LDS: Bruce R. McConkie's letter to BYU Professor Eugene England.

[Returning_Home]

Apples and rutabagas comparison. The ban on the LDS Priesthood (and marriages, and exaltation, as few recognize, basically saying "no black person attains the highest heaven, and “godhood”) was part of LDS DOCTRINE, supported by LDS Scripture. Historical context aside, I will humbly wait for your proof that the Inquisitions and Crusades were part of Catholic DOCTRINE, or the ex Cathedra statements made in its support, or the scriptures that supported them, as such.

She clearly hasn’t read the feel-good book of 1967, The Church and the Negro, which makes it clear that blacks will not be permitted to attain the priesthood until some distant point after the Second Coming, supported by Brigham Young in JOD 2:143.

The Mormon apostles voted to allow blacks the priesthood in 1969, but there was one hold-out: Harold B. Lee. He blocked this until his death, and even then, the church didn’t go forth with it until four years later. Talk about keeping up with the times!

Keep also in mind that the JOD calls itself one of the standard works and reaffirms itself being the recorded words of God.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, I believe you’re comparing apples and rutabagas.

BY was, by all estimations, a poor excuse for a human being, and a racist of the highest order, BUT, his personal beliefs and sermons regarding race became not just LDS policy or practice, but LDS DOCTRINE, which was, in fact supported by LDS scripture (PoGP, Abraham 1:26-27)

To quote President George Albert Smith:

This was a DOCTRINE that only could be overthown by…another “revealation”

Apples and rutabagas comparison. The ban on the LDS Priesthood (and marriages, and exaltation, as few recognize, basically saying "no black person attains the highest heaven, and “godhood”) was part of LDS DOCTRINE, supported by LDS Scripture. Historical context aside, I will humbly wait for your proof that the Inquisitions and Crusades were part of Catholic DOCTRINE, or the ex Cathedra statements made in its support, or the scriptures that supported them, as such.

I’m not going there, m’friend. This has been rather completely spoken of elsewhere, and given the topic of the thread, rehashing it is useless. Suffice it to say that your interpretation of what we believe is incorrect.

However, crusades, inquisitions and the punishments for heresy were part of canon law, declared by Papal Bull, and enforced by means of sword and interdict. People who didn’t go along with it died—and they did so at the direct order of the church at the highest level.

…more importantly to the point, people who didn’t go along with it were excommunicated and sometimes (that is, if they weren’t burned first, and if they were, their ashes were refused burial) if given burial were actually exhumed, burned and thrown in the river…John Wycliffe comes to mind here.

If you want to compare that to our not allowing black men of African descent to hold the priesthood for awhile, I think you might be sitting on very shaky ground. Up to you, of course.

 

[Returning_Home]

If you want to compare that to our not allowing black men of African descent to hold the priesthood for awhile, I think you might be sitting on very shaky ground. Up to you, of course.

Since your god has caved into social pressure at least twice, he obviously values man’s laws above his own.

Why would God roll over and play dead when he clearly stated in the BOM that he and his will are eternal and forever, unchangeable from eternity to eternity? (Alma 41:8, Mormon 9:9, 19, Moroni 7:22, 8:18 etc) It seems like your god isn’t very trustworthy because his edicts change directions just like the wind and are just as substantial.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I’m not going there, m’friend. This has been rather completely spoken of elsewhere, and given the topic of the thread, rehashing it is useless. Suffice it to say that your interpretation of what we believe is incorrect.

However, crusades, inquisitions and the punishments for heresy were part of canon law, declared by Papal Bull, and enforced by means of sword and interdict. People who didn’t go along with it died—and they did so at the direct order of the church at the highest level.

yawn, more red herrings. When she does this, all Diana is saying is “hey, I know my church is likely not true and has problems, so I will deflect and say negative things about your church”
…
If you want to compare that to our not allowing black men of African descent to hold the priesthood for awhile, I think you might be sitting on very shaky ground. Up to you, of course.

Naaaaa…BY’s comments in the 1800s (as opposed to the red herrings she keeps throwing out from the 1200 and 1300s) are far worse…he waqs a racist. He was a racists of the worst kind…and, as we can agree, is NOT something a Prophet of God would be

 

[Michael_Francis]

*Character assassination of Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Jack Chick, or anyone else discussed on CAF violates the Forum Rules is very likely to attract mod intervention and citations.

