S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Gary Gilmore chose death by firing squad due to the blood atonement
LDS: Bruce R. McConkie's letter to BYU Professor Eugene England.
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
As did Gary Bishop, and neither of them were corrected by their LDS bishops in their thinking. The LDS church didn’t make any public correcting type of statements, as they do now. Mainly being, they have nothing to say one way or the other.
At any rate, firing squad is off the Utah law books now. A person sentenced to death in Utah for their crimes can no longer choose how they die, as lethal injection is the only option for them now.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Which shows that neither of you chose to look at what I had thought would be the obvious resource for figuring out the meaning of a word for someone who was schooled during the early 1800’s–clearly, the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary.
doctrine
DOCTRINE, n. [L., to teach.]
- In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by Christ and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion.
- The act of teaching.
He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in his doctrine. Mark 4. - Learning; knowledge.
Whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Isaiah 28. - The truths of the gospel in general.
That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. Titus 2. - Instruction and confirmation in the truths of the gospel. 2 Timothy 3.
I’ll get to the full response at some point, but not for several days as I have a busy upcoming schedule.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Were there too many facts presented that you couldn’t refute? The reason you feel the way you’re feeling now is because you know that there’s a problem but you refuse to take the next logical step and consider the possibility that it’s all a sham. You’re angry because you know that someone’s lying to you but you don’t want to believe that it’s the church you’ve been told is lead by Jesus Christ.
I understand you like the sense of community and family, the notion that families can be together for all eternity, and the idea that you’re the chosen ones, those with all the answers, but that all aside, the facts about Mormonism don’t support what it claims to be. You know as well as any of us here that the church has rewritten its own history.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Paulp: to move the thread back into line, I’d like to discuss the issue of prophets that you brought up in the first post.
According to Gospel Principles, there’s no way Brigham Young could be wrong because, if we take them all at their word, he’s a prophet of God. GP shows no way in which a prophet can be wrong. In fact, quite the opposite:
"We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:
'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).
“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)
I know that I’ve used this quote before but it’s frankly the best way to undermine the claims that Brigham Young was just expousing his own opinion. There’s no conditions under which a Mormon prophet can be wrong listed in GP or anywhere else I can find.
I hope this helps.
According to Gospel Principles, there’s no way Brigham Young could be wrong because, if we take them all at their word, he’s a prophet of God. GP shows no way in which a prophet can be wrong. In fact, quite the opposite:
"We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of his prophet:
'Thou shalt give heed unto all his (the prophet’s) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
‘For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, all patience and faith’ (D&C 21:4-5).
“The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.” (entire quote from Gospel Principles, pps 49-50, 1996 edition)
I know that I’ve used this quote before but it’s frankly the best way to undermine the claims that Brigham Young was just expousing his own opinion. There’s no conditions under which a Mormon prophet can be wrong listed in GP or anywhere else I can find.
I hope this helps.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Twopekinguys and general reader,
The next post following this re-quote of your post, is the response I had said I would write. (A muscle cramp has awakened me so here I am with some time to respond.)
P
ParkerD
Guest
First, the word “doctrines” as used by BY would equate with the word “teachings” or “opinions” as he used the word in the sentence you have quoted.
As the Wikipedia article you linked stated in the quote by Joseph F Smith, and as I had previously pointed out about united council leadership–particularly with respect to any such change in doctrine being contemplated by the leading councils as needing to be presented to LDS church membership–BY was stating his own opinion in that entire instance, including his opinion you have cited at the end of his sermon that referred to the subject.
The president of the LDS church is not “greater” than the principle laid down by Joseph Smith through revelation, that united council leadership will participate in decisions that include the doctrinal teachings of the church. He is not authorized by his authority to differ from that principle. So since BY presented a teaching that was not authorized by that process, it is his own opinion and has no bearing on needing to be followed by anyone at all. Here is the applicable united council leadership principle presented in Doctrine and Covenants Section 107:
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.
25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.
27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—
29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.
30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.
After the days of Brigham Young (after he had died), as the Wikipedia article pointed out, there was never a united agreement by the leading councils of the LDS church regarding the opinion which had been presented by BY during his life on this issue. Since that issue, during the ensuing years, has become a point of contention among some members of the church (whether few or many), and since Satan is always the “father of contention” as taught by Christ–
3 Ne. 11: 29
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
–then Bruce R McConkie would have the duty as an apostle to protect the members of the LDS church from falling into the entanglement of contending or teaching about an opinion or teaching of Brigham Young that was his own personal opinion and had never been sanctioned by the Twelve within their stewardship to protect the integrity of the scriptural doctrines of the LDS church.
The use of the term “false doctrine” in your question at the end of your post, depends on the connotation intended by the one who uses the words. If anyone presents such a teaching or opinion as though it is a “doctrinal statement of belief”, then that would mean they have adopted BY’s opinion as their own opinion also and thus any such teaching by them would be “false doctrine” because it has never been sanctioned through the process established to protect the doctrinal teachings of the church, and is instead leading other members on a path of straying from those scriptural doctrinal teachings. It could just as correctly be called a “false opinion”.
