The LDS General Conference in October 1900 focused a lot on the law of tithing. The repetition on that topic was due to the feeling among Church leadership that the second coming of Christ was near and the Saints needed to be prepared. “We should see to it that nothing is left undone by us, no commandment unfulfilled, no counsel or instruction disregarded” taught President George Q. Cannon. He said,
“Many who are now within the sound of my voice have been promised that they shall live, if they have faith, to behold the second coming of the Lord. The Lord has also promised that certain events shall take place while men that are standing in the generation in which these promises were made will Yet [sic] be alive.” (Conference Report, 64)
President Lorenzo Snow taught something similar. He quoted Doctrine and Covenants 63:24-31, a passage about the Saints building Zion in Jackson County, Missouri. President Snow explained:
“Now the time is fast approaching when a large portion of the people that I am now addressing will go back to Jackson county. A great many people that are now dwelling in the State of Utah will have this privilege. Whether I, President Cannon, President Smith, or all the brethren of the Twelve will go back I know not. But a large portion of the Latter-day Saints that now dwell in these valleys will go back to Jackson county to build a holy city to the Lord, as was decreed by Jehovah and revealed through Joseph Smith.” (Conference Report, 61)
So, to emphasize the need to be prepared, about half of the speakers at the Conference talked to the congregation about tithing. The other half talked about the necessity of keeping other commandments. Heber J. Grant, referencing 1 Nephi 3:7, said in his talk,
“We have the commandments of the Lord before us in the written word, and from time to time we have our minds refreshed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon those who are called upon to preach to us. There is therefore no excuse for the Latter-day Saint who does not keep the commandments of God. We cannot say that we do not knew what our duties are, because they are so often and so forcibly brought to our minds by those who speak to us… Each one should search his own heart to find out wherein he has failed, and then he should diligently seek unto our heavenly Father for the assistance of His Holy Spirit, that he may come back into the straight path. By the assistance of our Heavenly Father there is no obligation and no law in the Church that we cannot fulfill. The Lord will give us the strength and the ability to accomplish every duty and labor that rests upon us in an acceptable manner in His sight. The only question is, have we the disposition?” (Conference Report, 33)
President Cannon taught,
“The Lord has revealed unto us that which He wants us to do, and though we do not receive written revelations (the men who have held the keys have not always felt led to write revelations as the Prophet Joseph did), the servants of the Lord do receive revelations, and they are as binding upon the people as though they were printed and published throughout all the Stakes of Zion. The oracles of God are here, and He speaks through His servant whom He has chosen to hold the keys. He gives revelations to others also concerning many matters, but it is reserved for one man, and one man alone at a time, to give revelations to the Church. We have been blessed as a people with an abundance of revelation. Some have deceived themselves with the idea that because revelations have not been written and published, therefore there has been a lessening of power in the Church of Christ. This is a very great mistake, as we will find out sooner or later. This Church has been continually led by the spirit of revelation. The spirit of revelation has been here in our conference. The addresses that have been delivered have been made under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and they are the word of God unto this people, binding upon them, and they will be judged by these words that we have heard. If we do not listen to these instructions and counsels and abide by the word of God as it is given to us from time to time, we shall be held to a strict accountability.” (Conference Report, 64)
Several things stand out to me from this Conference. One is the surety among Mormon leaders that “many” alive in 1900 would still be alive at the second coming of Christ, and that “a large portion” of the people in the congregation would live to return to Jackson County, Missouri to build up the holy city of Zion. This was 108 years ago. There may be a few of those people still alive, but surely not “a large portion” remain.
Another interesting teaching from the Conference is that Latter-day Saints cannot offer excuses for failing to fulfill every obligation, law and duty in the LDS Church. People cannot alleviate the burden of keeping all the commandments by saying “nobody’s perfect.” First Nephi 3:7 means what it says; everyone is able to fulfill every commandment.
Finally, there’s the declaration that the General Conference teachings (and other unwritten revelations) “are the word of God unto this people, binding upon them, and they will be judged by these words…”. For those Mormons who claim that the teachings of LDS prophets, seers and revelators are not binding because they fall outside the Standard Works, or because they were not written down, or because they have not been canonized, President Cannon’s words must be disconcerting. Perhaps they need to rethink their position.
I remember when I was “losing my religion,” my mormon sisters took me to meet with this man many considered mega righteous and a virtual mormon walking encyclopedia. I asked a few questions that were concerning me and I won’t bore you with what they were, but when he was stumped, he would condescendingly ask me why I was worried about such a thing and why was I bothered by it. He did answer one question when I asked why God told J.S. that Christ would come again when Smith would be about in his 80’s. He told me that God knew that Joseph Smith would die long before that, but God was trying to spare Smith’s feelings. (honestly he was able to do this with a straight and authoritative face) My point is simple. There is a way to rationalize even an untruth. So it shouldn’t be such a surprise that congregations were told basically some would live to see Christ, because mormons can always say, “Well, I guess no one was worthy.” I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard this mormon urban legend, “He or she, was told in their patriarchal blessing that they would be around for the second coming.” I am not sure if they are still giving out that super blessing anymore because I am no longer privy to such info.
This is so easy and I believe Kitty alluded to it. Nothing matters in Mormonism whether it is written or spoken by a prophet or leader. They are granted flexability. They could say that all of the Mormons are going to sprout wings in five years and fly and when it didn’t happen it wouldn’t matter to Mormons. The only thing that matters is their testimony. Once a Mormon “feels it” nothing is suppose to disrupt their faith in Joseph Smith, the BoM, the current prophet, the LDS church and last but not least the Mormon Jesus. And if all Mormon teaching is turned on its head and the church decides to go another direction, that doesn’t matter either. It’s a new day, a new revelation, there’s so much we don’t know and whoa here comes another new thing….don’t be concerned that it contradicts everything that was said before. Why is it that two-thirds of Mormons are inactive and half the people serving missions end up going inactive? They couldn’t do the mind bending any more.
Another obscure issue that won’t convince anybody of anything! Why not face the Book of Mormon head on? After all, doesn’t it all depends on whether that book is true?
Faithoffathers,
Not really. Even if that book were true, you’d have to connect all the rules and revelations since to it, and that is problematic.
