The Great Advantage of Mormonism--If We Choose to Accept It

Apart from claiming unique authority to act in God's name on the earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages its members to seek truth, even if a significant part of the truth we find is not from a study of standard church doctrine. To the best of my knowledge, no other religious denomination is so confident in its teachings and principles that it encourages its adherents to look into every field, under every rock, and in every nook and cranny to discover what is true. Unfortunately, not enough members of the LDS Church realize this enormous blessing and challenge. In many ways, many members of the Church are just like members of other denominations--limited by their creeds, superstitions, and ignorance.

Joseph Smith taught that:
...the most prominent difference in sentiment between Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the [sectarians] were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived the members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints...are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.
That might surprise some of you who are not members of the LDS Church, based on LDS Church members that you know. But it's true.

I have much more respect for someone who opposed Proposition 8 on the grounds of their personal pondering and research than someone who voted for it because their Church leaders were in favor of it.

If there's a new scientific discovery, members of the LDS church are expected to determine for themselves whether the discovery is based on fact. If a supposed new social, political, or economic truth comes about, we are essentially bound by Church doctrine to neither ignore nor discount it. This is a nice theory. However in reality...


It's been said that it's not possible for any member of the LDS Church, including its leadership, to preach falsehood from the pulpit--because church congregations are able to be guided by the same Spirit of Truth that the speaker claims to be led by. Statistically, however, I suspect it would be fairly easy to get a sample congregation which could be led astray--because not enough Mormons think for themselves.

Even in the case of homosexual marriage, the LDS

It's been said that it's not possible for any member of the LDS Church, including its leadership, to preach falsehood from the pulpit--because church congregations are able to be guided by the same Spirit of Truth that the speaker claims to be led by. Statistically, however, I suspect it would be fairly easy to get a sample congregation which could be led astray--because many Mormons don't think for themselves.

Church hierarchy did not require its members, at the peril of their memberships, to vote in favor of Proposition 8. Unfortunately, many members of the Church didn't take the time to find out which side of the issue they were really on--or why. I have much more respect for someone who opposed Proposition 8 on the grounds of their personal pondering and research than someone who voted for it because their Church leaders were in favor of it.

Joseph Smith also taught:
Mormonism is truth; and every [one] who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck...
What a cool thing! Or at least it should be. I know enough Mormons (far too many by Joseph Smith's standards) who are steeped in bigotry, ignorance, and superstition, largely because they're either (1) working to pay off their credit cards, (2) watching Survivor, Dancing with the Stars, and CSI: Pluto most nights of the week, or (3) both. I hope that, for other reasons, I am not, from time to time, one of the ignorant, superstitious, Mormon bigots.

What I like most about

It might take us all a while to get there, but as we ponder and reason with each other, if we sincerely want to arrive at the truth--and not at the victory of our own personal dogma--the truth will prevail.

the internet is the genuineness of blogging. I'm disappointed that not more Mormon internet users share the zest of searching for truth that most bloggers enjoy. Simple Utah Mormon Politics has become part of my personal search for truth. It is usually after great study that I put my ideas and feelings down in a blog article. Although I wish more people would participate in the conversation here at SUMP, I am grateful for those of you who do share your insights with me--and occasionally correct my shortsightedness.

Not only was Joseph Smith a wise man, he was also a perpetual optimist. Along these lines, he opined:
I have always had the satisfaction of seeing the truth triumph over error, and darkness give way before light.
I think Mr. Smith will be proven right. It might take us all a while to get there, but as we ponder and reason with each other, if we sincerely want to arrive at the truth--and not at the victory of our own personal dogma--the truth will prevail.

Whatever that turns out to be--in individual cases as well as in the aggregate--as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I pledge myself to try to recognize it--and to accept it when I do.


  1. Nice pledge, Frank. I am sure you are fairly honest about it. All of us though have our subjective limitations. But there are huge objective ones also. For us, LDS it is the notion that the lord will never suffer the Church to be led astray. That is why we do not question ideas coming from our leaders, moreover the top ones. That is why every devout LDS considers it a blasphemy to go against any, even non religious idea coming from the top leaders. It is hard to see the flaws of the top leaders even after being coherently explained and shown.

