LDS: The living prophet more vital than the Bible?

[lax16]

Lax16,

That is precisely what I meant. “From the early church on.” As in the “Early Church Fathers”. As in “we will tell you what the Bible says, and what it means.”

The Sadducees were aware that the other Jews believed in eternal marriage–obvious to anyone who figures out why they asked the question they asked. Jesus referred to the Adam and Eve original marriage covenant, and here Catholics believe they were to have lived forever, so they just don’t square the contradiction within their own beliefs.

Didn’t people hear the words of Jesus and understand them?
Why would someone listening to Jesus and His New Testament Teaching (not OT teaching) need to question him? Why do you question His words today? Is it because “someone” told you how to interpret them? Who?
Your early church fathers.

Indeed–a profoundly important question. Their interest was in getting everyone “on the same page”, and in preserving what they perceived as their “true authority”, of course. Thus of course they would also cease opportunities to do that as they found them and ambiguous scriptures allowed this to happen. That is what people do–maintain authority when they have it, by whatever means they see are necessary.

This true authority does not stand up to scripture.

Eternal marriage ties to the sealing power and ties to every man being a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood and giving their wife great respect and love and no intimidation–treating as completely equal with a dual “help meet” role for each of them–so this would take away from many aspects of the perceived authority of the ECF and their teachings.

You need eternal marriage for this? How about a marriage vow promising to love and respect…in sickness and in health…
Why an outward sign, such as a temple ceremony, which never existed in the bible anyway?

That is what is falsely taught by those outside the church and those women who have “lord-it-over” husbands, some of that coming from their forbears’ Protestant or other religious backgrounds where the women were not treated as equals. It takes several generations to break those kinds of cycles.

If I understand correctly, it is up to the LDS husband to call his wife up out of the grave…seems to me like things have gone backwards!

Your quote didn’t dig into the details. I don’t know what the topic was in detail, at all, so I have no basis to comment on what they were questioning.

Sorry, I had linked it on another thread and thought that you had read it.

The apostles and the Savior warned about “false prophets and teachers” in their own time. That was the major warning, and a repeated discussion in the epistles. False prophets would be those taking Biblical doctrines and changing them for the sake of whatever agenda they had, or for the sake of gaining converts to the religion.

The OT has much to say about false prophets - for all time.
I think you have put it correctly - a false prophet is someone who takes biblical doctrines and changes them for the sake of an agenda…because they were mentally unstable…because they started something and couldn’t get out it…

What-da-ya-know? They actually listened to him. There were actually people who found that what he said made sense. There was no longer a hold on power and perceived authority–oh, no! People allowed to think for themselves about Biblical passages and their meaning–oh, no!

No Parker, they weren’t thinking for themsleves - that is the point of this whole thread!
When questioned by members BY and JS shut them down!!!
They were not allowed to think for themselves about how this prophet and side kick were going against the bible and mormon scripture.
I will provide the link.

If so, then they usually became Protestant, Lax16.

Of course they did - this was a very anti-Catholic period of American history and JS fell right into it and so did his acquaintances I am sure. Especially from where in the world he was recruiting to join his church. Very Protestant areas.

Several later returned back to membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as I had previously noted.

And those that didn’t and wrote about it have been painted as complete anti’s and can’t be trusted to provide any insight on the Mormon early church history.

Have a good, peaceful and happy weekend.

 

[lax16]

Parker -

Here is the link: lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourt…ophet?lang=eng

 

[ParkerD]

Parker -

Here is the link: lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourt…ophet?lang=eng

Lax16,

The link didn’t work for me, but I was able to find the talk, and it didn’t go into more detail than what you had quoted. You may realize, I suppose, that the journal that was quoted by President Benson that described the dissent of some leaders (perhaps Sidney Rigdon and possibly Orson Pratt) was the journal written by Wilford Woodruff–the one who had the dream or vision in the St. George Temple about doing the temple work for the Founding Fathers.

It’s OK with me that you have the feelings you have about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Following a prophet really does require faith, requires the presence of the Holy Ghost in a person’s life, and requires a love of and an understanding of the Bible with the included understanding that the Bible was given by revelation and that such revelation has not stopped from God to humankind. That is really the basic, underlying principle upon which belief in a living prophet is based.

I think I’ll leave things be with the conversation with you. It seemed to be headed in a negative direction, and I’m not in favor of that. I’ve already thoroughly explained the Matthew 22 passage on the thread about the Savior and LDS teachings, and what I explained is straight from reading the passage and understanding languages and their use, including that the Savior was the greatest Teacher and greatest User of language who ever walked this earth, and knew exactly what He was doing while also preserving free will choice for even the believers and their eventual leaders.

