A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

For discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormon Doctrine, Gospel Principles, etc.

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Helaman2000 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:52 pm

Matthew.B wrote: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.


The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine? Here we go again, and somebody will come back and tell me we are NOT fine. There is a big difference between blatant breaking of the ten commandments and people who fall into small errors. We have a bunch of General Authorities that are human. When general authorities are caught in blatant, gross sin, or blatant open apostasy, nobody stands for it. Elder Lee, as an example, who was dealt with swiftly. And there was Elder What's his name in the 20th century who secretly had a second wife who was dealt with swiftly. Simply put, those who say that the General Authorities are in blatant sin have no foundation for that claim. And as far as I know, the only reason you should ever raise your hand in not sustaining someone is if you know of an actual problem along these lines, not along ideological lines where the brethren aren't doing what someone personally feels they should be doing, or that the revelations they are getting are not the type of revelations people thing they should be getting, or whatever. This Church is led by very righteous men, for the most part.

From the fundamentalist factions, they seem believe that somehow the brethren are binding them down, or that if the Church is in some kind of condemnation only because it isn't going the way they think it should, and they think it affects them in some way. As far as I can tell, they claim to have the ability to get their own calling and election, and their own revelations by way of the Spirit and/or heavenly beings. So why should they care what the Church does? Why don't they just go do what makes them feel good, and let the hierarchy deal with the Church? Personal doctrines and personal growth has absolutely nothing to do with the hierarchy, or correlation. Absolutely nothing. Who cares what is taught in Sunday school? I mean seriously? How does it bind you down when you have your own personal beliefs? It doesn't. Is it because one cannot spout off one's own personal beliefs in Sunday School? That, I submit, is WRONG and out of order to begin with. Who cares what the brethren spend the Church's money on as far as money that has been made from investments, apart from tithing funds? Oh, says one, they ought to be spending it on helping the poor of the other countries and not on a mall. Well, why don't the fault-finders go use their own personal funds to give money to the Christian Children's fund rather than worrying what the Church does? If people like that want money to go to those countries, why don't they become the temporal salvation of those people? It's not their calling to meddle in what the Church does. They are constantly on the lookout for ways that they can charge in this way or that that the Church in general is condemned and needs reprimanding from above, and hey, they are here to offer their services to do it. How cool is that? How convenient.

Besides, some people take it upon themselves to warn other people of their own volition, for example, of the consequences of finding fault with the Lord's anointed, or whatever else. Or friends that warn their friends against walking off a spiritual cliff, or friends that go to help their inactive friends become active again. Those types, I submit to you, are actually the ones that are being sent from the "bottom," that the Holy Ghost works through, not the ones that are trying to organize and become everyone else's spiritual mentors, and trying to figure out how to defame the brethren to build themselves up. A certain book out there, as an example, offers an alternate spiritual path, because of the percieved condemnation.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the Church is actually under condemnation in the grand scheme, because it is SELF CORRECTIVE in that regard, and the people who are sent as a warning voice from below to their fellows of their own volition are not here to steady the ark. There is simply no circumstance where the ark is in need of steadying from below, and those with the keys have built in methods to ensure that their fellow General Authorities maintain a very high level of ethics and morality.
Helaman2000
captain of 100
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Original_Intent » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:23 pm

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.
Original_Intent
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:26 pm

@Helaman2000

:ymapplause: :ymhug:
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Helaman2000 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:34 pm

Original_Intent wrote:See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.


Oh no, actually I'm fully aware and fully clear that some are referring to the Church in general being under condemnation, ergo, the brethren are not with it and are off base, because they do not sense it spiritually, and have not corrected it. And it is always because these individuals have some IDEOLOGICAL issue with what is going on, not because people in the church on a massive scale are guilty of general apostasy or general breaking of commandments or covenants.

Ed Goble
Last edited by Helaman2000 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Helaman2000
captain of 100
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:47 pm

See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.


Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Helaman2000 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:05 pm

HeirofNumenor wrote:Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...


