Help from our leaders...


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

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? 

Not if you were paying attention to the behind the scenes stuff.  it actually seemed like a careful dance of swords that you'd see choreographed in a movie.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure which aspect you're talking about here. But would you have these homosexuals NOT sing praises to Christ?

Quote

The carnival will enter the Church.

Bold prediction.  What do you back that with?  Are you a prophet?  Ready to replace the apostles already?

Quote

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.

And such death and rebirth has never happened without the Prophet being removed first. e.g. Eli.

There is proof that the Lord allowed a prophet quite a bit of rope before he hanged himself.  The fact is that he did, indeed, hang himself.  And the Lord removed him from his position prior to the rise of Samuel.

Did Samuel need sustaining?  There are an awful lot of nuances of his story that would say yes, and no.  To flat out say "they just are" is missing half the story.  To say they are "only a prophet because we sustain them as such" is also missing half the story.  

If you only see with one eye, you're going to miss a lot of details.

*****  BTW, I appreciate the liveliness of this thread.  Our normal rabble rouser has been stoking the fire just to keep things interesting.  But his heart really wasn't in it.  Thank you for your input.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

??? Okay, maybe I misinterpreted your writings, if so I apologize. I thought you were saying the did need a people to sustain them.

Yes, absolutely. As my citation of Moses in Exodus shows, prophets very often need the (in that case literal) sustaining of the people they're leading. If a flock won't follow its leader and help him be successful, he often will not succeed.

But the failure of a people to sustain their leader doesn't mean the leader has failed, or wasn't truly called. This has been your claim, and I do not understand why you keep hammering home the obvious truth that a prophet can be called of God even when the people don't sustain him. The people's lack of sustaining doesn't mean the man is not divinely called. It means only that the people have rejected the Lord by rejecting the leadership and counsel of his prophets, as the people of Ammonihah or king Noah and his priests (other than Alma).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Yes, absolutely. As my citation of Moses in Exodus shows, prophets very often need the (in that case literal) sustaining of the people they're leading. If a flock won't follow its leader and help him be successful, he often will not succeed.

But the failure of a people to sustain their leader doesn't mean the leader has failed, or wasn't truly called. This has been your claim, and I do not understand why you keep hammering home the obvious truth that a prophet can be called of God even when the people don't sustain him. The people's lack of sustaining doesn't mean the man is not divinely called. It means only that the people have rejected the Lord by rejecting the leadership and counsel of his prophets, as the people of Ammonihah or king Noah and his priests (other than Alma).

We must be talking cross purposes. I do apologize for the confusion.

Yes, I agree with what you wrote above.  The question I have is thus: is it possible for a people to sustain as a prophet a man who is not one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Not if you were paying attention to the behind the scenes stuff.  it actually seemed like a careful dance of swords that you'd see choreographed in a movie.

I'm not sure which aspect you're talking about here. But would you have these homosexuals NOT sing praises to Christ?

Bold prediction.  What do you back that with?  Are you a prophet?  Ready to replace the apostles already?

And such death and rebirth has never happened without the Prophet being removed first. e.g. Eli.

There is proof that the Lord allowed a prophet quite a bit of rope before he hanged himself.  The fact is that he did, indeed, hang himself.  And the Lord removed him from his position prior to the rise of Samuel.

Did Samuel need sustaining?  There are an awful lot of nuances of his story that would say yes, and no.  To flat out say "they just are" is missing half the story.  To say they are "only a prophet because we sustain them as such" is also missing half the story.  

If you only see with one eye, you're going to miss a lot of details.

*****  BTW, I appreciate the liveliness of this thread.  Our normal rabble rouser has been stoking the fire just to keep things interesting.  But his heart really wasn't in it.  Thank you for your input.

Behind the scenes stuff? Sure it's possible.

That we as a people are so easily fooled by charlatans who sing praises to God all the while committing whoredoms openly and proudly, speaks much to our current status of being able to discern right from wrong.

