Common Tactic

[majick275]

Casen:

Mistakes were made by church leaders and the Lord corrected them as necessary. Brigham Young said some questionable things and subsequent leaders have clarified and corrected the churches position on those topics. So what is the point of rubbing our noses in it? Do prophets ever make mistakes?? Of course they do! Prophets are humans with limited minds like all of us. Peter denied Christ three times and yet he was a great leader of the church! Are you going to rub his nose in it? He was an apostle and he made a mistake, then repented and moved on. Moses sinned and was forbidden to enter the promised land but he was still a great prophet. Jonah shirked an important responsibility and was called to repentance. He also was upset when his prophecy regarding Nineveh’s destruction did not happen because the people repented. LDS leaders, lacking a revelation on a particular subject have speculated and even disagree with each other on many points of doctrine that God has chosen for whatever reason not to reveal. The same thing happened with Christ’s apostles, who occasionally disagreed on points of doctrine but were still true apostles.

I see this as a problem. You are told by the “prophet” that the Lord will never allow to lead the church astray, that he is a “true” prophet God, follow the prophet, trust the prophet,etc. But then you show us that the “prophet” has in fact lead the church astray by teaching false doctrine. How long was it before BY teachings were refuted? How do you know that GBH teachings won’t be refuted later? this seems like the ministry of truth in 1984. Your examples of biblical prophets did not show teachings tto the church that were wrong, only individual actions. No reversals of doctrine, not even “failed” prophecies. (Jonah’s case was a conditional prophecy in which the conditions wern’t met. Like saying if you will obey the Lord you will have long life…person dies the next day…they didn’t obey the Lord…prophecy is not “failed”)

So in the end we are faced with the serious issue of when can you trust an LDS prophet to tell you the words of the Lord? and how do you know without having to resort to circular reasoning? (The old Prophet said to follow the prophet, but the new prophet said that old prophet was wrong, it’s okay because the old prophet said to folow the prophet…) The “standard works” falls prey to this same thing. (BoM AND BoC- NO polygamy, D&C - Polygamy is a celestial principle, manifesto - no polygamy, but we’ll keep the revelation on it canonized…prophetic explanation BY polygamy required, Later prophets not required in this lifetime, GBH nothing to see here move along)

The meaning of concepts like eternal and forever take on a whole new meaning in these “prophetic” teachings. D&C seems to have no problem with humans that reach exaltation being described ss “from everlasting to everlasting”.

It also has no problem telling us that the united order was commanded to be “everlasting”. How’s that working out for you?

When prophecies, teachings, doctrines, etc. can be changed whenever, wherever and doctrinal authority is almost non-existent (no published catechism equivalent, old prophets = personal opinion that is wrong, scripture = not translated correctly or not written down correctly or not understood correctly, lesson manuals = not doctrine, general authorities = not the prophet) there can be no firm foundation upon which to build your faith. Even if we narrow it down to just the current prophet as the sole source of authority what happens when he contradicts himself ? (GBH) or he is completely incapacitated? (Ezra T. Benson) How do you know what to believe, what to DO?

My God is unchanging and eternal without beginning or end He is the Father the Son and the Holy spirit. His Gospel does not change and he loves you and invites you into his church. The one that he built upon the rock of Peter taht the gates of Hell have not prevailed against. The one that still stands, never failed as the testament to the divinnity of Jesus. Repent and be baptized.

 

[tkdnick]

Casen:

I continue to see an interesting pattern (here occasionally but especially in other areas of the internet) regarding LDS beliefs. It goes something like this:

Non-Mormon tells Mormon what he/she believes and then proceeds to attack that belief. This of course is the classic straw man tactic.

Some examples:

Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!
Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!
Mormons secretly worship Satan in their temples!
Mormons secretly want to take over the government!
Mormons believe that God had sex with Marry!
Mormons perform strange sex acts in their temples!

Mormon responds that he has never been taught (insert straw man doctrine here) in many years of church attendance and has never found that doctrine in LDS scriptures.

Casen,
I cannot argue with you about what you personally believe about these things; however, for you to say that lds in general don’t believe these things seems rather odd to me. You see, there ARE lds who believe those things. I know MANY lds who hold these to be absolutely true and as church doctrine. I think this is what creates your “straw man arguments”. There are those lds who hold those things to be absolutely true and those who say it’s complete hogwash. How are we supposed to know which is which? It is possible to glean many different, conflicting beliefs from your standard works and there are many issues that are not found in your standard works. You have nothing similar to our Catechism that definitively states what you believe. That makes it extremely hard for anyone, including lds, to know what it is that your church officially teaches.

