How close is the LDS prophet to God? Does he hear directly from God like Joseph Smith did, like Moses? Either in visions or audibly? Or is it just the same as we hear from God, through "leading" of the Spirit?

I wonder because reading through various articles on the LDS.org site, it talks about how he is God's mouthpiece and

“A prophet needs to be more than a priest or a minister or an elder. His voice becomes the voice of God,” said President Spencer W. Kimball. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1970, p. 120.)

Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “Whenever moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord, the man called to the prophet’s office assumes the prophetic mantle and speaks as a mouthpiece of the Lord. He may then interpret the word of God, apply it to the conditions of the day, governmental, social, or economic, warn against impending evil. . . . Such inspired deliverances are binding upon all who believe that the latter-day work came and is directed by revelation.” ( Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:182.)

Further, the LDS church says that the members must read and listen to the Prophet in not only scripture, but also in all they write.

Second, the Saints should read what the prophets have written (see D&C 52:9, 36 ), including not only the scriptures but such things as conference talks, the message of the First Presidency in the Ensign , and special bulletins that are mailed to priesthood leaders to be read to the Saints in the stakes of the Church.

Which means to me that they are saying that the mormons are under obligation to listen and heed those words and advice from the Prophet in all areas where he deigns it necessary to write it down for them.

I would think that would be especially important in things like listening to them on what they believe about the very nature and attributes of Christ.

and yet, in the "trinity" thread, both OtherCheek and Jo had both been arguing that Jesus was not omniscient during his 3 years of ministry, and when I showed them that one of the former Prophets, Marion Romney specifically said that Jesus was both Omniscient and Omnipotent and gave examples from scripture during Jesus' life, they both refused to admit they were wrong and submit to the voice of the Prophet, and said that they didn't have to agree with him on the matter.

But isn't the very nature of Jesus, whether he was Omniscient and Omnipotent, very important? And wouldn't you think that the LDS prophet would know more about it than two laypersons?

Does their refusal to listen and believe what a Prophet has said in matters of scripture mean they are in danger of apostasy?

Whether that rejection comes through open opposition to the prophet, through flippant disregard of his counsel, or through apathetic carelessness, the penalties for turning away from the Lord’s servants are serious. “And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby” ( D&C 90:5 )

(the indented quotes are from: http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doc...-200-d-f-f.asp)


===
Here are President Romney's words regarding Jesus:

First Presidency Message - Ensign Article



Not only was Jesus all wise, he was also omniscient and omnipotent.
The following report illustrates his omniscience:
“… when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
“He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
“Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
“Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” (Matt. 17:24–27.)
Mark reports this illustration:
“And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,
“And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.
“And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither.
“And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him.
“And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt?
“And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go.” (Mark 11:1–6.)
The evidences of his omnipotence are legion:
He demonstrated power (1) over the elements by turning the water into wine (John 2:1–11), by stilling the tempests (Matt. 8:23–27, Mark 4:35–41, Luke 8:22–25), and by walking on the sea (Matt. 14:24–33, Mark 6:47–52, John 6:16–21); (2) over sickness and disease by healing the nobleman’s son (John 4:46–54), Peter’s wife’s mother (Matt. 8:14–15, Mark 1:29–31, Luke 4:38–39), and the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:20–22, Mark 5:25–34, Luke 8:43–48); (3) over unclean and evil spirits by casting them out of the two Gadarene demoniacs (Mark 5:1–20, Luke 8:26–39), and the boy after the disciples failed (Matt. 17:14–21, Mark 9:14–29, Luke 9:37–43); (4) over death by raising the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11–17) and calling Lazarus from the tomb (John 11:17–46); (5) over the grave by resurrecting himself and others (Luke 24:1–6, Matt. 27:52–53).
All these things—the events of his premortal life, the evidence of his wisdom, of his omniscience and omnipotence, and his victory over the grave—confirm my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

It's clear he is not just stating an opinion, but arguing apologetics, he is putting forth a declaration and defending it with scripture. This isn't something I would think a mormon could just flippantly say they didn't have to agree with him on. They would be saying the Prophet was ignorant and wrong in what he taught about Jesus' very nature! Not only that but the first presidency article (which this was) was specifically mentioned as to one of the things that a mormon should read and agree with.

