Can a Prophet lead us astray?

[erichard]

...

What does the Lord say?

...

The Lord also said this:

Revelation Received Sunday, November 24, 1889

By President Wilford Woodruff, .

(Journal of Wilford Woodruff)

(Also Messages of the First Presidency 3:175)

At Salt Lake City, Utah Territory

1 Thus saith the LORD to My servant Wilford, I the Lord have heard thy prayer and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of My Spirit.

2 Thus saith the LORD, unto My servants, the Presidency of My Church, who hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth.

3 I the Lord hold the destiny of the Courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and all other nations of the earth in Mine own hands; all that I have revealed, and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live, shall come to pass, and no power shall stay My hand.

4 Let not My servants who are called to the Presidency of My Church, deny My word or My law, which concerns the salvation of the children of men.

5 Let them pray for the Holy Spirit, which shall be given them, to guide them in their acts.

6 Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise;

7 Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of My people.

8 If the Saints will hearken unto My voice, and the counsel of My servants, the wicked shall not prevail.

9 Let My servants, who officiate as your Counselors before the Courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they shall be justified.

10 I the LORD will hold the Courts, with the officers of government, and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.

11 I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your Advocate with the Father.

12 Fear not little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.

13 Fear not the wicked and ungodly.

14 Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me; also those revelations which I have given to My Servant Joseph, and to all My Servants since the world began, which are recorded in the records of divine truth.

15 Those revelations contain the judgments of God, which are to be poured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include great Babylon.

16 These judgments are at the door, they will be fulfilled as God lives.

17 Leave judgment with Me, it is Mine saith the LORD.

18 Watch the signs of the times, and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the LORD.

19 Let my servants call upon the LORD in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion, and act as you are moved upon by that spirit, and all will be well with you.

20 The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by the judgments of God.

21 Great events await you and this generation, and are nigh at your doors.

22 Awake, O Israel, and have faith in God, and His promises, and He will not forsake you.

23 I, the Lord will deliver My Saints from the dominion of the wicked, in Mine own due time and way.

24 I cannot deny My word, neither in blessings nor judgments.

25 Therefore let Mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep My commandments.

26 Pray always and faint not; exercise faith in the LORD and in the promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.

27 The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Hosts are watching over you and your acts.

28 Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly, to reward every man according with the deeds done in the body.

Even so, Amen.

Even though I believe the Manifesto was the correct thing to do at the time, I also believe it was correct for President Woodruff to continue to allow some Elders to go to Mexico and enter into plural marriages there, and then come back. This did not end until 1904 under President Joseph F. Smith.

This revelation, and the John Taylor one above both make it clear that the efforts by the government to stop all plural marriages among the Latter-day Saints was not in harmony with the Lord's law and will.

President Woodruff did not lead the church astray. He did not have political authority, and was inspired to bring the church in harmony with the government so that it would not be broken up. People in the church have led themselves astray by wanting it to be true that plural marriage will never again be part of the New and Everlasting covenant. But what the people want and what actually is the Law of the Lord is often two different things.

Richard

[erichard]

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

...

Hi Jason,

It was for not sustaining him AND for not rejecting the evidence for not sustaining him.

I did not reject the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments, for instance. I am more certain now than ever that these revelations are from the Lord. The 2BC forbids setting up another church, and reveals the the LDS church will be eventually cleansed of its Gentile corruptions in a coming "year of cleansing". So I have never suggested anyone leave the LDS church.

The Stake President falsely accused me privately of some kind of immorality, but I never even understood his accusation, and the only charge against me in the trial was "apostasy".

In the trial six of the high councilors were told they were to try to defend me, as according to D&C 102:15. When he finally had a chance to speak, one of those called to defend me jumped up and said something like, "Richard if you do not sustain the President of the church obviously you should be excommunicated." That man, by the way, three months later committed adultery and was excommunicated himself.

I honestly did not feel a good spirit at the trial. It was the politics of men, pure and simple.

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?

There are a multitude of problems. The D&C for one thing is full of instructions the church is not living. The 2BC reveals that President Kimball was deceived by the adversary, and that the Lord has allowed the church to be led out of the way to expose those who are seeking the glory of the world in their hearts.

... 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. ...