No it is not a bold prediction-it already has entered into the Church (see above)-those who can see, see it.  The amazing thing with the carnival is if people saw it as a carnival it would never become one. They see it as normal.  We have instructions that a deluded carnival individual who is a man but believes he is a female should be spoken to with their "preferred" pronouns. We have policies in place that someone who claims they are a female but are a male can be baptized.  It's already a carnival, but the ride has just begun!

I agree with you on the sustaining comments.  

I would generally agree with your comments about death/rebirth with a Prophet being removed.  I might amend that to say without some split or division occurring-so yes I think that's probably accurate.

You are welcome for the liveliness.  I enjoy it too, writing and thinking helps clarify things, many times I write to think.

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BobMaster said:

The question I have is thus: is it possible for a people to sustain as a prophet a man who is not one?

Certainly. When I was a teen, a man named Jim Jones was a false prophet to his deluded followers. They gathered in the jungles of Guyana at a place modestly called Jonestown. After ordering the murder of a US Congressman and a news crew who came to investigate reported abuses, Jones ordered his 900+ followers to join him in glorious death by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid (hence the current morbid expression "drinking the Kool-Aid"). They did, and died horribly. Over a third were children. After their deaths, Jones blew his own head off.

These were people who fully sustained a false prophet beyond all reason or decency. So yes, it's a horrible but very real possibility to sustain as a prophet a man who is not one. Thank God we have a true prophet of Jesus Christ we can sustain, even in his potential weaknesses, rather than a monstrous conman.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BobMaster said:

The facts are plain, no open visions, nor Voice of God has been communicated and accepted to the Saints as a whole for over 100 years (1918 to be exact).  In today's world we have Manifestos and Proclamations-those are just mere public assertions and declarations but not the Voice of God.

When the Lord speaks, quite often, it is not just to the church that He speaks, but to the whole world, to all of His children. Every word that the Lord speaks brings condemnation to those who heed it not, and I can imagine that in today's world, there are many who would heed it not, so perhaps God is being merciful when it appears that He does not speak in the way you would like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, carlimac said:

Hijacked again. 😩
 

I was looking for a much simpler discussion. 

Well, I tried to help you with that.  But you didn't answer my request for clarification.

If you yourself are not going to participate in your own discussion, then we're going to have our own discussion.  If you want it to go back to your topic, you have to participate.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BobMaster said:

When I do a deep dive in studying scriptures and then compare that to the skim milk I get from General Conference-I find our current leaders wanting in their capacity.

From 1,000 years of Book of Mormon history we get a little over 520 pages, some of which was simply taken from Jewish history? You can be sure that after a thousand years of LDS history, if a later historian were to compile the gems of LDS prophetic teachings, we would end up with something far richer, with much greater substance and power than what we get from the Book of Mormon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BobMaster said:

But what has helped me out tremendously has been deep scripture study, understanding patterns, understanding God's Word.  At this point, it doesn't matter what they say on the subject-they could allow homosexuals in the Temple sealings, I wouldn't care. Because I know the truth as revealed in God's Word.  Now, if they will claim a Revelation and Reveal more of God's Word which claims to amend or add to Scripture, then I will have a decision to make; until then I feel very comfortable sustaining them but at the same time not really caring what they are saying-because in general they aren't acting in their capacity in which they are sustained.

@BobMaster I'm generally loathe to judge people or make guesses as to what they might need, but in this case, I'm making a guess that you could find the following to be beneficial. It comes from one of my most favourite talks, given by (then) Elder Benson at a BYU Devotional, titled 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. I've only included two quotes here but I strongly recommend the whole talk. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

 

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).

 

 

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BobMaster said:

The question I have is thus: is it possible for a people to sustain as a prophet a man who is not one?

So, here is the litmus test:

Do you believe Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's appointed representative on the earth today?

Do you believe he is the only person on this earth who holds all earthly priesthood keys and has the right to exercise all of them?

If you can't say yes to these then you are either on the road to apostasy or are already apostate.

Quote

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.

