Church Never Go Astray Logical?

[Brade]

'Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood' by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies. It'd be a really good thing if everyone reads the entirety of this paper before speculating upon why the ban was "necessary" or somehow "God's will". (And as a further editorial note, the same might be said for the current practice of not having women officiate in Priesthood ordinances outside the Temple, despite the fact that we once called sisters such as Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow, Bathsheba W. Smith, and Zina Diantha Huntington by the title of 'Priestess'.)

Care to give a tl;dr version for those of us without the time to read the whole thing?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Basically, the Priesthood ban was a case of bad policy, corrected by revelation; the post hoc justifications people have used to attempt to excuse it as "God's will" are simply unsupportable. (There is also an important BYU review of the historical circumstances the early Saints would have had to deal with as part of the slave-justifying culture of the time.)

But honestly, if anyone doesn't have the time to read it in full right away, I strongly urge them to save the link for when they do. It's a vital and instructive paper.

Edited November 12, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Brade]

Basically, the Priesthood ban was a case of bad policy, corrected by revelation; the post hoc justifications people have used to attempt to excuse it as "God's will" are simply unsupportable. (There is also an important BYU review of the historical circumstances the early Saints would have had to deal with as part of the slave-justifying culture of the time.)

But honestly, if anyone doesn't have the time to read it in full right away, I strongly urge them to save the link for when they do. It's a vital and instructive paper.

Thanks. I look forward to reading it.

[Deborah]

The scriptures also say that the very elect will be deceived.

Mark 13:22 "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."

[ERayR]

Will you give me an example of a teaching or teachings that would negate priesthood authority?

Also, I wonder, it seems your view is that a prophet's merely teaching something that is false is not to lead the Church astray. Are there any examples of prophets teaching false things?

I would say that if it were announced that converts were to be accepted without LDS baptism if they had been baptised in another church would be one.

You are correct in your assumption that just teaching something that is incorrect would not be leading the church astray. It has happened before. It is only something for critics to rave about. With the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve all being Prophets a correction would take place. It may take awile but it would be corrected.

What worries me more is those who think the prophets are infallible.

[Deborah]

Basically, the Priesthood ban was a case of bad policy, corrected by revelation;

And there are those who disagree with this assessment. Basically the conclusion is "we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place." However, the fact that it was upheld for many years gives lie to the premise that it was a "bad policy" or a mistake. If that were the case one would think it would have been done away long before it was given the prophets who prayed about it.

http://en.fairmormon..._the_priesthood

http://en.fairmormon...epudiated_ideas

[rongo]

Depending on your view of Adam-God statements, that might be one. That it didn't lead the Church astray, then or now, is obvious by the aftermath. I give some other examples in the link to my article above, such as Brigham Young's insistence that he had seen the Salt Lake Temple in vision, and that it would have six towers and be built of adobe. Wilford Woodruff had also seen it in vision, and seen it built of granite, but he kept this to himself with the quiet confidence through the Spirit that Brigham was simply wrong about this. Joseph Smith is also cited as teaching the existence of Lilith, but Henry Naisbitt, the elder citing him, emphasizes that "Without however, assuming or basing anything upon this theory, or upon this tradition—which may be mythical in its character—it is nevertheless, very evident that marriage was ordained of God.

In other words, it seems that "ancient" Mormons were much less up-tight about their prophets never being wrong about anything, even when given as revelation or vision, than many of us modern Latter-day Saints.

The Toronto revelation would be another one (and it's also dealt with in the paper ------ Joseph Smith's revelation through the seer stone when concerned and worried Saints came to him wanting to know why it had failed is crucial to this discussion and question).

Another example would be Amasa Lyman's excommunication (he was an apostle, and Joseph Smith's choice for counselor in the First Presidency) for continuing to teach that the Atonement is not necessary or of efficacy, even after being severely censured and promising to reform. The effect this had on leading the Church astray was nil, although I don't think anyone would argue that Elder Lyman was leading the Church astray.

[jo1952]

It's refreshing that you brought this up, Verum.

I believe that although imperfect, the lds church is probably one of the best religious organizations in the world- because it involves members, so it's practically applying spirituality in some ways.

However, it is irresponsible to unquestioningly follow ANY imperfect human being.

IMO, the unquestioning following of prophets & the belief that the church leadership will never lead us astray is partly why the lds church has been considered a cult.

I also think that this is often the reason people leave the Church; thus, there is an inherrant danger for members to blindly follow our Leaders and why it is necessary to obtain your own personal testimony and confirmation of Truth. They become disenchanted with a Leader or Leaders whom they had placed upon a pedastal. When that Leader revealed a flaw, it was easy to understand why a member would become disillusioned, and even lose their faith in the Church's authenticity.

