How much influence did the LDS Church have on California Prop 8?

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe you are being inconsistent.  I just think that in your actual religious practice, the prophets are doctrinally infallible.

I think they are revelatory infallible (I know that's not a phrase but it's the closest I could think of that means "they can't lead the church astray").  I've already agreed to examples that showed they aren't doctrinally infallible (such as BY's teachings on black people, which he taught as doctrine) so i'm not sure how you think that prophets are doctrinally infallible in my religious practice.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think they are revelatory infallible (I know that's not a phrase but it's the closest I could think of that means "they can't lead the church astray").  I've already agreed to examples that showed they aren't doctrinally infallible (such as BY's teachings on black people, which he taught as doctrine) so i'm not sure how you think that prophets are doctrinally infallible in my religious practice.

I must have missed that example.

If BY was wrong regarding black people and, therefore, led the church into a century long denial of priesthood and temple ordinances to an entire race of people, how is that NOT leading the church astray?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I must have missed that example.

If BY was wrong regarding black people and, therefore, led the church into a century long denial of priesthood and temple ordinances to an entire race of people, how is that NOT leading the church astray?

I don't know that BY was wrong about the ban because there is no reference as to where the ban came from.  I'm talking about the reasons that he gave for the ban (which were given by a lot of prophets and apostles thru the years).

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that BY was wrong about the ban because there is no reference as to where the ban came from.  I'm talking about the reasons that he gave for the ban (which were given by a lot of prophets and apostles thru the years).

The ban came from BY and the reasons that he believed justified it.  So how was he NOT leading the church astray?

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The ban came from BY and the reasons that he believed justified it.  So how was he NOT leading the church astray?

There are a lot of commandments that come from God, yet the reasons that we teach about why the commandment exists are false.  

For example, it's a revelation that says that we don't drink tea.  When someone teaches that we don't drink tea because of tannic acid (a prevalent teaching on my mission), that's false doctrine.  The false teaching about tannic acid does not mean that the WoW isn't of God though.

We are constantly coming up with reasons to justify why things are the way they are (another example is why women don't have the priesthood).  The command can be legitimate while the reason taught isn't. 

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are a lot of commandments that come from God, yet the reasons that we teach about why the commandment exists are false.  

For example, it's a revelation that says that we don't drink tea.  When someone teaches that we don't drink tea because of tannic acid (a prevalent teaching on my mission), that's false doctrine.  The false teaching about tannic acid does not mean that the WoW isn't of God though.

We are constantly coming up with reasons to justify why things are the way they are (another example is why women don't have the priesthood).  The command can be legitimate while the reason taught isn't. 

You are taking a revealed commandment and looking at justifications derived later. 

In the case of the ban, all we have are the false reasons.  There is no evidence the ban came from God, and only evidence that it came from BY. 

So BY implemented a policy which denied priesthood and saving ordinance to an entire race.  Again, I ask how is that NOT leading the church astray?

[Bobbieaware]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, you still didn't answer my questions.  I'll try one more time:

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?

How would gay marriage harm the mother/father led family?  Are you suggesting that gay marriage draws in people who would normally enter opposite sex marriages?

The answer is yes if the radicals are the ones who are consistently succeeding in having their radical agenda implemented without real resistance from the less radical. Let's say someone asked me the same question 20 years ago, when only the most radical people on the left wing were advocating for gay marriage. I can just hear my interrogator 'letting me have it' saying, "How dare you paint with a such broad brush and condemn the entire political left just because a few kooks on the extreme left advocate for gay marriage! (rant continuing) Just look at the leaders of the moderate political left, they've all come out squarely against so-called gay marriage, and in defense of traditional marriage. And do you not realize President Clinton has even signed the Defence of Family Act ((remember when President Obama and Hillary Clinton said they were against gay marriage?)) (continuing) So it's plain to see that you are an unfair person and that your fears are completely unfounded!" You see the problem is that history has taught us today's kooky radicals are tomorrow's level-headed moderates. 

