A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

[GeeRcaptain of 100]

Brigham Young said there are those who were inspired by Satan to join the church (whether they know it or not) and work their way up church leadership with the goal of destroying the church (it's in the teachings of Brigham Young). President Benson spoke of the same thing.

Do you have a reference for each of these brethren on this subject? Thanks.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Mark (aka Walter) is always trying to put down the Wild Man. Don't try to put the Wild Man down, you'll lose every time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsBghXKEUTY

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Maybe I shouldn't have lumped you in with Mark, my post was mostly directed at him because almost every thread I read has comments like these from him. In fact, you may have been trying to get him to tone it down. Sorry to do that. I am not "pissed off". Nor am I in the "people like you" group that you think I am. It does hurt to come here to discuss truth and have people accuse me of apostasy when all that matters in life to me is the Savior and how to return to him. I identify with the OP and those who agree who are sincere. In defense of myself and them I made my post; it was meant to be very direct, but maybe I was over the top. Sorry. However, I am serious about this.

Ok. Let's back up then.

Are you serious about just getting personal revelation?
If so, go for it.

Are you serious about sharing those personal revelations?
If so, go for it, because sometimes it is obvious that it is ok to share some of it. But keep in mind that the sacredness of some of that ought to make it obvious that there is a line that you can cross where it is inapropriate to share it, especially publicly and common sense should tell you when you cross that line. If you cross that line, we are just telling you that in our opinion it is inappropriate. The consequence, we believe, is that the Lord is not pleased, and will not trust you after you let the cat out of the bag. There is such thing as a blabbermouth. What you do with our opinion is your own business, but we can't tell you how to live. Furthermore, just because you get a revelation or a manifestation, it is only binding on you. It is not binding on those you tell about it. Many times those people that tell stuff about it do it with the intent to be recognized as a special person of some sort that has come to minister to others, or has been called to some kind of ministry of some sort. And then people tell us we are evil because we aren't saluting to the flag these people are raising.

Are you serious about following after people that are starting groups that claim special gifts and special authorizations apart from priesthood keys?
If so, go for it. But I have something to say about that too, where we think that this is not only inappropriate, but that it has eternal consequences unless repented of. You can do what you want, but we think that someone ought to warn you about taking that risk, because temple covenants are involved in this one.

Are you going to find fault with the Lord's anointed and express how you think that they don't know how to lead or that there is something wrong with what they are doing?
If so, go for it. But I have something to say about that. That also has consequences unless repented of, because again, temple covenants are involved in that one too. If it isn't perfectly clear to you that if you have been to the temple and covenanted not to do these things, then you ought to go through an endowment again and get a review.

I don't care what you do, because I'm done caring what people like you do. I have my own problems to deal with, and what people like you choose is not my problem anymore. I can't invest emotional energy to it anymore. But you ought to be conscious about the consequences of your actions. And those that some of you are following certainly are not warning you of those consequences.

[Sarielcaptain of 100]

Helaman, sorry for any contention I may have started. In response to your question I am not following anyone but Christ and the prophets. I don't follow any group outside of the church. I am speaking in general terms. I understand where you are coming from and I don't want any kind of rift between us as we probably agree on most issues but see a few things differently.

Brigham Young said there are those who were inspired by Satan to join the church (whether they know it or not) and work their way up church leadership with the goal of destroying the church (it's in the teachings of Brigham Young). President Benson spoke of the same thing.

Do you have a reference for each of these brethren on this subject? Thanks.

Yes I do, but I have to go to work so I'll have to find them tonight or tomorrow. The Brigham quote is from his Teachings collected by Widstoe I believe. I'll look for it.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Helaman, sorry for any contention I may have started. In response to your question I am not following anyone but Christ and the prophets. I don't follow any group outside of the church.

Good for you if you are saying what I think you are saying.