President Cannon taught that not all revelations are written down, but even those are just as authoritative. Are you willing, right now, to discuss that and bring every supposed revelation back to the BoM?
The articles here, if you haven’t noticed, take issues of Mormonism, to dissect what problems exist in your faith. If everything in your faith came from the BoM directly, you might have a point. But taking the BoM head on is just a piece of the puzzle. There are still issues that remain outside the BoM, because clearly it is not your only source for revelation and instruction. A number are listed in this article. Do you care to discuss these?
How LDS leaders authoritatively interpret 1 Nephi 3:7 is an obscure issue? FoF, it seems obvious to me that a book is only true if its contents are true, and if its contents are not true, the book is not true. If 1 Nephi 3:7 is not true, then the BofM is, well, adieu. If the LDS leaders have led people astray in their interpretations of the BofM in General Conference, then the LDS Church is at least, well, adieu.
FoF, of course there is some truth in the BoM (especially the parts that were were plagiarized.) I find there is truth in just about every book I read. If you have some specific idea in the BoM that makes it the only true book, please bring it on. How about just where in the world is the Hill of Cumorah? Conventional wisdom would say it is where Smith found the plates, but now some mormons teach there is more than one hill. How convenient.
But I digress. What is the excuse you give yourself when the prophets expound outlandish statements and prophesies, besides they were just men? I use to put all these things on a shelf away from rational thought, until one day the shelf collapsed. I am still picking up the pieces.
The Book of Mormon is either true or not. If it is true, then Joseph Smith and his successors were prophets of God. We can argue about an infinite number of peripheral issues, but never answer the big questions. LDS have claimed all along that our whole religion relies on the Book of Mormon being true. So many of the controversies brought up here can be spun or lost in nuance and interpretation.
This thread is a perfect example. You are showing a statement or prophecy that didn’t come true, right? Worst case scenerio for us, if this was a prophecy by our prophet that did not in fact come true, it still does not shake my faith one bit. Why, because there are so many variables and angles and the fact that we don’t understand so much.
On the other hand, the question of the Book of Mormon is absolutely black and white- it is either what it claims to be, or it is not. If it is not what it claims, the whole religion falls. If it is true, the church stands as THE Church of Christ. There is a reason God arranged it this way.
Let’s get back to the content of the original post. This thread should not be hijacked to go far beyond the scope of what Sharon wrote. FoF, let the specific issues in the original post be the topic of conversation. They are relevant enough to the larger issues of the BofM without a fully expanded discussion.
faithoffathers,
I have to disagree with you there.
First, to get rid of the obvious, the BoM is wrong. And if your idea is true (the whole debate is about the BoM), then the rest doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter since it relies on an broken foundation.
This can be shown in any number of ways, and the only evidence you can really supply that matters is the burning in your bosom. Sure you can give suggestive evidence, as I am sure you will, but nothing conclusive. This is why I say you will come back to that burning, your witness.
But the simple fact remains that there is no solid, agreed upon scholarly evidence to even suggest it is nothing more than myth. No language, no hills, no documents, no artifacts, nothing that comes close to suggesting it is true.
More importantly, though, even if I were to grant that the BoM is true, you’d still have a myriad of problems surrounding your faith. You speak volumes when you excuse it away with the “variables and angles and the fact that we don’t understand so much.”
When perfectly clear prophecies do not come true, and when revelations that are pertinent to salvation are tossed aside (when statehood is sought after), or when rules banning certain groups are suddenly (and conveniently timed after major legal rights fights) changed, and when supposed commands vacilate between commands and suggestions (coffee, anyone?), it raises the question as to the veracity of the faith, even beyond the one book.
It is also clear that the BoM itself does not provide much in the way of Mormon life. Most of the commands and such come from other sources, and some of those seem in direct dispute with what is the most correct book on earth.
Like it or not, friend, your problems go beyond the Book of Mormon. Look the other way if you want, but you cannot look directly at the “peropheral issues” and see consistency.
The devil is tricky… Don’t let him be your lamb.
FoF: you wrote, “there are so many variables and angles and the fact that we don’t understand so much…”
I certainly don’t understand VOLUMES and VOLUMES, as my friends would quickly tell you, but ‘prophecies’ like the above seem very simple and matter of fact (or matter of fiction, if you catch my drift). These don’t seem to be ‘deeper things’ that require nuanced understanding. Either ‘large parts’ of the group go back to Jackson County to see the Second Coming or they didn’t
(maybe he saw in a glass darkly: the CHIEFS are now seeing the beginning of the Great Tribulation, but that’s another thread, maybe several threads, maybe its own tapestry)
The real core issue, as I see it is TRUST: and for some it’s trust in the BoM FIRST, and then the rest, for some it’s TRUST in their INNER EXPERIENCE first, and then the rest later, and so on….. It matters little which comes first, as long as the LDS package is accepted, or at least most of it, at some point or other. As Falcon has pointed out, trusting ANY of your written revelation seems to be somewhat flexible and adaptable.
How you can call the clear (to me at least) teaching of your leaders as ‘peripheral’ somehow escapes me, maybe that’s part of the VOLUMES I haven’t understood yet.
Someday you’ll get your ‘evidences for the BofM’ thread. Hope you like the ‘Christmas gift’ come Groundhogs day…… GERMIT
Last warning to all. Don’t feed the trolls.
Isn’t there a verse somewhere in the Bible that says something like if a prophet gives a prophesy and the prophesy doesn’t come true, the prophet is a false prophet? Ignore the dude? I think it’s in the OT someplace. I love this business of “there’s so much we don’t know” and “nuance and interpretation” and “variables”. What a huge cop-out. And the Mormon parade just keeps on marching off the cliff of eternity.
Sorry to go off topic (last time on this thread), but I need to explain one principle. The foundation of my testimony is the Book of Mormon as is the case with most active LDS I know. I venture to say that NO attack or criticism can threaten my faith/belief if my testimony of the BOM remains intact. If it is true (an ancient record of scripture), JS was a prophet. If he was a prophet, the church is what it claims to be, etc., etc. This is actually a very linear, logical framework that the Lord provided.
Apparent unfulfilled prophecies certainly can make a person wonder why they didn’t come to pass. But there will always be a role for faith. Not ALL questions are answered to everybody’s satisfaction. Yes- I acknowledge that official statements from our prophets are free game, but you are not likely to knock out my (and others’) testimony with unfulfilled prophecies from a prophet 108 years ago.
