Common Tactic

[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.

Non-Mormon disagrees and references vague quotes and other non-canonized references as evidence that Mormon is wrong and either doesn’t know his religion or is lying. He apparently believes he knows more about Mormonism that Mormons just because he visited a few anti-mormon websites. Never mind that he probably has never even read the Book of Mormon!

He may even be so bold as to suggest that the REAL doctrine is secret… only insiders know it… perhaps it’s only revealed to the muckety-mucks in the top ranks of the church in the inner-most chambers of the temple. This charge is also often used against Free Masonry (i.e. They don’t find out that they’re really worshiping Satan until they get to the top… and then it’s too late!)

Mormon repeats again that he has never been taught (insert straw man belief) and responds with quotes from canonized scriptures to prove the point.

Non-Mormon ignores the canonized references but gives enormous weight to vague quotes, political speeches, second hand accounts, speculation, etc. They prefer quotes from dead men who cannot correct or clarify. These all have much more authority than LDS scriptures as long as they appear to support the straw man belief.

Anyway, I could go on with this but you get the point. These very tactics are of course also used against Islam, JWs, Judaism and indeed Catholicism. I’m a student of world religions as a hobby but don’t claim to be an expert on any of them and if someone asked me what one of them believed I would refer them to a member of that religion. And I certainly wouldn’t be so bold as to tell a Catholic what THEY believe.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

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.

…

Anyway, I could go on with this but you get the point. These very tactics are of course also used against Islam, JWs, Judaism and indeed Catholicism. I’m a student of world religions as a hobby but don’t claim to be an expert on any of them and if someone asked me what one of them believed I would refer them to a member of that religion. …

Well said Casen

Joe

 

[Tmaque]

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 agree that there are those who use these tactics just to condemn and argue. However, I find some of your examples of “straw man tactics” troubling. Particularly these three:

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!

You see, I was taught these things growing up. I was a devout LDS into my mid-twenties, I served a mission in South Korea. I come from a devout LDS family (11 kids) and they hold these things to be true even today. So, these are not “straw man beliefs”. I am very close with my family, my best friend is LDS, and believe me, we all talk about religion. I admit these beliefs aren’t “emphasized” in Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School, but they are still held, at least by the LDS I am closest to. In fact, I was utterly shocked when, on this forum, I saw LDS deny these teachings. I went and asked everyone about these beliefs and found nothing had changed.

We can get into the meat of each topic if you like and discuss what is meant by each statement. But, to say that these beliefs aren’t held by the LDS faithful is patently false. If this is not LDS doctrine will someone please tell all the LDS faithful in the Salt Lake valley? Because, most of them believe they are all true.

Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
My LDS family and friends believe that Jesus is our eldest brother, the first spirit child of God the Father(Lucifer was the second spirit born). We were as “divine” as him in the pre-existence. What makes Jesus different from us is that he is the physical son of God the Father and he never sinned while on the earth. This allowed his death to become sacrificial.

Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!
My LDS family and friends believe that this is absolutely true. If you live a good life and go to the Celestial Kingdom, you can continue to progress toward Godhood and can eventually become a God over your own planet. This was taught to me explicitly as child both at home and in church.

Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!
My LDS family and friends believe that Lucifer was the second spirit child born of God the Father and his heavenly wife. Since they believe Jesus was firstborn, that would make them brothers.

I just want everyone to understand that many of us ex-LDS are not trying to create straw man arguments. We are bringing up issues that we have experienced and do experience as authentic beliefs by faithful LDS…

 

[PaulDupre]

I am ex-LDS, served a mission in Taiwan, was married in the temple and attended the temple more than 20 times. I taught Gospel Essentials and Gospel Doctrine, and served as 1st counselor to a branch president and 2nd counselor to a bishop. I have read all the books by Richards, Talmadge, JF Smith and McConkie. These beliefs:

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 believe that God had sex with Mary

were universally taught in the LDS Church (though not phrased in the inflammatory manner you did). Every LDS I know believes these things and is not ashamed to admit it (though few are comfortable discussing them with gentiles). Several LDS on this forum (BYU Boy, for example) have admitted that either they or other LDS believe these teachings.

