What is the role of a prophet?

[slippyslayer101]

Hi, I'm an 18-year-old freshman at BYU and I have questioned my faith a lot over the past couple years. I apologize in advance if I come off sounding like a jerk who is trying to discredit the Church by being overskeptical (if that's even a word). I absolutely want to believe it is true, and I do still think there's a very good chance it is. I'm glad I found this site so I can ask some of the questions I've been having and hear answers from people who don't know me and won't judge me. Possibly my biggest question about the LDS Church is what the role of a prophet is.

I've lost some faith in our prophets as I've learned about the things prophets have said in the past. I know the typical responses are that what they said was just their opinion, or that policy is different than doctrine. But what nobody seems able to answer then is how you're supposed to determine what is revelation and what isn't. If a prophet says something like that blacks will never hold the Priesthood, and this turns out to be false, it looks suspicious for us to just brush it off as a mere opinion when the people at the time took it to be revelation from a prophet of God. I read an article on staylds.com (which may not be the most trustworthy site as some of its members think pornography isn't actually a sin, but still...) about what is official doctrine and what isn't, and I thought it was a great article that laid things out neatly for me. But after reading it, I'm thinking "well, if there are only six times where we know for sure it was revelation, then what exactly was the purpose of the prophets that never received any official doctrine?" Some might say that their conference talks contain revelation hidden in them, but what would be the point of said revelation if it was so surrounded by personal opinions that I couldn't help but brush it off? How can I take all the talk about preserving marriage between a man and woman seriously if I know that Joseph Fielding Smith said man would never set foot on the moon? JUST WHAT IS A PROPHET?!? Also, this isn't really part of the question, but it bothers me when the General Authorities make somewhat anti-intellectual arguments for the truthfulness of the LDS Church. I just can't buy into claims like, "The Book of Mormon teaches good lessons so it must be true because a wicked man couldn't make it up."

I think what would help me is if I had a better idea of what Thomas S. Monson does for the church on a daily basis. I understand that he is a busy man, so what exactly are his duties (besides giving talks at General Conference)? I haven't been able to find much information about this anywhere so I'd appreciate anything anyone knows about this.

Again, please don't judge me. I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm really just a desperate college kid who isn't having a great life and needs this gospel to be true. Questioning it is just in my nature I guess. It's the same thing with my political views, they've just been all over the place because I feel a need to see things from both sides. I really wish I didn't have these "critical thinking skills" or whatever you want to call them.

[AaronArthur]

Well I think of the nature of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man to be his highest goal. The Israelite where not to kill in the Ten commandments but where commanded later in the Bible to wipe out entire nations. Both where require by heaven to bring about the gospel of Jesus Christ and salvation to all men. So the prophets may redirect commandments and statements from time to time to accomplish the very goal of the Father for all man kind. The only prof that one can have that the prophet of God is speaking and doing the Will of God is to ask God himself. For logic can only prov that The God of all earthly religions is a changeable god and hypocritical. But if we see the adjustments to programs though out all time is the only way for God to fully full fill his mission of bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of Man then we find God to be unchangeable toward his purpose. So it all comes down to this. First one must believe that there is a God. Second one must believe that he or She can talk to God. Third one must believe that God will talk to him or her. Forth one must be able to know how God communicates to him or her. The duty of a prophet is to help all mankind follow the steps of Faith and gain a relationship with Christ and The Father.

[garryw]

how you're supposed to determine what is revelation and what isn't

That's always been the job of the Holy Ghost.

And the moon thing is actually a a credit to the modern prophets. Here we have nearly 200 years of modern discourses and teachings, and with all that the most damning thing to bring up is JFS's quote about the moon? He said he "doubts" man would ever get to the moon, and it was before he was called as president of the church. Pretty reasonable track record for modern prophets.

[Connie]

This is my current understanding and how i see things, which i submit for your consideration.

“A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking (see D&C 1:38). A prophet is also a special witness for Christ, testifying of His divinity and teaching His gospel. A prophet teaches truth and interprets the word of God. He calls the unrighteous to repentance. He receives revelations and directions from the Lord for our benefit. He may see into the future and foretell coming events so that the world may be warned.” –Gospel Principles, Chapter 9

Sometimes people get a picture of prophets as infallible people who can never make a mistake which is strange considering such an idea is not found in the Bible. Peter denied Christ three times. Jonah tried to run away so he wouldn’t have to preach to the people of Nineveh. Moses disobeyed God’s instructions on bringing forth water from the rock and was later chastened. Prophets have never been perfect, but God uses them to do some very great things. To me the most amazing thing about prophets is that they are imperfect human beings.