I guess my only concern with what you say is if you mean that you are possibly part of groups that are in the Church that are secret combinations, as it were, within the Church, where secret stuff goes on. That kind of stuff is the same as if it is out of the Church, and is even worse in some ways.

Good for you if you are following Christ and the prophets. There is relatively little you have to believe to follow them, as long as you can answer the temple recommend questions correctly. Outside of that, you can virtually believe anything you want.

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

Azriel you should join the Approaching the Heavenly Gift section of the forum. The conversations are much, much more civil.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Azriel you should join the Approaching the Heavenly Gift section of the forum. The conversations are much, much more civil.

Since the rest of us are locked out of those sections of the site and cannot see the goings on.

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

If so, go for it, because sometimes it is obvious that it is ok to share some of it. But keep in mind that the sacredness of some of that ought to make it obvious that there is a line that you can cross where it is inapropriate to share it, especially publicly and common sense should tell you when you cross that line. If you cross that line, we are just telling you that in our opinion it is inappropriate. Yes, but it is the Spirit that draws the line, not you. The consequence, we believe, is that the Lord is not pleased, and will not trust you after you let the cat out of the bag. There is such thing as a blabbermouth. What you do with our opinion is your own business, but we can't tell you how to live.Though you have certainly tried. Furthermore, just because you get a revelation or a manifestation, it is only binding on you. It is not binding on those you tell about it.

You keep saying this. Revelation about an objective truth is not "binding on anyone." It simply is. Truth is how things are, how things were, and how things will be. Truth simply is. If someone receives revelation about an objective doctrine, it is true, whether you have received revelation about it or not.

If you disagree or believe something else, one of you is wrong. Either they didn't receive revelation at all, or you are wrong.

This is different than personal revelation that guides your life. If it is revealed what career you should seek, where you should live, who you should marry, what principle should you be striving to live, etc. These revelations are personal and are only "binding" on the recipient.

You keep failing to distinguish between these two types revelations.

Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus. It happened. Someone else may not have had revelation that confirms that to them. That doesn't have anything to do with whether it actually happened or not.

Are you serious about following after people that are starting groups that claim special gifts and special authorizations apart from priesthood keys?
Who has claimed a "special gift"?

Honestly, I feel like there is a form of envy in this forum. Some people are seeing doctrine in a new and edifying light and some people are not. Those not growing are envious of others revelations. (I am not explicitly saying you are Ed, but there is certainly a vibe in the forum that are jealous that some people are receiving angels and the Second Comforter and some people are not. And this is a dangerous road to go down. Because it was envy that stopped the apostles from bearing more explicit testimony.) Aren't we all better off when people are receiving revelation? When people receive a revelation why not embrace that and rejoice and seek to learn what can be shared of their experience? Some can be shared, some cannot. But there are those who reject all outright. Why?

My mission president always told us that successful people would always attract criticism. Missionaries who baptized a lot would always find those who would criticize because they were not as successful. I served in a developing nation. They frequently criticized the US. Why? Because we are richer. So instead of criticizing us, why not drop your socialist policies and emulate us?

I don't understand criticizing the successful. If someone has received Christ, find out what they did and do it. Is that not why we have the scriptures? to study the successful people and do what they did? (And not do like those who failed.)

If so, go for it. But I have something to say about that too, where we think that this is not only inappropriate, but that it has eternal consequences unless repented of. You can do what you want, but we think that someone ought to warn you about taking that risk, because temple covenants are involved in this one.
Thank you, I think this forum has had enough condescending warnings.

Are you going to find fault with the Lord's anointed and express how you think that they don't know how to lead or that there is something wrong with what they are doing?

So what if someone says, I have not had personal revelation that Pres. Monson is the Lord's annointed? If I say that, can I then say, "I am not 'bound' to what he says?" Don't you see that being "bound" is totally irrelevant. One would be good to head his word anyway because he speaks truth.