The fact that every Mormon knows the couplet from President Snow is evidence that it was universally taught for 150 years. Now President Hinkley “doesn’t know much about it”? Oh please.

Speaking of tactics, I have observed the latest tactic Mormons use to deflect objections to common LDS teachings:

Non-LDS cites common Mormon teaching, references writings of several Prophets and Apostles, Sunday School manuals, Elder’s Quorum manuals, Ensign articles, etc.

LDS objects, saying that since the specific language of the citation can’t be found in the LDS canon of scripture, then it is not real LDS doctrine and cannot be debated or discussed.

This, of course implies that your prophets and apostles are no more than ordinary Protestant preachers, with no teaching authority, who merely teach there own opinions with no accountability for their truth or falsehood, even when they all teach the same things in complete agreement.

This seems to us non-LDS to be a very deceptive dodge, because all of the LDS we know in our daily lives have accepted and believed these doctrines since childhood. And we ourselves, when we were LDS, believed the teachings of the GAs and based our lives on them.

Back then we were also taught that Jesus was polygamously married and sired children and that many LDS Church leaders were direct descendants of Jesus. Now some LDS use “the tactic” to distance themselves from this belief. They also claim never to have heard it (an older tactic). We ex-LDS all heard it, so it makes us wonder if they attend the same church we used to attend, or if they are just lying. You see why LDS are seen as deceptive and cultish?

Paul

 

[majick275]

This from the church whose missionaries are out telling everyone that there was this great apostasy in which ALL churches quit teaching the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ.

The LDS church was founded on telling everyone else waht they believe and that it is wrong.

I think it an important distinction here in this forum that these comments are made by former LDS rather than plain vanilla non-LDS. Canonized scriptures ARE referenced along with the explanations that LDS prophets gave to the LDS church as a whole for those scriptures. (please reference Ezra T. Benson talk on from Feb 1980 on the comparison between what the “prophet” speaks and what is in canonized scripture)

JS gave the LDS church revelations (such as polygamy) that directly contradicted the existing canon and was canonized much later. This why many of us find it unrealitic to claim that unless it’s in the standard works it’s not “official” LDS doctrine. I would question though the sheer volume then of what is in the current LDS lesson manuals that is NOT explicitly in the “standard works” does not in fact demonstrate that LDS doctrine goes well beyond what is in the standard works.

Quite frankly we have too many examples of Mormons being dishonest about the doctrine of their church from Joseph Smith to Gordon hinckley to just accept any statement at face value. This is further compicated by lack of professionallly trained clergy and the absence of a doctrinally authoratative “catechism” being published. There are no “standards” other than church lesson materials for what is taught in LDS churches. Deliberate suppression of church history (the packer purges of BYU and the historians) would indicate an incentive to NOT teach the complete doctrine with it’s history and development. This (in my mind) shows a great likelihood that many LDS have never learned what their church has taught in any great detail.

Let’s look at your examples"

Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!
Obvious consequence of eternal progression.

Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!

Oversimplified but yes, that’s part of eternal progression.

Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!

Uh… Been to the temple lately?

Mormons secretly worship Satan in their temples!

I will tell you that this is a lie.

Mormons secretly want to take over the government!

I think this a paranoid conspiracy.

Mormons believe that God had sex with Marry!

Well… this is due to some things that BY and orson pratt said that certainly show that type of a relationship existed in their minds.

Mormons perform strange sex acts in their temples!

This is an absolute lie!

See we don’t accept every accusation as having merit, only the ones that the available facts seem to supoprt.

 

[Chris-WA]

PaulDupre:

Speaking of tactics, I have observed the latest tactic Mormons use to deflect objections to common LDS teachings:

Non-LDS cites common Mormon teaching, references writings of several Prophets and Apostles, Sunday School manuals, Elder’s Quorum manuals, Ensign articles, etc.

LDS objects, saying that since the specific language of the citation can’t be found in the LDS canon of scripture, then it is not real LDS doctrine and cannot be debated or discussed

.