Just because the President of the church teaches something in General Conference, that does not make it true revelation. If it did, then President Young's Adam-God and Seed of Cain teachings should be put into the D&C. There is the possibility that someone called to a position should NOT be sustained. And that is true even for the someone called to be the President of the church.

Common consent voting is not just a way for members to show their allegiance to those in office. Members are to be prayerful and listen to their conscience and be prepared to vote either way as the spirit directs them. That is what I understand.

Richard

[Jason]

It was for not sustaining him AND for not rejecting the evidence for not sustaining him.

With respect, that doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you could clarify HOW you "rejected the evidence"?

I did not reject the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments, for instance. I am more certain now than ever that these revelations are from the Lord. The 2BC forbids setting up another church, and reveals the the LDS church will be eventually cleansed of its Gentile corruptions in a coming "year of cleansing". So I have never suggested anyone leave the LDS church.

This makes more sense. If you were openly associating with an apostate group, which is what this group of 2BC believers sounds like (whether or not they call themselves a Church) then you were in fact guilty of apostasy, and your excommunication was likely for this, not "refusing to sustain the prophet".

There are a multitude of problems. The D&C for one thing is full of instructions the church is not living. The 2BC reveals that President Kimball was deceived by the adversary, and that the Lord has allowed the church to be led out of the way to expose those who are seeking the glory of the world in their hearts.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly - and forgive me if I'm not -your beef with the Church specifically was that we have let people of African descent have the priesthood since 1978? Is that correct?

Yes, I can well see how people might call that racism.

Just because the President of the church teaches something in General Conference, that does not make it true revelation. If it did, then President Young's Adam-God and Seed of Cain teachings should be put into the D&C.

Just because something isn't in the D&C doesn't mean it's not a revelation.

And it's still up in the air exactly what BY was teaching with Adam/God (although I have my theories).

There is the possibility that someone called to a position should NOT be sustained. And that is true even for the someone called to be the President of the church.

Not really, no. If someone is called to a position, it is a question of your faith whether you are willing to sustain them in the calling the Lord has given them. Their own conduct is immaterial.

Common consent voting is not just a way for members to show their allegiance to those in office. Members are to be prayerful and listen to their conscience and be prepared to vote either way as the spirit directs them. That is what I understand.

My understanding is different.

Sustaining the prophet/bishop/nursery leader is an act of faith, not a vote per se. An objection vote is really a cue for the presiding officer to come and discuss your reasons for not voting yes, not for rejecting the calling the Lord has issued to the person through His representatives.

And yes, sometimes the person called is completely inept in their calling. That doesn't mean it didn't come from God.

[MormonDude]

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

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:

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?

On your question can a Prophet lead us astray; yes. If they became apostate. But they wouldn't get very far; every decision made by a prophet is pretty much discussed with his 1st and 2nd counsellors, making decisions for the church without the counsellors knowing, is not right...

[erichard]

...

This makes more sense. If you were openly associating with an apostate group, which is what this group of 2BC believers sounds like (whether or not they call themselves a Church) then you were in fact guilty of apostasy, and your excommunication was likely for this, not "refusing to sustain the prophet".

...

Hi again,

Who has the right to determine who exactly is an apostate group?

The Second Book of Commandments forbids setting up another church, and reaffirms the revelations and doctrines found in the First Book of Commandments (the D&C). The 2BC brings out controversy against church leaders, so the controversy is not if the church is true, but if the leaders are in harmony with the Lord.

If anyone is automatically apostate who accepts evidence against a church leader (a man in the flesh with blood in his veins), then the right of legitimate dissent over church leadership becomes impossible.

D&C 43 gives this warning:

9 And thus

ye shall become instructed in the law of my church

, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me--

10 That inasmuch as ye do this, glory shall be added to the kingdom which ye have received.

Inasmuch as ye do it not, it shall be

TAKEN

, even that which ye have received.

Since the D&C is FULL of instructions the church does not live by, and no further D&C type revelation has been given through church leadership for over 120 years, is it not a valid concern that the gift to receive D&C type revelation has been TAKEN from the church as D&C 43:10 warns?

And if the gift has been taken, then the promises with the gift have also been taken away.

I sincerely believe that the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are a valid evidence that justifies a church member in NOT sustaining the present church LDS President and leadership, and yet still accepting that this church is the Lord's church.

If the church leaders can call anyone who accepts evidence against them apostate, then they are clearly above the law.