You should seek truth and have the Holy Ghost confirm it wherever it comes from.
If so, go for it. But I have something to say about that. That also has consequences unless repented of, because again, temple covenants are involved in that one too. If it isn't perfectly clear to you that if you have been to the temple and covenanted not to do these things, then you ought to go through an endowment again and get a review.
Thank you, I think this forum has had enough condescending warnings.

I don't care what you do, because I'm done caring what people like you do. I doubt it. I have my own problems to deal with, what are your problems? How can we help?and what people like you choose is not my problem anymore. I can't invest emotional energy to it anymore. But you ought to be conscious about the consequences of your actions. And those that some of you are following certainly are not warning you of those consequences.

The great commandment is to love. Since no one here really has any idea how people are living outside this forum, I don't think anyone is in the position to judge another. One person who rarely goes to church (and when they do they are not 7 minutes early and wear blue shirt), but never gives in to anger, never raises his voice to his wife, lovingly raises their kids, serves not only the church but the community and strangers as well, probably has a better sense of what it means to be like Christ than someone who goes to church 7 minutes early, wears a white shirt, pontificates about all they know in gospel doctrine, ignores his wife and kids, and only gives service when asked and then draws attention to it, all while being tremendously successful in the world because, of course, God has blessed him for his righteousness.

If you don't know how a person lives, I don't think you are in a position to warn them about what is going to happen to them--but that's just me.

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

Azriel you should join the Approaching the Heavenly Gift section of the forum. The conversations are much, much more civil.

Since the rest of us are locked out of those sections of the site and cannot see the goings on.

There is a part of me that wishes people could go there. Just to see what a contentionless forum looks like.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

I understand your point Ed. I guess I just hate to see the adversary win with any soul. I wish only to see him go straight to hell where he rightly belongs. No person who has ever left this church to follow another spiritual path has or will ever prosper. They will always end up bitter and alone in the end. Just the way the adversary wants it.

True Mark, but we are better served by just having patience and using persuasion rather than being so worried for people's souls that we miss the mark by becoming overbearing and actually fall into a trap ourselves by not respecting free agency. And remember who had no respect for agency. I have started to recognize my own overbearing-ness sometimes. I have a friend that is ex-Mormon that left the Church just a couple of years ago. And before that, he came back for a couple of years, had his wife baptized and so forth. I started to get overbearing with him, but then I realized that it was what he really wanted. He didn't want to be Mormon. So, if these people really want to go and follow after these individuals, we should let them. I feel bad for them, but I can't let my whole existence be consumed by it. Remember that revelation from Orson Hyde. It says, in a manner of speaking to not get worked up over it or worry about them. If they don't listen to the Lord's voice, they ceased to be chosen anyway, and will excommunicate themselves from the Spirit. Its sad, but these people that lead them astray give them the option of being led astray. If we take away that option, then they cannot truly make a choice, now can they? Those that want to follow them should be allowed to. That doesn't mean we don't try to persuade them not to. But let's not get too overbearing.

Ed

I am sorry if people here think I have been overbearing or rude in my responses concerning the church or the Brethren. It is in my nature that when I see someone getting off on a track that might cause them spiritual harm I will try to persuade them to come back to the safety of the church and to examine potential consequences if false revelation might be involved. My methods though well intentioned might not be appropriate here. I know how powerful false revelation can be. It almost took me down at one point in my life. It did succeed in taking down people very close to me. If my thoughts create a contentious spirit unwelcome here I will check out of these discussions. My apologies to those I might have offended. Cheers.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

I understand your point Ed. I guess I just hate to see the adversary win with any soul. I wish only to see him go straight to hell where he rightly belongs. No person who has ever left this church to follow another spiritual path has or will ever prosper. They will always end up bitter and alone in the end. Just the way the adversary wants it.