Moreover, sidetracking the thread with off topic posts will lead to thread closure.

Stick to facts and documentation, and do so charitably or the thread will be closed and some of you will be hearing from me.

So far as I can tell, virtually all of you have enough forum experience, (here and elsewhere) that you should be able to properly discuss or debate most anything.

If you have any questions as to what will and will not be allowed you need only carefully review this link to see what is expected. Beyond that you can PM me if you need further guidance or have questions.*

 

[scipio337]

There’s a huge difference here, scipio.

BY’s opinion on Adam/God has always been his opinion; none of us have been required to believe it or act on it. You are, then, comparing apples and oranges.

A closer comparison would be…Crusades and Inquisition to LDS policy on priesthood and men of African negro descent (not all ‘black’ people were denied the priesthood…it was limited to those of that specific descent).

You see, in terms of the priesthood ban, it was CHURCH policy. It wasn’t just the opinion of a few leaders. Everybody had to go along with it; we didn’t ordain blacks of African descent until 1978. Now, of course, all worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood regardless of ancestry. THIS sort of thing was what it was; church policy. It was part of who we were, and are, and believed. It was official.

So were the crusades, and the inquisition, and the methods used to deal with heretics in the Catholic church, historically.

I am not going to pretend that church policy was different than it was simply because it is NOW different from what it was. To do so is to deny reality—and in a very real way, to deny the very real advances and progress people have made IN the church.

Apples and rutabagas comparison. The ban on the LDS Priesthood (and marriages, and exaltation, as few recognize, basically saying "no black person attains the highest heaven, and “godhood”) was part of LDS DOCTRINE, supported by LDS Scripture.

Historical context aside, I will humbly wait for your proof that the Inquisitions and Crusades were part of Catholic DOCTRINE, or the ex Cathedra statements made in its support, or the scriptures that supported them, as such.

You’re conflating personal opinion, policy and doctrine. Consecrated life is a policy (discipline) of Latin Rite Churches. The Assumption of Mary is a doctrine of the Church.

See the difference?

 

[dianaiad]

She clearly hasn’t read the feel-good book of 1967, The Church and the Negro, which makes it clear that blacks will not be permitted to attain the priesthood until some distant point after the Second Coming, supported by Brigham Young in JOD 2:143.

The Mormon apostles voted to allow blacks the priesthood in 1969, but there was one hold-out: Harold B. Lee. He blocked this until his death, and even then, the church didn’t go forth with it until four years later. Talk about keeping up with the times!

Keep also in mind that the JOD calls itself one of the standard works and reaffirms itself being the recorded words of God.

The JoD does NOT ‘call itself’ one of the standard works. A man writing the introduction says that it deserves to be one of the standard works of the church…‘standard works’ at the time meaning something very different from the Standard Works we accept as scripture.

As for the speeches themselves, in only one of them is any reference made to whether the words in it can be taken to be scripture, and by those very words, shows that they are not, since none of them fit the profile of: having the speaker able to review and correct the words, be the product of God speaking to the author (Thus saith the Lord) and canonized as scripture. The JoD is a collection of speeches given by leaders of the church. As such they are valuable both in that they can help us learn, and in learning how early leaders of the church thought. No Mormon takes the JoD as one of the Standard Works, though in as much as the church DOES have standard works (works that are interesting and important, but not doctrinal) then it would be there.

You have made this statement several times now. You have been corrected several times now. Running Home, you can claim that the JoD 'calls itself one of the standard works" all you want to, but y’know what? You don’t get to make that determination. We do, and in terms of Mormon Doctrine, it’s what the Mormons say that counts–just as in terms of Catholic doctrine, it’s what the Catholics say that counts.

I’m QUITE certain that if I were to claim that the Holy Tradition or 'Oral History" is the same thing as scripture and thus proves that in spite of what y’all claim aloud, you do believe that official public revelation continued and that popes are prophets, every single Catholic (even you) would come down on me like a wall of bricks–and you would be absolutely justified and right to do so. Nobody but Catholics get to say what is, and is not, scripture (or standard works) to them.

