Close Topic Options

Am I A Mormon Apostate? - Page 3

QUOTE

Essentially, I was on the verge of just ignoring the forum.

On a lighter note... Then you would fall into category 'b'? :laugh:

On a more serious note... why limit the 'depth' of what you are looking for in doctrine to just this board. We have so many other issues here to cover, especially in the International News and mature section. Not everything discussed has to be based on the JofD or Brigham Young. I would enjoy your intellect on other than doctrinal points too if you care to oblige. All the best to you Nighthawk.

Apostate Mormon I Am

QUOTE

The problem that I see is that I am accused of being close-minded, but I get the same answers from everyone.  I quote scriptures, discourses by Prophets and Apostles, as well as my own opinion.  I just get the same answers again.  How about some depth to the discussion?

I haven't seen anyone here refer to you as closed minded, but I might have missed it.  The problem for me is that I believe strongly that modern day prophets are more relevant for us today and what we are to do than are those in the past.  What I mean is that I believe that things change and part of what a prophet does is communicate those changes to us as a people.  So, if there is a difference between what Joseph Smith said about a particular topic and what is done today, if I can follow how the change came about then I don't see it as a conflict.  I feel the same way about scripture.  In fact, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both indicated that a living prophet "trumps" scripture.  (See my earlier post for the details regarding this statement.)  So, I don't know how to discuss this particular topic further with you.

It seems to me that you don't agree that one prophet can change what was practiced under the "reign" of another prophet.  I do, so when you quote differences, I am not sure what to discuss because of my belief that it presents no conflict.

Am I A Mormon Apostate? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Actually, I have tried a few other subjects.  There didn't seem to be much response to my discussion in other areas, but I have read a lot of the discussions.

Doctrinal discussions are where my heart and mind are tied up right now.

NightHawk

Page 3 Apostate Mormon I Am

QUOTE

What I mean is that I believe that things change and part of what a prophet does is communicate those changes to us as a people.

I agree, to a certain extent.  I don't believe that what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, among others, taught were essential doctrines can be changed to be non-essential.  The same with practices.  Policies and programs?  No problem.  Doctrine?  Possible problem.  Depends on whether it is a change or greater understanding.

I don't believe that doctrines of eternity change.  I don't believe that God changes His mind about what is important.  So, if what Brigham Young taught on essential doctrines and practices is incorrect, as current practice and policy indicates, then what of his teachings can we trust?  None of them?  That is what it appears to me.

QUOTE

I feel the same way about scripture.  In fact, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both indicated that a living prophet "trumps" scripture.

I am not sure how I feel about this.  I read your earlier post, and it served to confuse the issue very much for me.  I understand it and agree with it in that the living prophet can explain and expand upon scripture, and can give new scripture.  However, nobody since Joseph F. Smith has given new scripture.  And the expanding of scripture that has been given has generally appeared to be on the order of making us more acceptable to Babylon.  In many things, I see current policies and practices as being focused more on "image" than on doctrine.

QUOTE

It seems to me that you don't agree that one prophet can change what was practiced under the "reign" of another prophet.  I do, so when you quote differences, I am not sure what to discuss because of my belief that it presents no conflict.

You are right.  I don't believe that one prophet can "trump" another.  If they can, then what use is scripture?  If Isaiah says, as I understand he does, that Ephraim in the last days will apostatize in general, but a living prophet says that all of Ephraim is safe, which should I believe?  If Nephi warns us against those who say "all is well in Zion" and a living prophet says "all is well in Zion" which one do I belive?  Do I reject the words of Nephi?

Isaiah specifically speaks about people in the last days who change the ordinances and break the everlasting covenant.  There is only one group of people who have these ordinances and covenants, and they have all been changed - to improve the image, to make us more acceptable to Babylon.  Is Isaiah wrong?  If so, what else is he wrong about?

NightHawk

Apostate Mormon I Am

QUOTE

I don't believe that what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, among others, taught were essential doctrines can be changed to be non-essential.

I believe it is all essential so I don't believe I can pick and choose what might change and what can't change.  I don't believe I want to second guess Heavenly Father.  

QUOTE

I don't believe that doctrines of eternity change.  I don't believe that God changes His mind about what is important.

I agree with you I think.  I believe though, that his requirements might be different for people today vs. 1000 years ago or even 100 years ago.  The world is a different place.  Also, we are in a different stage of his plan for the earth as a whole.  It is possible that we get new revelation that appears to contradict, but is, in fact, all a part of the original plan.  "Line upon line, precept upon precept" could mean that as life on the earth progresses, the knowledge given to prophets and requirements for living a righteous life change as necessary to fully implement His plan for Man.  Just because we learn of it newly now, doesn't mean He didn't always intend it to change at this point in time.