Prophets are products of the time in which they live, and I think God understands that. God works with the knowledge and understanding each person has to bring about the greatest good for as many people as possible. I believe there are such things as circumstantial commandments. God has to work with the general understanding of the majority of people in any given area or nation.

As far as how to know whether a prophet is speaking as a prophet or a person, I would submit this quote.

“I am convinced that there is no simple formula or technique that would immediately allow you to master the ability to be guided by the voice of the Spirit. Our Father expects you to learn how to obtain that divine help by exercising faith in Him and His Holy Son, Jesus Christ. Were you to receive inspired guidance just for the asking, you would become weak and ever more dependent on Them. They know that essential personal growth will come as you struggle to learn how to be led by the Spirit.” –Elder Richard G. Scott, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

We have to work and struggle to gain those answers for ourselves. This is how we can grow and not “be compelled in all things.”

I hope that helps in some small way.

[Just_A_Guy]

Slippyslayer, for your next semester may I recommend RelC 333? When I took it, we were also assigned this companion book, which is very useful.

[Traveler]

In essence the role of the prophet is the same as anyone else in the church and kingdom of G-d.

To live by covenant

Honor the Priesthood (this is like honoring our parents)

to help and assist others to enjoy eternal life.

If one views and understands history and the epochs in scripture they will realize that prophets are like the rest of us - men (mankind) trying to do good things. If you want to be rejected if and whenever you make a mistake - I believe you are perfectly justified in rejecting anyone else - home teachers, bishops or prophets to make a mistake.

I believe we should have a understanding of support and help for one another. I have never met anyone to accept a call in the kingdom that did not desire to help others. In general - If you do not believe someone is a good example or has an attitude that is not helpful - out of a spirit of love and kindness - I believe you should offer you advice and assistance to correct the matter. As a side note - griping and complaining is seldom helpful - I thought I would add this thought just in case you have never had the experience of someone gripping and complaining about what you are doing - it really is not helpful.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

Possibly my biggest question about the LDS Church is what the role of a prophet is.

Let's start with your main question, what is the role of a prophet?

1st - The main role of a prophet is the bear witness of Christ and his gospel.

2nd - To teach, guide, and direct the affairs of God's church upon the earth.

3rd - To chasten, and warn civilizations of the judgments of God which are about to come.

4th - To receive revelation for the collective body of the church. President Spencer W. Kimball receiving revelation regarding our African American brothers and the priesthood.

5th - In the passing of an Apostle, they call new Apostles to the Lord's work.

6th - They serve the people as God would have them serve. They assist in the dedication of temples.

7th - They delegate certain elements of the Church to Apostles and General Authorities who act under the keys they hold.

These are roles of our prophet. I am sure others could provide more, but this suffices for me for this question.

I've lost some faith in our prophets as I've learned about the things prophets have said in the past.... it looks suspicious for us to just brush it off as a mere opinion when the people at the time took it to be revelation from a prophet of God.

Why? Does everything a prophet speaks have to be a revelation from God? Note, have you recognized how many books have been written by prophets and apostles? If so, have you noticed how the church authorities now say, "This is my opinion and it is not church doctrine."

The Church leaders are now more careful in their speech, than previously. The idea of other people believing it as a revelation does not dictate that it was a revelation. People are given the opportunity to govern themselves. If they want to be governed by the opinion of a prophet, then that is their choice. This type of thought is highly presented within anti-Mormon threads to try to make something harmless look awful and bad, this is called sophistry.

Even Brigham Young was concerned during his time that people would not think for themselves, and believe every word from a Prophet was a revelation from God. I remember reading a story about President Young walking by a neighbor working on his house, the roof. He warned this brother to be careful and not to fall, and giving some personal advice. After President Young said this, the man began singing "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet." President Young wasn't speaking as a prophet, nor giving a voice of warning as a prophet, he was speaking as a man.

Our prophets in the past have shared some interesting points of view, for example, that Adam received another wife from another planet. Very interesting, but not doctrine. Nothing suspicious either. I have never been concerned by what a prophet teaches, unless it becomes official cannon. Then, I give heed.

Also, this isn't really part of the question, but it bothers me when the General Authorities make somewhat anti-intellectual arguments for the truthfulness of the LDS Church. I just can't buy into claims like, "The Book of Mormon teaches good lessons so it must be true because a wicked man couldn't make it up."

