity, he acted as the prophet. You seem to be wanting to question whether he acted as a "real" prophet or whether he simply occupied the office. I think there are several very serious errors in that way of thinking, but the most obvious is also the most elementary. The Church is led by prophecy, and a prophet stands at its head. Wilford Woodruff was that prophet during the time he was the senior living apostle on the earth. Your distinction has no real meaning.

There is a reason why the Restored Church values uniformity of doctrine. The true and full doctrine of the gospel is far too profound, detailed, and intricate for a man like you or me to comprehend in full. We are given part of the gospel, that part that we can digest and eventually understand. If we stay true to that piece that we are given, we are given more. If instead we decide that we actually know best and demand that the doctrine, as taught by those called and ordained to teach it, must instead conform to our own beliefs, then our understanding closes and we are left in our own ignorance. We have taken away from us even that which we were given, until we are left fully to ourselves.

Latter-day Saints in this forum and around the world are seeking to live by the truths that we have been given in hopes of preparing ourselves to receive more. On the whole, it seems to be working pretty well for us. We hope you will join us, or at least respect what we are trying to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Pres Nelson is famous for his "notepad".  And it is full of "impressions". But he specifically knows the difference between the milder impressions and the CLEAR DIRECTION of the Lord -- in a manner that cannot be described in any other way than a "strong impression."

I'm not sure if I've heard that coming from the GAs.  I've heard them say that the VOTL is less common.  And we usually get by in the day-to-day with the impressions and

I agree with you about murmuring and about not sustaining over one item. There are times which it is important to absolutely not sustain.  That is when the doctrine or teachings of the leader are so corrupted that it cannot be redeemed.

I'm in the show-me state.  To be perfectly blunt (and I say with calmly); I've been a member for 30+ years and quite frankly I'm just tired of carrying water for the leadership.  Put up or shut-up. Leadership wants give the aura of being special witnesses, when in general it just boils down to we are special witnesses because of our Office.  This has been going on for too long.

I listened to an old talk by Packer (one of his first) where he rationalizes to the body of Saints why they don't proclaim they have seen Christ and then suggests that he has, but that he can't directly say he has because he doesn't want to offend any of his other brothern in the quorum in case they haven't.  I don't know what it is about our leadership, they think the members can't handle it, think the world can't handle it or whatever. I like Packer, but the self-justification about why we don't let our light shine is just tiring.

In these last days when the world is as Sodom and Gomorrah, I have no patience for weak-kneed leadership.  Either be bold and proclaim it or don't and let someone else who will be bold do it.

Put up or shut up.

If as a leader Nelson has seen Christ, then boldly declare it, if he hasn't that's fine too then just say so.  If you have a Revelation and hear the Voice of God, then declare it, if not, fine but don't intone, give hints or act like a "notepad" by your bed stand is a marker of clear direction.

As he said, (and I do believe this is prophetic), Time is running out.  So either start boldly declaring it like Joseph Smith or shut up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have never heard of the "office of Prophet".

What do we sustain them as?

Do you really think a prophet of God needs a people to "sustain" him? 

Was Nephi "sustained"? Was Joseph Smith "sustained"?  Was Samuel the Lamanite "sustained"?

No, they just were.  They didn't need a people's approval of them to make them called of God.  A significant amount of prophets were not sustained by the people.  Some were yes, Moses and others, but being a prophet is not something one is "sustained" for, they may be one in the same, but they do not need be. 

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Time has already told, BobMaster. Wilford Woodruff was the president of the Restored Church. In that capacity, he acted as the prophet. You seem to be wanting to question whether he acted as a "real" prophet or whether he simply occupied the office. I think there are several very serious errors in that way of thinking, but the most obvious is also the most elementary. The Church is led by prophecy, and a prophet stands at its head. Wilford Woodruff was that prophet during the time he was the senior living apostle on the earth. Your distinction has no real meaning.

No, it's a circular argument, which is the Church exists, by virtue of it existing means it is led by prophecy.  I can say that about any other religion which has existed for a period of time.

