When the Prophet Speaks the Debate is Over

On July 24th (2008), at a sunrise service commemorating the first Mormon pioneers to enter the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, LDS Seventy Earl Tingey talked about some of the admirable traits of those first settlers. In addition to doing their duty, being willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, and raising “a righteous posterity” with faith and vision, Mr. Tingey praised these people for being “obedient to their prophets.”

Two weeks earlier (July 8, 2008), the BYU NewsNet web site published an article titled “Follow the Prophet.” In this editorial it was argued that “active Mormons” cannot and will not “disagree with the Prophet’s counsel.”

The context for the editorial was the June 29th statement by the LDS First Presidency asking Church members to do all they could to support California’s proposed marriage amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some members had publicly disagreed with the Church directive; hence BYU NewsNet’s clarification of what it means to be an “active Mormon.”

The editorial stated,

“Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any ‘active Mormon’ sustains President Thomas S. Monson as the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God. ‘Active Mormons’ raise their right hand during General Conference and sustain him and the other 14 apostles as the leaders of God’s church on the earth today. In sustaining, they are not voting for them or agreeing with their position, they are promising to support and listen to them.

“Consequently, ‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over. No matter how diligently someone reads their scriptures, attends church or pays a full tithe, unless they sustain President Monson, his counselors and the other 12 apostles, they are not ‘active Mormons.'”

The idea expressed in the editorial, that when the prophet speaks the debate is over, likely came from an address delivered at a Church-wide fireside meeting in 1978. There, Elaine Cannon, Young Women President, told the women of the Church,

“Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the Prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over.” (Ensign, November 1978, page 107)

The idea rang true with Church leadership for in the August 1979 First Presidency Message N. Eldon Tanner titled the message “The Debate is Over” and wrote,

“I was impressed by that simple statement [of Mrs. Cannon’s], which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us…

Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (Ensign, August 1979, page 2).

Mrs. Cannon’s words also appeared in “Lesson 12: Follow the Living Prophet,” from the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 1, page 39.

This is all in keeping with what an LDS prophet has spoken. President Heber J. Grant once said,

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, page 78).

It’s hard to accept as good counsel the directive to do what the LDS prophet says “even if it is wrong.” Of course, if Mormons understood the prophet to be infallible, that would be one thing. But the Mormon-on-the-street is quick to tell critics that the prophet is just a man, capable of giving his own opinion without identifying it as such. In that case, doing whatever the prophet says “even if it is wrong” becomes of serious concern. President Grant seemed to think, though, that the prophet was infallible; for after giving the above counsel he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

Heber J. Grant died in May of 1945. The following month the LDS magazine Improvement Era had the following:

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy….It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking.’…When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (June 1945, page 354)

This sounds a lot like “‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” If these teachings are to be believed, any Latter-day Saint that does his own thinking is not only unworthy of the title “active Mormon,” but he is unwittingly cultivating a spirit of apostasy.

You might consider bringing this up the next time a Mormon objects to the teachings of a Latter-day Prophet with, “That’s just his opinion.”

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Mormon Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to When the Prophet Speaks the Debate is Over

  1. GRCluff says:

    Why does no one address this topic as Christ did in the verses I quoted? He didn’t say it was sexual sin, or say the people found better reasoning or logic.

    He just said, they get offended:

    Matt 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

    Or they are overcome by some worldly element:

    Matt 13:22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

    I think that is quite accurate and covers it all. Once again the Master has spoken.

  2. JessicaJoy says:

    Well, I kind of feel like that’s a red herring. What about the information I just presented about the FAIR conference? How do you feel about the fact that the author is encouraging “Inoculation” methods to prevent people from leaving Mormonism when they encounter contrary evidence from history and science? This hearkens back to falcon’s comment at the start of the blog – sounds like Cult 101 techniques…

  3. germit says:

    Cluff: with yourself, Ralph, and my pastor spurring me on, I will one day know the Bible as I should: I appreciate the push. I will get something out soon (prob Sat) about ‘angels as different species’. You certainly are persistent about building a biblical foundation for you faith: I just think you are digging in some strange places. Reg. Matt.13:21 Let me get this straight: you are telling me this applies to fo-mo’s??? As in, “they can’t stand the heat, so they leave the mormon faith…when a little persecution comes there way, they show they have no root…??” Are you kidding?? Like they are not walking INTO a massive amount of persecution by becoming a fo-mo?? I am not a f0-mo, but I’m just guessing you are about to catch some heat for that my friend, maybe DJB will share the hiding place under the kitchen table with you (and he should). This adoption theme points out, I think, a weakness in LDS thinking. As christians, we hold that prior to salvation, we are spiritually DEAD “Once you were dead, doomed forever because of your many sins..” Eph2:1 NLT. We weren’t ‘SONS’ prior to being born again, we were hostile to God and His enemies. So much for pre-mortal ‘valiance’ or any such idea. How could someone be ‘valiant’ in a previous existence, and then be born into this world, now they are God’s ENEMIES, and HOSTILE to God ?? Anyway: the ADOPTION theme underscores the BEFORE and AFTER of conversion, just as an adopted person, who had NO rights as family members, NOW (through NO MERIT of their own, but purely because they had parents that wanted to adopt them) enjoy the rights and privileges of family. Romans 8 is FULL of this, but Eph 1:4-6 spells it out:
    “Long ago, even before He made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in His eyes (a reference to being born again in the future) His unchanging plan has always been to ADOPT US into His own family by bringing us to Himself thru Jesus Christ. And this gave Him great pleasure

  4. germit says:

    Susan: welcome to Mormon Coffee, we are nice MOST of the time, and I hope you are treated charitably. When not (and I’m not planning a “NOT” experience for you) take hear that you are doing your best to see truth known and the gospel put forward. I grew up with five brothers and three sisters, guess God was getting me ready for Mormon Coffee, even back then. JS was big into ‘restoring’ the OT ways and positions, or at least some of them. Christians view this as odd and a downgrade from what we have been given in Jesus Christ. What use would I have for a “mouthpeice for God” when I have Jesus Christ HIMSELF speaking to ME PERSONALLY thru (Cluff’s going to like this one) the HOLY SPIRIT?? Anything less than that is like shopping at Dollar General. Why bother? Oh yeah, God instituted it thru His servant JS and on and on…. well, I heard a similar story as a catholic growing up, they have their mouthpiece and careful hierarchy as well. This is what I knew until I met Jesus in repentance and faith at 21. Now you are trying to sell me something similar, or so it looks to me. Even without the catholic baggage, can you see why a christian might not be that interested?? Why the middle man and go between?? Why not just step over the veil that has been torn in two, and talk to God directly ?? I’m guessing you’ll say that you do, and that’s fine, but JS special status and role is (to me) a ‘knock-off’ of what Jesus does for believers, and instead of bringing others to Christ, he has created a layer. How long have you been looking in at Mormon Coffee?? Do they still call us ‘knuckleheads’ over at Mormon Ap. Board?? GERmIT

  5. falcon says:

    Funny how things work. I was out watering my considerable flower gardens this morning (yes the falcon is a caring sensitive guy) and was reflecting back on my formative years as a Catholic and I tune in here to read germit’s post. The mindset of Cathoics at that time (1950-60s) was to be very deferential to authority. I remember when my mother was told she needed a hesterectomy, she went and asked the priest if it would be OK to have the operation. I’m serious. For a variety of reasons, we Baby Boomers developed a questioning attitude and wouldn’t automatically comply to the old “Sister says” (nun) or “Father says” (priest) mentality.
    Mormonism depends on people not questioning authority and buying the fantisized, sanitized church version of reality. Once Mormons start asking the hard questions, it’s Katy bar the door time. Mormon leaders depend on a compliant bunch of followers. With the internet providing information and with newer generations less willing to fall in line with authority just because “the leaders say so”, Mormonism has a hard sell. That’s why the “membership to active member” ratio is so low. It takes a lot of manipulation and pressure to keep people in the fold once they start questioning the history, doctrine and practices as well as the leadership of the Mormon church.