I don't buy into this type of claim either. However, I don't fault them either. If this is what they feel is important to them, then I accept it, as their belief, not mine own.

How a General Authority speaks doesn't negate the Church is true. I think you are too concerned with subtle nuances within speech verses actually verifying for yourself if the church is true.

I think what would help me is if I had a better idea of what Thomas S. Monson does for the church on a daily basis. I understand that he is a busy man, so what exactly are his duties (besides giving talks at General Conference)? I haven't been able to find much information about this anywhere so I'd appreciate anything anyone knows about this.

Really? All you have to do is purchase one of his books, especially his biography which was recently published. If you want to know what he does, read his biography. Read all the biographies of past prophets and you will get an idea of who they were, what type of men they were, and how they loved and served God.

Again, please don't judge me. I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm really just a desperate college kid who isn't having a great life and needs this gospel to be true. Questioning it is just in my nature I guess. It's the same thing with my political views, they've just been all over the place because I feel a need to see things from both sides. I really wish I didn't have these "critical thinking skills" or whatever you want to call them.

Questioning is the nature of all men and women. Without a question we cannot receive a revelation from God.

I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon. Read it over again. Do not expect the Lord to deliver a witness to you the way you want it. He will deliver a witness that is best for you, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

Serve faithfully in callings at church. Fast and pray. If you are doing these things, then continue doing them.

The Lord will always provide a witness, in his time, and in his way, and if we are humble we will recognize his witness.

Best wishes.

[jayanna]

Doctrine means current teachings. This would mean anything in the scriptures, conference talks, or talks in the Ensign that are by church authorities, and the lessons in the manuals that are published by the church educational system.

A lot of people are under the impression that when it comes to church instruction, the oldest instruction is the best, when really it is the opposite. The teachings of the current prophet are more important than previous teachings. He is the prophet of the current people of the Earth. As the church grows and the needs of the members change, the instruction and current information will change according to the current needs of the members. This applies especially to organziation and goals of the church membership.

It is good to remember that every single thing that comes out of the Prophet's mouth is not necessarily inspired revelation. Conference talks, of course, blessings on temple grounds, etc. would naturally be under revelation, but not really opinions or even journal entries, unless possibly recording a particular spiritual experience

The Holy Spirit will guide concerning the truthfulness of all things, sometimes one has to put a principle into practice in order to gain a testimony of it. Thankfully, the Lord is aware that we all learn differently. The gospel is active in 3 types of learning...reading, hearing, and doing. When you apply all three your spiritual education is more complete. Illiminate one and you might think you are doing great when really you are missing a dimension of the gospel that might be just what you are needing.

Sometimes when I bear my testimony it is my own words, but on the topic that the Spirit has directed me to speak on. Sometimes I am teaching and the Spirit tells me what to say word for word. I would imagine it would be the same for others.

[HiJolly]

Hate to say it, jayanna, but your opinion on what doctrine is contradicts what the Church says it is.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

HiJolly

[skippy740]

Amazon.com: Shaken Faith Syndrome. Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (9781893036086): Michael R. Ash: Books

These are statements of leaders that show no claim of infallability:

Statements By Leaders | BlacksInTheScriptures.com

Edited November 30, 2012 by skippy740

[Just_A_Guy]

Hate to say it, jayanna, but your opinion on what doctrine is contradicts what the Church says it is.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine

HiJolly

I can see how the Church statement supplements what Jayanna wrote, but how does it contradict it?

[skippy740]

The Challenging and Testifying Missionary

We are privileged to sustain the authorities of the Church. I hope you understand how important it is to sustain this work. The consent of the people or missionaries is sought for; but when the will of the Lord is presented actually our free agency becomes expressive as we sustain and not oppose. We do not have the veto power when the general authorities of the church are presented. It is the same way in the missionary work. We don't have the veto power in changing the missionary work. You have only a sustaining power in it and this is the basic principle that the Reorganized Church never did understand or the opponents of Joseph Smith. As you know, they have set up in their Church the veto power of its members over the revelations of the Lord.

If we are to understand the ways of the Lord, we must understand we are but the servants. We sustain Him. It is His work. It is not our work. We must annex ourselves to His will and purpose. It matters not whether in the priesthood work, missionary work, or any other work in the Church we are to do it the way the Lord wants it done.

Remember that we are all STUDENTS of the word, not blind followers. We do not surrender our free agency at baptism. It is our job to continue to study and learn what we should do.

