"Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, And Extraterrestrial Quakers!"

[Answersplease]

(color and emphasis added)

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, And Extraterrestrial Quakers!

watchman.org/lds/moonmen.htm

"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women

the same as this earth, …that they lived generally to near the age of 1000 years.

"He described the men … dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
…

What about Smith’s successor Brigham Young? … On July 24, 1870, he made the following statement in a sermon:

“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening called the moon? …when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain,” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 217).
…

It should be pointed out that the preceding statement was in the context of a sermon and that Brigham Young considered his sermons to be scripture:

“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” (Ibid, p. 95).

 

[aquabatix]

You forgot to add the part that makes it apparent that this was not simply Josephs “opinion” about things.

“This was described by Joseph the ‘Seer’ who was able to ‘See’ anything he asked in the name of Jesus to see.”

You see, it’s not his fault or opinion, God tricked him or forgot to mention it wasn’t our moon.

 

[Jerusha]

It is not necessary to point out specific departures from reality in the LDS religion.

The LSD pun is not made casually. :hypno:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

“Extraterrestrial Quakers!?” :doh2: Now there’s a group you don’t hear a lot about! Are they located somewhere between the Cardassians, Romulans, and Klingons or near Ceti Alpha 5?

 

[ibkc]

It should be pointed out that the preceding statement was in the context of a sermon and that Brigham Young considered his sermons to be scripture:

“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” (Ibid, p. 95).

It can absolutely not ever be said that Brigham Young didn’t think highly of himself.

 

[Answersplease]

You forgot to add the part that makes it apparent that this was not simply Josephs “opinion” about things.

“This was described by Joseph the ‘Seer’ who was able to ‘See’ anything he asked in the name of Jesus to see.”

You see, it’s not his fault or opinion, God tricked him or forgot to mention it wasn’t our moon.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Answersplease]

This quote shows more of what Brigham Young was saying.

(colors blue and red added to the original text)

Why did Smith teach the moon was inhabited and why did Young teach the sun was inhabited?

mormoninfo.org/news-info/false-prophecies/why-did-smith-teach-moon-was-inhabited-and-why-did-young-teach-sun-was-in

…inhabitants of the

sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Journal of Discourses 13:271). Here Young was acting as a prophet in giving this sermon, since he just said right before this statement in a previous sermon that every sermon he gives should be called scripture (13:95).

 

[Answersplease]

This quote is from a different website than the quote in the original post, and shows more of what Brigham Young was saying.

(colors blue and red added to the original text)

Why did Smith teach the moon was inhabited and why did Young teach the sun was inhabited?

mormoninfo.org/news-info/false-prophecies/why-did-smith-teach-moon-was-inhabited-and-why-did-young-teach-sun-was-in

…inhabitants of the

sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Journal of Discourses 13:271). Here Young was acting as a prophet in giving this sermon, since he just said right before this statement in a previous sermon that every sermon he gives should be called scripture (13:95).

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

“Extraterrestrial Quakers!?” :doh2: Now there’s a group you don’t hear a lot about! Are they located somewhere between the Cardassians, Romulans, and Klingons or near Ceti Alpha 5?
http://www.classesandcareers.com/education/wp-content/uploads/image/klingon.jpg

Have any astronauts been Quaker?

 

[Publisher]

Have any astronauts been Quaker?

Not as far as I am aware. Typically the space program is an arm of the military…Friends typically do not serve in the military…there have been Friends who have done so…but it’s usually discouraged.

 

[dianaiad]

…inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Journal of Discourses 13:271). Here Young was acting as a prophet in giving this sermon, since he just said right before this statement in a previous sermon that every sermon he gives should be called scripture (13:95).

(sigh) Gee, I wonder when 'I rather think it is" got translated into 'Thus saith the Lord?"

I don’t know about you, but Young was NOT ‘acting as a prophet’ in giving this statement, and your claim that he said that ‘every sermon he gives should be called scripture’ is one of THE most annoying ‘out of context’ quotes anti’s come up with.

In fact, it is so carefully taken out of context that YOU have made it look like it means the precise OPPOSITE of what Young actually DID say.

Want proof? Here is the actual quote (You ARE aware that the entire text of the JoD is on line, right?) “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they my not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. …Let this go to the people with 'Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them."

…and so you are presenting “I rather think it is…” and claiming that this means 'thus saith the Lord?" Answersplease…please.

There are a couple of HUGE qualifications that Young puts on his claim–qualifications that you have snipped to invisibility. First, Young claims that he needs to ‘correct a sermon.’ That is, to go over it, make certain that there were no errors, and that it was indeed inspired. By the way, NONE of the speeches in the Journal of Discourses would qualify under that one, because none of the speakers WERE able to vet those speeches. In fact, none of the speakers even knew that their speeches were being published until after the volumes were sent back to SLC.

Second, there is this VERY official 'thus saith the Lord" requirement. To us, as Mormons, that’s a very specific process. Simply saying it from the pulpit doesn’t necessarily make it so…it must be confirmed, and formally presented.

So now you are taking a quote from Young that not only does NOT say 'Thus saith the Lord," but considering Young’s speaking style, is actually an incredibly diffident “I rather think so…” in the SAME SPEECH in which he laid out the requirements for having what he says be scripture…a quote that Young was not able to ‘correct,’ nor had the words 'Thus saith the Lord?"