Time has not already told because we are not done with the story of what WW did, which is by his Manifesto he enshrined in Church lore that whatever a Prophet does is right.  And that teaching will in the future cause serious problems.

It will happen with homosexuality, which is when the general membership of the Church as a whole, desires for homosexuality in it's Temples, the President/Prophet will do so with a Manifesto and then the general wicked, idolatrous membership of the Church can go on in wicked hubris about being led by a "prophet".

In fact, the current Prophet of the Church, at some level I believe, understands this.  He has done several things which have broken deep patterns in the Scripture. Whether God is inspiring Him to do so or not is irrelevant. 

The patterns are broken and as such, modern Israel is and will become a whore. A whore after other gods, gods of flesh, gods of stone, gods of idolatry.  Yet it is only after she has gone awhoring after other gods that she will return to her true Husband.  While she has rejected submitting to Christ, He will always be there with outstreched arms, waiting for her to return and repent of her whoredoms.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Not every man who occupies an office is what that office states he is. I think we do a disservice in many ways by having the office of Prophet and a prophet.  Just because one is ordained to the office of an Elder does not make one an elder. An elder denotes wisdom, knowledge, patience, etc. But an Elder is simply a title.  A title and acting in the capacity which the title denotes are different things.

For lack of better words, each Prophet must prove himself, he must have his bona fidas.  Just because another man or men claim they gave you the office of a Bishop or the office of Prophet does not a bishop or prophet make. It only confers the right to be one.

Nephi had a record of being a prophet, other instances record his conversations for the world with God. Joseph Smith had a record of being a prophet, his works demonstrated he was a prophet. WW, maybe-time will tell. That he received personal Revelation is undeniable (it is written in his journal), that he received Church-wide Revelation, he claims he did but the record does not show that he actually did. I think he tried to be a prophet, I think he both succeeded and failed.

He succeeded in that he did what he thought he had to do so the Church would grow, it grew. He failed because in his push to be a prophet for the body of the Church he introduced a very pernicious doctrine-which is that the President of the Church can never led the Church astray. A prophet of God it is true would never led the Church astray, but a Prophet or a President of the Church, yes absolutely.  The simple stress test of this is common consent and voting.

If the body of the Saints become so wicked that they cannot tell right from wrong (which is occurring), then they will allow themselves to be led by a man at the helm who will led them astray, why? Because in the Church, Prophets come from the general body of the Church.  If the body is corrupted, then the Prophet will be corrupted.

I know this is long, but another way of saying it, is that what WW was really saying is that the body of the Saints will never become so wicked, so corrupt, so evil as to be led astray by their President.

So if you believe that the Saints as a body will never become wicked, then yes WW's saying holds true; if however you believe that it is possible, even likely that the general body of Saints becomes wicked and desires wickedness, then no his saying is false. 

On this, in regards to Wilford Woodruff, my thoughts are that you are right and you are wrong.

I agree, Wilford Woodruff had a choice to make, and the choice was HIS to MAKE.  The reason he made the choice was because of a vision he was given, at least from what I understand.  He saw that if they continued to follow Polygamy the saints would lose their lands and even their freedoms.  They would be brought to chains (as it were) and dire things would occur.  (The vision, was more detailed than that, but that sums it up).  Thus, if they continued to practice polygamy, many terrible things would occur. 

As he was also the President of the Church, he had the mantle of leadership to decide the course of which direction the Church was to go, and based upon the knowledge which the Lord gave him, made the decision on which direction the Church would take.

In this, the Prophet received revelation and prophesy of what could happen in the future and then relied upon inspiration on how to avoid such a fate. 

You are also correct  (in my opinion) on what Wilford Woodruff was also stating.  It was a direct reflection on what Brigham Young also had stated.  In essence, that if one follows the majority of the body of the Church, as they are led in the Spirit, they will not be led astray.  The only way the collective body of the Saints can allow the church to fall is if they themselves fall away from the Spirit and being led by it.

