LDS: The living prophet more vital than the Bible?

[lax16]

In the 14 Fundamentals in following the LDS prophet it is stated that:

**“The living prophet is more vital than the standard works.” **

The Standard Works (From MormonWiki) are:

The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon—Another Testament of Jesus Christ
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

Do you believe this to be true?

**vital **(from Webster’s dictionary) -existing as a manifestation of life; concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life; tending to renew or refresh the living; of the utmost importance

 

[ParkerD]

In the 14 Fundamentals in following the LDS prophet it is stated that:

**“The living prophet is more vital than the standard works.” **

The Standard Works (From MormonWiki) are:

The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon—Another Testament of Jesus Christ
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

Do you believe this to be true?

**vital **(from Webster’s dictionary) -existing as a manifestation of life; concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life; tending to renew or refresh the living; of the utmost importance

Lax16,

With “vital” taking the meaning of “of the utmost importance”, and also with the understanding that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price each and all show how the people who are the covenant people are supposed to have a relationship with God whereby they know truth through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and thus know when the prophet is speaking as the “oracle of God” because they receive a personal witness that what they are hearing or reading is a truth given by God,

then the answer I would give to your question is “yes, for active LDS members.”

When Peter concluded and taught that circumcision was no longer needed for the covenant people nor for Gentile converts, then he was not consulting the writings of the earlier prophets directly, although he realized that Isaiah had written that the Gentiles would hear the gospel and be brought into membership within the covenant. He was announcing a doctrine that involved his “then-present day”.

When Noah told the people to prepare for the coming flood, they could have said “it is not in the writings of the prophets we follow–we do not believe you.” It was their loss, not his. He did his part, and delivered the message God told him to give.

When the Jews rejected Jesus as their Savior and Messiah, they did so by referring back to their law, back to Abraham as “their father”, back to their traditions and teachings–back to what they considered “their Bible.”

Jesus taught that before the Second Coming, the world will be “as in the days of Noe [Noah]”.

So Latter-day Saints are not out on a limb when they say it is vital, necessary, and advisable for them and their children to “follow the prophet” whom they know has been called of God, by revelation, through having been prepared first as an apostle and through years of his having experience and first-hand understanding of the flow of revelation and the “united voice” concept of the entire First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

In practical ways, that means when there are attempts by media sources, governmental influences, popular opinion, or worldwide clamor to change from clear Biblical teachings to “thus and so” such as recently happened in New York, then the prophet sets the clear standard and the followers of his prophetic voice know absolutely that there is not a way around the clear Biblical teaching.

Or when popular opinion says “we think the Bible teaches there is no marriage in heaven”, then the prophet having the authority from God and the understanding through revelation and the power of the Holy Ghost to be able to guide the covenant followers to understand that there is indeed an opportunity for marriage in heaven, through the authority of the priesthood restored to the earth and through their making personal covenants in a sacred temple (the house of God, a place of holiness) and keeping them with their spouse, then they have the assurance that indeed that is true doctrine, and a choice they have the opportunity to make.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

With “vital” taking the meaning of “of the utmost importance”, and also with the understanding that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price each and all show how the people who are the covenant people are supposed to have a relationship with God whereby they know truth through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and thus know when the prophet is speaking as the “oracle of God” because they receive a personal witness that what they are hearing or reading is a truth given by God,

But the people (those who disagreed with JS and BY) didn’t receive a personal witness that JS and BY were oracles of God - that is why they were disagreeing with them.

then the answer I would give to your question is “yes, for active LDS members.”

'if they receive a personal witness that what they are hearing or reading is a truth given by God - how do LDS receive this?

When Peter concluded and taught that circumcision was no longer needed for the covenant people nor for Gentile converts, then he was not consulting the writings of the earlier prophets directly, although he realized that Isaiah had written that the Gentiles would hear the gospel and be brought into membership within the covenant. He was announcing a doctrine that involved his “then-present day”.

I am not aware that circumcision or non-circumcision is a doctrine?
Paul was making it clear to all that external ceremonies and signs were not what God/Jesus is asking of us but a change of heart.

When Noah told the people to prepare for the coming flood, they could have said “it is not in the writings of the prophets we follow–we do not believe you.” It was their loss, not his. He did his part, and delivered the message God told him to give.

Not so. Apparantly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Book of Enoch, it was a well-known legend that foretold the flood and would have been known by the people of Noah’s time.

DEAD SEA SCROLLS TEXTS

---

The Book of Giants
4Q203, 1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q530-532, 6Q8

Introduction and Commentary
**It is fair to say that the patriarch Enoch was as well known to the ancients **as he is obscure to modern Bible readers. Besides giving his age (365 years), the book of Genesis says of him only that he “walked with God,” and afterward “he was not, because God had taken him” (Gen. 5:24). This exalted way of life and mysterious demise made Enoch into a figure of considerable fascination, and a cycle of legends grew up around him.

Many of the legends about Enoch were collected already in ancient times in several long anthologies. The most important such anthology, and the oldest, is known simply as The Book of Enoch, comprising over one hundred chapters. It still survives in its entirety (although only in the Ethiopic language) and forms an important source for the thought of Judaism in the last few centuries B.C.E. Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book of Giants.

Enoch lived before the Flood, during a time when the world, in ancient imagination, was very different. Human beings lived much longer, for one thing; Enoch’s son Methuselah, for instance, attained the age of 969 years. Another difference was that angels and humans interacted freely – so freely, in fact, that some of the angels begot children with human females. This fact is neutrally reported in Genesis (6:1-4), but other stories view this episode as the source of the corruption that made the punishing flood necessary. According to The Book of Enoch, the mingling of angel and human was actually the idea of Shernihaza, the leader of the evil angels, who lured 200 others to cohabit with women. The offspring of these unnatural unions were giants 450 feet high. The wicked angels and the giants began to oppress the human population and to teach them to do evil. For this reason God determined to imprison the angels until the final judgment and to destroy the earth with a flood. Enoch’s efforts to intercede with heaven for the fallen angels were unsuccessful (1 Enoch 6-16).

The Book of Giants retells part of this story and elaborates on the exploits of the giants, especially the two children of Shemihaza, Ohya and Hahya. Since no complete manuscript exists of Giants, its exact contents and their order remain a matter of guesswork. Most of the content of the present fragments concerns the giants’ ominous dreams and Enoch’s efforts to interpret them and to intercede with God on the giants’ behalf. Unfortunately, little remains of the independent adventures of the giants, but it is likely that these tales were at least partially derived from ancient Near Eastern mythology. Thus the name of one of the giants is Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero and subject of a great epic written in the third millennium B.C.E.

 

[lax16]

When the Jews rejected Jesus as their Savior and Messiah, they did so by referring back to their law, back to Abraham as “their father”, back to their traditions and teachings–back to what they considered “their Bible.”

There are many scriptures in the OT that references Jesus as the messiah!
For example:
Isiah 7:14/25:8/53:8
Deut 21:21-23
Psalms 22/16:10/69:21/188:22

To say that the Jews could not find reference to him in their teachings is not correct.

Jesus taught that before the Second Coming, the world will be “as in the days of Noe [Noah]”.

?

So Latter-day Saints are not out on a limb when they say it is vital, necessary, and advisable for them and their children to “follow the prophet” whom they know has been called of God, by revelation, through having been prepared first as an apostle and through years of his having experience and first-hand understanding of the flow of revelation and the “united voice” concept of the entire First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles.

Yes, LDS are way out on a limb when they follow a prophet that contradicts sacred scripture!

In practical ways, that means when there are attempts by media sources, governmental influences, popular opinion, or worldwide clamor to change from clear Biblical teachings to “thus and so” such as recently happened in New York, then the prophet sets the clear standard and the followers of his prophetic voice know absolutely that there is not a way around the clear Biblical teaching.

Parker…you are contradicting yourself here. The Bible does have clear teachings that Mormons do not follow.

when popular opinion says “we think the Bible teaches there is no marriage in heaven”, then the prophet having the authority from God and the understanding through revelation and the power of the Holy Ghost to be able to guide the covenant followers to understand that there is indeed an opportunity for marriage in heaven, through the authority of the priesthood restored to the earth and through their making personal covenants in a sacred temple (the house of God, a place of holiness) and keeping them with their spouse, then they have the assurance that indeed that is true doctrine, and a choice they have the opportunity to make.

You are calling the words of Jesus Christ popular opinion??
So, the answer is yes, Mormons believe their prophets can contradict scripture and are more vital, more important, than the bible.

 

[ParkerD]

But the people (those who disagreed with JS and BY) didn’t receive a personal witness that JS and BY were oracles of God - that is why they were disagreeing with them.

Lax16,

I don’t know who you mean, so I don’t know the circumstance and I don’t know the outcome.

As for the other questions, I’ll get back to you over the next few days.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

I don’t know who you mean, so I don’t know the circumstance and I don’t know the outcome.

Sorry, I forgot to post this:

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet President Ezra Taft Benson,

Of the Quorum of the Twelve

---

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet—and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“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.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

As for the other questions, I’ll get back to you over the next few days.