Richard

[wenglund]

Hi again,

Who has the right to determine who exactly is an apostate group?

God, as revealed through his chosen leaders. Obviously.

However, the better question is, what deliniates which groups are apostate? The answer is, the religious institution. Those groups that are "set apart from" or rebel against or disaffiliate with the religious institution are, by definition, apostate.

Either way, your 2BC group qualifies, as formally evinced by your excommunication.

You are free to believe otherwise, but in terms of the Church, your belief is irrelevant. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[alter idem]

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

...

Hi Jason,

It was for not sustaining him AND for not rejecting the evidence for not sustaining him.

Richard, do you feel your excommunication was unfair? Because IMO, given what you've shared on this board, it was the right decision.

You believe in the second book of commandments, right? Therefore, as I understand, you believe Robert Crossfield's claims and your loyalties lie with him. He preaches that the LDS prophets have gone astray and therefore, if you refused to reject Crossfield's revelations, then of course you don't sustain or believe in the present LDS prophet and you are in apostasy.

I suspect that if your Stake Pres. was implying some sort of immorality on your part, it may be because Crossfield was associated with polygamous groups--This is not a stretch to make that leap that maybe you were also involved with polygamy. Whether or not your were doesn't matter though--your refusal to reject Crossfield's revelations was what determined your fate. How can the church NOT take a stand against a member who would lead others into a break off sect that teaches them to believe that LDS prophets have gone astray and some other person is the one they should listen to?

I think you need to accept that you gave the Disciplinary Court no choice but to excommunicate you. Anyone who considers Robert Crossfield or Christopher Nemelka or anyone else to be the one who receives direct revelation from God, rather than President Thomas S. Monson, is not a believer in the LDS church and if this information is brought to the attention of church authorities, they MUST act. And it's not just a matter of just belief either, because belief leads to action. If the church doesn't act to remove members who are in apostasy, they endanger the rest of the members to be led away.

[Jason]

Who has the right to determine who exactly is an apostate group?

The Lord has that right, and He has said that those who accept revelations outside of the established line of Church authority (established by the Lord) are apostate.

Anyone who accepts any revelation intended to govern the Church that was not given through the Lord's established channels is by definition apostate.

If anyone is automatically apostate who accepts evidence against a church leader (a man in the flesh with blood in his veins), then the right of legitimate dissent over church leadership becomes impossible.

The specific issue is not accepting "evidence" - it is believing in revelation from sources outside the channels the Lord has established. It is this specific form of "evidence" that is problematic.

It reminds one of Hyrum Page's stone.

Since the D&C is FULL of instructions the church does not live by, and no further D&C type revelation has been given through church leadership for over 120 years, is it not a valid concern that the gift to receive D&C type revelation has been TAKEN from the church as D&C 43:10 warns?

No, it is not a valid concern. Revelation as authentic and important as anything in the D&C is received every day by Church leaders. What has changed is the need to add those revelations to a single book. We don't need to have revelations printed in the Standard Works in order for them to be authoritative and useful to us.

A living prophet is superior to a dead one - plain and simple. Nothing that Joseph Smith or other early Church leaders received cannot be superceded through modern revelation.

The instructions in the D&C not followed today are those that are not currently required of us by the Lord, as directed by His representatives.

And, of course, your figure of 120 years ago is off anyway, since OD2 was added only 30 years ago, and Section 138 was added 92 years ago.

I sincerely believe that the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are a valid evidence that justifies a church member in NOT sustaining the present church LDS President and leadership, and yet still accepting that this church is the Lord's church.

And that would explain why you were excommunicated - because you believe in alternate sources of revelation to govern the Church and are desirous to share that opinion with others, not because you believe the Prophet is human.

I notice you also did not confirm that your primary problem with Church leadership is in fact OD2. Is it?

Do you have a problem with OD1 too?

[Glenn101]

Just wanted to get the discussion back on track a bit. There is no way that the prophet could ever lead the church astray. There are too many people who post on this board that already know more than President Monson and they will not let him?!?!

Glenn

[crusader]

Just wanted to get the discussion back on track a bit. There is no way that the prophet could ever lead the church astray. There are too many people who post on this board that already know more than President Monson and they will not let him?!?!

