Mormons As "blind Followers"

[rocmonkey]

Im sorry you provided no such quote from a prophet. You had attempted to so such with an out of context quote.

Are you serious?! I stated word for word what the LDS leaders said. Show where and how it was taken out of context, please. I'm sitting here looking at it, so I know the three I gave are all in context and word for word.

Maybe the 'new and improved' (read as changed- by a never changing god??) doctrines and teachings of your church don't say it this way but this is the way your leaders said it back then.

[selek]

Didn't someone not sustain an 'authority' in 1978 and get fired for it? He was like the grounds keeper for the Temple in SLC or something. I always thought you were free to vote any way you like without fear of retribution- I guess not if the church is your employer, huh? Any one remember that one?

No, I recall nothing of the kind. And I will CFR you on this one.

And for the record, it is the Church's policy that nearly all (though I can't say 100%) of Church employees must be worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Minimal worthiness standards are a far cry from failing to sustain, however.

I rather suspect, that even if your story is accurate, there's quite a bit hidden in the context.

So- CFR: Please demonstrate that a Church employee was fired for failing to sustain an "authority".

[Doctor Steuss]

I did show where the prophet and a soon to be prophet said it.

What does CFR mean?

Oi vey. Is your reading comprehension really this off?

1) Morningstar was talking to Selah, not you.

2) Morningstar was after a citation for a General Authority for having said "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!" (the quote from Selah).

You have not shown where a prophet, nor a "soon to be prophet" have ever said:

"When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!"

I hope your inability to understand context, audience, etc. is only reserved for LDS leaders, scripture, and message boards and does not trickle over to your own personal scripture reading.

-------------

Anyone else often get glad that someone isnâ??t LDS? I know thatâ??s bad for me to think, butâ?¦

[selek]

Are you serious?! I stated word for word what the LDS leaders said. Show where and how it was taken out of context, please. I'm sitting here looking at it, so I know the three I gave are all in context and word for word.

Maybe the 'new and improved' (read as changed- by a never changing god??) doctrines and teachings of your church don't say it this way but this is the way your leaders said it back then.

Hmmmm...your "evidence" gets challenged and you resort to mockery? Kinda hard to have a serious discussion on those terms, isn't it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you serious?! I stated word for word what the LDS leaders said. Show where and how it was taken out of context, please. I'm sitting here looking at it, so I know the three I gave are all in context and word for word.

Maybe the 'new and improved' (read as changed- by a never changing god??) doctrines and teachings of your church don't say it this way but this is the way your leaders said it back then.

Its possible we are talking past wach other here. Saleh post that his bishop said, " That the thinking had been done." Every one here was CFR here about that quote. To wich you replied that you had supllied a refrence for it. Wich I then said you have provided no such quote and provided only an out of context quote. Also Zak an Salek both called you on it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Didn't someone not sustain an 'authority' in 1978 and get fired for it? He was like the grounds keeper for the Temple in SLC or something. I always thought you were free to vote any way you like without fear of retribution- I guess not if the church is your employer, huh? Any one remember that one?

Ah, yes, the case of "Ol' Janitor Bob." I remember it well. It was a cheery Sabbath day, when during conference at the sustaining of church officers, Old Janitor Bob rushed in and voted to not sustain "an authority" in 1978, or something.

He received harsh retribution.

[Doctor Steuss]

rocmonkey is a blind follower. Here are what his prophets have said:

Deut. 18: 15

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken

Jacob 5: 2

Hearken, O ye house of Israel, and hear the words of me, a prophet of the Lord.

Edit:

And do I need to mention what his prophet Abraham did?

Blind obedience is necessary for rockmonkey and is taught by his prophets.

[rocmonkey]

Lets take a chunck of that discourse for context:

Apparently... Apostles have SuperMan vision?!

I wonder if President Young ever used his X-Ray vision to peek in on Mrs. Kimball's dressing room.

Im sorry but I disagree with Heber C. Kimball.

I also notice that it has nothing to do with "killing people" Etc. he's speaking to some people who apparently where being lazy and didn't want to dig a well.