    The truth is that the Lord never ever said He would not suffer the Church to be led astray. There is absolutely no such a scripture. On the contrary, in his third chapter Isaiah, describing the last days, laments saying "O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isaiah 3:12)

    So, it is perilous to trust the current leaders of the church. I often advised you to leave aside the Church indoctrination in order to see the truth.

    Mormons, in general, are obediently following their leaders because they are very comfortable with what they are hearing, the pseudo-doctrinal precepts, rather than the doctrine. The same regular members vigorously oppose anyone, even from the same quorum, who dare to open and read inconvenient parts of the Doctrine. They declare him from Satan without even bothering to look into the scriptures read. I have been several times stopped while reading from the D&C. I was called to the Bishop's office for preaching the inconvenient parts of the Doctrine. It was so (I cannot find the epithet) when the bishop finally said "Br. Anonymous, whatever you are saying is all in the boundaries of the Doctrine, but is out of the Church mainstream," thus suggesting me to keep in the boundaries of the mainstream.

    Do you see now why are we, Mormons, the most abominable in His eyes. There are numerous indications in the scriptures how great will be the fall of the most abominable Church.

    Whatever was said is, of course, out of the boundaries of things you are ready to accept now. But faithful to your own creed, you better apply a fresh look, at least.

    Truth = God (remembering, I am the Truth, the light and the way) any truth, first the truth about yourself, your family, country, etc., any scientific, economic ot religious truth. When he said "I am the truth" He did not mean only religious truth. That is why Joseph Smith taught that "Mormonism is truth."

  2. While I enjoy blogging to a degree, and I consider it occasionally helpful in guiding my personal search for truth, I also often consider it a guilty pleasure.

    The scriptures admonish us to seek wisdom and learning out of the "best books" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14), and to "seek learning even by study and also by faith." Unfortunately, the general tone of the blogosphere could rarely be classed as something of that nature.

    A friend once advised that truth is best found near its source, much as stream water is usually more pure where it bursts forth from the mountain rock, rather than a couple of miles downstream after it has passed through a number of cattle fields. Good water can still be found downstream, but it usually requires stringent filtering. To me, finding truth on the Internet is like that. It's available, but can be had only after a great deal of filtering.

  3. I gave a talk that focused on this topic a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas that I shared seems applicable here. The title of "Latter-day Saint" is generally less descriptive of who we are individually and more descriptive of who we are striving to become. If we are to become worthy of that title it will be by seeking to know truth from any source where we can find it.

    Speaking only for myself, I have never found it necessary to contradict anything spoken by our senior leaders today. In fact, my experience has been that during my own personal (and never ending) search for truth I have generally come to very similar conclusions on my own to what our leaders are saying. Even when they make a pronouncement that many apparently find surprising or disturbing I find that I have already come to substantially the same conclusion in my own life. Everything they say seem to confirm things I have already believed and if they say something that I have not considered I seek to understand it for myself. I have, at times, found interpretations of the words of the church leaders by other members which contradict my understanding, but I have never found their actual words to really contradict what I have learned on my own.

    I completely agree that pure truth is to be found at the sources (which is never the internet) but I have found that the internet can be helpful in the search for truth because as I find degrees of truth in those downstream sources I can then move upstream to explore the truth at the source in streams I might otherwise have never found to sample.

  4. Dear David,
    The only reason you "have never found it necessary to contradict anything spoken by our senior leaders today" is because while evaluating their word you have always compared it with yours, which was already shaped by theirs. The correct way would be to compare their word with GOD's, with the scriptures, WITH THE SOURCE.

    There are numerous pseudo-doctrinal principles preached from high places by the top LDS leaders. For example, a couple of conferences ago an apostle came up with a talk to state that the Heavenly Father does not expect us to be perfect (actually he pronounced the exact sentence) although there is a commandment "Be perfect such as your heavenly father is perfect."

    And when you elaborate on the title of "Latter-day Saint" stating particularly that it "is generally less descriptive of who we are individually" you are right. But this only de facto. And when you continue and state that it is "more descriptive of who we are striving to become" you are not right, since we are not striving to become saints, in other words perfect. Why? At least because our top leaders find that the Heavenly Father does not expect us to be perfect=saint. And this also de facto.