Maybe what Romney was saying is true. And maybe what many here from LDS are speaking is the same truth. Maybe, just maybe, there are two understandings of what makes up who they are calling jesus. Maybe, just maybe, there is a misunderstanding as to which part one is speaking on as to the other. Maybe, just maybe, Romney was speaking on the spirit of jesus. The one that he spoke of in the same letter just before where he speaks of both the flesh and the spirit of the Moshiach. Maybe, just maybe, those here are speaking only of the flesh and blood jesus that has nothing but that which is within him gives him. Maybe, just maybe, Romney is speaking of the spirit jesus that came from Elohim and has omni-everything. Look at when it is shown that the items in which Romney speaks of begin to occur. It is after the purification and not before. I find more than a couple of places that state that jesus said that he did not do the works but that which was within him. Romney knows this and those here with LDS know that Romney knows this and I know this and guess what. Now you do. Are you not so relieved and happy to know that everybody knows about the same thing?

Or maybe, just maybe, you just want to continue with this one-sided argument you are having with yourself?

You have been answered more than a couple of times by more than a couple of people but you do not like the answers you get so you choose to demean and ridicule those of a different faith than you. I hope that all will ignore you and your bigoted behavior.

Originally posted by Sinaiticism

Maybe what Romney was saying is true. And maybe what many here from LDS are speaking is the same truth. Maybe, just maybe, there are two understandings of what makes up who they are calling jesus. Maybe, just maybe, there is a misunderstanding as to which part one is speaking on as to the other. Maybe, just maybe, Romney was speaking on the spirit of jesus. The one that he spoke of in the same letter just before where he speaks of both the flesh and the spirit of the Moshiach. Maybe, just maybe, those here are speaking only of the flesh and blood jesus that has nothing but that which is within him gives him. Maybe, just maybe, Romney is speaking of the spirit jesus that came from Elohim and has omni-everything. Look at when it is shown that the items in which Romney speaks of begin to occur. It is after the purification and not before. I find more than a couple of places that state that jesus said that he did not do the works but that which was within him. Romney knows this and those here with LDS know that Romney knows this and I know this and guess what. Now you do. Are you not so relieved and happy to know that everybody knows about the same thing?

Or maybe, just maybe, you just want to continue with this one-sided argument you are having with yourself?

You have been answered more than a couple of times by more than a couple of people but you do not like the answers you get so you choose to demean and ridicule those of a different faith than you. I hope that all will ignore you and your bigoted behavior.

maybe just maybe you have no idea what you are talking about.

The LDS do not believe in two Jesus' one of Spirit and one of Flesh. They believe that the spirit of YHWH came down and got a body of flesh just like everyone else does. And he gave examples of the MAN Jesus being omniscient and omnipotent. The same examples the Christians used in the other thread that Jo argued against. In other words, this is clearly a case where the LDS leadership and Christians both agree: Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent during his life on earth. Jo and Othercheek are the ones who are in disagreement with both Christians and their own leadership.

Now, if you just want to rant against my "behavior" take it to another thread. I am here discussing whether the lay mormons should be listening to the scriptural teachings of their Prophet or not. You already derailed one thread in this area, you won't be doing it here.

This is the very first line from the article you are representing:

"Although I have born my testimony of Jesus Christ frequently and recently, I am happy to repeat it. My calling, and my desire, is to continue to bear convincing testimony of him. If it were possible, I would bear it to all men."

As I have already told you, this is President Romney's testimony - he was not teaching.

What we learn from President Romney IS his testimony. We learn his belief that Jesus is the Christ, that we are members of Jesus' Church. It is an affirmation of faith.