 

[BJRumph]

As a “local” example of what Tmaque is saying, go take a look at Katpurr’s posts. At the “When did the lds Jesus become divine thread?” (or some such, I cannot link it in this particular post) you have a fine example of a “faithful” LDS apologist who is proving her case that the LDS church does, in fact, teach its members that God is not always divine, but is only an “eternal” god in the limited context of this particular creation.

Granted, her positon was to show us apostates that there is no actual “contradiction” between the Bible/BoM Eternal Unified God and the D&C and modern mormonism’s Limited Godhead scenario. For discussion here, the important thing to keep in mind is, that such a position would be unessisary, if Casen was correct about the church not teaching such doctrine.

Casen, you are the only one here producing “strawmen”. You have clearly stated that it is a lie to say that your church teaches that Jesus/Jehovah was not always divine. You have been amply proven incorrect in your false assertion by those that are as faithful to your religion as you claim to be (yes, as a personal opinion, I think KP is more true to her faith than you). Yes, I know you discount anything us “apostates” have to say, which is why it is so delightsome to find other active, faithful LDS who are far more honest about your faith.

No bones about it, your religion teaches, in the ulimate context, that God was not always God, and that Jesus was given his divinity by another.

Right or wrong, this is wholly at odds with what is taught by Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular.

Jesus is God because it is what He is, it is an inseperable part of His nature. He is God. Not a god, not our god, or just god of this creation/universe, but simply GOD. He was never given this divinity by anyone, because there is none beside Him, and there were none before Him, He is the Only God, and it is one of His defining characteristics, not an inherited characteristic. The Son, in particular, decended into flesh to assume a fully human form; He did not start as a man, and ascend into being God (in this world or any other). He was God before becoming man.

That you may disagree with this theology is fine, but if you want “discussion” about it, it would behoove you to stop hiding your differences.

I know what your church teaches. You know what your church teaches. Many people here in this very thread know what your church teaches.I find it personally insulting to be told that I am a liar when I try to explain to another what your church (which was my church) teaches, especially when it is not me who is doing the lying.

I realize that you have no room to listen to an “apostate” like me, but if you want to be civil, then I, at least, expect honest dealings from you, just as your TR demands of you. I am being honest with you, so don’t even try to turn this around on me. You are the one being dishonest and injurious to others.

I do not apologise if you find my words here too blunt. It is time for the silly falsities to end. Own up to your professed religion. Caveat your personal beliefs if you wish to insert them into the discussion. But please, stop LYING about your church and what IT beleives and teaches.

 

[BJRumph]

Here is what a faithful mormon, here, has to say on "eternal progression, and the deity of God:

Without having read all of the responses, I’ve got to admit that I’m a little bit confused by your statement that some of us deny the concept of eternal progression. It’s hard for me to imagine any practicing Latter-day Saint doing this. I’d say that it is more likely that you have misunderstood something about this doctrine.

I think that the problem may lie in the way we interpret the phrase with which the Bible begins: “In the beginning.” We believe (as I suspect you do) the Bible to be a record of God’s dealings with our universe and His creations which exist as part of that universe. We believe (whereas you probably don’t) that references to God always being God are to be understood within the context of this record. In other words, at some point prior to when “the clock started ticking,” so to speak, God became God. By the time the events described in the Bible began to unfold, He was God, and there will never be a time when He will no longer be God. The Bible, of course, is silent about the period of time before “the beginning.” We believe something about what God may have been during this time, whereas you don’t. And granted, it is not stated in the Bible.

Now, the prior paragraph pertains to God the Father. With regards to Jesus Christ: We believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn of all God’s spirit children. He was also unique among these children because, unlike the rest of us, He was perfect like His Father. At the time the biblical account begins, He was already “God.” He didn’t have a body, but He didn’t need one in order to be “God.” Under His Father’s direction, He created our universe and, we believe, worlds without number, so He was obviously capable of doing something no other spirit son or daughter was capable of doing. You have actually stated our belief quite accurately (in your final sentence).

I hope this explanation has helped you understand how we do not see these two doctrines as contradictory.

(emphasis mine)

Thak you Katzpurr for revealing to us that the CoJCoLDS do, in fact, teach.

 

[majick275]

BJ,
Check out the thread: When Did the “Mormon Jesus” Become Divine? post #39

You’ll find similar deceptions

 

[ben_dy]

Casen:

I continue to see an interesting pattern (here occasionally but especially in other areas of the internet) regarding LDS beliefs. It goes something like this:

Non-Mormon tells Mormon what he/she believes and then proceeds to attack that belief. This of course is the classic straw man tactic.