While a well 'may' be his end point he 'definitely' is telling Mormons to do what you're told and its none of your business if its "right or wrong". He's not saying do it whether you believe water is there or not.

The whole point is, Mormons are being told to "blindly" follow their leaders words whether its right or wrong. Justify your religion if you choose but the words, even as you quoted them, are clear.

Then you disagree with God's soon to be prophet.

Also, 'killing people'? Ever hear of Mountain Meadows? Did BY murder (kill) those folks or the blind followers?

[Doctor Steuss]

Also, 'killing people'? Ever hear of Mountain Meadows?

Yes.

Did BY murder (kill) those folks or the blind followers?

No.

Your point?

[selek]

While a well 'may' be his end point he 'definitely' is telling Mormons to do what you're told and its none of your business if its "right or wrong". He's not saying do it whether you believe water is there or not.

This interpretation must be read into the words- it is not there on it's own.

The whole point is, Mormons are being told to "blindly" follow their leaders words whether its right or wrong. Justify your religion if you choose but the words, even as you quoted them, are clear.

The words and the context are clear. It is you who are attempting to remove them from their context and twisting them to say more than they mean.

Then you disagree with God's soon to be prophet.

Thus, proving that one can be a member in good standing and still disagree with the Church leadership. Thank you for the concession- case closed.

Also, 'killing people'? Ever hear of Mountain Meadows? Did BY murder (kill) those folks or the blind followers?

Neither Roc. You need to be a little more familiar with the issues before tossing them around like scarlet letters.

Also, the question is both loaded and implicitly unfair- it is equivalent to me asking whether you are a car thief or drug dealer- either way you lose. Such questions and tactics are unfit and unworthy for a serious dialogue.

Please be more careful with your statements- your undisguised hostility, (apparent) ignorance, and inability to master context make it hard to treat your position fairly.

BTW, how are you coming on that CFR?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While a well 'may' be his end point he 'definitely' is telling Mormons to do what you're told and its none of your business if its "right or wrong". He's not saying do it whether you believe water is there or not.

The whole point is, Mormons are being told to "blindly" follow their leaders words whether its right or wrong. Justify your religion if you choose but the words, even as you quoted them, are clear.

Then you disagree with God's soon to be prophet.

Also, 'killing people'? Ever hear of Mountain Meadows? Did BY murder (kill) those folks or the blind followers?

If you keep this up you will not have any body to talk too here. Kinda sad and all. You keep asserting things then providing nothing or out of context passages. H ave been in a few debates with people tha assert that BY had something to do with MMM I have yet to see any evidince that he did. Most critics try to appeal to guilt by association. This doesnt fly. That is no evidence.

[Jigglysaint]

Ah, yes, the case of "Ol' Janitor Bob." I remember it well. It was a cheery Sabbath day, when during conference at the sustaining of church officers, Old Janitor Bob rushed in and voted to not sustain "an authority" in 1978, or something.

He received harsh retribution.

Those mormons and their silly Blood Atonement...

[Maidservant]

The whole point is, Mormons are being told to follow their leaders words whether its right or wrong.

This is simply not true.

You do not know what you are talking about in this matter.

Reading the entire set of JofD will not prepare you to know what you are talking about in this matter.

You are free to make some argument pro or con on a statement, as many have in this thread. But the statement above, as stated, is incorrect.

Justify your religion if you choose but the words, even as you quoted them, are clear.

I/ We are not justifying anything. There is no need. We enjoy our faith and practice it's principles. We are trying to explain to you the accurate picture, if you are open to it. Please, please start with the 13 Articles of Faith (see them on www.mormon.org or www.lds.org). The JofD is not some sort of oujia board where we hover our finger over the top of the pages and drop the finger and that's what we do for the day. I have never read the entire JofD -- I do read Life on a Plate's blog! Most of the 13,000,000 worldwide members of the church haven't heard or JofD, nor read it, nor do they need to. There is actually a priority to our scriptures that you might wish to understand. The Book of Mormon is a priority. The Holy Bible is a priority (beats out JofD by a verrry long shot!!! ). JofD is not scripture and the prophets in them are not living. JofD is not doctrine as itself.