  6. jackg says:


    In reference to Amos 3:7, the context is that God is scolding the Israelites for not listening to the prophets He has sent them. I can see how you and others might make this passage into something perpetual. Fortunately, we have the NT that helps clarify the OT, and the entire Bible needs to be taken into consideration. Hebrews 1:1 does a wonderful job of clarifying things for us. God used prophets such as Moses, etc. in the past, but now speaks to us through Christ Himself, and today that is accomplished through the Holy Spirit (John 16:5-16). Susan, I often referred to the Amos passage as you do, but one cannot claim authority for himself, as JS did, by using scriptures out of context. Hope this helps.


    I notice that you are not comfortable when the topic turns to God’s grace and mercy in the lives of sinner. The seed sown is the gospel of Jesus Christ, that He redeems us based solely on His merits, because all we could ever merit for ourselves is death. That seed has been sown in me and, because of God’s grace and my response to His grace, that seed has taken root in good ground. The seed of Mormonism is not the seed of the gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it is not the seed referred to in the passage. Yes, Jesus has spoken, but He wasn’t speaking Mormonism. Mormonism focuses on man’s power to save himself through righteousness; Christianity focuses on Christ’s power to save humanity despite our unrighteousness, and then to be made righteous through Christ’s work of redemption on our behalf. I must reject your notion that Mormonism is the seed that needs to take root. It’s the seed that needs to be rejected.

  7. cwix says:

    Hey guys.. Ive been lurking for a week or so, and I came across this reference on wikipedia saying. It seemed relevent to the claim that the majority of fo-mos I believe you call them have commited a serious sexual sin.

    “Individuals leave Mormonism for a variety of reasons, although “single reason disaffiliates are rare among former Mormons.” Research shows that 43% of Mormon disaffiliates left due to unmet spiritual needs.”

    It is referenced to this..

    Albrecht, S.L. & Bahr, H.M. (1983). Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts & Former Mormons. Journal of Scientific Study of Religion 22 D. pp. 366-379.


    Yes, I know that wikipedia is a general reference tool at best, but this seems a legit reference.

  8. Andrea says:

    I think it is a very large and arrogant assumption that ALL who leave Mormonism are those referred to in Matt 13.
    Contrary to popular Mormon belief, when someone leaves the church it is not always because
    a) they have been offended by somebody
    b) they cannot deal with the pressure / guilt of their sins
    c) they never had a real or strong enough testimony
    d) unforgivable sexual sin
    e) they have been blinded by Satan
    and/or f) pick from your standard set of explanations.
    In my case, I suppose reason A could apply to me. I really didn’t want to go back to that church after the bishop told me I needed to repent for being raped. On the other hand, I suppose that falls into DJ’s category of having committed a serious sexual sin, so there you go.

    And the current active rate of membership has nothing to do with anything. Germit was correct in perceiving that my point is the white guys in SLC are padding the books (aka lying) to boost the public image.

  9. susan says:


    thanks so much for commenting on my comments with thoughtful consideration. I enjoy discussing religion and appreciate the opportunity.

    As far as your first comment, Joseph Smith was not “into” restoring the Old Testament ways. He was once again a “servant” of the Lord in restoring the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ upon the earth. The fulness of the gospel had been lost through apostasy. Among other things which were lost was the priesthood power, or the authority to act in the name of God. We believe our prophet has this authority as head of a church, but also most Mormon men have the priesthood power conferred upon them.

    I do not understand why you find the idea of a prophet leading a church inconsistent with personal revelation. A big part of Mormon doctrine is personal revelation, or following the Holy Spirit. In fact we are often ENCOURAGED to pray about personal problems and come to our own solutions rather than going to priesthood leaders. The prophet leads and guides the church as a whole and does establish firm doctrinal bases for the church. Why would this be appealing to a believer in Christ?

    Let me put it this way. I have many dear friends who call themselves Christian who attend a variety of churches. Yet say I ask 10 different of these friends such questions as What is salvation? Is baptism necessary? What type of baptism? What happens after we die? Do you think scripture stories such as Adam and Eve are literal or figurative? I GET 10 DIFFERENT ANSWERS. This is not to put my friends down, but something I’ve noticed.As members of the LDS church, we believe the First Presidency has the authority (priesthood power ) to expound doctrine. Perhaps some people would like to know what is true rather than just guessing?

    As far as being on mormon coffee, I discovered the site less than 24 hours ago. As far as people from the Mormon AP (I’m not sure what that is) calling you knuckleheads, I could not tell yo

  10. susan says:

    jackg –

    Thanks for responding to my comment with more thoughtful discussion.

    Point #1 – You state in your comment, “God is scolding the Israelites for not listening to the prophets he has sent them.” So you clearly can see that there is religious precedent for God himself agreeing with the title of this blog, “When the Prophet Speaks, the Debate is Over.”

    Point #2 – You state the Joseph Smith claimed authority for himself by using scriptures out of context. Joseph Smith did not claim authority for himself, but did claim that God GAVE him authority.

    Point #3 – John 16: 5-16 does not disagree one whit with Mormon doctrine. We have a prophet who leads the church. We obtain personal promptings and revelation through the Holy Spirit. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually beneficial.

    Apostles and prophets are the organization of the true Church. As it says in Ephesians 2:19-20 “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” (also see 1 Corinthians 12:28)

    The prophet is the mouthpiece and servant of the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth. I believe in a living prophet TODAY and I believe that Joseph Smith was called of God to be a prophet of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

  11. falcon says:

    So good to have you with us. Maybe you could answer some questions for me that no Mormon on this site has ever attempted to answer for me when asked about the restoration of first century Christianiy in Mormonism:

    1. Please provide a NT reference for the following: that the apostles practiced plural marrage, that the apostles wore sacred underware, that they worshiped in Christian temples, that they practiced temple rituals taken from Free Masonry.

    2. Please name the NT prophets and provide a reference for them using scrying (magic rocks) in the practice of revelation.

    3. Provide a NT reference for the practice of seeing spirits through a veil.

    4. That couples are married for eternity and use secret passwords and handshakes to come through the veil in the next world.

    I ask these questions in all seriousness because Mormonism claims to be restored Christianity. I cna’t find these things anywhere in the NT.

    I would also like to know if you, like Ralph, would steal or kill if the leader/prophet directly ordered you to do it.

    Why is Utah Mormonism, the “real” Mormonism

    Now, if you’re going to tell me that none of these things are in the NT because of a vast conspiracy to remove them from scripture, just ignore my questions.

    Here’s my e mail if you’d prefer to respond to me directly:

    [email protected]

  12. Jeffrey says:

    Susan, Welcome!

    Susan – “Apostles and prophets are the organization of the true Church”

    Just because you have people titled “Apostles and Prophets” doesn’t make your church true. Also notice the word it used in the verse you quoted, and that is they are the “Foundation.” – The foundation is only laid once, and the church (body of believers in Christ) has them as the foundation, there is no need to keep laying it over and over again. If you said “Apostles and prophets are the FOUNDATION of the true Church”, then you would be correct, but instead you used organization. The Church is true because Christ and his Word are true, not because and organization created by human mirrors it.

    I would like to know what religions your friends who call themselves Christians are apart of? The argument you raise has been brought up a million times before on this blog (and I’m sure you will see it again). Major doctrine among the denominations are majorily the same (how to become Saved, the nature of God, the nature and work of Jesus Christ, etc.). The only “doctrine” that these denominations tend to differ upon have no effect on our salvation (i.e. women pastors).

    But I don’t want you to think that differences are exclusive to traditional Christian denominations. Lets take a look at all the offshoots of Mormonism?

    To put it this way, they would give that same “testimony” you gave at the end of your post. However doctrinally, they differ quite a bit from you, especially on “how to become a God” (polygamy). So your testimony is nice but your not the only one that can say with 100% confidence that they “know” “their church is the true church.”