 -- Joseph Smith; Quoted in Young Woman’s Journal, Dec. 1906, p. 543

Remember that we are not a democracy.  We are a theocracy.  And removal of a prophet by the laity is considered apostasy (Jeremiah have they thrown into prison).  The process of removing a sitting prophet because he has fallen involves the twelve, not you.  I'm pretty sure that when the Israelites went off to worship Baal, they were in complete agreement that the prophet of the time has lost all power.  

Do you believe he should be removed and replaced with someone else?  If so, who should replace him?

Do you believe the twelve will consent to "fabricating" a revelation?  Then that would violate the quote above.

Descent into debauchery and lasciviousness is only one type of apostasy.  Breaking off and forming your own church to become the Westboro Baptist Church is another type.  You can feel very secure that you're not going in one direction.  But are you sure you're not going in the other direction?

Everything you've written so far has basically put you up as the arbiter of truth regarding the prophetic status of the President of the Church.

If you don't think that, then what is your proposed solution?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BobMaster said:

If it it is false; then why do so many Saints fight when it is pointed out that we haven't had a vision in 102 years and the Manifestos are poor imitations.

    On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

2     In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church
(Doctrine and Covenants | Official Declaration 2:1 - 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the central complaint from Bob has been that we haven't had a "Joseph Smith" since, well, Joseph Smith. (I realize this is greatly simplified, but you get my meaning.)

Why is that?  Apostasy.

I'm not saying that the Church is in apostasy.  Quite the opposite.

Both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon clearly show when "New Prophets" rise up.  It most often happens when there is great apostasy among the church or there is grave danger to the House of Israel.

Seth was the successor to Adam, but there really isn't much said about what he did.  He was prophet.  Where are his "bona fides"?  But scripturally, there is no doubt he was a true prophet.

So, who were those that we might term "mighty prophets"?

  • Enoch was raised because of apostasy.  He preached the word.  We know he was a prophet that was raised up.
  • Elijah was raised up because of apostasy.  Elisha continued that fight.
  • Abraham had many wonderful visions and conversations with the Lord.  But how much of that was "preachable"?  Most of it was direct instructions to Abraham alone.
  • Moses was raised up because ... Moses... you all know the story.
  • Joshua, like Elisha was a continuation of the previous prophet's efforts -- Brigham Young.
  • Samuel was raised up because of apostasy -- specifically to replace a fallen prophet.
  • We have a whole slew of other prophets -- mostly raised to counter the great apostasy that had risen among the covenant people.
  • Isaiah's writings are replete with both warnings of the Diaspora.  And he was the primary witness of the Christ in ancient Israel.
  • Lehi and Nephi were raised because of apostasy.
  • Jacob simply inherited the role.  And the primary thing he preached against with "Thus saith..." was about polygamy.  He needed to correct that behavior.  But it is unclear whether the words he was quoting was from his own personal visitation with the Lord of if he was quoting some other statement.
  • Enos had a vision.  But it was basically as a lay individual, not as the prophet at the time.  And we have no records of him preaching as a prophet.
  • King Benjamin never states any words he received directly from the Lord.
  • Abinadi was raised to combat the apostasy of King Noah and his priests.
  • Alma was raised to become the new prophet after the fall of Noah.
  • Helaman... ??? I don't recall any visions or voice of the Lord recorded by Helaman -- either Helaman.
  • Nephi and Nephi were also special cases involving a highly rebellious people -- which also nececcitated Samuel the Lamanite.
  • Mormon & Moroni... same thing as Helaman.  But they were in the middle of the final apostasy.  Surely they would have had some "Thus Saith the Lord" for these people.  Instead, Mormon was told to NOT preach to them.
  • Joseph Smith was raised up as THE PROPHET OF THE RESTORATION because of the GREAT APOSTASY.
  • Brigham Young was given a vision of the promised land.
  • John Taylor seemed to have one foot in this world and one foot in the next.
  • Wilford Woodruff did give instruction from the Lord
  • Lorenzo Snow certainly saw a vision regarding the windows of heaven.
  • And I do believe that young man who received the "Temples of Learning" vision was inspired -- but not a prophet.

So, it seems that the lack of "Thus Saith the Lord" is only for two cases:

  • We aren't in apostasy.
  • We are so wicked that the prophets have ceased speaking.

