LDS: Bruce R. McConkie's letter to BYU Professor Eugene England.

[paulp1002]

I found this letter the other day and after reading it I find it very interesting.

As you will read, it seems that Brigham Young made several contradicting statements, but we are to assume that one was inspired by God and the other was not. One is right and one is wrong.

Here is a link to the entire letter sent by Bruce R. McConkie to BYU Professor Eugene England.

mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

I have copied and paste the parts of the letter written by Mr. McConkie that I found the most interesting. (Additional formatting was highlighted by Me)

"Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine".

This question was asked before: When do we know when a “Prophet” is speaking as a man or as a Prophet? How do we know what a Prophet says is true or not? As asked before and never answered, if Pres. Monson said at a funeral of a friend that he believes in the Trinity and not the God Head, is that now doctrine or do people have to pick which one they want to follow?

"Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord."

Could this mean, that maybe they are a false Prophet? Shouldn’t a Prophet be inspired by God and all prophecies come from God, therefore be approved and endorsed by God?

"What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works."

"Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works."

“I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.”

 

[Tonks40]

Gosh, there seems to be no authority within the authority of the Mormon Church! Kinda schizophrenic if you ask me.

 

[paulp1002]

What I found interesting was that the Professor was not teaching anything that was not from the Church, or was against the church. He was teaching doctrine from Church history.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is interesting. And we have had, on this forum, many contradictory statements about those things that were/are doctrines of the Mormon faith, including those things that might have been doctrine at some point and now are no longer doctrine. This sort of change breeds confusion, certainly.

We have had, from diverse sources posting on the forum, persons that at one time followed the Mormon faith testifying that those things they were once taught as doctrine have been withdrawn/no longer taught. I don’t collect such references, but those interested in such a topic are free to explore the archive of posts on the forum.

More to the point ~ this raises a very significant question ~ How can the doctrine of an Eternal God change? Either God is Eternal or He is Not. He can’t be “sometimes” Eternal and other times something else. So how can this occur?

For that matter, how can doctrine evolve and change? If God is eternal, then everything about Him is eternal. It cannot change for some other reason. So how is it possible for Mormon Doctrine to change if that doctrine is of God? It does not make sense that eternal principals can “evolve” and change.

This is a serious question.

 

[ParkerD]

What I found interesting was that the Professor was not teaching anything that was not from the Church, or was against the church. He was teaching doctrine from Church history.

PaulP,
The point of Elder McConkie is that Professor England, although one can assume he meant well, was going off on a tangent in a speculative way, yet he had a very basic and important responsibility as a respected teacher (particularly since his salary and retirement were paid by Brigham Young University and thus by consecrated funds) to make certain the things he taught were “sound doctrine” and not “speculative theory” in areas of theological beliefs for his students or listeners.

I had a class from Professor England, and enjoyed the class (not on this subject, by the way–on Mormon literature). He was a teacher whom I respected; I still respect his memory since he has passed on to the spirit world several years ago.

His daughter lived along with her husband and her children, right across the street from me for several years–so I often heard her expressions of support of the leadership of the LDS church and also her support of her father when the subjects of his faith and sincerity came up (not by me, but indirectly by others).

Elder McConkie’s letter was doing exactly what the inspiration coming to an apostle under the circumstances of hearing about a consistent wrong teaching being taught–correcting the teacher so that he could mend his ways in that regard and understand the doctrine clearly and unmistakably.

Peace to all readers.

 

[Answersplease]

mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

Introduction
…
In fact, McConkie makes the amazing confession that “I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality” (p. 7). Such a statement should be disconcerting to the average Mormon who has heard his leaders time and time again insist that, “God will never allow the prophet of the [LDS] church to lead the church astray.” Since when has teaching false doctrine not been a method of leading people astray?