We make our covenants with the Godhead - God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Allow the words of General Authorities to touch you through the Spirit. The Spirit is the teacher that confirms truth to our souls.

Today, our General Conference addresses are not teaching anything new in terms of doctrine, but rather asks the question - What manner of men ought we to be?

Changes in church policies are done under the direction of the Spirit, but they aren't changing any doctrines. For example: No where in the D&C does it mention the minimum age to be an Elder, or to be called as a missionary. This past General Conference was revealed a change in church policy that was made under the direction of the spirit... but it's not a new revelation or new doctrine.

Check out this link http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

You're at a crucial time in your testimony. I hope these links will help you to understand and appreciate the role of a prophet, seer and revelator. It's much more difficult that we think it is.

I think our ideas of how the Lord leads His church is polluted by stories of frequent visits by the Lord to His temples. They may be true, or they may not. But according to the D&C, I don't think the Lord makes it easy to lead and guide His Church:

D&C 1:24-28

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

[RMGuy]

Interesting read, and I'm curious as to what others think about this:

Would you give each of the following a yes or no on if it is doctrine:

1. Scriptures

2. Conference Talks

3. Church Magazine articles written by the quorum of the 12 or first presidency

4. Church magazine articles written by others but vetted through the correlation committee

5. Official church publications (Manuals, etc.)

6. Unofficial publications (books) written by the quorum of the 12 or the first presidency.

If I can take one other question on the to OP's original post I was once asked this question:

"If every word that a prophet says is not prophetic, and if the only way that I am to know is to pray and receive confirmation, AND if I pray and receive personal revelation to do something different, then I cannot be in anyway faulted for doing so...correct?"

Assuming of course that the individual is sincere and is not seeking to justify themselves, thoughts?

-RM

[skippy740]

I think what would help me is if I had a better idea of what Thomas S. Monson does for the church on a daily basis. I understand that he is a busy man, so what exactly are his duties (besides giving talks at General Conference)? I haven't been able to find much information about this anywhere so I'd appreciate anything anyone knows about this.

Again, please don't judge me. I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm really just a desperate college kid who isn't having a great life and needs this gospel to be true. Questioning it is just in my nature I guess. It's the same thing with my political views, they've just been all over the place because I feel a need to see things from both sides. I really wish I didn't have these "critical thinking skills" or whatever you want to call them.

I'll guarantee you that learning what President Monson does everyday will not help you. I will tell you that the First Presidency's duties are outlined in the D&C. They help expound and exhort doctrine to encourage us all to follow Christ. I wouldn't want their job - to answer the questions and requests that are only for the Office of the First Presidency.

You are experiencing Cognitive Dissonance - two values that are contradicting and conflicting each other... and you don't know which side to choose. Review the links I've provided. I think they'll help you in a great way.

[skippy740]

Interesting read, and I'm curious as to what others think about this:

Would you give each of the following a yes or no on if it is doctrine:

1. Scriptures (Yes - for the original text. Chapter headings, footnotes, study helps are there to help give additional clarification for interpretation of the original text)

2. Conference Talks (No - not official doctrine. They clarify the scriptures and are based on doctrinal principles, but not official doctrine)

3. Church Magazine articles written by the quorum of the 12 or first presidency (No - same as #2)

4. Church magazine articles written by others but vetted through the correlation committee (no - same as #2)

5. Official church publications (Manuals, etc.) (No, same as #2)

6. Unofficial publications (books) written by the quorum of the 12 or the first presidency. (No, same as #2)

If I can take one other question on the to OP's original post I was once asked this question:

"If every word that a prophet says is not prophetic, and if the only way that I am to know is to pray and receive confirmation, AND if I pray and receive personal revelation to do something different, then I cannot be in anyway faulted for doing so...correct?"

Assuming of course that the individual is sincere and is not seeking to justify themselves, thoughts?

-RM

What is the difference between doctrine and scripture?

I personally believe that all true and correct doctrines have their foundation in the scriptures and are testified to us through the Holy Spirit.

- All manuals have lessons that are based on the scriptures.

- All general conference talks and addresses are based on the scriptures with messages that are adapted for us today.

All these resources are HELPS and GUIDES for us to understand the scriptures and how to apply them. Their timeliness is important to understand, but the foundation is the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

This may or may not be an official definition of doctrine, but I think it makes the most sense. This is my opinion.

[estradling75]

"If every word that a prophet says is not prophetic, and if the only way that I am to know is to pray and receive confirmation, AND if I pray and receive personal revelation to do something different, then I cannot be in anyway faulted for doing so...correct?"