Well, since we still hear them preach to us, we can eliminate #2.  So, we're apparently not in apostasy.  Some individuals are obviously in apostasy.  But the Church as a whole is ok.

At the same time, we are still under condemnation for taking lightly the things of God.  This is not the same as apostasy.  it is just "not living up to our privileges".  Do NOT mistake this for "all is well in Zion".  I don't believe it is.  We need to do better.  I truly believe that if we as a people really were to do so, then the sealed portion of the plates would be opened to us.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If you don't think that, then what is your proposed solution?

@BobMaster, I agree with Carb on this... what is your desired outcome/ your goal by repeatedly telling us that our leaders are found lacking?
Suppose that we were convinced and on board with your line of thinking @BobMaster, what now? What is the next step? Revolution? Secession? Etc?

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

@BobMaster I'm generally loathe to judge people or make guesses as to what they might need, but in this case, I'm making a guess that you could find the following to be beneficial. It comes from one of my most favourite talks, given by (then) Elder Benson at a BYU Devotional, titled 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet. I've only included two quotes here but I strongly recommend the whole talk. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

 

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).

 

 

Second:The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” [In Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19]

You miss the point, if it were scripture we would add it to the canon and treat it as such-but we don't.

You are using a circular argument, again, to prove your point.  Which boils down to-"ignore everything just follow the leader", "well I'd like to see the leaders show me God's Word", "doesn't matter just follow him because he is the Prophet and gives us Scripture", "but if he gives us Scripture why do we not treat it as such", "doesn't matter follow the Prophet", ignore anything and everything, just "Follow him"-he is treated as Christ without the works of Christ. 

Edited by BobMaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, here is the litmus test:

Do you believe Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's appointed representative on the earth today?

Do you believe he is the only person on this earth who holds all earthly priesthood keys and has the right to exercise all of them?

If you can't say yes to these then you are either on the road to apostasy or are already apostate.

Remember that we are not a democracy.  We are a theocracy.  And removal of a prophet by the laity is considered apostasy (Jeremiah have they thrown into prison).  The process of removing a sitting prophet because he has fallen involves the twelve, not you.  I'm pretty sure that when the Israelites went off to worship Baal, they were in complete agreement that the prophet of the time has lost all power.  

Do you believe he should be removed and replaced with someone else?  If so, who should replace him?

Do you believe the twelve will consent to "fabricating" a revelation?  Then that would violate the quote above.

Descent into debauchery and lasciviousness is only one type of apostasy.  Breaking off and forming your own church to become the Westboro Baptist Church is another type.  You can feel very secure that you're not going in one direction.  But are you sure you're not going in the other direction?

Everything you've written so far has basically put you up as the arbiter of truth regarding the prophetic status of the President of the Church.

If you don't think that, then what is your proposed solution?

Again you undercut your own argument.  Jeremiah was the son of a Jewish priest, he wasn't the head of the Jewish religious organization. He was a commoner.

And actually we are more of a democracy than everyone thinks.  Joseph Smith was voted in as 1st Elder, Ridgen was voted in as counselor (regardless of the fact that Joseph Smith didn't want him as one). Brigham Young was voted in by the people.

Breaking off and forming your own church is another type of apostasy? RFLOL, then we should all be Catholics, or Orthodoxes! Okey dokey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobMaster said:

Again you undercut your own argument.  Jeremiah was the son of a Jewish priest, he wasn't the head of the Jewish religious organization. He was a commoner.

And actually we are more of a democracy than everyone thinks.  Joseph Smith was voted in as 1st Elder, Ridgen was voted in as counselor (regardless of the fact that Joseph Smith didn't want him as one). Brigham Young was voted in by the people.

Breaking off and forming your own church is another type of apostasy? RFLOL, then we should all be Catholics, or Orthodoxes! Okey dokey.

I appreciate your dodging the question.  We now see your true motives.

You're dodge actually provides the answer that you were trying to avoid having to admit.  So, you are apostate.

Now we know what to do with your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, the central complaint from Bob has been that we haven't had a "Joseph Smith" since, well, Joseph Smith. (I realize this is greatly simplified, but you get my meaning.)