The BOM is the basis and foundation of our witness. These other controversies are peripheral because they really do not affect that foundation. I am not saying these peripheral things don’t matter at all, they just won’t shake someone whose testimony is built with the Lord’s blueprint for establishing truth. And the BOM is the first and most encompassing element of that blueprint in our day.
I am sure this will be dismissed here, but if you wish to understand the testimony of LDS, you need to get this. If the BOM is true, then: the Bible is true, Jesus is the Savior of the world, Joseph Smith was His prophet, the LDS church is His church, God has a prophet on earth today. It is an all or nothing thing for us, and it all depends on the BOM.
Hope this makes sense. Later!
FOF,
What you say makes sense to some degree; however, I was always under the impression that the truth of the Church hung in the balance on whether or not JS was a prophet of God. So, with all due respect, I do think you have your blueprint a little out of line with the LDS teaching I received. You’re arguing the BOM is true, therefore JS was a prophet; when, in actually, the argument should be JS was a prophet, therefore the BOM is true. Has the focus changed in the last decade or so? Have you never heard it argued the way I presented it? Personally, I have always been taught that whatever the GAs say pretty much trumps any previous revelations uttered. I’m just curious. Anyway, you might say you have a testimony built on the BOM, but it’s a stretch to discount what your leaders have said, especially the quotes presented in Sharon’s writing. Ultimately, however, the totality of it all has to be measured against the Bible. I was wondering if you have ever done that.
Grace and Peace!
To add to what falcon said. Yes, there is a prophecy about false prophets. It is found in Deuteronomy 18: 20-22. Basically the test is that ALL of their prophecies must come true, not some, but all.
FoF, how about this prophecy from the BoM~2Nephi 3:14~that also didn’t come true? It states that the seer, Joseph Smith “will be blessed by the Lord and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded.” I don’t think I need to tell you that the mob was not confounded.
No one is going to turn your heart except God. I think you are to be commended that you come to this site and try to stand up for your faith. I would expect nothing less. Don’t just discount what is being said, find out for yourself. The information comes from LDS sources. As strange as it sounds, you just can’t make this stuff up.
This is a great post, Sharon. President Cannon’s words stood out the most to me regarding the unwritten revelations of the living prophet being “as binding upon the people as though they were printed and published throughout all the Stakes of Zion”
I have been growing very accustomed to the individual choose-your-own-adventure religions of my LDS friends. They let me know which aspects of Mormon doctrine they agree with and what they disagree with. I wonder if they will agree or disagree with Cannon’s statement that unwritten revelations are binding for them?
It brings to mind a question of what to do when the prophets have contradicted one another (the Adam/God theory comes to mind). Which revelation was truly from God?
Then there was Joseph Smith who admitted that it was sometimes hard to tell whether a revelation was from God, or from the devil, or from the heart of man (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, p.30-31 as cited on http://www.mormonthink.com/testimonyweb.htm#satan).
So, how are LDS members to know whether all of the revelations from the current living prophet are from God? What about their own personal revelations? What is the standard by which revelations are judged to discern truth from error / God from Satan?
Thank you all for your varied comments. At this point I am still learning just how deeply the lack of in depth knowledge affects the :average: member. To read and study the words of the former leaders of the church in my pursuit of the truth have honestly given me chills.
Please be encouraged and keep exposing those words so that we who need truth can find them
The fun of Mormonism is the ebb and flow of continuous revelation. I’ve been thinking about this. It’s like knocking back an energy drink. It makes you feel good for awhile and then you have to have another one. The original can of Red Bull can only take you so far, then it loses it’s punch. Revelations and prophesy within the Mormon context is just for a group of people within a certain time frame, gereration or dispensation. Then our Mormon friends get a redo. The old guys are dead. Toss adam-god, blacks and the priesthood and please get rid of the scrying and seer stones, second sight and magic world view. Why, friends, do you think Mormons go to such lengths to hide what has been taught in the past. The picture of Joseph Smith and his writting instrument pouring over some loose leaf gold plates is one example; when we know he really had his face jammed into a hat so he could read what his seer stone was revealing. See even that can be changed and updated for a new generation. Why do you think he had so many versions of the “first vision”? It wasn’t that he forgot some details (like going from an assurance of forgiveness of sins to the final edition of seeing a god the father and a Jesus. Ebb and flow, times and seasons, dead prophets/living prophets, old dispensation, new dispenstion this is the Mormon experience. Hay I can even find a Bible verse to support this: “forgetting what’s behind, I press onward……” pretty good huh? Proves it’s true. It’s in the Bible! (Which, by the way, Mormons believe is a corrupted book). Endless do-overs, that’s Mormonism. The only thing that counts is that the Mormon think that God spoke to them and confirmed it with a physical feeling. A sure sign of the truth.
Mormons, what do you think Cannon meant by “binding”?
Do you agree with Cannon or do you think he was speaking irresponsibly?
If he was speaking irresponsibly, what is to stop a modern leader from doing the exact same thing?
Kitty,
Thanks for the question regarding JS. The BOM does contain prophecy about JS. The verse you quoted in 2 Ne quotes Joseph of old:
“Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded.” Was Joseph Smith destroyed? I would strongly suggest not, looking at what has become of his work. Was Christ destroyed by those who crucified Him? Were ancient prophets destroyed when people killed them? This verse in the BOM is in the context of the ancient covenant that God would restore the “words of Joseph’s seed” (BOM) to their descendents. This work was certainly not “destroyed.”
In 3 Ne 21 the Savior tells the people regarding JS: “But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” I suggest this is actually a prophecy of Joseph’s death.
Isaiah speaks of Christ being marred more than any man. This has reference to His sufferings and death. These things have meanings a little deeper than what appears on the surface.
Jessica Joy- I would agree that the revelations to the prophets are binding on the LDS. He was referring to official declarations and revelations from the first presidency- these are binding. This doesn’t mean that every word that ever comes out of these mens’ mouths is straight from God. And he says that others may have revelations, but those are not binding on the church.