 

[ParkerD]

mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

Hi, Answersplease,
I suppose that statement, which in its context includes the following:

Page 7

what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

This puts me in mind of Paul’s statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned.

could be “disconcerting” to anyone who doesn’t understand what it really means to be moving on a path toward gaining exaltation. Moving along that path means one absolutely must claim the blessings of being guided by the Holy Ghost in their life, which will always include (for LDS members) seeing the importance of the united vote and united action of the apostles and the First Presidency all together, because of the principle of counsel leadership.

I had written something along those same lines when we discussed this subject previously. I wrote about a “sifting process” that is part of what this life is about, and particularly what LDS members are going to experience during their life because the Lord needs to find out who can be trusted and who can distinguish truth from error through their own personal diligent study of the scriptures and their own efforts to have a personal relationship with God that includes recognizing when the Holy Ghost is sanctioning truth as they hear it or read it.

Brigham Young had the qualities needful to lead the LDS church at the time when he did. He was courageous and spunky. He sent people to colonize places where it probably could have seemed “ludicrous” for the families to think they could make a go of it for their family in those places. They made it work–the desert flourished as the people showed their faith and their determination even when things may have seemed nearly impossible.

But within the personality which BY had which brought the qualities helpful when sending people out colonizing, was the quality that meant he was not willing to allow for the united vote of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency to guide him before presenting an idea in general conference that was not scriptural teaching nor sanctioned by the united vote of the apostles. This was a weakness in his personality of leadership for teaching, in the sense that it means he was off on a tangent in those particular statements that were picked up by the press and have been labeled “the Adam God theory”. It means the Holy Ghost allowed him (without constraining him to be silent on the subject) to say some things and later defend them even without thoroughly explaining what he meant by his words. (He never “sent them out” as published words, by the way, so those words weren’t “scripture” in his use of that word.)

Why didn’t he thoroughly explain what he meant? I would think it is because he came to realize that the “united voice” and “counsel leadership” principles were in fact important to the guiding of the LDS church, and since he knew he didn’t have the united voice of the Twelve in what he had presented on that subject (particularly strong opposition from Orson Pratt), he should just leave the subject alone.

 

[SirThomasMore]

lol…the most fun I have on this board is the tap dancing by the LDS Members when stuff like this letter is posted and the mormons try to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Answersplease]

Hi, Answersplease,

"Answersplease:

Hello ParkerD.

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

I suppose that statement,…
…
could be “disconcerting” to anyone who doesn’t understand what it really means to be moving on a path toward gaining exaltation. Moving along that path means one absolutely must claim the blessings of being guided by the Holy Ghost in their life, which will always include (for LDS members) seeing the importance of the united vote and united action of the apostles and the First Presidency all together

, because of the principle of counsel leadership.

"Answersplease:

Jesus Christ had His original 12 Apostles, and I don’t think He held a group vote with His subordinate Apostles in order to make a decision about doctrine.

…Here are some challenging questions I found on contenderministries.org
…
37. If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?

If a prophet can’t prophesy all by himself, then is he really a prophet?

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

I wrote about a “sifting process” that is part of what this life is about, and particularly what LDS members are going to experience during their life because the Lord needs to find out who can be trusted

"Answersplease:

Is’nt your Mormon god supposed to be omniscient (all knowing),

or do all the Mormon gods have to get together and vote to actually know something?

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

I wrote about a “sifting process” that is part of what this life is about, and particularly what LDS members are going to experience during their life because the Lord needs to find out

who can be trusted and who can distinguish truth from error through their own personal diligent study of the scriptures and their own efforts to have a personal relationship with God that includes recognizing when the Holy Ghost is sanctioning truth as they hear it or read it.

"Answersplease:

That seems like a very easy test for Mormons: when they all get together and vote then it is doctrine.

Is’nt that what you said?

That test is too easy…

That test is also a very convenient way to explain away unwanted “opinions” from your past leaders like Bigham Young.

That seems to be a recurring theme in Mormonism: convenience.