Precisely. You see, fifth-phase Mormonism, (adding on yet another phase to Snuffer's phase system, spoken of incidentally by David Whitmer, called the "second great work"), when it comes, with the translation of more records, the return of the ten tribes, and the ushering in of the Millenium, and great and obvious miraculous changes, will not happen with some Abinidi figure. It will happen with a successor to THOMAS S. MONSON.
Helaman2000
captain of 100
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Helaman2000 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:45 pm

Oh, and I should add. Many of the political persuasion of this forum think that those in the Church that are not "awake" as they are are under condemnation, because they aren't constitutionalists. I submit that being a constitutionalist is not a fundamental of the gospel, nor is it a fundamental of the gospel message, because it is discovered by those who are PERSONALLY awake, and it involves being part of a political ideology that values the constitution. The Church, as an institution, has no political ideology, regardless of what President Benson said or anyone else, and people's righteousness or lack thereof does not hinge on political beliefs. While I personally agree with the constitutionalist/patriot/anti-NWO ideology as my own personal political belief, my fellow Church members who do not believe that way are not under condemnation. Their PERSONAL interpretation of Moroni's injunction to be awake might be different, and no Sunday School lesson or talk from the pulpit in recent years has come out to correct them.
Helaman2000
captain of 100
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Matthew.B » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:53 pm

Helaman2000 wrote:
Matthew.B wrote: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.


The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine?

My friend, if you think we are doing fine, you need to apply yourself to understanding what a people who are doing "fine" are like. Maybe you live in a perfect ward where everyone has everything in common, where there are no envyings or strife between members, where there are no social cliques and everyone is taken care of spiritually. Even if you did live in a perfect ward, I can attest that a vast majority (read: almost all) wards are not nearly to that level yet.

We are not doing fine- if we were "fine", at the very least the condemnation set in place in 1832 would be lifted- but it hasn't happened yet.

The tares and the wheat are still growing together. Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.
D&C 136:21-23
I am the Lord your God, even the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob. I am he who led the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; and my arm is stretched out in the last days, to save my people Israel.
Matthew.B
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:41 pm
Location: Kansas City, Kansas

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:10 am

Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.


When has this happened? I only witnessed laughing at General Conference when Pres. Monson makes a funny face or wiggles his ears... :p :o)
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby shadow » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:02 am

Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.

I get bothered by that, too. It happens almost every GC.

Just off the top of my head, for an example Heir, is Pres. Monson's Priesthood talk last Oct. He was talking about a study he had read that pointed out today's youth (college aged youth), don't know what a moral dilemma is. The priesthood laughed at some of his remarks and I'm not so sure he said them to get a laugh.
"The everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend" -Pres. Hinckley
shadow
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 6167
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:22 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby reese » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:42 am

Matthew.B wrote:
Helaman2000 wrote:
Matthew.B wrote: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.


The point is not that he cannot. The point is, why should he, when we are doing fine?

My friend, if you think we are doing fine, you need to apply yourself to understanding what a people who are doing "fine" are like.


If our present form of "Zion" wasn't "prospering" then we might be more acutely aware of our sickness, sores, disease and stench. We use the measuring rod of Babylon and conclude we are among the greatest of people rather than the standard of heaven against which we are loathsome, bitter fruit.
reese
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:51 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Original_Intent » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:53 am

Helaman2000 wrote:
Original_Intent wrote:See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.

Actually, i was pretty surprised to hear you say you did not believe the church was under sondemnation, but then I understood when I see that you mean this in defense of the leadership...it is just odd because I have never felt like the church being under condemnation was anything to do with the leaders.


Oh no, actually I'm fully aware and fully clear that some are referring to the Church in general being under condemnation, ergo, the brethren are not with it and are off base, because they do not sense it spiritually, and have not corrected it. And it is always because these individuals have some IDEOLOGICAL issue with what is going on, not because people in the church on a massive scale are guilty of general apostasy or general breaking of commandments or covenants.

Ed Goble


No, you clearly are still not reading me.
I for one think the brethren are completely "with it".
Original_Intent
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Original_Intent » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:58 am

HeirofNumenor wrote:
See Helaman, this is where we differ. You hear the church under condemnation, and think it means the leadership. I hear the church is under condemnation, and I think that it refers to the general membership. I do not believe the leadership are under condemnation, nor do I think it is due to poor leadership that the members are, as a whole, not where they should be.


Yet OI...unless one is complaining about the people voting for Romney/not awake per Ether 8....the majority of complaints/slanted comments about the Church which provoke contention on this forum come down to in some way suggesting that the leadership is fallen/lost the heavenly gift/lost gift of revelation/covering up history/mis-usings funds, etc - and these complaints are frequently paired with statements from Joseph and Brigham about not trusting blindly, and assume that the members are not already getting spiritual verification of apostles' words.... This provides them an out so if they choose to test the words by the Spirit for themselves, and they do NOT feel the Spirit confirm the truth of the prophet's words - then they believe the Prophet was wrong, and their own interpretation is right. They become a law/Church unto themselves, rather than considering that they didn't get a confirmation by the Spirit due to other influences such as pride, stuck in their own paradigm/worldview, etc.

