tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post2153949284590109265..comments2024-03-26T14:29:25.921-06:00Comments on To The Remnant: History, Hearsay and Heresy Part 4:Never Led AstrayAdrian Larsenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-25406824300342430232017-04-11T14:28:41.614-06:002017-04-11T14:28:41.614-06:00Adrian said, "As a by-product, we were left w...Adrian said, "As a by-product, we were left with a lie."<br /><br />It is interesting that the "doctrine" of polygamy (as a requirement for exaltation) was a lie as well.<br /><br />So a lie was replaced with a lie. <br /><br />I do find Pres Kimball's rebuke of Benson astonishingly hypocritical. As was pointed out by Patty above, Kimball had publicly taught the SAME false and wicked doctrine in 1951. Did he really believe "this Church will never go astray; the Quorum of the Twelve will never lead you into bypaths; it never has and never will”?<br /><br />Let me answer that question with a timeline populated with 3 dates:<br /><br />Feb. 1980: Elder Benson delivers his false doctrine talk.<br /><br />1980: I assume it was in 1980 that Pres Kimball privately rebuked Elder Benson and called him on the carpet.<br /><br />Oct. 1981: That pernicious quote of Wilford Woodruff was added to OD 1!! So UNDER Kimball's watch (and within months of his rebuke of Benson), the Church canonized a few excerpts from addresses Wilford Woodruff gave, by adding them to OD 1 in the D&C. The key anti Christ precept that was added was that the Lord would not permit the president of the Church to lead the Church astray. At the Oct 1981 General Conference there was no Church vote on this addition to our canon, and in fact, there was not ANY announcement in General Conference the excerpts would be added. The only "announcement" one can find is in an article buried in the Ensign Magazine in October 1981. <br /><br />Our rapid institutional apostasy may be directly attributed to this insidious, unapproved addition quietly inserted into our Scriptures in 1981. <br /><br />What I find obviously blatantly hypocritical of Kimball is to rebuke Benson in 1980 and the VERY NEXT year preside over the canonization of the SAME teaching he supposedly privately rebuked!<br /><br />The proper way to rebuke or correct false teachings would have been to do it PUBLICLY, so that future generations would be properly instructed and warned. The fact he did it privately gives insight into how little Kimball cared about preserving an important truth for posterity. <br /><br />The argument could be made he gave the rebuke for vindictive or political reasons. <br /><br />Keep in mind Benson had on occasion called out priesthood leaders for being cowards and derelict in duty for not standing up for freedom. He was very caustic and condemning of such leaders. I'm not aware of much evidence, if any, that Kimball was remotely of the patriotic stature of Benson in fighting for Liberty. So there's a reasonable chance that the private rebuke of Benson was vindictive, as a way to put Benson in his place, after years of being tormented by Benson's calls to repentance. <br /><br />In reality, the far GREATER sin was committed by Spencer W. Kimball for authorizing the canonization of the very same precept (WW's excerpt from 1890) the very next year in Oct 1981. <br /><br />Underdognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-64800258388972859502017-01-01T19:56:05.538-07:002017-01-01T19:56:05.538-07:00Hi Julene, Please read through the comments thread...Hi Julene, Please read through the comments thread, where your exact question has already been asked and answered at length.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-70322517795930299962017-01-01T19:53:09.186-07:002017-01-01T19:53:09.186-07:00Where is your documentation for
When this talk wa...Where is your documentation for <br />When this talk was given, it was roundly rejected by Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet at the time. In fact this talk very nearly earned Elder Benson a formal rebuke from the First Presidency, and he was required to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve and explain himself to a combined meeting of all the general authorities of the church. In short, President Kimball was MUCH displeased with what was said, and considered it false doctrine.<br />Julene Humeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09303885784705849743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-64770224542910721012016-11-27T13:16:30.932-07:002016-11-27T13:16:30.932-07:00It is one thing to say that the Lord will never pe...It is one thing to say that the Lord will never permit any man who stands as President of the Church to lead the people astray (wilford Woodruff regarding the 1890 Manifesto), it is quite another thing to say "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice" (from the last pages of the D&C). I lately read in "Zion's Redemption" by Francis Michael Darter (p. 81) that President Woodruff years later made a statement that he did not receive such divine revelation. So who is leading astray whom here? If what Darter writes is true - and I assume it is - that sure would make President Woodruff feel very uncomfortable where he is at right now, don't you think? <br />Darter did not provide any source though, unfortunately.R. Metzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875261161185193692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-79573650529310079982016-03-23T23:13:11.310-06:002016-03-23T23:13:11.310-06:00Here's a scripture to challenge the follow b t...Here's a scripture to challenge the follow b the prophet mantra too.<br />1 Kings 13:11-29.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-86938909526315266552016-03-23T13:55:18.128-06:002016-03-23T13:55:18.128-06:00Please see above in the comments discussion.