  13. jackg says:


    The gospel of Jesus Christ never did nor will ever stand in need of being restored. Jesus did not leave His followers as orphans, but sent the Holy Spirit to guide them. The priesthood is a priesthood of believers, which includes all believers regardless of sex, station, age, etc. (I’m Wesleyan in my theology 🙂 ). The premise that the Church Jesus established would dwindle away to nonexistence is not biblical; otherwise, Jesus would be a liar for stating that the gates of Hades would not overcome the Church He built (Matthew 16:13-18). And, by the way, the rock is not the rock of revelation (which is what I was taught as a Mormon), but Jesus Christ Himself. The foundation of apostles and prophets is the Bible itself, which is God’s word. The problem with men that the Mormon Church reveres as prophets and apostles is that their teachings contradict the established word of God. Mormon leaders are not prophets, but false prophets who teach false doctrines. BY once taught that Adam was the only god with which we have anything to do. So, when the prophet speaks, the debate is over; therefore, Adam is the god of the Mormons. Well, until another esteemed leader changed that. When the prophet speaks, the debate is over. Actually, when Mormon leaders speak, the debate is wide open because they contradict and cancel out each other. Amos 3:7 is not perpetual in its scope. Hebrews 11:1 (which you failed to comment on) makes that clear.

    You have asked to be treated gently, and I hope I have done that. Thank you for your response, as well. Have a blessed weekend (my third post for the day).

  14. Arthur Sido says:


    ” I have many dear friends who call themselves Christian who attend a variety of churches. Yet say I ask 10 different of these friends such questions as What is salvation? Is baptism necessary? What type of baptism? What happens after we die? Do you think scripture stories such as Adam and Eve are literal or figurative? I GET 10 DIFFERENT ANSWERS.” If you don’t understand how one is saved, you really aren’t a Christian whether or not you go to church or not. Every Christian is aware of their own sin and need of Christ for their salvation. There are lots of people who go to church now and again who would probably say they are Christians that have no idea who Christ is. Christians have always been in agreement on how one is saved, and to go further that we are to baptized. We may disagree on when and how to baptize, but that is not salvific in nature. That whole argument that uniformity of belief is inndicative of truth is a false paradigm. If a people agree 100% on a false teaching, it doesn’t make it less false.

  15. GRCluff says:


    I have no problem with the concept of grace. I am just as fallible and weak as the next Christian, and in need of Gods grace and the atonement of Christ. I just reject the one sided perspective that some Christians have embraced. You must balance Pauls teachings with the 2nd chapter of James to get it right.

    The balanced approach will ask the question, what is required of me to be saved? (or reach the Celestial Kingdom if you are Mormon) Them we have people who range from “nothing at all” to “no matter what I do it will not be enough” It goes like this:

    1. Nothing is required of me, Christ has done it all, so I can sin all I want.

    2. I must accept Christ to be saved. If I give Him lip service, then I can sin all I want.

    3. I must demonstrate my commitment to God by getting baptised. Then I can sin all I want.

    4. If I manage to confess all my sins, I can sin all I want.

    5. I must forsake my sin occasionally, but I am still human so God will forgive me.

    6. I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace.

    7. Abandoning my sin is not enough, I am now unworthy and cannot qualify for the grace of God.

    8. Only a limited number of people will make it to heaven. I have to be better than 144,000 of them to make it.

    9. I am a failed human being. No matter what I do it will not be enough.

    10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven. I should just end my misery now.

    We should be pushing towards the middle of the spectrum, and avoid the extremes on either side.

    Mainstream Christians are just as guilty at 2 and 3 as JW are at 8 or 9. We need a religion that can deliver at 5 or 6. Mormons stay at 6, as well they should, since that is the true gospel.

  16. Andrea says:

    Hi, I’m a newbie too so welcome! “As members of the LDS church, we believe the First Presidency has the authority (priesthood power) to expound doctrine. Perhaps some people would like to know what is true rather than just guessing?” In an issue of the Ensign in 2004 (will have to research exactly which one, forgive me) Hinckley put out an announcement asking members to stop writing in to the first presidency, apostles, et al asking for clarification on doctrine. Hinckley himself previously stated on a Larry King Live show that his role was to “declare doctrine”.

    Anyone who believes 1-4 does not have a true, personal relationship with Christ and is therefore NOT a true Christian -and regardless of what Mormons are taught to believe, evangelical Christians DO NOT subscribe to 1-4.
    But anyway, I believe that the true gospel is a mixture of 5 & 6: I must forsake sin as much as possible, but I am human and will sin and God does forgive me as long as I confess and believe in Christ’s atonement.
    Have a good weekend all!

  17. susan says:

    falcon –

    Thanks so much for commenting on my post.

    1a I find no reference that the apostles practiced ANY marriage, so does that mean the Catholic priests are right and to be really righteous we shouldn’t marry at all? Do you find any reference to the apostles being married?

    1b read Rev. 3:5

    1c read Matt 21:12-13 – notice who calls the temple “my house”

    1d the masons historically built the temples – sorry I don’t have time to research it beyond that

    2. John read Revelations 2:17

    3. Sorry, but I’m not sure which aspect of Mormon Doctrine you’re referring to. Seeing spirits through a veil? Hmmm you’ve lost me there.

    4. You’re right that we have no record of Christ specifically talking about eternal marriage in his mortal ministry. Maybe he didn’t. Even when he visited the Nephites in the B of M, there’s no mention of eternal marriage.

    During his mortal ministry he also did not talk about the need to take His gospel to the gentiles. Yet in Acts 10, that is a vision which Peter received. (“Peter kill and eat”) AFTER Christ’s resurrection and ascension additional and different doctrine was added through the spirit of prophecy.

    Certainly Christ did not specifically comment on many issues of our day including abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. Does that mean he doesn’t care? No, he gave us a prophet for our day to speak to things regarding OUR time.

    The 5th question you ask in terms of the extent I would go to follow a prophet appears to me to be a snare and a trap by which you will accuse me no matter how I answer.

    6 I wasn’t born in Utah and I don’t live in Utah. You don’t have to live in Utah to be a “real” Mormon. I’m not sure I understand the question.

    I’m going to go finish watching the Olympic opening ceremony. this is my third post for the day. I hope you have a wonderful evening!!


  18. Arthur Sido says:


    “During his mortal ministry he also did not talk about the need to take His gospel to the gentiles. Yet in Acts 10, that is a vision which Peter received. (”Peter kill and eat”) AFTER Christ’s resurrection and ascension additional and different doctrine was added through the spirit of prophecy.”

    The difference is that the Gospel did not change. It went out to all people in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham contained in the Bible. What mormonism does is change the gospel that is being preached, it is a different Gospel. Paul preached Christ and Him crucified. Smith preached a new message that was different from what Paul preached and what Jesus preached.

    “Certainly Christ did not specifically comment on many issues of our day including abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. Does that mean he doesn’t care? No, he gave us a prophet for our day to speak to things regarding OUR time.”

    And yet as a Christian and a fo-mo, I don’t need a “prophet” to instruct me on those things, I can read God’s Word and see what it says. What mormon prophets do today is social commentary, not Gospel preaching.

  19. Jeffrey says:

    Cluff, I like the scale you showed. You do make the statement that “some” Christians ascribe to the one sided perspective of the 2’s and 3’s. I would say something with that mindset isn’t all that Christian and they have some scripture study to do.

    I do wish to point out that number 6 is impossible for us (sounds like a statement taken out of Mr. Kimballs Miracle of Forgiveness).. To gain forgiveness and grace one must abandon sin? Tell me Cluff, have you abandoned all your sin? The Bible is quite clear, especially in Romans that if you have committed one sin, your guilty of all. So just because you don’t steal anymore, the mental lusting over a women brings you right back to sinner status, and you’re just as guilty as someone who steals, or even steals and lusts.

    Sin is something you will never be able to run away from completely.

    So in all truth, you’re statement should be “I must have faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross to gain forgiveness and grace. And with James 1:5, it’s obvious who has faith and who doesn’t, even more so to God, because he knows our hearts.