Glenn

That's the key. The Prophet can be deceived and can try to lead us astray, but it is up to US not God to make sure that he doesn't. We must be sure enough in the scriptures and the Gospel to know when a prophet is leading us astray and to make sure it doesn't happen. Well that's what the scriptures tell us anyway.

[erichard]

The Lord has that right, and He has said that those who accept revelations outside of the established line of Church authority (established by the Lord) are apostate.

Anyone who accepts any revelation intended to govern the Church that was not given through the Lord's established channels is by definition apostate.

...

Hi Jason,

In D&C 52 it says:

14 And again, I will give unto you a PATTERN in all things, that ye may not be deceived; ...

The world is FULL of men and institutions making the same claim that you give the present LDS church leadership. Many claim:

They are the servants of the Lord.

What they are doing is the Lord's work.

If the Lord has further knowleged to give the people it will be through them.

When the Lord sent a true prophet in ancient Israel, that prophet would often also have the gift to write the Word of the Lord. Sending forth written oracles is a very fair thing to do for a person claiming revelation. That way others can assess his revelation on their own, and seek a testimony of it independently.

When the prophet Jeremiah came, pretty much everyone but a very few rejected him. He was "outside the established authority", his revelations predicted the fall of the Lord's people to Babylon-- obviously a false prediction.

But Jeremiah did bring forth fruit according to the established PATTERN: his revelations were presented as written oracles and were given to the people to read. In the end, Jeremiah against all expectations in his time turned out to be the true prophet.

When the prophet Joseph came, priestcraft was alive and well in America. Everything Joseph said and did contradicted the established churches and their teachings. He was so obviously false it was ridiculous.

But to Joseph was restore the gift of receiving oracles according to the established PATTERN. He had very little education and he had to have scribes, but his written revelations were inspiring to others, and in the end the work he set up did go forward, and continues today.

And your trust in Joseph and the authority he restored is based on your trust that the revelations he received were according to the established pattern, and are truly the Iron Rod that will lead one through the mists of darkness and priestcrafts to the tree of life.

Looking for who has authority is not the only issue. King Saul had authority. The Jews at the time of Christ had authority. King Noah in the Book of Mormon had authority. Etc.

Who today has the gift of oracles according to the established PATTERN? The fact that there are numerous men writing such oracles, such as Nemelka, Bulla, etc is a witness that the adversary is seeking to counterfeit the true oracles being given. So who has this gift today?

... Revelation as authentic and important as anything in the D&C is received every day by Church leaders. What has changed is the need to add those revelations to a single book. We don't need to have revelations printed in the Standard Works in order for them to be authoritative and useful to us.

I realize that there are more spiritual gifts than one. Yet the iron rod is not "conference talks". Conference talks can have errors in them. President Young's conference teachings that is rejected today is a good example.

A living prophet is superior to a dead one - plain and simple. Nothing that Joseph Smith or other early Church leaders received cannot be superseded through modern revelation. The instructions in the D&C not followed today are those that are not currently required of us by the Lord, as directed by His representatives.

The D&C came through the gift of oracles, according to the Pattern the Lord established. If revelations in it are to be superseded, should that not come forth through the same gift?

You seem to be trying to give the church leaders-- men in the flesh, with blood in their veins, a BLANK CHECK. The men become the law the church lives by. This is setting up a "government by men" instead of the D&C "government by LAW". I do not trust your doctrine at all. Neither did President Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.

"It makes no difference what is written or about what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the LORD has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 3, Page 203

And, of course, your figure of 120 years ago is off anyway, since OD2 was added only 30 years ago, and Section 138 was added 92 years ago.

OD2 and OD1 were not written as oracles according to the Word of the Lord Pattern. I agree that there are other spiritual gifts, such as inspiration and dreams, but I am talking about the particular gift of receiving the Word of the Lord according to the pattern the Lord established.

...

Do you have a problem with OD1 too?

It is not the Word of the Lord. Plain and simple. But President Woodruff did receive revelation. Here are links to the Wilford Woodruff and the John Taylor Word of the Lord Oracles:

Woodruff

Taylor

Richard

[Deborah]

It is not the Word of the Lord. Plain and simple. But President Woodruff did receive revelation. Here are links to the Wilford Woodruff and the John Taylor Word of the Lord Oracles:

How can you make that claim about OD1 when after Pres. Woodruff gave his revelation Pres Snow stated the following:

[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.