Jackg: I have been in the church for 38 years, and during that time, it has always been taught that the first question or element of a testimony is the BOM. That is HOW a person can know if JS was a prophet. Presidents of the church throughout its history have taught this idea- this is why the BOM plays such a big role in missionary work and always has. Because if it is true, so many other questions are answered affirmatively
Pres. Cannon said this: “The Lord has revealed unto us that which He wants us to do, and though we do not receive written revelations (the men who have held the keys have not always felt led to write revelations as the Prophet Joseph did), the servants of the Lord do receive revelations, and they are as binding upon the people as though they were printed and published throughout all the Stakes of Zion” and this
“Some have deceived themselves with the idea that because revelations have not been written and published, therefore there has been a lessening of power in the Church of Christ.”
So, faithoffathers, do you see something thta could be left open here? Do you see where this whole idea could be abused and twisted?
It is sufficiently specific to say the prophet is the word of god, but is sufficiently vague as to how to determine what is actual prophecy. Actually, it says that which is not written can be considered revelation. And as such, this is certainly open to interpretation– by men no less.
So, how is that you determine is prophecy and what is not? There’s no real test to specify this, is there?
FoF says“Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded.” Was Joseph Smith destroyed? I would strongly suggest not, looking at what has become of his work. Was Christ destroyed by those who crucified Him?
Yes, Joseph Smith was destroyed, euphemism for killed and his attackers were not confounded. The church that Smith started now resembles the FLDS, not the Mormons. And I am sure you will love this fact, FoF, the FLDS use the BoM. Comparing the death of Joseph Smith to Christ is blasphemous. Smith taught another gospel and as such is ——-(fill in the missing word.) Galations 1:6-9.
Brilliant post Falcon. It is a keeper. How many do overs do we allow?
Kitty,
Those who killed Joseph in Carthage were not the first to try to destroy him. He was indicted what- over 200 times. Physical attacks were quite regular. Yet, he accomplished what the Lord wanted him to accomplish. In 2 Ne 3, Joseph of old speaks of several things that the future prophet would do, and JS did all of them.
Using your definition of “destroy,” those who crucified Jesus destroyed Him. (And I do not infer in any way that Joseph is anything more than a man, or a prophet).
The church has grown from 6 people in a small farmhouse to millions of people around the world. Over 100 million copies of The Book of Mormon have been published in over 100 languages. Moroni told Joseph when he was 17 that his “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.” The work God gave Joseph was not destroyed, nor was Joseph.
Also, I used the reference to Christ’s suffering and death to help define a word- “marred.” Read 3 Ne 21. There Christ says that Joseph Smith will not be “hurt,” although he “will be marred.” The point is man may kill the body, but the Lord’s “wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.” Ultimately, the prophets work and eternal welfare will be anything but jeopardized. Please read my post again. I do not think I made any blasphemous comparison.
Michael P: I think Pres. Cannon meant that a prophets words don’t have to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants or officially added to canon to be binding. What he says at general conference is binding even though those words are not physically added to the scriptures we carry around. I would disagree that he is saying the prophet is “the word of God.” The word of God is revealed through him. Yes, positions of authority can be abused or “twisted.” There is trust and faith inherent in this prophetic relationship, as there has always been with prophets.
Another quote to add:
“I believe that God speaks to us as if we were in eternity, and that whenever He gives a commandment or a law unto this Church, it is done as if there were no such thing as death or a veil dividing us from His presence. His laws are permanent and eternal in their nature; they are binding upon this world and upon the world to come; they are binding upon the living and binding upon the dead.” – Elder Rudger Clawson (same October 1900 conference)
Whoa FoF!!!! Joseph Smith’s death is not in anyway comparable to the death of Jesus. And YOU know why. Jesus had the power over life and death, so that was part of the sacrifice. Smith was just a man. Yes, tell me all about the troubles of Smith. I know, from as early as 14. Those ideas of his should have heaped a bunch of discord and indictments. Your exaggeration of the Mormon numbers is another urban myth. Members ARE leaving or simply not attending.
But it wouldn’t matter how many there were, numbers don’t prove a thing. If 50 million do and say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.
Joseph Smith is not even close in comparison to Jesus. That is a sore subject with me, and I do not believe that Smith will sit next to Jesus, judging us all. If you do, I respect your right to believe that. That is a pretty conceited notion on the part of Smith, like when he wanted to be president of the United States. The history of the life of Joseph Smith tells the rest of the story. I mean, the real history, not the made for Mormon Movie of the Week or faith promoting data in lesson manuals.
That’s nice faithoffathers, but you never answered my questions.
As to faith, that also dodges the question, as if we believe anything our leaders tell us, we are acting on faith that they know more than us. But is this wise to do?
When you start looking around at fruit that has shifted so radically within Mormonism, are sure you can trust it?
Kitty brought up the FLDS. Are you sure they aren’t right and you are wrong? On what tangible basis do you say this?
If you can’t give a tangible basis, what makes you any more right than them if they use the same justification?
I don’t want to divert the discussion from what is in the post, but when there’s nothing in MO that suggests the prophets right, when those living in 1900 have not seen the second coming, and any other number of failed prophecies, and when you can pick and choose what is prophetic, how long are you going to accept that which is fed without something to back it up with that will differentiate your belief from any other?
How many prophetic “do-overs” are allowed in Mormonism? As many as it takes! On the one hand, Mormonism is about as legalistic as a religion can get. On-the-other-hand, in order to be a Mormon, you have to be incredably gullible and have a huge tolerance for ambiguity. It’s such a joke, the little Mormon sayings, “Follow the leaders, they’ll never lead you wrong” and “When the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done.” Then, when Mormons have exposure to accurate information, they have a choice to make. Keep repeating the Mormon mantras and religious folk tales or begin questioning the Mormon narrative. Mormons are taught not to question because when they do, the narrative doesn’t hold up. Look at this discussion. Why is it so obvious to the Christians and yet the Mormons are blinded to what’s in front of their eyes. It’s not blind faith. It’s called rescuing your equity. Our Mormon friends have way too much invested in the Mormon program to give it up. And just think, they could have the assurance of eternal life through faith in Christ and they turn it down.
Thanks, FOF, for your response. I see where you’re coming from.
I’d like to get back on topic. John R. Farkas and David A. Reed have printed a good book entitled “Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors.” It’s a really good book, and I mention it because I am resorting to it for this posting.
