Paul himself said that the words of future prophets/apostles should be weighed against previous revelation: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" - Galatians 1:8
Excellent Aaron!! I’m very sad that lds people don’t seem to have a strong foundation to rest on and believe in. From conversations with LDS, it seems that their belief system is ever changing like the wind.
I hate this old trope. They know they are in the position of prophet and, therefore, should have respect and awareness that if they teach anything wrong, they should be held accountable. I personally don't give them this leeway when they speak from the pulpit or put anything in print or digital media.
This is absolutely beautiful. Thank you for responding to this talk. As a member, I felt sad hearing Elder Haynie say these things. We believe the scriptures are the word of God. If latter-day prophets have been speaking for God, then their words should both comport with scripture AND endure. Elder Hamilton gave a talk earlier this year encouraging members not to disassociate Church teachings and policies from Christ. If you are criticizing the Church's stand on something, he said, replace the Church with Christ. Would you say "I don't agree with Jesus Christ’s policy on (xyz)?" If I overlay that talk with this one, I can almost hear Elder Haynie saying that unlike vintage comic books or classic cars, the words of Christ don't appreciate over time. This sounds like blasphemy to me. Thank you for helping share a better understanding regarding the word of God and the accountability we should be able to expect from Latter-day prophets. I will be borrowing your old milk analogy. ❤
Great video. 10:40 Regarding mainstream LDS having the default view that prophets won't publicly teach heresy, that's definitely true. My dad criticized me when I, as an active LDS, said that there were some unreliable teachings in "Mormon Doctrine" from Bruce R. McConkie. He said we shouldn't criticize the words of any prophets or apostles. But then when you get LDS apologists actually studying what LDS prophets and apostles have taught in public...they spend an inordinate amount of time and writing to show that the teachings of past prophets don't matter anymore (excepting maybe Joseph Smith), and that the current prophets and apostles are the only ones that matter. Why do they do this? They see the many, many changed teachings, contradictions, etc., from what the modern leaders say. So they're forced to "downgrade" the importance and reliability of teachings from apostles and prophets. They'll often also co-opt purported contradictions in the Bible (typically just copy-pasting arguments from Muslims, atheists, etc.) to reinforce this idea.
Prophets words can be fulfilled and then they no longer apply in their context. Timelines move the guidance we are given, it has always worked like that, Jesus spoke of what He fulfilled and changed. Paul and Peter had doctrine they gave and were informed were fulfilled, if you are outside this cycle you aren’t following God or walking with God, you have gone your own way.
This clearly isn't meant to suggest that prophecies or explicit commands from prophets cannot be fulfilled. To dismiss the subject on that basis would be negligent. One can evaluate the prophetic statement to see if it is meant to be limited in scope (in which case even the principle of the command could still be applicable today, even if the command or prophecy itself were fulfilled). But we are talking about "prophets" whose teachings, in retrospect, are discounted as having never been truly inspired. Or, men who spoke carelessly in the name of God and who would be disqualified based on the biblical qualifications for a prophet or apostle. To use Brigham Young as an example, he stated at General Conference that it ALWAYS be the case that it is a sin worthy of death to have an interracial marriage. He also stated that his own words were as scriptural as the Bible, so we can't discount his errant statement as him merely stating his own opinion. He was flat out wrong.
Boltrooktwo, okay so how about Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine? Brigham taught Adam from the Garden of Eden is God. This is no way was a fulfillable statement, but it was simply disavowed because every Christian labels this idea as ludicrous. Or what Brigham Young's blood atonement doctrine: That sinners should be murdered so their blood could mix with Christ's sacrifice. Sure they murdered a few people, but are you saying the murders were fine in one context, but would somehow be wrong now? What about Brigham Young stating that slavery is a divine institution in his Horace Greeley interview, and saying that miscegenation (mixing of white and black blood) was so wicked that it deserved death on the spot to those who did it. Why is this disavowed now? Was it somehow fulfilled back in its time period? The Mormon Church is a sham based on demonic spirits pretending to be angels of light. Plain and simple.
![Breaking Down the 5 New LDS Church Essays [HONEST REACTION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1K6EHCjtGtg/mqdefault.jpg)
Be sure to check out our short-form video on the LDS Church's Prophets & Plausible Deniability: ruclips.net/video/2E_F8IsMx2g/видео.html
This was beautiful. Thank you. I
This is AWESOME !! and So makes clear the difference between the GOD of Christianity and the god of mormonism ..