Please see above in the comments discussion.<br />Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-63258544990221530072016-03-23T13:24:59.557-06:002016-03-23T13:24:59.557-06:00I love this post. I would love a source to back th...I love this post. I would love a source to back the story of Elder Benson nearly getting a formal rebuke and needing to explain himself to a committee. Can you tell me where you got that information?Bagshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11098978489370757418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-83613553130536578222016-03-05T09:56:24.423-07:002016-03-05T09:56:24.423-07:00Hi Adrian,
I just read this post, and remembered ...Hi Adrian,<br /><br />I just read this post, and remembered reading something from Wilford Woodruff's Journal under the date of January 21, 1883:<br /><br />"J. F. Smith spoke upon the Priesthood and revelation. It was a very interesting discourse. He said God will not keep any man on earth to preside over the Church to lead the Church of God astray. He will take him away first and all men should sustain the authorities of the Church or Priesthood."<br /><br />Wilford thought it was "very interesting", perhaps because it was news to him at the time.<br /><br />I remember reading something Heber C. Kimball stated in regards to taking Lucy Walker to wife - he said he hoped the Lord would take him before he ever apostatized. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the source of that again.<br /><br />I think this definitely fits these other instances of how myths get started and become doctrine.<br /><br />Great post!Sam Vaughnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-2548544004002867672015-02-04T22:55:56.399-07:002015-02-04T22:55:56.399-07:00In light of President Kimball rebuking Elder Benso...In light of President Kimball rebuking Elder Benson for the '14 Fundamentals talk', it is intriguing that Elder Kimball himself is quoted saying something similar 29 years earlier in General Conference. The last word on following the prophet and apostles in Lesson 6 of the current Gospel Doctrine New Testament course is a quote by then Elder Kimball from 1951 April Conference:<br /><br />“No one in this Church will ever go far astray who ties himself securely to the Church Authorities whom the Lord has placed in his Church. This Church will never go astray; the Quorum of the Twelve will never lead you into bypaths; it never has and never will” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1951, 104).<br /><br />Whether that strikes you as delightfully reassuring or heretically alarming depends, I suppose, on whether you believe it or not. What caused President Kimball to see the claim of infallibility so very differently as President of the Church™ 29 years after he apparently championed it? To maneuver the original quote from Kimball's days as an apostle in an end run around the subsequent stand against the concept when he was actually serving as president of the Church™--is a remarkable example of proof texting at any cost. Whether this was done out of ignorance or by design the result is the same–we're encouraged to trust and believe something that is unscripturally false. Spiritual disaster awaits.<br /><br />But wait, there's more. '14 Fundamentals' seems destined to continue poisoning our hearts and minds in a big way. Elements from '14 Fundamentals' have been woven into Chapter 11, 'Follow the Living Prophet' in this year's priesthood and Relief Society manual. It's astonishing. As a gospel doctrine teacher last year I was impressed that the ancient Israelites apostatized from the top down. It was most of the kings, the prophets and priests that went whoring after Baal and Ashteroth with the ordinary folks happily followed their lead. <br /><br />While the manuals are written by committees of scholars, someone at the very highest levels of leadership has to green-light the final result. Do the very highest levels of leadership believe they are infallible? Do they suffer from holy envy for the Catholic Magisterium who openly claim infallibility? Let the humble followers of Jesus Christ say 'no' to such perverse mischief.<br />Pattynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-52266409170710364002015-01-06T19:50:24.496-07:002015-01-06T19:50:24.496-07:00I posted a blog with some quotes by LDS leaders ab...I posted a blog with some quotes by LDS leaders about following God and not the prophet or any other man. If interested here is the link: http://mdb651.blogspot.com/mdb651https://www.blogger.com/profile/04636294107334670683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-35741570725260927602015-01-05T13:18:39.843-07:002015-01-05T13:18:39.843-07:00Micah,