In a conference report dated April 1973, p. 176 or July ’73 Ensign, p. 121, President Harold B. Lee said this: “If you want to know what the Lord has for his people at the present time, I would admonish you to get and read the discourses that have been delivered at this conference; for what these brethren have spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (Farkas 67). Here’s a quote of President Harold B. Lee quoting President Grant as recorded in the Oct ’72 Ensign: “‘Brethren, keep your eye on the President of this Church. If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don’t need to worry; the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead this people astray” (Farkas 67).
I’m sorry, but this is downright manipulation and fear-tactics to control a people. I understand the Mormons won’t see it this way. Perhaps, this will help Frostmarch a little bit more. Here’s something from BY for Mormons to think about: “What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty” (Pres. BY, Dec 29, 1867, JD 12:127). Now, we know BY taught Adam-God doctrine, and we already know that he claims never to have taught anything that was wrong. Then, why did Pres. Kimball say this about Adam-God doctrine:
cont’d
Kitty,
I am in no way saying Joseph Smith is in any way more than a man or prophet- nothing compared to Jesus. Are we clear? I am trying to define the word “marred.” Isaiah, referring to Christ, said “his visage was so marred more than any man.” Marred is interchangable with martyred in Greek. Christ, in the BOM, said JS would be marred. This is all in answer to a claim here that the BOM contained false prophecy that Joseph Smith wouldn’t be killed. Don’t flip on me- I understand the difference between Jesus and JS.
Michael P- as to a “test” by which to determine what is revelation- We are encouraged and instructed to fast, pray, and study things out in our own minds and receive confirmatory inspiration for ourselves. I believe a person is always safe in following the prophet. This is based on many, many such confirmations in my own life.
Occasionally, a prophet may specifically say, “I am not prophesying here.” For example, Gordon B. Hinckley recounted pharoah’s dream of 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine and encouraged LDS men to prepare and get their houses in order- that a “portent of stormy weather was coming.” But he said he wasn’t prophesying. (It was actually quite prophetic if you look at what has happened in the world economy starting roughly 7 years after his talk).
What about the FLDS? How do I know? First, Joseph Smith very clearly told the twelve apostles that they held the keys of administering the kingdom of God on earth after he left. So if one believes JS was a prophet, and accepts the structure created through him, he should also accept the manner of succession he outlined. According to that structure, Brigham and the others in the twelve were to lead. Second, If one knows the BOM is true, one can accept the prophecies in that book about what would happen to JS and the church. I am running out of room, but would be happy to outline those prophecies when I have more room
FoF,
OK, so he may occasionally specify, but does he always specify?
Do you see how such a test, though, can be wrong? Can you also see how others who use your exact same formula of “fast, pray, and study things out in our own minds and receive confirmatory inspiration for ourselves” can come up with wildly different results?
I only bring up because inherent in so much of Mormonism is the vagueness I spoke of earlier, as exemplidied by Cannon. Jackg also lists a great quote saying that if you trust the leaders, you’ll be OK. But the question still remains unanswered, and to be quite frank, it is not new, is how do you know when a prophet speaks with authority?
Very good Michael P. but I don’t think we’re ever going to make a lot of progress on this topic with our Mormon friends. Being a neopentecostal/charasmatic I’ve seen my share of “words from the Lord” over the years. It’s pretty tough to convince someone that maybe what they think they heard from the Lord, maybe really wasn’t from the Lord. This is especially true if the “word” was accompanied by strong emotions. In the year or so since I’ve been posting here, I’ve often asked myself “Don’t these Mormons ever question anything that’s handed them by their leaders?” These folks are way too compliant for my tastes. I’d be up in someone’s face if they were delivering “revelations” that didn’t meet the test. I apply these tests to the Mormon leaders/prophets past and present and I cringe. The only thing that I can figure out is that Mormons want so badly to believe this stuff that they just go along with it. Nothing seems to penetrate their spiritual sensibilities. I’ve been out on exMo websites and what intrigues me is that they’re all atheists. It’s the old “fool me once” syndrome. They seemed to have reached the cracking point and the curtain was pulled back and the old Oz “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” finally pushed them over the edge. They finally figured out that the “burning in the bosom” didn’t match reality or confirm the truth. Unfortunately their bitterness at being hoodwinked has caused a barrier to be built between them and religion/God generally that would be very difficult to overcome.
At least at the old General Conferences they said stuff that was interesting. Not like the mind-numbing repetitve talked they roll out now. I sometimes wonder if they don’t show the same talks over and over again on a tape delay. Now when you got Brigham Young up talking, you knew you were going to get something worthwhile to listen to and argue about! He was wrong as he could be but at least he was interesting. Nothing worse than a boring heretic.
faithoffathers said “if you wish to understand the testimony of LDS, you need to get this. If the BOM is true, then: the Bible is true, Jesus is the Savior of the world, Joseph Smith was His prophet, the LDS church is His church, God has a prophet on earth today. It is an all or nothing thing for us, and it all depends on the BOM.”
Falcon mentioned all the ex-mormons that have given up faith altogether when they lost their personal revelation that the BoM was true. One of the most devastating fruits of Mormonism right now to me is this sad truth – there are an awful lot of ex-mormon atheists out there and the number keeps on growing.
Sadly, the LDS church has directed members to build on a “rock” of revelation – that shaky, ever-changing territory of the human emotions.
This appears more like “shifting sand” than rock to me. My hope is that LDS members will re-read Matthew 16:18, without the LDS grid, and consider making Jesus Christ their firm foundation – the true rock who will not move when everything else does.
Mormonism is built on the concept of continuous, on-going revelation from God. The problem is that Mormons don’t bother to check-out if a revelation is true, consistent or even if it even makes any sense. Mormons tend to cover all of this with some pithy little sayings that reinforce their “faith” but leave things unchallenged. It’s the old “emperior’s new clothing” scenario. Mormons are taught not to question and not to challenge. The quotes in the above article indicate that the leadership feels that what they say has significance. But I guess it really doesn’t. It seems to me these folks are just playing a game of “revelation for fun and prophet”. You know, “Alex, I’ll take Mormon revelation for 500. OK, which Mormon prophet taught that Adam and God were the same person?” Answer: “It doesn’t matter because it happened way in the past and the guy is dead now.” “You are absolutely correct. Deposit the 500 in his Celestial kingdom account.” You have to know how to think Mormon!
(cont’d from yesterday…didn’t realize I was out of posts for the day 🙂 )
“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” (Pres. Kimball, Deseret news, Oct. 9, ’76, p.11 and Ensign, Nov. ’76, pg. 77, as reported by Farkas, p.79).
Falcon is very much validated in what he asserts regarding Mormonism. Why can’t the faithful Mormons see this problematic issue of one prophet trumping the past prophet and no one resorting to the Bible to test anything? “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:13). I think our Mormon friends ought to test what they get from their leaders against His revealed Word, the Bible. And, I believe they need to do so without resorting to eisegesis.
Grace and Peace!
jackg,
The problem that the “hearing from God” people of any religion have, is verification. Revelation and having God speak directly to “ME” is a huge deal in the prophetic movement of the modern pentecostal/charasmatic church. The God Channel-365 on Direct TV is a virtual stomping ground for personal and corporate revelation. Mormons, living in their isolated world, have no clue that there are Christians of every stripe claiming to hear from God. These are the folks that take the Book of Acts as a here and now thing. First Corinthians 12-14 is very much a part of the structure, with prophets and prophesy as an intrical part of the program. Having traveled that road for over 35 years I’ve seen it all. I work very hard at not being cynical with much of what I see, hear and read. To get over the standard bar I set, a “prophet” has to have a good prophetic track record, a fairly impeccable life style, and a lot of humility. When I speak of a prophetic word I’m not talking just about foretelling the future as Agabus did in Acts 21:10-11. But there is a type of exhortation the Spirit provides to one who has the gift of prophesy. But it all must line-up with the Word of God or it gets tossed….fast.
Mormonism builds it’s whole program around the “God speaks to our prophet” scenario. The tag line of course is that other Christian religions don’t have a prophet that is hearing from God so Mormonism is a superior and quite spectacular religion. The problem is Mormons don’t have a test for prophesy or a culture that allows someone to question what the “prophets” past and present say.
I didn’t mean to get into any controversy here with my Christian brothers and sisters regarding these matters, however I think I’ve earned some leeway here having been around this blog for awhile. I’ve stayed away from discussing these things in the past, from a pentecostal perspective.
“Sadly, the LDS church has directed members to build on a “rock” of revelation – that shaky, ever-changing territory of the human emotions.”
This statement sums up our differences quite succinctly. We absolutely have faith that God answers prayers. He does communicate with His children. We know that a person, if humble, sincere, and willing to act on any answer, can receive personal revelation regarding what is true.
Is God dealing with imperfect humans- yes. But I submit that there is ultimately no other avenue through which a person may know within their souls, for themselves- INDEPENDENT OF OTHERS, what is true. It is just this very avenue of revelation through which conversion and faith begin and grow. It is this revelation and our response to such inspiration that builds our relationship with God. That is why we so consistently encourage people to humble themselves, study, and seek such inspiration when introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, a person is inevitably relying on somebody else to tell them what is true. It is extremely ironic that many here claim we follow prophets blindly or that we rely on others to tell us what is true. It is not blind faith- it is faith based on such personal revelation and trust that the Lord knows more than we do.
I ask what else does a person “build” on if not the rock of revelation? Of course you will say- “on the rock of Christ.” That does not answer the question. How do you know Jesus is the Son of God and your personal Savior- THROUGH PERSONAL REVELATION. Any other foundation is ultimately reliant on the wisdom of man and whomever presents a more effective argument- whose the better lawyer.
We feel strongly that if everybody is presented with the truth and they are humble, sincere, etc, all will come to the same conclusion. But, not everybody has been presented the truth, and not everybody is sincere, humble, etc.
FoF,
The problem is, my personal revelation and your personal revelation are 180 degrees out of phase with one another. My personal revelation is that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, that the BoM is not true as historical fact, that the Salt Lake City Mormon prophet is not a prophet, that the LDS church is not God’s true church, and that the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. All revelation must meet a standard. I would say that Mormon revelation is based on a conditioned response aided by the power of suggestion and not a message from God. Mormons don’t even believe the revelations as given forth by their past prophets. They reject them out of hand as idle speculation when they are held up to a historic perspective. The track record of prophesy within Mormonism is dismal as has been demonstrated on this site countless times.
Arthur Sido, one of our regular contributors here, was a Mormon. He now has a testimony of Jesus Christ based on a historical orthodox Christian view. Having read his testimony I would say that God revealed to him the truth of the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ and the falseness of the Mormon restored gospel. It was revealed to him. Do you have a test to determine if Arthur’s revelation is true or do you accept his revelation because he and I testify to it as revealed to us by God? Perhaps there are other exMos on this site who would also like to testify to the orthodox Christian Gospel as revealed to them from the Holy Spirit (which led them to reject the Mormon restored gospel). If we get several of them to contribute their revelation experience, will you accept the orthodox Christian Gospel as God’s revealed truth. I think you have a problem with your approach FoF.
I’m not sure I can add much more to what Falcon wrote. He did an excellent job of pointing out the problem, which is what I asked FoF yesterday, which he did not answer, nor have I ever seen a response to the question of how do you verify the test when it yields wildly different results.
It seems to me that the answer for Mormons is assumed, that is, the answer HAS to be the way they see it. Any thing that is outside of the answer was approached in a way that is not humble, or honest, or sincere, or as FoF put it: “We feel strongly that if everybody is presented with the truth and they are humble, sincere, etc, all will come to the same conclusion.” What he’s saying that this is the only answer that can come when one is sincere.
I’ll bite and say OK, so if one is sincere, that might be the only answer. But what does it mean to be sincere? Does sincerity have a test? The assumption is that sincerity means one will conclude as Mormons think, not as anyone else might. However, how do you determine whether or not someone is sincere?
You can’t!
And thus, your reliance on revelation through prayer, with the assumption it is done with sincerity, is faulty.
Again, I’ll ask the same question: how do we reconcile our revelations, yours and mine? I know I’ve been sincere in my quest, and I am confident in my answer. So are you.
So how do we break the tie?
Falcon,
I’m confused. Did you think I was admonishing you in any way? I’m on your side, and you bring up valid points that often get tossed aside by Mormons because you shoot from the hip. That’s what I was intimating. Sorry if there was any confusion there.
FOF,
Hope it doesn’t seem like you’re getting picked on, it’s just that you are currently the only Mormon blogger with anything worth responding to.
This is how you responded to JessicaJoy: “This statement sums up our differences quite succinctly. We absolutely have faith that God answers prayers. He does communicate with His children. We know that a person, if humble, sincere, and willing to act on any answer, can receive personal revelation regarding what is true.”
When I read this, I get the impression that you think Christians don’t depend on personal revelation. We do; however, we test that against the Bible. You have to admit there are false and evil spirits revealing false and evil things in ways that look like the real thing. I have received personal revelation that JS was not a prophet of God and that the Mormon Church is not the true Church of God, and that the BOM is not God’s word. That’s my personal revelation. Now, when I measure that against God’s Word, the Bible, it is congruent with what the Bible teaches because many of JS teachings are diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches. The BOM teaches a backwards theology regarding grace, and my testimony is further strengthened with the illumination of God’s Word through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, we both claim personal revelation, which begs the question: who is following the Holy Spirit and who is following a false spirit. I think it comes down to this simple question.
You also said, “How do you know Jesus is the Son of God and your personal Savior- THROUGH PERSONAL REVELATION.”
This statement is absolutely 100% true. There is not a single Christian who will disagree with you on this.
cont’d
But, notice, you specified this revelation to that of knowing the Messiahship of Jesus Christ–and that is exactly what this is referring to. In biblical exegesis, this is where we have to stop. This is what the passage is all about–being able to confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God because it has been revealed to us by God the Father. Exegetically, we see that these disciples walked with Jesus, heard His teachings from His own mouth, and witnessed the miracles. And, yet, it wasn’t all this that gave them a testimony about His Messiahship (which is a good thing for us), it was the fact that God revealed this to Peter and the others and whoever confesses Jesus as Messiah. With biblical exegesis, we cannot put into the passage the idea that Jesus is referring to general revelation, the kind of revelation Mormons claim to be assigned to the office of prophet. If that were the case, Peter would be the first pope, and we all better join the Catholic Church to be saved. 🙂 But, that’s not the case, here. As even you pointed out, this passage speaks to the specific revelation of the Messiahship of Jesus. The Rock refers to the revelation that Jesus is the Christ–and the object is Jesus not revelation; hence, Jesus is the Rock upon which He builds His Church. Again, an example of backwards theology. Interpreting this passage to pave the way to claim modern-prophets is an example of biblical eisegesis.
Grace and Peace!
jackg,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I wasn’t actually referring to Christ’s interaction with Peter, although a very interesting topic, and it does apply here. I was trying to point out that we all rely on revelation to obtain a witness of Christ and His gospel. My argument is that it is just that spirit of inspiration by which we can “know the truth of all things”- we build upon that foundation.
So how do we know whose revelation is correct? None of us has all the pieces of the puzzle- some more than others, but none has them all. First of all, we are all responsible for ourselves. Fortunately, I will not answer for another, nor will he answer for me. This should sober us into humility and thirst for truth, as I think it has many here. I doubt there will be any grand demonstration of who is right in this life- no “ta daaa”. Each has to study it out as thoroughly and completely as possible and take it to the Lord.
I came across the BOM at 18 and read it in isolation with nobody knowing I was reading it- I knew nothing about it before beginning. I wanted to know soo badly if it was true. I received my witness very clearly and have again and again since then. I am convinced that any person who will approach that book in humility, etc. and immerse themselves in it WILL know for themselves, independent of any other. But, I also think a person who has spent a significant amount of time studying slanted or “glass half-empty” stuff about it will have more of a difficulty- the same is true of knowing if Jesus is the Messiah or any other truth.
And as far as “testing” truth against the Bible, the truth I have learned is in perfect alignment with the Bible. Maybe not YOUR interpretation. But I love the Bible and see the BOM as meshing flawlessly. (And I do not see the Bible as corrupt- has it been translated perfectly, no, but it is an absolutely beautiful pillar of truth).
That’s it for today. Keep the faith- the world needs it!
Faithoffathers,
Nice story, and I mean that. But it doesn’t answer the question. The question is how people come to different conclusions. People do come to different conclusions on it, right?
Why is that? Was the person not sincere enough? How do you know? Because they didn’t receive the spirit saying it is true? Can you verify that?
Also, what about the poeple who secretly read only the Bible and think it is true? What of the Koran? The Watch Tower? Dianetics? The Talmud? What if they read with the exact same sincerity you read the BOM with?
How do you discern?
You can’t. That’s the bottom line, and while you may feel without a doubt yours is truth, you cannot say with confidence (at least honestly) that these people did not have the same sincerity.
The personal responsibility you mention is a cop out. Sorry, but it is. It avoids a direct question by changing the question. Do you not think God can lead people to him? Actually, better asked, do you think anyone comes to him without his guidance?
Your idea of personal responsibility, while honorable, is indicative of the works based faith you follow. No need to go back to that, but again it takes power from God and puts it in your hands.
I’d like a direct answer about the question of how do you discern who’s revelation do you trust.
I’d also like to know what you think of those of other faiths who come to the exact same conclusion about their faith using the exact same test, when the conclusions are opposite.
Thanks.
Falcon said – ”I’ve often asked myself “Don’t these Mormons ever question anything that’s handed them by their leaders?””
Just a couple of scriptures to show you my line of thinking –
I have been taught to gain my own testimony of The Prophet and his calling when a new Prophet is called. To do this I follow the above mentioned scriptures. I study the scriptures and the prophet’s message, I follow his advice while keeping in mind the scriptures and once I have come to my opinion I ask God for confirmation. Then after that, if I receive a testimony that he is God’s mouthpiece on this earth, then I have no more need to question him, his calling or his words. So I am not blindly following The Prophet, I have received a testimony of him and now I am working with that testimony. I don’t care if you agree with me or not, you asked a question I answered.
Hey Falcon,
I’m also from a Pentecostal tradition. Though I have moved on, I wouldn’t like to say that I’m ex-pentecostal, but I hear where you’re coming from.
Though there is great merit in “the Gospel saves me personally”, it’s only a short step to “the Gospel serves me personally”. I guess we’ve both seen the effects of the latter mentality in our respective churches, and we can’t help but wonder how it got so out of control in the LDS movement.
FoF,
I highly respect and identify with your quest for truth, and I had a couple of thoughts as I was reading your post. You mentioned that you knew absolutely nothing about the BoM before you read it and prayed to know whether it was true. When I was talking about personal revelations being built on the shaky, ever-changing territory of the emotions – that is exactly what I was referring to. You said earlier that yours is not a blind faith, but to me this is the exact description of blind faith. It is faith without any objective investigation of the facts. It is putting one’s trust in the promise of the book itself independent of any outside objective criteria.
This is quite unlike the early church examples we have of how people received revelation from God. First of all, the events in the NT were prophesied hundreds of years earlier in the OT and fulfilled in detail so that seekers had objective criteria to evaluate whether Jesus was really the promised Messiah. Secondly, the scriptures commend those who searched the OT to see if the new revelation was of God (Acts 17:11). Throughout the Bible, scripture study is commended rather than a seeking of personal revelation independent of scripture study (Daniel 9:2, II Tim. 2:15). How many times is Jesus quoted as saying “it is written…”? Jesus said “search the scriptures” (John 5:39) and told the Pharisees their beliefs were in error because they did not know the scriptures (Matt. 22:29).
The apostles used the OT scriptures to convince people of the new revelation (Acts 2:16-37, 17:2, 18:24-28). Apollos was very effective in convincing the Jews by showing them by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. He was described as a man who was “mighty in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24).
How very different this seems from what the LDS church asks of investigators…
(cont.)
(cont from last post)
Instead of urging seekers to study the scriptures we already know are from God to determine if the new revelation is also from Him, they are encouraged to pray and seek personal revelation completely independent of the Bible. In fact, the reliability of the Bible is questioned so that it can be dis-regarded where it contradicts the BoM and subsequent revelations. Jesus and the apostles never questioned the reliability of the OT.
Now, let’s consider for a moment that those who have received a revelation opposite to yours are correct and the BoM is not from God, but a huge deception of the devil. Okay, let’s take that train of thought for one moment and let’s consider if that were true, what type of person might be the most susceptible to being deceived by the book? Someone who searches the book with an objective mind while checking it against the scriptures we already have, following in the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and obeying the command to “test all things,” or someone who takes the book into a secret place and seeks personal revelation independent of the OT and NT scriptures?
Finally, on a personal note, I once had a “burning in the bosom” that this guy I met was the man God had for me to marry – we both felt the same way, but we knew very little about each other except that we both loved the Lord Jesus and wanted to serve Him. As I continued getting to know him, however, I learned many objective facts about his character, personality, and beliefs that did not mesh well with mine. For a long time, though, I kept relying on that initial “burning in the bosom” and it required a lot of conversations with those who know me best in order for me to look at the objective facts. I’m so glad I didn’t cling to that feeling since it’s completely gone now and I am so thankful God spared me from what might have been a really bad marriage!
Frostmarch, you said “To read and study the words of the former leaders of the church in my pursuit of the truth have honestly given me chills.”
Please keep pursuing the truth. Jesus said “the truth sets us free” (John 8:32). Whatever the truth is, it can never hurt you more than a lie. Also, whatever the truth is, it should lead you to Jesus because he is the truth (John 14:6).
Please don’t reject everything simply because it comes from an LDS source. They’ve dropped some major howlers, as discussed above, but I don’t think that they get everything totally wrong all of the time.
A Christian skepic, wondering if God still communicates with people in various ways today (as He did in OT & NT times), would have several questions that would need to be answered. First of all the “subjectivity” of such communication would have to be investigated. There’s at least four voices rumaging around in our minds seeking attention; God’s, the Devil’s, other people’s, and last but not least, our own. In 2 Tim. 3:17 we are told that the Bible is all that we need to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So, secondly, do we compromise the authority of the Bible when we accept ongoing and personal revelation? What’s to stop someone from claiming that they have new scripture? Which leads to the third question, what’s to stop someone from abusing the “God told me or I have a revelation” line in an attempt to manipulate and control others. There are, to say the least, a lot of problems associated with the concept of personal and/or corporate on-going revelation from God. So for the Christian skeptic, the answer to the questions regarding revelation from God comes full circle back to the Bible. Anything that runs contrary to God’s Word is rejected. The standard is the Bible. This is why Mormonism is rejected by Christians. First of all, Mormonism down- grades the Bible to a corrupt book. Therefore, in the minds of Mormons, it can’t be trusted to test revelation. So what Mormons are left with is a free flow of ideas supported by “spiritual” feelings. Looking at the quality of content produced by Mormon prophets ought to be enough to have a few lights go on in the minds of Mormons. But it doesn’t. Mormons cut the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to fit as needed. Looking at the puzzle we see a mish mash of images and colors and incoherent lines that produces no clear picture at all, just confusion. The author of confusion is the devil. He makes Mormonism with its on going revelation, his own private playground.
Using the criteria of the LDS critics here, I venture to say that if you lived among the prophets of old, many of them would not meet your criteria for who can be a prophet. I think it is very naïve to believe that if you were around those men it would be obvious and easy to determine. Prophets are men. They are works in process, like all of us. And they are usually surrounded by people who make every attempt to make them look stupid and foolish. Why do you think a great many prophets are rejected by the majority of people? I am not dismissing criticism of modern prophets, but pointing out that it is always easier to look back into history and see men in a much more favorable light.
Falcon- your reference to 2 Tim 3:17 in no way says the Bible is a complete compilation of scripture- that is a huge jump in interpretation. In fact, anybody name one place where any prophet said that the Bible was complete, or that there was no more word of God. Interesting that Christ, more than once, said “it is written in the Law,” or “in the prophets,” yet what He quoted is not found anywhere in the Bible. What or whom was He quoting?
JessicaJoy- you say my personal revelation was suspect. Then you say that this type of inspiration needs to be tied to close study of the scriptures. That is my whole point- I immersed myself in the book of scripture for which I was seeking a revelation- The Book of Mormon. How can I know what I am praying about without studying it? In the end, your “trail” of logic leaves a great proportion of God’s children in the dark. Do you think many people in OT or even NT times had a complete copy of scripture- far from it. What were they, and everybody else, to do?
In my story, I was not putting my trust in the BOM, I was trusting in God. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The Spirit is the key.