  20. germit says:

    Susan: well, by now you’ve figured out that mormon Coffee does not have a baby pool!! I think you’re doing very well, really. Now if you could find DJB and tell him we won’t make him wear a funny hat for one ill advised comment.. Let me assure you I believe in BOTH the continued use of prophecy in the church, and personal revelation. I don’t know of any christians who don’t, although there is disagreement on how the prophecy thing works, exactly. While I’m on that theme: you seem to want a certain amount of uniformity and specificity in your understanding of doctine CHURCH WIDE, before you will accept that church as being the ‘true one’. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of church unity: the christian view is more organic, and reflects DOF use of the phrase ‘intention, desire, and purpose’. As christians, I agree on the ‘savific basics’ with all my christian brothers and sisters, across MANY groups, while we disagree about many non-essentials, not essential for salvation. The catholic church, by the way, has TRIED to get the kind of unity you are talking about for many years, without much success, we can argue why that is, but my point is just that this kind of unity is not that attractive to me: I do NOT think it reflects what God is all about. Even within the NT, some christians wanted to make a big deal about small things (meat sacrificed to idols, per example) and Paul reminds us that a MATURE attitude leaves a LOT of room for others in the non-essentials. I don’t find that flexibility in the non-essentials within the LDS faith, and that to me is an apologetic against it. Even ev. christians who pitch a fit unless others share their (always BIBLICAL, USUALLY KJV BIBLICAL) views on last days, or politics, drives me nuts. Having a strong conviction on this is one thing: making it a benchmark for orthodox belief is something else. Back to prophets and personal rev. What I don’t see in the NT is the TYPE of prophecy that JS wanted to ‘restore’. In fact as

  21. germit says:

    Jack noted: the gospel never went anywhere, hence it does not, and will never, need to be restored. Your view on this is kind of similar to the catholics, seems like I’m typing that a lot these days, only they would say, “we’ve (the catholic church) never lost the priesthood authority, it is an unbroken chain, so your (protestant) authority is faulty.” I don’t care for EITHER your position or theirs,and don’t recognize THAT KIND, OR USE, OF PROPHECY AS BIBLICAL. If you want to convince me, go to the NT and build a case for it. You’ve mentioned Eph 2, but these are prophets who helped lay (past tense) the foundation of JEsus: they pointed FORWARD to the day when the messiah would institute , HIMSELF, the kingdom of God. And so HE did, praise HIS name. Now I have the prophet,priest, and king that these prophets have foretold: JESUS. What use do I have of some lesser form of that?? The ongoing use of ‘prophecy’ in the NT is the use of a SPIRITUAL GIFT, not an office or position. And that gift, when used right, is needed and builds up the body of christ, but it’s still the person and work and PRESENT REALITY of JESUS that is the big deal. We no longer need, or even want, a ‘middle man’ of any kind, and even the ordinances, or sacraments as catholics say, can get in the way of Jesus being suficient as my PRESENT means of grace. I said CAN get in the way, because as I’ve posted before with DOF: baptism, anointing with oil, marriage, all have their place (the marriage thing would take some explaining) but it’s JESUS who saves, not the ordinances, “that none should boast…”. I believe in personal revelation, but it is checked by, moderated by, directed by, the use of the Word of God: as everything else is. Anything NOT under the care, the supervision of the HS thru His Word, will go amiss, so I place myself under the authority of His Lordship through obedience to His word, THEN I am in a safe place to get personal revelation. Otherwise, my ‘revelation’ might be way off.

  22. falcon says:

    Well it’s very early on Saturday morning Here in the Dairy State I’m still getting over Brett Farve being traded to the Jets and I need to be out pounding the pavement with my bike-compulsive work-out freak that I am. But I’ll post now and ruminate as I ride.

    I like you. I see others do to given the volume of mail you are receiving so I appreciate your attempts to answer my questions. I’ll hit on a couple of your responses.
    1. Reference for apostles getting married. I’ll look the ref. up but Paul talks about…doesn’t he have the right to take along a believing wife like Peter and the other guys. I’ll find it.
    2. Rev. 3:5 as a “sacred underwear” verse. Susan we’re going to have to do some lessons on Biblical interpretation. There’s a metaphor going on there.
    3. Matt. 21:12-13 I can’t connect with what you’re getting at there. In the OT the temple was a place of prayer, but Jesus fullfilled the law. Believers are now the temple of the Holy Spirit.
    4. Rev. 2:17 I LOL at your use of that one. I’m guessing that is a justification of JS magic rock. That is really creative of you I must admit. Again we’re dealing with a metaphor. The meaning of the white stone with the new name written is derived from a custom of that time. Judges would determined a verdict by placing in an urn a white and black pebble. If the white one came out it meant acquittal; thus the white stone metaphor would mean the assurance that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

    Jesus and the Gospel to the gentiles, Acts:1:8″…..you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Smaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

    I hate a family fight but look at Eph.4:11,12; “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of service to the building up of the body of Christ.”

  23. falcon says:

    The question I posed to you regarding what you would do for the propher wasn’t meant to be a snare. It was a serious question and one I’d ask anyone who pleged alligence to a prophet. You see, within Mormonism is an authoratarian hierarchy that demands loyalty. Not just a little loyalty, but die for the corps loyalty.
    Joseph Smith asked one of his leaders to give him his wife. The man countered and asked if he could substitute his 14 year old daughter. So if the prophet comes to Susan and says, “The Lord has appeared to me in a vision and has commanded that I begat a son with you and this son will be filled with wisdonm and knowledge and will be the greatest prophet since the days of Joseph Smith. He will lead our people and all nations will call him blessed. And you Susan will be my first wife in the Celestial kingdom and you will rule with me over a vast domain.” What do you do Susan.
    Joseph Smith told the women that an angel with a sword had appeared to him and said he would kill the prophet if he didn’t take more wives. So he did, including women who were already married and adolecent girls. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. The porphet hears directly from God.
    Now as to my question as to what brand of Mormonism is correct and true, I call the LDS denomination out of Salt Lake City, Utah Mormonism. There’s lots of other branches of Mormons with prophets and bosom burnings and such. So what makes your leadership i.e. prophets and apostles the real deal? The FLDS and the other branches of Mormonism think the Utahians are apostates. Would you heed the words of the prophets from the other denominations of Mormmism?

  24. Berean says:

    Cluff said: “6. I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace…Mormons stay at 6, as well they should, since that is the true gospel.”

    D&C 58:42 “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins – behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”

    To our LDS readers I ask: How many sins must you forsake? How often must you forsake those sins? Are you doing this right now? Have you forsaken and abandoned all of your sins? What about those sins you have not yet abandoned?

    If you still have not abandoned your sins entirely, then you are not perfected in Christ and haven’t denied yourself of all ungodliness therefore Christ’s grace isn’t sufficient for you (Moroni 10:32). You haven’t done all that you can do (2 Nephi 25:23). You aren’t obeying the commandment to be perfect (3 Nephi 12:48). You aren’t meeting Heavenly Father’s expectation to obey those commandments (1 Nephi 3:7) and therefore, you can’t go where Heavenly Father is (D&C 25:15). Jesus Christ can’t save you in your sins (Alma 11:37). Heavenly Father can’t look upon any sin; you haven’t obeyed the commandments so you now won’t be forgiven (D&C 1:31-33). If you repeated the same sin again, then the former sin returns (D&C 82:7). You are headed to outer darkness (Alma 34:30-35).

    “Abandonment of Sin: The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again.” (LDS pamphlet “Repentance Brings Forgiveness”, 1984)

    “There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin. Desire is not sufficient. To try is weak.” (Spencer Kimball, “Sharing the Gospel Manual”, p.94)

    The prophet [Spencer Kimball] has spoken. The debate is over, correct? The Mormon gospel is not good news and is impossible for Mormons to keep. It only leads to outer darkness (Matt 7:13-14). The gospel of Christ in the Bible is good news. Jesus Christ of the Bible offers complete forgiveness and eternal life today. Come to Him!

  25. mobaby says:


    As a Christian, I think your number 10 hits closest to the mark with modifications:

    10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven. I should just end my misery now.