QUOTE

I am not sure how I feel about this.  I read your earlier post, and it served to confuse the issue very much for me.

I don't see why it would be confusing.  Perhaps it doesn't fit with your belief that scripture rules.    (Just a little attempt at humor)  Anyway, unless the quotes are lies, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught this principal.  Did he teach us wrong?  If Joseph Smith says this is how it works, I don't see how I can argue.  He either was a prophet and restored the true gospel or he didn't.  When he was the prophet, I would think we would have to agree that what he taught was actually true and not misconstrued down through the ages to make us more paletable as a people.  If we change what he says with a later prophet, then maybe you can argue that it isn't right, but since this is something he said, it seems to me it has to be taken as truth.

QUOTE

You are right.  I don't believe that one prophet can "trump" another.  If they can, then what use is scripture?

I think that we can receive revelation for our day that is very different from what was expected 3000 years ago.  It doesn't diminish what was taught previously, but needs to be studied in light of all that has transpired in those 3000 years.  Times change, people change.  True the gospel doesn't really, but our ability to understand and reason does change so as we as a people change, is it unreasonable for Heavenly Father to change what he expects from us as a people?

QUOTE

If Isaiah says, as I understand he does, that Ephraim in the last days will apostatize in general, but a living prophet says that all of Ephraim is safe, which should I believe?  If Nephi warns us against those who say "all is well in Zion" and a living prophet says "all is well in Zion" which one do I belive?  Do I reject the words of Nephi?

Can you give me the scriptural reference in Nephi so that I can read it myself.  Also, please tell me where to find the quote where the living prophet says otherwise.  I want to read them both in context before I can form an opinion on this specific instance.

QUOTE

Isaiah specifically speaks about people in the last days who change the ordinances and break the everlasting covenant.  There is only one group of people who have these ordinances and covenants, and they have all been changed - to improve the image, to make us more acceptable to Babylon.  Is Isaiah wrong?  If so, what else is he wrong about?

 

I don't agree that the changes made have been made to make us more acceptable.
[offtopic]I am going to watch the Red Sox play the Yankees in Game 7 of the ALCS - Go Sox[/offtopic]

Am I A Mormon Apostate?

QUOTE

I don't agree that the changes made have been made to make us more acceptable.

Changes made to the most important ordinances were specifically to ease the condemnations heaped upon us by the "politically correct."

The acts to "outlaw" plural marriage (over 10 years after the Manifesto) were purely to make us acceptable to the United States.  Thus to improve our image.

I will have to do a little research on the other questions.

NightHawk

Am I Mormon Apostate - Page 3

QUOTE

If Isaiah says, as I understand he does, that Ephraim in the last days will apostatize in general, but a living prophet says that all of Ephraim is safe, which should I believe?  If Nephi warns us against those who say "all is well in Zion" and a living prophet says "all is well in Zion" which one do I belive?  Do I reject the words of Nephi?

What Prophet said 'All is well in Zion' and where is that recorded?.

Nighthawlk, let me ask you something first so I don't go insane trying to understand you lol
The reason you ask all this questions about the Prophets is merely for your own curiosity and expanding of your knowledge or is something that is bothering you or  jeopardizing your testimony somehow?. The reason I ask this is because you keep saying that you believe Pres. Hinckley is a Prophet of God, then why you put in doubt somehow his words?.

Am I Mormon Apostate Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

QUOTE

What Prophet said 'All is well in Zion' and where is that recorded?

I am still trying to find the reference.  President Hinckley said it, in conference.

While seeking deeper understanding, I have come across quite a few inconsistencies and contradictions, including a few principles and practices where current leadership are expressly opposed to principles and practices of earlier times.

I also have come to the conclusion that the "infallibility" doctrine that is currently taught is not right.  It is not that I doubt President Hinckley's words, not even a little bit.  It is that I don't like the idea of putting his words above the scriptures and teachings of previous prophets, without confirmation.

Again, except for the one verse you pointed out to me, I don't see any scriptural support for the idea that the church won't be led astray.  Instead, I see many, many references to the saints of the last days being led, or leading themselves, into apostacy, with only a tiny remnant of the "elect" remaining with Christ.

Of course, anyone who questions the "infallibility" doctrine seems to be counted with Judas these days.  And the question isn't whether or not President Hinckley is the truly annointed of the Lord, but with the general church attitude towards him.  It is no longer an attitude of love.  It is almost an attitude of worship, similar to how the Catholics rely on their "saints" (at least the way I see it).

NightHawk