Joseph Smith foundation article on following prophet.

[grapevine]

Who heard of the Joseph Smith Foundation?  Don’t know much about them.  Have some good things.  However had a blog about following the prophet.  Put a question mark behind it.  There not infallible, words aren’t scripture we shouldn’t blindly follow them.

 

Do we blindly follow no swimming signs, high voltage, Railroad crossings?  Why is it any different with the Lords anointed?  An Antivaxxers quoted that.  Probably to justify his opposition to vaccines.  Linked to article on Mountain Meadows and Helmet Hubner.  Those are unfortunate cases in history.  However who goes wrong following the prophet and who are we to sit in judgement of who thenLord calls to preside over us?  Who has failed when they listened to the prophet?  The Lord won’t tell the prophet to tell the Saints one thing and an individual to reject it.  
 

if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

Edited August 22, 2021 by grapevine

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, grapevine said:

if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

Two thoughts--

1)  If we are simply doing or believing whatever the prophet says, without having a personal relationship with our Savior and using that to verify what the prophet has said through the spirit, then we need to repent and do better.  Too many people use 'follow the prophet' as the lazy man's way to be a Latter-day Saint.

2)  Prophets aren't infallible so not every word uttered by them is going to be from the Lord.  I think it was JFS who taught at a conference (not general, maybe stake?), that mankind would never reach the moon because the earth was our sphere and God would not allow us to move beyond it.  When we did land on the moon, he acknowledged his error.  He spoke for the Lord but was wrong in what he thought the Lord had to say.

The same can be said for things that were taught over the pulpit as reasons for the priesthood ban.  Things that were completely wrong.

 

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, grapevine said:

 Don’t know much about them.

I do not want to give you grief but you may want to edit the line right after "" Don’t know much about them.""   

Edited August 22, 2021 by Metis_LDS

[Fether]

Admitedly, I am not entirely sure what side of the arguement you are on, nor what you are trying to say with your post. Might be an issue of punctuation. But I'll add some of my thoughts.

1 hour ago, grapevine said:

if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

I disagree entirely with this. We look at blacks and the priesthood, the 2015 policy on baptizing children of LGBT, opinions on plural marriages, changing beliefs on whether one can overcome homsexuality through prayer and faith, changing opinions on the big bang vs the 7-day creation, changing opinions on whether there is progression between kingdoms, and more. We even admit in general conference and at church that the Prophets are not infallible, that they can say things that are incorrect. It is not unfaithful to say that sometimes the Prophet may say somthing that isn't the will of the Lord.

1 hour ago, grapevine said:

Do we blindly follow no swimming signs, high voltage, Railroad crossings?  Why is it any different with the Lords anointed?

I absolutely despise these comparisons. The pain that comes from a shark attack, electricution, and being hit by a train is a lot more real to us than the pain of being damned. We still act on faith when it comes to spiritual matters whereas the pain of getting hit by a train is a lot mor real and tangible. I don't have to have faith that something bad will happen if a train hits me.

1 hour ago, grapevine said:

However who goes wrong following the prophet and who are we to sit in judgement of who thenLord calls to preside over us?  Who has failed when they listened to the prophet?  The Lord won’t tell the prophet to tell the Saints one thing and an individual to reject it.  

The main reason for a Prophet is to help and lead us down the correct path (Eph 4:11-14). When all is said and done, God isn't going to have a checklist  of every time we followed the prophet and every time we didn't. Though I am sure that will be taken into consideration, salvation is found in accepting Christ to whatever degree we are able in life, and seeking to be like him (D+C 137:9).
 

A real life example. When the 2015 policy for children of LGBT came out, many saints read that and said "wow, this is really good of the church. We don't want to make children pick between their parents and the church." On the flip side, many church members read that and were deeply disturbed by it and rejected it entirely because they felt it was unjust and unfair to the LGBT community. The saints in both camps will likely be blessed for there views and approaches since both were coming from a place of wanting to do good, just saw it differently than the other.

Naivity and ignorance, though needing to be overcome before true salvation is gained (D+C 131:6), will not damn someone for all eternity.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Fether

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Fether said:

Admitedly, I am not entirely sure what side of the arguement you are on, nor what you are trying to say with your post. Might be an issue of punctuation. But I'll add some of my thoughts.