Some examples:

Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!
Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!
Mormons secretly worship Satan in their temples!
Mormons secretly want to take over the government!
Mormons believe that God had sex with Marry!
Mormons perform strange sex acts in their temples!

Casen,

OK, from what I’ve read from LDS resources (and, admittedly, some ex-LDS resources), I’ll number and respond to each that I have found contain definitive (although seldom discussed) LDS doctrine.

1. Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
   True. This, as I understand it from the reading of the prophets, is true.
2. Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!
   True. Again, in reading not only the prophets, but also to be found in D&C and PoGP.
3. Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!
   True. Same sources.
4. Mormons secretly worship Satan in their temples!
   False - Never heard that one
5. Mormons secretly want to take over the government!
   Half-truth as evidence from reading the early prophets.
6. Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary!
   True. Many sources from prophets.
7. Mormons perform strange sex acts in their temples!
   Hmm - well I can only say “no longer true” as the touching and anointing of genitalia by strangers might be considered a strange sex act.

I’ll be happy to go back and give sources for those accusations that I am calling ‘true’ or ‘half-truth’.

Ben

 

[Katzpur]

ben_dy:

Casen,

OK, from what I’ve read from LDS resources (and, admittedly, some ex-LDS resources), I’ll number and respond to each that I have found contain definitive (although seldom discussed) LDS doctrine.

1. Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
   True. This, as I understand it from the reading of the prophets, is true.

Which prophets taught this and in which section of the Doctrine and Covenants can this doctrine be found?

1. Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!
   True. Again, in reading not only the prophets, but also to be found in D&C and PoGP.

Again, I would appreciate section numbers and or chapters. I would say that your interpretation is just a bit creative, but I’ll withhold my judgment until I read these scriptures for myself.

1. Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!
   True. Same sources

They were both sons of the same Father. That would make them brothers. However, when Satan (i.e. Lucifer) rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven, he forfeited the right to ever again be known as a son of God.

1. Mormons secretly worship Satan in their temples!
   False - Never heard that one

Well, that’s certainly a relief!

1. Mormons secretly want to take over the government!
   Half-truth as evidence from reading the early prophets.

Nonsense. Where on earth did you get that?

1. Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary!
   True. Many sources from prophets.

False. We believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Don’t tell me we need to talk about the birds and the bees here. Once a woman has had sex with a man, she is no longer a virgin. I thought all adults knew that.

1. Mormons perform strange sex acts in their temples!
   Hmm - well I can only say “no longer true” as the touching and anointing of genitalia by strangers might be considered a strange sex act.

That is absolutely false! Not only is it “no longer true,” it was never true. I’ve received the ordinance of washing and anointing, and I can assure you that nobody ever touched me inappropriately. I think you need to get your mind out of the gutter.

I’ll be happy to go back and give sources for those accusations that I am calling ‘true’ or ‘half-truth’.

Unless your sources are doctrinal, I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you.

 

[PaulDupre]

Katzpur:

False. We believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Don’t tell me we need to talk about the birds and the bees here. Once a woman has had sex with a man, she is no longer a virgin. I thought all adults knew that.

Unless your sources are doctrinal, I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you.

Here you go:
By “Virgin birth”, Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin (see McConkie in post #30 below).

Presidents (“prophets”) of the LDS Church:

President Brigham Young:
“The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866)

“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)

President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible!” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18)
“Jesus was not the son of any mortal man. His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things.” (The Restoration of All Things, p.61)
"Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, page 18)

President Ezra Taft Benson:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which he performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 1988, pages 6-7)

Continued…

 

[PaulDupre]

**Apostles (“Prophets, seers and revelators”) of the LDS Church:
**
Apostle Orson Pratt (Appointed by President Brigham Young as Official publicist for LDS doctrine):
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses.

But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with his own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.