This tactic has been a constant source of frustration for me. A number of LDS posters here have used this tactic frequently. It’s a convenient “get of jail free card,” that allows anything taught by past LDS prophets to be dismissed as mere opinion whenever it doesn’t agree with current church teaching or the poster’s viewpoint. It’s what I refer to as the “John Kerry” or “Bill Clinton” approach to debate.

This, of course implies that your prophets and apostles are no more than ordinary Protestant preachers, with no teaching authority, who merely teach there own opinions with no accountability for their truth or falsehood, even when they all teach the same things in complete agreement.

This is the logical conclusion of using such a tactic, but for some reason those that use it don’t see it. This leads me to believe that many are so willing to accept whatever the current prophet says that they forget what was taught yesterday and pretend it either never happened or dismiss it as the past prophet’s personal opinion. If you ever read Orwell’s *1984, *this is analagous to how the Ministry of Truth would constantly change facts and stories and the people accepted it without blinking an eye, because they were so conditioned to accept whatever the government said.

 

[BJRumph]

Another tactic of the LDS here, and far too closely resembling a generalized ad hominem attack, is evidenced by Casen’s false assertion that his church is being attacked by those completely outside the LDS faith, and have no knowledge of it.

As can be seen in the most recent posts, even since I have arrived, that the Catholics who have no connection to the lds church have largely fled this forum, leaving three (in generalized terms) classes of posters here:

“Faithful” LDS
Ex-LDS Catholics (or catholics-to-be, such as in my case)
and (the now rarified)
Catholic honestly seeking answers.

The thrid category does not engage in the protracted debate that the other two classes do, and therefore their posts in no way can be categorized as being attacks, unless you wish to perceive it as an attack against their own ignorance (which they humbly admit to in asking their questions).

This leaves the rest of the discussion between the LDS, and the Ex-LDS.

As apparently experienced by more than a few of us here, I only originally started posting in this forum when I witnessed the “faithful” LDS denying what I personally know** is ** lds DOCTRINE.

Additionally, as I agree with TOm on this particular point, I have striven to be careful (if not always clearly) to address Church Doctrine, in distinction to the actual beliefs of specific mormons, as the vaguaries of the CoJCoLDS doctrine does, indeed, allow a wide (if unsustainable) divergence in what the individual may come to believe. Thus, when Colbert or TOm insists that they are a monotheist, I make no argument against their personal choice; However, their choice in beliefs is in contradiction to what her church actually teaches (the evidence of which can be found even in other threads in this forum). That either of them can personally reconsile the contradiction to their personal satisfaction does not eliminate the basic contratiction taught by their church.

Frankly, this allowance of divergance of belief and official doctrine is one of the evidences that theCoLCoLDS is not what it claims to be. But then, what I see as a fatal flaw, current LDS, see as a critical support. Such a divergence is necessary, and so I do not expect to reconcile the difference. I, were I to expect true dialog with them, do expect the recognition of differences.

After all, if we are really trying to discuss the two religions and how they doctrinally answer particular theological arguments, it is necessary to aknowledge the actual differences in our positions. We are two different religions, and the things that separate us are not simply the historiosity of the Great Apostascy. RCC believes in Original Sin; the CoJCoLDS do not. Why do the “local” LDS get so offended when in the process of inquiriy or debate, that these differences are revealed? It never comes to a debate of which position is theologically superior, because the debate at that point becomes about the members, not the Church, or the difference is labeld as somehow being “anti-mormon lies”, and there is no difference of theology; despite the fact that the ld sthen go to their wards on sunday, and discuss how superior their belief is to what the apostate Catholic position is.

But still, any valid position that shows any form of weakness of the lds position, is met with non-answers, complete denial of the lds faith, or with diatribes of hate, explaining to US how all we are is hateful anti-mormon Catholics who don’t actually know anything about their religion.

If this is not them telling me what I believe contrary to my own knowledge of what I believe, then I don’t know what is. And if this is the case, then Casen needs to aknowledge that he and his camp is as much a party to this fault as he complains about in others. Is it not the lds who are personalizing a question of their church’s doctine into an attack on their personal beliefs?