This can happen to otherwise good active LDS as well - for example: how many USA LDS do not get moved by the words of prophets & apostles concerning the US Constitution/freedom being in jeopardy? Lundbaek will tell you all about that. Those that were opposed to Pres. Benson (Harry Reid is a prime example) cannot hear, see or feel the Spirit in such matters because their hearts are already set in opposition to those principles Pres Benson espoused.

We see that in the refusal to see any merit in the City Creek Mall, or the insistence that we are breaking the 1/3 tithing rule from Deuteronomy (covering up), and would rather ALL efforts and monies be spent to end hunger/poverty instead of sending out proselytizing missionaries - some even said to build everyone on earth a house before we build temples.

Unfortunately, many of these folks also seem to look eagerly to an outsider like Samuel the Lamanite or Abinadi, and await the One Mighty and Strong because they view the LDS Church as an institution/leadership is fallen...never considering it is the members themselves (and of course these critics are NEVER at fault themselves)....nor considering that if the people are the problem, and outsider calling them to repentance won't do the trick....scripturally, that mass change happens only through cleansing & destruction - ie. wars, disease, natural disasters ...


Thanks for reading me loud and clear. It's nice to be understood.
Original_Intent
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 7524
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Helaman2000 » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:35 pm

Original_Intent wrote:No, you clearly are still not reading me.
I for one think the brethren are completely "with it".


Alrighty then.
Helaman2000
captain of 100
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Matthew.B » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:32 pm

HeirofNumenor wrote:
Why couldn't the Lord send prophets crying repentance to a membership who treat the words of the sitting prophets lightly (like laughing when Pres. Monson is seriously reciting the sins of the rising generation)? He has always done so.


When has this happened? I only witnessed laughing at General Conference when Pres. Monson makes a funny face or wiggles his ears... :p :o)

Shadow referenced one example, but I am thinking of a different one, again from last October- it was during (IIRC) Sunday Morning session. Pres. Monson was quoting (again, IIRC) a newspaper journalist who was lamenting over the moral decline over the past few decades. There was a lot of alliteration, rhyming, etc. in the direct quote to the effect that, as Pres. Monson was declaring how the past two generations had slipped into great debauchery and sin, the Saints were laughing gaily at the funny words he was using. He stopped and gave the congregation a "look". At that moment, the spirit told me that Pres. Monson was NOT happy with the LDS people, and neither is the Lord.
D&C 136:21-23
I am the Lord your God, even the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob. I am he who led the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; and my arm is stretched out in the last days, to save my people Israel.
Matthew.B
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:41 pm
Location: Kansas City, Kansas

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby awake » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:20 pm

Mark wrote:People here think I am a big stick in the mud because I continue to advocate sticking with the recognized church authorities and staying in the safety of the recognized church and Priesthood organization. (D&C 42:11)

The reason I do is because I have seen first hand how easily it is for someone to be deceived by alternative voices out there as a result of becoming a law unto themselves and leaving the safety of the 3 pronged approach of Prophets, scriptures, and the Holy Spirit all unified in purpose in order to go it alone because they felt their inspiration was superior to what was advocated by the living Prophets or the Scriptures together.


Just because many, if not most people may be easily deceived by 'false' revelation and misinterpretation of the scriptures, to go off into forbidden paths, that does not mean that we should not still rely on the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures above all other voices on earth.

For I believe that it's possible for even Prophets to fall and lead us astray.

So as Joseph Smith taught, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit always trump 'all' other authority, even modern prophets. We just need to be absolutely sure we are being led by the 'right' spirit and that is the tricky part. But there is no safety in anyone or anything else.
awake
captain of 100
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:14 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby gr8ideas » Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:43 pm

+1 Awake
gr8ideas
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby bobhenstra » Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:59 pm

We have an iron clad promise that our Prophet cannot lead us astray, he'll be removed from mortality should he try. Were I to fail the Spirit over some important matter, I'd watch my prophet, if he raised his hand to sustain anything, I would sustain and at the same time support him by raising my hand.

Bob
Every Prophet I quote, everything I write, is my opinion.

