Related Information to The Mormon Prophet Said So, Is That Enough?

The Mormon Prophet Said So, Is That Enough? - Page 28

Is your question: "Why if the Prophet said that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation did the prophets of the 19th century turn away from the doctrine?"

Have you read any history concerning plural marriage? Do you know why the Manifesto was given? Did you know that not all of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles singed the Manifesto? And that it wasn't sustained as revelation until years after it was given? Did you know that the government passed laws that forced the Church to give up the practice or lose their God given liberties and rights, and the right to be organized as a church? Did you know that many faithful members were imprisoned for living the law, and that the government had confiscated Church property, and was raiding the homes of almost all members in the those days right before the Manifesto?

The Lord never said that He made a mistake, that plural marriage was not of Him!No, as a matter of fact, the Church even after the Manifesto, all the way up to the prophet Joesph F. Smith, continued to practice plural marriage. The only reason it was then declared unlawful by the Church was because the Church wanted statehood for Utah, hoping that with such they would be able to create a state constitution that would then allow them to practice plural marriage freely. Their intention was never to give up the law of God.

Enough That So Prophet Mormon The

Name: Bro Man

Comments: Of course I know that. Utah is a state right? Where is the plural marriage? If that were the real issue why don't they allow it in South Africa where plural marriage is legal.

The Mormon Prophet Said So, Is That Enough? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Wait, what is your question again? Are you questioning the validity of the doctrine of plural marriage? If so, why don't you go to the topic on plural marriage. Since you have already asked here on this topic, I'll go ahead and try to answer your questions.

Plural marriage is not to be found because we as whole are not ready to live the Celestial law. When Zion is established, and those who prove themselves the 'pure in heart' are gathered in one, that is when plural marriage will once again be practiced.

The reason it is not practice even in countries where it is legal is because the Church has outlawed the practiced. Not because it is not of God, no, because if that were true than that would mean that the Prophet Joseph Smith was a deceiver; and would implicate that he was not a prophet. If he was not a prophet, then the Book of Mormon is a fraud, and the Church is not of God.

But we as Latter Day Saints known that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, and that the Church is of God.

So why did they outlaw it? Many believe that they were pressured to do so by the majorities public views of plural marriage, and government pressure. I myself know that God has advised His servants that it would be best if the practice was not allowed so that the Church would have a chance to become what it has become today(A World Wide Church). Although the Manifesto was not written by Wilford Woodruff alone, and though many believe that it is not revelation, I know that the results of revelation that Pres. Woodruff received is the Manifesto. Meaning it would not had been written had President Wilford Woodruff not received revelation concerning the immediate future of the Church's awful state if it decided not to renounce the practice.

Page 28 Enough That So Prophet Mormon The

The only thing I see missing here is we believe in continuous revelation. This means we aren't stuck on pass prophets words, because we have a current prophet. That means the doctrines we follow are what are taught by the current prophet, not the past. That isn't to say the past prophets don't have good doctrine, thats why we have scriptures of past prophets teachings. But there are many teachings that are only for that time and that place. They were true for that time, but that doesn't mean they are always true. New Revelation comes, new teachings come for our time and our place.

I know Joseph Smith and Brigham young where prophets, but that doesn't mean I need to follow everything they taught. What it means is I need to follow my current prophet and all he teaches.

I use the current teachings to interpret past prophets words. Thats how continuous Revelation works.

Enough That So Prophet Mormon The

Tell me, Mr.Tubaloth, what new teachings are you referring to? No prophet should contradict another. If that were the case it would prove the scriptures incorrect, and show that God is a changing God.

As far as prophets giving certain directions to generations of their time that much is true. But there should never be teachings that go against a prophet's of the past. That is like saying God says today baptism is required but tomorrow is a new day and in this new day God does not ask that of His children.

Truth is everlasting truth is eternal. What the heck do you mean they were true than but not now?

God does not take away truth but the Devil does.

The Mormon Prophet Said So, Is That Enough?

Name: Saint
Country:

Comments: That's an excellent comment Tabaloth, well said and I would agree completely.

In my opinion, those who have an 'issue' with what past prophets have said vs. The words of current prophets are either being too critical and in danger of losing whatever connection they have with Holy Ghost and the Church, or have already gone too far.

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote an article and it is an article called First Presidency Message Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.. Everyone should read it. It should clear up any controversy / questions / doubts / criticism that anyone has over the words spoken by past and present prophets. And if it doesn't, then I would say that person has traveled a very great distance down the road to apostasy. Read the article again.

One of the most interesting and profound statements in that article, out of many profound statements, was this:

I will only post the Points made by President Benson you will have to go to lds. Org for the content, found in June 1981 Ensign.

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

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

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say Thus saith the Lord to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

The Mormon Prophet So That Enough - Page 28

Saint, there are several issues with your points and I would like to address them:

Being too critical? Going too far? What do you exactly mean? The issue that I think is being raised is that yes, we believe in new revelation however, can a present and past prophet contradict each other on a specific issue? I think is a valid question.

Whoah, I think you're misjudging people who may have true concerns. It IS okay to question unless you believe the Prophets are infallible? (Point number 4 in Pres. Benson's talk) Are they according to you? If they are, then I truly understand your position on this issue, if you do not then I don't understand you.

Looking forward to your reply.

The Mormon Prophet So That Enough Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 28

The Prophet Joseph Smith said that "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet." The implication is that at other times, when he is not acting as a prophet, he may be speaking his own opinion, and we can rightly question those opinions. So, that raises the question, when is a prophet acting as a prophet? President David O. McKay assigned President J. Reuben Clark to address that issue in an address that he gave to the CES employees many years ago, and President Clark's conclusion was that a prophet is speaking as a prophet when he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and the only way that we can tell whether or not he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is if we, ourselves, have the Holy Ghost to bear witness to us that the Prophet is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Please note that he did NOT say that any time the Prophet is speaking in conference he is acting as a Prophet. The idea that everything that anyone says in General Conference is automatically inspired by the Holy Ghost is Mormon folklore and is not true. The Lord does not take away the free agency of the General Authorities while they are speaking in General Conference just to make sure that they don't make any mistakes while they are speaking in General Conference.

As for the Adam-God doctrine, that is a perfectly good theory, and the only problem with it is that it is flatly contradicted by the standard works of the Church, which the members of the Church have voted upon and accepted as scripture and the official doctrine of the Church. Furthermore, Brigham Young, himself, confessed that he had been wrong to teach it. Thus, those who teach it today are doubly wrong because they have the confession of Brigham Young on record to warn them against it, but the stubbornly insist on teaching it anyway.