Of course Elder McConkie was aware that the Adam-god theory as it came to be called originated from the opinions of Brigham Young. He said that the teachings are “heresy.” It would not be correct to say that BRM was calling BY a “heretic”, because during BY’s life the opinion was not corrected as “heresy” by the leading councils of the church.
It was an opinion that should have died with him, since all it was was an opinion, even if he had taught it using the word “doctrine”. It also should have died with him since it brings contention when discussed, and thus leads on a downward path instead of an upward path toward keeping the Spirit in one’s life and keeping the Spirit within a group discussion.
As the Wikipedia article you linked stated in the quote by Joseph F Smith, and as I had previously pointed out about united council leadership–particularly with respect to any such change in doctrine being contemplated by the leading councils as needing to be presented to LDS church membership–BY was stating his own opinion in that entire instance, including his opinion you have cited at the end of his sermon that referred to the subject.
The president of the LDS church is not “greater” than the principle laid down by Joseph Smith through revelation, that united council leadership will participate in decisions that include the doctrinal teachings of the church. He is not authorized by his authority to differ from that principle. So since BY presented a teaching that was not authorized by that process, it is his own opinion and has no bearing on needing to be followed by anyone at all. Here is the applicable united council leadership principle presented in Doctrine and Covenants Section 107:
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.
25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.
27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—
29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.
30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.
After the days of Brigham Young (after he had died), as the Wikipedia article pointed out, there was never a united agreement by the leading councils of the LDS church regarding the opinion which had been presented by BY during his life on this issue. Since that issue, during the ensuing years, has become a point of contention among some members of the church (whether few or many), and since Satan is always the “father of contention” as taught by Christ–
3 Ne. 11: 29
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
–then Bruce R McConkie would have the duty as an apostle to protect the members of the LDS church from falling into the entanglement of contending or teaching about an opinion or teaching of Brigham Young that was his own personal opinion and had never been sanctioned by the Twelve within their stewardship to protect the integrity of the scriptural doctrines of the LDS church.
The use of the term “false doctrine” in your question at the end of your post, depends on the connotation intended by the one who uses the words. If anyone presents such a teaching or opinion as though it is a “doctrinal statement of belief”, then that would mean they have adopted BY’s opinion as their own opinion also and thus any such teaching by them would be “false doctrine” because it has never been sanctioned through the process established to protect the doctrinal teachings of the church, and is instead leading other members on a path of straying from those scriptural doctrinal teachings. It could just as correctly be called a “false opinion”.
Of course Elder McConkie was aware that the Adam-god theory as it came to be called originated from the opinions of Brigham Young. He said that the teachings are “heresy.” It would not be correct to say that BRM was calling BY a “heretic”, because during BY’s life the opinion was not corrected as “heresy” by the leading councils of the church.
It was an opinion that should have died with him, since all it was was an opinion, even if he had taught it using the word “doctrine”. It also should have died with him since it brings contention when discussed, and thus leads on a downward path instead of an upward path toward keeping the Spirit in one’s life and keeping the Spirit within a group discussion.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Parker, you have a choice here at to Adam-God…
- Either BY WAS a prophet who actually spoke to God then lied to everyone about who God was or
- BY was never a prophet.
A
aquabatix
Guest
Using your same Webster 1828 dictionary, one can read the definition of “prophet” as “one who pretends to fortell” or “a school or college in which young men learn to teach”. If we are free to change definitions around using the dictionary of the time, then JS and BY weren’t Biblical prophets, just pretenders or teachers who went to school.
Works for me.
peihomeschool.com/dictionary/
(Look up prophet definition 4)
Works for me.
peihomeschool.com/dictionary/
(Look up prophet definition 4)
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Merriiam Webster has this definition for “doctrine”.Using your same Webster 1828 dictionary, one can read the definition of “prophet” as “one who pretends to fortell” or “a school or college in which young men learn to teach”. If we are free to change definitions around using the dictionary of the time, then JS and BY weren’t Biblical prophets, just pretenders or teachers who went to school.
Works for me.
peihomeschool.com/dictionary/
(Look up prophet definition 4)
a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
We also have this from the Gospel Principles manual:
“We should do those things the prophets tell us to do. President Wilford Woodruff said that a prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray:”
So, this goes back to what has been posted earlier.
- BY said all of his sermons/teachings were as good as scripture. 2. We have the Gospel principles quote above. 3. We also have a succeeding “prophet” declaring it false doctrine. 4. We have another one calling it heresy.
P
ParkerD
Guest
To the general reader:
If you have been following this thread or are merely reading the latest posts, please be aware that I have already addressed the issues raised by the latest post by Twopekinguys, who is/are certainly entitled to his/their opinions. If you read here and don’t find them and are frustrated by not feeling like a question has been answered on the issues brought up in the discussion of BY’s opinions and BRM’s letter to Eugene England, you could either PM me or post a question and I will find the post where I had addressed the answer already.
Have a peaceful day, ya’all.
If you have been following this thread or are merely reading the latest posts, please be aware that I have already addressed the issues raised by the latest post by Twopekinguys, who is/are certainly entitled to his/their opinions. If you read here and don’t find them and are frustrated by not feeling like a question has been answered on the issues brought up in the discussion of BY’s opinions and BRM’s letter to Eugene England, you could either PM me or post a question and I will find the post where I had addressed the answer already.
Have a peaceful day, ya’all.
S
scipio337
Guest
Are you saying that what is considered “heresy” or who is consider “heretic” is subjective to the time frame? Beliefs and practices are fluid, and separate from truth?
What of BY’s other opinions, that may have had an effect on official church doctrine? I don’t recall if the priesthood ban (and all other 'saving ordinances) for blacks was due to LDS revelation, or an order from BY, etc, yet it was accepted as pretty much as LDS doctrine, and took another revelation to overthrow.
A
aquabatix
Guest
To the general reader:
If you find youself in a situation where you do not have the answer or can not refute what has been said by the others in a debate you are in, apparently you simply bow out, say you have already answered the question and ask people to pm you so that you can give them your biased and unfactual answers in private so that no one can call you out on what you say.
(Good to know…jeez)
If you find youself in a situation where you do not have the answer or can not refute what has been said by the others in a debate you are in, apparently you simply bow out, say you have already answered the question and ask people to pm you so that you can give them your biased and unfactual answers in private so that no one can call you out on what you say.
(Good to know…jeez)
T
twopekinguys
Guest
I’m glad you brought this up before I did. It reinforces something I have said many times before. When he can’t reply or refute, he takes his marbles and goes home.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Translation: Parker knows he unable to refute what has been posted, so he would rather tell you his side in private where he cannot be shown to be incorrect.To the general reader:
If you have been following this thread or are merely reading the latest posts, please be aware that I have already addressed the issues raised by the latest post by Twopekinguys, who is/are certainly entitled to his/their opinions. If you read here and don’t find them and are frustrated by not feeling like a question has been answered on the issues brought up in the discussion of BY’s opinions and BRM’s letter to Eugene England, you could either PM me or post a question and I will find the post where I had addressed the answer already.
Have a peaceful day, ya’all.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
LDS claim their scriptures are where you find their doctrine, yet, there is no where in their scriptures that define their priesthood ban that was in effect for over 130 years. Yet, there is doctrinal (scriptural) support for removing the ban.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Scipio,
Since I have an unexpected break in an extended youth activity I’m partly involved with, I’ll go ahead and answer this set of questions.
I never hear the term “heretic” used at all in the LDS church, but I suppose someone may use that term somewhere in the world–I have no idea. Nor do I hear the term “heresy” used, although we see that BRM used that term in what has been quoted on this thread. I personally assume the word was used by BRM as primarily a sort of warning and reprimand to those who he had heard were trying to defend the Adam-god theory and the other related things BY is quoted as having said.
What I meant about BY is that when he addressed that subject, he did not follow the protocol that would have been required for it to be considered binding on any members since he did not seek the unanimous agreement of his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve–but the fact that those groups did not go through the process of discussing such items and counseling together about them and come to any agreement during his life, then those items remained his own opinion. Later, the Quorum of the Twelve under Joseph F Smith came to agreement that the ideas were erroneous as transcribed as having been stated by Brigham Young, so at that point for anyone to continue to teach them it would be a “heretical” teaching that was not merely opinion but had been dealt with as “should not be taught.”
So it was not the time frame that was the issue, but whether agreement had been reached by the leading quorums of the LDS church, and this had not happened one way or the other during Brigham Young’s life.
LDS beliefs and practices could be said to be “fluid” with respect to the change in giving the priesthood to all worthy males of appropriate age, and with respect to the change that removed plural marriage as a practice, and some other changes such as Fast Day moved from Thursday to Sunday, a change in the ordaining of Seventies, and other practices that have changed. I would say those changes don’t have to do with a “doctrinal change” but certainly with a “change in practices”–so I think the “truth” stayed the same amidst those changes happening. Perhaps those change for all males receiving the priesthood would have happened sooner had the saints been ready and had the leaders been ready. I don’t think the earlier practice was “received by revelation” but was instead going along with what would work given the circumstances of the LDS members living in Missouri and Illinois and the potential uproar politically (which would have been untenable in the state of Missouri at the time) had the LDS church not had the practice it had, yet later the change was specifically by revelation, as stated by President Kimball. (Note also that the change occurred when the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency were in united agreement about the change.)
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
- Either BY WAS a prophet who actually spoke to God then lied to everyone about who God was or
- BY was never a prophet.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
yeah…if I was LDS, I would not be able to answer, either
R
Returning_Home
Guest
If this is the case, please show me where Jesus or any of the prophets had anything they said voted on and approved by a governing body. This should be an easy one since Mormonism is a restoration of the church Christ established on earth.
Indeed, all of Mormonism’s practices are fluid, subject to change in the face of public or political pressure since we know taht blacks weren’t supposed to attain the priesthood until after the Second Coming, according to Brigham Young. Your assertion is also curious in light of the BOM (Alma 41:8 and Mormon 9:9: neither God nor his edicts change).
Since that’s the case, this must simply be your opinion.
- Status