 

[BJRumph]

continued…

It is also interesting how the LDS, particularly BJColbert, constantly lump me in with the Catholics, despite full knowledge that I am not yet a catholic. I have been attacked as not ever having been a TBM member (by TOm), as being grossly mistaken in my understanding of mormon doctrine (without ANY form of evidence to back this assertion up, and despite evidence to the contrary, by Casen), or of just being hateful and ingorantly spouting anti-mormon material (by BJColbert), despite proving my points from either logic, experience, or mormon sources.

The Catholics here, even when being acidic, most often “attack” the COJCOLDS; the LDS here most often attack the people. Anyone here can see that for themselves.

Excuse me if I personally find nothing comendable in their actions here. I think, for me personally, only Mormon Fool and BYU Boy are the only two recently posting LDS who are worthy of defending or comending their behavior. They at least aknowledge their religion; they do not deny it when the ice melts.

Were Mormon Fool and BYU boy the only LDS posters here, I would never have had to post in this forum, and this particular thread would never have existed. But, sadly, they are not. If it were so, then actual discussion of religion could occur here.

 

[Casen]

OK, let’s zero in on a few of these 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!

The first has been discussed in another thread but not really reconciled. Perhaps a few of the apostate return missionaries here can reference specific instances where this was taught by prophets and in lesson manuals. Having been LDS all my life I’ve never been taught that Jesus was initially NOT divine and somehow became divine later so I’d like to see some references. Of course you’ll have to reconcile them with LDS scripture (Moses 1:32-35 and D&C 35:1-2 were cited in the other thread).

The second example regarding getting a planet is an assumption some have made, assuming that is what “exaltation” will include. However, since we don’t find this in our scriptures again I think it’s fair to say we don’t know for sure.

Mormons believe that God had sex with Marry!

I’ve never read this in any LDS materials and I guarantee you won’t find it in any church manuals but if someone out there has a quote I’d very much like to read it. Anyway, this one is recycled continually because it has significant shock value. If you didn’t know anything about LDS beliefs and someone told you this it would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!

Well, this is another one that’s used out of context for its shock value. We believe that God created everything and everyone, including Lucifer, who we believe is a fallen angel (see Revelation 12) so in that sense Lucifer would be a spiritual brother. However, this one is obviously also used out of context for its shock value and is an attempt to “poison the well” linking Jesus with the devil.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

BJRumph:

Another tactic of the LDS here, and far too closely resembling a generalized ad hominem attack, is evidenced by Casen’s false assertion that his church is being attacked by those completely outside the LDS faith, and have no knowledge of it.
.
. Thus, when Colbert or TOm insists that they are a monotheist, I make no argument against their personal choice; However, their choice in beliefs is in contradiction to what her church actually teaches (the evidence of which can be found even in other threads in this forum). That either of them can personally reconsile the contradiction to their personal satisfaction does not eliminate the basic contratiction taught by their church.
. We are two different religions, and the things that separate us are not simply the historiosity of the Great Apostascy. RCC believes in Original Sin; the CoJCoLDS do not. Why do the “local” LDS get so offended when in the process of inquiriy or debate, that these differences are revealed? It never comes to a debate of which position is theologically superior, because the debate at that point becomes about the members, not the Church, or the difference is labeld as somehow being “anti-mormon lies”, and there is no difference of theology; despite the fact that the ld sthen go to their wards on sunday, and discuss how superior their belief is to what the apostate Catholic position is.

But still, any valid position that shows any form of weakness of the lds position, is met with non-answers, complete denial of the lds faith, or with diatribes of hate, explaining to US how all we are is hateful anti-mormon Catholics who don’t actually know anything about their religion.

If this is not them telling me what I believe contrary to my own knowledge of what I believe, then I don’t know what is. And if this is the case, then Casen needs to aknowledge that he and his camp is as much a party to this fault as he complains about in others. Is it not the lds who are personalizing a question of their church’s doctine into an attack on their personal beliefs?

