We Are Not Brainwashed!

[paid2play]

I am not saying Prophets are NOT needed. I am just pointed out that you CANNOT trust them 100% the way we are supposed to TRUST in the LORD. There have been in the past.. .many times where Prophets teach false doctrine, their own opinions, and push the doctrine of the world to get praise of the world.
Examples please, the Lord will not allow them to lead us astray by teaching false doctrine, that is completely different than an opinion.

The responses about praying and confirming what is being taught is spot on!

out of curiosity can you provide the revelations from the Lord to back up your opinion that a prophet cannot led us astray? which prophet said that, not trying to be mean or anything im just curious?

President Wilford Woodruff declared,

" The Lord will not let me or any other man lead the Church astray, it is not in the program, He will take them out."

President Gordon B. Hinckley,

" The Lord will never permit the Prophet to lead us astray."

so what makes what they said doctrinal or revelation and what Brigham young said about Adam God, i think the word you used was not canonized and anomaly?

[eddie]

Paidtoplay;

Mark E. Petersen

"Christ and His Prophets go together, it is not possible
To believe in one without believing in the other; by rejecting the the Prophets, we reject Jesus Christ himself."

It is very evident to me in the way this Church prospers
and functions, we have not been led astray. I just watched my granddaughter go to the MTC in preparation for a mission to Portugal Lisbon, amazing! She left behind her car, friends, career and family to serve the Lord, amazing!

[eddie]

out of curiosity can you provide the revelations from the Lord to back up your opinion that a prophet cannot led us astray? which prophet said that, not trying to be mean or anything im just curious?

President Wilford Woodruff declared,

" The Lord will not let me or any other man lead the Church astray, it is not in the program, He will take them out."

President Gordon B. Hinckley,

" The Lord will never permit the Prophet to lead us astray."

so what makes what they said doctrinal or revelation and what Brigham young said about Adam God, i think the word you used was not canonized and anomaly?

You can research this yourself, I don't think any answer will satisfy you, it is an argument often used by critics of the Church.

[LukeAir2008]

"The" prophet? There are many more than one. Just lobbing that out there

There is only 1 Prophet with stewardship to attend
to the direction of this Church. ( Lobbed back, bring it)

We have sustained 15 as prophets, seers, and revelators. The president and his two counselors preside over the church because the buck must stop somewhere, but they act as a council and all decisions must be unanimous no matter what the president of the church himself may want to do. This is very important because we the church established in our day has checks and balances in place. Granted, that changed somewhat after the death of Joseph Smith, but the unanimous consent of the presiding counsels of the church is still in place. See D&C 107.

Let's take it a step further, anyone from a father to a home teacher, an Elder's quorum president, Bishop, Relief Society president, visiting teacher, or even a sacrament meeting speaker can be inspired to speak truth and act as a "forth-teller" to the saints. Being anointed by the Holy Ghost, any of the church may speak and prophesy within the order established. The president of the church has a specific job, but we are indeed surrounded by prophets or those that may act in that role in providing us guidance and direction.

Thus, we are not just accountable for what the president may say or do, but any of these, when indeed speaking in the name of God and the Spirit witnesses to us of the same, then we will be accountable for how we receive that information.

“only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.”
(Boyd K Packer, The Twelve Apostles, October 1996)

[buffalo_girl]

Good grief! These endless references to previous quotes is absolutely mind numbing!

If contemporary Prophets, Seers & Revelators are the authority by which we can be assured of Doctrinal solid ground, all we need do is avail ourselves of General Conference addresses by them.

I'm not sure how people keep missing Elder D. Todd Christofferson's April 2012 address, "The Doctrine of Christ". He explains the process by which we - as The Church - receive communication through Prophets - for The Church.

He also addresses sometimes aberrant pronouncements from Prophets - past & present - which fail the 'official or binding for the whole Church' definition of The Doctrine of Christ.

Please access the Talk References (footnotes) at the bottom of the printed talk.

Here's the link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng

I believe we can each and every one breathe easier knowing we have the right and privilege of confirming the efficacy and truth of what our Prophets tell us through the Holy Spirit. I honestly don't believe Christ ever, ever intended His followers to be so without confidence in their relationships with Him that they wait like harnessed animals for the command to move forward!