For example, just the other day I heard that Washington State is about to implement a "gender awareness" 'curriculum' for kindergarteners. I'm sure that only 10 years ago many on the political left would be barking in outrage if I told them the radicals in their movement were likely going to succeed in legalizing an effort to have the innocent and impressionable minds of five-year olds tampered with by "teachers" who will ask the boys if they ever feel like girls and if the girls ever feel like boys. Not long ago this would have been seen as outrageous insanity by most on the political left. But nonetheless, here we are in Karl Marx's brave new world.

So as long as today's radical "kooks" continue to eventually become today's moderates, the answer to your first question is yes. And what I've said in this post is just another way of expressing how I answered your question in my previous posts. If the most extreme radicals (the devil and his followers being the most extreme) are the ones who keep succeeding, they are the ones who largely define the movement. In the case of the political left, the apparent moderation almost always turns out to be window dressing used to pacify and neutralize the wary and fearful.

Meanwhile, if the extreme political far-right has also been consistantly successful in having their formerly "extreme" ideas evolve to become moderate and mainstream, then the right wing can also be judged by its most radical. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As to your second question, among several answers I could give you I would say that gay marriage is a stepping-stone, analogous to a gateway drug, that will pave the way to all kinds of bizarre "marriages" like the the father and daughter I heard about recently who are sexually involved and hope to get married. You know what they said during the gay marriage debate, "love is love and no one has the right to deny the expression and legal union of that love." I would say that the most radical on the political left are probably just fine with such a "marriage." But how long will it be before the feigned or half-hearted outrage of the so-called left wing moderates gives way to tolerance, then acceptance, then legal blessing to such an abomination? After all, like they say, love is love.and cannot be denied. In short, gay marriage has opened Pandora's box, and as a consequence the world is now ripening in iniquity at a greatly accelerated pace. The Church leaders were very wise and prescient when they warned that gay marriage should not be legalized. And the day will come when many who now disagree with them will be constrained to admit they were right. When speaking of radicals, one must never leave the devil out of the equation.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

 

59 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

As to your second question, among several answers I could give you I would say that gay marriage is a stepping-stone, analogous to a gateway drug, that will pave the way to all kinds of bizarre "marriages" like the the father and daughter I heard about recently who are sexually involved and hope to get married. You know what they said during the gay marriage debate, "love is love and no one has the right to deny the expression and legal union of that love." I would say that the most radical on the political left are probably just fine with such a "marriage." But how long will it be before the feigned or half-hearted outrage of the so-called left wing moderates gives way to tolerance, then acceptance, then legal blessing to such an abomination? After all, like they say, love is love.and cannot be denied. In short, gay marriage has opened Pandora's box, and as a consequence the world is now ripening in iniquity at a greatly accelerated pace. The Church leaders were very wise and prescient when they warned that gay marriage should not be legalized. And the day will come when many who now disagree with them will be constrained to admit they were right. When speaking of radicals, one must never leave the devil out of the equation.

The trouble is Bobbie, you want  to control how others live their lives. You can't. And to use your go to phrase, it is Satan and his angles that are controlling this belief of yours. You can't force others to live how you want them to live, nor should you.  That plan is not of God  

You are looking for scape goats. Right now you have decided it is gay marriiage. It is not. Marriage is the Pandora's box. Fathers have attempted to marry daughters long before gay marriage was even an option.  Didn't  Peter Sellers marry his step daughter years ago?  So should we try to control that by taking away your civil right to marry since they were a straight couple?

Your goal to control others comes from Satan himself. When you advocate that idea, you are following his path. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The answer is yes if the radicals are the ones who are consistently succeeding in having their radical agenda implemented without real resistance from the less radical. Let's say someone asked me the same question 20 years ago, when only the most radical people on the left wing were advocating for gay marriage. I can just hear my interrogator 'letting me have it' saying, "How dare you paint with a such broad brush and condemn the entire political left just because a few kooks on the extreme left advocate for gay marriage! (rant continuing) Just look at the leaders of the moderate political left, they've all come out squarely against so-called gay marriage, and in defense of traditional marriage. And do you not realize President Clinton has even signed the Defence of Family Act ((remember when President Obama and Hillary Clinton said they were against gay marriage?)) (continuing) So it's plain to see that you are an unfair person and that your fears are completely unfounded!" You see the problem is that history has taught us today's kooky radicals are tomorrow's level-headed moderates. 

