Interesting Brigham Young Quotes

[SirThomasMore]

Tom, the quotations were from popes and not Brigham Young. Read the bottom of the post.

I was talking about the Quotes from BY. I did not acknowledge your red herring deflections

 

[why_me]

I was talking about the Quotes from BY. I did not acknowledge your red herring deflections

Oh, I thought that you wrote ‘wow’ under xixxvmcm85 post because you thought that those words were from BY because you didn’t read on down the post where xixxvmcm85 clarified that they were actually from catholic popes. Sorry that I misunderstood?

Why did you write ‘wow’ under that post?

 

[SirThomasMore]

because I wanted to…

I will say it again: WOW…

to read the quotes from BY and the early LDS leaders is the “by your fruits you shall know them” that shows BY was NOT a prophet and the LDS Church is NOT the true Church

 

[Answersplease]

(Color added to highlight the original text.)

"[if] there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church

. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They may think they are respected, but they are not. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty within them; they have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends."

Journal of Discourses/Volume 12. p.94. Brigham Young. 1867

 

[SirThomasMore]

Answersplease:
wow…again

 

[PaulDupre]

“[if] there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They may think they are respected, but they are not. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty within them; they have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends.”

Journal of Discourses/Volume 12. p.94. Brigham Young. 1867

I wonder if it ever occurred to Brigham Young that when he joined the Mormon Church he became an apostate from the Methodist Church in which he was raised? He betrayed his parents, among others.

 

[why_me]

I wonder if it ever occurred to Brigham Young that when he joined the Mormon Church he became an apostate from the Methodist Church in which he was raised? He betrayed his parents, among others.

Well, here is the context. During the days of persecution when mormons were driven out of their homes in New York, Missouri, and Illinois, it was usually the apostates leading the charge. And these apostates used to be friends of the members they were persecuting. And so, BY was certainly in his right to say such a thing if he did say such a thing. As I said on this thread, we do not have BY’s exact words because these ‘quotations’ were done by shorthand by a second person recording them.

But those apostates back then, we mean and vicious as they led mobs in speech and action against their former friends.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Well, here is the context. During the days of persecution when mormons were driven out of their homes in New York, Missouri, and Illinois, it was usually the apostates leading the charge. And these apostates used to be friends of the members they were persecuting. And so, BY was certainly in his right to say such a thing if he did say such a thing. As I said on this thread, we do not have BY’s exact words because these ‘quotations’ were done by shorthand by a second person recording them.

But those apostates back then, we mean and vicious as they led mobs in speech and action against their former friends.

So, according to LDS doctrine, it is NOT tuen the other cheek, if you are equally involved in two wars, partiually of your own making, and then bad things happen, your mprophets can go off on wild rages

 

[Answersplease]

Well, here is the context. During the days of persecution when mormons were driven out of their homes in New York, Missouri, and Illinois, it was usually the apostates leading the charge. And these apostates used to be friends of the members they were persecuting. And so, BY was certainly in his right to say such a thing if he did say such a thing. As I said on this thread, we do not have BY’s exact words because these ‘quotations’ were done by shorthand by a second person recording them.

But those apostates back then, we mean and vicious as they led mobs in speech and action against their former friends.

So, according to LDS doctrine, it is NOT tuen the other cheek, if you are equally involved in two wars, partiually of your own making, and then bad things happen, your mprophets can go off on wild rages

Answersplease:

Brigham Young clearly meant apostates.

If Brigham Young meant something else, he should have been more clear so as not to cause confusion and bad feelings.

It would have been more reasonable to say “apostates who lead mobs against the Mormon Church”, but Brigham Young did’nt say that.

Brigham Young said “apostate”.

Plain and simple.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I love it when you compare Popes to “prophets”. I t valideates my comments that the LDS folks were really not prophets at all.

Huh?

And again, I love your need to deflect and use comments from several hundred years ago in a very different era, to comments made less than 150 eyars ago in this country. It also validates my points.

Again, huh? This seems like special pleading to me. You arbitrarily make a distinction between several hundred years and 150 years for no seeming reason than to excuse away papal pronouncements while condemning Mormon ones.

Do you not think that 150 years ago was a “different era”?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Huh?

Popes are not prophets. They do not have that special link Mormons claim Proiphets have, yet, they seem to want to compare popes and prophets. So, I am willing to do that, which makes them not prophets at all

Again, huh? This seems like special pleading to me. You arbitrarily make a distinction between several hundred years and 150 years for no seeming reason than to excuse away papal pronouncements while condemning Mormon ones.

Do you not think that 150 years ago was a “different era”?

Yes, I do. I believe the 1300s in Europe, for example, was a lot different than the 1800s in the US. You don’t?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Answersplease:
Answers, you got it exactly right

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Popes are not prophets. They do not have that special link Mormons claim Proiphets have, yet, they seem to want to compare popes and prophets. So, I am willing to do that, which makes them not prophets at all.