My religion is in John 3:16. I could justify that, if you like.

You keep jabbing about how God doesn't change. Why don't you, if you like, start a thread all by itself about that topic and see what you might learn about how Mormons on MADB (not the official church doctrine which this is not an official church site) think about the changelessness of God. As a principle, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do affirm that God does not change.

[rocmonkey]

No, I recall nothing of the kind. And I will CFR you on this one.

And for the record, it is the Church's policy that nearly all (though I can't say 100%) of Church employees must be worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Minimal worthiness standards are a far cry from failing to sustain, however.

I rather suspect, that even if your story is accurate, there's quite a bit hidden in the context.

So- CFR: Please demonstrate that a Church employee was fired for failing to sustain an "authority".

I did a quick search on the archives of a number of Utah papers- they don't go back that far. However, if I can find it, would it make a difference to you?

[Zakuska]

And rocmonkey takes it out of context again... Lets see the scripture Heber C. Kimball uses...

Some time ago I brought up a figure. Say I, John, Timothy, Jack, Peter-I do not care who they are-you go up above the arsenal and dig a well, and dig ten or twelve feet, and you shall find a good spring of water. "Well," says brother John, I have no confidence in that, that there can be water got there, neither have I any confidence in you as an Apostle." Say I, I do not care whether you have or not: go and do as I tell you, and you shall be paid for it. You go and dig a well, and dig twelve feet, and find a good spring of water. Now, do you not get the knowledge of that water without a particle of faith or confidence? It is in the works.

Some say, "What is the use of my doing this, or that, or the other thing? I have no faith in it." I do not care a dime for your faith. They produce the knowledge; and then, do you not see, knowledge swallows up faith before you ever had it?

Did you ever know anything to swallow a thing when it was not? Yes, the Methodists' God has neither body, parts, nor passions; and yet they have swallowed him.

Well, now, this is a kind of curious doctrine, but it is true doctrine; for I never knew much faith in exercise in a man, except that man had good works, by going and doing as the servants of God say, to produce faith and knowledge.

Now, I will ask you a question-a scriptural question. I do not know where it is. It is in the Bible. I cannot refer to chapter and verse. I want to refer you to the case of Naaman, the Assyrian, who was smitten with leprosy. How much faith had he? He had not a particle; but his servant, who had faith, prevailed upon him to go down to Jordan. When the Prophet spoke to him and told him to go and dip himself seven times, and he should become whole, he had not a particle of confidence in it. He went down with his riches to buy health, but he could not buy it: he had to do as the Prophet told him. He went down and dipped himself seven times and was healed. Do you not believe, then, he knew things? Said he, "I know now they are the men of God. I know now that God lives, and their words are true; for I did as they told me, but I had not any confidence in them, and I was healed."

Does not that agree with me? I merely bring that up that you may not find fault with my doctrine. Do you not see that is the principle that we must be actuated by? I care not whether you have any faith or not: you go and do as you are told to do, and that produces knowledge; and how long will it be before we shall be presented into the presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? It will not be but a little while. Now, there are a great many People, even to this day, with all the reformation that has been in our midst, who make a practice of telling lies. It is impossible for them to tell a story, except they put into the interstices of that story lies of their own manufacturing. Do you not see that destroys? They make a practice of it. They cannot transact business except they must lie a little. How long, do you suppose, it will take that man to get to heaven and to enter into celestial glory, where lies or anything that is impure cannot exist? It will take him as many millions of years as there will be millions of years to come.

Now what if Instead this leader said... Go and kill so an so and your Leprosy will be healed?

There's a huge difference between the Context this talk is given in and the meaning that critics want to cast it in.

[LifeOnaPlate]

God told His people- through Moses:

"Thou shalt not kill."

I told Moses: I'm not going to blindly follow you, my good sir! And went on my way.

[bluebell]

I did a quick search on the archives of a number of Utah papers- they don't go back that far. However, if I can find it, would it make a difference to you?

where did you hear it, can you at least tell us that much?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I did a quick search on the archives of a number of Utah papers- they don't go back that far. However, if I can find it, would it make a difference to you?