It was also lawful in Him, after having dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity." (The Seer, Oct. 1853, page 158)

Apostle Heber C. Kimball:
In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Journal of discourses, 8:211)

Continued…

 

[PaulDupre]

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:
“Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pages 546-47)

“God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father.** There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.**” (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 742)

“For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466)

Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: “God hath done wonderful things unto me.” “And the Holy Ghost came upon her,” is the story, “and she came into the presence of the highest.” No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. (The Promised Messiah, p.472 - p.473)

Apostle James E. Talmadge
And so, in the final analysis it is the faithful saints, those who have testimonies of the truth and divinity of this great latter-day work, who declare our Lord’s generation to the world. Their testimony is that Mary’s son is God’s Son; that he was conceived and begotten in the normal way; that he took upon himself mortality by the natural birth processes; that he inherited the power of mortality from his mother and the power of immortality from his Father—in consequence of all of which he was able to work out the infinite and eternal atonement. This is their testimony as to his generation and mission. (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.5, p.43)

Poster’s note: “Jesus the Christ” was required reading when I was a full-time missionary. I know of no missionary (during the 1970’s) who did not read it and fully comprehend its meaning.

There is so much more, but I thought a small sample would be sufficient to make the point.
It is plain to see that this doctrine has pervaded all of Mormon doctrine and thinking for the last 170 years. It is an insult to our intelligence for any Mormon to deny that this doctrine was ever authoritatively taught.

Paul

 

[BJRumph]

Oh well, I guess KP isn’t going to get put up on the “good lds apologist” list afterall. Oh well…

I do emphatically agree with her on one thing still, however;

The washing and anointing portions of the temple rituals was not in any manner a sensual or sexualized event. Like KP, I was endowed when the ritual was still performed, and can say for myself, from my personal experience, that it was not a sexual event, nor was anything particularly inappropriate occurring (recognizing that those who utterly oppose any kind of such rituals, and therefore for some the entire endowment ceremony is necessarily inappropriate, but I digress…).

Is it possible that at some point in the 100+ years of its history, that a particular worker abused the ritual in some sordid manner; reveiw of human nature would suggest that it did. But lets be clear: THIS IS NOT THE NORM.

Is it possible that some initiates going through the ceremony have overreacted to what did occur? Certainly. But lets be clear: This is a failure of the INITIATE, not the INITIATION. IF bishops and SPs were more diligent in actually looking at the preparedness and maturity of the initiate during their TR interveiws, instead of focusing on the technical details of weather or not the initiate has paid their “dues”, then such occurances would not be common enough to force the church to abandon this part of the ritual. Note, I recognize that there probably are a few church leaders that take the interveiw process seriously, and in the spirit it is intended; it is just that my experience is that such is not the case.

Anyway, KP; jesus could not have “always” been divine, if the father that produced him was not always divine, nor if his father only made him the god of our world due to his acceptance of jesus’ “plan of salvation”. If God had chosen Lucifer’s plan, then Lucifer would have been our god, and Jesus would have no bearing on our reality. It is quite clear from lds doctrine that Jesus’ godhood/divinity is very conditional, therefore it is not an intrinsic trait of his being (under lds theology). Or the prophets completely made the whole thing up, in which case, what do you have now?

 

[PaulDupre]

BJRumph:

I do emphatically agree with her on one thing still, however;

The washing and anointing portions of the temple rituals was not in any manner a sensual or sexualized event.

I’m with you on this. The last washing and annointing I did was in 1985, when they were still doing it the old way, and there was nothing remotely sexual about it.

When they “annointed the loins” it was done symbolically, by touching the small of the back around the 5th lumbar vertabra - nowhere near the actual “loins”.
God love you,
Paul

 

[ben_dy]

Katzpur:

ben_dy:

Unless your sources are doctrinal, I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you.

If by ‘doctrinal’ you mean ‘scriptural’ then you are mostly correct - I wasn’t aware that LDS doctrine was all contained in LDS scripture - could you point out where, in LDS scripture, the precept exists that all doctrine must be proven sola scriptura? My understanding (which, as I understand you to hold is erroneous) was that presidents of the LDS church enjoyed the privilege of defining doctrine by virtue of their office, that is prophet, seer, revelator, etc. And so my 'proof’s would be of no use for they come from the Journal of Discourses, Statements of the LDS First Presidency, and various other writings of presidents/prophets.

Am I to understand that, regarding belief, doctrine, and theology, past, present and future presidents no longer enjoy authority?

It was my understanding that Brigham Young spoke when authority when he, in the JoD - “The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.” and that he later clarified this with “I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.”

Reading this, my understanding was that writings from a president/prophet’s own hand would, necessarily, have undergone scrutiny and thus be “as good Scripture”. It is indeed confusing because I understand that this has always been LDS doctrine save for those who, of course, leave the church or are no longer believers.

As to having my ‘mind in the gutter’ I assure you that it is not and that I am wholly reliant upon two friends, one aged 68 the other 74, who went through temple endowment and told me, indeed, they they had their genitalia touched - not fondled, groped, etc., simply touched - and both were ‘shocked’ by it as they had not been instructed to expect such intimacy. I understand, however, that the various temple endowments have undergone changes both large and minute since first instituted by Joseph Smith and, as they are secret, one cannot, as in the Catholic Church, put a missal with a 1958 copyright and one with a 2003 copyright side by side and expect to see the very visible changes between the two. For LDS temple practices we must rely on what has been published unofficially by those who, in discloses the secrets, apostatized.

And others have jumped ahead to cite sources so, as you suggest, I will not waste my time.

Ben

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I see this as a problem. You are told by the “prophet” that the Lord will never allow to lead the church astray, …

That means that he will not deliberately, intentionally, purposefully, willfully lead the Church astray. It does not mean that he will never ever make a mistake on doctrine. Those are two entirely different things.

That statement was made by Wilford Woodruff in connection with the discontinuance the practice of polygamy. Congress had passed a law making polygamy illegal. Wilford Woodruff inquired of the Lord and received a revelation commanding him to discontinue the practice. At that time there were some Church members who doubted whether Wilford Woodruff was indeed commanded by the Lord to discontinue the practice, or whether he was merely acting under pressure form the US government. By making that statement which you had quoted, he was effecting telling them that he was not in a position to tell them lies and pretend that he had received such a commandment from the Lord when in fact he hadn’t. The Lord wouldn’t allow him to do that. That is what he meant by “leading the Church astray”. It didn’t mean that he was incapable of ever making a mistake in doctrine.

…that he is a “true” prophet God, follow the prophet, trust the prophet, etc.

Absolutely! Follow the prophet! The numbers of instances where the presidents of the Church have made serious errors in doctrine have been extremely rare. You guys are the ones who concentrate on these and blow them out of all proportion. But the reality is very different.

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

That statement was made by Wilford Woodruff in connection with the discontinuance the practice of polygamy. Congress had passed a law making polygamy illegal. Wilford Woodruff inquired of the Lord and received a revelation commanding him to discontinue the practice. At that time there were some Church members who doubted whether Wilford Woodruff was indeed commanded by the Lord to discontinue the practice, or whether he was merely acting under pressure form the US government. By making that statement which you had quoted, he was effecting telling them that he was not in a position to tell them lies and pretend that he had received such a commandment from the Lord when in fact he hadn’t. The Lord wouldn’t allow him to do that. That is what he meant by “leading the Church astray”. It didn’t mean that he was incapable of ever making a mistake in doctrine.

amgid

In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories. So, it was illegal for 28 years before the Manifesto was written. It was the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 that was the impetus for the Manifesto to be written. This law disincorporated the LDS Church and allowed the federal government to freeze all of its assets. Federal officials were preparing to seize the LDS temples and US Congress had debated whether to extend the 1882 Edmunds Act so that all Mormons would be disenfranchised, not just the polygamists.
This is the climate in which this “revelation” was received. Very suspicious timing indeed. Since when does God allow the government, any government to dictate his Church’s doctrine?

Contrast this episode in LDS history with the early Christian Church in which thousands upon thousands of Christians died in the 300 years leading up to Constantine. Never was any quarter given, never was the government allowed to dictate the doctrines of Jesus Christ’s Church. The LDS leaders of the late 19th century were going to lose property and power so they capitulated. The early Church leaders often lost their lives and did not give an inch. The contrast is striking and is a clear testament to who was bearing the standard for Christ’s true Church and who was not.

 

[BJRumph]

The very history of the Doctrine of Polygamy as accepted by the CoJCoLDS totally disproves any LDS claim or assertion to sola scriptura. The Temple is also evidence of binding doctrine that is not found in the Canon.

Note also that for some reason, non or ex mormons are the only ones not allowed to uses non scriptural sources, the lds consistantly ignore this restriction when making their own points. It seems that certain lds apologists think that they are capable of defining doctrine for their church (as opposed to themselves), despite what their church has to say.

So, Amgid, then you are saying that the prophet can lead the church astray, in direct contradiction to church teaching?

The “intention” of a hypothetical prophet’s leading the church astray does not really make sense as a reliable distinction in what he can do to lead the church: anything he believes to be “true”, regardless of its actual truthfullness, would be intentionally pursued (unless he is following the error of Jonah and witholding it), even if it is something that we see is an obvious error. Anything “new” that a prophet reveals is going to be seen as an error, until it hangs out enough for everyone to accept it (if they even bothered to questioned it to begin with, every church has its followers).

The very suggestion that the prophet can be led away without his knowledge only undermines the nature and certainty that the office of prophet intends to convey. If your prophet is as fallible in regards to those things that he has been given authority over, as you are, then what is the point of “restoring” his office, especially if he is unaware of his error, as your position demands? What does he have that makes his position so enlightened or better than anyone else’s? Again, it only comes down to the authority that you give him, not any spiritual direction.

How can you, who holds to a gullible prophet, rationally assert that your faith is superior to anyones? How can you assert that your church has not fallen into the same apostacy that you claim has taken hold of Christianity? Rationality is required for discussion, and so that is why we must discuss these things in such terms. You have provided yourself a position wherin there is no room for rational discussion, leaving only your irrational (by definition) feelings and the beliefs that are based on those feelings. These feelings are not subject for “discussion”, so what is your point, again?

 

[Tmaque]

BJRumph:

How can you assert that your church has not fallen into the same apostacy that you claim has taken hold of Christianity?

Indeed, it’s undeniable that the modern LDS Church is much farther removed from the written doctrines of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young than the modern Catholic Church is from the written doctrines of the ECF’s. By the standard they use to condemn Catholicism, their own church is in a state of apostasy.

 

[PaulDupre]

Excellent point, Todd.
Paul

 

[tkdnick]

Tmaque:

In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories. So, it was illegal for 28 years before the Manifesto was written. It was the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 that was the impetus for the Manifesto to be written. This law disincorporated the LDS Church and allowed the federal government to freeze all of its assets. Federal officials were preparing to seize the LDS temples and US Congress had debated whether to extend the 1882 Edmunds Act so that all Mormons would be disenfranchised, not just the polygamists.
This is the climate in which this “revelation” was received. Very suspicious timing indeed. Since when does God allow the government, any government to dictate his Church’s doctrine?

Contrast this episode in LDS history with the early Christian Church in which thousands upon thousands of Christians died in the 300 years leading up to Constantine. Never was any quarter given, never was the government allowed to dictate the doctrines of Jesus Christ’s Church. The LDS leaders of the late 19th century were going to lose property and power so they capitulated. The early Church leaders often lost their lives and did not give an inch. The contrast is striking and is a clear testament to who was bearing the standard for Christ’s true Church and who was not.

Thanks for that. It was especially helpful to see the comparison between the two churches and their environment.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories. So, it was illegal for 28 years before the Manifesto was written. It was the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 that was the impetus for the Manifesto to be written. This law disincorporated the LDS Church and allowed the federal government to freeze all of its assets. Federal officials were preparing to seize the LDS temples and US Congress had debated whether to extend the 1882 Edmunds Act so that all Mormons would be disenfranchised, not just the polygamists. This is the climate in which this “revelation” was received.

That was not the point of my debate with majick though. The point I was making was that President Woodruff’s assertion God would not allow the president of the Church to lead the Church astray did not mean that he was incapable of making a mistake in doctrine. It meant that he could not wilfully, purposefully, intentionally lead the Church astray.

Very suspicious timing indeed.

Suspicious only if you do not believe!

Since when does God allow the government, any government to dictate his Church’s doctrine?

The doctrine has not changed, but the practice has been suspended, in compliance with the requirements of the law. Those are two different things. Our doctrine also teaches us that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 12). We are also commanded to “Be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign” (D&C 58:22; Romans 13:1). We are also told “He that keepeth the laws of God, hath no need to break the laws of the land” (D&C 58:21). We are doing what the Lord has commanded us to do.

Contrast this episode in LDS history with the early Christian Church in which thousands upon thousands of Christians died in the 300 years leading up to Constantine. Never was any quarter given, never was the government allowed to dictate the doctrines of Jesus Christ’s Church. The LDS leaders of the late 19th century were going to lose property and power so they capitulated. The early Church leaders often lost their lives and did not give an inch. The contrast is striking and is a clear testament to who was bearing the standard for Christ’s true Church and who was not.

The two situations are not comparable. I am sure that if Congress had passed a law that we should all now go an commit adultery with our neighbor’s wives, or steal goods our of our neighbor’s store, or bear false witness against our neighbor, or deny Jesus Christ and pray to Beelzebub instead… that the Church would not have obeyed such laws, regardless of the consequences. In the case of the early Christians that you have mentioned, the actual Christian religion itself was made illegal. You were breaking the law if you were a Christian. People were forced worship the traditional idols of Rome as evidence that they were not Christians, or that they had abandoned that religion. That is a very different situation from the LDS vs. US Government case.

amgid