    But if your statement implies that it is how it should be, that it is a groundless expectation to find ready saints among LDS, you are again mistaken. Where did you get that, actually? Can you support it with a scripture? Although achieving perfection is a process, one cannot become a Church member unless he is converted, in other words has gone through the process, has purified himself, was ready to accept the Doctrine and after being preached to, accepted it, by showing it via baptism, thus becoming one of the LDS. You are forgetting that the task of the missionaries is not to teach and convert but to find (people with true blood=Priesthood) and to invite to join. The current Church policy to invite everyone, notwithstanding the motive of the individual, to join, has brought the Church to complete disarray. Eventually causing to adjust the Doctrine to match the overall spiritual level of the members, to lower the bar continually finally reaching a point where the true Doctrine is not welcomed to be taught in the Church.

  5. Is this a joke? The Church regularly discourages its members from reading material that is not "faith promoting".

    I'd be interested in hearing how your local church leaders would react if you told them that you were studying the Godmakers (Decker), Born Again Mormon (McCraney), Utah Lighthouse Ministry website (Tanner).

  6. Or continuing revelations by the School of Prophets.

    Man, the Church persistently does everything to prevent its members from reading its OWN DOCTRINE! President Monster, sorry Monson is a shining example of avoiding to address the scriptures while delivering a point.

    Read "Approaching Zion" by Hugh Nibley. And you'll see how far we have deviated from the Doctrine.

  7. The father promised in D&C112 that the destruction of the World will start with us, LDS, His house.

  8. Reach,

    You are correct that the stream is muddy. Hopefully we can find the few tributaries that feed in that are not sullied by nonsense.


    I agree with the following statement:

    [Prophets not leading us astray] is why every devout LDS considers it a blasphemy to go against any, even non religious idea coming from the top leaders.

    It's interesting that you and I could so much disagree on whether their religious ideas are accurate. I think they are accurate, and I think they comport with what Nibley says in "Approaching Zion". David explains my perspective very well: experience has been that during my own personal (and never ending) search for truth I have generally come to very similar conclusions on my own to what our leaders are saying.

    Gnostic makes a great point about Doctrine and Covenants 112 ("on my house shall it begin"). I think, contrary to Anonymous's implications, that that is applicable currently to the rank and file of the church.

    I've spent a bit of time looking into the Godmakers, the Tanners' stuff, etc. From what I've seen, to me going down this path is a prime example of being "limited by..creeds, superstitions, and ignorance."

  9. Frank,
    In what manner did the current Church notions 'comport' with Nibley's? And which ones? In his approaching Zion Nibley has criticized the notion of the abolition of the Law of Consecration. In general he was all against the current church policies and practices.

    Why do you think, though, that Gnostic's motive to bring in D&C112 does not match mine, about the total corruption in the Church from top to bottom?

  10. Anon,

    I didn't imply that you and Gnostic disagreed (for all I know, you are the same person). What I did say was that I disagreed.

    If you'd point me to the page(s) in "Approaching Zion" where Nibley criticized abolition of Law of Consecration, I'd be interested in reading that.

  11. Frank,

    You evaded my point entirely. I argued that the Church does not encourage its members to read material that is not faith promoting and you responded that you have read this material and not found it worthwhile.

    Fine, if you found the material not worthwhile, but the point remains that the church strongly encourages its members to avoid this, contrary to your initial comments

  12. Frank,
    You are persistently evading my points while focusing on technicalities and fabricating excuses. If you so disagree with me, you are welcome to support your disagreements with at least a scripture. Can you bring in a scripture supporting the pandemic notion in the Church that the Lord "will never suffer the Church to be led astray." If you do that I'll see what I can do about directing you to Nibley's criticism of the abolition of the Law of Consecration by the Church leaders.

    The D&C 112 is not about the Church (regular) members, but rather all the Church (including the top, the leaders). The Lord has not specified, 'regular members only'. It is nothing but a wishful thinking to believe He has implied only the regular Members of the Church.

    D&C 112
    25 And upon my ahouse shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
    26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

    While addressing the issue do not forget to consider Isaiah 3:12. Also, D&C 85:6-8.