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

I wrote about a “sifting process” that is part of what this life is about, and particularly what LDS members are going to experience during their life because the Lord needs to find out who can be trusted and who can distinguish truth from error through their own personal diligent study of the scriptures

and their own efforts to have a personal relationship with God that includes recognizing when the Holy Ghost is sanctioning truth as they hear it or read it.

"Answersplease:

Why diligently study scripture when the test is so very easy to pass:

when they all get together and vote then it is doctrine.

Are you saying that EVEN if they vote BUT their decision contradicts scripture, then you can know that they are in ERROR even after they voted?

Brigham Young had the qualities needful to lead the LDS church at the time when he did. He was courageous and spunky. He sent people to colonize places where it probably could have seemed “ludicrous” for the families to think they could make a go of it for their family in those places. They made it work–the desert flourished as the people showed their faith and their determination even when things may have seemed nearly impossible.

"Answersplease:

That’s not as impressive when you consider that the indigenous Native Americans already lived in harsh places.

And were’nt there supposed to be ancient cities across the Americas filled with people and elephants and chariots and advanced metallurgy etc…

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

But within the personality which BY had which brought the qualities helpful when sending people out colonizing, was the quality that meant he was not willing to allow for the united vote of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency to guide him

before presenting an idea in general conference that was not scriptural teaching nor sanctioned by the united vote of the apostles.

"Answersplease:

Like I said earlier:

If a prophet can’t prophesy all by himself, then is he really a prophet?

I don’t think Jesus Christ needed a united vote from His original 12 Apostles.

Did the Old Testament prophets also need a united vote in order to prophesy, a united vote from which people in the Old Testament?

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

It means the Holy Ghost allowed

him (without constraining him to be silent on the subject) to say some things and later defend them even without thoroughly explaining what he meant by his words.

Answersplease:

So if Brigham Young was wrong, then according to you The Holy Ghost allowed Brigham Young to teach error just to test the Mormons?

wow.

 

[eshuster]

You are mixing various things here and becoming confused.

First, the Bible itself helps us understand that doctrines can evolve as God calls man to live a higher law. Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament and then Jesus taught that divorce was not as it was given in the Old Testament as God wants man to live a higher law. Hating and despising one’s enemies was the Old Testament norm but in the New Testament we are called to pray for our enemies. God is always calling man to live a higher law.

Second, prophets of God can err. Consider Deuteronomy 18:22: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” There were many books rejected for inclusion to the Bible because they were thought to include incorrect doctrine or suspect in one way or another. It is possible for individuals to be inspired servants of God, but to get into a moment where they are not following the Spirit. Read the book of Jonah and you can see that clearly.

Third, only that which is canonized is truly that which we can say has come from God and is verified as such as part of the standard works. There are many inspired writings from past Popes, past prophets, and others who were inspired and gave us what they believed God was giving them that never became part of the canon. Until it is canon one might criticize the teaching, but it cannot be attributed to the given religion as a belief.

Just a few points to ponder.

Eric Shuster

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Hello Mr. eshuster,

I am not confused, your opinion and my opinion are opposite as to whether or not I am confused. Now that this has been cleared up, lets not confuse everyone else by commenting on each other’s state of mind, it serves no purpose.

And as for mixing things up, please state what I mixed up.

And the points I made in my earlier post are valid and have not been addressed by you.

On a different subject, there are about 57 Questions originally posted by a poster named “ron77nyc”, which the Mormons here would not or could not answer all of the questions (Question # 37 is in post #9 above).

Since you are an author, then you would probably be a knowledgeable Mormon,
will you answer these questions for me if I post them in a new discussion?

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Hello Mr. eshuster,

I am not confused, your opinion and my opinion are opposite as to whether or not I am confused. Now that this has been cleared up, lets not confuse everyone else by commenting on each other’s state of mind, it serves no purpose.

And as for mixing things up, please state what I mixed up.

And the points I made in my earlier post are valid and have not been addressed by you.