Assuming of course that the individual is sincere and is not seeking to justify themselves, thoughts?

-RM

Lets take an example of this from the Book of Mormon...

Nephi executed Laban. The words of the prophets had been pretty much "Thou shall not kill." Of course there were known exceptions for defending yourself and war. But none of those were in play with a drunken Laban. Nephi received a personal witness right there on the spot to break the teachings of the prophets and murder Laban. And it was the 'Right Thing to Do.'

Now what can we learn from this... First like Nephi we need to be very sure if we are breaking from the words of the prophet we are doing it by direct revelation from God. We need to be very, very sure of it being from God or we fall in the category of being deceived. This is a point I think you are also in a agreement with but I just want to be very clear on how important this is.

Then we get to the fact that it is a very personal and limited exception. Nephi did not turn around and tell everyone that because God had him murder Laban that murder was now OK with God and everyone could do it. He didn't try to expand his personal revelation to change how things worked for everyone else. Nor did he even take it as a sign that it was ok for him to later on commit murder, because that one time God said it was ok. That is a real problem I see that people can get into... Stretching to justify other actions that it never meant.

As for not being faulted... true from God's perspective... but not really from everyone elses. If Nephi would have been caught in Jerusalem after killing Laban he would have been treated as a murderer. Same within the Church. If you appear to be breaking the commandments in Church the best case is that they will reach out and try to help you correct and learn the right way. That is what shepherds over the Flock of God do. Of course there are also many worst case responses, due to people having their own struggles. In these cases the one would simply have to endure whatever comes as a price to pay for following God. Many times people think that their personal revelation should some how render them immune from the repercussions of their actions. It does not.

[Traveler]

Are you kidding me?

Have we forgotten the "oath and covenant of the priesthood?

This is all looking like parents arguing over discipline of Johnny by restricting video game time or time out - while little Johnny goes completely undisciplined!

Anytime we as covenant individuals reject council from called and sustained servants of G-d - we are at greater risk of becoming divided and failing as a covenat people than we are at risk in entertaining a doctrine (not an ordinance) that is incomplete and in great need of more revelation for clarification.

I once, in a personal conversation with Hugh B. Brown, asked if we should support our bishop if we know - even by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Bishop is wrong. His answer to me was, "Yes, you support your bishop; especially if you know he is wrong, because he will need your support more then than at any other time."

The scriptures tell us that one specific reason for Prophets is for a "unity of the faith". So it is my contribution - no prophet is worse than no prophet.

The Traveler

[RMGuy]

I once, in a personal conversation with Hugh B. Brown, asked if we should support our bishop if we know - even by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Bishop is wrong. His answer to me was, "Yes, you support your bishop; especially if you know he is wrong, because he will need your support more then than at any other time."

The Traveler

I really respect The Traveler, but I am having a REALLY hard time with that. This smacks to much to me of the Nuremberg defense. Just follow the authority, even if you know it is wrong, because in this there is safety...and you will be blessed for being obedient even if it was wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy that, at all. When things are wrong we are supposed to stand up against them (in or out of the church) otherwise, to what purpose agency?

-RM

[Anddenex]

I really respect The Traveler, but I am having a REALLY hard time with that. This smacks to much to me of the Nuremberg defense. Just follow the authority, even if you know it is wrong, because in this there is safety...and you will be blessed for being obedient even if it was wrong. I'm sorry I don't buy that, at all. When things are wrong we are supposed to stand up against them (in or out of the church) otherwise, to what purpose agency?

-RM

I agree with you RM on this factor. On my mission a Bishop begin allowing his wife who was the Relief Society President to conduct sacrament meetings, and also allowed women to pass the sacrament. As a result of no one standing up, the whole ward was disbanded.

My father also tells me of an experience in Alabama, during the time we lived in the ward, where the Stake President asked the EQP to allow a 19 male to live with them who recently was released from jail. The EQP prayed about it, and received a witness from the Lord to "NOT" allow the young man to live with them. The S.P. persuaded and out of respect for his S.P. he allowed the young man to live with him. The result, the young man committed adultery with his wife, and his wife left him and the kids for this young man, ran away with him.

It is always better to follow the Holy Ghost, then good intentions of our leaders. At the same time, if we make such a decision then we better be right, or we are breaking covenants.

EDIT: As pertaining to a prophet's counsel, or an apostles, I don't think they are in the same boat as a Bishop or an S.P.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Anddenex

[Vort]

This smacks to much to me of the Nuremberg defense. Just follow the authority, even if you know it is wrong, because in this there is safety...and you will be blessed for being obedient even if it was wrong.

Nuremberg was about murdering people. Sustaining your bishop is about helping him implement a Scouting program that you can see is wasteful and suboptimal. Comparing the two is ludicrous.

I'm not much into the name-dropping, but I think Traveler's little anecdote is dead on. You sustain your leaders, even -- especially -- when you think they may not have gotten things quite right.

[Anddenex]

Lets take an example of this from the Book of Mormon...

Nephi executed Laban. The words of the prophets had been pretty much "Thou shall not kill." Of course there were known exceptions for defending yourself and war. But none of those were in play with a drunken Laban. Nephi received a personal witness right there on the spot to break the teachings of the prophets and murder Laban. And it was the 'Right Thing to Do.'

Well, this really depends on your interpretation of some specific verses in the Bible, Old Testament.

In Exodus 21: 13 we read,

And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

The verses previous to this verse speak of a man smiting another man. This verse speaks of a person, who isn't seeking to kill anybody, but in the process the Lord delivers this person, then the person has a right to kill them, and the Lord appoints a place to flee.

In light of this verse, we know Nephi did not lie in wait, and we know that Laban was delivered into Nephi's hands by the Lord, and we know Nephi was given a place to flee in the wilderness.

I am more inclined to believe that Nephi actually obeyed the provisions already given by prophets within the Old Testament.

[AaronArthur]

Support in how I see it is not the same as agree with. Support is more of being open and asking the Bishop on the why, how and what of his suggestions.

For example:

1. Bishop Why do you want me to do such and such?

2. Bishop how did you come to your conclusion?

3. Bishop What scriptures did you use to gain your revaluation in this matter?

4. Bishop could you help me see that why to the answers?

Also these kind of question we should feel inclined to ask the Lord if we have any Questions about a doctrine that came from a prophet. This allows us not to follow any leader blindly.

This is a good talk about what the proper role of the prophet by Ezra Taft Benson and was refereed to in two talks at general conference in the past 2 years and can be found at this web address;

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - Liahona June 1981 - liahona

[estradling75]

Well, this really depends on your interpretation of some specific verses in the Bible, Old Testament.

In Exodus 21: 13 we read,

The verses previous to this verse speak of a man smiting another man. This verse speaks of a person, who isn't seeking to kill anybody, but in the process the Lord delivers this person, then the person has a right to kill them, and the Lord appoints a place to flee.

In light of this verse, we know Nephi did not lie in wait, and we know that Laban was delivered into Nephi's hands by the Lord, and we know Nephi was given a place to flee in the wilderness.

I am more inclined to believe that Nephi actually obeyed the provisions already given by prophets within the Old Testament.

Most of the interpretations I have seen on that verse, see it as talking about accidentally killing someone. Maybe a person was thoughtless, careless and someone else died. The accident being an "act of God" aka God delivering. Coming after verse 12 it reads as exception to that verse.

This interpretation also has the benefit of being more practical. This is the law that they are to enforce. It is much easier to tell if something was an accident versus being able to tell if the Holy Ghost prompted someone kill 'legally,' from the point of view of the third party that enforces the laws

[skippy740]

Sustaining does NOT mean to blindly follow.

Per dictionary.com:

sus·tain [suh-steyn] Show IPA

verb (used with object)

1. to support, hold, or bear up from below; bear the weight of, as a structure.

2. to bear (a burden, charge, etc.).

3. to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding.

4. to keep (a person, the mind, the spirits, etc.) from giving way, as under trial or affliction.

5. to keep up or keep going, as an action or process: to sustain a conversation.

No where does it say that you blindly follow regardless of ______.

Sometimes, the best way to sustain someone is by pointing out their errors. Without feedback from those within one's stewardship, it's possible to exercise unrighteous dominion. We can read all about that in D&C 121.

Support the PERSON, not necessarily the words they say. Help correct, inform and instruct.

But no where does a person who has stewardship over you have to "order" you to do something. They are entitled to revelation & inspiration on your behalf.

A great thing to say to a leader who asks you to do something that you don't necessarily agree with is: "Did you pray about it?" Then agree to pray about it as well. If it's right, you will BOTH come to the same answer.

In fact, if Brigham Young would've prayed about Negroes and the Priesthood, we may not have ever had a priesthood ban to begin with. As such, NO one asked him to pray about it (from what we can tell).

[skippy740]