For example, just the other day I heard that Washington State is about to implement a "gender awareness" 'curriculum' for kindergarteners. I'm sure that only 10 years ago many on the political left would be barking in outrage if I told them the radicals in their movement were likely going to succeed in legalizing an effort to have the innocent and impressionable minds of five-year olds tampered with by "teachers" who will ask the boys if they ever feel like girls and if the girls ever feel like boys. Not long ago this would have been seen as outrageous insanity by most on the political left. But nonetheless, here we are in Karl Marx's brave new world.

So as long as today's radical "kooks" continue to eventually become today's moderates, the answer to your first question is yes. And what I've said in this post is just another way of expressing how I answered your question in my previous posts. If the most extreme radicals (the devil and his followers being the most extreme) are the ones who keep succeeding, they are the ones who largely define the movement. In the case of the political left, the apparent moderation almost always turns out to be window dressing used to pacify and neutralize the fearful.

As to your second question, among several answers I could give you I would say that gay marriage is a stepping-stone, analogous to a gateway drug, that will pave the way to all kinds of bizarre "marriages" like the the father and daughter I heard about recently who are sexually involved and hope to get married. You know what they said during the gay marriage debate, "love is love and no one has the right to deny the expression and legal union of that love." I would say that the most radical on the political left are probably just fine with such a "marriage." But how long will it be before the feigned or half-hearted outrage of the so-called left wing moderates gives way to tolerance, then acceptance, then legal blessing to such an abomination? After all, like they say, love is love.and cannot be denied. In short, gay marriage has opened Pandora's box, and as a consequence the world is now ripening in iniquity at a greatly accelerated pace. The Church leaders were very wise and prescient when they warned that gay marriage should not be legalized. And the day will come when many who now disagree with them will be constrained to admit they were right. When speaking of radicals, one must never leave the devil out of the equation.

 

 

Okay then, I guess it's okay to judge Mormonism by referencing Denver Snuffer and Warren Jeffs.  

And to the second question, you're indicating that gay marriage doesn't actually do harm to man/woman marriage it's just that you believe it is a slippery slope to other forms of marriage being accepted.  Who knows, one day this county might even accept a man marrying a woman and her daughter!

 

[Bobbieaware]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay then, I guess it's okay to judge Mormonism by referencing Denver Snuffer and Warren Jeffs.  

And to the second question, you're indicating that gay marriage doesn't actually do harm to man/woman marriage it's just that you believe it is a slippery slope to other forms of marriage being accepted.  Who knows, one day this county might even accept a man marrying a woman and her daughter!

 

I didn't realize Denver Suffer and Warren Jeffs were members in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And even if they were, have they succeeded in having their Ideas and practices become moderate and mainstream in the Church? 

If you will remember, in my last post I said there were several ways I could answer your second question, and the slippery slope approach is only one of them. Another among the many arguments against gay marriage is that the Family Proclamation says every child born into the world has a divine right to be raised by a loving and devoted mother and father. Therefore, those who deny a child of this right for any reason (not just being raised by gay parents) will have to answer to God for that deprivation. For children being raised by married gay parents, harm has been done to the institution of traditional marriage by having the child deprived of traditional marriage's virtues and blessings.

[Bobbieaware]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The trouble is Bobbie, you want  to control how others live their lives. You can't. And to use your go to phrase, it is Satan and his angles that are controlling this belief of yours. You can't force others to live how you want them to live, nor should you.  That plan is not of God  

You are looking for scape goats. Right now you have decided it is gay marriiage. It is not. Marriage is the Pandora's box. Fathers have attempted to marry daughters long before gay marriage was even an option.  Didn't  Peter Sellers marry his step daughter years ago?  So should we try to control that by taking away your civil right to marry since they were a straight couple?