On a different subject, there are about 57 Questions originally posted by a poster named “ron77nyc”, which the Mormons here would not or could not answer all of the questions (Question # 37 is in post #9 above).

Since you are an author, then you would probably be a knowledgeable Mormon,
will you answer these questions for me if I post them in a new discussion?

 

[ParkerD]

Quoting my prior post, intermixed with comments and questions.

Hi, Answersplease,
Here are responses:

1. “The importance of the united vote and united action of the apostles and the First Presidency all together, because of the principle of counsel leadership.”

Jesus Christ had His original 12 Apostles, and I don’t think He held a group vote with His subordinate Apostles in order to make a decision about doctrine.

Jesus Christ was and is, of course, God the Son–perfect in every way, with no need for human counsel leadership, but yet before choosing the Twelve Apostles He had prayed most of the night before, sought the guidance of God the Father and the Holy Ghost–and thus demonstrated that counsel leadership occurs even with divine Beings.

Moses took the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law, who gave him good counsel. Proverbs talks about the importance of seeking counsel. This is not a new leadership technique or a new principle in the world.

If a prophet can’t prophesy all by himself, then is he really a prophet?

We are talking about announcing new doctrine, and we are talking about a case where the church and the guiding principles of united apostles to protect the doctrine from “going off on a tangent” have been established already by the point in time that BY made his statements. The prophet leader would be fully expected to follow the pattern already established, just like every apostles would be expected to follow that same pattern. This protects the doctrine, and acknowledges that having the Holy Spirit includes that the communication from above comes differently for each person and that part of that communication includes “listen to those around you with experience as well as seek counsel from above”.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost communicate with Each Other. This is a pattern of counsel leadership. Even though Each is omniscient, They show humankind the perfect pattern of leadership, which is by counsel. (Of course They don’t need to “vote”. But They show the pattern in how They do what They do. Christ showed that pattern when He prayed to the Father and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

convenience.

I agree that people can make that assertion from the outside looking in or from those who left. But the pattern was in place before BY made his statements.

It is not a case of coming up with the pattern after he had made them and later died and the leaders in the following years needed to come up with a way to explain the situation of not accepting what he had said in those particular statements we are talking about.

Why diligently study scripture when the test is so very easy to pass:

when they all get together and vote then it is doctrine.

Are you saying that EVEN if they vote BUT their decision contradicts scripture, then you can know that they are in ERROR even after they voted?

Moses said everyone ought to be a “prophet” and the Lord’s spirit should be upon them.

As for your question, that won’t happen. Each of them is expected to voice their opinion and their own voice of experience as well as having studied the scriptures with the influence of the Holy Spirit in their life. They counsel together amidst differences of opinion. When they are going to consider a substantive change, they are deliberate, careful, and it takes some time such as the case of the announcement of the change in giving the priesthood to the Blacks. It is not willy-nilly leadership.

LDS members are expected to learn to follow the pattern of counsel leadership in their own families. The husband and the wife counsel together. They come to a united agreement if they have followed the leadership pattern. They also bring their children into a counsel decision that impacts those children. They discuss together.

This pattern leads to synergy, and synergy leads to much greater propulsion toward unity (being one) and toward progress because of the impact of “economics”–people who are invested in a decision become synergistic working together from having participated in the decision. This is not new in the world of business or so forth.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You are mixing various things here and becoming confused.

First, the Bible itself helps us understand that doctrines can evolve as God calls man to live a higher law. Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament

it was not really doctrine. Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

It was not doctrine that changed. It was disobeyingt doctrine.

Second, prophets of God can err. Consider Deuteronomy 18:22: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” There were many books rejected for inclusion to the Bible because they were thought to include incorrect doctrine or suspect in one way or another. It is possible for individuals to be inspired servants of God, but to get into a moment where they are not following the Spirit. Read the book of Jonah and you can see that clearly.

But they do not, and SHOULD not, err as to DOCTRINE. And this is where the LDS “prophets” have showed themselves to be false prophets. They make odd doctrine and teachings about God that later prophets have to run from.

 

[Returning_Home]

Second, prophets of God can err. Consider Deuteronomy 18:22: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” There were many books rejected for inclusion to the Bible because they were thought to include incorrect doctrine or suspect in one way or another. It is possible for individuals to be inspired servants of God, but to get into a moment where they are not following the Spirit. Read the book of Jonah and you can see that clearly.

First, your use of the Bible, with all of the amendments, loopholes, and conditions under which you quote it is identical to those under which your prophets’ words can be used to prove your point. We already know what the church has said about the Bible so we know you can’t really put any meat on those bones since it’s missing the many ‘plain and precious things’ that ‘…they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb…’ and ‘…kept back from that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots…’ (1 Nephi 13:26-34)

If you’re quoting the Bible with a straight face, you obviously don’t know your own works as well as we do. The BOM is very clear that he Bible is inaccurate, incomplete, and in error.

I also note in my copy of Gospel Principles exactly no conditions under which a Mormon prophet can be wrong. In fact, I find exactly the opposite: "We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:

'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).

“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)

In no official church publication do I find any way that the prophet can be wrong, the Mormon equivalent of Catholic papal infallibility. But to escape this fact, you have to claim that your prophets can be wrong, but only in the face of ciritcs who point it out to you. In private, however, it seems you don’t appear to believe at all.

Third, only that which is canonized is truly that which we can say has come from God and is verified as such as part of the standard works. There are many inspired writings from past Popes, past prophets, and others who were inspired and gave us what they believed God was giving them that never became part of the canon. Until it is canon one might criticize the teaching, but it cannot be attributed to the given religion as a belief.

If you’re going to use this standard as it applies to Mormon Doctrine, you have a problem because the church uses the book to support its own position regularly; my 1996 copy of the BOM student manual (religion 121 & 122) contains no fewer than 32 citations from it. Apparently, McConkie must’ve been right about something, eh?

That said, your standards for canonized scripture are absolutely meaningless; the “one in purpose” clause about the Godhead being comprised of three individual gods then falls flat because it’s nowhere to be found in my quad. In fact, the very intro to the BOM, we find the signed statement of the three witnesses that concludes with “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”

What your version of canonized scripture actually means is that you can use whatever you like under autority of your god if it suits your needs and supports your position.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi, Answersplease,
Here are responses:

1. “The importance of the united vote and united action of the apostles and the First Presidency all together, because of the principle of counsel leadership.”

Jesus Christ was and is, of course, God the Son–perfect in every way, with no need for human counsel leadership, but yet before choosing the Twelve Apostles He had prayed most of the night before, sought the guidance of God the Father and the Holy Ghost–and thus demonstrated that counsel leadership occurs even with divine Beings.

Moses took the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law, who gave him good counsel. Proverbs talks about the importance of seeking counsel. This is not a new leadership technique or a new principle in the world.
We are talking about announcing new doctrine, and we are talking about a case where the church and the guiding principles of united apostles to protect the doctrine from “going off on a tangent” have been established already by the point in time that BY made his statements. The prophet leader would be fully expected to follow the pattern already established, just like every apostles would be expected to follow that same pattern. This protects the doctrine, and acknowledges that having the Holy Spirit includes that the communication from above comes differently for each person and that part of that communication includes “listen to those around you with experience as well as seek counsel from above”.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost communicate with Each Other. This is a pattern of counsel leadership. Even though Each is omniscient, They show humankind the perfect pattern of leadership, which is by counsel. (Of course They don’t need to “vote”. But They show the pattern in how They do what They do. Christ showed that pattern when He prayed to the Father and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)
I agree that people can make that assertion from the outside looking in or from those who left. But the pattern was in place before BY made his statements.

It is not a case of coming up with the pattern after he had made them and later died and the leaders in the following years needed to come up with a way to explain the situation of not accepting what he had said in those particular statements we are talking about.
Moses said everyone ought to be a “prophet” and the Lord’s spirit should be upon them.