    Revised to:

    10. My sin is so bad I can never be forgiven through my own righteous works. I should just end my misery now and trust in the completed work of Christ on the cross for my sin.

    Everyone is dead in their sin until they trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness. There is NOTHING I or anyone else can do to merit the favor of a righteous and holy God. Jesus is the only way to salvation. Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

    #6 is an impossibility. I have not met a sinless person yet. Anyone who says they are sinless is committing a sin when they say that. If forgiveness and grace were dependent upon my ability to completely abandon sin, I would be joining you and everyone else in hell.

  26. DefenderOfTheFaith says:

    Miss a couple of days and it’s very difficult to catch up on the discussion.

    It was previously discussed how one knows the truth besides relying on a “testimony”. In particular, as it relates to the temple. This group loves to nit pick at different so-called “prophecies” and conclude that obviously the prophet was not a true prophet.

    One of my testimonies of the validity of the temple has been to watch the fullfillment of both promises and warnings come to fruition in the lives of those who enter into covenants with the Lord.

    I have just reviewed all of the posts on this topic. It is evident to me that those who violate covenants made in the temple, regardless of what it is, play out the drama exactly as described. Why don’t people believe the Lord when he speaks? Why would you entering into a covenant to “not speak evil of the Lord’s anointed”, then do exactly that, and wonder why you all of a sudden “come to the light” that they are false prophets? I’m sure you “fo-mos” remember those covenants well or at least had a refresher with the recent video posting. The Lord gave you ample warning and a choice to refuse. Nevertheless, the fruits evident in a lot of these posts, are simply another chink in the amour the Restoration is a reality, including the temple.

    Find me a member who is living all of his covenants made in the temple yet doesn’t believe the Prophets is true. Not there is a huge difference between questioning the prophets and speaking evil of them. Questioning occurs often, yet the testimony remains.

  27. susan says:

    Jeffrey –

    I agree that just because a church has apostles and prophets, it doesn’t make it the true church, however, if they are TRUE apostles and prophets, they it is the true church.

    My friends have been Luthern, Baptist (one a minister), and the good ol’ non-denominational. I totally disagree that churches only disagree on issues unimportant to salvation.

    As far as people, even apostate Mormons, having a testimony of their religion I quote the 11th article of faith of the LDS church.

    “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

    Arthur –

    I totally disagree the the doctrine of how and with what authority one should be baptized is unessential.

    You state “There are lots of people who go to church now and again who probably say they are Christians who have no idea who Christ is.” Amen, brother!! But what if they’ve already accepted him as their Savior? Aren’t they technically “done” according you?

    You may not feel the need for a prophet and be satisfied with what’s out there, but as for me, I will stick with the prophet.

    Also, in terms of sin, I would like to say that I have felt the salvation and peace of Jesus Christ in my own life when I have sinned and repented. I know that He is real. There is absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER in my mind. He has also blessed me to be able to forgive others who have hurt me, who I know I would never be able to forgive without his grace. Latter day saints believe in grace. In the October 2007 general conference, Elder Bednar, an apostle said, “All of our worthy desires and good works, as necessary as they are, can never produce clean hands and a pure heart. It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that provides both a cleansing and redeeming power that helps us to overcome sin and a sanctifying and strengthening power that helps us to become better than we ev

  28. susan says:


    er could by relying on our own strength.”

    I enjoy reading C.S. Lewis, Max Lucado, and numerous other Christian authors. I think they are awesome! But when it comes to the final word, I choose to stay on the side of the Christian prophet and apostles of the LDS church.

    germit –

    So many churches just disagree on things that are small and insignificant, huh? So who decides what is small and what is big? Doesn’t that really lend itself to personal oppinion?

    If the gospel never went anywhere as you and jackg point out, then why the need for a protestant reformation? Do you have any idea how bad and oppressive the Catholic church was in the middle ages? Have you heard of the Inquisition? Do you know what “indulgences” were? the opportunity for wealthy people to buy forgiveness of their sins. Where was the so called “gospel” during those times? Do you have any idea what people like Martin Luther, Wycliffe, and William Tyndale (all heroes of mine, bytheway) were fighting against after CENTURIES of problems? I’m shocked that you think the gospel was still around. Wow!

    falcon –

    Sorry you weren’t pleased with my answers to your previous inquiries.

    I notice you fell back on the ol’ “that’s just figurative” ploy for some of them. Hmmm. How do you know? Is truth just whatever’s most convenient for you in a given discussion?

    I agree that believers are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Good point. When Christ came he brought the new covenant and completely fulfilled the law of Moses. In the LDS church, we don’t believe in obeying the Law of Moses, but the higher law of Christ. That is EXACTLY what the temple is all about.

    As far as your question that I labelled as a snare, which you changed after it was thus labelled, I can only again state my testimony of living prophets. I think the situation which you premise is pretty absurd in our modern day. The early saints did practice polygamy. So what? The church would prob

  29. susan says:

    Get over it already. We live almost 200 years later. A lot of things are different. Don’t put 200 year old circumstances on me now in an effort to make the church look ridiculous or I’ll be asking you why you’re not out building an ark.

    I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I believe the Book of Mormon is a true record of an ancient civilization translated by the power of God.

    As far as the Utah church being the apostate one I’m stil not sure what you’re getting at. According to you we’re all apostate, right?. The FLDS do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet as well as we do. They did not follow the person who was next in line for being prophet (Brigham Young) but decided that it should be based on blood lineage. They had numerous split offs from their church when they gave women the priesthood.

    Really, it comes down to personal belief. I believe down to my very core that Jesus is the divine son of God. I believe to my very core that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (Utah version) contains the fullness of the gospel. Does that mean no one else has ANY truth? OF COURSE NOT!! There are many awesome people in the world and people who are very very good and righteous. Many who are a great deal better than me. But I’m really not trying to be better than other people or arrogant by giving my testimony. I’m just stating what I believe.

    I love all you guys, man.

  30. falcon says:

    OK Susan,
    It’s called a “metaphor”. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” He was not literally bread. Jesus said, “I am living water.” He is not literally water. The examples you used were metaphors not to be taken literally.
    I changed the example because you didn’t get my other one, so I did a reload in the hope you would get the point regarding how far do you go to follow the prophet. Ask the people who followed David Koresh and Jim Jones how far they’d go…oops their dead!
    Please define for me who Jesus is. It’s important regarding who you are trusting for eternal life. The Savior has to be qualified, so is the Jesus you are speaking of the qualified Savior? Is He the offspring of a mother/father god union out there in the Celestial Kingdom? If so, that Jesus can’t save you. We’re not splitting hairs here. If you don’t get the nature of God right, nothing that follows no matter how Christianized the language and vocabulary sounds is going to get it done.
    Nice try with trying to brush aside Mormnon history in regards to Joseph Smith’s behavior. He’s your main dude. The prophet who spoke and the faithful responded. He made entrance into the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom incumbent on plural marrage. He took married women and kids as his wives to fullfill this requirement. To come up with the “it happened a long time ago blah, blah, blah and who builds arks today” is way too Mormon in rationale. I expect more from you.
    In typical Mormon fashion, you jumped right into your testimony regarding the BoM being a historical record. Beyond your testimony, do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
    You got your Mormon sects confused. The Community of Christ (RLDS) was based on lineage having had JS’s son as it’s head. JS’s wife Emma was also a member. Somebody within the various Mormon sects doesn’t have it right.
    First Cor. 9:5, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest…”

  31. germit says:

    Susan: Happy Sat.one and all. I was raised catholic, so none of your history surprises me. Why should I believe that the gospel had disappeared because lots of bad, religious people did bad things?? You can’t possibly know that no one was following Jesus Christ during those years, and name me ONE reformer who believed that the gospel had died out (note to readers: sometimes the word APOSTASY was used by some of these guys to describe a TERRIBLE DECLINE in the level of belief. Show me where one of them used the word to mean the gospel had TOTALLY DIED OUT. That is not the way the reformers thought and believed, as far as I know. As for differences among christians, I’m not feeling a need, logically, to change my stance. I’d say the quick answer to your question of what is ‘big’ and what is ‘small’ is the Bible itself: but I readily admit that individuals will be reading, interpreting, and (wild guess) probably disagreeing about said interpretation. That has been going on since the earliest days, and I see no LEGITIMATE way around that until Jesus returns, and all of us get to find out how right or wrong we were. I rejoice that I can celebrate the essentials of salvation, faith in Christ for salvation apart from good works, with a WIDE variety of people. I see that as huge plus, not something to hide. As for the “200 yr old circumstances”, I’m not sure what you mean with that, but since YOU are making the big truth claim about God giving JS the keys, etc, you will ALWAYS be defending 200 yr old this and that. Or else curling up into some kind of testimony ball, or HS crouch, or something. I don’t see any way out of it: JS is your guy, and your claims for him are strong, can he take the heat or not?? Parting word about the reformers: they preached a RADICALLY different message than what you have, and they are your ‘heroes’?? I think you have a very good imagination. GERMIT

  32. Arthur Sido says:


    * totally disagree the the doctrine of how and with what authority one should be baptized is unessential. *

    It is unessential for salvation. Point in case, the thief on the cross. He was saved by His faith in Christ and was with Christ THAT DAY in paradise. Not if he could get himself down and get baptized, certainly not if some nice mormon was baptized on his behalf 18 centuries later. Baptism is a vital and precious doctrine, but it doesn’t save us and we can disagree on the finer points and still be saved. My Presbyterian brothers are still brothers even if we disagree on baptism because we agree on the key doctrines of the faith.

    * You state “There are lots of people who go to church now and again who probably say they are Christians who have no idea who Christ is.” Amen, brother!! But what if they’ve already accepted him as their Savior? Aren’t they technically “done” according you? *

    Not at all. Lots of people talk about Christ. But unless you know how He is and how deep your sin is, just saying “Lord, Lord” is inadequate. Mormons put their faith in a false Jesus. Many in Christian churches have a false faith because they worship an idol of their own making. Just invoking a name, having it in the name of your church, doesn’t make you a Christian.

    *You may not feel the need for a prophet and be satisfied with what’s out there, but as for me, I will stick with the prophet.*

    I will stick with the Word of God as my authority. That is where the rubber hits the road. I depend on Christ through His revealed Word. Mormons depend on fallible men who have repeatedly been shown to be false prophets and who teach doctrines that oppose the Bible. My satisfaction is in Christ, not in a manmade institution.

  33. GRCluff says:

    Jeffery said:
    “I do wish to point out that number 6 is impossible for us (sounds like a statement taken out of Mr. Kimballs Miracle of Forgiveness).. To gain forgiveness and grace one must abandon sin? ”

    Maybe a point of clarification. No. 6 was: “I must abandon my sin entirely to gain forgiveness and grace.” You seem to have modified my singular “sin” to the plural “sins”. I think it is quite possible to abandon a single sin, or a specific type of sin. We don’t need to be perfect to learn from our mistakes.

    This is what Mormons believe on the subject:

    D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
    43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

    When does the grace of God begin? When repentance is complete. When is repentance complete? When sins are forsaken.

    germit said:
    “Jack noted: the gospel never went anywhere, hence it does not, and will never, need to be restored. Your view on this is kind of similar to the catholics…”

    As a missionary I used to teach an object lesson by putting my watch on the floor and asking a small child to stomp on it. It often took some coaching, but eventually someone would attempt to smash my watch. I was able to rescue my watch at the last moment, then teach my lesson.

    Do you think God values his priesthood power more than I value my watch?

    They why would he leave it on the earth when it was being smashed and battered by all the kingdoms of the earth? I’m sure that perspective is quite different than the Catholic one, because the next topic of conversation was the female Pope or any number of the doctrinal changes that Protestant continue to protest about.

    The restoration of priesthood authority was necessary, and IS the key to ongoing revelation and prophecy. Without it we would still be in the dark ages.

  34. Arthur Sido says:


    “When does the grace of God begin? When repentance is complete. When is repentance complete? When sins are forsaken.”

    I was saving my third post for later tonight but then I read that and had to use it. Wow, that is so wrong I am not sure where to begin. We cannot truly repent of our sins without the grace of God. Ephesians 2:1 tells us that we are dead in our sins. Dead men don’t repent. Faith itself is a gift from God (Eph 2:8). You don’t have faith unless you are born again. You don’t cause yourself to be born again by your own effort, anymore than you caused yourself to be born physically. Salvation is all about God, it is not about you.

    You have perfectly captured the man centered theology of mormonism. You think that God’s grace is worthless until YOU repent, but you can never repent without the intervention of God first. You have everything backwards because thanks to mormonism you have an incorrect view of who you are and who God is. I pray that by His grace He will intervene in your heart, breaking your stony heart that is unreceptive to Him and replacing with a heart of flesh (Eze 36:26). If He hadn’t changed my heart, I would still be a mormon and still be lost. I wasn’t seeking Him, but praise God He was seeking me!

  35. GRCluff says:

    Arthur said:
    “but you can never repent without the intervention of God first. You have everything backwards…”

    OK, sure I can buy that. The grace of God is strong enough to begin even before repentance is complete.

    It is when Christians begin to teach that repentance is not even necessary that I start to question them.

    You also said:
    “If He hadn’t changed my heart, I would still be a mormon and still be lost”

    So, I have to leave the Mormon church to find a change in heart? Isn’t that placing more limitations on the grace of God?

    It is when you are able to find the change of heart WITHIN Mormonism that all the bells and whistles begin to work.

    It is like the alien ship in the Will Smith’s film “Independance Day”. When the aliens begin to show up, all the ships controls are powered up and the ship begins to fly.

    That is what Mormons do to the Bible. When we engage the Gift of the HG, the Bible begins to light up and all the pages have the power they were designed for.

    Its just too bad you couldn’t find a change of heart when still inside.

  36. Ralph says:


    You have either misunderstood what I have written, or you are lying/misrepresenting the truth to push your agendum. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the former.

    No where did I, nor other LDS say that we ‘strive’ (your word) to see spirits through a veil. I said that we refer to what stops us from seeing into the spirit world as a veil, which is different to the veil in the temple. In other scriptures it has been called scales of the eyes and even shackles. It is all just a reference/metaphor to what is stopping us from seeing the spirits in the spirit world with out natural eyes – it is not an actual veil.

    I gave you 2 scriptures where people have seen spiritual things from the Bible. The first was the mount of Transfiguration with Jesus and Peter, James and John. They saw the OT prophets – we know of Moses and Elijah being there. Then in a better reference we have Elisha in the OT. He was in a city surrounded by the enemy and his young assistant was scared. When he mentioned this to Elisha, Elisha prayed and asked that the young man’s eyes would be opened so he can see the armies of God assisting them in the fight against the enemy. This directly indicates that there is something that stops us from seeing the spiritual world with our natural eyes.

    When we teach that this veil is thin, it means that there are times where God allows us to see certain things for our edification/progression, this includes angels/heavenly messengers and visions.

    I hope this has made it easier for you to understand, if not can you please let me know what your difficulty is.

  37. Jeffrey says:


    maybe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My point is this: It’s fine if you are able to forsake (NEVER EVER commit) a specific single sin again, but you will commit another sin. You will never be able to escape sin in this life. It is our nature, you know it and God definitely knows it (entire books of the Bible focus specifically on it, i.e. Romans). Committing another sin makes you guilty of all sin once again, so it really doesn’t matter that you don’t steal anymore, because you just lusted after that women that walked by..

    Brigham Young’s blood atonement does a pretty good job showing that Mormons think there are differences from sin to sin.

    I don’t know of any Christians that don’t believe repentance is necessary. God asks us to repent. Not only that, our souls desire to repent like a child unto his parents when he did something wrong.. I find that the more I am in communication with God through prayer, the more I feel responsible, and that responsibility to God to be a good Christian creates a desire within me to confess my sins. I believe the Holy Spirit prompts me on this. Which is kind of funny because my LDS boss the other day talked about a Bishop needing to call someone into repentance… That sounded ridiculous to me.. Just another middleman to Jesus that LDS think they need. It’s sad.