I am not an apologist and only have my personal knowledge to answer questions from. I know I have no business in a forum with professional apologists(whatever that means), but I really wanted just to find out answers to my husband’s questions about his religion which is Catholic. I had no idea I would end up trying my best to defend my own beliefs against mis -information, of Catholics. I had no idea the Catholics would be discussing Mormons in a Catholic website. Totally surprising to me. I am glad I took part as I have learned a lot and also found the answer to my husband’s question about divorce in the Catholic Church. The priest in his parish did not have the answers he needed, but one person in this forum did, and gave us an official Vatican source, and it was great to find what my husband had been inquiring about for 3 years.
Like Casen, I have been LDS for most of my life, and had never heard some of the things put forth (as our beliefs) taught in any of the meetings I attended. At least I do not recognize the form as presented by Catholics. As in we all expect to have our own planet. Jesus has not been divine forever, Mary had sex with God. None of these things are taught and I had never heard them before this forum. Honestly, I really felt as Casen, that Catholics seem to ask questions and then answer them to their own satisfaction, completely disregarding any answers of active LDS members.
If I asked an innocent question of Catholics about Mary or any other part of Catholic belief I do not understand. Some feel it is and attack and others answer my question honestly, and though I still do not fully understand I accept it as a true answer and do not immediately say" Oh no you do not believe that about Mary, I happen to know you actually believe this, so you are lying and misleading people by stating what you feel is your true belief about Mary."
On the other hand many Catholics tell me that I do not really believe what I say I believe, as they know my religion much better than I do. This is so frustrating,and why would any of us want to prove the other religion wrong? I am not here for that. I am here because I want to know more about the Catholic religion. I have not once said anything angry except in response to Catholics questioning my own beliefs. I have never said a Catholic believes something he doesn’t except in response to Catholics saying I believe something I do not believe.
I’m sorry you feel that I have said onery things, but I really try my hardest not to respond in the same vein as some of the posters.
I apologize for anything that was construed as mean and bitter. I am not either of those things.
BJ

 

[Casen]

majick275:

Mormons believe that Jesus wasn’t always divine!

Obvious consequence of eternal progression.

Wrong. To say that you and I can progress is one thing. That is pretty obvious. But that does not mean Jesus is progressing in the same way. LDS doctrine teaches that God only progresses in the sense that he gains additional glory when his children progress. LDS doctrine does not teach that God continues to progress in the sense that he is learning, becoming smarter, or anything like that. We can learn but God cannot because he is already all knowing and perfect. And the Pearl of Great Price is pretty clear that “worlds without number” were created by Jesus, the Son of God.

majick275:

Mormons believe they get a planet when they die if they are good in this life!

Oversimplified but yes, that’s part of eternal progression.

Who says getting a planet is part of eternal progression? Post some sources and lets discuss it.

majick275:

Mormons believe that Satan is Jesus brother!

Uh… Been to the temple lately?

Actually yes. Who is it that mentions he is Eve’s brother? Would that be someone you could trust? Why would he emphasize that?

majick275:

Mormons believe that God had sex with Marry!

Well… this is due to some things that BY and orson pratt said that certainly show that type of a relationship existed in their minds.

Post your sources please so we all know what specific quotes you’re referring to. That seems like the fair thing to do.

 

[BJRumph]

Except that your church teaches that there were two (at least, there is margin for other “plans” in theory, but lets just stick with revealed doctrine) “plans of salvation”, which God the Father gave equal consideration.

In the end, He chose Jesus’ plan. However, that He could equally have chosen, in your doctrine, Lucifer’s plan, means that Christ is both at a lower station than God (something RCC disagrees upon), and that Lucifer and Jesus/Jehovah are equal in all essentials, differing only in personality, and eventual granted authority.

How does this refute your claim that Christ was always divine (in a sense that differs from our own inherent divinity)? Simple. Jehovah was not given His authority over this world, until after the Council of Heaven, wherein at some pont The Father decided to endorse Jehovah’s plan over that of Lucifer’s. This is a direct beginning to His authority as a divinity within our world. Note that this authority and status as savior came only after the Father granted it to him, it is not an inherent trait of his being. Therefore, in regards to Jehovah, His divinity has an expressed beginning within the mormon theological construct.