BTW, you have managed to aggrandize your take on the discussion in this matter to the point that you have padded what actually has been said and/or claimed by me. Your representation is not accurate - you have sensationalized it to make it agreeable to your agenda.

Earlier, I said this in answer to your question about omnipotence and omniscience:

Since President Romney isn’t alive to ask to explain everything you want him to explain that is in his testimony you are free to think what you will. What I got out of his comments on omnipotence and omniscience was this. He gave examples of what they look like. What he didn’t go into detail about was whether or not those examples were manifestations of these attributes which were necessary at the moment Jesus used them in order to show His audience His powers, or not. IOW, had He had them every second of His existence on the earth? While in the womb? How about as an infant? Even….when did He become aware He had these attributes? Did He always have access to them? IOW is it possible to have these attributes but not be able to use them sometimes? If yes, then when and how? Where there moments He was allowed access and other moments He was not? If no, then why not?

If yes or no, what difference does it make? Do we believe He has these attributes? Absolutely. How about during His ministry? I doubt that even whatever you found out about the official stance of the Church covers every single question that a person could come up with about this matter.

OC and I are not claiming Jesus is not Omnipotent or not Omniscient. In fact, we are affirming it. What we don't know is if Jesus had access to or was aware of them the entire time he was on the earth. We don't know if there was a time on the earth when he did - and other times when he did not.....etc....as I have also previously explained.

In the information you have provided in your OP you still insist on making incorrect statements about what you find - which we have already corrected you on. When a Prophet speaks something the Lord wants us to specifically know and understand, the Prophet will make that clear by saying words to the affect of "The Lord sayeth". If the Prophet is giving us "direction", it is not the same as "revelation". Direction is given through talks and written articles. If he is talking as a man, as a father, as a brother, as a son, as a friend, then it is not to be considered direction or revelation.

IOW, if he says he is going to the store to buy Rice Crispies, he is not claiming that the Lord revealed that we should all eat Rice Crispies. Nor is he directing us to all go out and buy Rice Crispies. As a man he is hungry- as a husband, his wife asked him to stop at the store to pick them up.....

He was not arguing apologetics. He was affirming his faith; his testimony. You have turned his testimony into an apologetic argument.

Jo, he wasn't telling you his favorite breakfast food. He was testifying who Jesus WAS. He was arguing for his statement that Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient. He gave examples from the lifetime of Jesus showing that he was omniscient and omnipotent. Some of the very SAME arguments that Christians used in the other thread that you argued against.

You can't play this off as some nonessential matter of opinion. Romney was teaching about scripture. As your prophet you are sworn to listen to him on all matters of scripture and doctrine. This clearly is a case of that. No matter if it appears in a "testimony" or a sunday school class, or at an LDS conference, when a Prophet speaks on matters of scripture, you are obligated to submit to his judgement. He is the mouthpiece of God.

On matters of scripture who has more knowledge: You or the Prophet? Do you have a closer connection to God than he does? Do you even have more theological training than he does?

and in my OP it specifically lists the First Presidency Ensign articles as a source of guidance and information from the Prophets. And yet you hand wave it away as if it were him describing what breakfast food he likes.

Was his testimony true? If yes, then what he said in it is also true and you can't dismiss it.

You are in rebellion, jo.

Originally posted by Jo

When a Prophet speaks something the Lord wants us to specifically know and understand, the Prophet will make that clear by saying words to the affect of "The Lord sayeth".

Doesn’t a prophet have to preface his comments with “Thus saith the Lord” when he is speaking as a prophet? The answer to this question is no. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” ( Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.)

Originally posted by Sparko

Doesn’t a prophet have to preface his comments with “Thus saith the Lord” when he is speaking as a prophet? The answer to this question is no. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” ( Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.)

Your quote was from July 31, 1954.

Pretty much because of individuals like you who search for the dissected jot, it is safe to say that some modifications to accommodate perceptions have been necessary; including the actual definition of "revelation". How sad. There was a day when it wasn't necessary to explain every word ever spoken because what was spoken was understood by those who heard them.