Best regards,

jo

[erichard]

The Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray in these last days. Period. That is given by revelation.

From http://lds.org/gener...d+church+astray

"And this is one of them: He will choose the prophet, and He will never let that man lead us astray. Imagine for a moment the impact of that promise. There is at least one place we can turn for pure, unpolluted guidance."

Hi Deborah,

I looked at the link you gave.

The subtitle of the talk says: "If we listen to the voice of the Lord through His living prophet and follow his counsel, we will never go astray." Notice the word IF.

By this, IF the church failed to live by the voice of the Lord through a previous living prophet and failed to live by his counsel, then they most certainly could be led astray right now. Right?

A conference talk cannot be considered absolute. For instance, President Young taught Adam-God and Seed of Cain doctrines in General Conference, but these doctrines are not accepted today by the church. The talk you linked to simply cannot be used to overrule what is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. Right?

I honestly believe that D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48 both verify that the President of the church is not above the law, and is not above having to be removed from office. D&C 132:31 predicts that the Church will be "tried in all things" before returning to set up Zion in Missouri.

I think it is very unwise to seek to place the leadership of the church above possibly failing the church. They are men in the flesh (the only kind of men there are) and they are being tried in all things like the rest of us.

Richard

[Deborah]

The subtitle of the talk says: "If we listen to the voice of the Lord through His living prophet and follow his counsel, we will never go astray." Notice the word IF.

What's your point. "If" we listen to the lord through the "voice of his living prophet" we will never go astray says we need to listen to the prophet. Of course you believe current prophets are false prophets. I don't agree.

[erichard]

What's your point. "If" we listen to the lord through the "voice of his living prophet" we will never go astray says we need to listen to the prophet. Of course you believe current prophets are false prophets. I don't agree.

My point is that even the talk you linked to does not give any absolute guarantees-- as you seemed to imply it did.

I believe the correct thing for church members today is to NOT sustain the present church leadership.

But I honestly try to not be judgmental of others, and hope the best for them even if I believe they are making mistakes.

Richard

[ERayR]

My point is that even the talk you linked to does not give any absolute guarantees-- as you seemed to imply it did.

I believe the correct thing for church members today is to NOT sustain the present church leadership.

But I honestly try to not be judgmental of others, and hope the best for them even if I believe they are making mistakes.

Richard

And just what is your slate of candidates to replace them with?

[erichard]

And just what is your slate of candidates to replace them with?

I trust the Lord would provide the candidates. He has, as you remember, promised to bring forth Zion and its laws in the last days. I am sure He has a plan.

Richard

[CV75]

Is there really any merit to claiming that the church will never lead us astray?

Assuming the Book of Mormon is not hypothetically false:

I think it is logical that the LDS Church will not apostatize because the latter-day Zion prophecies contained in 2 Nephi cannot be brought to pass without an authorized organization (the Church) sending forth the Book of Mormon and seeing to it that the Lord’s covenants are fulfilled. The promised events do not mention a disruption of the marvelous work and wonder, which includes the Restored Church, once it begins. 1 Nephi 14 and 2 Nephi 6:12 are good examples of what to expect.

Power given to authorized servants is an element of the “doctrine of Christ” as laid out in 3 Nephi 11 and in many other places in the Book or Mormon. So the Book of Mormon effectively prophesies of the Lord’s uninterrupted work in the building up of Zion in the latter-days, which requires servants to lead a righteous people. To me this means a church that does not apostatize.

[HeatherAnn]

I also think that this is often the reason people leave the Church; thus, there is an inherrant danger for members to blindly follow our Leaders and why it is necessary to obtain your own personal testimony and confirmation of Truth. They become disenchanted with a Leader or Leaders whom they had placed upon a pedastal. When that Leader revealed a flaw, it was easy to understand why a member would become disillusioned, and even lose their faith in the Church's authenticity.

Best regards,

jo

Good point, Jo.

One thing I'm only realizing recently (although it's always been the case) is that no 2 people see everything the same way. I know it sounds obviously true, but I was so used to agreeing with everyone at church, with my friends, family etc. But the truth is, that when you get to talking about deep issues... & if both are REALLY thinking it through, based on their experience & perspective, each will have a different take on the same issues. It seems kindof sad to me because I miss feeling connected to people, but really it's a beautiful thing because we can learn more from each other that way.