True Mark, but we are better served by just having patience and using persuasion rather than being so worried for people's souls that we miss the mark by becoming overbearing and actually fall into a trap ourselves by not respecting free agency. And remember who had no respect for agency. I have started to recognize my own overbearing-ness sometimes. I have a friend that is ex-Mormon that left the Church just a couple of years ago. And before that, he came back for a couple of years, had his wife baptized and so forth. I started to get overbearing with him, but then I realized that it was what he really wanted. He didn't want to be Mormon. So, if these people really want to go and follow after these individuals, we should let them. I feel bad for them, but I can't let my whole existence be consumed by it. Remember that revelation from Orson Hyde. It says, in a manner of speaking to not get worked up over it or worry about them. If they don't listen to the Lord's voice, they ceased to be chosen anyway, and will excommunicate themselves from the Spirit. Its sad, but these people that lead them astray give them the option of being led astray. If we take away that option, then they cannot truly make a choice, now can they? Those that want to follow them should be allowed to. That doesn't mean we don't try to persuade them not to. But let's not get too overbearing.

Ed

I am sorry if people here think I have been overbearing or rude in my responses concerning the church or the Brethren. It is in my nature that when I see someone getting off on a track that might cause them spiritual harm I will try to persuade them to come back to the safety of the church and to examine potential consequences if false revelation might be involved. My methods though well intentioned might not be appropriate here. I know how powerful false revelation can be. It almost took me down at one point in my life. It did succeed in taking down people very close to me. If my thoughts create a contentious spirit unwelcome here I will check out of these discussions. My apologies to those I might have offended. Cheers.

No offense here. I think you are right on!

[Gadcaptain of 1,000]

I understand your point Ed. I guess I just hate to see the adversary win with any soul. I wish only to see him go straight to hell where he rightly belongs. No person who has ever left this church to follow another spiritual path has or will ever prosper. They will always end up bitter and alone in the end. Just the way the adversary wants it.

True Mark, but we are better served by just having patience and using persuasion rather than being so worried for people's souls that we miss the mark by becoming overbearing and actually fall into a trap ourselves by not respecting free agency. And remember who had no respect for agency. I have started to recognize my own overbearing-ness sometimes. I have a friend that is ex-Mormon that left the Church just a couple of years ago. And before that, he came back for a couple of years, had his wife baptized and so forth. I started to get overbearing with him, but then I realized that it was what he really wanted. He didn't want to be Mormon. So, if these people really want to go and follow after these individuals, we should let them. I feel bad for them, but I can't let my whole existence be consumed by it. Remember that revelation from Orson Hyde. It says, in a manner of speaking to not get worked up over it or worry about them. If they don't listen to the Lord's voice, they ceased to be chosen anyway, and will excommunicate themselves from the Spirit. Its sad, but these people that lead them astray give them the option of being led astray. If we take away that option, then they cannot truly make a choice, now can they? Those that want to follow them should be allowed to. That doesn't mean we don't try to persuade them not to. But let's not get too overbearing.

Ed

I am sorry if people here think I have been overbearing or rude in my responses concerning the church or the Brethren. It is in my nature that when I see someone getting off on a track that might cause them spiritual harm I will try to persuade them to come back to the safety of the church and to examine potential consequences if false revelation might be involved. My methods though well intentioned might not be appropriate here. I know how powerful false revelation can be. It almost took me down at one point in my life. It did succeed in taking down people very close to me. If my thoughts create a contentious spirit unwelcome here I will check out of these discussions. My apologies to those I might have offended. Cheers.

Ed,

I don't think you should leave the forums. I have disagreed with you an several topics. I have ignored some of your posts. I suspect that your experience with your apostate home teaching companion has left you too mistrusting of revelation... but despite all of that I do think the central point you make about the value of the brethren has some merit. I think the way is strait and narrow. It is easy to go off on either side.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

Go ahead, choose your side, as you must. Those of use who choose to stick with the brethren will mourn for you in days to come.
You have to be able to make your choice, and these people have many paths for you to follow in their own self constructed bronze and wooden and silver and gold and steel rods. Just remember, there is already an iron rod, and that has already been around for some time. Those of you that must be gathered out have to be gathered out. We will mourn for you.