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23). In the letter announcing their decision, the Apostles said, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28), or in other words, this decision came by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit.

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5

6 J . Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10. Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote:“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ “How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest” (“Church Leaders’ Words,” 10).

[Vision]

I am not saying Prophets are NOT needed. I am just pointed out that you CANNOT trust them 100% the way we are supposed to TRUST in the LORD. There have been in the past.. .many times where Prophets teach false doctrine, their own opinions, and push the doctrine of the world to get praise of the world.
Examples please, the Lord will not allow them to lead us astray by teaching false doctrine, that is completely different than an opinion.

The responses about praying and confirming what is being taught is spot on!

Adam God theory taught by Brigham Young

It was not then nor is not now a doctrine of the church, it was not canonized. It is an anomaly.

So that's how you settle all the anomalies within the words of the prophets over the course of history? Not canonized then it doesn't matter that they said it?

[buffalo_girl]

So that's how you settle all the anomalies within the words of the prophets over the course of history? Not canonized then it doesn't matter that they said it?

For Pete's sake, READ the large, colorful text above!!!!

[Ezra]

I am not saying Prophets are NOT needed. I am just pointed out that you CANNOT trust them 100% the way we are supposed to TRUST in the LORD. There have been in the past.. .many times where Prophets teach false doctrine, their own opinions, and push the doctrine of the world to get praise of the world.
Examples please, the Lord will not allow them to lead us astray by teaching false doctrine, that is completely different than an opinion.

The responses about praying and confirming what is being taught is spot on!

Adam God theory taught by Brigham Young

It was not then nor is not now a doctrine of the church, it was not canonized. It is an anomaly.

There is the possibility that the lord allowed the church to be lead astray starting with Joseph smith . And it's been astray ever since. As wonderful as it is. It's not perfect. Even being lead by the lord. It's still managed by men who are sinners every single one of us.

To me that is not a scary or bad thing. It just means that I have to be diligently seeking god and pondering on what the prophets have to say. Double checking what's been said. Making sure that it all fits and isn't like the Adam god theory and so on.

I believe that the "prophet can't lead men astray" is just like the Adam god theory in its folly.

If the prophet cannot lead men astray then he is (perfect) period.
They admit they are not perfect.

If the prophet cannot lead men astray then he has had his agency taken away.

That is not the way god is. He is the champion of agency.

The scriptures warnings of not trusting in the arm of flesh time and time again.

We must take heed of the prophets words. You would be a fool not to as they are really good men doing their best. But it's also a fool who places his salvation in following a man.

Remember nephis journey to the tree of life where he was bid by a man dressed all in white saying come follow me and he did for a time then repented and was lead by the lord once again to the iron rod and the tree of life..

That right there is yet another example of the need to not trust in the arm of flesh 100%. We are the ones who have to be lead by the lord not a man in white.

That fits. And is backed by scripture.

Following a man to salvation doesn't. That's placing all of your eggs in one basket.

[eddie]

Adam God theory taught by Brigham Young

It was not then nor is not now a doctrine of the church, it was not canonized. It is an anomaly.

There is the possibility that the lord allowed the church to be lead astray starting with Joseph smith . And it's been astray ever since. As wonderful as it is. It's not perfect. Even being lead by the lord. It's still managed by men who are sinners every single one of us.

To me that is not a scary or bad thing. It just means that I have to be diligently seeking god and pondering on what the prophets have to say. Double checking what's been said. Making sure that it all fits and isn't like the Adam god theory and so on.

I believe that the "prophet can't lead men astray" is just like the Adam god theory in its folly.

If the prophet cannot lead men astray then he is (perfect) period.
They admit they are not perfect.

If the prophet cannot lead men astray then he has had his agency taken away.

That is not the way god is. He is the champion of agency.

The scriptures warnings of not trusting in the arm of flesh time and time again.

We must take heed of the prophets words. You would be a fool not to as they are really good men doing their best. But it's also a fool who places his salvation in following a man.

Remember nephis journey to the tree of life where he was bid by a man dressed all in white saying come follow me and he did for a time then repented and was lead by the lord once again to the iron rod and the tree of life..