More like Mormons understand prophethood differently than we do, which I’ve already pointed out to you. That you choose to judge how Mormons ought to react to statements made by past LDS prophets through a straw man understanding of the LDS First Presidency doesn’t “prove your point”.

SirThomasMore:

xixxvmcm85:

Do you not think that 150 years ago was a “different era”?

Yes, I do. I believe the 1300s in Europe, for example, was a lot different than the 1800s in the US. You don’t?

Of course, but I’m not myopic enough to just ignore the fact that the 1800s are nonetheless a “different era”, howbeit less different than the 1300s, than our current age. There was still a significant portion of society that viewed particular races as worthy of subjugation and it was generally understood that women lacked the intellectual capacity necessary for the responsibility of voting. My original point was that it seems quite self-defeating to hold 19th century LDS prophets to a 21st century standard while simultaneously apologizing for 13th century Catholic pontiffs by pointing out that they lived in a different era.

 

[why_me]

More like Mormons understand prophethood differently than we do, which I’ve already pointed out to you. That you choose to judge how Mormons ought to react to statements made by past LDS prophets through a straw man understanding of the LDS First Presidency doesn’t “prove your point”.

Of course, but I’m not myopic enough to just ignore the fact that the 1800s are nonetheless a “different era”, howbeit less different than the 1300s, than our current age. There was still a significant portion of society that viewed particular races as worthy of subjugation and it was generally understood that women lacked the intellectual capacity necessary for the responsibility of voting. My original point was that it seems quite self-defeating to hold 19th century LDS prophets to a 21st century standard while simultaneously apologizing for 13th century Catholic pontiffs by pointing out that they lived in a different era.

Very true indeed. And I will take my hat off to you…:tiphat:

 

[SirThomasMore]

More like Mormons understand prophethood differently than we do, which I’ve already pointed out to you. That you choose to judge how Mormons ought to react to statements made by past LDS prophets through a straw man understanding of the LDS First Presidency doesn’t “prove your point”.

They prove my point for me. Mormons try to justify the actiuons of their racists prophets from 1800s Americas by comparing them to things that happened in Europe from 500 AD to 1500 AD. I am a little surprised that you do not see the fallacy of that comparison. Standards were different. Laws were different. Living conditions vastly different. But, I guess not everyone can see that…Why and Diana certainly can’t…and I guess you are having difficulty with it, too

Additionally, LDS prophets claim to have conversations with God, where God talks to them. Hard to imagine God feeling about black the way BY did.

 

[scipio337]

…My original point was that it seems quite self-defeating to hold 19th century LDS prophets to a 21st century standard while simultaneously apologizing for 13th century Catholic pontiffs by pointing out that they lived in a different era.

The difference would be between what was Catholic practice then, and Catholic doctrine, and as STM has pointed out, the Bishop of Rome is not considered a prophet, with “new” revelation.

It remains here to distinguish the Christian Revelation or “deposit of faith” from what are termed private revelations. This distinction is of importance: for while the Church recognizes that God has spoken to His servants in every age, and still continues thus to favour chosen souls, she is careful to distinguish these revelations from the Revelation which has been committed to her charge, and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance. That Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit — “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 2) — for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition.

Clearly, some of the actions of Catholics of the past, including Popes, were not part our Apostolic tradition, but the LDS claim that the “divine revelations” given to LDS prophets are all part of the “restoration” of what Christianity lost, and are part of doctrine.

 

[why_me]

Additionally, LDS prophets claim to have conversations with God, where God talks to them. Hard to imagine God feeling about black the way BY did.

God has done many shady things in the past. Just look at the old testament. It is filled with god sanctioned bloodshed. BY was a product of his age and circumstance. I don’t hold him to blame. He did many marvelous things too. Popes were no different when it came to race. People are not perfect.

 

[SirThomasMore]

God has done many shady things in the past. Just look at the old testament. It is filled with god sanctioned bloodshed. BY was a product of his age and circumstance. I don’t hold him to blame. He did many marvelous things too. Popes were no different when it came to race. People are not perfect.

Another deflection. I am not talking the 1800s in America, not Isreal in 400 BC. Nice try at another of yopur patented red herrings. BY should he was not even a Christian, much less a prophet

 

[scipio337]

Another deflection. I am not talking the 1800s in America, not Isreal in 400 BC. Nice try at another of yopur patented red herrings. BY should he was not even a Christian, much less a prophet

One wonders which Pope added the “Oath of Vengeance” to the Mass.

Didn’t Damascus I make one towards the Visigoths? No?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

One wonders which Pope added the “Oath of Vengeance” to the Mass.

Didn’t Damascus I make one towards the Visigoths? No?

What is the “Oath of Vengeance”? I have never heard of it, but admittedly dont know a whole lot about Church History.