We have a group of like-minded people i...Micah,<br /><br /> We have a group of like-minded people in Seattle. We'd love to have you join us.<br /><br />SteveStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13745901786962474174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-3600296845778906142014-12-02T15:15:09.328-07:002014-12-02T15:15:09.328-07:00Three "versions" of the book actually ex...Three "versions" of the book actually exist. In order for the book to be carried in Deseret Book (which would imply endorsement by the Church), some things were left out of the published volume. The full manuscript was included on a CD included in the back of some volumes which goes far beyond merely providing documentation. It includes three versions of Lengthen Your Stride: (1) the text of the book as printed, but also (2) the same text with about 1,600 footnotes, and (3) the “working draft” that in- cludes much additional text and about 3,200 footnotes. Obviously the third version is the “real” book before it was trimmed down for publication.<br /><br />Though the concern was motivated by politics, the implication Benson conveyed in his talk was that anything the president said represented the very word of God, and that is where Kimball wisely felt it was necessary to rein him in.<br /><br />I recommend you also visit this link, and look at footnotes 61-63: <br />http://www.mormonliberals.org/ezra-taft-benson-and-politics<br /><br />You can also read more at this link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,856352,857318 and in D. Michael Quinns book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" as cited in this link.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-27219630576013637342014-11-26T23:19:02.504-07:002014-11-26T23:19:02.504-07:00Original Anonymous asker here. Thanks to the glor...Original Anonymous asker here. Thanks to the glories of Interlibrary loan I have sourced the book. According to Anonymous on Oct 30, the incident I inquired about is in the public relations chapter. Indeed it is referenced, and I will quote, from p. 160:<br />Many people looked for political messages where none may have been intended. In February, 1980, Elder Benson gave a talk at Brigham Young University titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet." It emphasized that the living prophets' statements take precedence over those of earlier prophets. He also asserted, "those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government." (note 11: The talk may have been an impassioned response to a full-page anti-Mormon advertisement in the Salt Lake Tribune two days before, trumpeting inconsistencies between latter-day prophets.) <br />Spencer was concerned about the talk. He wanted to prevent any misperception that the church espoused ultraconservative politics and wanted to discourage an unthinking follow-the-leader mentality. (note 12: Camilla speculated that if one of the other apostles had given the same talk there would have been much less reaction.) Church spokesman Don LeFevre told the press the day after the speech that it is "simply not true" that the Church President's "word is law on all issues-including politics." The uproar continued, however, and a week later President Kimball and his counselors issued still another statement to "reaffirm that we...exercise no constraint on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices in these matters."<br />And end of quotation from the book.<br />This is embedded in a section on politics, with Benson arguing for the church taking a more conservative activist stance, which he abandoned in 1984, and Kimball trying to rein him in. So, not as scandalous as made out to be in your piece, Adrian, but still pointing in the same direction. Then again, I have only read 10 pages in the book, not the whole thing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-35151644263685022732014-10-30T13:59:11.611-06:002014-10-30T13:59:11.611-06:00for the ref to the quote see the book, Lengthen Yo...for the ref to the quote see the book, Lengthen Your Stride by Edward Kimball. Look for the chapter titled: Public Relations, Public Issues. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-68239376282455176032014-10-23T00:36:26.862-06:002014-10-23T00:36:26.862-06:00Thanks Adrian, I appreciate the reference. I'...Thanks Adrian, I appreciate the reference. I'll have to read the biography sometime. And it only took you 10 minutes to respond! Wow! And it took me 2 days to check for a response.<br />Original Anonymous asker.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-76507481818199290542014-10-21T10:40:41.618-06:002014-10-21T10:40:41.618-06:00Well, that depends on where Edward Kimball got it....Well, that depends on where Edward Kimball got it. If it was from Spencer W. Kimball's own journal, it wouldn't be hearsay. I haven't read the biography, but I'd like to, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss.aredesuyohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17364234164201038777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-91966875448702485252014-10-21T10:37:02.678-06:002014-10-21T10:37:02.678-06:00Well said, "We've traded the Savior's...Well said, "We've traded the Savior's injunction of "Come, Follow Me" with Satan's imitation, "Go, follow him."<br /><br />Polygamy is one of the worst doctrines ever introduced into the church and absolutely condemned in the Book of Mormon. If members truly believed it was the word of God none of them would have been led astray because of it. http://gregstocks.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/polygamy-vs-the-book-of-mormon/1https://www.blogger.com/profile/01583545885401871178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-21028217769696313452014-10-21T04:58:02.140-06:002014-10-21T04:58:02.140-06:00So it is hearsay then.So it is hearsay then.Robin Hoodnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-16171656264164102682014-10-20T00:34:55.056-06:002014-10-20T00:34:55.056-06:00It was in Edward Kimball's biography of his fa...It was in Edward Kimball's biography of his father "Lengthen Your Stride."<br /><br />Sorry, don't have the page number at the moment.Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-53778138788448241572014-10-20T00:27:08.290-06:002014-10-20T00:27:08.290-06:00It was in Edward Kimball's biography of his fa...It was in Edward Kimball's biography of his father "Lengthen Your Stride."Adrian Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-24329662493752499422014-10-20T00:17:16.519-06:002014-10-20T00:17:16.519-06:00Hi,
Thank you for the time you put into these pos...Hi, <br />Thank you for the time you put into these posts, I have appreciated reading them. I have come to many of the same conclusions that you have with regards to infallibility. Can I request a source on Kimball calling Benson to the mat on his talk? I would love to have it to add to my study and sources. <br />Thanks<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-89132927326786241272014-10-19T20:17:43.368-06:002014-10-19T20:17:43.368-06:00Adrian,
Can you please provide a reference for th...Adrian,<br /><br />Can you please provide a reference for this statement from your post?<br /><br />"When this talk was given, it was roundly rejected by Spencer W. Kimball, who was the prophet at the time. In fact this talk very nearly earned Elder Benson a formal rebuke from the First Presidency, and he was required to apologize to the Quorum of the Twelve and explain himself to a combined meeting of all the general authorities of the church. In short, President Kimball was MUCH displeased with what was said, and considered it false doctrine."<br /><br />I appreciate that you are very thorough in providing references for your statements everywhere, but don't see one here. I'd really like to see that for myself.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-38245176979270805962014-08-31T12:27:16.113-06:002014-08-31T12:27:16.113-06:00Ryan , that is only one of several examples of Pau... Ryan , that is only one of several examples of Paul teaching erroneous doctrine. Just as modern prophets aren't infallible neither was Paulboohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03617627507633971672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-54590851667913094042014-08-27T01:58:07.987-06:002014-08-27T01:58:07.987-06:00Thank you, Good Will, for your kind response and t...Thank you, Good Will, for your kind response and thank you for your sacrifice for the truth! Sorry you've had to go through that. I agree with you about standing up for truth without fear. I am reminded of some scriptures that apply:<br /><br />Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.<br /><br />Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.<br /><br />I have also sat through those meetings for hours, hungry for spiritual nourishment; a scripture, mention of the Savior, new doctrine, feeling the spirit... anything, please! It is frustrating, so I've started studying the gospel on my own during those times.Nathan Quigleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12845481015727315789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8665085267750808287.post-84916291727394461802014-08-24T21:32:27.706-06:002014-08-24T21:32:27.706-06:00This is nothing that I haven't read, pondered ...This is nothing that I haven't read, pondered and studied before. <br /><br />I struggle then with the question:<br /><br />"What is a prophet for if not to lead by example?"<br /><br />We find Paul asking the Saints of his day to follow his exame. <br /><br />"Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."<br /><br />Philippians 3:17Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994627817578657093noreply@blogger.com