Joseph Smith "Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being can possess it but himself or one like him
bobhenstra
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 5695
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:18 am
Location: Central Utah

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby awake » Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:23 pm

bobhenstra wrote:We have an iron clad promise that our Prophet cannot lead us astray, he'll be removed from mortality should he try. Were I to fail the Spirit over some important matter, I'd watch my prophet, if he raised his hand to sustain anything, I would sustain and at the same time support him by raising my hand.

Bob


I'm sorry, but that opinion given by some leaders is not based upon the scriptures and in fact contradicts scripture (D&C 107), so that opinion appears to prove itself false.
awake
captain of 100
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:14 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:50 pm

awake wrote:
bobhenstra wrote:We have an iron clad promise that our Prophet cannot lead us astray, he'll be removed from mortality should he try. Were I to fail the Spirit over some important matter, I'd watch my prophet, if he raised his hand to sustain anything, I would sustain and at the same time support him by raising my hand.

Bob


I'm sorry, but that opinion given by some leaders is not based upon the scriptures and in fact contradicts scripture (D&C 107), so that opinion appears to prove itself false.



Let's examine - has this happened before, where God took out a prophet/leader who was leading the people astray/failing in his calling?

Three examples of where this POSSIBLY occurred:
1) OT- Balaam

Balaam. A prophet from Pethor by the Euphrates, bribed by Balak, king of Moab, to curse the Israelites, Num. 22:5 ff.; his life saved by means of the ass, 22:22 ff.; the curse turned to blessing, 23; 24; Deut. 23:4–5; Josh. 24:9–10; Neh. 13:2; his counsel, Num. 31:16; slain, 31:8; Josh. 13:22; Micah 6:5; 2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev. 2:14.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/balaam?lang=eng&letter=b


2) OT - Eli.

Eli. High priest and judge, a descendant of Aaron through Ithamar, his younger son. He was probably the first high priest of this line, and the office remained in his family till the deprivation of Abiathar (1 Kgs. 2:26–27), when it passed back to the family of Eleazar, Aaron’s eldest son. He is chiefly known to us through his connection with the early history of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–4). The blot on his character was his toleration of the wickedness of his own sons.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/eli-1?lang=eng&letter=e

1 Samuel 4 (chapter heading)
The Israelites are smitten and defeated by the Philistines, who also capture the ark of God—Eli’s sons are slain, Eli dies in an accident [leans back in his chair, breaks his neck], and his daughter-in-law dies in childbirth.

Eli replaced by Samuel.



3) NOT MY BELIEF, but should one really want to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose a case could be made that this happened to both Joseph & Hyrum Smith.

-Sec 132 is the last RECORDED revelation by Joseph Smith that we have in the D&C (Sec 133 was written earlier, but previously in the Appendix to ORIGINAL D&C; while the revelation for 132 was received years earlier, it wasn't written down until 1843).
-I recall reading an article in Salt Lake City magazine in Spring/Summer 2005-06, about polygamy. In that article, someone's diary from the Nauvoo period was quoted, wherein Joseph Smith ran across the street one night to the journal-keeper being quoted. He was distraught and frantic, and (supposedly) said: " My soul is lost - I have been deceived" (regarding polygamy). NOTE: I automatically rejected this quote as false, given how Salt Lake City magazine loves to run articles that are highly critical of LDS Church and Utah culture.
-Joseph Smith (supposedly) didn't want Sidney Rigdon for a member of the First Presidency, but the members insisted on that [I never thought the Church was a democracy].
-Sidney Rigdon proposed John C Bennett to be a member of the First Presidency. Joseph didn't know anything of Bennett's background, sins, or crimes (Rigdon may not have either).
-Bennett convinced Joseph to form a Masonic Lodge, and get the lodge built quickly, so to secure the help of the state lodge. This delayed building the Nauvoo Temple [sec 124 condemnation, anyone?]
-Bennett began a series of adulterous affairs, claiming spiritual wifery, or that what he did was no different than Joseph Smith's polygamy.
-Joseph denounced Bennett, excommunicated him, ran him out of Navuoo. Bennett commenced to produce a series of inflammatory news articles, exposing the "barbarous practice rampant among Joe Smith's followers, that abuser of women" [quotes are my emphasis of the scandalous tone]
-The Nauvoo Expositer ran these articles, seeking to persecute Joseph Smith & the Saints. As mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph ordered the printing press be destroyed as a disturbance of the peace/incitement to riot.
-Destruction of the printing press is usually the pre-eminent claim for arresting Joseph & Hyrum, and jailing them in Carthage.
-Joseph and Hyrum are slaughtered in Carthage Jail, sealing their testimonies with their blood as martyrs.