That right there is yet another example of the need to not trust in the arm of flesh 100%. We are the ones who have to be lead by the lord not a man in white.

That fits. And is backed by scripture.

Following a man to salvation doesn't. That's placing all of your eggs in one basket.

- WOW!

[buffalo_girl]

It appears to me that some Latter-day Saints ARE brainwashed.

Recollect...it's my job to be compassionate.

Forgive me, I can't quite find the spiritual fortitude to endure....

[Thinker]

It appears to me that some Latter-day Saints ARE brainwashed.

Recollect...it's my job to be compassionate.

Forgive me, I can't quite find the spiritual fortitude to endure....

No, not brainwashed.
When someone's being brainwashed - they know it - as in cases like Prisoners of war.
Mind-control is a bit more common but subtle (often not realized) - as seen in some political and religious groups.

brainwash: make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

mind control: Subverting by means of psychological tactics an individual's control of his or her mind (thinking, behavior, emotions, or decisions).

Examples of mind control:

*Extensive control of information in order to limit alternatives from which members may make "choices"
*Deception
*Group pressure
*Intense indoctrination into a belief system that denigrates independent critical thinking and considers the world outside the group to be threatening, evil, or gravely in error an insistence that members’ distress-much of which may consist of anxiety and guilt subtly induced by the group-can be relieved only by conforming to the group
*Alternation of harshness/threats and leniency/love in order to effect compliance with the leadership’s wishes isolation from social supports pressured public confessions

[oneClimbs]

"The" prophet? There are many more than one. Just lobbing that out there

There is only 1 Prophet with stewardship to attend
to the direction of this Church. ( Lobbed back, bring it)

We have sustained 15 as prophets, seers, and revelators. The president and his two counselors preside over the church because the buck must stop somewhere, but they act as a council and all decisions must be unanimous no matter what the president of the church himself may want to do. This is very important because we the church established in our day has checks and balances in place. Granted, that changed somewhat after the death of Joseph Smith, but the unanimous consent of the presiding counsels of the church is still in place. See D&C 107.

Let's take it a step further, anyone from a father to a home teacher, an Elder's quorum president, Bishop, Relief Society president, visiting teacher, or even a sacrament meeting speaker can be inspired to speak truth and act as a "forth-teller" to the saints. Being anointed by the Holy Ghost, any of the church may speak and prophesy within the order established. The president of the church has a specific job, but we are indeed surrounded by prophets or those that may act in that role in providing us guidance and direction.

Thus, we are not just accountable for what the president may say or do, but any of these, when indeed speaking in the name of God and the Spirit witnesses to us of the same, then we will be accountable for how we receive that information.

“only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church.”
(Boyd K Packer, The Twelve Apostles, October 1996)

The church as a whole, that’s his job. Keys and authority are distributed downward and revelation flows throughout the whole. Even the church handbook says that the home teachers “represent the Lord”.

All presidencies, quorums, and auxiliaries operate by revelation and can speak the word of the Lord within their spheres. The presiding high priest, the president of the church is overseer over all.

[Vision]

So that's how you settle all the anomalies within the words of the prophets over the course of history? Not canonized then it doesn't matter that they said it?

For Pete's sake, READ the large, colorful text above!!!!

Sorry Buffalo Girl I posted my response about the same time your post appeared. Your post is very spot on.

[buffalo_girl]

If there is 'brainwashing' or 'mind controlling' in the membership of The Church, then it has to be self-induced!

It's astounding to me how many LDS reject the influence of the Holy Spirit!

[eddie]

Good grief! These endless references to previous quotes is absolutely mind numbing!

If contemporary Prophets, Seers & Revelators are the authority by which we can be assured of Doctrinal solid ground, all we need do is avail ourselves of General Conference addresses by them.

I'm not sure how people keep missing Elder D. Todd Christofferson's April 2012 address, "The Doctrine of Christ". He explains the process by which we - as The Church - receive communication through Prophets - for The Church.

He also addresses sometimes aberrant pronouncements from Prophets - past & present - which fail the 'official or binding for the whole Church' definition of The Doctrine of Christ.

Please access the Talk References (footnotes) at the bottom of the printed talk.

Here's the link: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng

I believe we can each and every one breathe easier knowing we have the right and privilege of confirming the efficacy and truth of what our Prophets tell us through the Holy Spirit. I honestly don't believe Christ ever, ever intended His followers to be so without confidence in their relationships with Him that they wait like harnessed animals for the command to move forward!

After Paul, Barnabas, and perhaps others spoke in support of Peter’s declaration, James moved that the decision be implemented by letter to the Church, and the council was united “with one accord” (Acts 15:25; see also verses 12–23). In the letter announcing their decision, the Apostles said, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28), or in other words, this decision came by divine revelation through the Holy Spirit.

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.4

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5

6 J . Reuben Clark Jr., “Church Leaders’ Words,” 10. Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote:“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ “How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest” (“Church Leaders’ Words,” 10).

Thank you for the help! I would send you a heart but
Robert Sinclair used all of them.

[paid2play]

out of curiosity can you provide the revelations from the Lord to back up your opinion that a prophet cannot led us astray? which prophet said that, not trying to be mean or anything im just curious?

President Wilford Woodruff declared,

" The Lord will not let me or any other man lead the Church astray, it is not in the program, He will take them out."

President Gordon B. Hinckley,

" The Lord will never permit the Prophet to lead us astray."

so what makes what they said doctrinal or revelation and what Brigham young said about Adam God, i think the word you used was not canonized and anomaly?

You can research this yourself, I don't think any answer will satisfy you, it is an argument often used by critics of the Church.

i've researched and i will continue to study, ponder and pray...but just cause i question your logic doesnt make me a critic, all i suggested was that you side skirted words taught and preached by a prophet saying its not revelation and then you quote another prophet to justify your philosophy

[eddie]

President Wilford Woodruff declared,

" The Lord will not let me or any other man lead the Church astray, it is not in the program, He will take them out."

President Gordon B. Hinckley,

" The Lord will never permit the Prophet to lead us astray."

so what makes what they said doctrinal or revelation and what Brigham young said about Adam God, i think the word you used was not canonized and anomaly?

You can research this yourself, I don't think any answer will satisfy you, it is an argument often used by critics of the Church.

i've researched and i will continue to study, ponder and pray...but just cause i question your logic doesnt make me a critic, all i suggested was that you side skirted words taught and preached by a prophet saying its not revelation and then you quote another prophet to justify your philosophy

Good luck! Please re-read Buffalo girls explanation.

[paid2play]

so what makes what they said doctrinal or revelation and what Brigham young said about Adam God, i think the word you used was not canonized and anomaly?

You can research this yourself, I don't think any answer will satisfy you, it is an argument often used by critics of the Church.

i've researched and i will continue to study, ponder and pray...but just cause i question your logic doesnt make me a critic, all i suggested was that you side skirted words taught and preached by a prophet saying its not revelation and then you quote another prophet to justify your philosophy

Good luck! Please re-read Buffalo girls explanation.

I could ask you to do the same
"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5"

so the question is was woodruff and hinckley giving their personal opinion?

[bbsion]

I think there is truth in the principle of "follow the prophets" but I believe it's being taught and understood incorrectly by a large portion of the church today. It's really not hard to see why a lot of outsiders think Mormons are brainwashed when you hear what a lot of Mormons say. It can come across as "brainwashed" or "mind-controlled". This is partly why I tell my kids not to get up and recite verbatim the same testimony you hear every single child get up and say during testimony meeting. Do not bear a testimony you do not have. Do not just repeat what you hear other people saying. Do not just "follow the prophet". This same problem exists with grown adults as well. We need to understand what following the prophets really means before we preach it.

In Amos 3:7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

This is very true. God does reveal His secrets to His servants the prophets. That's plural for a reason. This is why it is a very good idea to follow the prophets.

Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:265

“a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such.”

How do we know when the prophet is acting as such? He'll speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. He's not just a good speaker at conference. Prophesy, testimony, preaching repentance, etc. The only way we'll know he's speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost is if we can tune in and recognize it ourselves.