Why is that?  Apostasy.

I'm not saying that the Church is in apostasy.  Quite the opposite.

Both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon clearly show when "New Prophets" rise up.  It most often happens when there is great apostasy among the church or there is grave danger to the House of Israel.

Seth was the successor to Adam, but there really isn't much said about what he did.  He was prophet.  Where are his "bona fides"?  But scripturally, there is no doubt he was a true prophet.

So, who were those that we might term "mighty prophets"?

  • Enoch was raised because of apostasy.  He preached the word.  We know he was a prophet that was raised up.
  • Elijah was raised up because of apostasy.  Elisha continued that fight.
  • Abraham had many wonderful visions and conversations with the Lord.  But how much of that was "preachable"?  Most of it was direct instructions to Abraham alone.
  • Moses was raised up because ... Moses... you all know the story.
  • Joshua, like Elisha was a continuation of the previous prophet's efforts -- Brigham Young.
  • Samuel was raised up because of apostasy -- specifically to replace a fallen prophet.
  • We have a whole slew of other prophets -- mostly raised to counter the great apostasy that had risen among the covenant people.
  • Isaiah's writings are replete with both warnings of the Diaspora.  And he was the primary witness of the Christ in ancient Israel.
  • Lehi and Nephi were raised because of apostasy.
  • Jacob simply inherited the role.  And the primary thing he preached against with "Thus saith..." was about polygamy.  He needed to correct that behavior.  But it is unclear whether the words he was quoting was from his own personal visitation with the Lord of if he was quoting some other statement.
  • Enos had a vision.  But it was basically as a lay individual, not as the prophet at the time.  And we have no records of him preaching as a prophet.
  • King Benjamin never states any words he received directly from the Lord.
  • Abinadi was raised to combat the apostasy of King Noah and his priests.
  • Alma was raised to become the new prophet after the fall of Noah.
  • Helaman... ??? I don't recall any visions or voice of the Lord recorded by Helaman -- either Helaman.
  • Nephi and Nephi were also special cases involving a highly rebellious people -- which also nececcitated Samuel the Lamanite.
  • Mormon & Moroni... same thing as Helaman.  But they were in the middle of the final apostasy.  Surely they would have had some "Thus Saith the Lord" for these people.  Instead, Mormon was told to NOT preach to them.
  • Joseph Smith was raised up as THE PROPHET OF THE RESTORATION because of the GREAT APOSTASY.
  • Brigham Young was given a vision of the promised land.
  • John Taylor seemed to have one foot in this world and one foot in the next.
  • Wilford Woodruff did give instruction from the Lord
  • Lorenzo Snow certainly saw a vision regarding the windows of heaven.
  • And I do believe that young man who received the "Temples of Learning" vision was inspired -- but not a prophet.

So, it seems that the lack of "Thus Saith the Lord" is only for two cases:

  • We aren't in apostasy.
  • We are so wicked that the prophets have ceased speaking.

Well, since we still hear them preach to us, we can eliminate #2.  So, we're apparently not in apostasy.  Some individuals are obviously in apostasy.  But the Church as a whole is ok.

At the same time, we are still under condemnation for taking lightly the things of God.  This is not the same as apostasy.  it is just "not living up to our privileges".  Do NOT mistake this for "all is well in Zion".  I don't believe it is.  We need to do better.  I truly believe that if we as a people really were to do so, then the sealed portion of the plates would be opened to us.

No, Enos?

We are so righteous that we don't need one like unto old, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I appreciate your dodging the question.  We now see your true motives.

You're dodge actually provides the answer that you were trying to avoid having to admit.  So, you are apostate.

Now we know what to do with your words.

Isn't that wonderful. Anyone who conflicts with your ideas is an "apostate".  I didn't "dodge" any question, you just like to think I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

I did include Enos.  But again, you see with only one eye.  You only see one side of the equation and you think you have all the answers.

Lol, and you only see with one eye yourself.  You eliminate Enos because it was "only for him", because it doesn't fit your narrative.

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