Peace wished to you and all.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The link didn’t work for me, but I was able to find the talk, and it didn’t go into more detail than what you had quoted. You may realize, I suppose, that the journal that was quoted by President Benson that described the dissent of some leaders (perhaps Sidney Rigdon and possibly Orson Pratt) was the journal written by Wilford Woodruff–the one who had the dream or vision in the St. George Temple about doing the temple work for the Founding Fathers.

Yes, Wilford Woodruff…isn’t he the guy that disagreed with JS about the Adam-God theory?

It’s OK with me that you have the feelings you have about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Following a prophet really does require faith, requires the presence of the Holy Ghost in a person’s life, and requires a love of and an understanding of the Bible with the included understanding that the Bible was given by revelation and that such revelation has not stopped from God to humankind. That is really the basic, underlying principle upon which belief in a living prophet is based.

I am not a person of feelings Parker, but a follower of the word of God.
If God did not tell us to watch out for false prophets then we would not have to be on the look out for those adding on to the Word of God.
I do have the Holy Spirit and he keeps telling me to be careful and don’t believe what people are telling you - listen to Jesus.

I think I’ll leave things be with the conversation with you. It seemed to be headed in a negative direction, and I’m not in favor of that. I’ve already thoroughly explained the Matthew 22 passage on the thread about the Savior and LDS teachings, and what I explained is straight from reading the passage and understanding languages and their use, including that the Savior was the greatest Teacher and greatest User of language who ever walked this earth, and knew exactly what He was doing while also preserving free will choice for even the believers and their eventual leaders.

Discussions about JS and BY never end well.
Even Mormons want to forget many of the things they said.
Jesus wrapped it all up for us and didn’t need JS to help him.

Peace wished to you and all.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Wilford Woodruff…isn’t he the guy that disagreed with JS about the Adam-God theory?

Hi, Lax16,

No, I don’t think so, but maybe so. Orson Pratt was the major apostle who disagreed, and it was with Brigham Young–not with Joseph Smith, although he had a falling out with Joseph Smith at one point in his life.

Discussions about JS and BY never end well.

What I didn’t like was that they are never-ending, and I end up putting someone on the defensive about their own beliefs, which I had rather not do.

Even Mormons want to forget many of the things they said.

I’m all good with what Joseph Smith said. I’m OK that Brigham Young had the inquisitive mind about Adam, and may have misspoken or been misunderstood (perhaps deliberately), and that he thought Noah had it right about the sin of murder and its punishment.

I will look forward to meeting both of them way on down the road, perhaps not in the spirit world since they are so busy, but perhaps at some point after the resurrection.

Jesus wrapped it all up for us and didn’t need JS to help him.

I understand your feelings about that. I don’t think the intent was that He does it all–since as the Greatest Teacher in the world, He certainly knows and would have known how much growth comes when people are stretched by serving and stretched by Him not doing “it all” by Himself at every point. I think He lets others be involved in many important things, even today.

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,

No, I don’t think so, but maybe so. Orson Pratt was the major apostle who disagreed, and it was with Brigham Young–not with Joseph Smith, although he had a falling out with Joseph Smith at one point in his life.

Would any of these situations make him less credible in relation to the vision of the Founding Fathers? Did he have a history of covering up as I believe he did with the Adam God Doctrine?

What I didn’t like was that they are never-ending, and I end up putting someone on the defensive about their own beliefs, which I had rather not do.

It is true that these conversations can be never-ending. I am not defensive.

I’m all good with what Joseph Smith said. I’m OK that Brigham Young had the inquisitive mind about Adam, and may have misspoken or been misunderstood (perhaps deliberately), and that he thought Noah had it right about the sin of murder and its punishment.

I will look forward to meeting both of them way on down the road, perhaps not in the spirit world since they are so busy, but perhaps at some point after the resurrection.

Many, perhaps most, Mormons leave because of things they learn about JS.
BY must have been important because they named the University after him. Although it seems no matter what he said we are now told he was not speaking as a prophet…

I understand your feelings about that. I don’t think the intent was that He does it all–since as the Greatest Teacher in the world, He certainly knows and would have known how much growth comes when people are stretched by serving and stretched by Him not doing “it all” by Himself at every point. I think He lets others be involved in many important things, even today.

Jesus is the Word.
JS and BY said they were greater than The Word. These cannot be the words of a true prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Jesus is the Word.
JS and BY said they were greater than The Word. These cannot be the words of a true prophet.

Lax16,

Your statement here shows a profound misunderstanding about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, or about the Bible–not sure which. Are you saying because they were concerned about the temporal well-being of the members, and spoke about temporal things such as helping save the group in the mountains (handcart pioneers), that they were making themselves “greater” than the Bible?

The pope doesn’t confine his words to the Bible. Are you saying the pope, by not confining his words to the Bible, makes himself “greater than the Word?”

As far as Wilford Woodruff, I don’t know where you have gotten the impression that he publicly disagreed with Brigham Young on the issue you keep bringing up. ?