I disagree entirely with this. We look at blacks and the priesthood, the 2015 policy on baptizing children of LGBT, opinions on plural marriages, changing beliefs on whether one can overcome homsexuality through prayer and faith, changing opinions on the big bang vs the 7-day creation, changing opinions on whether there is progression between kingdoms, and more. We even admit in general conference and at church that the Prophets are not infallible, that they can say things that are incorrect. It is not unfaithful to say that sometimes the Prophet may say somthing that isn't the will of the Lord.

I absolutely despise these comparisons. The pain that comes from a shark attack, electricution, and being hit by a train is a lot more real to us than the pain of being damned. We still act on faith when it comes to spiritual matters whereas the pain of getting hit by a train is a lot mor real and tangible. I don't have to have faith that something bad will happen if a train hits me.

The main reason for a Prophet is to help and lead us down the correct path (Eph 4:11-14). When all is said and done, God isn't going to have a checklist  of every time we followed the prophet and every time we didn't. Though I am sure that will be taken into consideration, salvation is found in accepting Christ to whatever degree we are able in life, and seeking to be like him (D+C 137:9).
 

A real life example. When the 2015 policy for children of LGBT came out, many saints read that and said "wow, this is really good of the church. We don't want to make children pick between their parents and the church." On the flip side, many church members read that and were deeply disturbed by it and rejected it entirely because they felt it was unjust and unfair to the LGBT community. The saints in both camps will likely be blessed for there views and approaches since both were coming from a place of wanting to do good, just saw it differently than the other.

Naivity and ignorance, though needing to be overcome before true salvation is gained (D+C 131:6), will not damn someone for all eternity.

Thanks Fether, great response!

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, grapevine said:

.....................if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

Probably not an LDS POV.  More like the Gospel according to Jim Jones.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, grapevine said:

Who heard of the Joseph Smith Foundation?  Don’t know much about them.  

They tend to be more fundamentalist and heartlander types. Very conservative politically and culturally****.  Priesthood ban was right and proper. Founding fathers were practically Latter-day Saints before the Church existed. Rock music (offbeat, backbeat) is of the devil. Don’t use the current Church Guidelines manual when it doesn’t match their standards. 
 

As an example, they appear to be anti birth control, except by natural means…rhythm method is described in one of their supportive quotes and I am guessing total abstinence is the other  allowed method  

My memory is they think evolution is antiscientific, but were supportive of that Universal Model some guy claimed he could prove using kitchen level experiments. 
 

They believe historians are leading the Church astray; for example, they deny Joseph used a seer stone. They work with Meldrum and the types he collects around him quite a bit.  They are into the Holy Grail, Jesus had children and the hidden bloodlines stuff. 
 

****One of their Raising the Bar comments:

Quote

Where have the days gone of refinement, dignity, grace, honor and nobility? Today our dress is often sloppy, our language careless, our deportment is clumsy and our homes are in disarray and disorder. The Israelite influence in Great Britain introduced etiquette that expected men and women to exemplify good breeding, refinement and poise. Standing or sitting in an erect posture was encouraged while slouching was frowned upon. Loud laughter was unseemly. Men and women were first introduced and thereafter followed rules of decorum that ensured respectability and civility. Sadly, Britain eventually lost its Christian foundation, leaving only the dead form of “etiquette” remaining and even this was eventually lost. Part of our responsibility is to restore a lost culture of etiquette and nobility. The honorable aspects of chivalry and noblesse oblige must not die. One of the strengths of Jane Austen’s novels is her ability to capture a glimpse of inward honor and nobility, as opposed to simply outward, dead form. The movie, The Inheritance, is also an excellent portrayal of refinement in the hero and heroine.

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/raising-the-bar-/zion-standards-modules

Edited August 22, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

They tend to be more fundamentalist and heartlander types. Very conservative politically. 

My memory is they think evolution is antiscientific, but were supportive of that Universal theory some guy claimed he could prove using kitchen level experiments. 
 

They believe historians are leading the Church astray; for example, they deny Joseph used a seer stone. They work with Meldrum and the types he collects around him quite a bit.  

So basically "alternative" historians.  The ones that ignore facts.  