    If you could figure out that Gnostic is my pseudonym, you sure can intelligently address all my points if desired.

  13. Anonymous/Gnostic - I must profess a state of amusement as I read your posting. It reminds me of the last round of postings where we went round and round. The conclusion I have reached is that you have limited your definition of what scripture to exclude the spoken words of the prophets after those recorded as sections in the D&C. I think the "mainstream" church believes in continuing revelation and that our current prophet can give us scripture as easily as Joseph Smith can.

    From your comments it would appear that you feel the church is in a state of apostasy and I wonder that you would remain a member of an apostate group. I also wonder whom you view as having the keys of the priesthood? We were promised they would never be taken from the earth, D&C 13, I think that still falls inside the realm of what you view as scripture. If it is not Thomas S Monson, who is the prophet and mouthpiece of the Lord, who leads his people in this the dispensation of the fullness of times?

    I find most of your arguments to be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. 2 Nephi 9: 28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. You are argumentative and not at all humble nor do you give the impression that persuasion, meekness and love unfeigned could sway you. If we were to meet in person I would wonder what spirit would be manifest by your professions of "truth". It is no wonder that you cloak yourself in anonymity, dare I say darkness. You would probably find yourself having the opportunity to explain your views to 15 high priests and answer their questions, assuming you actually hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

    Now that I spewed all that I will have to go and repent, which is in the scriptures I am sure. Why have on going repentance if we are to be perfect after baptism. We all transgress laws both, which we are aware of, and ones, which we are not. Bah!!!! I waste my time.

  14. PS Anon - Hugh Nibley was not an apostle and I wonder why you would prefer his works to the words of modern prophets. I am not saying his works are not of worth I just marvel that you would try to use his works to discredit the church leaders, whom he must have sustained as prophets, that being a requirement to be a professor at BYU. Very curious.

  15. Frank, good post by the way :)

  16. Excellent Post Frank! Hopefully you aren't hauled before a disciplinary counsel for promoting the search for truth though. I say that in jest here, but at the same time, I could see my current Stake President & Bishop trying doing just that.

    Throughout my youth I was taught that members of the Church were obligated to seek for truth and embrace it, from all sources. However the same people who taught me that, have recently chastised me for 'this questioning garbage' and not 'following the prophet with perfect obedience'. To each his own I guess.

    I think the beauty of the LDS faith is the belief in free agency, and with that the responsibility of each individual to work out their own path while in this earthly probably.

    Like Frank, I appreciate the opposing and thoughtful views presented on this blog and others, and while I may disagree at times with some, or others like dear old Anonymous may honestly believe that I am headed on a straight course for hell, there is still great value in their opinions.

  17. None are more enslaved than those who believe they are free.

    Paraphrasing it for your case, dear friends, "None are more misled than those who believe they are not."

    I have tried my best to persuade you patiently, while sacrificing a lot of time and efforts. Which I do not regret much about. The only thing I regret is that it did not have any impact.

    It would be better if instead of parroting me back whatever you already know, you faced the challenge and brought me a scripture ( which you believe is a scripture) to prove that, for example, the Lord has supposedly stated that the church will never ever be led astray.

  18. Anon/Gnostic - while "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." These are not the source of Truth, ultimately that come from God directly through revelation. The scriptures are the words of God through his servants the prophets, but as Nephi was able to see the same vision of his father we also are able to gain for ourselves testimonies through the Holy Ghost. This is one of the points Frank was making in his post.

    If you want to have an intellectual argument using just the verses of the scriptures we will dance around in circles as the words themselves do not wholly contain the truth. In the Book of Mormon it was lamented they were weak writers but powerful speakers because the spirit would carry the message to the hearts of the people. The truth is still conveyed in the same manner, it is through our ability to listen to the still small voice that we truly learn.

    You try to ridicule a person, David in this case, implying that he is a dumb sheep and never reads the scripture and has been blinded by the teaching of church leaders. I find this incredibly insulting, I doubt that David as an intelligent adult would simply allow others dictate his thoughts, go read his blog. You should really take as a basis of discussion the idea that some of us have read the scriptures, we listen to church leaders and have felt the Holy Ghost confirm what we have learned to be true. We have been to the source and have been filled. We obviously do not know all things but we have a pretty good idea of where we are and where we want to be and the path to get there.