As for any leader being imperfect & making mistakes... We shouldn't put our trust in men, but in God - in GOoD. And maybe, as we take things by the spirit... not so much the letter of the law... we should likewise appreciate people (including us) - as works in progress & spiritual beings beyond appearances.

[mfbukowski]

One of the problems with this whole line of thought is that in order for the church to go "astray" it would have to have an objective definition of what would constitute that, and that does not exist.

Who is the judge of what "astray" means?

Has the Reorganized Church gone "astray"? Did the Lutherans go "astray" from the Catholics? Did any reformation movement go "astray"?

The reality is that no church ever goes "astray" if you are one of its believers. It may change and you may make a personal decision to leave, but a believer never believes that the church he is in has gone "astray" by definition- otherwise he would leave that church and find another that did not go "astray".

In other words, "astray" is in the eye of the beholder.

[jo1952]

Good point, Jo.

One thing I'm only realizing recently (although it's always been the case) is that no 2 people see everything the same way. I know it sounds obviously true, but I was so used to agreeing with everyone at church, with my friends, family etc. But the truth is, that when you get to talking about deep issues... & if both are REALLY thinking it through, based on their experience & perspective, each will have a different take on the same issues. It seems kindof sad to me because I miss feeling connected to people, but really it's a beautiful thing because we can learn more from each other that way.

As for any leader being imperfect & making mistakes... We shouldn't put our trust in men, but in God - in GOoD. And maybe, as we take things by the spirit... not so much the letter of the law... we should likewise appreciate people (including us) - as works in progress & spiritual beings beyond appearances.

So beautifully said, HeatherAnn! We are each at our personal point in our journey; no two of us it at the same place as another. I believe that once we see and understand this, that we can take great strides in loving others regardless of where they are in their own journey. Suddenly, even the anti's (regardless of what they are "anti" about) are seen more clearly as a child of God rather than an opponent. We can begin to see beyond conflict, recognize that angry or hurtful words and actions had a worldly source, and truly have compassion and love for their spirit. I cannot help but believe that this is all a part of our experiencing what it will be like when we are truly one.

We were studying 3 Nephi, chapter 17 this evening and could not help but be completely overwhelmed at Christ's depth and capacity for loving us. I was thinking that His suffering at Gethsemane and His physical death on our behalf has expanded His love that much more; IOW, love begets love in an ever increasing, unlimited and infinite way which we are not yet capable of understanding or experiencing while in our physical body. First He groaned over His concern for the people and wept for them. When He saw their great faith and love for Him, He wept again; this time filled with joy. We can see that in a Glorified state, Christ still has a full range and capacity for emotion---all stemming from Love. Once we receive a glorified body, we will be able to stand in a glory of Heaven which is filled with the presence of perfect Light and Love; whereas our current body of flesh would be unprepared and be consumed in its presence.

Truly, our discussions can be edifying as we continue to sincerely seek Truth if only we would let go of the conflict we exhibit with one another. Yet without the attachment we have to the world, we could not learn what we need to in order to progress. Oh my.... I truly love getting into discussions with others who are receptive to seeing what their beliefs really look like, who are also not fearful of seeing what another's beliefs really look like, and who withhold judgment from one another. Those discussions can become mind-blowing as our spirits touch not only each other, but the Holy Ghost is there guiding us in our understanding. This is an entirely different level of communication. It is indescribable and I thirst and hunger for it! It can be difficult to find others who even understand what I am talking about; though I believe there are at least a hand full who I am currently aware of who post on this website. You and Maidservant and Libs are a few that come quickly to mind. I also feel that Notaconvert may be able to understand. There are a few others as well.

Love,

jo

[cinepro]

You know what they say... the difference between Catholics and Mormons is that Catholics say the leader of their Church is infallible but no one believes it, and Mormons say the leader of their Church is fallible but no one believes it.

[HeatherAnn]

So beautifully said, HeatherAnn! We are each at our personal point in our journey; no two of us it at the same place as another. I believe that once we see and understand this, that we can take great strides in loving others regardless of where they are in their own journey. Suddenly, even the anti's (regardless of what they are "anti" about) are seen more clearly as a child of God rather than an opponent. We can begin to see beyond conflict, recognize that angry or hurtful words and actions had a worldly source, and truly have compassion and love for their spirit. I cannot help but believe that this is all a part of our experiencing what it will be like when we are truly one.