Seems as if this post has been ignored, but since it directly address the OP I repeat it again here. There is no contradiction between Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Fielding Smith. It is a strawman argument.

[kamenraider]

erichard, is this you?

[Jason]

The world is FULL of men and institutions making the same claim that you give the present LDS church leadership.

Of course. However, the Spirit has not testified to me that any of their claims are true. I have received confirmation that the Church leaders are what they claim they are.

And your trust in Joseph and the authority he restored is based on your trust that the revelations he received were according to the established pattern, and are truly the Iron Rod that will lead one through the mists of darkness and priestcrafts to the tree of life.

Uh, no. My trust in Joseph's revelations is based on the Spirit's confirmation of the same, not because they just sound like they follow the pattern of ancient scripture.

Who today has the gift of oracles according to the established PATTERN?

Thomas S. Monson, with regards to receiving the Lord's word for the Church and the world at large. His councilors and the members of the Twelve as well. And on down to my own bishop and myself, each of us with regards to our specific stewardship. I have myself received and given "oracles" pertaining to the areas of my stewardship, though those are personal and sacred experiences that I probably will not wish to share on a public forum.

I realize that there are more spiritual gifts than one. Yet the iron rod is not "conference talks". Conference talks can have errors in them.

As can all written scripture. Error creeps in wherever fallible man has a hand. However, "leading astray" is something very different from allowing the occasional error.

The D&C came through the gift of oracles, according to the Pattern the Lord established. If revelations in it are to be superseded, should that not come forth through the same gift?

Modern revelation does come forth through the same gift.

You seem to be trying to give the church leaders-- men in the flesh, with blood in their veins, a BLANK CHECK.

Not at all. I would not sustain these men if the Spirit did not confirm to me that they are acting properly and that the counsel they give is in fact from the Lord.

OD2 and OD1 were not written as oracles according to the Word of the Lord Pattern.

What in particular is deficient in them? You seem to be saying that there is an obvious and quantifiable difference between what is in the D&C and what is given today, yet you haven't said what this difference is precisely.

It is not the Word of the Lord. Plain and simple.

I take it this means you are presently involved in plural marriage?

[MorningStar]

Hi again,

Who has the right to determine who exactly is an apostate group?

The Second Book of Commandments forbids setting up another church, and reaffirms the revelations and doctrines found in the First Book of Commandments (the D&C). The 2BC brings out controversy against church leaders, so the controversy is not if the church is true, but if the leaders are in harmony with the Lord.

If anyone is automatically apostate who accepts evidence against a church leader (a man in the flesh with blood in his veins), then the right of legitimate dissent over church leadership becomes impossible.

D&C 43 gives this warning:

9 And thus

ye shall become instructed in the law of my church

, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me--

10 That inasmuch as ye do this, glory shall be added to the kingdom which ye have received.

Inasmuch as ye do it not, it shall be

TAKEN

, even that which ye have received.

Since the D&C is FULL of instructions the church does not live by, and no further D&C type revelation has been given through church leadership for over 120 years, is it not a valid concern that the gift to receive D&C type revelation has been TAKEN from the church as D&C 43:10 warns?

And if the gift has been taken, then the promises with the gift have also been taken away.

I sincerely believe that the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments are a valid evidence that justifies a church member in NOT sustaining the present church LDS President and leadership, and yet still accepting that this church is the Lord's church.

If the church leaders can call anyone who accepts evidence against them apostate, then they are clearly above the law.

Richard

I knew a guy who was excommunicated for preaching false doctrine. I'm betting that had something to do with it. Did you approach other members in the church with the documents you have shown others here?

[alter idem]

erichard, is this you?

It very well could be. How to 'identify true Israel?'.

According to the 2nd book of Commandments, I'm not true Israel..nevermind that my patriarchal blessing says the blood of Joseph runs in my veins(and I'm a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith), I've got sinister brown eyes so I can't be! Where do they get this stuff?

To me, it's clear why some people have broken off from the LDS church. They get upset when the Prophet teaches something they don't like, such as racial equality. Some even go to extremes, like Crossfield, deciding that THEY are the chosen voice of God and not the Prophet, rather than have to humble themselves and accept change and the resulting spiritual growth which would have come with it.

I have to wonder what purpose do they see in having a present day prophet and modern day revelation if it isn't so that God can teach us new things, line upon line, precept upon precept.