Hey everyone: remember that one thing, about rocmonkey systematically beating and killing all those elderly patients at the nursing home? I think it was like 5 years ago, anyone? Anyone remember that? I'm sure it happened. I'd find a real source of proof on it, but what difference would it make? We all know he did it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did a quick search on the archives of a number of Utah papers- they don't go back that far. However, if I can find it, would it make a difference to you?

And if YOU cant find it, would it make a diffrence to you??

[selek]

I did a quick search on the archives of a number of Utah papers- they don't go back that far. However, if I can find it, would it make a difference to you?

Only in proving whether such a case actually existed and in examining the actual context surrounding the case. I've never heard such a thing, and I rather suspect there's more to the story.

On the one hand, it would definitely help your credibility if you can support your assertions. And on the other, it serves all of our purposes to separate fact from rumor (whether faith promoting or faith impeding).

[Doctor Steuss]

Basically, it all comes down to this.

Claim: Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Response of LDS: No, I do not blindly follow my leaders.

You'd think this would be case closed(?)

But no, instead we get:

Poo Flinging Mammal: No, you do follow your leaders blindly. "So and so" said this. And then thereâ??s the teaching about this. So, you disagree with these prophets; therefore you follow them blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: You blindly follow your leaders.

Response of LDS: No we donâ??t.

Poo Flinging Mammal: I know what you do and believe better than you do. In 1978 a janitor lost his job for doing such and such.

Response of LDS: CFR

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes. You follow blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Context doesnâ??t matterâ?¦ I win.

And thus, I have summed up the future of this thread. It can probably be closed now.

[Lamanite]

I don't know if someone has already posted this cuz I'm jumping in late but here ya go.

â??Brigham Young: "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelation of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." [ibid.; also in Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (London: Latter-day Saintsâ?? Book Depot, 1860), 9:150.]

Jame E. Faust-

â??As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover.

And the caution to us truth seekers

Some people in their searching, however, are not seeking for truth but are given to contention. They do not sincerely seek to learn; rather they desire to dispute,to show their supposed learning and thus cause strife. The Apostle Paul said to Timothy, â??But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifesâ? (2 Tim. 2:23).

Big up!

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't know if someone has already posted this cuz I'm jumping in late but here ya go.

Jame E. Faust-

And the caution to us truth seekers

Big up!

Do you have a source for those last two quotes. I dig 'em!

[rocmonkey]

Oi vey. Is your reading comprehension really this off?

1) Morningstar was talking to Selah, not you.

2) Morningstar was after a citation for a General Authority for having said "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!" (the quote from Selah).

You have not shown where a prophet, nor a "soon to be prophet" have ever said:

*** "When the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done!" *****

WHAT!? That's exactly what Heber and Young are saying. They are just using different words. If I were a betting man I'd bet I could find those exact words were I to search my library of Mormonism.

*** I hope your inability to understand context, audience, etc. is only reserved for LDS leaders, scripture, and message boards and does not trickle over to your own personal scripture reading. *****

I am so sorry that you are so blinded that you can't read right.

-------------

Anyone else often get glad that someone isnâ??t LDS? I know thatâ??s bad for me to think, butâ?¦

I almost was one but I went back to the beginning and did the research. I now know the truth- that's why I'm not LDS.

[bluebell]

Basically, it all comes down to this.

Claim: Mormons blindly follow their leaders.

Response of LDS: No, I do not blindly follow my leaders.

You'd think this would be case closed(?)

But no, instead we get:

Poo Flinging Mammal: No, you do follow your leaders blindly. "So and so" said this. And then thereâ??s the teaching about this. So, you disagree with these prophets; therefore you follow them blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: You blindly follow your leaders.

Response of LDS: No we donâ??t.

Poo Flinging Mammal: I know what you do and believe better than you do. In 1978 a janitor lost his job for doing such and such.

Response of LDS: CFR

Poo Flinging Mammal: Exactly. Your god changes. You follow blindly.

Response of LDS: Huh?

Poo Flinging Mammal: Context doesnâ??t matterâ?¦ I win.

And thus, I have summed up the future of this thread. It can probably be closed now.