Well, consider this to be your wall of bricks.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The JoD does NOT ‘call itself’ one of the standard works. A man writing the introduction says that it deserves to be one of the standard works of the church…‘standard works’ at the time meaning something very different from the Standard Works we accept as scripture.

As for the speeches themselves, in only one of them is any reference made to whether the words in it can be taken to be scripture, and by those very words, shows that they are not, since none of them fit the profile of: having the speaker able to review and correct the words, be the product of God speaking to the author (Thus saith the Lord) and canonized as scripture. The JoD is a collection of speeches given by leaders of the church. As such they are valuable both in that they can help us learn, and in learning how early leaders of the church thought. No Mormon takes the JoD as one of the Standard Works, though in as much as the church DOES have standard works (works that are interesting and important, but not doctrinal) then it would be there.

You have made this statement several times now. You have been corrected several times now. Running Home, you can claim that the JoD 'calls itself one of the standard works" all you want to, but y’know what? You don’t get to make that determination. We do, and in terms of Mormon Doctrine, it’s what the Mormons say that counts–just as in terms of Catholic doctrine, it’s what the Catholics say that counts.

I’m QUITE certain that if I were to claim that the Holy Tradition or 'Oral History" is the same thing as scripture and thus proves that in spite of what y’all claim aloud, you do believe that official public revelation continued and that popes are prophets, every single Catholic (even you) would come down on me like a wall of bricks–and you would be absolutely justified and right to do so. Nobody but Catholics get to say what is, and is not, scripture (or standard works) to them.

Well, consider this to be your wall of bricks.

I am not sure why Mormons, on one hand, say that the prophets talk to Christ, then when the prophets say things so horribly anti-Christian, Mormons say that they were not to be,olistened to on THAT point.

It is very handy to go back and pick the things you like and say it was from God and the awful, horrible things they said were just opinions. Though, anyone reading the discources know they were not just opinions

 

[dianaiad]

I am not sure why Mormons, on one hand, say that the prophets talk to Christ, then when the prophets say things so horribly anti-Christian, Mormons say that they were not to be,olistened to on THAT point.

It is very handy to go back and pick the things you like and say it was from God and the awful, horrible things they said were just opinions. Though, anyone reading the discources know they were not just opinions

It’s actually very easy, sir.

First, is it in the scriptures that we accept AS scripture? If it is, then that’s one thing.
If it is not, that’s quite another. For those words that are not officially canonized, but come from the mouths of prophets and leaders of the church…they are both more than, and less than, what you term 'Sacred Tradition." That is, they are important, but not necessarily doctrinal, insights and opinions of men who, while they might be inspired, are NOT at the time speaking of things that reach that level of “Thus saith the Lord” that qualifies them for canonization. In other words, they are opinions. Well thought out, perhaps: perhaps even absolutely right–but then again, perhaps not. We all have something called the ‘spirit of discernment’ that helps us with that, if our own personal relationship with God and His son remains strong, as our belief and faith are strong.

However, the upshot is this: nobody but a Mormon in good standing gets to decide what is, and is not, scripture for himself. Certainly no ex-Mormon with an agenda to ‘get’ us has any stand at all in the issue.

…and yes, substitute “Catholic” for “Mormon” in the above statement and it still applies.

Or do you want me to take the words of Origen and claim that his writings prove that Catholicism isn’t either Trinitarian?

 

[aquabatix]

It seems to me that the point of this thread is to address the DOCTRINE that is put forth, especially in regards to the very essence of God. When BY spoke about the Adam-God theory/doctrine, he was speaking about the essence of God, AND how it was different from the traditional Christian view of God. The aspects of God being only ONE, transcendent, omnipresent, and so forth were not new debatable concepts in BY’s time. To say that God was transitional or progressive or was Adam was to espound a different God then Christianity. We are not talking about personal opinion or actions as a man, we are talking about belief in God and who one worships. And especially when you are the spiritual leader of so many, the God you worship (and say others should as well) should be clear.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It seems to me that the point of this thread is to address the DOCTRINE that is put forth, especially in regards to the very essence of God. When BY spoke about the Adam-God theory/doctrine, he was speaking about the essence of God, AND how it was different from the traditional Christian view of God. The aspects of God being only ONE, transcendent, omnipresent, and so forth were not new debatable concepts in BY’s time. To say that God was transitional or progressive or was Adam was to espound a different God then Christianity. We are not talking about personal opinion or actions as a man, we are talking about belief in God and who one worships. And especially when you are the spiritual leader of so many, the God you worship (and say others should as well) should be clear.