We were studying 3 Nephi, chapter 17 this evening and could not help but be completely overwhelmed at Christ's depth and capacity for loving us. I was thinking that His suffering at Gethsemane and His physical death on our behalf has expanded His love that much more; IOW, love begets love in an ever increasing, unlimited and infinite way which we are not yet capable of understanding or experiencing while in our physical body. First He groaned over His concern for the people and wept for them. When He saw their great faith and love for Him, He wept again; this time filled with joy. We can see that in a Glorified state, Christ still has a full range and capacity for emotion---all stemming from Love. Once we receive a glorified body, we will be able to stand in a glory of Heaven which is filled with the presence of perfect Light and Love; whereas our current body of flesh would be unprepared and be consumed in its presence.

Truly, our discussions can be edifying as we continue to sincerely seek Truth if only we would let go of the conflict we exhibit with one another. Yet without the attachment we have to the world, we could not learn what we need to in order to progress. Oh my.... I truly love getting into discussions with others who are receptive to seeing what their beliefs really look like, who are also not fearful of seeing what another's beliefs really look like, and who withhold judgment from one another. Those discussions can become mind-blowing as our spirits touch not only each other, but the Holy Ghost is there guiding us in our understanding. This is an entirely different level of communication. It is indescribable and I thirst and hunger for it! It can be difficult to find others who even understand what I am talking about; though I believe there are at least a hand full who I am currently aware of who post on this website. You and Maidservant and Libs are a few that come quickly to mind. I also feel that Notaconvert may be able to understand. There are a few others as well.

Love,

jo

Jo, I really like what you wrote & I agree!

When we realize our own imperfections, & that we're all works in progress - we can be more loving.

You mentioned my favorite part of the Book of Mormon - where Christ shows so much love, & the children are encircled by angels... so beautiful & inspiring!

It's so refreshing to be HONEST with others. There are others on this forum who I really appreciate for this quality. I admit, sometimes my pride gets in the way & I'm more interested in getting my point across than listening to what others have to share. I'm working on that. When I feel most connected to others, it's when I'm focusing on what we have in common with another (which is really more than what's different).

Really, Jo... the essence of the gospel is "good news" - & the only way we can be open to it is if we're open to it! lol

Love ya, Jo!

Edited November 13, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[erichard]

...

I think it is logical that the LDS Church will not apostatize because the latter-day Zion prophecies contained in 2 Nephi cannot be brought to pass without an authorized organization (the Church) sending forth the Book of Mormon and seeing to it that the Lord’s covenants are fulfilled. The promised events do not mention a disruption of the marvelous work and wonder, which includes the Restored Church, once it begins. 1 Nephi 14 and 2 Nephi 6:12 are good examples of what to expect.

Power given to authorized servants is an element of the “doctrine of Christ” as laid out in 3 Nephi 11 and in many other places in the Book or Mormon. So the Book of Mormon effectively prophesies of the Lord’s uninterrupted work in the building up of Zion in the latter-days, which requires servants to lead a righteous people. To me this means a church that does not apostatize.

Your logic is pretty good, but I honestly believe the Lord still could try the Saints (D&C 136:31) with a situation where the correct thing to do is to NOT sustain the present leadership (D&C 107:81-84).

Thinking that there cannot be serious problems in the Lord's kingdom in the last days because of the promises is surely "looking past the mark". We have been warned to not be pacified thinking "all is well in Zion".

In other words, we can declare that all the Lord's promises concerning His work in the last days will be fulfilled (every one given by the Holy Ghost, and not just the ideas of men) and yet, at the same time the correct thing to do at this time is to not sustain President Monson.

Trying to use the promises of the Lord to guarantee the righteousness of any man in the flesh, no matter his calling, is simply not scriptural.

The conclusion of D&C 107:81-84, after giving instructions for a special trial over the President of the church or one of his counselors, is this: "Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God". The point being that if even the very head of the church is not exempted from the justice and laws of God, then no one is.

Richard

[Deborah]

Your logic is pretty good, but I honestly believe the Lord still could try the Saints (D&C 136:31) with a situation where the correct thing to do is to NOT sustain the present leadership (D&C 107:81-84).

Fortunately I don't believe that. How on earth can we depend on the Lord if we can't depend on his prophets. It is up to him to keep them in line and I've been in the church long enough to know that he does just that.

[erichard]

Fortunately I don't believe that. How on earth can we depend on the Lord if we can't depend on his prophets. It is up to him to keep them in line and I've been in the church long enough to know that he does just that.

Hi Deborah,

I am not trying to get you or anyone to not believe and sustain President Monson, or anyone.

My friends and I are seeking for the right of legitimate dissent over the leadership for those few who are convinced there is a problem. This includes the right to not sustain them, and to not reject the evidences that there is a problem until the matter is settled by discussion or a trial.

We do not believe they should be automatically excommunicated, or even looked down on. Rather they should have the right to remain in the church and seek, in good faith, to resolve the controversies they have.

