Can a Prophet lead us astray?

[wenglund]

Afraid? Well, I am "concerned" that something will happen to a member who does not sustain the church president. He will be considered apostate and possibly just cast out of the church. Do you believe that is the way a non-sustainer should be treated?

I think I understand. You are worried that Church leaders wont sustaina a member who wont sustain the leaders. If only things worked in one direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Does any of this shine back on you?

Not that I would mind if it did, but, no, it really doesn't shine back on me, and this because, unlike you, I don't look at sustainings as an occasion to render my personal judgement of chosen leaders and whether they are fit and in compliance with "the Law" (I prefer to leave that to God and those he has chosen to be judges in Isreal). Rather, I view sustainings as an opportunity for me to publicly commitment myself to assisting those who have been called in furthering the mission of the Church. In short, to me, sustainings are a time to make myself accountable rather than holding leaders accountable.

I look at sustainings this way because I have found that things work best in the gospel when:

1) We each focus more on minding ourselves and our own business (making sure we personally are in compliance with "the Law") instead of the business of the leaders.

2) We concern ourselves more with serving rather than judging.

3) We concern ourselves more with the spirit of the law rather than the letter, and trust more in the Spirit than in our fallible selves.

4) We concern ourselves more with the furtherance of the kingdom rather than taking a relatively insubstantial and meaningless personal stand.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[erichard]

..., unlike you, I don't look at sustainings as an occasion to render my personal judgement of chosen leaders ...

You kinda make me laugh. You just cannot resist taking a personal jab.

But OK, you are not judging the leaders when you sustain them. I accept that.

But is it beyond possible that Christ might actually want you to NOT sustain them?

That serving Christ might best be served by not sustaining them?

Or is it a "done deal": Christ will never allow those in positions of leadership of His church to be off enough that members should not sustain them?

You seem to be unable to flat out say that not sustaining the church President will always be a sin. Is it?

To me, the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are the best evidence I have that the Lord has allowed his church to be led out of the way, and that the correct thing to do is to return to His Written Law instead of having men in the flesh be the law the church lives by.

I realize that unless a person reads the Book of Mormon and gains a testimony of it, that because it contradicts the traditions of the church they grew up in, that it is easy to off hand reject the Book of Mormon. And I realize it is the same with the 2BC.

But once a person has a witness of God's word, even if they do not always understand everything correctly, and say everything correctly, they still have an enormous understanding advantage over those who have rejected His word.

It is just a matter of time and the Lord has promised this:

27 For they seeketh after the glory of the world and seek to gain prestige in politics, and delight in the honor and glory of their position.

28 Behold, if they repent not I shall break down their defenses of self-righteousness, and scatter their armies of hypocrisy, and shall expose before this people their cowardice.

29 And if they repent not in sackcloth and ashes, saith the LORD, I shall raise up men in their places that shall do My bidding, and the evil shall know the wrath of Mine anger, for I shall not allow My name to be mocked before the nations of the earth any longer; and I shall cleanse Mine house with the whip of My tongue. --2BC 24

Richard

[Facsimile 3]

Not that I would mind if it did, but, no, it really doesn't shine back on me, and this because, unlike you, I don't look at sustainings as an occasion to render my personal judgement of chosen leaders and whether they are fit and in compliance with "the Law" (I prefer to leave that to God and those he has chosen to be judges in Isreal). Rather, I view sustainings as an opportunity for me to publicly commitment myself to assisting those who have been called in furthering the mission of the Church. In short, to me, sustainings are a time to make myself accountable rather than holding leaders accountable.

I look at sustainings this way because I have found that things work best in the gospel when:

1) We each focus more on minding ourselves and our own business (making sure we personally are in compliance with "the Law") instead of the business of the leaders.

2) We concern ourselves more with serving rather than judging.

3) We concern ourselves more with the spirit of the law rather than the letter, and trust more in the Spirit than in our fallible selves.

4) We concern ourselves more with the furtherance of the kingdom rather than taking a relatively insubstantial and meaningless personal stand.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well put Wade!

[mfbukowski]

I don't think it is a "sin" to not sustain the church president.

A sin is a deliberate divergence from what has been commanded by God, putting one's own will above his. If one disagrees with a church president to the point of refusing to sustaining him, one has simply expressed his own view that the president of the church should not be president. Such an act would not be a deliberate affront to God- it would be a difference of opinion on what God wants. Big difference.

It is no more a sin to not sustain the president than it is for me to not accept the Pope as the leader of my church. It is a spiritually based opinion upon which people differ all the time.

I also don't accept the Dali Lama as God's representative on earth nor do I accept Rev. Moon as the Second Advent of Christ (or whatever the terminology is)

Do you get my point? If you don't believe in the prophet- you vote with your feet and don't worry about it. I am not about to ask for the Pope to be tried for apostasy because I don't believe he is God's representative on earth- I just left the Catholic church.

Frankly, what's the big deal? I am just not understanding any of this

[rockslider]

Is it still not said that the first sign of apostasy is evil speaking of the GA's?

[wenglund]

You kinda make me laugh. You just cannot resist taking a personal jab.

It wasn't a jab. It was a simple differentiation. No need for you to react so defensively.

But OK, you are not judging the leaders when you sustain them. I accept that.

But is it beyond possible that Christ might actually want you to NOT sustain them?

That serving Christ might best be served by not sustaining them?

Or is it a "done deal": Christ will never allow those in positions of leadership of His church to be off enough that members should not sustain them?

You seem to be unable to flat out say that not sustaining the church President will always be a sin. Is it?

It is not that I am unable to say. Rather, it is that I flat out don't care if it is a sin or not. What I care about is what I am willing to do to forward the cause of Zion. To me, it is quite probable that Christ wants me to consider sustainings in exactly the way that I have. I don't think that Christ or his kingdom or myself will be best served by operating, as you seem inclined to do (this is not a jab, but a differntiation) according to the most remote possibilities.

To me, the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are the best evidence I have that the Lord has allowed his church to be led out of the way, and that the correct thing to do is to return to His Written Law instead of having men in the flesh be the law the church lives by.

I have no doubt that you can look past the mountains of scriptural examples of personal apostasies and find the mole hills of the church being led astray. The question is, "Why?" What is there in your personal make-up that disposes you in this grandeos way? (This is a rhetorical question that you need only answer to yourself if you wish.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Is it still not said that the first sign of apostasy is evil speaking of the GA's?

It IS apostasy. So?

[rockslider]

So? (I call my grandson a goof bucket, but of course, being a friend, I would not want to call you one ... ya know I kidding ).

It seemed like an appropriate comment to the discussion of late (i.e. is it a sin to not support the GA's).

BTW, typically Wade and I tend to butt heads, but his recent post on sustaining was a very good post.

Just throwing out a bit of support for erichard, that outwardly it does seem that not sustaining would be viewed by the everyday TBM as a sin (assuming apostasy is a sin).

Also, unfortunately, for me, it's an issue I need to deal with, being an apostate pretty much strickly based on this principle.

[wenglund]

BTW, typically Wade and I tend to butt heads, but his recent post on sustaining was a very good post.

That was kind of you to say.

However, I have stopped trying to butt heads with you since your head is so much bigger and harder than mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockslider]

That was kind of you to say.

However, I have stopped trying to butt heads with you since your head is so much bigger and harder than mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've noticed that, and appreciate it ... fwiw, I've noticed a gentler wade of late, all the way around.

[wenglund]

I've noticed that, and appreciate it ... fwiw, I've noticed a gentler wade of late, all the way around.

It is worth a lot, though I think erichard and other board participants may sharply disagree.

I hope, however, that everyone will figure out that while the sting of my words may be unpleasant at times, the intent is always to do and say what is in the best interest of all parties. I seek not to hurt but to help. Wake-up calls can be jarring and envoke harsh reactions, but are meant for good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[erichard]

I don't think it is a "sin" to not sustain the church president.

...

Frankly, what's the big deal? I am just not understanding any of this

Hi,

In other churches there is no "common consent" voting. The fact that there is in the LDS church is a strong evidence that it was set up under the direction of the Lord.

The principle of real free agency is paramount in the work of the Lord. As is the rights and responsibilities of the individual. Everything the adversary does involves taking away the real free agency of mankind:

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; --Moses 4

Under the governments of man, the leaders trample on the rights of the people and place themselves above any law. It is their way or the highway. Thus, if a Catholic is concerned that the Pope is in error there is only two options. They either accept him, or as you say, they can leave. That is the way it works in any coercive system not set up by the Lord.

The United States Constitution, greatly inspired by the Lord, sets up checks and balances that protects the free agency and rights of the people. The D&C likewise sets up various quorums with equal power (see D&C 107) for some reason. What could that reason be?

But just think about the process of common consent voting-- which asks for those who agree and then for those who do not agree. Why would the Lord set this up if it was automatically certain that those we are asked to sustain should be sustained?

If you study the scriptures concerning free agency and the rights and responsibilities of the individual I am convinced you will come to realize that common consent voting is not a trivial thing. One had better try to do it right. It does not make any sense that the only correct thing to do is to always say yea. And that those who say nay are always apostates.

If you are a prayerful person, and are thinking just as the four points that Wade says-- minding your own business and not trying to out think the leaders-- is it still not possible that the answer to your prayers might be that something is wrong in what the leaders are doing? Is it not YOUR business to not support errors?

It certainly is not your business to try to take over and fix things, but it is your business to not support things the Spirit warns against.

So what option do you have? Just sustain him or leave the church? No, you also have the option to NOT sustain the leader.

Wow. That is a right and responsibility that is not given members of most churches because the Lord did not set them up.

I hope this makes my concerns more clear. If claiming the right to not sustain the church president means a member will be cast out, then I am concerned that a system of subtle coercion has taken over the church.

Richard

[mfbukowski]

So what option do you have? Just sustain him or leave the church? No, you also have the option to NOT sustain the leader.

Wow. That is a right and responsibility that is not given members of most churches because the Lord did not set them up.

I hope this makes my concerns more clear. If claiming the right to not sustain the church president means a member will be cast out, then I am concerned that a system of subtle coercion has taken over the church.

That in itself is not a good reason imo to "cast a member out", if everything else was in line with doctrine. But I still don't see why one would want to stay- and that is something you won't address.

Start your own religion if that is what your conscience genuinely tells you. I still say I wouldn't want to stay if I felt that way, but to each his own.

And incidentally, the Lord's church is not a democracy! We don't get to vote on doctrine.

The scripture quotes you posted were about about the law of consecration which is a whole different thing

[thatjimguy]

Ok I looked it up (granted it's wikipedia), but there were Prophets during the time of the Nephites. That should at least say it's possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_the_Lamanite

[zerinus]

First off, is this part of OD1 considered canon and therefore binding on the LDS church:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

So here we read that WW said it's not in the mind of God to allow his Prophet to lead the church astray. Yet this is what JFS had to say about it:

When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously. Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is.

Personally, I align more with JFS. We have both biblical and modern day precedent for being taught something that was later determined to be false doctrine or incorrect (Adam/God doctrine comes to mind).

What are your thoughts on the subject? Can WW and the JFS quote be reconciled in your mind? If not, which do you hold to?

What the WW quote means is that the Lord will not allow the Prophet to intentionally lead the Church astray. In other words, if he became wicked in his heart, and schemed to lead people astray, and cause them to sin, like Balaam did in the Old Testament, the Lord would intervene to prevent him from doing it. It does not mean that he cannot make a mistake in doctrine.

The Prophet is not above the law. He is subject to the laws of the Church like anybody else is. If he became a transgressor, the mechanism is in place to have him investigated and appropriate action taken (D&C 107:82

[Lightbearer]

I think my Post # 36 may have gotten lost in all the noise of the derailing, however I did address the OP directly and would like a response.

First you should look at the context of JFS remarks. Quote mining and cherry picking is an old trick, to makes it appear that two prophets disagree, when in fact they may have been referring to two different things entirely. For example I have a referenced quote from President Smith that agrees with WW:

(Joseph Fielding Smith, in Conference Report, April 1972, pg. 99) "I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord."

Sounds familiar? Also the quote from OD-1 is from the Standard Works! So it would trump anything a prophet or apostle may say as his own opinion.... Perhaps it appears that JFS and WW were out of harmony but they were not, the fact is when WW made his statement it was in defense of the Manifesto, and was given in context to a revelation to the Church, not the writings or sermons that may be complied in a book published by anyone other than the Church. The remarks quoted in the OP seems to be directed at books or articles or statements made by various general authorities (Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" being one example) where they may not accord with existing revelation or they are not according to the united voice of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, then they are not considered binding on the Church and are only inspired men's opinions. My quote in April 1972 Conference report is binding, in my estimation and it agrees with the WW statement in ever respect. The JFS quote from the OP reminds me of a statement Elder McConkie made regarding his or anyone else's writings with regard to their doctrinal accuracy. If their writings or statements depart from the standard works, or the teachings of the First Presidency and the Twelve, we do not have to accept them. If they do agree however, then they are the mind and will of God and we are duty bound to accept them and God will hold all accountable for them.

[Jason]

Afraid? Well, I am "concerned" that something will happen to a member who does not sustain the church president. He will be considered apostate and possibly just cast out of the church. Do you believe that is the way a non-sustainer should be treated?

Have you ever seen anyone treated in this fashion? Why be afraid of something that has never happened?

Why even ask for votes for or against the church President if it is automatically a sin to not sustain him?

To permit the membership of the Church the opportunity to align their wills with revelation and commit to follow.

It is very normal in a

[wenglund]

I hope this makes my concerns more clear. If claiming the right to not sustain the church president means a member will be cast out, then I am concerned that a system of subtle coercion has taken over the church. Richard

Sounds to me like you may be grooming yourself to become the "one mighty and strong".

If so, there is a long line of apostates in front of you--which ought to tell you something.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

What are your thoughts on the subject?

for those who believe in the LDS teachings it does not really matter if a prophet 'leads' you astray since you can always come up with the back-up plan: "he was just talking as a man, not as a prophet" or "personal opinion" or "they make mistakes because they are human" or "it was because of their culture", etc, etc.

I think the question is: what does a prophet have to do in order to be considered "astray"?

[erichard]

Have you ever seen anyone treated in this fashion? Why be afraid of something that has never happened?

To permit the membership of the Church the opportunity to align their wills with revelation and commit to follow.

Essentially yes. The difference is that the Lord is not a fallible human being.

Hi Jason,

I was excommunicated just for claiming the right to not sustain the President of the church-- and to not reject the evidence for this decision. The only charge against me was "apostasy". Yet I did not actually claim to "be" right, just to have the right of legitimate dissent. You can read this.

I am convinced that you do not correctly understand the principle of "common consent". You equate the President of the church with the Lord. But if that was truly the case there would never need to be common consent voting over him.

There are two scriptures that unmistakably show that the President of the church can possibly fail and have to be removed-- and that it is the responsibility of the members, not the LORD, to remove him. Do you know what two scriptures I am speaking of?

Richard

[erichard]

Sounds to me like you may be grooming yourself to become the "one mighty and strong".

If so, there is a long line of apostates in front of you--which ought to tell you something.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you bum.

Here you go again. I just read the Board Guidelines, and you are violating them.

You are: insulting me, mocking me, accusing me of being dillusional, and otherwise being disrespecful of me.

By the way, it is my conviction (and I have mentioned it on MADB in the past) that the One Mighty and Strong will be Adam when He comes to Adam-Ondi-Ahman. But obviously what I actually think is irrelevant to what you say about me.

Because you do not respond to the logic of my posts, but attact me, I cannot help but wonder if you are seeking for postitions in the church?

13 And there are many in My church who seek after offices, even that they would fain buy their offices with flattery and great speaking.

14 And I will reveal these unto you that they may be cast out, for ye shall not spare, nor fear what man can do, for if ye live My commandments and have My Spirit ye cannot be confounded, neither can ye be killed nor slain. 2BC 5

Richard

[crusader]

I have to agree with the side that the Prophet can lead us astray.

Joseph Smith taught the Relief Society this:

[Jason]

I was excommunicated just for claiming the right to not sustain the President of the church-- and to not reject the evidence for this decision. The only charge against me was "apostasy". Yet I did not actually claim to "be" right, just to have the right of legitimate dissent. You can read this.

To put it bluntly, I don't believe you were excommunicated only for not sustaining the President.

If you merely fail to raise your hand when the sustaining vote happens there is no way you will be excommunicated for apostasy.

I am curious - you mention Brigham Young and Adam-God as being a problem, but I don't see any beef you had with the then-current President of the Church. Was there some reason you didn't want to sustain him? Some grave offense you thought he was guilty of?

I am convinced that you do not correctly understand the principle of "common consent". You equate the President of the church with the Lord. But if that was truly the case there would never need to be common consent voting over him.

I'm sorry, but it is clear you do not understand the way common consent works in the Church. It really isn't the case that the Church can vote to reject someone's calling or revelation given to the Church by its Prophet.

I am not directly equating the President of the Church with the Lord, merely stating that when he speaks as Prophet it effectively is the Lord speaking.

There are two scriptures that unmistakably show that the President of the church can possibly fail and have to be removed-- and that it is the responsibility of the members, not the LORD, to remove him. Do you know what two scriptures I am speaking of?

Of course.

And? New prophets can supercede the teachings of the old, you know. If not we would still be living the Law of Moses.

[kamenraider]

I don't think that OD 1 was ever supposed to be understood as a revelation, but rather a press release based on inspiration in a situation where the Church was threatened with destruction if it continued on the same course. From the book Solemn Covenant:

He [b.H. Roberts] described it [OD 1] to the senators as "an official act of the church