I agree.

 

[scipio337]

It’s actually very easy, sir.

First, is it in the scriptures that we accept AS scripture? If it is, then that’s one thing.
If it is not, that’s quite another. …

The problem being, some of what BY said, particularly towards blacks, BECAME doctrine, through the priesthood ban (and thus ALL “saving ordinances”, endowment, temple marriage, sealing to parents, and exaltation), and IS supported by BoM scripture.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems to me that the point of this thread is to address the DOCTRINE that is put forth, especially in regards to the very essence of God. When BY spoke about the Adam-God theory/doctrine, he was speaking about the essence of God, AND how it was different from the traditional Christian view of God. The aspects of God being only ONE, transcendent, omnipresent, and so forth were not new debatable concepts in BY’s time. To say that God was transitional or progressive or was Adam was to espound a different God then Christianity. We are not talking about personal opinion or actions as a man, we are talking about belief in God and who one worships. And especially when you are the spiritual leader of so many, the God you worship (and say others should as well) should be clear.

The way that Origin is thus clear about what Catholics believe?

See, the problem here is that YOU see our prophets and leaders as being something WE do not see them as, and by insisting that they are more authoritative than they actually were, attempt to attack our beliefs as they actually are.

The problem is, we have a very clear idea of when our prophets and leaders are speaking for God (and thus not to be questioned,) when they are probably inspired and worth paying attention to, and when they are giving their opinions and as such, being no more liable to be right or wrong than the rest of us.

Catholics have a somewhat similar idea, when they claim that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks of faith and morals…and speaks ex cathedra, too boot. At all other times, the Pope can, and quite often IS, dismissed when his words and policies make Catholics uncomfortable.

The fact is, as soon as Catholicism claims that there is ANY time when the Pope is infallible, for any reason at all, they are putting him in precisely the same position we put our prophets and leaders of the church…

And if you can see the actions and words of Popes as being of different import depending upon different circumstances, then you MUST allow us the same action in regard to our leaders. For one thing, our LEADERS are certainly aware of the difference. BY was very clear about when his words were, and were not, to be considered scripture and binding. This very idea of the Adam/God theory is absolute proof of that. Whatever BY thought about it, or said about it, he never submitted the idea to be considered as scripture, never claimed that it WAS a 'Thus saith the Lord" matter, and though it may or may not have been a pet idea of his (depending upon how well he was able to communicate his thoughts regarding the issue) it remains his opinion. Not scripture, not doctrine, and not binding.

The upshot is this, again: for us, doctrine is WHAT WE SAY IT IS. You don’t get a vote in it.

That’s blunt, I know. Sometimes, though, being blunt is the only way one can get the point across.

 

[SirThomasMore]

It’s actually very easy, sir.

First, is it in the scriptures that we accept AS scripture? If it is, then that’s one thing.
If it is not, that’s quite another. For those words that are not officially canonized, but come from the mouths of prophets and leaders of the church…they are both more than, and less than, what you term 'Sacred Tradition."

Not even close. Sacred Tradition are things passed down from year to year from the Apostles. Your ex-prophet’s sermons are words from people who claim they actually have one-on-one conversations with God Himself. That is huge difference. And is what makes your old prophets look very very bad

That is, they are important, but not necessarily doctrinal, insights and opinions of men who, while they might be inspired, are NOT at the time speaking of things that reach that level of “Thus saith the Lord” that qualifies them for canonization.

Again, that is a very flimsy excuse. If you have a man who claims he has one-on-ones with God, and then he claims Adam is our God, shouldn’t he know? He does not have to say “thuse sayeth the Lord” for people to believe he actually knows something about God, since he talks directly to God…

However, the upshot is this: nobody but a Mormon in good standing gets to decide what is, and is not, scripture for himself. Certainly no ex-Mormon with an agenda to ‘get’ us has any stand at all in the issue.

Actually, we have every right to look at what people who talk directly to God say about God and determine if what those people say is Scripture. If it was something you liked, YOU would consider it Scripture…but since you don;t, you don;t.

But, since you have set the standard, the First Vision never happened, because nowhere in the vision does Joseph say, “thus sayeth the Lord”.

D&C 2 should not be scripture under that standard…neither should D&C 1, 3…heck, looks like most of D&C is just opinion and is not Scripture. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[scipio337]

The way that Origin is thus clear about what Catholics believe?..

Was Origen’s writing on the Trinity accepted as Catholic Dogma?

The problem being, some of what BY said, particularly towards blacks, BECAME doctrine, through the priesthood ban (and thus ALL “saving ordinances”, endowment, temple marriage, sealing to parents, and exaltation), and IS supported by BoM scripture.

Other BY beliefs made it into the Temple Endowment Ceremony (Oath of Vengeance).

 

[SirThomasMore]

Was Origen’s writing on the Trinity accepted as Catholic Dogma?

The problem being, some of what BY said, particularly towards blacks, BECAME doctrine, through the priesthood ban (and thus ALL “saving ordinances”, endowment, temple marriage, sealing to parents, and exaltation), and IS supported by BoM scripture.

Other BY beliefs made it into the Temple Endowment Ceremony (Oath of Vengeance).

For Diana to compare what BY said to what Origin wrote must mean she believe Origin was a prophet.

If Origin was a prophet, there was no Apostasy

Thank you, Diana

 

[aquabatix]

Dianad,

The problem of you trying to put your “prophets” in the same boat as Popes is that yours claims to be just that, a prophet. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and leader of the other Bishops. He could not add to scripture if he wanted to. He could clarify some of what we believe, emphasise a dogma or take part in adding doctrine to explain a dogma, but not write a new book of the Bible. Your prophets claim to speak to God and know Him, but then run off at the mouth about what He is or how He came to be and we are supposed to believe they all of the sudden don’t know Him and are stating opinion? A prophet is a prophet ALL of the time, especially when talking about God. They may fight it like Jonah, as you so aptly pointed out, but at no time was Jonah not a prophet. Once chosen, that’s it.

 

[dianaiad]

Was Origen’s writing on the Trinity accepted as Catholic Dogma?

No, as a matter of fact, it wasn’t…and neither was the Adam/God idea that BY thought about accepted as LDS dogma. Thank you for pointing that out. It was, rather, the point.

The problem being, some of what BY said, particularly towards blacks, BECAME doctrine, through the priesthood ban (and thus ALL “saving ordinances”, endowment, temple marriage, sealing to parents, and exaltation), and IS supported by BoM scripture.

Other BY beliefs made it into the Temple Endowment Ceremony (Oath of Vengeance).

There is quite a difference between dogma, doctrine and policy, sir. You can’t separate these concepts in Catholicism while refusing to separate them for belief systems you don’t like.

After all, the Catholic church had quite a nasty policy regarding slavery and the physical treatment of heretics for many centuries. That is all dismissed now as irrelevant because it’s not ‘dogma.’

Well…see where I"m going with this?

 

[SirThomasMore]

No, as a matter of fact, it wasn’t…and neither was the Adam/God idea that BY thought about accepted as LDS dogma. Thank you for pointing that out. It was, rather, the point.

There is quite a difference between dogma, doctrine and policy, sir. You can’t separate these concepts in Catholicism while refusing to separate them for belief systems you don’t like.

After all, the Catholic church had quite a nasty policy regarding slavery and the physical treatment of heretics for many centuries. That is all dismissed now as irrelevant because it’s not ‘dogma.’

Well…see where I"m going with this?

Yes…you are going fishing for red herrings…you talk about centuries ago and poeple who do not have on-on-ones with God and comparing them with decades ago and people who talk directly to God.

One of these days, you will make a comparison that actually works

 

[aquabatix]

Thank you sirthomas, that is exactally my point. It is the same reason that certain posts are responded to and others are ignored by the ‘mormon apologists’ on these forums. So many red herrings, I wish I was a fisherman. Fish in a barrel.