Have a lovely day.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

Your statement here shows a profound misunderstanding about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, or about the Bible–not sure which. Are you saying because they were concerned about the temporal well-being of the members, and spoke about temporal things such as helping save the group in the mountains (handcart pioneers), that they were making themselves “greater” than the Bible?

No, their statement speaks for itself.
The living oracle is more important than sacred scripture.

The pope doesn’t confine his words to the Bible. Are you saying the pope, by not confining his words to the Bible, makes himself “greater than the Word?”

He never changes what the Bible teaches.

As far as Wilford Woodruff, I don’t know where you have gotten the impression that he publicly disagreed with Brigham Young on the issue you keep bringing up. ?

I read that he denied knowing about the Adam-God theory, but then it was revealed in his journals. I question his integrity because he claimed to have been visited by the FF.

Have a lovely day.

I hope today will not be as hot as yesterday!

p.s. - I am getting confused with the two threads!

 

[ParkerD]

No, their statement speaks for itself.
The living oracle is more important than sacred scripture.

He never changes what the Bible teaches.

I read that he denied knowing about the Adam-God theory, but then it was revealed in his journals. I question his integrity because he claimed to have been visited by the FF.

I hope today will not be as hot as yesterday!

p.s. - I am getting confused with the two threads!

Lax16,

It seems that by bringing into your thinking the “Adam-God theory” and then adding in the talk by President Benson, you have in your mind that someone was disagreeing with some doctrinal topic in the observation that Wilford Woodruff made. It was not about “doctrine”. The disagreement was about whether the prophet could address the temporal, every-day concerns of the saints. (At that time, there was a financial crisis in the country–real concerns for real people about their real lives–something that someone among the listeners thought shouldn’t be talked about because it wasn’t in the Bible or the Doctrine and Covenants as a specific subject.)

(Unfortunately, the forecast is that it will be hotter today than yesterday.)

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

It seems that by bringing into your thinking the “Adam-God theory” and then adding in the talk by President Benson, you have in your mind that someone was disagreeing with some doctrinal topic in the observation that Wilford Woodruff made. It was not about “doctrine”. The disagreement was about whether the prophet could address the temporal, every-day concerns of the saints. (At that time, there was a financial crisis in the country–real concerns for real people about their real lives–something that someone among the listeners thought shouldn’t be talked about because it wasn’t in the Bible or the Doctrine and Covenants as a specific subject.)

(Unfortunately, the forecast is that it will be hotter today than yesterday.)

Parker - the concern was whether a prophet’s revelations could contradict sacred scripture. The answer for Mormons is “yes.”

(It was almost 100 yesterday - yikes!)

 

[RebeccaJ]

(It was almost 100 yesterday - yikes!)

…and my air conditioning is out… :coolinoff:

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - the concern was whether a prophet’s revelations could contradict sacred scripture. The answer for Mormons is “yes.”

(It was almost 100 yesterday - yikes!)

Lax16,

I understand that this is what you are reading into what was being said. But it wasn’t the context of the situation that Wilford Woodruff was describing. I think this is a subject you just plain won’t understand–I give up.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I understand that this is what you are reading into what was being said. But it wasn’t the context of the situation that Wilford Woodruff was describing. I think this is a subject you just plain won’t understand–I give up.

1. Unnamed person questions the revelations of JS because they contradict sacred scripture.
2. JS asks BY to explain situation.
3. BY lays out all books of sacred scripture and claims they are not as important as the revelations of JS therefore confirming that JS is revealing things not in sacred scripture.

I don’t understand what? Fill in the blank as to what the revelations were about…it does not matter.
All that matters is that you except a prophet that contradicts scripture or you don’t.

 

[ParkerD]

1. Unnamed person questions the revelations of JS because they contradict sacred scripture.
2. JS asks BY to explain situation.
3. BY lays out all books of sacred scripture and claims they are not as important as the revelations of JS therefore confirming that JS is revealing things not in sacred scripture.

I don’t understand what? Fill in the blank as to what the revelations were about…it does not matter.
All that matters is that you except a prophet that contradicts scripture or you don’t.

Lax16,

The word “contradict” was not used. Look at it again. Think if someone were writing that the pope had gone off on some tangent not directly and specifically in the Bible about a topic. It would be the same thing, and could have used similar language describing the person’s disagreement with the pope.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The word “contradict” was not used. Look at it again. Think if someone were writing that the pope had gone off on some tangent not directly and specifically in the Bible about a topic. It would be the same thing, and could have used similar language describing the person’s disagreement with the pope.

I paraphrased - a leading man in the church said “JS was giving relations not according to sacred scripture.”

This is a tangent?

Do you think there is a problem if JS were to speak **not according to **sacred scripture?