I have not said that this is right or wrong, but I am merely stating a doctrine which is easily seen in your church’s “deposit of faith”, and that this theology is different than what Chrisitanity teaches upon the subject. I am also not saying that this is what you, Casen, believe, as I do not know what you do or do not believe as an individual, but it is expressly what your church teaches.

The non-official proclamations and “speculations” of your former prophets support this veiw with far more consistency than what your current proposed position is with what has been revealed. Despite the claims of some who insist that “not very much has been revealed” about these subjects, there is plenty that has been revealed, and is what is being discussed here.

While some of it can be found in your standard works, it is most plainly found within the context of the Temple, and so I’d expect that you’d understand why I do not choose to show scriptural support for what is a doctrine that is taught as a cannon theology.

 

[majick275]

Casen:

Wrong. To say that you and I can progress is one thing. That is pretty obvious. But that does not mean Jesus is progressing in the same way. LDS doctrine teaches that God only progresses in the sense that he gains additional glory when his children progress. LDS doctrine does not teach that God continues to progress in the sense that he is learning, becoming smarter, or anything like that. We can learn but God cannot because he is already all knowing and perfect. And the Pearl of Great Price is pretty clear that “worlds without number” were created by Jesus, the Son of God.

You are right when you say that LDS doctrine teaches that NOW God progresses from the progressions of his children. But it doen’t really tell the WHOLE truth. Eternal progression means that despite creating worlds without number, there was a time when Heavenly Father was just a man working out his own salvation. That would have been prior to the “divininty” of Jesus. Please understand that the Catholic perspective CANNOT allow for a time when Heavenly Father did not have Jesus and the Holy Spirit with him as equal members of the Godhead.

Who says getting a planet is part of eternal progression? Post some sources and lets discuss it.

Please…do you really deny that this is a logical consequence of eternal progression for those who reach the highest exaltation as taught in the dcotrine and Covenants? I have given many specific references on other threads in this forum and I can post them again if it would be beneficial, But just give us an honest, straight answer as to what you believe will be the fate of those reaching the highest degree of celestial glory. (thus contributing to the “progression” of the Father by bringing to him our own worlds without number)

Actually yes. Who is it that mentions he is Eve’s brother? Would that be someone you could trust? Why would he emphasize that?

I am very tempted to go into detail on this, but out of respect for what is sacred to you, Please accept my apology and allow me to rephrase the issue. LDS doctrine teaches that all the spirits of this earth are the literal descendants of Heavenly Father, thus to ALL of us Jesus is our brother and so is Satan…ergo Satan and Jesus are actual brothers, one offering up a plan of salvation that would be in obedience to the Father, giving all glory to him; the other would be strictly under Satan with him calling all the shots and getting all the credit.

Post your sources please so we all know what specific quotes you’re referring to. That seems like the fair thing to do.

you misundestand as I thought I was helping you here. BY is from Journal of Discourses and Orson Pratt form the Seer. I think you need to the Seer in its entirety to get the full context. Both of them said repeatedly that Jesus was concieved of the Father in the same way as all mortal men. the specific wording used would appear to many indicate that (as I said ) that is what these two men thought. I was willing to forego the debate about doctrine or not and just say that people could have easily misunderstood these teachings. I just wanted you to understand that their wording was such that it could easily be misunderstood. If you really want to pursue this line I can give you all of the quotes and we can wander off into Jesus polygamy and Adam-God, etc. Wouldn’t it be better though to just say that these guys said some things that maybe were subject misunderstanding because of a poor choice of words?

 

[majick275]

Casen:

He may even be so bold as to suggest that the REAL doctrine is secret… only insiders know it… perhaps it’s only revealed to the muckety-mucks in the top ranks of the church in the inner-most chambers of the temple. This charge is also often used against Free Masonry (i.e. They don’t find out that they’re really worshiping Satan until they get to the top… and then it’s too late!)

Isn’t this exactly what you were you were trying so hard to prove to us in your posts on the “an exercise for Mormons” thread? you seemed there to think not only that there was “secret” doctrine not taught to everyone but that it was a good thing.