    I do not think the brethren teach it is a sin to read works other than those that promote faith. They simply point out that there are better ways to spend our time. Just as I would expect them to say watching TV, reading a novel, or posting on a blog does little to increase our testimonies. I also think they warn us to avoid certain sources as they can shake the testimony of the weak or even the strong. I am reminded that Satan is the father of all lies and quite good at blending truth and error in such a way as to confuse the children of men, his minions are adept pupils and go about leading the people astray. You will probably agree with that statement and then point back to church leaders as those doing the leading astray.

    By the way for all your lamenting others dodging a question you still have not answered mine. Who holds the keys of the priesthood today?

  19. PAR08
    I admire your fervent speech defending the Church leaders, the host of this blog, David, and of course yourself.

    Is it really so offensive to suggest David to compare the words of the leaders with the SOURCE? And why are you answering for David? In his place I would be greatly offended. Don't you realize that by answering for him you are belittling his intelligence.

    It was you, though, who walked away from a conversation with me leaving unanswered my numerous questions. You are still avoiding to face my challenge to bring up either a scripture or any word spoken by a prophet of God stating that THE LORD WILL NEVER EVER SUFFER THE CHURCH TO BE LED ASTRAY. Why is it so hard?

    To support my point I have brought up Isaiah 3:12. See also, D&C 85:6-8.

  20. Since you said we could quote anything we view as scripture I will quote several I accept. I will not be arguing whether they are scripture or not.

    The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

    President James E. Faust
    Nov. 2005 GC "Called and Chosen"
    The President of the Church will not lead the people of the Church astray. It will never happen. President Hinckley’s counselors sustain him fully, as do the Quorum of the Twelve, the Quorums of the Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric. As a result, as I have said before, a special love and harmony exist in the presiding councils of the Church for our President and for each other.

    Elder Spencer W. Kimball
    Apr. 1951 GC
    No one in this Church will ever go far astray who ties himself securely to the Church Authorities whom the Lord has placed in his Church. This Church will never go astray; the Quorum of the Twelve will never lead you into bypaths; it never has and never will

    President Joseph Fielding Smith Apr. 1972 GC
    I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord

    Elder Marion G. Romney
    Oct. 1960 GC
    I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray’

    President Gordon B. Hinckley
    First Presidency Message Jan 2001
    Be loyal to the Church under all circumstances. I make you a promise that the authorities of this Church will never lead you astray. They will lead you in paths of happiness.

    D&C 68:4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

    D&C 1: 38
    What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

    Ok I answered your question please answer mine.

  21. Pertaining to Isaiah 3:12 do you really think that scripture is a prophecy of our day? Does it apply to our spiritual leaders or temporal leaders at the time when Israel was ruled by kings?

    And D&C 85:6-8 again does this apply to the church today or the saints in Missouri?

    Any scripture taken out of context may seem to say something it does not.

    I am quite sure David is able to defend himself he is probably just wiser and does not allow himself to be drawn into discussions with someone which have no hope of leading to anyone getting enlightened. I on the other hand seem to enjoy wasting my time in such pursuits.

    By the way what I found insulting is the implications that people, such as David, do not do exactly what you say they should, they just come to different conclusions. You seem to think that as they have a different view they must be ignorant of the scriptures.

    If David was indeed insulted in any way I would expect him to let me know, I am capable of making an apology:)

    FYI google search "lead the church astray" not very hard at all. But then I suspect you are familiar with many of these quotes:)

  22. You forgot to bring in a statement by Brigham Young, (which actually started all this chain of statements by his successors) sounding, "If you keep the commandments, the lord will not suffer you to be led astray."

    Pay attention that initially there was a CONDITION, "If you keep the commandments." The PROBLEM is that this condition was maliciously removed. Consequently the Church ended up with a false statement with only the last half of the sentence. Additionally, we are not keeping the commandments, none of us, including the leaders. So, all your examples starting from Declaration 1 to Gordon B. Hinkley's 2001 message are falsified reflections of Brigham Young's statement. It is possible, though, that they were repeating it without any understanding that by doing so they were fabricating a very dangerous pseudo doctrine and paving a way astray. But, again it may make them innocent but never prophets of God.

