General Conference

Thomas Monson, current Mormon Prophet

Hello everyone, well I did intend on doing a daily post while in Utah but I did not account for how busy I would be, having a great time meeting many people and visiting the key LDS spots such as temple square, institute classes, provo, amongst others.

I also managed to get tickets for the Saturday am session of general conference, for those that don’t know this is proably one of the most important events in the Mormon calender, it happens twice a year and its when the prophet Thomas Monson, as well as his first counsellors and various other general authorities bring teaching and revelation to the church.

The LDS view about their prophet is that when he speaks what he says is comparible with scripture, if he says something that contradicts past scripture or prophets then the most up to date revelation stands as true.

This at times has led to problems when past prophets have said things that can seem a bit out there. When Mormons have been challenged about these things they say “well that prophet did not say thus said the Lord”. Many LDS state that it is only when thus says the Lord is put before a comment that it is comparible with scripture.

However, one classic sermon from a past LDS president challenged this. Ezra Taft Benson in his sermon, wrote when he was one of the twelve apostles the 14 Fundimentals of following the prophet.

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

This was requoted at least twice I believe throughout the sessions on saturday. This shows that this is still current Mormon teaching which opens the door to many problems.

Brigham Young said your own blood must atone for some sins.
“There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247; see also, vol. 4, p. 53-54, 219-220).

Brigham Young said you must confess Joseph Smith as a prophet of God in order to be saved.
“…and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 312).

Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture.
“I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . ” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

And most significantly of all.

Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner!  When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.  He helped to make and organize this world.  He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days!  about whom holy men have written and spoken — He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.  Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).

These words came from a man who was the prophet, the mouthpiece of God for the Mormon church, and He said these things.

Today Mormons do not believe Adam is God however Brigham Young did, and the words of prophets are scripture. Did God change from being Adam to not? As that is the only way that this teaching from the prophet of God could have been true then but not true today. And if it was not true then, then how can Mormons trust this prophet Brigham Young? And if he can not be trusted how can any prophet since be trusted as all it takes is for someone else further down the line to say that what the past prophet said was wrong and then they are overruled, even if what they taught was not just something relevant for this time but something eternal.

Biblically we see that God does not change. Malachi 3:10 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The bible shows an unchanging God jealous for His glory, the LDS shows a god that has been a man, that man was possibly adam but they are still taught that God was once a man.

What if another prophet down the line rejects the teaching of God once being a man, the LDS members would have to accept it, this is the difference between following God and following men, God does not change, men most certainly do change.

Thanks for reading and please comment, also for those in the Utah or US area please watch heart of the matter tommorow night (5th October) details at this site, and you may hear a very fine british accent.

Tagged as: ,

12 Responses »

  1. Sadly Bobby, most Mormons don’t know these doctrines. The Journal of Discourses were recalled so many years ago. I didn’t even know that it existed until 3 years ago at the age of 38. I have been reading it online because I’m not sure where to even find a copy of all 26 volumes. Instead of talking about these things, they are hidden. Sometimes I won’t even argue a point with a family member because I realize that they don’t even know what it is they are defending, so therefore it isn’t fair. Keep bringing these points to light though!

  2. Hi, Bobby and others.

    There must be an addition to the statement you made about prophets speaking the word of God: their words are only scripture when they speak when moved upon by the Spirit of God. Please do a search on if you need confirmation of this.

    The Bible plainly states that men are imperfect, yet the Bible was written by mortals. How is this reconciled? Where is the “cosmic red pen” to make corrections in the errors that are included by the imperfections of man? This is the Holy Spirit.

    How can we know when a prophet (or anyone else) has spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit (when moved upon by it)? We, too feel it.

    True, as all mortals (save Jesus in his time) are imperfect, we can easily allow our own emotions to cloud out what is, and is not the Holy Spirit. One must put a lot of effort into one’s self in order to be quiet in one’s heart, so that the Holy Ghost can be heard clearly. This is remarkably hard to do, and Satan has invented many counterfeits for this feeling (such as those having to do with brain chemistry and enjoyment–which feel similar at times, but are not exactly like the warmth and peace of the Holy Ghost).

    I’ve heard it said by a very wise person that the only emotion that Satan can’t mimic is that of peace. Think about this. Is it true? Can the utmost antithetical person to the Prince of Peace feel that which he does not possess? How, then, could he cause somebody else to feel it? The answer is that he has no peace, and can neither invoke it.

    This is a large stumbling block to those both in and out of the Church. We typically accept that the feelings that the Holy Ghost will give us are generally “good” feelings, but we also know that many other things of an ungodly nature can also produce “good” feelings (drugs, illicit sex, etc.). The main difference is that ungodly things can produce pleasure and temporary happiness/fleeting joy, but they cannot produce lasting peace. Satisfaction of other sorts can evoke a temporary sense of “peace,” but it is not a lasting or truly deep one. Isn’t that why all of us here go to Christ for comfort? His peace is “not as the world giveth,” but as God giveth. It is deep and lasting (unless we cast it out by our unbelief, as in the parable of the sower).

    Think further: has any bad thing you’ve done in the past–any ungodly thing–produced a lasting feeling of peace? Did you not feel bad about it eventually? Did its thrill or comfort not flee from you eventually? But God’s gift of peace is different. True, we all have our free will to do as we please, but if we CHOOSE to do what is right and just, then we can retain the Lord’s gift of peace.

    Also: Not all of the people who worked on the English translation of the Bible, as well as previous translations of it were particularly “good” people. At the time of its translations from Greek/Hebrew to Spanish, to English (in that order, with perhaps some other steps midway), religion was the utmost form of political power. Only the wealthy and powerful people were sufficiently educated to read and write fluently, much less translate the Bible or any other text, especially of delicate/sensitive and eternal nature. Peasants were often FORBIDDEN to read the Bible! We should all be aware by now (if we have read even a little of the Bible or a good history book) that money and power corrupt, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely (pertaining to mortal men). So, ask yourself this: How do we have any kind of guarantee whatsoever that those rich and powerful people who were the only ones capable of translating the Bible at that time were willing to give up EVERYTHING they had in order to make a true and faithful translation (in the instance that the original texts proved their own past or present actions to be faulty and condemnable)? We have NO SUCH GUARANTEE other than the Holy Ghost!

    The Bible is certainly a good book, taken as a whole, but it was ultimately written (as many different books spanning several continents), compiled (into one book), and translated by–you guessed it–imperfect MEN. It, although being a very helpful and useful book in an eternal perspective, is most certainly NOT infallible. It has errors in translation, as well as the intent of those who put together the versions we have now.

    Does that make the Bible useless or untrue? No, of course, not. Just like the words of a prophet can be mistaken, and perhaps said under a false (emulated as above) sense of the Holy Ghost, or given as fact when they were actually opinion, so can the Bible be grossly misunderstood due to the emperfections of the men who put their work into making it available to all. Just like us, they were fallible; their language was fallible (since the tower of Babel); their motives were subject to every form of perversion and temptation, just like ours are. No priest is perfect. No prophet is perfect (except Jesus, of course–although even He was tempted beyond the imagination of mortal men).

    You say that because a previous prophet of the LDS Church was wrong about a point of doctrine (the statement about Adam being God being since debunked), and you claim that only the Bible can contain the word of God (as spoken through His prophets), but you neglect to consider that even the prophets that wrote the Bible were imperfect, and were often punished severely for it. After 40 years of leading a stubborn and rebellious people through the desert wilderness, Moses was forbidden to enter the Promised Land because he once neglected to give praise and credit to God at a crucial moment when bring forth water from a rock. Jonah refused the Lord’s errand to preach in Nineveh and was imprisoned in a whale for it. Even Jesus, in His mortal ministry did not know everything, as is indicated in this text from Psalms 22 (a prophesy written by the hand of King David, who despite his failures with Bathsheba and her husband still loved and served God as best he could):

    1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
    2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
    3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
    4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
    5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
    6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

    16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
    17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
    18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
    19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
    20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
    21 Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
    22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

    If Jesus had already known everything while in mortality, he would have also known at that moment that his requests could not be fulfilled, or all of creation would have been condemned. Of course, he did what he ultimately felt was the right thing to do, but not with considerable doubts plaguing his soul. (This is a very moving psalm, and I highly recommend re-reading it. You can find it here: )

    So, at long length, we come to this matter: how can we justly apply the imperfections of man to the preachings of one and not the other? If all mortal men are imperfect, then how can we know their works to be true without another confirmation from God, Himself? What other confirmation is there? You’re probably aware that no work can speak about itself and be taken to be truthful without outside confirmation; otherwise the logic becomes circular and the thinking false; but you have only cited the Bible as a source of confirmation to its own claims! You say that preachers who rely on the Bible alone, and shun the idea of confirmation by the Holy Spirit of God are a confirmation that the Bible is true, but their own confirmation, according to their own words rests in a circular logic! Can you answer any of these questions?

    This sort of thing (the fallacious nature of citing a single source as confirmation of its own truthfulness) is why I wrote the previous post on biases and logical fallacies. I hope you take these ideas to heart and think “outside the box” in your reply.

    Thanks for posting.


    • Dane Hi there thanks for responding, I was hoping some LDS would respond to what I said as I know that you do not believe that Adam is God.

      The issue is that Brigham Young taught this, he also taught that everything he taught was as good as scripture, and the 14 fundimentals teaching the prophet does not have to say thus said the Lord and that was reinforced at the latest general conference. So either he believed it, or he purposefully taught wrong doctrine. Bearing in mind the teachings of the 14 fundimentals including the point that the prophet cannot lead the church astray I would guess Brigham believed it. If Brigham taught it and believed it then that was considered at that time to be the truth, the fact that this teaching Has changed since heavily shows that the LDS church is led by man, as this is too big a deal to brush over and I would be happy to discuss this with you more.

      Regarding the bible, how the LDS church and it’s members deal with this does fascinate me on a few levels.

      Firstly I see this issue that LDS people have with the bible being corrupted and being changed by man a statement of faith, this is nothing new as the bible being true as it is translated correctly is in the LDS articles of faith. LDS members have to believe the bible has been corrupted as if it wasn’t it would include all of its original truths and teachings and therefore the LDS church would not be needed, or not as much, so therefore its members have to believe this, and it makes logical sense. The bible has existed a long time. So first point is you would be a bad LDS member to not follow the churches teachings that the bible has been corrupted.

      Secondly the LDS church criticises the Christian church for not including various books into the cannon of scripture gospel of Thomas etc, however the LDS church does not use these books either, probably for the same reason we do not as they are very contradictory to the rest of the bible, we get criticised by people who do not use these books for not using them, always interested me.

      Thirdly Joseph Smith produced the so called “inspired version” with various changes brought in the bible (including prophecies about himself in Genesis) this versionos so far away from the original texts that it makes the bible we have now look 100% infallible, interstingly the LDS church does not use this version it uses a version that it believes is corrupt and offers free copies of it.

      Fourthly we have thousands of early texts from around the world, these were from the original disciples following the call to go worldwide with the gospel, then 1 or 2 hundred years plus, later copies of the texts they took with them are still in existence now. Despite them appearing from various places the support they show for each other shows the texts we have now to be around 95-99% correct apart from due to grammer etc, no doctrinal problems. The fact that this is not 100% shows the bible is not innerant as it is not 100% without error meaning I share your belief that the bible is true as it is translated correctly. However it is infallible and totally reliable due to the textual support that we have, I would challenge you to look into the background of the bible and tell me your findings, additionally this is a study I am getting very much started with now too.

      Your feelings of peace in the LDS church are nice but no display of truth, buddists, hindus etc live very peaceful spiritual lives and I am sure if you spoke to them they may even be more peaceful than you or I, however this to me is no indication of truth, Jesus is the way the truth the life and I will happily discuss what He said with you.

      And yes you are totally right, the world, the church and everywhere is full of imperfect people, so again what about those that translated the bible?

      Imperfection is fine but this only goes so far, if someone is a false prophet then they are a false prophet.

  3. Correction to the above post (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

    Of course, he did what he ultimately felt was the right thing to do, but not WITHOUT considerable doubts plaguing his soul.

  4. I feel it necessary to clear-up some misconceptions.

    1) The fact that a prophet believes something does NOT make it “as good as scripture.” It is only so if that belief is reinforced and confirmed in the hearts of the members by the power of the Holy Ghost; otherwise it is no better than anybody else’s opinion.

    2) I’m not sure which scriptures you are referring to that the LDS church claims should be universally included into the Bible. Can you provide some examples (preferably with links to

    3) Joseph Smith was never able to complete his work in re-translating the Bible. He, himself stated that what he had done still contained many inaccuracies, and would not be fit for use as cannon until the work was done (presumably by a future prophet, as he was killed shortly thereafter). Some parts of it seem to be BETTER translations than exist in the King James version, but since they are still not properly complete in re-translation, they exist as footnotes and appendixes in the LDS publication of the King James Version of the Bible. Other passages that were evidently left out of the KJV, but which were restored by Joseph Smith are included in a similar fashion–as useful but incomplete corrections and translations. Below are some examples of this. Compare them to the existing KJV text, and see for yourself whether they fill some ambiguous gaps. The first one seems like the most obvious correction that was needed (in my opinion).

    4) I think it is a very good study to determine the origins of the various ancient writings that we have access to. I have done some little research on this myself, but I surely can’t tell all the pertinent details. I will continue this study as my energy levels permit. It is important to note that the original Christian church (established during Christ’s mortal ministry) did not last for longer than about 100-200 years. All the apostles were murdered by the faithless (as is accounted in the KJV and other versions), and many others went astray due to lack of proper leadership. Therefore, any writings dating back to after about 150AD are subject to the possibility of molestation by those of questionable faith and motives, most or all of whom probably never heard (in person) the words of the original apostles or Jesus. Once the apostles were killed, various other offshoot churches (including the Roman Catholic) were invented to fill in the religion/power gap and control the people. Hence, all writings NOT written by the original apostles or by previous faithful Christians (including Jews who anticipated the coming of the Messiah) are burdensomely at the mercy of a centuries-long game of “telephone.” They may or may not be completely accurate and faithful transcriptions of the original texts. They may or may not have been made up entirely or altered according to the whims of men.

    Therefore, which of the texts that you mentioned can be CONCLUSIVELY and ABSOLUTELY dated to before the fall of the original Christian Church (i.e. before all the apostles were murdered)? For obvious reasons, any uncertainty at all in the dating or attribution of such writings would make them essentially invalid as works of infallible cannon. They may still have a large amount of truth in them, but unless they can be ABSOLUTELY determined to have been written according the EXACT words of prophets and apostles, then they cannot be without error in any definite sense.

    5) The LDS church has never claimed to have a monopoly on truth; neither has the Christian church as established by Jesus (so far as I am aware). Jesus is, as He said, “the way, the truth, and the life,” but he besought his followers to search out truth in all places, rather than becoming hermits who only believe a small set of truths that are easily handed to them.

    I have done some academic study of various other religions, both of Asia and the Americas. They ALL have common threads. Even the most outrageous and incomprehensibly bizarre ones have strains of truth that hold them together. The Hmong folklore religion (from Asia, now common in some ethnic communities in North America), with all its oddities still supports many parts of the Bible.

    So, I challenge you to question whether you, yourself know every religious truth. Do you know all truths of a classically non-religious nature? Can any mortal man know all truths? Is it utterly impossible for a Buddhist or Hindi to come to a true knowledge that we Christians have been previously unaware of? Based on my readings (in and out of the LDS church), I have come to believe that we (Christians of any denomination) are absolutely NOT in possession of all truth. The Lord said that the truth will set us free. Why, then would we not search it out wherever it may be? Are not the Indians and Chinese also God’s children? Would he be so callous as to abandon them to complete exile from all true knowledge? I think not; he is a compassionate God, above all else. Even so, as men can forget, so, too, can a religion forget some teachings over the passage of millenia. Christianity, as remembered in the hearts and minds of men, is no different. As such, we cannot reasonably claim to have all religious truth at our disposal.

    In short, those peaceful religions that are, indeed bringers of peace and joy to their followers and those around them absolutely DO contain truth. Examine some of the common Buddhist teachings and see for yourself whether they see many things the way that Christ did. How many of the worlds religions believe that we should, as Christ taught, treat others as we wish to be treated? Almost all of the ones I have studied have that as a prominent point of doctrine, in some wording or other.

    6) My intent in pointing out the imperfections of previous prophets and apostles was to indicate that even the best of people–the ones who have an unequivocal right to scribe, transcribe, and translate scripture–do, themselves, make mistakes. So, seeing as no prophet in the Bible, save Jesus alone was perfect an always taught absolutely correct opinions and doctrines (as you can surely find such contradictions throughout the Bible), why, then would a modern prophet not also be subject to such imperfections, including in matters of doctrine?

    The people of the Church are NOT taught to blindly follow the prophet. They are taught to do so with their eyes, ears, minds, and hearts wide open, continually questioning God, Himself about the supposed truthfulness of each doctrine taught by any person, including the prophet. We hold that, in a very practical sense, the Spirit of God can expose to us the truth of all things. A prophet’s job is not to confirm doctrines unto us, so much as it is to bring doctrines to light for our own inquiry.

    I look forward to your reply, which I will read and respond to as energy allows. Thanks again for your thoughts.

    • Hey Dane that’s a great idea putting your points in numbers, makes it a lot easier to swallow :)

      And no rush on replying I might not get through all the points in this go anyway but I will do my best.

      1, So members need a testimony that what the prophet say’s is true, that is interesting but does not fit with the teachings of the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet which states that the prophet does not have to say thus said the Lord for it to be true, implying all the prophet says is true, and as someone else has commented it is what was taught as true in the church at the time, I just think it is easier to ignore these days. I have many copies of public and private documents of Young teaching this doctrine in his day very clearly. given the interest in this I might to a more in depth article on it sometime soon. However I accept you do not believe this and the church does not teach it, however it once did and it once was believed, that is the issue.

      2, Interestingly I have looked this up and I was wrong on this on the official LDS level, upon research I have found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 91 it is recorded that the LDS are not to have the Apocrypha in their scriptures, so therefore this has been dealt with. The reason I said it as in discussion forums LDS have criticsed the Christian church for removing the Apocrypha from the cannon of the bible, the reason being they are contradictory to the rest and their origin was not trustworthy, it seems the LDS church came to the same conclusion but not all members know it.

      3, Yes I understand that however as far as I am aware any changes smith did make took the bible even further from the texts we have.

      4, Ok understandably on this one you are thinking like a Mormon. You are going with the assumption that the Apostasy occured, I see this as a lie, Jesus promised His faithfulness to His church, although I appreciate that is a much longer discussion. Also you accept yourself this is a possibility that they may have been altered. This is because most LDS believe this because the LDS church tells them it is the case without offering anything other than speculation which is required to back up its own theology.

      As I said I am still learning in the subject of bible background evidence etc however I will offer what little I do know on the subject.

      Ok so from looking this up we have over 24.000 copies of various shapes and sized the earliest being from AD125, obviously many of these are from various times and places some much later, the thing which is interesting is that although they come from various parts of the world from disciples who went their seperate ways and then the texts they took with them went through various generations when brought back together again their similarity is overwhelming and the differences are not doctrinal just grammer etc and the fact they had been seperate for a number of years only adds credit to how well they have been preserved, please do look this up for yourself also.

      5, I certainly do not think that my each and every view or belief is 100% correct please believe me on that. However I know Jesus He changed me in the way that the bible says people would be changed by Him and that was enough to get me started. I trust the bible as a source for truth as it is what was contained in there that brought me to Christ. I see the simplicity of the gospel in the bible being heavily corrupted and changed and complicated by the LDS church and many others. The LDS church certainly does claim to be the one true church and while it does say other churches and religions have truth they have the fullest amount of truth. I do not blame you or any other LDS member for believing this as if you did not why would you be there, I am simply challenging that claim.

      6, I know that you mean that however I have spoken to people who when LDS have openly questioned parts of Mormonism that Mormons don’t like to talk about and they were not met with that attitude. The LDS church does not encourage discussion of its past issues as it knows they only lead to people leaving the church.

      I look forward to hearing back from you, I am definitly no scholar, my trip to Utah if anything taught me I have a lot to learn, so bear with me and keep coming back I really appreciate it.

  5. Dane, you can NOT deny that for 50 years the LDS people believed Adam was God. Their Prophet preached it from the pulpit all that time. People died believing this false doctrine. My problem is that it was hidden. The LDS leaders who recalled all of the Journal of Discourses (which according to the title page, was meant for our generation and generations to come) did not foresee the internet. I personally feel they were being deceitful. I feel that they thought that after a few generations, all would be forgotten. If the Prophet today would just come out and admit that those thing were not only taught, but believed, and that we just don’t agree with that today, I would still be a member of the LDS church. For them to do so would mean that they would have to admit Brigham Young was a false Prophet because he said it was a revelation from God. The church has painted itself into a corner with this. No matter how much the LDS bash the Bible, the fact is, there is no Biblical proof for Mormon doctrine. It also never ceases to amaze me how the Bible is so criticized, yet the Book of Mormon is fully trusted and believed and it was translated using a seer stone that Joseph Smith found in a neighbor’s well. Emma Smith wrote in her journal that this is the stone that was used when she helped. The same one Joseph used to seek treasure for people for money.

  6. I would like to add that yes, in the beginning God spoke to us through his Prophets, but in the latter days he speaks to us through HIS SON! I think we all need to spend a little more time in the New Testament.

  7. 1) The fact that a prophet believes something does NOT make it “as good as scripture.” It is only so if that belief is reinforced and confirmed in the hearts of the members by the power of the Holy Ghost; otherwise it is no better than anybody else’s opinion.

    Dane, I don’t know where you are getting this information from. I was Mormon for 40 years and in all that time I was taught that “When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done for you.” I was also taught that when the Prophet speaks it IS scripture, even the First Presidency’s monthly message in the Ensign. I was reading a discussion on Facebook the other day between my Mormon friends and family about the BKP fiasco and ALL of them said that God speaks through his Prophets and what BKP said is straight from GOD and they will NOT question God! My point is that although you may not believe this, it is the truth that most ( All) LDS people that I know have been taught this and believe it.

    There must be an addition to the statement you made about prophets speaking the word of God: their words are only scripture when they speak when moved upon by the Spirit of God. Please do a search on if you need confirmation of this.

    How are we to know? Does the Prophet come right out and say ” Now what I just said, I was moved upon by the Spirit of God, therefore consider it scripture. To me that just leaves them an easy way out if what they say doesn’t come to pass or is proven wrong later. I get that LDS people have been taught to follow the “burning in the bosom”, however that is a HUMAN emotion. I get that feeling every time I see my son in the marching band during a parade. Seriously, I love it! I don’t know why it stirs up emotion in me and almost brings me to tears. Just something about it. I stopped trusting my human emotions and started putting my faith in Christ. It’s much more reliable.

  8. I intend to formulate some more detailed responses to those who have posted, but for now, here are some links that you may find useful in learning/confirming the adherence of the Church to the doctrines I have mentioned. Of course, if I have misquoted something, or if you find a more authoritative quote on, please feel free to post accordingly.

    Bible Dictionary: Canon (whoops, I spelled it wrong previously)

    Guide to the Scriptures: Prophet

    General Information on the Holy Ghost:
    Acts 19:2-7 is cited:

    Document citing that inquiring of the Holy Ghost about the truthfulness of the prophets’ words is an indicator of willingness to follow the Prophet:

    Tying the Holy Ghost with the words of prophets being scripture:
    D&D 64:4 is cited:

    Biblical and other references to changes in doctrine as given by prophets of that time:

    I hope some (or all) of you find this helpful. I’ll try to explain further, if needed, in another post.

    @Kate: When I was taught the Gospel by missionaries in 2000, they placed much focus on learning and gaining confirmation by the power of the Holy Ghost, specifically in prayer. They further challenged me to pray over every statement concerning religion (from prophets or otherwise) for confirmation from the Holy Ghost that each statement is true. There have been times when people in the Church have said things for which I did not get that confirmation; this only proves that the people of the Church do not know everything there is to know about the Gospel, but does not prove that the Gospel, as presented in the LDS Church is not true. I find that the most complacent and un-Christ-like members tend to be the ones who do not pray for such confirmation, but simply take others’ word for it. Even a prophet, apostle, or ordained teacher can make mistakes, as noted in my previous posts. The Holy Ghost is always necessary to discern such mistakes from what the Lord intended/wanted us to hear. Have you never said something while speaking in front of a large number of people that didn’t come out right? Have you ever had a good idea but been unable to express it? The Bible indicates that Moses was so bad at speaking that he needed Aaron to speak for him. ( ) Why should it be any different today?

  9. Dane, the problem is, I don’t claim to be the mouthpiece of God. I have had things come out wrong. If a prophet is revealing revelation to God’s people, don’t you think God would make sure it came out right? What I got out of the link you provided was Moses saying he was slow of speech, so God let him use Aaron as a spokesman, BUT God put the words in Aaron’s mouth. I don’t believe that Brigham Young was just giving his opinion when he gave the Adam-God doctrine or that Jesus was “begotten” in the flesh and not by the Holy Ghost and here’s why:

    Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea—”if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.”
    ( Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 1852, page 50,51)

    Notice how he said remember this from “this time forth and forever”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 219 other followers

%d bloggers like this: