I think we need to keep things like this quote more in mind. Especially in these times.
“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us.
When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.
Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.”
George Q. Cannon, “Need For Personal Testimonies,” (15 February 1891), Collected Discourses 2:178. See Millennial Star 53:658–659, 673–675.
Wheat & Tares 
Amen. It is absurd that the current Mormon hierarchy neither espouses nor practices such a wise philosophy.
Disturbing that Mormon worship services and curriculum consist largely of quotes/references to our glorious leaders. Too many members trust religious and political icons (see DJT) rather placing their faith in the Divine.
1. So we are supposed to believe the words of an LDS leader who says “don’t put your trust in man, put your trust in God”. But he said that as a man and Church leader so he’s already lost me based on his own logic.
2. Neil Anderson once said in GC that LDS doctrine is only that which the entire Q15 agrees on. But he said that as just one of them…I never heard the entire Q15 say they agree with him. So by definition we should consider Anderson’s words doctrine, just his opinion.
3. Wendy Nelson said that we should put questions after all others speak but an explanation point after Russel Nelson’s words. So following her instruction I’m questioning her and what she said (she isn’t Russel Nelson).
I could do this all day but I’ll stop at three.
correction: “shouldn’t” replaces “should” above in the Anderson example
The Mormon church is forever cherry picking thoughts and bromides from the larger world and repackaging them as Mormon wisdom uniquely available to members. Put absolute faith in any human being and that faith will eventually be betrayed. The Q15 just speaks in bland vagaries so that they can appear always correct and trustworthy without having to own anything.
The problem is that trust in God is equally unreliable without unbridled use of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
I am painting the picture with a big brush, but what I suspect happened in the LDS world is that Joseph Smith through George Q. Cannon and a few decades later taught a body of beliefs which in some ways limited church leaders and promoted personal revelation. Joseph hated creeds, Brigham Young disliked stereotypical Mormons and adults were expected to provide leadership and be a revelatory channel for their families. With correlation and a few GA statements, constraints have been removed from church leaders and adult members were infantilized. A real turning point was the “Fourteen Fundamentals to Following a Prophet.” Creeds have been reintroduced by focusing on Declarations and conference talks rather than scripture and inspiration. Individuality and differences became markers of heresy. What I find strange is that the emphasis on home scripture study would reinforce individuality. It doesn’t. As I look over “Come Follow Me,” it is promoting institutional control of scripture study.
Does anyone else see this in a similar fashion?
Amen, and I would add that if we can make time for a lesson on tithing in the Come Follow Me curriculum every year, we certainly should have time to fit in a lesson on the fallibility of *all men*, including the Q15, each year. These lessons should include specific examples of Q15 mistakes from the past: the POX, being gay is a choice, the priesthood ban, etc.
From speaking with my children and their Church friends, I sense that leader worship is an even bigger problem in today’s Church than it was when I was young. When Church leaders continually tell people to be “exactly obedient” and to “follow the prophet” while refusing to acknowledge their fallibility and to call out, much less apologize, for their own mistakes, they are simply leading members to build the foundation of their faith on sand, a foundation that will inevitably fail when many members come to recognize the failings of Church leaders’ words and actions as they age and mature. I think many members that are leaving the Church now might choose to stay when they recognize the failings of Church leaders as adults if they hadn’t been mistakenly taught that God and Church leaders are essentially the same thing in their youth.
If you don’t think Church leaders are teaching the opposite of the Cannon quote from the OP today, then please read these talks from the last 2 years:
1. Ahmad Corbitt – https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24159863/Brother_Corbitt_Chaplain_seminar.pdf
2. Kevin Hamilton – https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-s-hamilton/why-a-church/
3. Sherri Dew – https://speeches.byuh.edu/prophets-can-see-around-corners
Amen. And thank you for the quotation and citation.
It’s one of those quotations the congregation can use as a boundary for protection from the institution.
Distills the existential threat facing the contemporary church: no need for institutional, ecclesiastical organization if one’s belief(s) transcends either or both.
A more recent quote, though still old, by Harold B Lee:
“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).
Inherent in this reliance on the scriptures is that individual people must measure and assess and judge what their leaders are teaching against what is written in the standard works. I appreciate what Elder Lee taught here, and what Elder Cannon taught in the OP.
Old Man, I am leery of creeds, as was Joseph Smith (as you point out). Hmm… the proclamation on the family–is that not just about a creed today?