C’mon, answersplease. You can at least TRY to be fair, here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Second, there is this VERY official 'thus saith the Lord" requirement. To us, as Mormons, that’s a very specific process. Simply saying it from the pulpit doesn’t necessarily make it so…it must be confirmed, and formally presented.

Unfortunately, some Church members place limitations on prophetic statements. Some will not accept anything as a genuine prophetic declaration unless it is prefaced by the phrase “thus saith the Lord.” President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., demonstrated the fallacy of such a position:
“There are those who insist that unless the Prophet of the Lord declares, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ the message may not be taken as a revelation. This is a false testing standard. For while many of our modern revelations as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants do contain these words, there are many that do not.” (“When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” p. 10.)
“The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
“Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, ‘Thou shalt give heed unto * all his words and commandments * which he shall give unto you’ ( D&C 21:4 ; italics added).” (Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Living Prophet,” pp. 27–28.)

(LDS Institute Manual)

 

[dianaiad]

Answersplease:
The final sentence in that article you sent us to asks the question; if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were incorrect about the moon and sun being inhabited, how can we trust their guidance in eternal religious matters?

That’s a problem.

After all, Moses was very wrong about certain scientific things, too–and those things, unlike these beliefs of Smith and Young, actually found their way into scripture. Does that mean that we have to throw out most of the Old Testament?

Prophets and apostles are called to give religious and spiritual guidance to God’s children. They are NOT expected to be ominscient and be scientifically correct about all things. they are, in fact, allowed to be idiots in things not pertinent to their calling.

If Moses thought that hares chewed their cud, that did not make Moses any less a prophet. If the OT prophets thought that the test for an adultress was to mix dirt from the floor in a cup of water and have her drink it, so that the adultress had ‘her belly swell and her thighs rot’ but that the pure woman would ‘bear the seed,’ So what?

 

[dianaiad]

(LDS Institute Manual)

Of course…but again you are hitting the strawman, Rebecca. "counsel’ is not the same thing as making a scientific claim.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Of course…but again you are hitting the strawman, Rebecca. "counsel’ is not the same thing as making a scientific claim.

ummm, what does that have to do with your insistence on hearing “thus saith the Lord”?

 

[dianaiad]

ummm, what does that have to do with your insistence on hearing “thus saith the Lord”?

It is bringing the topic back on point. As to 'thus saith the Lord," it’s more than that. “Thus Saith the Lord” means more than the words, Rebecca. It means formal canonization…WE know the difference.

Good counsel from church leaders is always a good thing to consider, in terms of the way we live our lives. However, NO rule anywhere says that we have to accept a man’s declarations regarding matters that have nothing to do with religion, when he is a religious leader.

…and that article you were referencing was referring to MORAL laws (remember that word? You use it often enough) and RELIGIOUS doctrines and rules, not matters of scientific fact. You are equivocating.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Second, there is this VERY official 'thus saith the Lord" requirement. To us, as Mormons, that’s a very specific process. Simply saying it from the pulpit doesn’t necessarily make it so…it must be confirmed, and formally presented.

So now you are taking a quote from Young that not only does NOT say 'Thus saith the Lord," but considering Young’s speaking style, is actually an incredibly diffident “I rather think so…” in the SAME SPEECH in which he laid out the requirements for having what he says be scripture…a quote that Young was not able to ‘correct,’ nor had the words 'Thus saith the Lord?"

C’mon, answersplease. You can at least TRY to be fair, here.

(LDS Institute Manual)

Of course…but again you are hitting the strawman, Rebecca. "counsel’ is not the same thing as making a scientific claim.

ummm, what does that have to do with your insistence on hearing “thus saith the Lord”?

It is bringing the topic back on point. As to 'thus saith the Lord," it’s more than that. “Thus Saith the Lord” means more than the words, Rebecca. It means formal canonization…WE know the difference.

Good counsel from church leaders is always a good thing to consider, in terms of the way we live our lives. However, NO rule anywhere says that we have to accept a man’s declarations regarding matters that have nothing to do with religion, when he is a religious leader.

…and that article you were referencing was referring to MORAL laws (remember that word? You use it often enough) and RELIGIOUS doctrines and rules, not matters of scientific fact. You are equivocating.

What does that have to do with your insistence on hearing “thus saith the Lord”?

You are equivocating.

Also, while I appreciate your picking up Catholic belief, ie, we are led by the Pope in Faith and Morals…I doubt very much your church agrees with you on this point regarding a mormon “prophet”.

 

[TheosisM]

so can the Proclamation on the Family become canonized even though it doesn’t have “thus saith the Lord” in it?

 

[Answersplease]

C’mon, answersplease. You can at least TRY to be fair, here.

I made direct quotes from those websites, those were their observations. I just highlighted them.

 

[Answersplease]

…Young’s speaking style, is actually an incredibly diffident “I rather think so…”

(colors blue and red and bolding emphasis and underlining and formatting added to the original text)

Why did Smith teach the moon was inhabited and why did Young teach the sun was inhabited?

mormoninfo.org/news-info/…ach-sun-was-in

…inhabitants of the sun

.
Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is.

Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it,

and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized" (Journal of Discourses 13:271). Here Young was acting as a prophet in giving this sermon, since he just said right before this statement in a previous sermon that every sermon he gives should be called scripture (13:95).