Were Joseph and Hyrum killed/allowed to be killed by God because of introducing polygamy per sec. 132, in contradiction of Jacob 2?
I don't think so - but there appears precedent that God has caused others to die who failed him, and this sequence does appear plausible...

Maybe Joseph's fault was simply not going with his gut and rejecting Ridgon to begin with.
What is clear is that Joseph and Hyrum were killed particularly because of polygamy (chain of events/causation), as well as because of the Gospel overall.
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby ithink » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:23 pm

HeirofNumenor wrote:3) NOT MY BELIEF, but should one really want to play Devil's Advocate, I suppose a case could be made that this happened to both Joseph & Hyrum Smith.
This is actually my belief. I shared it with a former bishop who was visiting my ward, who is having trouble with his testimony viz. all the stuff going on, and based on my comments in HP group he knew he could speak to me afterward and privily and trust in me.
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".
ithink
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Gad » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:42 pm

Nauvoo stake president William Marks suggested in 1853 that Smith came to have doubts about polygamy before his death:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks … We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? he said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.”


This is the quote in question. From this link. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excer ... oneliness/
Daniel A. Rogers
Gad
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:14 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby awake » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:44 am

'IF' Joseph started polygamy, and it was wrong, and he was taken because of it, then why were no other leaders after him taken?
awake
captain of 100
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:14 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:47 am

Gad wrote:
Nauvoo stake president William Marks suggested in 1853 that Smith came to have doubts about polygamy before his death:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks … We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? he said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.”


This is the quote in question. From this link. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excer ... oneliness/



Thank you - This was the one I read. This quote (as presented here) I actually find somewhat credible - particularly because it wasn't written down 10-50 years later...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:57 am

awake wrote:'IF' Joseph started polygamy, and it was wrong, and he was taken because of it, then why were no other leaders after him taken?



No idea. Maybe the overall Restoration of the Gospel was too important to wipe out all the leaders....therefore, the Lord used it & Federal persecution as a test...until such time as the members were ready to let it go...thus He gave Pres. Woodruff the revelation leading to the 1890 Manifesto...and when the people and many high leaders still refused to end it completely, the persecution resumed with the Reed Smoot hearings, until 1904, when Joseph F. Smith et al issued the Second Manifesto - mandating excommunication.
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:01 am

Gad wrote:
Nauvoo stake president William Marks suggested in 1853 that Smith came to have doubts about polygamy before his death:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks … We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? he said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church.”


This is the quote in question. From this link. http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excer ... oneliness/



But then we have to reconcile this possibility with how Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, etc. (in Nauvoo period) and their wives received personal revelation/spiritual confirmation that they were to engage in polygamy upon Joseph's instructions/invitation.

So many unanswered questions all around....we may just have to wait for the Millennium before we get the complete answers...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby gdemetz » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:03 am

I personally believe that he misquoted Joseph Smith that many years later! I think it was greatly exaggerated. That doesn't wash will all the statements and practices of the later prophets.
gdemetz
captain of 100
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:54 pm

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby HeirofNumenor » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:25 am

gdemetz wrote:I personally believe that he misquoted Joseph Smith that many years later! I think it was greatly exaggerated. That doesn't wash will all the statements and practices of the later prophets.



Perhaps he was misquoted. Perhaps his own opposition to polygamy was misplaced and it led to him later making this (possibly false) statement.

But please consider this:
Several on this forum seem to feel the Church leadership for the last 100+ years have been wrong on various issues (Lord will never let Prophet lead Church astray, abandoning Adam-God, abandoning polygamy, corporation of the Church, making Word of Wisdom a commandment, etc). They claim that basically, our prophets and apostles are only following a (wrong) precedent.
The question that needs to be asked then is this: If 20th century Church leaders can be in error by following wrong precedent, why can't 19th century leaders likewise be in error by following an earlier but wrong precedent? Heck, we know one precedent was finally stopped in 1978.

My personal feeling is that I would like to see a synthesis with which EVERYONE can be happy, that shows how prophets & apostles from BOTH eras could have been right for their times - i.e., the Lord gave different instructions for different circumstances.