  38. Berean says:

    Joseph Smith didn’t think too highly of daily repentance unlike non-Mormons who believe in the correct Jesus of the Bible who realize that we sin daily and need to repent daily.

    “Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 148). THE PROPHET HAS SPOKEN. THE DEBATE IS OVER.

    DOF/Footdoc/Footdoc1 or whatever your name is now or going to be: Can’t make up your mind which screen name you are going to use and it confused you the other day, huh? I guess you can be grateful that our blog moderators let you stick around since you didn’t obey the rules. Just a friendly reminder that you were in violation of #13 of the Articles of Faith for not being “honest and true”.

    Susan, I see you share the same feelins as other Mormons when it comes to the Catholics. You made mention of indulgences and how corrupt they are (which I agree as well). However, I find one particular LDS teaching that has a very similar ring tone to Catholicism: confessing sins to a church leader and that leader determines forgiveness or not. True Christians don’t need this (1 Tim 2:5). Reference:

    “The bishop is our best earthly friend. He will hear the problems, judge the seriousness, then determine the degree of repentance and decide if it warrants an eventual forgiveness.” (Doctrine & Covenants Student Manual, page 334)

    I see that none of our Mormon friends like the questions that I asked in my earlier posts regarding the issue of sin in their lives and the impossibility of resolving that in the Mormon gospel/law. There will come a time when you are going to have to deal with that discomfort and realize that you are up against the wall and in a vicious circle in the Mormon plan. Examine a sin in your life and follow the LDS scripture references and see where you end up. We don’t want that to happen. I say this in love.

  39. Berean says:

    Susan said: “Get over it”. I can’t do that. There is too much at stake here namely outer darkness for our LDS friends on this blog who continue to follow a different Jesus, gospel and Spirit (2 Cor 11:4). Yes, Joseph Smith hasn’t been around for a very long time. Unfortunately, his teachings are and millions of Mormons who have died are facing eternal judgement for following those teachings. Mormons today are still following those teachings and I just can’t ignore the problem.

    Joseph Smith radically redefined the nature of God from how He is portrayed in the Bible. Get this wrong and one is lost. Joseph said that God was not always God, he progressed, he was an exalted man, he had sexual relations with Mary, one of his spirit children (making him guilty of incest) and procreated Jesus again. Joseph taught the plurality of gods and that the godhead is three gods. He also taught that man can become a god. For these reasons and many, many more Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

    “CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH: Mormonsim, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who wilfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.” (Joseph F. Smith, 10th President/Prophet of the LDS Church, “Doctrines of Salvation”, Vol.1, p.188).

    The prophet has spoken. The debate is over.

  40. falcon says:

    I’m not going to dig through all of the former threads and posts, but one of our dear departed Mormon friends made a reference that led me to believe that Mormons have reported seeing and seek to see dead people through the veil during temple ceremonies. Now given the fact that Mormons can’t seem to get on the same page about most of their doctrine, that poster may very well be into that scene. We could get into a long discussion here regarding the spirit world, what’s going on in it and what separates us from it, but that’s not the subject of this thread. This I do know however, your founder Joseph Smith was into using a medium (a seer stone) to have second sight. It’s called scrying (as we have discussed), it’s forbidden by God as recorded in Deut. Joseph Smith, the nacromancer, claimed to see all kinds of spirits. He proclaimed a god and a process of becoming a god that is not and has never been apart of Hebrew/Christian theology. So what was the guy tapping into in the spirit world. Mormon doctrine and practice was never apart of the Christian faith. It is another gospel with a false god and a seducing spirit that leads people to think they can become god. The choice here is very clear. The deceptive nature of Mormonism is such that followers of Joseph Smith get trapped in a spiritual maze and a mindset that is very difficult to escape from.

  41. falcon says:

    Thanks to the crack crew of researchers I employ, the quote from the Mormon contributor regarding seeing through the veil was located. On July 9th Apollo wrote:

    “We believe in the ‘veil’ between this life and the afterlife. The veil is thin. I have heard stories from my Grandmother about the thinness of the veil and those who she has seen. I too have had similar experiences. I know that there are those on the other side who appreciate the work being performed in the temples.”
    OK Ralph get the Mormon spin machine going. This my friend is nacromancy, exactly what the Bible forbids. Joseph Smith claimed to be seeing spirits. He was a known practioner of scrying with a medium of a seer stone. He and his crew claimed second sight experiences when hunting for buried treasure. He used the magic rock to “translate” the BoM. Mormonism has an occult foundation. Joseph Smith saw a “spirit”/angel that told him to, in effect, committ adultery. From his leadership position, he seduced women into having sex with him. When exposed, he ordered some of his followers to destroy the printing press of the man who brought his conduct to light.
    When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done. All that you have to do is follow the directives of the prophet. He’ll never lead you astray.

  42. GRCluff says:


    I guess I will have to admit ignorance on the blood atonement concept. I can’t find that in any current teachings from the church.

    The power of any church is it’s ability to help its members overcome sin. I will admit that the gift of the HG, and its abundant presence in LDS church worship gives us an advantage– a reason to repent and embrace higher standards, etc.

    If you begin by avoiding the lesser sins, some people are able to avoid the more serious sins entirely.

    Your idea that one sin = all sins is a flawed concept.

    Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Our ability to serve God is directly related to our power to overcome sin. Those who overcome sin have more power to do righteous works, and only those sins that are abandoned are removed from the book of life.

    The risk you embrace by your point of view is this:

    If one sin = all sins and all sins are impossible to overcome then why try? Accept Christ (give him lip service) then sin all you want.

    How many Christians fall into that trap?

  43. cwix says:

    One sin does equal all sins in the regard that all sins turn you away from god. All sins have been redeemed by the sacrifice that Christ made.

    I agree that there are varying degrees of sin. Common sense dictates that stealing a candy bar is alot less serious then murder. Still a sin is a sin, and we are all sinners.

  44. Jeffrey says:

    Cluff “Your idea that one sin = all sins is a flawed concept.”

    Well then I guess you disagree with what the Bible explicitly states.. Go figure..

    James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

    In God’s eyes, it doesn’t matter if you’re a thief, a murderer, or someone who slanders their own spouse. All of that or just one of those things makes you a sinner and separates you from God.

    Specific sins are possible to overcome Cluff. It seems like you assume a different point than what I’m trying to make. But you cannot escape all sin, and by committing just one sin, as James 2:10 states, it makes you guilty.

    So everyone is a sinner equally. And no matter how hard you “work”, you cannot “work” your way out of sin. For you are saved by grace through faith, not by our filthy rags of righteous work, so that no one may boast.

    So you ask, why try if we can’t overcome? How about for the reason that Jesus Christ died for us and we wish to give praise, thanks, and glory to Him for his sacrifice, Not because you will earn a celestial paycheck in the form of Godhood and a gaggle of women. Also God knows that if you remain complacent in your sins, you will eventually turn away from him. That is why he gives us commandments so our minds, hearts, and soul will continue to remain fixed upon Him.

    There’s no lip service here my friend, I who I am, an undeserving sinner, but praise be to God for giving me life, because I was so so dead in my sins.

    Do you really think I believe Mormons believe in the blood atonement these days anyway? That makes me chuckle… most don’t even know about it. I guess the debate wasn’t over when Brigham Young taught it. Crazy old uncle strikes again.

  45. susan says:

    falcon –

    Yes, you and I may agree that when Christ said he was bread and living water it is a metaphor. But what of the Catholics? They believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation wherein they believe their sacrament becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. See how different people can interpret the same scriptures differently? You can’t just assume everyone thinks like you.

    In 2 Peter 1:20 Peter cautions: “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” Hence, how is one to interpret without true authority when disagreements among people are bound to be a problem?