[Calm]

They use tons of quotes and put up a few ‘dissenting’ ones from nonchurch leaders, but neglect any from church leaders they don’t approve of. 

[Fether]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

They use tons of quotes and put up a few ‘dissenting’ ones from nonchurch leaders, but neglect any from church leaders they don’t approve of. 

Literally looked up a handful of their sources and it is pretty annoying to read. They seemingly take the stance that the 1970 church was the true church and everything since then has been apostasy

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Literally looked up a handful of their sources and it is pretty annoying to read. They seemingly take the stance that the 1970 church was the true church and everything since then has been apostasy

Pretty much. That they use Jane Austen as the standard for teaching civil society places them maybe even further back than 1970.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Literally looked up a handful of their sources and it is pretty annoying to read. They seemingly take the stance that the 1970 church was the true church and everything since then has been apostasy

The doctrinal era established by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie?  

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Fether said:

Admitedly, I am not entirely sure what side of the arguement you are on, nor what you are trying to say with your post. Might be an issue of punctuation. But I'll add some of my thoughts.

I disagree entirely with this. We look at blacks and the priesthood, the 2015 policy on baptizing children of LGBT, opinions on plural marriages, changing beliefs on whether one can overcome homsexuality through prayer and faith, changing opinions on the big bang vs the 7-day creation, changing opinions on whether there is progression between kingdoms, and more. We even admit in general conference and at church that the Prophets are not infallible, that they can say things that are incorrect. It is not unfaithful to say that sometimes the Prophet may say somthing that isn't the will of the Lord.

I absolutely despise these comparisons. The pain that comes from a shark attack, electricution, and being hit by a train is a lot more real to us than the pain of being damned. We still act on faith when it comes to spiritual matters whereas the pain of getting hit by a train is a lot mor real and tangible. I don't have to have faith that something bad will happen if a train hits me.

The main reason for a Prophet is to help and lead us down the correct path (Eph 4:11-14). When all is said and done, God isn't going to have a checklist  of every time we followed the prophet and every time we didn't. Though I am sure that will be taken into consideration, salvation is found in accepting Christ to whatever degree we are able in life, and seeking to be like him (D+C 137:9).
 

A real life example. When the 2015 policy for children of LGBT came out, many saints read that and said "wow, this is really good of the church. We don't want to make children pick between their parents and the church." On the flip side, many church members read that and were deeply disturbed by it and rejected it entirely because they felt it was unjust and unfair to the LGBT community. The saints in both camps will likely be blessed for there views and approaches since both were coming from a place of wanting to do good, just saw it differently than the other.

Naivity and ignorance, though needing to be overcome before true salvation is gained (D+C 131:6), will not damn someone for all eternity.

And the Lord, IMO, we’ll not give us a commandment we cannot keep.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Rock music (offbeat, backbeat) is of the devil.

I agree, but not because of the backbeat. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

They tend to be more fundamentalist and heartlander types. Very conservative politically and culturally****.  Priesthood ban was right and proper. Founding fathers were practically Latter-day Saints before the Church existed. Rock music (offbeat, backbeat) is of the devil. Don’t use the current Church Guidelines manual when it doesn’t match their standards. 
 

As an example, they appear to be anti birth control, except by natural means…rhythm method is described in one of their supportive quotes and I am guessing total abstinence is the other  allowed method  

My memory is they think evolution is antiscientific, but were supportive of that Universal Model some guy claimed he could prove using kitchen level experiments. 
 

They believe historians are leading the Church astray; for example, they deny Joseph used a seer stone. They work with Meldrum and the types he collects around him quite a bit.  They are into the Holy Grail, Jesus had children and the hidden bloodlines stuff. 
 

****One of their Raising the Bar comments:

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/raising-the-bar-/zion-standards-modules

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

..............................

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/raising-the-bar-/zion-standards-modules

Well, if they love Jane Austen, they can't be all bad. 

[bOObOO]

On 8/22/2021 at 6:20 AM, grapevine said:

Who heard of the Joseph Smith Foundation?  Don’t know much about them.  Have some good things.  However had a blog about following the prophet.  Put a question mark behind it.  There not infallible, words aren’t scripture we shouldn’t blindly follow them.