But, in the instance of polygamy, Wilford Woodruff WAS making the decision by seeing a Vision.  It is interesting to note that the Church vocally said it enforced the manifesto, but in act, still had polygamy in practice among it for many years afterwards.  It wasn't until Joseph F. Smith that the enforcement on the ban of polygamy started to truly become a very strict standard.

It may be that today many of the things still occur in a similar manner where the Lord reveals what may happen if we continue on a course of action, but the choice of what decision to make is still left up to the individual in charge.  I think there are also occasions where the Lord gives an answer and instead of accepting that, those in charge continue to plead for a different answer.  Eventually the Lord let's them go the way they want because it is obvious they don't want to listen to what the Lord told them in the first place.

I wonder, at times, considering the wording that the Prophet gave in relation to LGBT, if that is the case in the reversal of the policy.  He stated that they had plead and asked about it for a while, which obviously shows that they wanted to change the original 'revelation' given by the Lord previously.  AS I am NOT the prophet or in any position close to it, I have no idea, but the wording they utilized was curious in relation to what had already be stated was revelation previously vs. what was revealed to them a few years later.  In this, as many members, I am not in a position to really question what or why in my following in the church, but to do as they say.

However, I do feel the church is still led by the Prophet and we still possess the Priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation.  As such, there is no other place to go right now for those saving ordinances.  if not the church, as Uchtdorf (I think it was him) has said, where else would you go?  Only the church has the power to bring people to exaltation, and if we do not have that, there is no other place with that power on the Earth.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

What do we sustain them as?

We sustain them each and all as prophets, seers, and revelators. But those are not offices.

2 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Do you really think a prophet of God needs a people to "sustain" him?

Of course I do.

2 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Was Nephi "sustained", was Alma "sustained"? Was Joseph Smith "sustained"?

Yes, yes, and yes.

2 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

No, they just were.  They didn't need a people's approval of them to make them called of God.

This is not and never has been a question of needing other people's approval to make one called of God. That's a misrepresentation of what we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

On this, in regards to Wilford Woodruff, my thoughts are that you are right and you are wrong.

I agree, Wilford Woodruff had a choice to make, and the choice was HIS to MAKE.  The reason he made the choice was because of a vision he was given, at least from what I understand.  He saw that if they continued to follow Polygamy the saints would lose their lands and even their freedoms.  They would be brought to chains (as it were) and dire things would occur.  (The vision, was more detailed than that, but that sums it up).  Thus, if they continued to practice polygamy, many terrible things would occur. 

As he was also the President of the Church, he had the mantle of leadership to decide the course of which direction the Church was to go, and based upon the knowledge which the Lord gave him, made the decision on which direction the Church would take.

In this, the Prophet received revelation and prophesy of what could happen in the future and then relied upon inspiration on how to avoid such a fate. 

You are also correct  (in my opinion) on what Wilford Woodruff was also stating.  It was a direct reflection on what Brigham Young also had stated.  In essence, that if one follows the majority of the body of the Church, as they are led in the Spirit, they will not be led astray.  The only way the collective body of the Saints can allow the church to fall is if they themselves fall away from the Spirit and being led by it.

But, in the instance of polygamy, Wilford Woodruff WAS making the decision by seeing a Vision.  It is interesting to note that the Church vocally said it enforced the manifesto, but in act, still had polygamy in practice among it for many years afterwards.  It wasn't until Joseph F. Smith that the enforcement on the ban of polygamy started to truly become a very strict standard.

It may be that today many of the thing still occur in a similar manner where the Lord reveals what may happen if we continue on a course of action, but the choice of what decision to make is still left up to the individual in charge.  I think there are also occasion where the Lord gives an answer and instead of accepting that, those in charge continue to plead for a different answer.  Eventually the Lord let's them go the way they want because it is obvious they don't want to listen to what the Lord told them in the first place.

I wonder, at times, considering the wording that the Prophet gave in relation to LGBT, if that is the case in the reversal of the policy.  He stated that they had plead and asked about it for a while, which obviously shows that they wanted to change the original 'revelation' given by the Lord previously.  AS I am NOT the prophet or in any position close to it, I have no idea, but the wording they utilized was curious in relation to what had already be stated was revelation previously vs. what was revealed to them a few years later.  In this, as many members, I am not in a position to really question what or why in my following in the church, but to do as they say.

