Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[NewSeeker]

OK – he asks for prayers so that he might set forth things that are true, and you see that as being certain that he’s right?

He doesn’t even claim that his translations from Hebrew were inspired – they were based on his personal studies of Hebrew.

Look, jump back to 180 years after the apostles were alive, and look at the various sects of Christianity. The very founder of Orthodox Theology, Origen, without whom the entire Catholic Church might not have emerged the same – you excommunicated him post-mortem because some of his speculations weren’t Orthodox. Well in the LDS view, that’s not reasonable. Just because someone doesn’t get everything right, doesn’t mean we run off, declare them anathema, and burn their books. As I see it, Origen did his best according to his lights, and you owe him better than you gave him. As mormons see things, you can disclaim some of his wackier theories without declaring him anathema. But that’s not a doctrinal difference, that’s a cultural and procedural difference between us.

Well, I agree with you, Joseph’s King Follett discourse was very wacky, even if Joseph thought he was speaking as a prophet (as he obviously did - unless you conveniently ignore certain statements that he made during the sermon). As for Origin, he was a mere theologian. He didn’t claim to be a prophet who spoke with God and Jesus face to face in the woods and in that capacity say things like “I speak with authority” when addressing his followers. I’d say modern Mormons have procedures for determining doctrine that are very different from what applied during Joseph Smith’s day. Mormonism has altered the process for determining what is doctrinal. Which approach to determining doctrine is the correct one? Joseph Smith’s prophetic original (encapsulated by D&C 1:39) or the contemporary, bureaucratic procedure where prophets hem and haw during public interviews, then seek the seal of approval from the church leadership speaking in unison? If Joseph Smith was wrong and the bureaucratic approach is correct, what current doctrines might be deemed to be theoretical by some future church administration? Maybe the future church will confirm the King Follett Discourse (as every church prophet did from BY all the way to GBH’s predecessor) and you’ll be left standing in the cold with your unorthodox view? Who’s to say, as the church flip flops on doctrine from time to time.

But that’s not the most important issue. Joseph clearly believed he was speaking as a prophet during that discourse, though modern Mormons say he was not (and only since GBH’s interview debacle in 1997). As I have shown, Joseph explicitly linked the truthfulness of what he was teaching during his King Follett sermon to his prophetic credibility. If you reject the doctrinal truth of those teachings, and claim he was only propounding a theory, when he clearly believed he was propounding doctrine, then you are calling Joseph’s prophetic claim into question - using the very criteria that he laid out for you himself.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Well, I agree with you, Joseph’s King Follett discourse was very wacky, even if Joseph thought he was speaking as a prophet (as he obviously did - unless you conveniently ignore certain statements that he made during the sermon). .

Which statements? On the contrary, it seems to me that you’re ignoring certain statements if you assume that he was asserting that he was speaking as a prophet.

As for Orig[e]n, he was a mere theologian.

fair enough. That is a significant difference. So why’d you all excommunicate him and burn his books, even though he’d done so much for your church, and was tortured to death by the Roman Empire for his efforts?

I’d say modern Mormons have procedures for determining doctrine that are very different from what applied during Joseph Smith’s day. Mormonism has altered the process for determining what is doctrinal.

Then you would be dead wrong, sir. The exact procedure which I described is laid out explicitly in Doctrine and Covenants section 50, “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, May 1831.”

Which approach to determining doctrine is the correct one?

The LDS answer to that would always be, the latest one. Otherwise we’d all still be building Arks, as Noah was instructed.

Nevertheless, the church procedure for determining doctrine has not changed since 1831, and that’s a long time, considering that our church was organized in 1830.

Joseph Smith’s prophetic original (encapsulated by D&C 1:39) or the contemporary, bureaucratic procedure where prophets hem and haw during public interviews, then seek the seal of approval from the church leadership speaking in unison?

Um, NewSeeker? Does 1 year into the existence of the church, seem that newfangled in your neck of the woods?

If Joseph Smith was wrong

? The “bureaucratic” process was revealed through Joseph Smith, in 1831.

what current doctrines might be deemed to be theoretical by some future church administration?

Obviously, everything that’s not in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price, and not submitted to the process outlined in D&C 50.

Maybe the future church will confirm the King Follett Discourse [snip factually incorrect parenthetical statement] and you’ll be left standing in the cold with your unorthodox view?

Maybe so, assuming that the LDS church ever picks up the phrases “orthodox” and “unorthodox” which to my knowledge only one apostle has ever used. [shudder] . Until then, you are wrong, sir.

God bless you anyway.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread reached it’s 1000 post limit.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)