[Deborah]

I have to wonder what purpose do they see in having a present day prophet and modern day revelation if it isn't so that God can teach us new things, line upon line, precept upon precept.

Amen!

[Jason]

If they are accepting the "revelations" of someone like Crossfield then they are accepting the idea of a modern prophet. They just aren't accepting the idea that God would change His mind on some subjects.

As I argued long and hard on another thread, deciding that God would never ask you to do something, even things that appear abhorrent and unthinkable to you, is a good way to become an apostate.

[erichard]

...

According to the 2nd book of Commandments, I'm not true Israel..nevermind that my patriarchal blessing says the blood of Joseph runs in my veins (and I'm a direct descendant of Hyrum Smith), I've got sinister brown eyes so I can't be! Where do they get this stuff?

...

Hi Alter idem,

Ah, you caught me! What can I say? I do not post very often on Stormfront, by the way, but that is another topic.

I do consider myself a "White Nationalist" (not a White Supremacist) because I believe that true Israel was the foundation of the present day White race. And I believe the time has come for Israel to gather again into tribes and regain all their former blessings and callings.

Concerning eye color, to be fair, the Second Book of Commandments should speak for itself:

34 But those few [of Israel after they were scattered] who did keep themselves pure, and defiled not themselves, retained the fairness of their skin and the blueness of their eyes.

35 For this is one of the ways they shall be identified in these the last days.

--2BC 139

So it says that the sign of blue eyes and fair complexion is "one of the ways" Israel will be identified in the last days. If a person has this sign, then they are of Israel. If they do not have the sign, then there needs to be a revelation or spiritual witness to identify them. It does not say brown eyed people are never of Israel.

Furthermore, other revelation teaches that if a woman does not have the sign, but she marries an Israelite and bears children with the sign then she can have her Gentile blood purged by ordinance, and she then has all the rights of an Israelite woman.

My mother's mother was a Smith. Her grandfather was Joseph Smith's first cousin George A. Smith. So I am distantly related to you.

When I read the 2BC I realize that I am being taught by the Holy Ghost, and not by man. As 2BC 24 says:

2 Take pen in hand and write that which I will show unto thee, for thou shalt prophesy unto this people as in times past, even unto all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from the greatest to the least, that they may know My will saith the LORD.

3 And those who shall not heed My word shall not find an inheritance in My kingdom. For how can ye dwell in a kingdom that ye are not prepared for?

4

For if ye soften not your hearts like unto a little child how then can ye receive instruction?

5

For a child taketh instruction from his parents that he be not ignorant.

6

How then shall ye not humble thyself and take instruction from your Father in Heaven, and be not ignorant of your pathway to Eternal Life, and live?

When I listen to General Conference I realize I am being taught by very educated, very well spoken men presenting very polished discourses using telepromters. It is simply not the same as being taught by the Holy Ghost.

Richard

Salvation cannot come without revelation, it is in vain for anyone to minister without it." --8 August 1839

"Where there is a prophet, a priest or a righteous man unto whom God gives His Oracles, there is the Kingdom of God; and where the Oracles of God are not, there the Kingdom of God is not." --22 January 1843

"Jesus in his teaching says upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. What rock? Revelation." --22 January 1843

"A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world-- as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power, than many men who are on the earth. Hence, it needs Revelation to assist us and give us knowledge of the things of God." --10 April 1844

"We must have revelations then, and we can see that the doctrine of revelation as far transcends the doctrine of no revelation as knowledge is above ignorance; for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence." --10 March 1844

[MorningStar]

Hi Alter idem,

Ah, you caught me! What can I say? I do not post very often on Stormfront, by the way, but that is another topic.

I do consider myself a "White Nationalist" (not a White Supremacist) because I believe that true Israel was the foundation of the present day White race. And I believe the time has come for Israel to gather again into tribes and regain all their former blessings and callings.

Concerning eye color, to be fair, the Second Book of Commandments should speak for itself:

So it says that the sign of blue eyes and fair complexion is "one of the ways" Israel will be identified in the last days. If a person has this sign, then they are of Israel. If they do not have the sign, then there needs to be a revelation or spiritual witness to identify them. It does not say brown eyed people are never of Israel.

Furthermore, other revelation teaches that if a woman does not have the sign, but she marries an Israelite and bears children with the sign then she can have her Gentile blood purged by ordinance, and she then has all the rights of an Israelite woman.

