L
Lochias
Guest
…“his opinion was that it wasn’t an opinion.” Every time you open your mouth on this subject, you make it sound worse. Just sayin’.
- Status
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Bump
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I agree. I have never had a Mormon who was so blatant about admitting their guys are not prophets…they are just guys with ideas that get voted on.
T
TheExorcist
Guest
Of course that is just of many places Mormonism breaks down.
From their OWN scriptures:
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 68)
This was speaking of the elders of the church.
So following this if members of the LDS church says a conference talk or something else stated by a leader of the church was just “him speaking as a man” and not in fact scripture, that follows that he was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and not after all inspired. Makes their leaders seem pretty impotent
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Thank you soooooo much for this reference.
Now I have to wonder do they have to specifically state they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, or some other phrase?
Even then, is there something written down somewhere that says it has to be “sustained” by a vote?
T
TheExorcist
Guest
The only scripture I can think of off the top of my head is:
13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 28)
Background on this section:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, at Fayette, New York, September 1830 (see History of the Church, 1:109–11). Hiram Page, a member of the Church, had a certain stone and professed to be receiving revelations by its aid concerning the upbuilding of Zion and the order of the Church. Several members had been deceived by these claims, and even Oliver Cowdery was wrongly influenced thereby. Just prior to an appointed conference, the Prophet inquired earnestly of the Lord concerning the matter, and this revelation followed. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 28)
So we know it directly relates to revelation by church leaders
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.136 “The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.”
“When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.”-Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt to do that, the Lord would remove me out of my place…"- President Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, Oct. 11, 1890, p. 2.
“When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over.”-Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt to do that, the Lord would remove me out of my place…"- President Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, Oct. 11, 1890, p. 2.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Yes, we know these, but we always hear they were speaking opinion.
I’m trying to nail down in a legitimate source where it says it has to be “sustained”.
After all that is the most common rebuttal we hear, is It wasn’t “sustained”, I want to find out how it affects teachings prior to that procedure coming into effect.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
yes, but none of those it has to be sustained. And BY said everything he said in a sermon is scripture…no sustaining.
No prophet would ever lead you astray…? Adam God did not lead astray?
Just sayin…
T
twopekinguys
Guest
I think you’re missing my point. I may not have explained it the best.
Every time we talk about a topic like Adam/God, we always here the mormons say it was never doctrine, or it was that persons opinion.
When we ask them how something is made doctrine we hear…the prophet states it, and it has to be sustained. If I remember correctly, Parker said at one time that the other 2 in the first presidency had to agree to it also, or sustain it for it to become doctrine. Diania said at one point said the prophet had to say…thus says the Lord.
I am trying to find out the mechanics behind how mormon doctrine is determined. If every new revelation the prophet receives is automatically doctrine, or if there is a process to it.
To be honest, I don’t think most mormons even know how this works. I am trying to find out when the current process came into being, and how it affects previous statements by prophets.
For example. If the current process for determining doctrine was established in 1942, how does that affect things that were stated by prophets in the 1890’s. Does the procedure in place validate or invalidate anything prior?
See where I’m going here?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Yes…but I maintain it is irrelevant because of what the prior prophets have said. To make it more difficult than just accepting what is said goes against what the earlier prophets said. Was God wrong then or now?
T
twopekinguys
Guest
But I have a plan.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Cool…I like plansBut I have a plan.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Let me wrap my head around this. The Old Testament shows a constant, unchanging God, but man’s perception of God changes. The New Testament shows a great step forward in man’s understanding of God. Man evolves.
Now, Mormonism teaches that the Jews were apostates, and that Christianity apostatized 70 years after Jesus’ birth. Because of that, Mormonism forces itself to evolve faster than Judaism and Christianity did. Therefore, the dead prophets of Mormonism had an imperfect perception of God. Mormonism, as a Gnostic religion, therefore, claims the right to fast-forward itself, in the process of conforming itself to the Judaeo-Christian vision, while still claiming an apostasy. I still perceive some cognitive dissonance, but it must be my fault.
Man evolves.Now, Mormonism teaches that the Jews were apostates, and that Christianity apostatized 70 years after Jesus’ birth. Because of that, Mormonism forces itself to evolve faster than Judaism and Christianity did. Therefore, the dead prophets of Mormonism had an imperfect perception of God. Mormonism, as a Gnostic religion, therefore, claims the right to fast-forward itself, in the process of conforming itself to the Judaeo-Christian vision, while still claiming an apostasy. I still perceive some cognitive dissonance, but it must be my fault.
T
Tamarack
Guest
Hey, PMCCOMBS:
I’m a lurker here, typically, and an occasional poster… But I loved your posts on this thread, your honesty and love of your people. Don’t stop seeking the truth. Your heart knows.
I’m a lurker here, typically, and an occasional poster… But I loved your posts on this thread, your honesty and love of your people. Don’t stop seeking the truth. Your heart knows.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
When I’ve gotten an answer out of Mormons on this one, it is that they believe they receive confirmation that what is being taught is inspired by the holy ghost. Which of course means, they feel good about what they are hearing.
Still comes back to, the Mormons in Young’s time were feeling good at what they were hearing too. Now, a Mormon doesn’t feel good about some of what Young taught.
Circle back around to feelings, every time.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Mormon communal worship is very non-liturgical. There might be a very slight amount of liturgy in their communal worship since it does follow a set structure but over all, it is very non-liturgical.
That said, the Mormons worship a false god. They certainly don’t worship the Trinity seeing as how they don’t even have correct beliefs about the Holy Trinity.
That said, the Mormons worship a false god. They certainly don’t worship the Trinity seeing as how they don’t even have correct beliefs about the Holy Trinity.
T
TheExorcist
Guest
Correct. Not only are they non-liturgical but they have openly disdain liturgical churches, especially the Catholic church.
M
Mormon_Cultist
Guest
Nope. What I said was that a solitary statement by any individual, whether myself or a prophet, doesn’t make anything doctrine. Until/Unless it is formally ratified by the other members of the church leadership, it remains a statement of opinion.
But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it! You are deliberately diverting from the actual issue in attempt to prove your point. The point here is when a prophet says something is doctrine, but it is unclear if the source is from God, or from the individual’s personal understanding/opinion. And without formal ratification or further clarification the only reasonable conclusion is that the statement was opinion.
So every time any person says something incorrect it is always a lie? You’ve never been mistaken, you were always intentionally lying?
There are two things going on through this section.
Joseph Smith was, naturally, confused about the fact that these men were apparently justified before God, despite entering into a practise that all religious teachers he had contact with taught vehemently against. The Lord explains that their wives were given from Him, and were given for the express purpose of fulfilling the promise made to Abraham; and that Abraham was counted as righteous because he abode in the law he was given.
The Lord reveals a new covenant to Joseph Smith; specifically described as new. Joseph is not told to enter into the same covenant as Abraham, but is told that the new (and everlasting) covenant brings the same promises as made to Abraham.
Nowhere does the section make any connection that claims polygamy is essential. It states that living by the laws God gives to us is what is essential. God gave commandment to Abraham and others to take a plurality of wives, to fulfil His purposes for His children here on earth.
Yeah, that about covers it.
New doctrine is received first and foremost by the President of the Church. He would then communicate this to his two counsellors, and possibly (I think probably) the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. All Three/Fifteen of them would then study, ponder, pray and possibly fast about the issue to receive confirmation from The Lord through the Holy Spirit. Depending on the circumstances of the individuals, this does not necessarily happen instantly; but when the revelation is truly from God, they come to a consensus where all of them agree on the word and will of God. Then it may be accepted as an official doctrine.
It is the same procedure that revelation is sought and invited at every level; from just personal guidance, to extending callings to teach, lead or preside, right up to receiving the will of God for His whole church - the principles and procedures are identical.
No.
A very specific date, I wonder where you go this from, because we certainly don’t have a set date.
Also to note, by ‘apostasy’ we don’t try to claim that every person left the established church to do their own thing, nor that there were no longer believers around to form a church group. However, our understanding of the scriptures, along with the truths revealed and restored from God, it is clear to us that many of the doctrines and practises taught by Christ and His apostles were lost or modified through the first two or three centuries after His death. In general we don’t claim that things were altered by any malice or intent to deceive, but through lack of understanding and prophetic guidance as well as influences from the cultures and philosophies round about.
Just simple feelings and listening to The Spirit are very different.
It takes time to learn to understand The Spirits whispered promptings; after all, God is not in the wind, earthquake or fire - even Elijah had to learn that.
.
In the simplest sense of the word, we do have a form of liturgy; meetings have a defined structure that is only rarely departed from; and particular prayers and ordinances have a definite script and set procedure. But in general the talks/speakers (/sermons) are entirely non-liturgical, although not completely improvised on the spot (except fast and testimony Sundays - which I like the new term I’ve been introduced to: ‘Open Mike Sundays’).
Very true
Technically we have exactly the same beliefs of The Trinity as you do just we don’t believe that God fits that description. We don’t believe that the statements made by Jesus Christ, or by His Apostles really support the Trinitarian doctrines.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Bump, again
- Status