 

Do we blindly follow no swimming signs, high voltage, Railroad crossings?  Why is it any different with the Lords anointed?  An Antivaxxers quoted that.  Probably to justify his opposition to vaccines.  Linked to article on Mountain Meadows and Helmet Hubner.  Those are unfortunate cases in history.  However who goes wrong following the prophet and who are we to sit in judgement of who thenLord calls to preside over us?  Who has failed when they listened to the prophet?  The Lord won’t tell the prophet to tell the Saints one thing and an individual to reject it.  
 

if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

Hear now the words of the Lord:

... whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. - D&C 68:4

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/68?lang=eng

 

[Calm]

Not much of a sabbatical. 

[grapevine]

I quoted someone here before that had some interesting ideas of the Second Coming.  Quoted in past Jodi Stoddard and others comparing temple dedications to seals opening.  Still quotes conference talks time is running out.  Seven years from this talk.  BYU devotionals, conference talks, Christmas devotionals.  911 attacks, recession seven years later, gay marriage legal seven years after that.  Something happening seven more years.  Time is running out from this talk.

 

thinks a resurrected Joseph Smith will lead people back to Missouri and John the Revelatory will lead the Ten tribes there.  Will live law of consecration probably plural marriage, live off food storage and be fed manna.  I don’t know we’re he gets that information.  Relative of Hiram Page.

 

quouted Jodi Stoddard Arhmad Givil or whoever in the past.  Quoted Ogden Kraut for Bom polygamy.  Public School indoctrination causes higher rebellion,  always quoting Joel Skousen a conspirast.  Avid antivaxxer,  so said will Nelson’s incorrect push of vaccines sink the church, Monsons incorrect use of the word Mormon.  No, but there not infallible.  We don’t live the positive aspects of the Word of Wisdom are fat,  why should I get a vaccine.  
 

basically saying he is right and prophet is wrong.  If you don’t want to get vaccine up to you.  However are you saying the prophet is wrong?  Who are we to sit in judgement of the prophet.  We would all be prophets unto ourselves if we got revelation of our own bias,s.   It would be confusing.  Antivaxxer is one thing.  Saying the prophet does not know what he is talking about is another.  Ark steadier on blog, how sacrament meeting should be, higher word of wisdom quoting Jane Birch and the like.   WWW.Richardsonstudies.com

[theplains]

On 8/22/2021 at 9:20 AM, grapevine said:

if the Prophet says something then the Lord said it.

What do you think of these teachings?

"... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6).

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, 
until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must 
begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. 
But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will 
have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a 
great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the 
way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know 
for a certainty the character of God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 
345–346, 348; previous Gospel Principles edition, chapter 47).

 

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, theplains said:

What do you think of these teachings?

"... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed
that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so
that you may see" (History of the Church, volume 6).

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, 
until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must 
begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. 
But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will 
have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a 
great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the 
way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know 
for a certainty the character of God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 
345–346, 348; previous Gospel Principles edition, chapter 47).

 

100% eternal truth.  ❤️

[grapevine]

James Stoddard recently passed away.  He did a lot of work for the foundation.  Daughter Hannah carries on the work.  Obituary said father of ten children.  Yet nothing mentioned about his marriage or wife.  Anyone know story there?  

Edited November 14, 2021 by grapevine

[Calm]

Never heard of the wife working with the dad, but only heard of the one daughter. Maybe the rest of the family weren’t so focused. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, grapevine said:

Yet nothing mentioned about his marriage or wife.

There is a very obvious effort not to include her. I tracked down her name, but won’t publish it in case this is her personal choice. She appears to be still living with a couple of the children sharing the address. Whether they were divorced or separated or still married, can’t tell.  He was apparently living in Idaho and she Utah from one record, but his obit is saying the funeral would be at the ward that would be his wife’s, so maybe the Idaho record is wrong.  So she could have just asked not to be connected to the Foundation at all. Same with some of the rest of the kids. 
 

Unless one of the daughters has the same name as her mom, the mother worked on a project with dad and daughterin 2016 and maybe 2018. Very strange they say nothing of him being a husband in the memorial though, just a father. 
 

Added:  been thinking about it for some reason, they didn’t give the names of the kids either, very unusual.  I wonder if the dad and daughter have received death threats given their public life, not shy about politics, and such. May just be being protective of the family.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Calm