Those that choose to follow the Lord will do the most mourning:

...for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it... 3 Ne 27:33

Speaking of our day, Moroni confirmed there would be few. Perhaps we assume that because we're holding onto a metal shaft that it must be the iron rod and not a handrail in the great and spacious building.

Personal revelation is part of what we are about! As Mormon’s we are expected and encouraged to seek personal revelation!

Lately I've been looking more and more into correlation and I'm finding that while we talk a good talk about revelation, we're doing something very different.

In the 1800s people were seeking after personal revelation, which invariably led people to delve into the mysteries. In those days you would actually see apostles disagreeing - even arguing - with each other in public forums about different things. Nevertheless, it prompted people to seek and it was a rich environment for learning and thinking.

Of course, that scared some, who felt we all needed to be on the same page and began paring down the subjects that were talked about. Debate was cast aside in favor of unity. For some reason it was assumed that Enoch built Zion by pushing down a lowest common denominator, as opposed to individuals bringing themselves into a unity based on love, charity, and humility. We now look for unity in correlated lesson manuals instead of revelation from the spirit that guides us all in the same direction as we voluntarily submit to it. Personal revelation is too risky and too messy and we have history to prove it. It's much easier to compare lesson guides and handbooks to verify they all say the same thing. Forget about the mysteries, chances are you'll be exalted.

Having been around this forum in various degrees of attentiveness over the last 5 or so years, it's interesting to think back on how there used to be more of a variety of voices and ideas. Now the Dogma Brigade has been coalescing over the last year or so and shouting down anyone who draws non-correlated conclusions from scriptural sources as apostate. If it didn't come from GC, it doesn't count. The forum itself is becoming correlated as posters either tow the party line or leave.

In the days of Jesus' mortal ministry the Jews had long-standing preconceived notions of who and what the Messiah would be when He arrived. When Jesus came he surprised all but a few. We will have our own surprise ending, I'm sure. Mourning won't be a fun job.

[ATL Wakecaptain of 1,000]

Lately I've been looking more and more into correlation and I'm finding that while we talk a good talk about revelation, we're doing something very different.

+1

Forget about the mysteries, chances are you'll be exalted.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Ed, I don't think you should leave the forums. I have disagreed with you an several topics. I have ignored some of your posts. I suspect that your experience with your apostate home teaching companion has left you too mistrusting of revelation... but despite all of that I do think the central point you make about the value of the brethren has some merit. I think the way is strait and narrow. It is easy to go off on either side.

Gad, I have decided not to leave this time. I'll stick it out. But I do not mistrust revelation by any means, I assure you. I am not obliged to accept any and every claim about it. That is another issue altogether. The real question is, are some of you out there too trusting to where con artists can step in? I agree that you can test their doctrinal claims with the spirit. But that is not the issue. The issue is accepting them as your spiritual mentors.

[Gadcaptain of 1,000]

The issue is accepting them as your spiritual mentors.

I kind of see a bunch of equals getting together discussing things. I don't see too much veneration of a single or few mentors.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Having been around this forum in various degrees of attentiveness over the last 5 or so years, it's interesting to think back on how there used to be more of a variety of voices and ideas. Now the Dogma Brigade has been coalescing over the last year or so and shouting down anyone who draws non-correlated conclusions from scriptural sources as apostate. If it didn't come from GC, it doesn't count. The forum itself is becoming correlated as posters either tow the party line or leave.

In the days of Jesus' mortal ministry the Jews had long-standing preconceived notions of who and what the Messiah would be when He arrived. When Jesus came he surprised all but a few. We will have our own surprise ending, I'm sure. Mourning won't be a fun job.