Enjoy the holiday!:tanning:

 

[Marie5890]

In the 14 Fundamentals in following the LDS prophet it is stated that:

**“The living prophet is more vital than the standard works.” **

The Standard Works (From MormonWiki) are:

The Holy Bible
The Book of Mormon—Another Testament of Jesus Christ
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

Do you believe this to be true?

**vital **(from Webster’s dictionary) -existing as a manifestation of life; concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life; tending to renew or refresh the living; of the utmost importance

Lax, that was what I was taught when I was LDS (1980-1992-ish)

Added to that is that Mormons believe as per JSmith’s teaching is the most correct book on the planet, and that the Bible has had errors creep into over it’s history, due in part to translation issue amongst other things.

But yes, LDS are (or were, don’t know present teachings) that the living prophet’s words (today’s it’s Thomas Monson I believe) are more vital than all the “standard works” esp when he is speaking as a prophet (LDS believe that not everything the prophet says is of God, and that, as a human being he can have his own opinions.)

 

[Marie5890]

Sorry, I forgot to post this:

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet President Ezra Taft Benson,

Of the Quorum of the Twelve

---

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

Lax, I just wanted to make it clear here to anyone reading this that at the time Benson made these remarks (1980) he was not yet president (prophet) of the LDS church. He would become President in about 1985 upon the death of Spencer Kimball.

in 1980, he was the President of the Quorum of 12 Apostles.

There is a difference

 

[lax16]

Lax, I just wanted to make it clear here to anyone reading this that at the time Benson made these remarks (1980) he was not yet president (prophet) of the LDS church. He would become President in about 1985 upon the death of Spencer Kimball.

in 1980, he was the President of the Quorum of 12 Apostles.

There is a difference

Hi Marie - Thank you for the clarification. Here is the link: lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

The difference being that when he was speaking he was not yet a prophet?

thanks!

 

[lax16]

Lax, that was what I was taught when I was LDS (1980-1992-ish)

Added to that is that Mormons believe as per JSmith’s teaching is the most correct book on the planet, and that the Bible has had errors creep into over it’s history, due in part to translation issue amongst other things.

But yes, LDS are (or were, don’t know present teachings) that the living prophet’s words (today’s it’s Thomas Monson I believe) are more vital than all the “standard works” esp when he is speaking as a prophet (LDS believe that not everything the prophet says is of God, and that, as a human being he can have his own opinions.)

What would be an example of an error that had crept into the bible over history?

Can you give an example of anything a prophet has said that was in disagreement with the standard works?

 

[Marie5890]

Hi Marie - Thank you for the clarification. Here is the link: lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

The difference being that when he was speaking he was not yet a prophet?

thanks!

Members of the 12 are sustained by the membership as “prophets, seers and revelators” but they are not “the” prophet. There is a difference of authority. (If I recall correctly) they all hold the “keys” but only “the” prophet can exercise them all the “keys”. Im sure Parker will clarify whatever I may have gotten wrong.

It’s been a long time.

 

[lax16]

Members of the 12 are sustained by the membership as “prophets, seers and revelators” but they are not “the” prophet. There is a difference of authority. (If I recall correctly) they all hold the “keys” but only “the” prophet can exercise them all the “keys”. Im sure Parker will clarify whatever I may have gotten wrong.

It’s been a long time.

The talk given at BYU by Benson was about the fundamentals of following the LDS prophets. Just to be sure, it was not said that he (Benson) was president at the time.

 

[Marie5890]

What would be an example of an error that had crept into the bible over history?

Can you give an example of anything a prophet has said that was in disagreement with the standard works?

Well as to your first question, there is what is known as the Joseph Smith translation of the New Testament (basically in the LDS version of the King James version, there are footnotes at the bottom of his revisions.)

As to your second question, well it’s not that easy to answer because of their belief of continuing revelation. As major changes take place, the add a new section to the D&C. I believe that the last major change that was added was Spencer Kimball’s opening the priesthood to blacks (1978-ish)

Im thinking it was Wilford Woodruff who issued the “manifesto” which prohibited the continuing practice of plural marriage (although the LDS church has never declared it an unholy practice in theory. They still believe in it; they just don’t practice it here on earth.

 

[Marie5890]

The talk given at BYU by Benson was about the fundamentals of following the LDS prophets. Just to be sure, it was not said that he (Benson) was president at the time.

That’s correct.

When I was at BYU, the first Sunday of every month a General Authority of the church would address the university’s student body in a fireside. Also 2 out of the 4 tuesdays mornings a month there would be GA or other religious speaker also addressing the student body.

One of the perceived benefits of attending BYU back then was the amount of exposur/addresses a student had to the GA’s.