However, I do feel the church is still led by the Prophet and we still possess the Priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation.  As such, there is no other place to go right now for those saving ordinances.  if not the church, as Uchtdorf (I think it was him) has said, where else would you go?  Only the church has the power to bring people to exaltation, and if we do not have that, there is no other place with that power on the Earth.

Now much of that I agree with.  Thank you; very well stated. I do agree that WW was shown a vision and then he was given the choice, so were the Saints.

Where did they place their faith?  Did they place their faith in the commandments that God gave them and they would submit to those commandments regardless of the outcome, giving up their very lives if necessary?  Or would they submit to Caesar?

I agree with you on that aspect.  Totally.  It's why I don't have animosity or anger to WW.  He made a choice, that choice was his to make.

What I have issue with is that if we truly believe in our faith, if we truly believe in Nephi's statement, then there is no way they should have ever submitted.  The submitted because their faith in God failed.  They did not have sufficient faith to endure all trials in order to do what God commanded.

And yes, for now there is no other place. Yet at some point, the Church body will become so corrupted, so wicked that they will cast out any who do not follow in whoredoms. At some point, the ordinances will have become so corrupted that it won't really matter. My allegience is to God not the Church and for now it is the best and only place to reside.  At some point that will probably change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

We sustain them each and all as prophets, seers, and revelators. But those are not offices.

Of course I do.

Yes, yes, and yes.

This is not and never has been a question of needing other people's approval to make one called of God. That's a misrepresentation of what we're talking about.

So Samuel the Lamanite, a wonderful prophet? The people took a vote to sustain him? Might want to read that story again.  A prophet does not need a formal sustaining vote to be a prophet.

Whether a group of people recognize a man as a prophet or not is irrelevant to him being a prophet. Jonah? He didn't need to be "sustained", he just was.

In fact, many, many times the people reject the prophets because they come from outside the established lines of authority and hierarchy.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

No, it's a circular argument, which is the Church exists, by virtue of it existing means it is led by prophecy.  I can say that about any other religion which has existed for a period of time.

This is incorrect. The premise was never "the Church exists, therefore it is led by prophecy". I honestly do not even understand how you could arrive at that based on what I wrote.

7 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Time has not already told because we are not done with the story of what WW did, which is by his Manifesto he enshrined in Church lore that whatever a Prophet does is right.  And that teaching will in the future cause serious problems.

BobMaster, this is clearly false. President Woodruff never said anything even approaching, "Whatever a prophet does is right." That is pure falsehood. What he said was:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme [sic]. 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.

That is a very far cry indeed from "Whatever a prophet does is right."

7 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

It will happen with homosexuality, which is when the general membership of the Church as a whole, desires for homosexuality in it's Temples, the President/Prophet will do so with a Manifesto and then the general wicked, idolatrous membership of the Church can go on in wicked hubris about being led by a "prophet".

Do you honestly believe this will happen? Do you truly believe that the senior leaders of the Church, even the living apostles of Jesus Christ, will invent a Manifesto to allow homosexual "marriages" in the temples of the Lord? Because that is open apostasy. If the kingdom of the Lord is to endure until his coming, that cannot happen, because it will signal a complete apostasy from the truth.

7 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

In fact, the current Prophet of the Church, at some level I believe, understands this.  He has done several things which have broken deep patterns in the Scripture. Whether God is inspiring Him to do so or not is irrelevant.

The patterns are broken and as such, modern Israel is and will become a whore. A whore after other gods, gods of flesh, gods of stone, gods of idolatry.

f I read you right, you are explicitly rejecting the calling of the Lord's apostles on the earth. I don't know what to say in response, except that you are sadly and dangerously mistaken.

7 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

 Yet it is only after she has gone awhoring after other gods that she will return to her true Husband. While she has rejected submitting to Christ, He will always be there with outstreched arms, waiting for her to return and repent of her whoredoms.