Your goal to control others comes from Satan himself. When you advocate that idea, you are following his path. 

The way things are going, soon people will be allowed to do almost anything they want, no matter how ungodly. But just because they will be able to indulge the appetites of their fallen natures to their heart's content does not mean they will never have to eventually answer to God for the choices they've made.

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are taking a revealed commandment and looking at justifications derived later. 

In the case of the ban, all we have are the false reasons.  There is no evidence the ban came from God, and only evidence that it came from BY. 

So BY implemented a policy which denied priesthood and saving ordinance to an entire race.  Again, I ask how is that NOT leading the church astray?

Since we don't know where the ban came from, it's impossible to say. 

 

[Bobbieaware]

BY THE WAY, I JUST GOT CALLED OUT BY THE MODERATORS FOR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR ON THIS THREAD. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE AND HOW I'VE BEEN ABUSIVE SO THAT I DON'T REPEAT THE ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. (Caps to get someone's attention)

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I didn't realize Denver Suffer and Warren Jeffs were members in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And even if they were, have they succeeded in having their Ideas and practices become moderate and mainstream in the Church? 

If you will remember, in my last post I said there were several ways I could answer your second question, and the slippery slope approach is only one of them. Another among the many arguments against gay marriage is that the Family Proclamation says every child born into the world has a divine right to be raised by a loving and devoted mother and father. Therefore, those who deny a child of this right for any reason (not just being raised by gay parents) will have to answer to God for that deprivation. For children being raised by married gay parents, harm has been done to the institution of traditional marriage by having the child deprived of traditional marriage's virtues and blessings.

Jeffs and Snuffer aren't members in good standing of the SL based LDS church but they are Mormon and they are considered radical.  And their ideas have gained considerable traction.  So by your standards, we should judge all of Mormonism by what those two do and say.  

That's what you've done by taking the commentary of one or two radical LGBT persons and using it to claim that the end goal of gay marriage advocacy is to end marriage completely.  

A child being raised by loving gay parents hasn't harmed traditional marriage.  Failure of a couple to live up to the standard of the Proclamation, hasn't harmed traditional marriage.  If any of these things have actually harmed traditional marriage you need to explain what the harm is. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Since we don't know where the ban came from, it's impossible to say. 

 

We do know where the ban came from, it came from BY.  It began during his presidency, he never identified any revelation to support it, and every reason given for its existence has now been disavowed.

How did he NOT lead the church astray by implementing a policy that denied saving ordinances to an entire race?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

BY THE WAY, I JUST GOT CALLED OUT BY THE MODERATORS FOR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR ON THIS THREAD. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE AND HOW I'VE BEEN ABUSIVE SO THAT I DON'T REPEAT THE ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. (Caps to get someone's attention)

I don't think you are being abusive.  

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

We do know where the ban came from, it came from BY.  It began during his presidency, he never identified any revelation to support it, and every reason given for its existence has now been disavowed.

How did he NOT lead the church astray by implementing a policy that denied saving ordinances to an entire race?

During the times of the Old Testament there was one Chosen people on the entire earth - one.  All others were denied being chosen and they all had their own gods.  Was this justice?  Is not God the God of the entire earth?  Did God deny all other people the opportunity of entering into heaven?  Had God gone astray by implementing a policy of a chosen people and denying all others the opportunity to enter into a covenant with him?

Your understanding is short sighted and extremely temporary in nature.  You are only seeing the now while being blind to eternity.  

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that all - every single child of god - will have the opportunity to enter into the his presence.  All other churches fall short in this area by either have nothing that addresses the topic or being a mystery.  We know God to be just; we know that regardless of the hardships here on earth all will be made right.  

I suspect you know this, but have forgotten it in your focus on today and your loss of faith.  When you enter the big, spacious building you lose perspective and you become lost - your path leads to the buffettings of Satan.  

If BY was wrong who will suffer for it?  BY, everyone else will be saved.  

When the woman of Canaan came to Jesus seeking his aid to assist her daughter afflicted by a demon.  What did Jesus say to her?  First he ignored her pleadings, but she did not relent.  She kept after him and finally Jesus turned to her and said, " It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs."  How harsh is that, but Jesus clearly stated that he came for the lost sheep of Israel and no one else.  He knew his mission.  Was this woman denied blessings?  Remember how Jesus said to her, great is your faith - according to your will your daughter is made whole.   She was blessed because of her faith - she knew he was the Son of God and even though she knew she was not part of the House of Israel she worshiped Jesus as the Christ.  

That same invitation to open to each and every child of God from the very beginning.  The road might be hard, we might not have covenant upon us, but if we are faithful we will be healed.  In our day, all that seek to follow Christ, repent of their sins, and are willing to live a life of faith may enter the covenant of baptism.  

There is a reason why we are taught to have an eye single to the glory of God.  Too many are anything but focused on Christ.  Their gods are a diverse set of social agendas, objectives, and actions that are not in keeping with Christ.  We all need to learn to keep our eye singularly focused on Jesus Christ.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The way things are going, soon people will be allowed to do almost anything they want, no matter how ungodly. But just because they will be able to indulge the appetites of their fallen natures to their heart's content does not mean they will never have to eventually answer to God for the choices they've made.

I think that is the plan of salvation isn't it.  We are each responsible for our own sins.  Forcing others to adhere to your own beliefs is not part of that plan.  You can't take away someone's civil rights just  because you believe they should be celibate all their lives.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We do know where the ban came from, it came from BY.  It began during his presidency, he never identified any revelation to support it, and every reason given for its existence has now been disavowed.

How did he NOT lead the church astray by implementing a policy that denied saving ordinances to an entire race?

We don't know if God sanctioned the ban or if He didn't. We. Don't. Know. 

BY never identified any revelation supporting changing the WoW into a commandment either but temple recommend holding members and people wanting to get baptized still believe it is regardless.  The lack of a specific revelation isn't enough to claim that something isn't of God. 

The issue of denying saving ordinances is also a moot point. The Savior Himself denied saving ordinances to a group of people for a time.  That act alone does not mean it was wrong.

 

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

The ban came from BY and the reasons that he believed justified it.  So how was he NOT leading the church astray?

The ban came through Brigham Young.  The question is did it come by revelation or simply Brigham Young deciding it.  I don't know the answer to that and I don't think there is conclusive evidence to one side or the other. Of course Brigham Young would justify it in either case.   If it was by revelation, then clearly it could not be called leading the Church astray.  If it came simply by Brigham Young deciding it on its own, then perhaps it could be leading it astray.  I personally don't have a clear view on what that really means.  Does leading astray simply mean being wrong on something or does it mean something more significant like leading the Church away from Christ or leading the Church down a direction runs counter to what Christ wants it to go. In my mind, the priesthood ordinances is what is important.  Whether a certain group (small in the church before 1978) was not able to perform those ordinances does not really matter that much.  As long as the ordinances are done, that is really the main thing and as long as they are done, the church is not going astray.  It Church as a whole is going in the direction that Christ wants even it wanders around a bit off the straight line, that is what is important.

Edited June 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

 

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The ban came through Brigham Young.  The question is did it come by revelation or simply Brigham Young deciding it.  I don't know the answer to that and I don't think there is conclusive evidence to one side or the other. Of course Brigham Young would justify it in either case.  

If the ban came through revelation, than it was BY's responsibility as prophet to communicate that.  It's what a prophet is supposed to do. 

He didn't identify it coming through God.  He implemented it and he provided us with the reasons for its implementation.  Those reasons were wrong. 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We don't know if God sanctioned the ban or if He didn't. We. Don't. Know. 

BY never identified any revelation supporting changing the WoW into a commandment either but temple recommend holding members and people wanting to get baptized still believe it is regardless.  The lack of a specific revelation isn't enough to claim that something isn't of God. 

The issue of denying saving ordinances is also a moot point. The Savior Himself denied saving ordinances to a group of people for a time.  That act alone does not mean it was wrong.