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, **and you who give revelations should give revelations according to **those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

 

[ParkerD]

I paraphrased - a leading man in the church said “JS was giving revelations not according to sacred scripture.”

This is a tangent?

Do you think there is a problem if JS were to speak **not according to **sacred scripture?

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, **and you who give revelations should give revelations according to **those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

Lax16,

So then it appears you have taken the words “according to” and made a jump to believing that means “contradict”.

I could take hundreds of writings of the popes and say they were not “according to” the Bible in that their major message would not be in the Bible and that they discussed items not specifically in the Bible, and it would be the same meaning.

“According to” may seem to mean “not in agreement with” to someone looking for a meaning that wasn’t there in the context, but “according to” means within that context, “in accord with” meaning found strictly and specifically as a teaching in the Bible.

 

[lax16]

…and my air conditioning is out… :coolinoff:

Oh no! - do you think any air conditioning techs are working on the 4th? :tanning:

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

So then it appears you have taken the words “according to” and made a jump to believing that means “contradict”.

I could take hundreds of writings of the popes and say they were not “according to” the Bible in that their major message would not be in the Bible and that they discussed items not specifically in the Bible, and it would be the same meaning.

“According to” may seem to mean “not in agreement with” to someone looking for a meaning that wasn’t there in the context, but “according to” means within that context, “in accord with” meaning found strictly and specifically as a teaching in the Bible.

Parker - I hope someone is paying you the big bucks for your effort!

Again - BY stated that the living oracle was more important than sacred scripture when asked why JS’ revelations were not in accordance with them.

Now, once again, do you have a problem with a prophet who has revelations that are not in accordance with sacred scripture?

Has a pope ever said that his word is more important than sacred scripture? No!
Popes do not have revelations so how could their revelations be unbiblical? Remember, JS and BY were not discussing their writings - they were discussing REVELATIONS!

Let’s keep this apples to apples.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - …
Again - BY stated that the living oracle was more important than sacred scripture when asked why JS’ revelations were not in accordance with them.

Now, once again, do you have a problem with a prophet who has revelations that are not in accordance with sacred scripture?

Has a pope ever said that his word is more important than sacred scripture? No!
Popes do not have revelations so how could their revelations be unbiblical? Remember, JS and BY were not discussing their writings - they were discussing REVELATIONS!

Let’s keep this apples to apples.

Lax16,

The context was about the financial condition of the people, land speculation, the idea some had espoused of “get-rich-quick” and of taking advantage of people moving in to the area. Some dissenters didn’t want Joseph Smith to talk about their temporal affairs and challenge their status quo.

The pope challenges the status quo presented by governments, often in writings I have seen. Just because he doesn’t call it “revelation” doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe he is being “authoritative” and someone who should be believed, even if he doesn’t write straight from the Bible on a topic.

It is the same kind of case, just that the word “revelation” isn’t in there but the meaning is completely similar–to mean “believe what I am writing–it is important and should be followed”, especially when viewed within the context of his believing he has keys from God.

By the way, the time I have spent on this forum (cumulative hours possibly over a thousand) have been with of course no monetary value to me or anyone. As I explained once, I have a situation of a patriarchal blessing that said my “voice would be heard” throughout the earth sharing truths, so I have taken the opportunity as it presented itself to help some few draw closer to Christ, through encouraging their drawing closer to Him and closer to repenting and forgiving within the context of their own free will choices in life.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

The context was about the financial condition of the people, land speculation, the idea some had espoused of “get-rich-quick” and of taking advantage of people moving in to the area. Some dissenters didn’t want Joseph Smith to talk about their temporal affairs and challenge their status quo.

It doesn’t matter what it was about.

The pope challenges the status quo presented by governments, often in writings I have seen. Just because he doesn’t call it “revelation” doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe he is being “authoritative” and someone who should be believed, even if he doesn’t write straight from the Bible on a topic.

Please give an example when the pope ever said anything not supported by scripture.
No, inspiration maybe, but not revelation as the mormons believe. Even then it is supported by scripture.

It is the same kind of case, just that the word “revelation” isn’t in there but the meaning is completely similar–to mean “believe what I am writing–it is important and should be followed”, especially when viewed within the context of his believing he has keys from God.

We are not required to follow the revelations of a pope because

1. he doesn’t have them
2. all revelation stopped

By the way, the time I have spent on this forum (cumulative hours possibly over a thousand) have been with of course no monetary value to me or anyone. As I explained once, I have a situation of a patriarchal blessing that said my “voice would be heard” throughout the earth sharing truths, so I have taken the opportunity as it presented itself to help some few draw closer to Christ, through encouraging their drawing closer to Him and closer to repenting and forgiving within the context of their own free will choices in life.

ps. I know that you have given hours of your time to CAF - I was just kidding with you about the big bucks - I didn’t really think you were getting paid!