I think that you totally have it wrong what I am saying in particular. I never said that you can't have your non-correlated opinions and conclusions. I am totally uncorrelated, so I have no idea how I constitute a part of some sort of "dogma brigade." Because the only dogma I have even talked about is submission to priesthood keys, and not speaking evil. That has nothing to do with correlated doctrine. I am one of the most uncorrelated Internet Mormons I know. I have a great many beliefs that are based on research alone that have nothing to do with correlated doctrine.

I have no opinion on correlation, because I could care less what is taught in Sunday school. I just want consistency for what is taught in the Church itself. The mysteries have nothing to do with what is taught in Church, and don't belong in Church in the first place. The mysteries are a mishmash of partially revealed revelations mixed in with speculation that one has to wade through with critical thought, and one's own spiritual faculties, not unlike what is contained in the apocrypha. One cannot just accept any man's doctrines as being truth, including those of first and second phase Mormonism coming from the pulpit.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

The issue is accepting them as your spiritual mentors.

I kind of see a bunch of equals getting together discussing things. I don't see too much veneration of a single or few mentors.

Well then, to whatever degree you are equals, then good for you.

[Gadcaptain of 1,000]

The issue is accepting them as your spiritual mentors.

I kind of see a bunch of equals getting together discussing things. I don't see too much veneration of a single or few mentors.

Well then, to whatever degree you are equals, then good for you.

I count you as among them.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

I count you as among them.

That is good to hear.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

I just want consistency for what is taught in the Church itself.

And that's where correlation steps in. And it never stops there. And it trains and conditions people how/where/what to receive for doctrine.

The mysteries have nothing to do with what is taught in Church, and don't belong in Church in the first place.

Joseph Smith said he loved to wrestle new things from the scriptures for the church members to hear. In the Book of Mormon, the righteous Nephites did everything in the Church by the Holy Ghost. Well, the Holy Ghost brings pure intelligence and revelation. Revelation reveals the mysteries. Therefore, mysteries absolutely DO belong in church. If we can't handle it, that says a lot about us.

The mysteries are a mishmash of partially revealed revelations mixed in with speculation that one has to wade through with critical thought, and one's own spiritual faculties, not unlike what is contained in the apocrypha. One cannot just accept any man's doctrines as being truth, including those of first and second phase Mormonism coming from the pulpit.

So, what you're saying is, when people encounter non-correlated information, they have to THINK. They have to STRETCH spiritually. Imagine that.

[Helaman2000captain of 100]

Joseph Smith said he loved to wrestle new things from the scriptures for the church members to hear. In the Book of Mormon, the righteous Nephites did everything in the Church by the Holy Ghost. Well, the Holy Ghost brings pure intelligence and revelation. Revelation reveals the mysteries. Therefore, mysteries absolutely DO belong in church. If we can't handle it, that says a lot about us..

That's where we disagree because in my opinion, the mysteries are in the realm of personal revelation, not institutional revelation. The Holy Ghost teaches us personally. This is where I believe earlier-phase Mormonism had it wrong and where fourth phase Mormonism has it right. The personal and the institutional are now de-coupled the way they ought to be. Correlation is the correct thing to have on an institutional basis where the mysteries are left to the people on a personal level where the Holy Ghost can personally teach. To me, the spirit of the "leave the mysteries alone" thing really means to not preach personal speculations in Church, not that you cannot have them or engage in them. Because most of the time, that is precisely what people's understanding of the mysteries are. They are ongoing search for truth and revelation on a personal basis, where speculation fills in the holes, until the whole picture is revealed. Seldom is the entire picture revealed, and that is why the mysteries are mostly always a mix of personal speculation and personal revelation. And typically, it is difficult for people to discern the difference between partial revelations and full revelations on a subject. This is why I think it is important to always assume there is more to know on any subject, and to always be willing to search for more on any subject. And just because we feel good about something doesn't guarantee that we understand all of the nuances, or even all the foundational pieces of something. That is why, the books that I have control over that I have written, some of them have already gone through four revisions. Because as I gain even more understanding over time, they will be continually revised. And each revision will represent a step in my gaining of understanding.