Notice that JST Mark 9 teaches "let every man stand or fall by himself, and not for another". Members are taught in D&C 38, "let every man esteem his brother as himself". These words are repeated for emphasis in the next verse. There is nothing in the scriptures that places the leadership on a higher plane as "elites" above other church members.

Richard

[CV75]

Your logic is pretty good, but I honestly believe the Lord still could try the Saints (D&C 136:31) with a situation where the correct thing to do is to NOT sustain the present leadership (D&C 107:81-84).

Thinking that there cannot be serious problems in the Lord's kingdom in the last days because of the promises is surely "looking past the mark". We have been warned to not be pacified thinking "all is well in Zion".

In other words, we can declare that all the Lord's promises concerning His work in the last days will be fulfilled (every one given by the Holy Ghost, and not just the ideas of men) and yet, at the same time the correct thing to do at this time is to not sustain President Monson.

Trying to use the promises of the Lord to guarantee the righteousness of any man in the flesh, no matter his calling, is simply not scriptural.

The conclusion of D&C 107:81-84, after giving instructions for a special trial over the President of the church or one of his counselors, is this: "Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God". The point being that if even the very head of the church is not exempted from the justice and laws of God, then no one is.

Richard

D&C 107:81-84 is not about not sustaining the prophet. It is about sustaining him through the same due process every member receives (whether that be in the form of disciplinary action or common consent). A decision to release him from office for transgression is a very different matter than not sustaining him. Once released, sustaining him as prophet is no longer relevant. This is true for any member and any calling involving sustaining and release for any reason.

Problems in the Lord’s kingdom are addressed by those with the keys to do so at their respective levels of office, ranging from the individual to the family to the other units of the Church. Some problems require unanimous agreement among its highest quorums. None such problem-solving in Zion, whether in the individual heart, home or in the broadest and most general sense, is accomplished outside the purview of the Church (D&C 42:69). One would have to speculate on every prophet’s death to consider a case where God intervenes personally to remove a transgressor from his place.

Using the Book of Mormon explanation provided before, the continuance of the Church requires a sufficient quorum of those holding the keys, which speaks to their righteousness.

With this understanding, sustaining the leadership despite appearances and opinion is a far more difficult test than not sustaining them for appearances and opinion. Lehi’s dream where the mockers shame the righteous into no longer holding to the iron rod is a good representation of what it takes to stop sustaining the leadership of the Church.

D&C 136: 30, 31 and 41 says, “Fear not thine enemies, for they are in mine hands and I will do my pleasure with them. My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom… Now, therefore, hearken, O ye people of my church; and ye elders listen together; you have received my kingdom.” The Lord will not try His people by destroying the Church He promised would remain intact from its restoration.

[erichard]

...

Hi,

I question some of your points. But what is your conclusion? Does an individual member have the right in good faith to not sustain the President of the church, and to not reject the evidences for that decision? Or is that automatic bad faith?

If it was automatically a sin to not sustain the church President, then there would be no reason to even ask for a sustaining vote.

I agree that D&C 107:81-84 is not directly about "not sustaining" the prophet. But if one is convinced there is a legitimate controversy over the President of the church then it makes sense that they would not sustain him and seek to resolve the controversy-- even by such a trial if necessary.

President Young gave a sermon once in the JoD (vol 9, page 88) in which he talked about a possible failure in the latter-day work. At his conclusion he said that even if every priesthood holder failed, except one elder, that elder could -- by revelation only, however-- completely restore the entire church and kingdom that the Lord authorized at the beginning of this dispensation.

So by that discourse the promises in 2 Nephi can all be fulfilled even if just only one Elder proves fully faithful. Only 8 people survived the flood. But I am sure that those 8 people fulfilled all the promises given to the righteous in that day.

Richard

[Sky]

My question is what did President Monson ever do to deserve to not be sustained? Different people may have different ideas, but how are we to know who to listen to? All this does is cause dissention in the Church and for some to lose their testimonies. It doesn’t do anything to help further the cause of Zion. People who say that we shouldn’t sustain the current leadership of the Church are left to their own devices and whims. They become their own prophets. That is why I say to steer clear of them.

We are taught repeatedly that the Church as a whole will not apostatize. But as individuals that is something we need to watch out for. The Church of Jesus Christ has been restored in its fullness to the earth – and no man can take it away. It has been prophesied that not only will the Church not apostatize, but it will get better. That is the doctrine of the LDS Church as I understand it.

So sorry, but nobody is justified for not sustaining the president of the Church.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Sky