 

If it came from God, BY would have shared that fact. 

His making the WoW a commandment when the Lord said it wasn't a commandment could be another example of leading the church astray. 

As to your final point:. BY is not Christ.  And he apparently didn't have Christ's sanction to deny saving ordinances. 

 

Again, I'm back to my point that, in your real life religious practice, you seem to believe in doctrinal infallibility.  Even when a prophet does or teaches something wrong and when that false doctrine alters the church practice for over a century you don't see it as being "astray" and you assume that God must have been behind it. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If it came from God, BY would have shared that fact. 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement of fact?  A reference?  You're accusing BY of knowingly using his priesthood and position as prophet and president of the church to implement a policy that wasn't of God.  That's a pretty serious thing to claim.

Quote

His making the WoW a commandment when the Lord said it wasn't a commandment could be another example of leading the church astray. 

It could be.  If you're concerned (and I guess you should be, given your convictions about BY) you should pray about it, and stop obeying it if you feel it's against God's will.

Quote

As to your final point:. BY is not Christ.  And he apparently didn't have Christ's sanction to deny saving ordinances.

Peter also denied saving ordinances for a time, until God told him to change things up.  It doesn't really matter though, because Christ has given His authority to His prophet to administer the saving ordinances of the church according to His will. 

"Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Quote

Again, I'm back to my point that, in your real life religious practice, you seem to believe in doctrinal infallibility.  Even when a prophet does or teaches something wrong and when that false doctrine alters the church practice for over a century you don't see it as being "astray" and you assume that God must have been behind it. 

And I'm back to my point (how many times do we have to go around this circle?  It's getting a bit repetitive).  I believe the prophet is doctrinally fallible and that he can't lead the church astray.  I've explained in detail why I believe that.  I've provided scripture, past precedent, and examples to support my conclusions.  I don't believe you've provided anything but your opinion to support your's.  I realize you disagree.

What else is there to say?

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

If the ban came through revelation, than it was BY's responsibility as prophet to communicate that.  It's what a prophet is supposed to do. 

He didn't identify it coming through God.  He implemented it and he provided us with the reasons for its implementation.  Those reasons were wrong. 

It would appear to me that those around B.Y. at the time thought it came from God.  Should we also assume that the other apostles saw that Brigham Young was making this on his own and none of them questioned him on it and they were ok with it?  If that would be the case, that would be far more serious than the ban itself.  What other things could Brigham Young or any other prophet could do without revelation from God?  I believe that the prophet can't lead the Church astray in part because God established certain checks and balances in the Church that would keep that from happening.  The other apostles are not there just as cheerleaders or figure heads to go along with what any prophet says. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

 

Do you have any evidence to support this statement of fact?  A reference?  You're accusing BY of knowingly using his priesthood and position as prophet and president of the church to implement a policy that wasn't of God.  That's a pretty serious thing to claim.

It could be.  If you're concerned (and I guess you should be, given your convictions about BY) you should pray about it, and stop obeying it if you feel it's against God's will.

Peter also denied saving ordinances for a time, until God told him to change things up.  It doesn't really matter though, because Christ has given His authority to His prophet to administer the saving ordinances of the church according to His will. 

"Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

And I'm back to my point (how many times do we have to go around this circle?  It's getting a bit repetitive).  I believe the prophet is doctrinally fallible and that he can't lead the church astray.  I've explained in detail why I believe that.  I've provided scripture, past precedent, and examples to support my conclusions.  I don't believe you've provided anything but your opinion to support your's.  I realize you disagree.

What else is there to say?

My evidence is the LDS gospel topics essay on the matter.

I believe BY thought it was of God.  That seems obvious from his teachings.  And I don't think he would have done it if he didn't think it was what God wanted.  But he was wrong and the church went astray because of it. 

It seems we both agree that prophets can get doctrine wrong.  The difference is that however wrong the doctrine might be, you don't and won't consider it leading the church astray. Anything they teach or command, you will follow because, as you've stated, it is impossible for them to lead us astray. 

That just doesn't make sense to me.