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.1
We’re
told in the scriptures, noted above, that the lord won’t permit the
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to lead
people astray. It is in the scriptures, it is doctrine. End of story.
Well
not so quick. What about when those prophets are speaking as men?
When they declare things to be doctrine which are later disavowed? An
example of such doctrine? Interracial marriage. Brigham Young taught
the following:
Shall
I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white
man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of
Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every
law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken
every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man
that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.2
But,
some will say, he was simply speaking as a man!
Was
Brigham also speaking as a man when he stated the following?
I have never yet preached a sermon and
sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call
scripture.3
Other
prophets have quoted Brigham Young in that saying as proof that the
prophet of God does not have to say “Thus Saith The Lord” to give
unto people scripture.4
If the prophet doesn’t have to say thus saith the lord to dictate
scripture, then how are we to know when they are giving their own
personal thoughts and those thoughts which are from God? If they are
not clear and concise, how do we know?
In
1978 the ban on the priesthood and temple ban for blacks was lifted.
It was set aside as we didn’t know what we were doing. The church
has never apologized because of it, and will probably never will.
They claim certain teachings about it wasn’t doctrine. Mainly the
fact that the African Americans weren’t valiant in the
pre-existence. That such a notion was false and that it wasn’t
doctrine at all. But what about the times it was taught as doctrine?
Our living prophet, President David O.
McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward
the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back
into the beginning with God.... “Revelation assures us that this
plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s
pre-existent state.”5
So
we have an official announcement by the first presidency of the
church that the discrimination against the blacks began in the
pre-existence. It was part of the plan. How does that go along with
what is being taught after the 1978 revelation?
Forget everything that I have said, or
what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or
whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present
revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the
light and knowledge that now has come into the world.6
It
would seem with a flick of the wrist the words of past prophets can
simply be dropped because an apostle says so. It was taught as
doctrine, if God’s laws do not change and His doctrine is eternal,
and it was wrong, why was it even taught in the first place? Could
this be one account of the prophet leading the church astray? Well
more than one prophet actually.
Another
thought comes to mind. The use of the term Mormon. It is true the
term Mormon came about as an insult to the members of the early
church. But since then, it had been adapted and accepted. It was okay
to use, there was a campaign sent throughout the church titled “I’m
a Mormon”, and then with the latest prophet, Russel M. Nelson, it
was no longer acceptable to use the term Mormon. It’s a nickname
that, when used, is a “major victory for Satan.”7
If
using the term Mormon offends God and Jesus and is a victory for the
Devil, why was it allowed to be used for so many years? The Prophet
Joseph Smith even used the term when talking about the doctrines of
the church. Is it another case where the prophets have been leading
the church astray only for the latest prophet to announce a course
correction? Or is it another case where they didn’t know what they
were talking about and had a “limited understanding.”
Another
teaching contrary to what we believe in as a church, is the November
2015 exclusion policy towards the children of gay parents. We believe
that men will be punished for their own sins, not the sins of their
parents, not the sins of Adam; their own sins.8
Yet,
in November of 2015 we are told that it was received as revelation9
that children of gay parents are not to be blessed in the church,
baptized, receive the priesthood, be endowed etc. Until they turn 18
and move out of their parents home, disavowing their parent’s
lawful and legal marriage.
I
only wonder how long before other teachings are labeled as such and
we no longer teach them as doctrine. The further along we get, the
further away from Jesus Christ’s gospel it would appear that we are
going.
Those
are of course the personal opinions of the author of this article,
nothing more.
1. Wilford
Woodruff, Official Declaration 1
2. Brigham
Young, Journal of Discourses 10:110.
3. Brigham
Young, Journal of Discourses, 13:95.
4. Fourteen
Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, June 1981 Ensign First
Presidency Message
5. Statement
of the First Presidency, 15 December 1969
6. All
Are Alike Unto God, Bruce R. McConkie, Aug 18 1978 Devotional
7. The
Correct Name of the Church, Russel M. Nelson, October 2018 General
Conference
8. Article
of Faith 2
9. Becoming
True Millennials, Russel M. Nelson, January 10, 2016 Devotional
No comments:
Post a Comment