As for your question, that won’t happen. Each of them is expected to voice their opinion and their own voice of experience as well as having studied the scriptures with the influence of the Holy Spirit in their life. They counsel together amidst differences of opinion. When they are going to consider a substantive change, they are deliberate, careful, and it takes some time such as the case of the announcement of the change in giving the priesthood to the Blacks. It is not willy-nilly leadership.

LDS members are expected to learn to follow the pattern of counsel leadership in their own families. The husband and the wife counsel together. They come to a united agreement if they have followed the leadership pattern. They also bring their children into a counsel decision that impacts those children. They discuss together.

This pattern leads to synergy, and synergy leads to much greater propulsion toward unity (being one) and toward progress because of the impact of “economics”–people who are invested in a decision become synergistic working together from having participated in the decision. This is not new in the world of business or so forth.

Answersplease,
I had to shorten my response for lack of time this morning, so here are a couple more components in response to your questions:

As far as Native Americans and the Book of Mormon, the Nephite and Lamanite populations were comparatively small, so there would be no expectation of what we would call large cities. The Nephites were entirely killed off and the Lamanite remnants were almost entirely killed off by other inhabitants of these continents through infighting.

So if Brigham Young was wrong, then according to you The Holy Ghost allowed Brigham Young to teach error just to test the Mormons?

wow

.

The “goal” is different than your expectations, evidently. The goal is for each member to become familiar with the Holy Ghost in their personal dealings and personal life and study. The goal is not that everyone stop thinking, stop studying and learning on their own and through their own initiative, and just accept everything any leader (even, in this case, Brigham Young) says to them. That is why Orson Pratt had no hesitation in disagreeing with BY on that subject.

So, yes, the Holy Ghost could allow such a thing to happen to “test the Mormons”. It has tested a few who have left–their choice.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Answersplease,
I had to shorten my response for lack of time this morning, so here are a couple more components in response to your questions:

As far as Native Americans and the Book of Mormon, the Nephite and Lamanite populations were comparatively small, so there would be no expectation of what we would call large cities. The Nephites were entirely killed off and the Lamanite remnants were almost entirely killed off by other inhabitants of these continents through infighting.

.

The “goal” is different than your expectations, evidently. The goal is for each member to become familiar with the Holy Ghost in their personal dealings and personal life and study. The goal is not that everyone stop thinking, stop studying and learning on their own and through their own initiative, and just accept everything any leader (even, in this case, Brigham Young) says to them. That is why Orson Pratt had no hesitation in disagreeing with BY on that subject.

So, yes, the Holy Ghost could allow such a thing to happen to “test the Mormons”. It has tested a few who have left–their choice.

The letter shows that the LDS Church is not guided by the Spirit, but by men who simply go off on tangents…like the Adam-God theory

 

[Returning_Home]

The letter shows that the LDS Church is not guided by the Spirit, but by men who simply go off on tangents…like the Adam-God theory

You’re surely not implying that Brigham Young was a prophet of God but was consistantly wrong for the 19 years he taught that Adam is God, are you?

 

[MelanieAnne]

You’re surely not implying that Brigham Young was a prophet of God but was consistantly wrong for the 19 years he taught that Adam is God, are you?

I can’t answer for STM, but I suspect that what he might be getting at is that BY’s error is proof that he is not a prophet.

You’re either a prophet or you’re not. You either speak the truth, or you don’t. Too many Mormon “prophets” have proved to be “false prophets”, which calls a lot of stuff into question.

And while I have your attention ~ where is Hellas Planitia, Mars and how did the internet get there? I didn’t know we even had a human settlement on Mars! This is fascinating! I wonder how much other stuff we don’t know about. Please tell!

 

[SirThomasMore]

You’re surely not implying that Brigham Young was a prophet of God but was consistantly wrong for the 19 years he taught that Adam is God, are you?

Heavens no. I am implying he wriong the entire he was LDS