This much, at least, I can agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

So Samuel the Lamanite, a wonderful prophet? The people took a vote to sustain him? Might want to read that story again.  A prophet does not need a formal sustaining vote to be a prophet.

Whether a group of people recognize a man as a prophet or not is irrelevant to him being a prophet. Jonah? He didn't need to be "sustained", he just was.

In fact, many, many times the people reject the prophets because they come from outside the established lines of authority and hierarchy.

I don't understand why you keep attempting to argue a point that everyone already concedes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is incorrect. The premise was never "the Church exists, therefore it is led by prophecy". I honestly do not even understand how you could arrive at that based on what I wrote.

BobMaster, this is clearly false. President Woodruff never said anything even approaching, "Whatever a prophet does is right." That is pure falsehood. What he said was:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme [sic]. 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.

That is a very far cry indeed from "Whatever a prophet does is right."

Do you honestly believe this will happen? Do you truly believe that the senior leaders of the Church, even the living apostles of Jesus Christ, will invent a Manifesto to allow homosexual "marriages" in the temples of the Lord? Because that is open apostasy. If the kingdom of the Lord is to endure until his coming, that cannot happen, because it will signal a complete apostasy from the truth.

f I read you right, you are explicitly rejecting the calling of the Lord's apostles on the earth. I don't know what to say in response, except that you are sadly and dangerously mistaken.

This much, at least, I can agree with.

"to lead astray", i.e. to teach that which in the sight of God is not right. Obviously if, a Prophet cannot lead astray a people, "i.e. teach that which is wrong", then whatever he teaches is right. Apologies I should have said teach not do.

Do I believe homosexuality in the Temples.  Yes, I absolutely do believe it is going to happen.  10-15 years. The members will clamor for it.  To not do so in will bring such amount of persecution upon the Saints it will be bad.  As a people, we haven't been persecuted in over 100 years.  There is no evidence that as a people we have a backbone strong enough to withstand any measure of persecution.

I'm not rejecting their calling. They have broken the patterns in Scriptures, at the highest levels on a very symbolic level. Now whether those patterns being broken are because they wanted them broken, or simply a manifestation of a people who has broken the patterns.  That's what you're not understanding, I pay very close attention and they are merely manifesting the outward change in symbols of the inward change in the people.

I can say with absolute firmness and assuredly that the Saints as a body are whoring after other gods.

Why do you think Hosea married a prostitute?  He was a prophet and commanded by God to do so.  Why? Because he was only demonstrating at a higher level the inward corruptness and wickedness of ancient Israel. 

Why do you think God commanded Nelson to break the patterns? Because he is only demonstrating at a higher level the inward corruptness and whoring after other gods of modern Israel.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I wonder, at times, considering the wording that the Prophet gave in relation to LGBT, if that is the case in the reversal of the policy.  He stated that they had plead and asked about it for a while, which obviously shows that they wanted to change the original 'revelation' given by the Lord previously.  AS I am NOT the prophet or in any position close to it, I have no idea, but the wording they utilized was curious in relation to what had already be stated was revelation previously vs. what was revealed to them a few years later.  In this, as many members, I am not in a position to really question what or why in my following in the church, but to do as they say.

Yes, it is interesting.  It is also interesting to know that was one of the things that Monson felt God told him to do and yet 3 years later and not much into Nelson's Presidency it was reversed? 

That is very curious; I think God was testing his people.  How much wickedness do they desire? Yeah well we desire quite a bit of it-so it's going to end up being a full-on carnival in the Church.  You are going to see so much carnival upside/down inside the Church it will blow your mind.  There will be no reverence for keeping inside the Church holy and sacred; just like allowing an openly homosexual choir (who proudly proclaims their sin) to sing praises to Christ (mind-blowing hypocrisy) on Temple ground.

The carnival will enter the Church.

It's okay though.  I understand with the patterns of death and resurrection.  That which is true dies and resurrects, that which is false just dies. Out of this death process we are going through, the resurrection of the Church will be impressive.  When Nelson states STE get ready it is going to be impressive, I am absolutely in 100% agreement.

But first we have to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share