In D&C 1:38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Again, servants is plural for a reason. When a prophet is acting as a prophet then it's as if it's coming from God.

This next scripture is interesting since there were two men in the camp that were prophesying by the power of the Holy Ghost and they were not part of the 70 or the first presidency, yet Moses chastised Joshua.

In Numbers 11:26-29

26 But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

So it seems we are not limited to following the president of the LDS Church, the Quorum of the 12, or the 70 in order to be "following the prophet". We all can and should be prophets so long as we speak by the power of the Holy Ghost. That characteristic alone is what makes an individual someone we should follow.

The thing that scares most people into blindly following the president of the LDS Church and his counselors is that we have been warned there would be false prophets in the last days. Couple that with Woodruff saying "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray..." and generations of adults that were raised reciting verbatim what their friend said over the pulpit, and you get a mixture of people preaching false doctrine regarding "follow the prophet". You have nothing to be scared of if you trust the Holy Ghost. You have everything to worry about if you do not seek to enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost yourself.

[eddie]

You can research this yourself, I don't think any answer will satisfy you, it is an argument often used by critics of the Church.

i've researched and i will continue to study, ponder and pray...but just cause i question your logic doesnt make me a critic, all i suggested was that you side skirted words taught and preached by a prophet saying its not revelation and then you quote another prophet to justify your philosophy

Good luck! Please re-read Buffalo girls explanation.

I could ask you to do the same
"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5"

so the question is was woodruff and hinckley giving their personal opinion?

I doubt that a Prophet of God' would even have a personal
Opinion that would lead anyone astray!

[paid2play]

i've researched and i will continue to study, ponder and pray...but just cause i question your logic doesnt make me a critic, all i suggested was that you side skirted words taught and preached by a prophet saying its not revelation and then you quote another prophet to justify your philosophy

Good luck! Please re-read Buffalo girls explanation.

I could ask you to do the same
"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5"

so the question is was woodruff and hinckley giving their personal opinion?

I doubt that a Prophet of God' would even have a personal
Opinion that would lead anyone astray!

With that line of thinking then what Brigham Young taught about the Adam God is doctrine correct? i mean he did teach it over the pulpit in a General Conference

[Thinker]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Seems straightforward and easy - yet, how often people prioritize following fallible human beings over God!

I cannot trust anybody who puts their trust in other people - who knows what they'll blindly do!
Hitler and Stalin and other crazy leaders have led people off moral and spiritual cliffs.
Any attempt - political or religious etc - to try to persuade you to trust in a person over God - is of the adversary, IMO.

[eddie]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Seems straightforward and easy - yet, how often people prioritize following fallible human beings over God!

I cannot trust anybody who puts their trust in other people - who knows what they'll blindly do!
Hitler and Stalin and other crazy leaders have led people off moral and spiritual cliffs.
Any attempt - political or religious etc - to try to persuade you to trust in a person over God - is of the adversary, IMO.

Well that's your belief, not mine! I believe these men of our First Presidency communicate directly with God. There have been Prophets all through history, I have faith in them, I don't like being called blind, my life has been blessed and guided by them.

[eddie]

Good luck! Please re-read Buffalo girls explanation.

I could ask you to do the same
"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5"

so the question is was woodruff and hinckley giving their personal opinion?

I doubt that a Prophet of God' would even have a personal
Opinion that would lead anyone astray!

With that line of thinking then what Brigham Young taught about the Adam God is doctrine correct? i mean he did teach it over the pulpit in a General Conference

Would any answer satisfy you? There have been many, This is beating a dead horse, take the answers or leave them!

[paid2play]

I could ask you to do the same
"At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”5"

so the question is was woodruff and hinckley giving their personal opinion?

I doubt that a Prophet of God' would even have a personal
Opinion that would lead anyone astray!

With that line of thinking then what Brigham Young taught about the Adam God is doctrine correct? i mean he did teach it over the pulpit in a General Conference

Would any answer satisfy you? There have been many, This is beating a dead horse, take the answers or leave them!

your answer contradicts itself, I seek for truth, in D&C it says "God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round." so how then could i accept your answer when it sways from left to right...i'm not trying to be mean or anything i'm just not following your line of thinking