I feel D&C 132 is true - I believe Joseph asked God to explain polygamy, and then God required Joseph Smith to live it. I'm not sure how it came to be required to live polygamy in order to achieve exaltation - if it ever was, nor do I believe that is what sec 132 meant by Celestial Marriage (sec 131, sec 132: 19-20 (see vv.1-20))

However, I cannot find a satisfactory explanation of how sec 132 approves of David & Solomon having lots of wives, while Jacob 2 condemns those two by name. For those people here declaring that a prophet is wrong if his teachings contradict earlier scripture - this apparent contradiction must take the cake.
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor

User avatar
 
Posts: 4266
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: UT

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby reese » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:44 am

HeirofNumenor wrote:
gdemetz wrote:I personally believe that he misquoted Joseph Smith that many years later! I think it was greatly exaggerated. That doesn't wash will all the statements and practices of the later prophets.



Perhaps he was misquoted. Perhaps his own opposition to polygamy was misplaced and it led to him later making this (possibly false) statement.

But please consider this:
Several on this forum seem to feel the Church leadership for the last 100+ years have been wrong on various issues (Lord will never let Prophet lead Church astray, abandoning Adam-God, abandoning polygamy, corporation of the Church, making Word of Wisdom a commandment, etc). They claim that basically, our prophets and apostles are only following a (wrong) precedent.
The question that needs to be asked then is this: If 20th century Church leaders can be in error by following wrong precedent, why can't 19th century leaders likewise be in error by following an earlier but wrong precedent? Heck, we know one precedent was finally stopped in 1978.
So where exactly does this leave us? The Lord will DEFINITELY let his people use their agency to "follow a wrong precedent". Here is the most recent staement by the church concerning the precendent that was stopped in 1978:
"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

How does this kind of statement get approved as a public statement by the church? Can a "revelator" speak (as did Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and many others in the first presidency and twelve) about this crucial matter for over a hundred years "in the absence of revelation?" How, if this critical issue involving the personal lives of so many faithful church members for generations was wrong and did not represent church doctrine, can we now trust that anything that is said by anyone on any topic represents church doctrine? There were faithful Saints kept out of the temple because of this doctrine. There were heartwrenching discoveries of genealogy issues for people who were previously ordained who were told they could no longer use their ordination to serve in the church. They were turned down because these men at the highest levels were acting "in the absence of revelation?" Why?


However, I cannot find a satisfactory explanation of how sec 132 approves of David & Solomon having lots of wives, while Jacob 2 condemns those two by name. For those people here declaring that a prophet is wrong if his teachings contradict earlier scripture - this apparent contradiction must take the cake.Your right it does take the cake. Here are the two conflicting scriptures
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.


39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

reese
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:51 am

Re: A Wild Man Hath Come Among US

Postby Rob » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:49 am

awake wrote:
bobhenstra wrote:We have an iron clad promise that our Prophet cannot lead us astray, he'll be removed from mortality should he try. Were I to fail the Spirit over some important matter, I'd watch my prophet, if he raised his hand to sustain anything, I would sustain and at the same time support him by raising my hand.

Bob


I'm sorry, but that opinion given by some leaders is not based upon the scriptures and in fact contradicts scripture (D&C 107), so that opinion appears to prove itself false.
The FP have told us not to blindly sustain them, asking us instead to confirm everything they say. I don't understand those who say they sustain their leaders, yet fail to make that distinction. As has been stated many times, we don't have papal infallibility. When I first joined this forum, I got into a debate with Charity (don't remember her username off the top of my head) about whether or not President Monson knew the truth about 9/11. She came back with some cryptic, non-committal nonsense like "he knows more than we do", or some such she has no idea about. My response was he was a man and might not know anything about it.


Take President Faust, for example. He said this while a member of the FP:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/whats-in-it-for-me

On September 11, 2001, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City were hit by terrorist-controlled airliners that caused both towers to collapse.
See that? He was wrong. :-o Airliners didn't cause the collapse. They were a diversion. You go ahead and comfort yourselves with the "speaking as a man" thing, but, guess what, folks, they're men, period. How many people have had the wrong conclusion confirmed to them by this erroneous statement because they sustain him as an infallible mouthpiece of the Lord?

Arm of flesh, folks. They've said so themselves. Everything must be confirmed by the Spirit.
"There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours." C. S. Lewis
Rob
the Sunbeam
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Gospel Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BMC, chicafoom, Darren, elijahsson, jbalm, jo1952, Lone Star Patriot, Nan, Seek the Truth, sevenator, SouthernMormon, Thomas, TZONE, Videre faciem Dei, zion or bust and 29 guests