BYU was seen as the major training ground for future leadership in the LDS church. (it must be remember that the LDS church has a lay leadership.

Only the upper tiers of it’s hierarchy get a stipend.

 

[lax16]

That’s correct.

Good - I am glad my posts were correct!

When I was at BYU, the first Sunday of every month a General Authority of the church would address the university’s student body in a fireside. Also 2 out of the 4 tuesdays mornings a month there would be GA or other religious speaker also addressing the student body.

One of the perceived benefits of attending BYU back then was the amount of exposur/addresses a student had to the GA’s.

BYU was seen as the major training ground for future leadership in the LDS church. (it must be remember that the LDS church has a lay leadership.

Only the upper tiers of it’s hierarchy get a stipend.

That is a lot of information being passed from the church hierarchy to its young members!
I am sure if they send members of GA there to their church-operated university, then the talks are “approved” by the other members of the hierarchy. I think I read somewhere that they kind of keep each other in check.

 

[ParkerD]

So, the answer is yes, Mormons believe their prophets can contradict scripture and are more vital, more important, than the Bible.

Lax16,

As I have conversed on the topic with you before, and as I had a recent conversation with a few others, the Bible conveys that there is eternal marriage, and Jesus’ words reinforce that doctrine but leave free will choice in the matter to each individual, including to the Sadducees who disbelieved in Him and thus did not seek to make covenants that would lead to gaining an eternal marriage covenant.

I cited that particular teaching specifically, knowing that it would lead to the disagreement and that is what having a prophet and apostles is also about–having the word of God through them reinforcing the Bible and its truths, rather than needing to rely on the “Early Church Fathers” who had their particular ideas and agendas to bring their own views into how they saw ambiguous passages such as the “no marriage in heaven” confusion and the “Peter as the rock” confusion.

As far as people weeding themselves out of belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after they had joined, whether in this day or in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it is totally to be expected, was an easily understood teaching of the Savior that that would happen from the seeds of the gospel being planted in various kinds of soil, and should not surprise anyone, but really means that the people find what they personally like, what satisfies their particular religious expectations, and make their own personal choice about it. Life is about choice, and that is given to us by God with His love.

We find the opportunities that suit us, we grow in the ways that suit us, and all the while the Savior is pleased if at least we are on a path of growth where He can do some of the guiding if we allow Him to do so, then if we really find His correcting influence then He can guide us all the more. Oliver Cowdery left the church, lost many opportunities, but came back into activity, as did Martin Harris, and as did Thomas B Marsh. Some didn’t make the return, and certainly some don’t today, and they have found what they like, so this is as it should be. They ought to find the happiness that suits them, and hopefully feel they are growing in the process of their religious experience in life.

 

[ParkerD]

'if they receive a personal witness that what they are hearing or reading is a truth given by God - how do LDS receive this?

They have become familiar with communication from God through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and through their personal prayers, and are patient if they hear something they don’t understand and may just have to “put it on the shelf” for awhile.

I am not aware that circumcision or non-circumcision is a doctrine?
Paul was making it clear to all that external ceremonies and signs were not what God/Jesus is asking of us but a change of heart.

The Jews certainly treated circumcision as a doctrine, and as some of them converted they certainly argued about it as though it were a doctrine in their minds. It was a “big deal” kind of change that is amply written up in the New Testament after Christ’s ascension.

Not so. Apparantly in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Book of Enoch, it was a well-known legend that foretold the flood and would have been known by the people of Noah’s time.

I certainly agree that the city of Enoch had already been “taken up” (translated) before the flood, so that means a very large group of righteous people who were familiar with and believed in prophets (such as the prophet Enoch) and prophecy were no longer on the earth when the flood came.

Have a great holiday time with your family.

 

[lax16]

They have become familiar with communication from God through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and through their personal prayers, and are patient if they hear something they don’t understand and may just have to “put it on the shelf” for awhile.

Please show biblical scripture that tells us how we would feel/hear the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the manner that the LDS do.
I shake my head when I think of our Mormon friend telling us of decisions he has made as a result of prayer and telling us we should take his advice and do the same thing for our family…only to have the whole thing go up in smoke a year or so later. He is so confident in his “decision-making” as a result of the HS and his life is a mess.

The Jews certainly treated circumcision as a doctrine, and as some of them converted they certainly argued about it as though it were a doctrine in their minds. It was a “big deal” kind of change that is amply written up in the New Testament after Christ’s ascension.

I thought you said Peter said it was doctrine?
Yes, I am aware that there was much confusion at the time of the early church regarding dietary laws, etc. It would be confusing - after all, Jesus was a devout Jew who practiced these things himself!

