Mormon prophet

[ParkerD]

No, I didn’t misunderstand. You are trying to sugarcoat what was said.
Compared to JS, sacred scripture did not match up - according to BY.
His revelations were not consistent with sacred scripture and he was being called out on it.
Why read more into what was said - follow the prophet even though he contradicts sacred scripture. It was said then and again in 1980.

“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. 18–1

Lax16,

You still don’t get it, evidently. The words “match up” were not used, nor any such connotation. It was that the person doing the complaining didn’t like that there were then-present problems, temporal concerns of the saints, that a prophet was teaching about how to deal with. He wanted the prophet to just stay along the lines of platitudes and teachings directly from the scriptures, instead of bringing up real then-present concerns of the saints with every-day temporal concerns.

The words “you who give revelations should give them according to those books” could just as well be said about the pope writing on whatever present day problem he sees fit to write about. It is the same kind of case, and that is not “sugar-coating”.

There are present day problems in the world that are not specifically dealt with in the Bible. The Bible can be used as a guide, but the point is that the problems and concerns that are real problems for real people with real needs, may not be met with by just “quoting the Bible or the revelations”.

If you’re going to apply a standard to the Latter-day Saints prophets, then you should apply the same standard to the pope and his writings or teachings or speeches.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

You still don’t get it, evidently. The words “match up” were not used, nor any such connotation. It was that the person doing the complaining didn’t like that there were then-present problems, temporal concerns of the saints, that a prophet was teaching about how to deal with. He wanted the prophet to just stay along the lines of platitudes and teachings directly from the scriptures, instead of bringing up real then-present concerns of the saints with every-day temporal concerns.

The person “complaining” was pointing out that the prophet’s revelations did not match sacred scripture.
Mormons always call people who question “complainers” don’t they - sounds like our angry missionary…

The words “you who give revelations should give them according to those books” could just as well be said about the pope writing on whatever present day problem he sees fit to write about. It is the same kind of case, and that is not “sugar-coating”.

The pope has never, or can ever, contradict scripture.

There are present day problems in the world that are not specifically dealt with in the Bible. The Bible can be used as a guide, but the point is that the problems and concerns that are real problems for real people with real needs, may not be met with by just “quoting the Bible or the revelations”.

So the bible is relative? Your prophet has more wisdom than the Bible?
Please give one example where this has been proven.

If you’re going to apply a standard to the Latter-day Saints prophets, then you should apply the same standard to the pope and his writings or teachings or speeches.

I am beginning to think if you say something enough you hope everyone will begin to believe it.
The pope is not a prophet. He cannot contradict scripture.

I absolutely hold the pope to the same standard! No pope can ever contradict scripture!

 

[ParkerD]

The person “complaining” was pointing out that the prophet’s revelations did not match sacred scripture.
…

Lax16,

You evidently have done the research to be able to say what the specific “revelation” that was being specifically discussed by the person doing the complaining and was being listened to by Wilford Woodruff. So please be specific to show what it is you are talking about in generalities. We are talking about one specific point in time, in a particular place, with a particular point being taken issue. Describe what your research on that specific issue (in 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio) was.

Then, show why that particular issue would not be like the pope taking a principle from the Bible and applying it in the context of a modern world problem.

Again, I am not interested in generalities or in other times or other places. I am interested in the specific situation that was being described by Wilford Woodruff and that you have said was a “revelation” that did not square with the Bible, that had to do with the context of the statement quoted from Woodruff’s journal.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

You evidently have done the research to be able to say what the specific “revelation” that was being specifically discussed by the person doing the complaining and was being listened to by Wilford Woodruff. So please be specific to show what it is you are talking about in generalities. We are talking about one specific point in time, in a particular place, with a particular point being taken issue. Describe what your research on that specific issue (in 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio) was.

Why would one have to know the specific revelation? The point is:

JS did have revelations that contradicted sacred scripture, as said by unknown man in story and verified by BY (not me).

The test of the One True Church is one that is true to His Word no matter what - it is not relative!

Then, show why that particular issue would not be like the pope taking a principle from the Bible and applying it in the context of a modern world problem.

This would be like the pope contradicting the Bible and applying it to a modern world problem - it cannot happen. All problems of the modern world can be solved by looking at the Bible and drawing from scripture.

Again, I am not interested in generalities or in other times or other places. I am interested in the specific situation that was being described by Wilford Woodruff and that you have said was a “revelation” that did not square with the Bible, that had to do with the context of the statement quoted from Woodruff’s journal.

Either a prophet/leader contradicts sacred scripture, or he does not. Period. There is no gray area, is there?

I will have to do a little research on Woodruff - I saw the info a couple of weeks ago and will post the info when I find it again.

 

[BigFellaMick]

Mormons are in line with Jehovas witnesses as being in serious danger for their false prophets and satanic created churches. I’m praying for the whole world in general, but a big emphasis on those who misinterpret God’s word and try to defend their sinful ideologies.

 

[ParkerD]

Why would one have to know the specific revelation? The point is:

Lax16,

I already made the point about why the person disagreed that a subject being taught about was of a temporal nature and had to do with building Zion–a Zion people. So the statement by BY had to do with a specific situation–had to do with establishing Zion in a temporal way–and you have taken that specific situation that you don’t know anything about, and generalized with no idea what you are discussing other than it serves your intended purpose, but it would be the same if I took a statement of the pope and said he was writing about a topic that wasn’t in the Bible and “shouldn’t do that.”

 

[PaulDupre]

I guess he does now. How about disappearing talks by church leaders that don’t reflect well on current beliefs and practices?

In Mormonism the future is known; it is the past that keeps changing.

 

[PaulDupre]

Rebecca,
Let me summarize - you now claim you were taught God physically lived on a planet called Urim and Thummin near the star called Kolob?

Please link to the teaching manual that taught what you claim, old versions are still online.

D&C 130 also isn’t an astronomy lesson. It’s clearly meant to help one imagine God’s throne or heaven (not describe a literal planet that doesn’t conform to laws of physics)

Don’t you think it’s inappropriate to stitch together two verses out of context to create literal LDS doctrine that God lives in this specific physical location? Even if the BoA is a fraud in your eyes, that is no excuse for you to lie about the context of your quotes.

You should be ashamed of such tactics

This is a tactic we see often from Mormons these days: All embarassing doctrines, passages in the standard works, etc. are now “metaphores” or “only symbolic”. Just as embarassing teachings of prior prophets (though taken as the word of god at the time) are merely that prophet’s personal opinion.