Paul himself said that the words of future prophets/apostles should be weighed against previous revelation: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" - Galatians 1:8
We need the REAL WORD of GOD that does not have a shelf LIFE .. TRUE today as is Yesterday !! AMEN
Excellent Aaron!! I’m very sad that lds people don’t seem to have a strong foundation to rest on and believe in.
From conversations with LDS, it seems that their belief system is ever changing like the wind.
My brother is a Mormon. If prophet is wrong he was speaking as a “man”.
I hate this old trope. They know they are in the position of prophet and, therefore, should have respect and awareness that if they teach anything wrong, they should be held accountable. I personally don't give them this leeway when they speak from the pulpit or put anything in print or digital media.
This is absolutely beautiful. Thank you for responding to this talk. As a member, I felt sad hearing Elder Haynie say these things. We believe the scriptures are the word of God. If latter-day prophets have been speaking for God, then their words should both comport with scripture AND endure.
Elder Hamilton gave a talk earlier this year encouraging members not to disassociate Church teachings and policies from Christ. If you are criticizing the Church's stand on something, he said, replace the Church with Christ. Would you say "I don't agree with Jesus Christ’s policy on (xyz)?"
If I overlay that talk with this one, I can almost hear Elder Haynie saying that unlike vintage comic books or classic cars, the words of Christ don't appreciate over time. This sounds like blasphemy to me.
Thank you for helping share a better understanding regarding the word of God and the accountability we should be able to expect from Latter-day prophets. I will be borrowing your old milk analogy. ❤
This is a great informative video. It's certainly true when there is a low view of God there WILL be low view of His word. Love that! Thank you, guys!
Great video.
10:40 Regarding mainstream LDS having the default view that prophets won't publicly teach heresy, that's definitely true. My dad criticized me when I, as an active LDS, said that there were some unreliable teachings in "Mormon Doctrine" from Bruce R. McConkie. He said we shouldn't criticize the words of any prophets or apostles.
But then when you get LDS apologists actually studying what LDS prophets and apostles have taught in public...they spend an inordinate amount of time and writing to show that the teachings of past prophets don't matter anymore (excepting maybe Joseph Smith), and that the current prophets and apostles are the only ones that matter. Why do they do this? They see the many, many changed teachings, contradictions, etc., from what the modern leaders say. So they're forced to "downgrade" the importance and reliability of teachings from apostles and prophets. They'll often also co-opt purported contradictions in the Bible (typically just copy-pasting arguments from Muslims, atheists, etc.) to reinforce this idea.
Thank you for the great video.
Aaron, I’m taking indirect credit for this video 😂
💯
Prophets words can be fulfilled and then they no longer apply in their context. Timelines move the guidance we are given, it has always worked like that, Jesus spoke of what He fulfilled and changed. Paul and Peter had doctrine they gave and were informed were fulfilled, if you are outside this cycle you aren’t following God or walking with God, you have gone your own way.
This clearly isn't meant to suggest that prophecies or explicit commands from prophets cannot be fulfilled. To dismiss the subject on that basis would be negligent. One can evaluate the prophetic statement to see if it is meant to be limited in scope (in which case even the principle of the command could still be applicable today, even if the command or prophecy itself were fulfilled). But we are talking about "prophets" whose teachings, in retrospect, are discounted as having never been truly inspired. Or, men who spoke carelessly in the name of God and who would be disqualified based on the biblical qualifications for a prophet or apostle. To use Brigham Young as an example, he stated at General Conference that it ALWAYS be the case that it is a sin worthy of death to have an interracial marriage. He also stated that his own words were as scriptural as the Bible, so we can't discount his errant statement as him merely stating his own opinion. He was flat out wrong.
Boltrooktwo, okay so how about Brigham Young's Adam-God Doctrine? Brigham taught Adam from the Garden of Eden is God. This is no way was a fulfillable statement, but it was simply disavowed because every Christian labels this idea as ludicrous. Or what Brigham Young's blood atonement doctrine: That sinners should be murdered so their blood could mix with Christ's sacrifice. Sure they murdered a few people, but are you saying the murders were fine in one context, but would somehow be wrong now? What about Brigham Young stating that slavery is a divine institution in his Horace Greeley interview, and saying that miscegenation (mixing of white and black blood) was so wicked that it deserved death on the spot to those who did it. Why is this disavowed now? Was it somehow fulfilled back in its time period? The Mormon Church is a sham based on demonic spirits pretending to be angels of light. Plain and simple.