I certainly agree that the city of Enoch had already been “taken up” (translated) before the flood, so that means a very large group of righteous people who were familiar with and believed in prophets (such as the prophet Enoch) and prophecy were no longer on the earth when the flood came.

The point is that during the time of Noah, when he warned people to turn away from evil and began to build the ark, the people had heard about a flood that would come and save only three people. So, they did have some knowledge about a great flood.

Have a great holiday time with your family.

There’s nothing like 4th of July in Utah!

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

As I have conversed on the topic with you before, and as I had a recent conversation with a few others, the Bible conveys that there is eternal marriage, and Jesus’ words reinforce that doctrine but leave free will choice in the matter to each individual, including to the Sadducees who disbelieved in Him and thus did not seek to make covenants that would lead to gaining an eternal marriage covenant.

Nobody but the LDS believe this, Parker. For two thousand years, from the early church on, nobody thought that Jesus and/or the bible taught eternal marriage.

I cited that particular teaching specifically, knowing that it would lead to the disagreement and that is what having a prophet and apostles is also about–having the word of God through them reinforcing the Bible and its truths, rather than needing to rely on the “Early Church Fathers” who had their particular ideas and agendas to bring their own views into how they saw ambiguous passages such as the “no marriage in heaven” confusion and the “Peter as the rock” confusion.

Parker, there was no confusion. The early church fathers picked up where Jesus left off.
What agenda did they have? Why would they need to promote “no marriage in heaven?”

One could easily argue that the early Mormon leaders had an agenda and used eternal marriage as a way to move their religion forward. This way, women were under the control of their husbands with many children being born to increase membership…really, this could be argued both ways!

As far as people weeding themselves out of belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after they had joined, whether in this day or in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it is totally to be expected, was an easily understood teaching of the Savior that that would happen from the seeds of the gospel being planted in various kinds of soil, and should not surprise anyone, but really means that the people find what they personally like, what satisfies their particular religious expectations, and make their own personal choice about it. Life is about choice, and that is given to us by God with His love.

I would not discredit anyone who “noticed” the inconsistencies of a so-called prophet and his right-hand man and who called into question the fact that were not following the bible or, better yet, their own sacred scripture! Really, Parker, anyone who continued to follow those two were brain-washed or had something else to gain.
Never before would someone be considered bad soil when they called into question anyone who contradicted the words of Our Lord!
Listen to what you are saying - God warned us about false prophets. Heed His words.

We find the opportunities that suit us, we grow in the ways that suit us, and all the while the Savior is pleased if at least we are on a path of growth where He can do some of the guiding if we allow Him to do so, then if we really find His correcting influence then He can guide us all the more. Oliver Cowdery left the church, lost many opportunities, but came back into activity, as did Martin Harris, and as did Thomas B Marsh. Some didn’t make the return, and certainly some don’t today, and they have found what they like, so this is as it should be. They ought to find the happiness that suits them, and hopefully feel they are growing in the process of their religious experience in life.

No, Jesus is not pleased with us when we say His Church failed and that the ECF had an agenda other than continuing what He started. He is not pleased when we dismiss the sacrifice of the martyrs (any Mormons ever been fed to lions, beheaded, burned at the stake?) as if somehow in dying for their faith they were being selfish and/or self-promoting.
There is only one path to God and that is through the Jesus Christ whose words and deeds were recorded in the NT almost 2,000 years ago.

God has His timing and laid it all out in a master plan. To think, JS comes along and tells people that God’s plan did not work and it was incomplete - and they listened to him!

God Bless those who had the courage to stand up and tell JS and BY the truth - you are not following scripture. And that = false prophet. That is why they left.

 

[ParkerD]

Nobody but the LDS believe this, Parker. For two thousand years, from the early church on, nobody thought that Jesus and/or the bible taught eternal marriage.

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.

Parker, there was no confusion. The early church fathers picked up where Jesus left off.
What agenda did they have? Why would they need to promote “no marriage in heaven?”

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.

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.

One could easily argue that the early Mormon leaders had an agenda and used eternal marriage as a way to move their religion forward. This way, women were under the control of their husbands with many children being born to increase membership…really, this could be argued both ways!

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.

I would not discredit anyone who “noticed” the inconsistencies of a so-called prophet and his right-hand man and who called into question the fact that were not following the bible or, better yet, their own sacred scripture!

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.

…

Listen to what you are saying - God warned us about false prophets. Heed His words.

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.

…

God has His timing and laid it all out in a master plan. To think, JS comes along and tells people that God’s plan did not work and it was incomplete - and they listened to him!

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!

… That is why they left.

If so, then they usually became Protestant, Lax16.

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

Have a good, peaceful and happy weekend.