So, what you're saying is, when people encounter non-correlated information, they have to THINK. They have to STRETCH spiritually. Imagine that.

Good for you. Precisely.

[Sarielcaptain of 100]

I guess my only concern with what you say is if you mean that you are possibly part of groups that are in the Church that are secret combinations, as it were, within the Church, where secret stuff goes on. That kind of stuff is the same as if it is out of the Church, and is even worse in some ways.

I am not trying to be tricky. I am in no group. I'm not in Utah or the west; there are not many LDS around here.

[Sarielcaptain of 100]

Do you have a reference for each of these brethren on this subject? Thanks.

I have the pdf of the Discourses of Brigham Young compiled by Elder Widstoe. I have done word searches and couldn't find what I was looking for. I will have to read the whole thing again to find it. When I do I'll try to remember to post it here. I've been wanting to find it again anyway, because it is was interesting to me to think that satan might inspire someone to do good to get them in a position to destroy more effectively.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

Curious post. I can't think of time when there were a duly authorized and righteous first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles when this scenario would apply. So I can only assume you both think that the current church leadership are not divinely inspired nor approved?

Wanted to comment on this, although the conversation has moved on.

Samuel the Lamanite and John the Baptist are two prime examples- the organizations started by the preceding prophets were still intact (albeit to different degrees). In the case of Samuel, who belonged to a church among the Lamanites, there was at least one righteous officiator- Nephi- along with what would be the remnants of the Mosaic Law structure, as practiced among the Nephites.

In the case of John, the organization was intact enought that Christ recognized Caiaphas as the rightful heir to Moses' seat.

In the case of Samuel, at least, the leaders of the church were still divinely appointed and approved- yet Samuel's words were met with rejection by many of the people.

Whether the current Church structure is corrupt (which I don't believe it is) or perfectly intact, there is still precedent for the "wild man" to appear at the Lord's pleasure with a message intended for anyone- Jew or Gentile, LDS or non-LDS, etc.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

That's where we disagree because in my opinion, the mysteries are in the realm of personal revelation, not institutional revelation. The Holy Ghost teaches us personally. This is where I believe earlier-phase Mormonism had it wrong and where fourth phase Mormonism has it right. The personal and the institutional are now de-coupled the way they ought to be. Correlation is the correct thing to have on an institutional basis where the mysteries are left to the people on a personal level where the Holy Ghost can personally teach. To me, the spirit of the "leave the mysteries alone" thing really means to not preach personal speculations in Church, not that you cannot have them or engage in them. Because most of the time, that is precisely what people's understanding of the mysteries are. They are ongoing search for truth and revelation on a personal basis, where speculation fills in the holes, until the whole picture is revealed. Seldom is the entire picture revealed, and that is why the mysteries are mostly always a mix of personal speculation and personal revelation. And typically, it is difficult for people to discern the difference between partial revelations and full revelations on a subject. This is why I think it is important to always assume there is more to know on any subject, and to always be willing to search for more on any subject. And just because we feel good about something doesn't guarantee that we understand all of the nuances, or even all the foundational pieces of something. That is why, the books that I have control over that I have written, some of them have already gone through four revisions. Because as I gain even more understanding over time, they will be continually revised. And each revision will represent a step in my gaining of understanding.

This was great - thanks!

[Randcaptain of 1,000]

Curious post. I can't think of time when there were a duly authorized and righteous first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles when this scenario would apply. So I can only assume you both think that the current church leadership are not divinely inspired nor approved?

Wanted to comment on this, although the conversation has moved on.

Samuel the Lamanite and John the Baptist are two prime examples- the organizations started by the preceding prophets were still intact (albeit to different degrees). In the case of Samuel, who belonged to a church among the Lamanites, there was at least one righteous officiator- Nephi- along with what would be the remnants of the Mosaic Law structure, as practiced among the Nephites.