 

[majick275]

Casen:

Non-Mormon ignores the canonized references but gives enormous weight to vague quotes, political speeches, second hand accounts, speculation, etc. They prefer quotes from dead men who cannot correct or clarify. These all have much more authority than LDS scriptures as long as they appear to support the straw man belief.

…and my quotes from Gordon B Hinckley? and the other quotes from HIM to “correct or clarify?”

There is no straw man. Repent and be baptized. The Lord loves you.

 

[Casen]

majick275:

Wouldn’t it be better though to just say that these guys said some things that maybe were subject misunderstanding because of a poor choice of words?

Sure, that’s ok. In any case LDS don’t believe prophets are infallible. I think we’ve already covered this several times in past threads. The LDS church is a comparatively new church (founded in 1830) and has not had nearly as long as the Catholic church to clarify doctrine. The Catholic church has had the luxury of centuries to fill in blank spaces and clarify areas not covered in the scriptures. In the early years of the LDS church the Lord chose to reveal doctrine “line upon line” through revelations as compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants and often did so when the prophet went to him with a question. 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.

majick275:

Isn’t this exactly what you were you were trying so hard to prove to us in your posts on the “an exercise for Mormons” thread? you seemed there to think not only that there was “secret” doctrine not taught to everyone but that it was a good thing.

I’ll refer you to the earlier scriptures by Paul and Jesus that teach that gospel knowledge is distributed by God “line upon line”. My point was that it’s a common tactic to claim that an organization such as the LDS church or Free Masonry teaches something horrible in secret. No evidence is given by the accuser and the organization can’t easily defend itself since it doesn’t discuss certain things publicly so any wild claim can be made.

majick275:

…and my quotes from Gordon B Hinckley? and the other quotes from HIM to “correct or clarify?” There is no straw man. Repent and be baptized. The Lord loves you.

Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t follow you here. Perhaps you could spell it out a little more clearly for me.

 

[BJRumph]

The LDS church is a comparatively new church (founded in 1830) and has not had nearly as long as the Catholic church to clarify doctrine.

But isn’t the big disconnect here the fact that your church claims no need for clarification, because it receives its doctrine straight from the source? No need for theologians or “doctors of the Church” to debate and rationalize doctrine, because if the church has a question, it can just go to God (through the prophet) and get a direct, and uncontrovertable, answer? Is this not the “promise” offered by Smith in creating this church?

IF not, then what is, if I may? If all the prophets offer your church is immature doctrine (which is implicit in your position), which springs only from their best inspired guess, then what does the CoJCoLDS offer to anyone that is fundamentally different than what every other religion has to offer? Why is this fuzzy doctrine, that is often denied by the “faithful”, superior to what any religion has to offer in regards to doctrine?

I realize it may not be official, but it was my understanding that the GA, in part, was caused by the human meddling with God’s revealed doctrines, inserting for His word the “traditions of man”. Has this pov changed in the CoJCoLDS in the last few months? Was it something newly released at the last Conference?

While I rationally recognize your position from a “hands-off” anthropological/sociological perspective; this position seems odd to me for a believer to propose. Therefore, my question is making the fundamental (and totally hypothetical) assumption that your faith is “real” (a typical lds would say “true”), rather than assuming your institutional religion is a simple uninspired and un-Godly social organization.

In the end, I feel that “doctrinal” disputes between the RCC and LDS are pointless, as both root their systems in opposed Authority systems. A Lutheran can debate doctrine with an Episcopalean, as neither has any “authority” to settle the issue, or create their positoins to begin with. A Utah Mormon can debate with an Internet Mormon regarding LDS doctrine, as they both have the same authority to draw their doctrinal conclusions; just as a Fransiscan can debate an Jesuit over RCC doctrine due to their own authority. But the matter cannot be “resolved” between the RCC and LDS because of the competing claims of doctrinal authority. The RCC doctinally proclaims the Trinity; the LDS doctinally proclaim the Godhead. But neither position is superior until one is proven to be, in fact, True. As only God is capable of giving us the proofs needed, it comes down to who we believe has been given the authority by Him to proclaim His message. As both churches make this claim, it is here that you will find the heart and solution to all the contention between the two parties. To go anywhere else is simply to go looking for a senseless argument.

If the lds indeed do have this authority, then no matter how irrational we find their doctrines, those that have been revealed must be accepted. If the RCC still has this authority, then their doctrines must likewise be upheld, even if they are above your mind (or “irrational”) as a individual.

Only after aknowledging the primal authority to establish the origin of the doctrine can the doctrine itself be analyzed and struggled with for understanding and assemilation. But even then, the nature of the debates regarding the doctrine will be distinguished from the fruitless struggle we witness here on these boards between the rcc and lds.

 

[Tmaque]

Casen:

OK, let’s zero in on a few of these 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!

Perhaps a few of the apostate return missionaries here can reference specific instances where this was taught by prophets and in lesson manuals. Having been LDS all my life I’ve never been taught that Jesus was initially NOT divine and somehow became divine later so I’d like to see some references. Of course you’ll have to reconcile them with LDS scripture (Moses 1:32-35 and D&C 35:1-2 were cited in the other thread).

This was taken from chapter 3 of “Gospel Principles”. It’s here lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-1,00.html if don’t have a copy. I recognize that this doesn’t jive with D&C 35: 1-2, but that’s inconsequential because we’re talking about what people believe, not what scriptures say, and I believe there is a difference, especially in Mormonism. I think Moses 1:32-35 can be reconciled with this teaching.

*"We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation.

After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, “I will send the first” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ was chosen and ordained to be our Savior." *

If Jesus was “chosen and ordained” after an event, that implies the passing of time, which means there was a time when Jesus was NOT chosen and ordained. This proves that, the claim LDS believe that Jesus was not ALWAYS divine, and that Jesus and Lucifer are/were brothers are not straw man arguments.

Casen:

The second example regarding getting a planet is an assumption some have made, assuming that is what “exaltation” will include. However, since we don’t find this in our scriptures again I think it’s fair to say we don’t know for sure.

Again…Gospel Principles

"They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments.
This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).”

The book “Doctrines of Salvation” by Joseph Fielding Smith is referenced repeatedly in this chapter of Gospel Principles. In his book, President Smith teaches this doctrine explicitly.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:
The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever.* We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring**. We will have an endless eternity for this.*

With teachings from the modern LDS Church that suggest the notion of Godhood with dominion over worlds, and the explicit teachings regarding the same from previous church leaders, it’s easy to see why the notion still prevails so strongly in some LDS circles. Again, making the claim that this is LDS belief is not a “straw man” argument.

 

[Tmaque]

One more thing. I just realized that “Gospel Principles” is saying that God the Father was not always divine. Let’s look at this again:

Gospel Principles Chapter 47
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

"They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments.
This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).”

This is how our Heavenly Father BECAME God??? Just to be clear, this is a book that is published BY the LDS Church to teach it’s members about the LDS faith.

 

[majick275]

Casen:

I’ll refer you to the earlier scriptures by Paul and Jesus that teach that gospel knowledge is distributed by God “line upon line”. My point was that it’s a common tactic to claim that an organization such as the LDS church or Free Masonry teaches something horrible in secret. No evidence is given by the accuser and the organization can’t easily defend itself since it doesn’t discuss certain things publicly so any wild claim can be made.

Oh now it’s “horrible” instead of just secret. My point was that there are many reasons for LDS members to not know the “complete” doctrine of their church. I think your posts agree with that.

Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t follow you here. Perhaps you could spell it out a little more clearly for me.

Please… this whole thing started about eternal progression. I had posted GBH original position where he specifically endorsed the King Follett discourse and Lorenzo Snows “couplet”. I also posted his “clarification” where he said “I don’t know that we teach it”, etc. He’s supposed to be a prophet and the steward of Christ as far as leading the church is concerned…and he doesn’t know what the church teaches? either you teach it or you do not and he is suppoesed to know. We saw from his own words that the LDS church DOES teach it. We also the room for confusion coming form his later comments that he even later distanced from. The truth seems as slippery as nephite treasure.