LDS Revelations

[twopekinguys]

Disagreeing with my opinion is fine.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

They are not entitled to their own facts. I stated that “Mormon Doctrine” was not 'Mormon Doctrine," not published by the church and not meant to be a “Mormon catechism.” I provided absolute proof of this, only to have stuff taken out of context and presented as if I were giving misinformation.

Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

I try very hard to be as factual about my beliefs as I can; when I am entering into ‘speculation,’ I say so.

But one thing about LDS beliefs is true; from the outside, it really does look like we change what we teach and believe. Policies may change according to what is required by the people at the time.

Given that we believe in modern prophets and revelation, how could that NOT happen?

The basics; Who God is, Who Christ is, and who we are? Those things do not change.

At least, not from where I sit.

But again, nobody called you a liar, and accusing people of such is inappropriate.

As far as people not agreeing with what you say about this issue, remember, you are not an “official” source. Just like we are not “official” sources for the Catholic Church.

Also, you know as well as I do, there is alot of varying opinion on what is/is not doctrine in the mormon church among posters, and even the rank and file mormon. We have had some say Adam/God was doctrine, some say it wasn’t, etc. etc.

Just because someone presents an opposing view, doesn’t mean they are making stuff up, and automatically taking things out of context.

The real problem lies in the fact that even “official” mormons sources don’t even provide definitive information, even with the new essays that have been coming out recently.

A prime example of this is my post #162. To which, I don’t believe I’ve ever received an answer from anyone, mormon or otherwise.

Ok, here are two links from the official lds.org site.

Which one is correct? One says they don’t know why, and the other gives an explanation.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”

lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”

Please note, I used official lds.org information.

Can you answer it for me?

 

[Stephen168]

I stated that “Mormon Doctrine” was not 'Mormon Doctrine,” not published by the church and not meant to be a “Mormon catechism.”

You were refuting something never claimed.

I provided absolute proof of this,

Yes, you provided absolute proof that Mormon Doctrine is not Mormon doctrine. But as I quoted in post #233, your proof also proves what I did claim: Mormon Doctrine was Mormon Doctrine for 32 years.

only to have stuff taken out of context and presented as if I were giving misinformation.

Yes, I quoted the parts of the article that proved my only point:
Mormon Doctrine was Mormon Doctrine for 32 years. It also proved that the stuff you invented in you mind that you thought I was claiming were not true. The stuff you added to to what I was claiming so you could try to change my claim to be false, was in fact, false.

I try very hard to be as factual about my beliefs as I can;

You problem starts when you start telling other people what they believe. When you try to make comparisons with the Catholic Church; like comparing Mormon Doctrine with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In this case you began to believe that your comparison was my comparison.

But one thing about LDS beliefs is true; from the outside, it really does look like we change what we teach and believe. Policies may change according to what is required by the people at the time.

Given that we believe in modern prophets and revelation, how could that NOT happen?

The “theology” behind the black priesthood ban was not just a policy change.

The basics; Who God is, Who Christ is, and who we are? Those things do not change.

Joseph Smith changed who God was twice. Brigham Young changed who God was.

Given that your church is run by a guy that is free to make stuff up how could we expect these this not to happen.

 

[iepuras]

OK, since you will not address the pertinent part of that article yourself, and have taken this bit out of context not just once, but TWICE…

Here is the information from the article that applies.

Since you do not seem to feel it necessary to do anything but take a paragraph out of context and post it without comment, you won’t mind if I post the relevant material, will you?

you all may read it and make up your own minds. I’m done with this subject.

Your quote in post #234 actually supports Stephen’s claim, particularly the last sentence. “Six years later, Bruce R. McConkie published an approved, revised version of Mormon Doctrine with most of the 1067 identified problems corrected.” (emphasis added)

This was your quote with “full context”, so I presume you would expect it to be “fact”?

This sentence makes it clear that the updated edition of “Mormon Doctrine” was Mormon Doctrine (it was ** approved** after all) at least until publication ceased. Facts are troublesome things, are they not?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Disagreeing with my opinion is fine.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

They are not entitled to their own facts. I stated that “Mormon Doctrine” was not 'Mormon Doctrine," not published by the church and not meant to be a “Mormon catechism.” I provided absolute proof of this, only to have stuff taken out of context and presented as if I were giving misinformation.

Sorry, but I have a problem with that.

I try very hard to be as factual about my beliefs as I can; when I am entering into ‘speculation,’ I say so.

But one thing about LDS beliefs is true; from the outside, it really does look like we change what we teach and believe. Policies may change according to what is required by the people at the time.

Given that we believe in modern prophets and revelation, how could that NOT happen?

The basics; Who God is, Who Christ is, and who we are? Those things do not change.

At least, not from where I sit.

“Mormon Doctrine” was published by Deseret Book, which is owned by the LDS Church. At the time of its first publication, until about 1980, one of the LDS Twelve sat as chairman of the board of Deseret Book. After 1980 a committee comprised of members of the Twelve approve doctrinal publications put out by Deseret Book, and still do so today… Mormon Doctrine was on the shelves of Deseret Book because the Brethren wanted it there. There are no doctrinal publications on the shelves of Deseret Book that LDS leaders would not approve of.

This is fact, and not opinion.

 

[Nanotwerp]

Mormons don’t believe in ‘God’. They believe in ‘Gods’, which actually should be called ‘gods’, since they came from other ‘gods’.

 

[TexanKnight]

“Mormon Doctrine” was published by Deseret Book, which is owned by the LDS Church. At the time of its first publication, until about 1980, one of the LDS Twelve sat as chairman of the board of Deseret Book. After 1980 a committee comprised of members of the Twelve approve doctrinal publications put out by Deseret Book, and still do so today… Mormon Doctrine was on the shelves of Deseret Book because the Brethren wanted it there. There are no doctrinal publications on the shelves of Deseret Book that LDS leaders would not approve of.

This is fact, and not opinion.

exactly

they try to run…they cannot hide

 

[Stephen168]

“Mormon Doctrine” was published by Deseret Book, which is owned by the LDS Church. At the time of its first publication, until about 1980, one of the LDS Twelve sat as chairman of the board of Deseret Book. After 1980 a committee comprised of members of the Twelve approve doctrinal publications put out by Deseret Book, and still do so today… Mormon Doctrine was on the shelves of Deseret Book because the Brethren wanted it there. There are no doctrinal publications on the shelves of Deseret Book that LDS leaders would not approve of.

This is fact, and not opinion.

So it had the ‘imprimatur’ of the Mormon Church

 

[PaulDupre1]

So it had the ‘imprimatur’ of the Mormon Church

Yes, exactly.

I feel truly sorry for today’s Mormons, who desperately need to distance themselves from their heritage, from their history, from their origins, from their former leaders (especially Brigham Young), from the “gospel” taught to their LDS parents, from the doctrines recorded in church teaching manuals less than 20 years ago, and most of all from Joseph Smith, whom they revere as a god, yet whose teachings and history they now largely disavow and reject as “opinion” or “speculation” (think: King Follett Discourse).

Mainstreaming has its price.

I know - I used to be one of them.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)