I agree with jaredsbrother. It’s kind of hard to put all my trust in someone I have never met, spoken with directly, can be hard to understand, and quite frankly, has not always been there for me when I needed him/her.
We all have to rely on other humans from time to time whether it be a family member, friend, neighbor, school community, co-workers, airline pilot, police officer, member of our faith community, etc. And sometimes we have to choose not to rely on these same people and rely on ourselves.
Life is simply too complex for these LDS platitudes.
He explains why leaders are allowed to make bad decisions:
“Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.”
I buy that.
Old Man, I agree with you, sort of. Joseph Smith hated creeds, because he wanted to keep changing his new religion as he came up with new ideas. But he didn’t want anyone else making doctrine except himself. And would quickly denounce anyone with their own peep stone, or translating their own scriptures. But he at least paid lip service to open doctrine and individual inspiration.
And Brigham said that Joseph was the only one to get any inspiration that could become doctrine and kind of rejected himself as “prophet” but boy you better not disagree with him.
Now, everything is “follow the prophet” and we have a creed/doctrine that we pretend never changes, just before we change it.
But yes, in general your theory of the church being very open to change and individual inspiration during the early church was true, as well as that now we always put the prophet’s inspiration ahead of our own….until it comes to blaming the church for poor advice on how to run our lives, example women working outside the home, and then “follow the prophet” is general advice on ideals and we need to get our own inspiration to know if we are an exception to general ideals.
The church really wants it both ways depending on what works in the moment.
Georgis,
I want to mention that the scriptures aren’t inerrant either. They were written by men that may have been prophets. But prophets aren’t perfect people that are always inspired and do what’s right.(See Jonah and many other prophetic figures such as David, who was selected by God according to the scriptures). Additionally scriptures are not always recorded correctly even if they do represent a message from God. They also steeped in and based on the culture they are written in.
I follow Dan McClellan. It’s eye opening to hear the different translations of scriptures and what scholars believe. It helps us remember that we each need to decide what it right according to the Spirit within us.
Perhaps it is because of quotes like this (more widely available because of the Internet) that we are now counseled to follow the CURRENT prophet (who leads by a different tune). We are now told the current one trumps the previous one(s). I don’t remember hearing that directive in my earlier years.
Wise input, lws, and thanks. I am not a KJV-onlyist, and I use other translations to help me conclude what the scriptures mean to say. You’re right that scriptures were written by people, so I’m not an inerrantist like some evangelical Protestants profess. Many people who point to the scriptures err because they only point to selected favorite verses, but we really need to know how to use all of the scriptures together (ex: we need to teach reading in context). I don’t follow Mr McClellan. I prefer to read the scriptures than to read commentary on the scriptures. You are right about prophets being fallible: we absolutely teach the doctrine of leader infallibility, although we reject that word. Old Man wrote above that members have been infantilized, and in many respects I think he’s right. I think we need more thinking. But he who speaks should also do, for we more doers than hearers or thinkers.
A couple of questions that I have asked myself are:
Would the world be a better place if everyone were LDS? I’m still pondering that one, I don’t know if I would say “Yes” or “No”.
vs.
Would the world be a better place if everyone took a deep look inside of themself and then tried to live true to their best self and the values inside of them? My answer to that is “Yes, absolutely”.
I like the quote, and I think that we can trust individuals to look inside of themselves and look to God, rather than looking to leaders to tell us what we should and shouldn’t do. With that being said, I think there are different stages of moral development- and at the earlier stages of moral development it is beneficial to have someone with a more developed moral compass telling you what to do. But the goal should be for you to grow in your own moral development and develop your own moral agency. Staying reliant on others once you have grown in your own moral development feels oppressive, and it’s damaging to further growth.
If we are to take the scriptures as our guide in order to determine true doctrine then let us not forget the many verses that warn against rejecting the Lord’s prophets. Here’s a scary one from 1 Nephi 11:
36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
We may not agree with everything that the apostles say–but even so, we should be wary of crossing the line from disagreement to becoming disagreeable toward them.
This highlights a pretty interesting historical process in mormonism that runs parallel to the development of political economy in of the USA.
Joseph Smith started out with a pretty egalitarian view of “who” God speaks to. The theme there, at the beginning is that the heavens are not closed, God continues to speak, and not only does he continue to speak, he can speak to regular farm boys like JS, and you too can also hear God’s own words.
That’s how it started, but as JS made this whole thing a church, an organization, with leaders like himself. But as challenges to his authority arose, he had to constrain the scope of “who” could get revelation, or at least “what kind” of revelation.
That revelatory scope has been slowly but continuously constrained over the last nearly 200 years, to the point now that even the standard works and words of modern deceased members of the Q15 are now suspect in certain contexts. You can’t just study the scriptures anymore, now you have to study the scriptures with the “correct”, current Q15 approved interpretation (Come Follow Me). The purpose of praying now is just to get confirmation that what the Q15 say are true, and if you don’t feel that their statements are true, you’re not praying hard enough.
So there’s been this continuous upward distribution of revelation, and this mirrors the development of democracy in the United States (in certain respects). In the first few decades of the US as a sovereign nation. Most of ye olde founding fathers wanted an incredibly weak central government that could minimally interfere in the freedom of white property-owning men, and nearly all political, economic, and diplomatic questions were up for debate, democratically speaking. Can the government build a post office? Should there be a central bank? Can the government conscript men for military service? Can the government issue money? Should money be based on previous metals? These questions were all left to the democratic process to decide. The central bank was repeatedly rechartered and axed depending on which administration was in office.
Like JS, the men that found in themselves in charge of the country kept running into challenges which led them to constrain what was up for democratic debate. Jefferson though the government shouldn’t be able to buy land from foreign powers, then the French offered to sell the Louisiana territory (well I guess the government can buy land actually). When the 1812 came around, they were like “I guess we do need to be able to conscript men to raise an army, and I guess we do need a central bank to pay for it”. And increasingly those questions of “can the government do this?” were no longer up for debate, decisions became embedded in the superstructure and incoming administrations were no longer able to undo them. Now obviously most of this stuff was decided over 100 years ago, but within living memory, foreign policy is something that has more recently been taken off the democratic table. We have no say on who America’s bombs get dropped on or who we send weapons to. It’s not up for debate among us normal people, the people we vote to represent us have almost no say in it either, it has been removed from the democratic process.
So in both cases, in mormonism and in US political economy, we see the slow upward restriction of revelation and democracy* to the point where a very small number of people claim exclusive rights and control over both.
Anyway, I am curious if the Church follows the same route as the US government, in that the “who” can expand while the “what” stays constrained. Maybe they do let women have the priesthood one day, maybe they do let LGBTQ people have full standing status in the church, but again, maybe that just becomes empty representation if it’s the same gaggle of old guys who ultimately decide everything, and all of the new female or LGBTQ leadership still has to take marching orders from them.
===================================================
*Footnote
On the notion of democracy being restricted in the USA, it is true that more kinds of people can now participate in democracy now than before (non-whites, women), so in that sense the “who” can participate has expanded, BUT simultaenously, the “what” of what we can vote on has been increasingly constrained as described above. More people can vote than ever before, and elections have been more free and fair than ever before, but that’s only because elections are more MEANINGLESS than ever before. Voting in the USA is basically just an empty ritual now. Choosing between a big-mac or a whopper is a choice, and one of those may have less calories then the other, but they’re still burgers, and junk food at that. You can’t choose a taco, or let alone something healthy.
Jack, the prophets of old (in this dispensation and in earlier ones) wanted the people, or at least the men, to have interaction with the divine. Moses: “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!” Paul: “I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied.” Jeremiah (and quoted by the writer of Hebrews): “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD.” While Pres. Nelson told us that we need to learn to receive revelation, it seems to be that many underneath him are trying to claw that back. I believe that God won’t give me revelation for you, or for the Church, but will you or the Church respect my right to receive revelation for myself and for my family? Or does this frighten us? Why?
We do not believe any more in teaching people correct principles and letting them govern themselves. Clearly in the early church wicked men crept in, wolves in sheep’s clothing, seeking to lead good people astray, and teaching (falsely) that since Christ already died for all sins, we cannot sin, so bring on all manner of sexual immorality. Clearly the people need guides to help us protect ourselves from ungodly men who seek to deceive. But does it really matter if a man wears a beard, or even a modest tattoo? or if a person removes their garments for sex with a spouse, to go to the doctor, or to exercise? Is a two-piece bathing suit really a sin? or going to an R-rated movie, when the rating is for realistic battlefield violence? Not too long ago, it was a sin for women to wear their garments under their bras–we changed that just a few years ago. Is there too much caffeine in coca cola, but not too much in chocolate? Why do we still teach that tithing is 10% of gross? We don’t teach that in general conference, but it is taught by missionaries to new members, and by local bishops. And why should we care if people pay tithing before they pay their light bill? How about letting people decide the what and when about tithing, after the leaders teach only the principle and the commandment.
We have become obsessed with obedience to the exclusion of other truths. Obedience is a true principal, but have we not in too may ways become no different from the Pharisees? They obsessed about obedience to things that didn’t matter, like how many steps on the sabbath day, and forgot about the sabbath day itself. I agree in honoring and obeying the Lord’s prophet, when he speaks as a prophet. I think that in most matters, Pres. Nelson speaks as president of the Church, which is a high and holy office, and he speaks much less frequently as a prophet, seer, and a revelator. I am going off topic. Didn’t Joseph Smith admit that he was a prophet only when he spoke as a prophet? Men can err; Jesus told us to find Him in the scriptures. The prophets can help us understand the scriptures for ourselves, so that we can find the Lord as described in the scriptures, instead of the Lord as described by well intentioned, good, and fallible men. When the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done. I’m not so sure. I think that we should think about it. Luke said that the people in Berea heard Paul preach, and every day after the preaching they returned to their homes to see if everything Paul taught aligned with the scriptures, meaning what we now call the Old Testament. Luke cited this as a good practice. I think that a person will likely draw nearer to God by reading and studying the scriptures, than by listening to general conference talks for the same amount of time. That assumes that a person has good reading skills, and many Latter-day Saints are almost scripturally illiterate. Is that perhaps a result of how we teach the scriptures in our churches? I think that Pres. Nelson’s charge to get us back into the scriptures is right, but then what do we hear at general conference, but people falling over themselves to quote Pres. Nelson. In some respects, I think that the rudder is disconnected from the helm, and it is multiple layers of leaders that make the connection points between helm (Pres. Nelson) and rudder (families in their homes).
I wrote above that we have become obsessed with obedience to the exclusion of other truths. I think that Paul saw the same thing in the church in his day, and his response, in part, was 1 Corinthians 13. Maybe we can ask the question differently. Should our local leaders be more concerned about ministering to and feeding their flocks, or should they be more concerned with imposing orthodoxy and correct thinking? Is it more important, in God’s eyes, (a) to be good and decent, and to love his neighbor, and to forgive his enemy, to be kind in his family, and to do right by the poor and dispossessed, or (b) to attend church every Sunday, wearing a suit (or dress for the ladies), never late, not ever looking at FB on the phone, paying tithing promptly, reading in the scriptures daily without fail, going to the temple weekly, and otherwise checking every box? I think some of the things in my (b) can help us in my (a), but we are so judgmental of others that we obsess about the (b) so much that many of us never get to thinking seriously about the (a). We make the gospel a heavy yoke and a grievous burden to be borne. Let’s teach people correct principles, and let them govern themselves, and let’s not ask people to put their faith in men, but in Christ. I’ve also known some people who are great at the (b) but who were monsters in their homes, cruel to their wives and children, but they checked every box. I don’t think that the gospel calls for us to checking boxes, and more importantly for me watching to ensure that my neighbor is checking his boxes.
Jack, your point is well taken, and thank you. Korah and Dathan led the people in rebellion against Moses, and the Lord treated them accordingly for their rebellion. We should exercise great care that we are not found in rebellion against God for rejecting His prophet. But Moses was not in everyone’s business telling them absolutely everything they need to do and how to do it and when to do it. After the people rejected the initial law, God did give them such a law through Moses. But that isn’t the law that God wants us to live under today, and Christ fulfilled that law. I agree that Christian liberty can be taken too far, and Jude, Paul, Peter, and even Jesus warned about those who would deceive, primarily on this issue of Christian liberty. But the right answer is to properly teach what Christian liberty means, rather than to demand obedience, curtsey, and kiss the ring. We will always have the tares among the wheat. Let’s teach the wheat to be wheat, instead of teaching them not to be tares.
That’s my third and last. Apologies for the length. Like Pascal said one occasion, I apologize for not taking the time to make this missive shorter. (Or words to that effect.)
Thanks for the response, Georgis.
Moses hoped to establish a kingdom of priests–and I suppose at least part of what that means is that individuals would have a personal revelatory connection with God. And that’s what the church seeks to do today by bringing people into the gospel covenant–and then into the temple where they learn how to receive even greater light and knowledge.
Even so, all of us will need counsel and direction from time to time while we’re in the process of figuring all of that out–otherwise we’re likely to get lost in the weeds. And that’s the main purpose (IMO) for the general counsel we receive through living prophets. And I agree that much of what we hear during conference can seem repetitive–but that’s the nature of general counsel. The apostles are speaking to a community–and so their declarations tend to be calculated to reach the widest audience possible.
That said, there’s nothing to stop the faithful from receiving a knowledge of all things as fast as they’re able. From Section 76:
5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.
7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.
8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.
9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.
10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man.
@Jack, your use of 1 Nephi 11:36 may be a case of prooftexting. If you read 1 Nephi 11 in its entirety you will see it is talking very specifically and at length about Christ’s baptism, His ministry on the earth, His selection of 12 followers/apostles, His miracles and healings, and finally His crucifixion:
29 And I also beheld twelve others following him. And it came to pass that they were carried away in the Spirit from before my face, and I saw them not.
30 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men; and they did minister unto them.
31 And he spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Lamb of God going forth among the children of men. And I beheld multitudes of people who were sick, and who were afflicted with all manner of diseases, and with devils and unclean spirits; and the angel spake and showed all these things unto me. And they were dhealed by the power of the Lamb of God; and the devils and the unclean spirits were cast out.
32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.
33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.
In the very next verse, the text mentions how the multitudes of the earth “gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb”:
34 And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.
Given the flow of the text from verse 33 to verse 34, it seems pretty clear to me that the twelve apostles described in verse 34, are Peter, James, John, and the rest of the 12 original apostles that Christ selected and *not* Russel Nelson, Dallin Oaks, David Bednar, etc. As the text continues, a careful reading would seem to indicate that the twelve apostles mentioned in verse 36 are still Peter, James, John, etc. (I don’t want to derail my comment here, but it is interesting that the text very specifically refers to *12* apostles, yet we somehow have *15* apostles today. Is this another reason to believe that this verse is not referring to today’s apostles?)
The interpretation of verses 34-36 from my lifetime in the Church that I’ve heard the most (exclusively, except for the prooftexting today of verse 36?) is that “the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb” is referring to the “Great Apostasy” that the the Church claims happened following the death of Christ as “The World” (the people in the great and spacious building) rejected the twelve apostles as they attempted to spread the gospel throughout the world. This interpretation does make sense given that this chapter was supposedly written/revealed hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. The Church’s narrative is that all the nations of the earth did suffer for centuries in darkness because they chose to reject the ancient apostles of Christ.
35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
I can see how some might want to interpret verse 36 as referring to all, including today’s, apostles, but that feels like a stretch to me with a close reading of the entire chapter.
Another Book of Mormon chapter provides better insight into how members ought to consider modern Church leaders might be 2 Nephi 28, as this chapter, unlike 1 Nephi 11, is generally accepted to be speaking of the “last days”. Church members love to read this chapter under the assumption that their beloved Church is pretty much doing everything right, and that the condemnation of other churches found in this chapter is referring to any church besides the COJCOLDS, but I’m not sure that is a safe assumption. A better approach might be to assume that the condemnation of churches found in this chapter includes *all* churches, *including” the COJCOLDS. Rhetorical question: are we really that much better than everyone else? With that in mind, let’s look at a few verses from 2 Nephi 28:
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
Might the POX be considered “a false and foolish doctine”? What about the Family Proclamation, a document that is well-documented to have started out as a legal brief and which the Q15 themselves have admitted was not revelation (because they made Packer take it back when he called it a revelation)?
Might the Church’s recent attempts at hiding its weath be considered “works in the dark”? What about the hiding of true Church history until forced to do so by the prevalence of the information on the internet?
10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.
Might verse 10 be partially referring to the LGBTQ members of the Church who have killed themselves due to the hopelessness they’ve felt by being taught by today’s apostles that it is not possible to both have a companion in this life and reach the Celestial Kingdom?
13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.
Might verse 13 be referring to spending millions and millions of dollars of their many *hidden billions* on temples while continuing to extract tithing from members living in abject poverty in 3rd world countries (and being promised that paying tithing is the only real way out of poverty as Nelson recently did (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2018/10/afw-eng-local-pages/local-news-001?lang=eng)?
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
MIght verse 14 be accurately descibe how perhaps the majority of the membership of the Church have gone astray due to Church leaders focusing on “the precepts of men” instead of the teachings of Christ? Could it be that today’s Church leaders actually make it quite hard to be one of the “few, who are the humble followers of Christ”?
So, yeah, the Book of Mormon does contain some good insights on how to deal with modern day apostles if you look in the right places instead of prooftexting a single verse to meet your needs.
mountainclimber479,
The great and spacious building is the pride of the world–and that pertains to the world in all ages. Its fall is eschatological–it is the fall of Babylon. By the same token the fall of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples pertains to all people during any age of the earth who fight against the Lord’s apostles–which in turn means the apostles also take on an eschatological character. They are archetypal characters that represent the Lord’s anointed in all ages–much like what we see in the modern temple endowment.
@Jack, I agree that the symbolism of the “great and spacious building”, Babylon, the fall of nations, apostles, etc. can and often is, for better or worse, applied to things in the world today. However, as I’ve stated in my previous comment, my reading of 1 Nephi 11 seems to point to it referencing the apostles that Christ chose while on the earth two thousand years ago, and the destruction of nations caused by rejecting these apostles is referring to the “darkness” brought on by the “Great Apostasy”. For further proof, look at how Nephi has to explain what an “apostle” is in verse 34, “the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.” This explanation would be unnecessary today, but the people that Nephi was speaking/writing to would almost certainly have not even known what an apostle is since they didn’t have them prior to Christ. Since the only apostles mentioned by Nephi in this chapter are pretty clearly the ancient apostles selected by Christ while on the earth, it would be strange for verse 36 to be referencing more modern apostles without further explanation about how there would be more apostles thousands of years after Christ from Nephi. If you want to say something like, “Just like Nephi taught that rejecting Christ’s apostles after He died would lead to the destruction of prophet, I personally think we should likewise carefully listen to the teachings of our apostles today”, then I wouldn’t object to you expressing your opinion this way. I wouldn’t object because you would be expressing your own personal opinion of an extension of Nephi’s words rather than putting words in Nephi’s mouth. That said, I would still caution you to balance those thoughts with some of the things I mentioned from 2 Nephi 28 as well as many other scriptures, many of which are in the Book of Mormon, in addition to the wise Cannon quotation from the OP, that advise us to be cautious of blindly following *any* man, whether they are an apostle or a nursery leader.
mountainclimber479,
I think you’re correct in that what Nephi sees is the Savior and his apostles during their mortal ministry. But then the angel expands the meaning of the events that Nephi is shown when he explains why the great and spacious building is destroyed. Indeed, all of the elements of Lehi’s dream — the tree, the iron rod, the spacious building, etc. — are applicable to all people in all ages of the earth even though the angel relates them specifically to the Savior’s mortal ministry. The utilization of those specific times, places, and people (by the angel) was to help Nephi uncover the meaning of the symbols in a way that he was prepared to receive it.
Here’s another example of the twelve as archetypes from 1 Nephi 1:
8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he [Lehi] was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.
9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.
***
This must be my final comment. I’ve made a commitment to try to limit my number of comments to three.
@aporetic1 In terms of your question, would the world be better of if everyone was Mormon? I think the easy answer for me is a resounding No. I base this on living for long periods of time both in the heart of the Mormon corridor vs in other places where Mormons represent very small minorities. Mormons behave better, contribute more to their communities in a positive way, are more loving of those different than themselves, less self-congratulatory, less prone to group think and worship of men (both church leaders and demagogues), and much more likely to generally behave in a more Christ-like manner when they make up a very small percentage of the population. Things seem to go off the rails above 20%. I suspect this is true of most demographics and religious groups.
Boy oh boy, it seems like quite a few people missed the point of his discourse by reading one quote and not the whole discussion. He was referring to your faith in God and your testimony and revelations being yours and yours alone. Not propping up a false belief through someone else. That’s good advice as a testimony can grow through the teachings and advice of others but at the end of the day you decide for yourself what is true and what is not.
I’ve never heard a teacher, general authority, prophet, etc. ever say you should substitute your faith and testimony for someone else’s. Or solely rely upon a Bishop, teacher, etc. Man is fallible.