In the case of John, the organization was intact enought that Christ recognized Caiaphas as the rightful heir to Moses' seat.

In the case of Samuel, at least, the leaders of the church were still divinely appointed and approved- yet Samuel's words were met with rejection by many of the people.

Whether the current Church structure is corrupt (which I don't believe it is) or perfectly intact, there is still precedent for the "wild man" to appear at the Lord's pleasure with a message intended for anyone- Jew or Gentile, LDS or non-LDS, etc.

MB, I appreciate those efforts, but they are just that efforts. John the Baptist was living in a time of apostasy on every level, and was the legal holder of the priesthood at that time. Samuel, for all we know he was a member of the first presidency, there is nothing to indicate he was not a part of the church hierarchy. So although it is possible he fits in this category, that fact is it would be highly unusual and thus highly unlikely given it is the only time that something like that may have happened.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

As an aside...what type of Church organization existed among the Israelites in Old Testament times? I only recall studying about the Temple, and for most of the history of BOTH Northern and Southern kingdoms, the people were corrupt and immoral/idolatrous (as frequently so were the Temple priests & Levites) - culminating in human sacrifice...

I know the Book of Mormon refers to synagogues (before Christ was born), but to my understanding, the Synagogue existed a bit in Christ's mortal ministry, but it didn't become a major factor of worship until after the Roman Dispersions of the Jews.

I ask these things because some have mentioned OT prophets like Elijah coming out of nowhere, but if there was no organization/hierarchy established to minister to the people (outside of the Temple) then the various mentions of the prophets/school of the prophets type instances would be more likely - and thus a previously unknown Prophet would be brought forth to call the people & the King to repentance.

[Gadcaptain of 1,000]

It is easy with hindsight to look back and say "Oh these guys in the past were all in apostasy. They cast out and excommunicated the true prophets. We clearly would never do that." That is what every generation does. That attitude led the Israelites to reject their God.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

MB, I appreciate those efforts, but they are just that efforts. John the Baptist was living in a time of apostasy on every level, and was the legal holder of the priesthood at that time.

The structure was intact enough for Christ to honor Caiaphas as the rightful High Priest. I'm pretty sure Christ would have recognized if the formal structure had changed. The inside was rotten but the outside was still there- thus there was not an apostasy present on "every level" (although I do understand, and agree with, your point here, that it was a time of widespread apostasy and darkness).

Samuel, for all we know he was a member of the first presidency, there is nothing to indicate he was not a part of the church hierarchy. So although it is possible he fits in this category, that fact is it would be highly unusual and thus highly unlikely given it is the only time that something like that may have happened.

It is not the "only time" that something like that happened- I only gave two examples. The scriptures are replete with examples of holy men coming from the "rank and file" of the Church (not the high presidency) to call the people to repentance, prophecy, etc. (Alma the Elder, sons of Mosiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) Christ Himself had no earthly position of power- he wasn't even of the right lineage to officiate as a priest!! Many more notable examples are of men who are called to an apostleship or high priesthood after their calling people to repentance and declaring the Lord's words of warning (such as Nephi 3, Paul, etc.).

Enoch himself, the original "wild man", had no position we are aware of- only a calling from the Lord and the right parentage (not to mention the priesthood). Joseph Smith held no earthly position or power until it was conferred upon him by the members of the Church. The list goes on- Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc.

The original point is that it is very easy for the "chosen children" of Israel (those born into the covenant when the members of Israel have become well-established and living relatively easily) to grow lax, lazy, and even revile against the very men who they should be listening to. The Lord has often used calls to repentance both from the "top" (High Priesthood) and from the "bottom" (minor prophets with no earthly credentials) to get His people to awake from their stupor of sin.

As for who the true "Wild men" sent from God are- we can all disagree on that. But the idea that the Lord couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't sent an "outsider" or someone of low authority to preach repentance is not based on scripture.