    Jesus is the divine son of God who was the only person capable of taking upon him our sins because of his perfection. He was the “lamb without blemish.” Peter speaks of in 1 Peter 1:19.

    germit –

    OK, I see where we disagree. You say that during the middle ages somewhere on earth someone was always a believer in Christ? I assume you mean besides the Catholics? Hmm. I have no more evidence to refute this than you have to support it. However, the only Christian church known during this time is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was NOT liberal at all in imparting the word of God to its members teaching that only priests could interpret the word. Probably most working class type people were illiterate anyway. I find it hard to believe that there was enlightenment during that time.

    You and falcon are absolutely right that the Mormon Church stands or falls on the validity of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I 100% agree.

    Bytheway, I really admire people who stand up for their religious convictions such as the early reformers. I also admire Sir Thomas More, a Catholic of the time who stood up to the King of England. I don’t have to think exactly like another person to admire them. I am not able to be so narrow-minded as that.

    I read the rules for this site and saw nothing stating that a person cannot share a testimony.

  46. susan says:

    Arthur –

    Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment.

    When asked if accepting Christ as your Savior is enough to be a Christian you stated,

    “Not at all. Lots of people talk about Christ. But unless you know how He is and how deep your sin is, just saying “Lord, Lord” is inadequate.”

    Would you mind explaining to me what you mean by “how He is?” I’m really not sure what you mean. Also, what about the many people in the world who are born into countries without Christianity? What of their salvation? Are their souls not precious? What about the mentally handicapped or ill who do not have the ability to “know.” Just wondering your view, not trying to be confrontational.

    (Bytheway, we’ll have to agree to disagree agreeably on the baptism issue)

    Berean –

    Outer darkness is an LDS term. Please don’t use it incorrectly and out of context.

    You’re right there’s no middle ground on the Prophet Joseph Smith. This blog itself, however, does support one of his prophetic statements when he said that the Angel Moroni told him, “that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

    Joseph’s name IS still spoken for good or evil and will absolutely continue so.

  47. germit says:

    Susan: hope your weekend was as restful as mine. Why would you assume that I would hold that those who were christian during the “dark ages” were NOT catholic?? Martin Luther, your hero and mine, tacked the 95 thesis to the door in Wittenburg while still a catholic, and that Englishman we are so fond of, C.S. Lewis was Episcopalian, if I remember right, which is not far from Roman Catholic, theologically. I am glad to no longer be Roman Catholic, but they are (to me) still within the umbrella of orthodoxy, and I have no doubt at all that there were, like Luther, catholic believers throughout history, as there still are today (and I personally know some of those). YOU still have Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 to overcome:
    “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church, AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT OVERCOME IT” (and to me Cluff’s illustration is silly: God is able to defend, and protect ‘His own’: much as He is in communist CHINA TODAY!!; He does not need to snatch them off the face of the earth: again, what a PUNY GOD is that!!) and from Matt:”Surely I am with you ALWAYS, even to the very end of the age..” Doesn’t sound like total apostasy to me, and neither does 2cd Thess 2:3 (do YOU think the ‘man of perdition’ was Constantine, like Cluff??) You said “I find it hard to believe there was any enlightenment during that time”, and I would suggest that is because your God is way too small, in the midst of tremendous abuse of His word and His plans, God still had His Word, even if it was not written in the vernacular, it was still preached here and there, and God was still saving those who would humble themselves and accept His offer of grace and forgiveness, and the price of the blood of His son, what a scandalously outrageous offer, then and now !! I really admire those, like the Tanners, who have said ‘no’ to generations of LDS tradition, and ‘yes’ to the living God of the Bible. May God lead us both to the faith that saves: GERMIT

  48. GRCluff says:


    I am glad to see my perspective is still remembered at least, since I don’t see it widely accepted here (yet).

    I would like to help defend Matt 16:18 if I could. I have used that verse to defend Mormonism many times; it seems a bit ironic that I should need to defend it against your twisted interpretation.

    That verse is quite consistent with Eph 2:11.

    And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

    Don’t make the mistake of concluding the Christ himself is the foundation of the Church, he is just the cornerstone.

    Why was the Church built upon Peter? Why is the foundation of the Church apostles and prophets? It is the same answer. Two reasons:

    1. Peter specifically, and the prophet (which Peter was) and apostles in general have the proper priesthood authority. The Catholic Church has that part right.

    2. The best evidence of proper priesthood authority is ongoing revelation. The prophet speaks with God (the cornerstone) to learn and do his will. The Catholics lost that when they lost the priesthood authority.

    OK, I will spoon feed it to you:

    On this rock, the rock of revelation, I will build my Church. As long as revelation and priesthood authority is on the earth, the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

    When ongoing revelation ended, the proper priesthood authority was revoked. The foundation was lost and we got our first Pope. He was a very poor substitute for a foundation. No priesthood authority, no revelation.

    When Peter, James and John restored that same authority to JS, we had the foundation for a Church once again.

    Simple Not the Bible– ongoing revelation.

  49. Berean says:


    Outer darkness is a Bible term (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Mormons don’t use the term correctly, have taken it out of context and have redefined the term to fit their theology in that nobody will go there except Satan and his angels and a few apostates (depending on which LDS authority you ask). However, I’d like to hear your opinion of Matthew 7:13-14. Most people are headed to destruction – not one of the three degrees of glory in Mormonism.

    Joseph is a true prophet on the grounds of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Please, our Mormon friends need to do better than this. These types of prophecies are safe because they can go either way, they are generic and are very safe. They are non-threatning/condemning.

    Joseph Smith made many false prophetic statements. My favorite is when he dated the return of Christ in “History of the Church”, Vol.2, page 182. Christ should have returned in 1891. It didn’t happen. That’s just one. There are many more. The prophet spoke and the debate was over on that day at the Kirtland Temple, Feb. 14, 1835. On that charge alone he is guilty of being a false prophet. I see that you conveniently skipped over the changes Joseph made on the nature of God that also condemn him. You won’t be able to blame Joseph for deceiving you when you stand before Heavenly Father. You have the scriptures (the Bible).


    Mormon doctrine says Moses never tasted death and was ushered into heaven like Elijah and thus at the Mt. of Transfiguration. He also gave keys of authority to Peter, James and John. He had part with Christ in the first resurrection. He appeared in the Kirtland Temple in April of 1836. I want to know how this is possible when Moses is a murderer? He killed a man (Ex 2:12). LDS scriptures state that no murderer can be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come (D&C 42:18,79). A murderer cannot have salvation and can only hope for the telestial kingdom. How could Moses show up at the Mt. of Transfiguration?

  50. falcon says:

    I’m not going to discuss transubstantiation with you, although it would be fun, because I think the subject of this thread is dealing with “authority” and when the prophet says “jump” the Mormon faithful say “how high”. So I’ll talk about authority.
    First of all Mormons, while saying they respect the Bible, really hold to a low view of it, seeing it as a corrupted work. Second of all, I don’t think I’ve ever run into a group of people that massacre and torture the Biblical scriptures the way Mormons do. As individuals and as a group they apply zero textual principles to scriptural interpretation. The problem is the Mormon use of what they see as “revelation” from god. Once a Mormon gets a revelation they then attempt to find some scripture to wrap it in. Mormons don’t pour over the text using sound interpretive measures to see what it says and means. Mormons tend to be verse hoppers, using a grab bag technique in trying to build a doctrine they have had “revealed” to them.

    Mormon leaders are not promoted on their knowledge or skill relative to knowing, understanding and applying the Biblical text. To gain a leadership slot in the Mormon church the (unspoken requirements) is to be a well dressed and appearing fellow, with a compliant well dressed and coifed wife, five well dressed and behaved kids and a successful professional career and yes, paying the tithe. Success in the world will move a man a head in the Mormon culture, not his knowledge of and ability with Biblical interpretation and application. He would also have to be good at shaking down and interrogating the members on the most intimate aspects of their lives. The authority structure rewards worldly success and the ability to go along with the program. Boat rockers get thrown out of the boat.

    A thirty-five year old single male who works as a janitor at the local high school isn’t going to get far in the Mormon leadership program even if he has the Bible memorized.

Comments are closed.