    D&C 68:4 is about "all those who were ordained unto this priesthood." Which Brigham Young's successors are not. Otherwise they would not take his statement out of context and fabricate one with completely different meaning. If they were priesthood holders they would get it.

    D&C 1:38 is about things spoken "by the voice of my servants." Which, again Brigham Young's successors are not for the same reason.

    In general none of your quotes can stand against Isaiah 3:12, also, D&C 85:6-8.

    Although you walked away and did not answer my questions (a couple of weeks ago) on the scriptures pertaining to the blasphemies against the Holy Ghost, I will answer your question, "Who holds the keys of the priesthood today?" it is very simple, those who hold the Priesthood. You should have asked, who holds the Priesthood. I have not met any Priesthood holder in the Church.

    There are innocent, faithful, devout believers like yourself. There are maybe very knowledgeable, even valiant people. But none are Priesthood holders. Priesthood means Godly Intelligence and assumes state of being perfect, free of natural man features, a saint. And again one becomes free of natural man features, a saint, Priesthood holder both by blood and by keeping the commandments. The Priesthood is not given by laying on of hands. By laying on of hands it is recognized only and only keys (rights) of the Priesthood are given. Priesthood can only be obtained. The Godly Intelligence cannot be given, moreover in a couple of minutes.

  23. Again let David speak for himself, please. Additionally, I still have some hope to enlighten you. I do not feel I am wasting my time. but if this is a waste of time for you which you for some mysterious reason enjoy, then I am really wasting my time.

    About Isaiah 2 is about the last days (at least from the introduction). Chapter 3 describes in very detail the present condition of our days. Isaiah can be interpreted any way one's mind may dictate. But with Zion he could not mean Jews. And why would the Lord care to speak about secular leaders. Any revelation or Doctrinal principle is given to His people, His house, to the righteous. So, it is more likely than not that it is about us.

    D&C85 cannot be about Joseph Smith's time. If it were the Lord would specify. Numerous times the Father has addresses to concrete people in D&C. Why would He Choose to do otherwise. He is obviously talking about some time in the future of the Church. And this revelation has attended Joseph Smith continually. D&C 85:6 Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and OFTEN TIMES it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying.

    Sorry, I have to go to bed.
    Good night

  24. Wow, here we go again. You took a left turn and ended up in "La La land".

    It is just you supposition that the later statements are corrupt versions of the one you quoted, sort of. Here is the full text. FYI I do not hold all of JOD as scripture.

    Brigham Young -
    “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth. Your leaders are trying to live their religion as far as [they are] capable of doing so” (in Journal of Discourses, 9:289).

    He seems to imply the leaders, himself included, were not perfect. They must not have been priesthood holders either.

    Please list all the perfect people who have held the priesthood? Was Joseph Smith? Moses? Aaron? Peter James & John? Alma? Nephi? Elijah? Orson Hyde perhaps?

    You may be confusing priesthood power with authority.

    I am going for another walk : )

    Good night

  25. RAP08
    Even in your quote from Brigham Young there is an IF statement.

    Brigham Young -
    “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray IF you are found doing your duty." In other words IF we are found to keep the commandments and listening to the prophet of God, Brigham Young. But did we do our duty, actually our predecessors. The answer is NO. They did not listen to Brigham Young, did not keep the commandments, thus often making him angry on the rest of the members. So, because the Church members did not do their duty, the promise lost its value. But if you want to sleep like a babe, you may do so.

    "They must not have been priesthood holders either?" Are you saying that Brigham Young did not consider himself to be a Priesthood holder?

    One must have a Priesthood to be able to know what it is and who else holds it.

  26. I am sorry I often times assume things are clear when apparently they are not. You are fixing your point on the first sentence and I was showing that the following sentences gave the same message as those given by subsequent prophets.