Originally posted by jo7241974

Your quote was from July 31, 1954.

Pretty much because of individuals like you who search for the dissected jot, it is safe to say that some modifications to accommodate perceptions have been necessary; including the actual definition of "revelation". How sad. There was a day when it wasn't necessary to explain every word ever spoken because what was spoken was understood by those who heard them.

Why does the date matter? Heck we use the Bible which is from the first century.
Jo I would also like to apologize for questioning your intelligence.

Originally posted by Sparko

Jo, he wasn't telling you his favorite breakfast food. He was testifying who Jesus WAS. He was arguing for his statement that Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient. He gave examples from the lifetime of Jesus showing that he was omniscient and omnipotent. Some of the very SAME arguments that Christians used in the other thread that you argued against.

You can't play this off as some nonessential matter of opinion. Romney was teaching about scripture. As your prophet you are sworn to listen to him on all matters of scripture and doctrine. This clearly is a case of that. No matter if it appears in a "testimony" or a sunday school class, or at an LDS conference, when a Prophet speaks on matters of scripture, you are obligated to submit to his judgement. He is the mouthpiece of God.

On matters of scripture who has more knowledge: You or the Prophet? Do you have a closer connection to God than he does? Do you even have more theological training than he does?

and in my OP it specifically lists the First Presidency Ensign articles as a source of guidance and information from the Prophets. And yet you hand wave it away as if it were him describing what breakfast food he likes.

Was his testimony true? If yes, then what he said in it is also true and you can't dismiss it.

You are in rebellion, jo.

You are increasing what you say I claimed with every post you make. But what I really am claiming you gloss over.

Of course his testimony is true! What we cannot ask him, however, is if he believes or if he thought that it had ever been revealed to him or to any prophet that Jesus was omnipotent or omniscient 24/7 from the moment he left the presence of Father until he returned to Father, on his earthly journey from inception to resurrection. We cannot ask President Romney if the answer is "yes" - could he please clarify whether Jesus had access to these powers from inception to resurrection; did Jesus have to wait for direction from Father to use these powers; how do the answers President Romney would give us relate to passage where these powers seem to be manifested?

Again, do we claim Jesus is omnipotent and omniscient? Yes. Do we have the answers to the questions as they related to the questions on the thread where all of this started? No. That is why we were discussing possible answers. Does anything OC or I said contradict anything presented in President Romney's article? No.

On the thread where OC and I were discussing this issue, the questions were such that they broke down Jesus' attributes into a time line of understanding; an accessibility vs awareness vs Father's will for Jesus to use these attributes vs applicability to specific passages in the Bible, etc., etc. Presdent Romney's testimony was not addressing the questions we were addressing. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Get over it and move on.

God bless,

jo

Originally posted by jo7241974

Your quote was from July 31, 1954.

Pretty much because of individuals like you who search for the dissected jot, it is safe to say that some modifications to accommodate perceptions have been necessary; including the actual definition of "revelation". How sad. There was a day when it wasn't necessary to explain every word ever spoken because what was spoken was understood by those who heard them.

The quote was used in the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual I linked to in the OP. right from the LDS.org site. It is current.

want to try again?

I think I have to come to the conclusion that you are a rebel, jo. This isn't the first time you have rebelled against a clear teaching of your church. Remember the whole Apostle Barnabas thing?

You go girl.

Originally posted by Sparko

Doesn’t a prophet have to preface his comments with “Thus saith the Lord” when he is speaking as a prophet? The answer to this question is no. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” ( Church News, 31 July 1954, p. 10.)

This is one of the most frustrating things about Mormondom. You find something from THEIR site, spoken by one of THEIR guys, absolutely crystal clear... and "it's not official". I praise God that I don't have to worry that a Prophet of God is "sometimes speaking officially" and "sometimes expressing opinion". Who's to say?

Seriously... how do Mormons know?

Originally posted by Country Preacher

This is one of the most frustrating things about Mormondom. You find something from THEIR site, spoken by one of THEIR guys, absolutely crystal clear... and "it's not official". I praise God that I don't have to worry that a Prophet of God is "sometimes speaking officially" and "sometimes expressing opinion". Who's to say?

Seriously... how do Mormons know?

If they agree with it then it's "official"

“A part of the propaganda is that there is no warrant for official interpretation of the doctrines and standards of the Church, that everyone may read and interpret for himself, and adopt only so much of the doctrine as he chooses, and that he may classify the revelations as essential or non-essential. These propagandists are either ignorant of or ignore the Lord’s declaration that ‘no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.’ ( II Peter 1:20 .) They disparage orthodoxy as such and pride themselves on liberal thinking. Many of them maintain their loyalty to the Church, and some may honestly believe they are doing the Church a favor and a service in advocating their so-called broad-minded concepts.

“Unfortunately, some people within the Church subscribing to these views do not realize that they are falling into a trap themselves. They are giving aid and comfort to the foe; they are undermining their own testimonies and those of others. I warn the Church against them, and I warn them against themselves; and I plead with them to desist, to abandon their agnostic discussions, and to join with the faithful in promoting the cause which in their hearts they once loved, and I think they still love.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1951, pp. 116–17.)

==================

Elder Spencer W. Kimball stated: “There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1948, 109).

Sparko,

Some doctrinal introduction is in order here, I think.

LDS believe that all human beings lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father before coming to earth to experience mortality. When we were born, there was a veil of forgetfulness drawn over us preventing us from remembering our pre-mortal existence. (There was a reason for this, which is another topic.) I don't think Marion G. Romney was trying to teach that Jesus did not experience this "veil of forgetfulness" himself when he came into the world.

Can you find any teaching anywhere from the LDS leadership who taught that Jesus DIDN'T have this veil drawn for him like it was for us?

If you can find such a teaching, I would be interested in hearing about it.

Thanks.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Sparko,

Some doctrinal introduction is in order here, I think.

LDS believe that all human beings lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father before coming to earth to experience mortality. When we were born, there was a veil of forgetfulness drawn over us preventing us from remembering our pre-mortal existence. (There was a reason for this, which is another topic.) I don't think Marion G. Romney was trying to teach that Jesus did not experience this "veil of forgetfulness" himself when he came into the world.

Can you find any teaching anywhere from the LDS leadership who taught that Jesus DIDN'T have this veil drawn for him like it was for us?

If you can find such a teaching, I would be interested in hearing about it.

Thanks.

OC, you know very well I am not even talking about Jesus' life before his ministry. The whole discussion was taking place about his life during his 3 year ministry. Which you and Jo both argued that he was not omniscient during it.

Romneys statement and subsequent verses to prove his statement dealt entirely within that 3 year period. So I asked you if that made you change your mind about what you said earlier. Instead of agreeing, you tried to drag the discussion off on a rabbit trail about his life before his baptism. That is a very dishonest tactic.

So do you now agree that during his 3 year ministry, Jesus was both Omniscient and Omnipotent, like Romney testified to?

Yes or No please.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Sparko,

Some doctrinal introduction is in order here, I think.

LDS believe that all human beings lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father before coming to earth to experience mortality. When we were born, there was a veil of forgetfulness drawn over us preventing us from remembering our pre-mortal existence. (There was a reason for this, which is another topic.) I don't think Marion G. Romney was trying to teach that Jesus did not experience this "veil of forgetfulness" himself when he came into the world.

Can you find any teaching anywhere from the LDS leadership who taught that Jesus DIDN'T have this veil drawn for him like it was for us?

If you can find such a teaching, I would be interested in hearing about it.

Thanks.

Do mormons believe that adam and eve pre-existed? Jesus also knew as a child his mission(Remember when his parents thought he was lost).