My mother's mother was a Smith. Her grandfather was Joseph Smith's first cousin George A. Smith. So I am distantly related to you.

When I read the 2BC I realize that I am being taught by the Holy Ghost, and not by man. As 2BC 24 says:

2 Take pen in hand and write that which I will show unto thee, for thou shalt prophesy unto this people as in times past, even unto all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from the greatest to the least, that they may know My will saith the LORD.

3 And those who shall not heed My word shall not find an inheritance in My kingdom. For how can ye dwell in a kingdom that ye are not prepared for?

4

For if ye soften not your hearts like unto a little child how then can ye receive instruction?

5

For a child taketh instruction from his parents that he be not ignorant.

6

How then shall ye not humble thyself and take instruction from your Father in Heaven, and be not ignorant of your pathway to Eternal Life, and live?

When I listen to General Conference I realize I am being taught by very educated, very well spoken men presenting very polished discourses using telepromters. It is simply not the same as being taught by the Holy Ghost.

Richard

It blows my mind that anyone would believe the Holy Ghost teaches such things. It basically sounds like whites are the superior race.

[Jason]

It blows my mind that anyone would believe the Holy Ghost teaches such things. It basically sounds like whites are the superior race.

Actually I would say that it teaches outright that whites are the superior race.

Erichard seems to take the style of written language as a sign of revelation. The 2BC is written as if it were from the D&C and because it also has things that match his views he accepts it as revelation.

[Hestia]

If the church leaders can call anyone who accepts evidence against them apostate, then they are clearly above the law.

Per board rules: Do not use the boards to proselytize (pro- or anti-) or bash others beliefs.

You have continued preaching against the leaders of the church and it's current practices and are banned from this topic.

[crusader]

Now Just so everyone know I may not agree with OD1, but I don't agree with erichard on the second Book of Commandments. I'm not trying to preach against the leaders of the church and it's current practices..." Which apparently is an offense worthry of being banned. I'm not trying to be offensive to the mods by stating that either. I'm just new here and I don't know exactly were the line is drawn in a discussion like this. The thread is about prophets leading us astray and I hope that an opposing view point can be offered without crossing the line. i just want to offer my views on the subject.

How can you make that claim about OD1 when after Pres. Woodruff gave his revelation Pres Snow stated the following:

[kamenraider]

Here's a quote for you, crusader:

Charles Mostyn Owen was puzzled. In the new climate of amnesty and cooperation, as hundreds of polygamists followed the example of Cannon and other church leaders by surrendering, the official posture professed strict obedience to federal law. In explaining the destruction of the Endowment House, Woodruff said it was because it had been discovered that a single plural marriage had been performed there, without his knowledge or consent.

To Owen there was something definitely strange about the new facade. In his travels as an engineer, he was uncovering evidence of new plural marriages all over Mormon country. He dug up cases of men who had a legal wife in Salt Lake, a recent plural in Canada, another in Mexico, and two more posing as widows at various locations in the Great Basin. How could this be? Certainly the Mormon Church leaders were honorable men of honesty and integrity. With the tight LDS organization, they would simply have to know what was going on. How, then, could they deny it?

Owen was baffled, until an evening at St. George, where after sharing a jug of good Dixie tithing wine with an informant, the man opened up with the great secret. The brethren were telling the strict truth, the informer said, if you knew how to interpret what they meant. The church had indeed quit sanctioning polygamy; however the priesthood authority within the church was keeping it alive.

Owen was boggled. His informant reminded him that in the beginning Joseph Smith received priesthood authority from heavenly beings. With this authority, Joseph organized the church. The priesthood authority and the church organization were thus two separate entities and could act independently.

Within a year after the church was founded, Joseph received a revelation authorizing polygamy. It was a dozen years later that he received a second revelation on the subject, and nine more years were to elapse before polygamy was officially acknowledged as church policy. During this entire period of twenty-one years the church emphatically denied the practice of plural marriage, while the priesthood authority within the church fostered it as absolutely essential to attainment of the celestial glory in the hereafter. And now, the informant told Owen, the Principle simply had gone underground again, as in the days of Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo, and early Utah.

--Samuel W. Taylor, Rocky Mountain Empire: The Latter-Day Saints Today, New York: Macmillan 1978, pgs. 19-20. (emphasis in original)