    My reference to the leaders of the times not being perfect and thus not able to be priesthood holders was a reflection back to you previous arguments:
    Priesthood means Godly Intelligence and assumes state of being perfect, free of natural man features, a saint.
    Since Brigham Young indicated that the leaders were try the best they were capable of that they must not have been perfect, I am sure he would have said they were perfect if they were. You then imply they could not be bearers of the priesthood.

    To be perfectly honest, I think you are full of crap. You stated previously that you are a member of the church, though I guess I assumed that to the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which I now doubt. You refer to the scriptures but then some how the church fell into apostasy after Brigham Young? Why not after Joseph Smith that is at least a more logical time period for disagreement on sucession. but once Brigham Young was sustained and the sucession was established why then think the leaders went off the deep end?

    I think you no more believe what you post than I do. You seem to thrive on the argument and when it ends you lament it loss. The reason I ended our previous discussion is that you are the example of what you claim to dislike most in others, you do not adress points raise you try to find a new point or revisit an old one dismissing all that was presented.

    I seriously done now, Frank please delete my future posts on this topic if I get sucked in again. Some times a brother needs a little help knowing when to quit. Thanks in advance!

    PS I know that President Monson is a true servant of the lord. He has been called to be his holy prophet. I will follow him as I would the Lord. I feel the same about all the prophets that I have known in my life and by association all those that came before. I know this of my self by personal revelation, in Jesus name Amen.

  27. Rap08 with "your leaders" Brigham Young meant not the future Church presidents but those ones standing between the regular members and the apostles of his time. It is a wishful thinking to believe that he meant the future Church presidents.

    True priesthood Holders ARE perfect. I am not changing whatever I had said. One cannot be a Priesthood holder without being perfect, free of natural man features, a saint. Again, Brigham Young meant the current church leaders, bishops, stake presidents, etc. of his time when he said that they are not perfect. By that he did not meant to say that one may not be perfect while holding the Priesthood. The only thing he meant was that they may make mistakes such as any human being.

    I would again urge you and all of the others to study the SOURCE rather than anything coming out of the leaders' mouths. Whatever the leaders may say may be applicable for their time only. One needs to discern what is said for their time only and what is for the future. And again, one needs to have a Priesthood to distinguish those things.

    I would also suggest to not rush to use offensive epithets. It is still a question who is full of it.

    Try to do a little experiment and show the portrait of Thomas Monson to a person who has absolutely no clue who he is, asking him/her to choose one of several possible answers to a question, who he is, A. a Monk, B. a Mafiosi, C. a Worker, D. a Prophet, E. a Banker, F a Peasant, G. a Businessman, etc. The more people you ask the better.

    But if you want to sleep like a babe, you may do it. Good night.

  28. I get it now!!!

    What Gnostic has been trying to tell us, is that by virtue of him being perfect, he is the only true priesthood holder ever to walk the earth, with the exception of Christ.

    Therefore, anything he says has to be the absolute truth and cannot be questioned.

    We can also then deduce from his comments about showing people the picture of President Monson is that perfection is all about how you look, and not what you do.

    This is further evidenced by his suggestion that we not listen to the words of a prophet, by rather examine the source... Obviously implying to see how the man is dressed, what hair style he wears and whether he is clean shaven or not.

    Now if I can just figure out how I'm supposed to look, so that I can be a true priesthood holder, rather than the misguided abomination to God that I have apparently become, while following the prophet, lo these many years.

  29. UK
    The only thing you got is your sick imagination, on top of your venomous assumptions. Are you really enjoying your low life form tactics?

  30. Based on what you've said about me in the past, I would think you'd expect this kind of thing from me.

    Now for a righteous true priesthood holder like unto yourself, I would have expected a more mature approach.

    Low life form tactics - come on dude, give me more credit than that. Way to take the high road.

    Venomous assumptions - you're the king of assumptions.

    And as for my imagination - you know this because... Oh that's right, righteous priesthood holder assumptions...

  31. My mistake,
    I guess I have put too many pearls in front of you.

  32. Anon/Gnostic,

    I apologize for the rude way in which I phrased my previous posts. Additional proof that I am not perfect :) You really do agravate me at times, which shows I could never run for office because I would blow up after listening to my opponent state his position over and over.

    Any way have a merry Christmas!!


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog